text:
# PRIMORDIAL GALACTIC MAGNETIC FIELDS FROM THE QCD PHASE TRANSITION

## 1 Introduction

The source of cosmic magnetic fields with large scale correlations has remained somewhat of a mystery . There are two possible origins for these fields: primordial sources and galactic sources. Primordial fields are produced in the earlier universe, then evolve, and are thought to provide seeds which gravitational dynamos later amplify. Galactic sources would produce the fields as well as amplify them. Many mechanisms have been proposed , however, most fail to convincingly generate fields with large enough correlation lengths to match the observed microgauss fields with $`100`$ kpc correlations. We present here a mechanism which, although probably requiring a dynamo to produce microgauss fields, generates fields with hundred kiloparsec correlations. We present this mechanism as an application of our recent understanding of QCD domain walls, which will be described in detail elsewhere .

1. Sometime near the QCD phase transition, $`T_{\mathrm{QCD}}1`$ GeV, QCD domain walls form.
2. These domain walls rapidly coalesce until there remains, on average, one domain wall per Hubble volume with Hubble scale correlations.
3. Baryons interact with the domain walls and align their spins along the domain walls.
4. The magnetic and electric dipole moments of the baryons induce helical magnetic fields correlated with the domain wall.
5. The domain walls decay, leaving a magnetic field.
6. As the universe expands, an “inverse cascade” mechanism transfers energy from small to large scale modes, effectively increasing the resulting correlation length of the observed large scale fields.

We shall start by discussing the “inverse cascade” mechanism because it seems to be the most efficient mechanism for increasing the correlation length of magnetic turbulence. After presenting some estimates to show that this mechanism can indeed generate fields of the observed scales, we shall discuss the domain wall mechanism for generating the initial fields and some relevant astrophysical phenomena associated with this mechanism.

## 2 Evolution of Magnetic Fields

As suggested by Cornwall , discussed by Son  and confirmed by Field and Carroll , energy in magnetic fields can undergo an apparent “inverse cascade” and be transfered from high frequency modes to low frequency modes, thus increasing the overall correlation length of the field faster than the naïve scaling by the universe’s scale parameter $`R(T)`$. There are two important conditions: turbulence must be supported as indicated by a large Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}`$, and magnetic helicity (Abelian Chern-Simons number) $`H=\stackrel{}{𝐀}\stackrel{}{𝐁}\mathrm{d}^3x`$ is approximately conserved. The importance of helicity was originally demonstrated by Pouquet and collaborators . The mechanism is thus: the small scale modes dissipate, but the conservation of helicity requires that the helicity be transfered to larger scale modes. Some energy is transfered along with the helicity and hence energy is transported from the small to large scale modes. This is the “inverse cascade”.

In the early universe, $`\mathrm{Re}`$ is very large and supports turbulence. This drops to $`\mathrm{Re}1`$ at the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation epoch, $`T_0100`$ eV. After this point (and throughout the matter dominated phase) we assume that the fields are “frozen in” and that the correlation length expands as $`R`$ while the field strength decays as $`R^2`$. Note that the “inverse cascade” is only supported during the radiation dominated phase of the universe.

Under the assumption that the field is maximally helical, these conditions imply the following relationships  between the initial field $`B_{\mathrm{rms}}(T_i)`$ with initial correlation $`l(T_i)`$ and present fields today ($`T_{\mathrm{now}}2\times 10^4`$ eV) $`B_{\mathrm{rms}}(T_{\mathrm{now}})`$ with correlation $`l(T_{\mathrm{now}})`$:

$`B_{\mathrm{rms}}(T_{\mathrm{now}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{T_{\mathrm{now}}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_i}{T_0}}\right)^{7/3}B_{\mathrm{rms}}(T_i)`$ (1)
$`l(T_{\mathrm{now}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{T_{\mathrm{now}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_i}{T_0}}\right)^{5/3}l(T_i).`$ (2)
As pointed out by Son , the only way to generate turbulence is either by a phase transition $`T_i`$ or by gravitational instabilities. We consider the former source. As we shall show, our mechanism generates Hubble size correlations $`l_i`$ at a phase transition $`T_i`$. In the radiation dominated epoch, the Hubble size scales as $`T_i^2`$. Combining this with (2), we see that $`l_{\mathrm{now}}T_i^{1/3}`$; thus, the earlier the phase transition, the smaller the possible correlations.

The last phase transition is the QCD transition, $`T_i=T_{\mathrm{QCD}}0.2`$ GeV with Hubble size $`l(T_{\mathrm{QCD}})30`$ km. We calculate (30) the initial magnetic field strength to be $`B_{\mathrm{rms}}(T_i)e\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/(\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})(10^{17}\mathrm{G})/(\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ where $`\xi `$ is a correlation length that depends on the dynamics of the system as discussed below and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}0.2`$ GeV. With these estimates, we see that we can achieve

$$B_{\mathrm{rms}}\frac{10^9\mathrm{G}}{\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}},l100\mathrm{kpc}$$
(3)
today. One might consider the electroweak transition which might produce $`100`$ pc correlations today, but this presupposes a mechanism for generating fields with Hubble scale correlations. Such a mechanism does not appear to be possible in the Standard Model. Instead, the fields produced are correlated at the scale $`T_i^1`$ which can produce only $`1`$ km correlations today.

These are crude estimates, and galactic dynamos likely amplify these fields. The important point is that we can generate easily the $`100`$ kpc correlations observed today provided that the fields were initially of Hubble size correlation. Unless another mechanism for amplifying the correlations of magnetic fields is discovered, we suggest that, in order to obtain microgauss fields with $`100`$ kpc correlation lengths, helical fields must be generated with Hubble scale correlations near or slightly after the QCD phase transition $`T_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The same conclusion regarding the relevance of the QCD scale for this problem was also reached by Son, Field and Carroll . The rest of this work presents a mechanism that can provide the desired Hubble size fields, justifying the estimate (3). We shall explain the mechanism and give simple estimates here, but present details of the calculations elsewhere .

## 3 Domain Walls

The key players in our mechanism are domain walls formed at the QCD phase transition that possess an internal structure with QCD scale. We shall present a full exposition about these types of walls in another paper  but, to be specific, here we shall discuss the so-called axion-$`\eta ^{}`$ ($`a_\eta ^{}`$) domain wall .

We start with a similar effective Lagrangian to that used by Huang and Sikivie except that we included the effects of the $`\eta ^{}`$ singlet field which they neglected. The Lagrangian density is

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{f_a^2}{2}\left|_\mu e^{ia}\right|^2+\frac{f_\pi ^2}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left|_\mu 𝐔\right|^2V(𝐔,a)$$
(4)
where $`a`$ is the dimensionless axion field and the matrix $`𝐔=\mathrm{exp}(i\eta ^{}+i\pi ^f\lambda ^f)`$ contains the pion and $`\eta ^{}`$ fields (to simplify the calculations, we consider only the $`SU(2)`$ flavor group). The $`\eta ^{}`$ field is not light, but as we shall see, is the dominant player in aligning the magnetic fields so we include it. The potential $`V`$ is given by

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{𝐌𝐔}e^{ia}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)E\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{ln}[det(𝐔)]}{N_c}\right)$$
(5)
which was first introduced by Halpern and Zhitnitsky. It should be realized that $`i\mathrm{ln}[det(𝐔)]i\mathrm{ln}(det(𝐔))+2\pi n`$ is a multivalued function and we must choose the minimum valued branch. Details about this potential are discussed in the original paper  but several points will be made here. All dimensionful parameters are expressed in terms of the QCD chiral and gluon vacuum condensates and are well known numerically: $`𝐌=\mathrm{diag}(m_q^i|\overline{q}^iq^i|)`$ and $`E=b\alpha _s/(32\pi )G^2`$.

The result is that two different types of axion domain walls form. One is almost identical to the one discussed by Huang and Sikivie  with small corrections due to the $`\eta ^{}`$ field. We shall call this the axion/pion ($`a_\pi `$) domain wall. The second type, which we shall call the axion/eta’ ($`a_\eta ^{}`$) domain wall is a new solution characterized by a transition in both the axion and $`\eta ^{}`$ fields (see our other paper  for a complete description of this wall). The boundary conditions (vacuum states) for this wall are $`a(\mathrm{})=\eta ^{}(\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`a(\mathrm{})=\eta ^{}(\mathrm{})=\pm \pi `$ with $`\pi ^0=0`$ at both boundaries.

The main difference between the structures of the two walls is that, whereas the $`a_\pi `$ domain wall has structure only on the huge scale of $`m_a^1`$, the $`\eta ^{}`$ transition in the $`a_\eta ^{}`$ has both scales, the axion scale, $`m_a^1`$, as well as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$ scale. Therefore, the $`a_\eta ^{}`$ domain wall has a “sandwich” structure. The reason is that, in the presence of the non-zero axion ($`\theta `$) field, the pion becomes effectively massless due to its Goldstone nature. The $`\eta ^{}`$ is not so sensitive to $`\theta `$ parameter and so its mass never becomes zero. It is crucial that the walls have a structure of scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$: thus there is no way for the $`a_\pi `$ wall to trap nucleons because of the huge differece in scales but the $`a_\eta ^{}`$ wall has exactly this structure and can therefore efficiently align the nucleons. The QCD domain walls (which were also discussed in ) have the same property as $`a_\eta ^{}`$ walls. Namely, they have the structure of scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$ and they can play the same role as $`a_\eta ^{}`$ walls. In what follows, for more concreteness, we use $`a_\eta ^{}`$ walls.

The model we propose is this: Immediately after the phase transition, the universe is filled with domain walls on the scale of $`T_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$. As the temperature drops, these domain walls coalesce, resulting in an average of one large domain wall per Hubble volume with Hubble scale correlations . It is these Hubble scale $`a_\eta ^{}`$ domain walls which align the dipole moments of the nucleons producing the seed fields.

The following steps are crucial for this phenomenon:

1. The coalescing of QCD domain wall gives the fields $`\pi ,\mathrm{},\eta ^{}`$ Hubble scale correlations.
2. These fields interact with the nucleons producing Hubble scale correlations of nucleon spins residing in the vicinity of the domain wall. (The spins align perpendicular to the wall surface.)
3. Finally, the nucleons, which carry electric and magnetic moments (due to strong CP violation), induce Hubble scale correlated magnetic and electric fields.
4. These magnetic and electric fields eventually induce a nonzero helicity which has the same correlation. This helicity enables the inverse cascade.

## 4  Domain Wall Properties

We present here a method for simplifying the calculations of the bulk properties of domain walls. This method makes the approximation that the domain wall is flat and that translational and rotational symmetries are preserved in the plane of the wall which we take to be the $`x`$$`y`$ plane. These approximations are valid in the case of domain walls whose curvature is large in comparison to the length scale of the pertinent physics.

Once this approximation is made, we can reformulate the problem in $`1+1`$ dimensions ($`z`$ and $`t`$) and calculate the density of the desired bulk properties along the domain wall. To regain the full four-dimensional bulk properties, we must estimate the density of the particles in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane to obtain the appropriate density and degeneracy factors for the bulk density. Thus, the final results are not independent of physics in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane, but rather, these effects are accounted for only through the degeneracy factors.

### 4.1 Alignment of Spins in the Domain Wall Background

We proceed to demonstrate this technique by calculating the alignment of fermionic spins along the wall. To estimate the strengths of the fields involved, we consider only the $`\eta ^{}`$ transition because it has a similar structure in both the $`a_\eta ^{}`$ domain wall and the QCD domain walls. We take the following simple interaction between the $`\eta ^{}`$ field and the nucleons:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left[i\overline{)}m_Ne^{i\eta ^{}(z)\gamma _5}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(6)
For our approximations, we assume that fluctuations in the nucleon fields do not affect the domain walls and, thus, treat the domain walls as a background field111A full account would take into account the effects of this back-reaction. We expect that they would affect the potential (5) by altering the form of the last term $`E\mathrm{cos}()`$ and possibly adding higher order corrections, but that they would not alter the nature of the domain walls. Quantitatively this would alter the numerical results, but would not change the qualitative picture presented here.. The strategy is to break (6) into two $`1+1`$ dimensional components by setting $`_x=_y=0`$ and then by manipulating the system of equations that result to obtain an equivalent two-dimensional system.

First, we introduce the following chiral components of the Dirac spinors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_++\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
Secondly, we assume that our system is effectively two-dimensional (an infinite domain wall lying in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane) and hence neglect the conserved $`x`$ and $`y`$ momenta. We find that the Dirac equations which follow from (7) are equivalent to the coupled system

$`\left[i_0+i\sigma _3_3\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_+=m_Ne^{i\eta ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$
$`\left[i_0i\sigma _3_3\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=m_Ne^{+i\eta ^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ (8)
in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$. At this stage it proves convenient to rearrange these equations by introducing new “two-dimensional” Dirac spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \eta _1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _2\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
Using the definitions (13), we put system (4.1) into the form of two two-dimensional (2D) Dirac equations

$`\left[i\widehat{\gamma }_\mu _\mu m_Ne^{i\eta ^{}\widehat{\gamma _5}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}=0`$
$`\left[i\widehat{\gamma }_\mu _\mu m_Ne^{+i\eta ^{}\widehat{\gamma _5}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}=0`$ (14)
where we have introduced the 2D Dirac matrices

$$\widehat{\gamma }_0=\sigma _1,\widehat{\gamma }_1=i\sigma _2,\widehat{\gamma }_5=\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_1=\sigma _3,\widehat{\gamma }_\mu \widehat{\gamma }_\nu =g_{\mu \nu }+ϵ_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\gamma }_5.$$
(15)
Equations (4.1) are reproduced from the following effective 2D Lagrangian

$`_{2\mathrm{D}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(1)}\left[i\widehat{\gamma }_\mu _\mu m_Ne^{i\eta ^{}\widehat{\gamma _5}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}\left[i\widehat{\gamma }_\mu _\mu m_Ne^{i\eta ^{}\widehat{\gamma _5}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)},`$ (16)
where $`\eta ^{}=\eta ^{}(z)`$ is the background classical field with boundary conditions $`\eta ^{}(\mathrm{})=0`$, $`\eta ^{}(\mathrm{})=\pi `$. This 2D Lagrangian describes two species of 2D Dirac fermions of oposite chiral charge intracting with the external $`\eta ^{}`$ field.

Now we are ready to demonstrate that the domain walls align the spins of the fermions. The relevant operator (which becomes the spin operator for the nonrelativistic system) is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{}{\gamma }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_++\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{},\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }0\\ 0\stackrel{}{\sigma }\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
and our goal is to demonstrate that the mean value $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z`$ of this operator is generally non-zero in the domain wall. Thus, the nucleon spins are aligned in the $`z`$ direction and have a correlation length similar to the domain wall.

The easiest way to demonstrate this phenomenon in our model (which is effectively 2D) is to use the Goldstone-Wilczek adiabatic approximation  together with a bosonization trick

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(i)}i\widehat{\gamma }_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _i_\mu \varphi _i& \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(i)}i\widehat{\gamma }_5\mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}\mu \mathrm{sin}\left(2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _i\right)\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(i)}\widehat{\gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\epsilon _{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi _i& \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}\mu \mathrm{cos}\left(2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _i\right)\end{array}$$
(20)
($`\mu m_N`$ is a scale parameter). The Lagrangian (16) after bosonization is

$`_{2\mathrm{D}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(_\mu \varphi _1)^2+(_\mu \varphi _2)^2\right]U(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$
$`U(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu m_N\left[\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _1\eta ^{})+\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _2+\eta ^{})\right]`$ (21)
The adiabatic approximation  is to neglect the kinetic terms in the analysis of the dynamics of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ fields in Equation (4.1). In this case, the mean values $`\varphi _1(z)`$ and $`\varphi _2(z)`$ will follow the background field $`\eta ^{}(z)`$, and can be found by minimizing the potential $`U`$ in Equation (4.1).

$`\varphi _1(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{}(z)}{2\sqrt{\pi }}},\varphi _2(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{}(z)}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}`$ (22)
To calculate the induced spin $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in our theory we should present the spin operator in terms of 2D fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, and replace these fields by their mean values (22) in the domain wall background:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(1)}\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\gamma }_0\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(_z\varphi _1(z)_z\varphi _2(z)\right),`$ (23)
where, in the last step, we used the bosonic representation for the 2D $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}`$ fields222The 2D problem under discussion is quite familiar to physics community: namely, the calculation of the induced fermion charge in a solitonic background.. The last step is to replace these fields by their mean-values (22)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Psi }=N\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{}(z)}{z}},`$ (24)
where $`N`$ is the appropriate normalization and degeneracy factor for the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field which has canonical dimension $`3/2`$ in four dimensions while the 2D $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}`$ fields have canonical dimension $`1/2`$.

### 4.2 Fermion Degeneracy in the Domain wall Background

We have assumed that locally the domain walls have only a spatial $`z`$ dependence. This implies that there is still a $`2`$-dimensional translational and rotational symmetry in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane. These translational degrees of freedom imply that momentum in the plane is conserved and hence we can treat the neglected degrees of freedom for the fermions as free degrees. The degeneracy in a region of area $`S`$ will simply be a sum over these degrees with a discrete factor $`g=4=2\times 2`$ for spin and isospin degeneracy

$`N=g{\displaystyle \frac{dxdydp_xdp_y}{(2\pi )^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{gp_F^2}{4\pi }}S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}{\pi }}S`$ (25)
where we estimated the Fermi energy $`p_F\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}150`$ MeV. As expected, the degeneracy is proprtional to the area of the domain wall $`S`$. Now it is clear that an appropriate normalization for the two dimensional $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(i)}`$ fields can be achieved by adding a factor $`1/\sqrt{S}`$ in the definition (13). In this case these 2D fields have correct canonical dimension $`1/2`$. Now we are ready to estimate the original four-dimensional expectation value (24):

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Psi }_{4\mathrm{D}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{S}}\times N\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{}(z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{}(z)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2m_\eta ^{}}{\pi ^2}},`$ (26)
which has correct dimension 3. Using the same technique one can estimate other matrix elements in the domain wall background which have non-zero magnitude and thus demonstrate that they have a large correlation $`L`$ on the of the size of the domain wall in the $`x`$$`y`$ direction. In particular, the result for the mean value $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\sigma _{xy}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{xy}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{4\mathrm{D}}\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}{\pi },$$
(27)
where the factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/\pi `$ has the same origin as in Equation (26) and is related to the degeneracy of the system (25), while the factor $`\mu m_N`$ is a dimensional parameter originating from the bosonic representation (4.1) of the effective two-dimensional theory.

## 5 Magnetic Field Generation Mechanism

Here we estimate the strengths of the induced fields in terms of the QCD parameters. We consider two types of interactions. First, the nucleon spins align with the domain wall. We assume that the fluctuations in the nucleon field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are rapid and that these effects cancel, leaving the classical domain wall background unaltered. Thus, we are able to estimate many mean values correlated on a large scale on the domain walls such as $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\sigma _{xy}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (27) and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _z\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (26) through these interactions as described above. These mean values are only nonzero within a distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$ of the domain wall and are correlated on the same Hubble scale as the domain wall.

From now on we treat the expectation value (27) as a background classical field correlated on the Hubble scale. Once these sources are known, one could calculate the generated electromagnetic field by solving Maxwell’s equations with the interaction

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2}(d_\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }+\mu _\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi })F_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\mathrm{D})^2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(28)
where $`d_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ ($`\mu _\mathrm{\Psi }`$) is effective electric (magnetic) dipole moments of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Due to the CP violation (nonzero $`\theta `$) along the axion domain wall, the anomalous nucleon dipole moment in (28) $`d_\mathrm{\Psi }\mu _\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{e}{m_N}`$ is also nonzero . This is an important point: if no anomalous moments were induced, then only charged particles could generate the magnetic field: the walls would be diamagnetic not ferromagnetic as argued by Voloshin  and Landau levels would exactly cancel the field generated by the dipoles.

Solving the complete set of Maxwell’s equations, however, is extremely difficult. Instead, we use simple dimensional arguments. For a small planar region of area $`\xi ^2`$ filled with aligned dipoles with constant density, we know that the net magnetic field is proportional to $`\xi ^1`$ since the dipole fields tend to cancel, thus for a flat section of our domain wall, the field would be suppressed by a factor of $`(\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^1`$. For a perfectly flat, infinite domain wall ($`\xi \mathrm{}`$), there would be no net field as pointed out . However, our domain walls are far from flat. Indeed, they have many wiggles and high frequency modes, thus, the size of the flat regions where the fields are suppressed is governed by a correlation $`\xi `$ which describes the curvature of the wall. Thus, the average electric and magnetic fields produced by the domain wall are of the order

$$F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}\left[d_\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }+\mu _\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }\right]$$
(29)
where $`\xi ^{}`$ is an effective correlation length related to the size of the dominant high frequency modes.

To estimate what effective scale $`\xi ^{}`$ has, however, requires an understanding of the dynamics of the domain walls. Initially, the domain walls are correlated with a scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$. As the temperature cools, the walls smooth out and the lower bound $`\xi (t)`$ for the scale of the walls correlations increases from $`\xi (0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$. This increase is a dynamical feature, however, and is thus slow. In addition, the walls coalesce and become correlated on the Hubble scale generating large scale correlations. Thus the wall has correlations from $`\xi (t)`$ up to the upper limit set by the Hubble scale. Thus, the effective $`\xi ^{}`$ Hubble size at the time that the fields are aligned and so the suppression is not nearly as great as implied by Voloshin . Note that, even though the effects are confined to the region close to the wall, the domain walls are moving and twisted so that the effects occur throughout the entire Hubble volume.

The picture is thus that fields of strength

$$E_zB_z\frac{1}{\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}\frac{e}{m_N}\frac{m_N\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2}{\pi }\frac{e\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{\xi ^{}\pi }$$
(30)
are generated with short correlations $`\xi ^{}`$, but then domains are correlated on a large scale by the Hubble scale modes of the coalescing domain walls. Thus, strong turbulence is generated with correlations that run from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ up to the Hubble scale.

Finally, we note that this turbulence should be highly helical. This helicity arises from the fact that both electric and magnetic fields are correlated together along the entire domain wall, $`\stackrel{}{𝐄}\stackrel{}{𝐀}/\tau `$ where $`\stackrel{}{𝐀}`$ is the vector potential and $`\tau `$ is a relevant timescale for the electrical field to be screened (we expect $`\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$ as we discuss below). The magnetic helicity density is thus:

$$h\stackrel{}{𝐀}\stackrel{}{𝐁}\tau E_zB_z\tau \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}{\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(31)
Note carefully what happens here: The total helicity was zero in the quark-gluon-plasma phase and remains zero in the whole universe, but the helicity is separated so that in one Hubble volume, the helicity has the same sign. The reason for this is that, as the domain walls coalesce, initial perturbations cause either a soliton or an antisoliton to dominate and fill the Hubble volume. In the neighboring space, there will be other solitons and antisolitons so that there is an equal number of both, but they are separated and this spatial separation prevents them from annihilating. This is similar to how a particle and anti-particle may be created and then separated so they do not annihilate. In any case, the helicity is a pseudoscalar and thus maintains a constant sign everywhere along the domain wall: thus, the entire Hubble volume is filled with helicity of the same sign. This is the origin of the Hubble scale correlations in the helicity and in $`B^2`$. The correlation parameter $`\xi `$ which affects the magnitude of the fields plays no role in disturbing this correlation.

As we mentioned, eventually, the electric field will be screened. The timescale for this is set by the plasma frequency for the electrons (protons will screen much more slowly) $`\omega _p`$ which turns out to be numerically close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ near the QCD phase transition. The nucleons, however, also align on a similar timescale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$, and the helicity is generated on this scale too, so the electric screening will not qualitatively affect the mechanism. Finally, we note that the turbulence requires a seed which remains in a local region for a timescale set by the conductivity  $`\sigma cT/e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ where for $`T=100`$ MeV, $`c0.07`$ and is smaller for higher $`T`$. Thus, even if the domain walls move at close to the speed of light (due to vibrations), there is still enough time to generate turbulence.

For this mechanism to work and not violate current observations, it seems that the domain walls must eventually decay. Several mechanisms have been discussed for the decay of axion domain walls  and the timescales for these decays are much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$, ie. long enough to generate these fields but short enough to avoid cosmological problems. In addition, we have found some additional structures which may help solve this problem. We shall present these elsewhere . In any case, we assume that some mechanism exists to resolve the domain wall problem in an appropriate timescale. Thus, all the relevant timescales are of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$ except for the lifetime of the walls which is substantially longer and thus, although the discussed interactions will affect the qualitative results, they will not affect the mechanism or substantially change the order of the effects.

## 6 Conclusion.

We have shown that this mechanism can generate the magnetic fields (3) with large correlations. It seems that galactic dynamos should still play an important amplification role. It seems that the crucial conditions for the dynamo to take place are fields $`B>10^{20}`$ G with large ($`100`$ kpc) correlations. From (3) we see that we have a huge interval $`10^{10}\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}1`$ of $`\xi ^{}`$ to seed these dynamos. Also, if $`\xi ^{}`$ is small, then this mechanism may generate measurable extra-galactic fields.

We mention two new points that distinguish this mechanism from previous proposals . First, the key nucleon is the neutron which generates the fields due to an anomalous dipole moment induced by the CP violating domain walls. The nucleons thus make the wall ferromagnetic, not diamagnetic as discussed in . Second, the interaction between the domain walls and nucleons are substantial because of the similar scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^1`$) of the $`\eta ^{}`$ transition in the $`a_\eta ^{}`$ domain wall. There is no way that axion domain walls with scales $`m_a^1`$ can efficiently align nucleons at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

The presence of the magnetic fields generated by our mechanism may have several observable effects. First, large magnetic fields may alter nucleosynthesis production ratios . Secondly, large scale magnetic fields may distort the CMB spectrum in a measurable manner . These place upper bounds on the strength of the fields. Even the maximal fields (30) with $`\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=1`$ generated by domain walls lie within these bounds. Also, if $`\xi ^{}`$ turns out to be quite small, then, unless the distribution of galaxies is correlated with the domain walls, this mechanism might generate measurable extra-galactic fields.

Two other effects may be closely related to magnetic fields generated from domain walls. One is the observation of ultra-high energy cosmic rays past the GZK cutoff . Magnetic fields on the scale of those discussed here may hold a key to explaining this mystery. The other is an apparent anisotropy of radiation propagation over large distances resulting in a constant offset in Faraday measurements . One possible explanation involves the introduction of a Chern-Simons term by hand . This type of term might arise naturally from CP violating domain walls.

Domain walls at the QCD phase transition provide a nice method of generating magnetic fields on $`100`$ kpc correlations today (3). In addition, the fields and domain walls key to this mechanism may play a role in a number of unexplained astrophysical phenomena. We conclude on this optimistic note.

This work was supported by the NSERC of Canada. We would like to thank R. Brandenberger for many useful discussions. AZ wishes to thank: M. Shaposhnikov and I. Tkachev for valuable discussions which motivated this study; Larry McLerran and D. Son for discussions on Silk damping; and M. Voloshin and A. Vainshtein for discussions on the magnetic properties of domain walls.

## References


format: text

text:
# B-physics phenomenology with emphasis on the light-cone

## 1 Introduction

With the wealth of new and upgraded experimental facilities for the B-physics, the precision test of standard model is ever more promising. The new facilities of BaBar at SLAC and Belle at KEK generate asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions to trace the B-decays more accurately. The symmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collision facility of CLEO-III at Cornell has also upgraded its luminosity by a factor of ten better. Furthermore, the hadon-hadron collision facilities such as LHCB at CERN and BTeV at Fermilab as well as the lepton-hadron collision facility such as HERA-B at DESY emerge as the powerful tools to investigate a lot of detailed B-decays . Certainly, an important motivation to study B-physics is to make a precision test of standard model especially associated with the unitarity of CKM mixing matrix. One of the burning questions in physics is whether the complex phase is really the only source of the CP-violation or not. To make such a precision test, the accurate analyses of exclusive semileptonic B-decays as well as rare B-decays are strongly demanded. As we will discuss in this talk, an effective use of light-cone (LC) degrees of freedom in those analyses seem crucial to make the calculations more accurate. This also makes the model-building more scrutinized. Our talk is presented with the following outlines. The theoretical overview of B-physics is given in the next Section, Section 2. Especially, we will discuss the processes determining each CKM-matrix element and the profile of unitary triangle. We’ll also try to make a very brief survey of theoretical development in the last twenty years history of B-physics. Because of enormous works that people have done in B-physics, this survey would be in no way complete but very brief and limited. In any case, the purpose of Section 2 will be to motivate why the exclusive semileptonic B-decays are very important to constrain the CKM mixing matrix. In Section 3, then exclusive semileptonic decays are discussed. Some general remarks on the weak form factors will be made and the role of LC degrees of freedom in the exclusive semileptonic decays will be discussed. Especially, the difficulties associated with the time-like processes such as the exclusive semileptonic decays in the LC formulation. We will first identify the embedded states necessary to restore the covariance of the amplitudes and then present a way of handling the embedded states. Some preliminary numerical results are also presented in the exclusive semileptonic decays for $`K\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$ with our new way of treating the embedded states. Conclusions follow in Section 4.

## 2 The Theoretical Overview of B-Physics

In the standard model, the only interaction relevant to the CKM mixing matrix $`V_{CKM}`$ is the weak charged-current interaction given by the Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{int}}=(g/\sqrt{2})(W_\mu ^+J^\mu +W_\mu ^{}J^\mu )`$, where

$$J_\mu =(\overline{u},\overline{c},\overline{t})\gamma _\mu V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right),\mathrm{and}V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
In the standard model, $`V_{CKM}`$ is unitary ,i.e. $`V_{CKM}^{}V_{CKM}=1`$, and all the matrix elements of $`V_{CKM}`$ can be written in terms of three real angles $`\theta _{12},\theta _{23},\theta _{13}`$ and one real phase-angle $`\delta `$ as explicitly shown in the particle data group . Here, $`\theta _{12}`$ is the usual Cabbibo mixing angle. Wolfenstein  realized the pattern of order of magnitude in each element and parametrized $`V_{CKM}`$ in the orders of $`\lambda =\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}0.22`$. Up to the order of $`\lambda ^3`$, $`V_{CKM}`$ is given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\lambda ^2/2& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\lambda ^2/2& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where four real Wolfenstein’s parameters are given by ($`A,\lambda ,\rho ,\eta `$).

The unitarity condition leads to the definition of various unitarity triangles:

$`V_{CKM}^{}V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(dd)& (ds)^{}& (db)^{}\\ (ds)& (ss)& (sb)^{}\\ (db)& (sb)& (bb)\end{array}\right),V_{CKM}V_{CKM}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(uu)& (uc)& (ut)\\ (uc)^{}& (cc)& (ct)\\ (ut)^{}& (ct)^{}& (tt)\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
where each off-diagonal element $`(ij)`$ with the unequal quark-flavors $`i`$ and $`j`$, i.e. $`ij`$, is given by the addition of three complex numbers due to the multiplication of two 3$`\times `$3 complex matrices, e.g. $`(db)=V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}`$, while the diagonal elements are given by the sum of three real numbers. Since the off-diagonal element $`(ij)`$ ($`ij`$) is zero (i.e. the sum of three complex numbers is zero), it can be given as a triangle in the complex plane. Thus, each off-diagonal element $`(ij)`$ corresponds to a unitarity triangle and there are six independent ones. Only four out of eighteen angles in the six triangles are independent and the area of all triangles is identical measure of CP-violation, i.e., $`\mathrm{Area}(\mathrm{\Delta })=(1/2)\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta (1/2)A\lambda ^6\eta `$. Also, the magnitude of each mixing matrix element $`|V_{ij}|`$ is independent of parametrization.

Now, let’s focus on the current magnitude  of each mixing matrix element and the corresponding experimental processes used for the determination. The magnitude of $`V_{ud}`$ has been determined by the superallowed $`0^+0^+`$ nuclear $`\beta `$-decay, the nucleon $`\beta `$-decay ($`np+e+\overline{\nu _e}`$) and the pion $`\beta `$-decay ($`\pi ^+\pi ^0+e^++\nu _e`$). The current average value is given by $`|V_{ud}|=0.9735\pm 0.0008`$. The magnitude of $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cd}`$ is almost equal to the sine of the Cabbibo angle, i.e. $`|V_{us}|=0.2196\pm 0.0023`$ and $`|V_{cd}|=0.224\pm 0.016`$, respectively. $`|V_{us}|`$ is determined by the semileptonic kaon decay $`K_{l3}`$ ($`K\pi l\nu `$) and the hyperon semileptonic decays such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }pe\overline{\nu _e},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}ne\overline{\nu _e},\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }e\overline{\nu _e}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0e\overline{\nu _e}`$, while $`|V_{cd}|`$ is determined by the semileptonic $`D`$-meson decays of $`D^0\pi ^{}e^+\nu _e`$, $`D^+\pi ^0e^+\nu _e`$ as well as the leptonic decays $`D^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu ,D^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu _\mu }`$. The magnitude of $`|V_{cs}|=1.04\pm 0.16`$ is also determined by the $`D`$-meson semileptonic decays $`D^0K^{}e^+\nu _e,D^+\overline{K^0}e^+\nu _e`$. The analysis of heavy-to-heavy semileptonic $`B`$-decays such as $`B^+\overline{D^0}l^+\nu _l`$ and $`B^+\overline{D^0}^{}l^+\nu _e`$ has been constrained by the heavy quark effective theory (HQET)  and the small value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ was determined as $`|V_{cb}|=0.0402\pm 0.0019`$. The HQET has also played the role of constraining the model building. Even smaller value of $`|V_{ub}|=(0.090\pm 0.025)|V_{cb}|`$ was determined by the heavy-to-light semileptonic $`B`$-decays of $`B\pi l\nu _l,\rho l\nu _l,\omega l\nu _l`$ as well as the leptonic decays of $`B^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu ,\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$. In this way, the top two rows of $`V_{CKM}`$ matrix were determined mostly by the direct measurements of experimental processes.

However, the direct measurements are not feasible for the bottom row elements of $`V_{CKM}`$ matrix involving $`t`$-quark. Since the $`t`$-quark mass is so heavy ($`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV) and the lifetime of $`t`$-quark is much shorter than the strong interaction time scale, the $`t`$-quark doesn’t have any time to form a bound-state meson but quickly decays into $`b`$-quark and $`W^+`$. Nevertheless, the rough magnitudes of $`|V_{tb}|1,|V_{ts}|0.04,|V_{td}|0.0050.013`$ are consistent with the semileptonic decays of $`t`$-quark $`t(b,s,d)l^+\nu _l`$ measured at CDF and D$`\mathrm{}`$ in the Fermilab where the $`t`$-quark evidence was confirmed. Especially, the constraint given by

$$\frac{|V_{tb}|^2}{|V_{td}|^2+|V_{ts}|^2+|V_{tb}|^2}=0.99\pm 0.29$$
(10)
is well satisfied by these magnitudes. While the direct measurements are not feasible for $`V_{tb},V_{ts},V_{td}`$, the virtual transition through “Penguin” process will give more informations. The first evidence of “Penguin” process was seen at CLEO II , where the branching ratio of radiative $`B`$-decay was determined as BR($`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$) = ($`4.2\pm 0.8\pm 0.6)\times 10^5`$.

The most interesting and promising unitarity triangle to be measured is (db);

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0,$$
(11)
where $`V_{ud}1,V_{cd}\lambda ,V_{tb}^{}1`$. Dividing the l.h.s. of Eq. (11), one gets

$$\frac{V_{ub}^{}}{|\lambda V_{cb}|}1+\frac{V_{td}}{|\lambda V_{cb}|}=0,$$
(12)
where each term can be written in terms of Wolfenstein’s parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ in the complex plane of ($`\rho ,\eta `$). The first term in Eq.(12) corresponds to the vector from (0,0) to ($`\rho ,\eta `$) and the last term does the vector from ($`\rho ,\eta `$) to (0,1). The second term $`1`$ corresponds to the vector from (0,1) to (0,0). The main interest in determining the profile of the unitarity triangle is then to find the exact location of the apex ($`\rho ,\eta `$). The allowed region of the apex is given by the overlapping region in Fig. 1(a). The length between the two apices (0,0) and ($`\rho ,\eta `$) is mainly determined by the measurement of ratio $`V_{ub}/V_{cb}`$. The allowed region for this length is given by the rainbow around (0,0) in Fig. 1(a).

Also, the length of the adjacent side connecting ($`\rho ,\eta `$) to (1,0) is essentially determined by the measurement of $`B_d`$ mixing that can provide the value of $`V_{td}`$. Since the value of $`V_{cb}`$ is very close to that of $`V_{ts}`$, one can further constrain this length between ($`\rho ,\eta `$) to (1,0) by measuring the $`B_s`$ mixing. The rainbow around (1,0) shown in Fig. 1(a) corresponds to the allowed region for this length. The overlap of the two rainbows is further constrained by the measurement of CP-violation parameter $`ϵ`$ in $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K^0}`$ mixing. Since $`ϵ`$ is a direct measure of the complex phase in $`V_{CKM}`$, the constraint from $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K^0}`$ mixing is drawn as a horizontal band in Fig. 1(a) depending mostly on the value of $`\eta `$. The final overlap yields then the allowed region for the apex ($`\rho ,\eta `$) of the triangle as shown in Fig. 1(a). The three angles of the triangle denoted by $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are given by

$`\alpha =\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}}\right),\beta =\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}}\right),\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}\right).`$ (13)
It is very interesting to note that these angles can also be determined from the CP-asymmetry measurement . The CP-asymmetry is given by

$`A_{f_{CP}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}_{\mathrm{phys}}(t)f_{CP})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)f_{CP})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}_{\mathrm{phys}}(t)f_{CP})}},`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}}{}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt),`$
where $`|B_L=p|B^0+q|\overline{B^0}`$, $`|B_H=p|B^0q|\overline{B^0}`$, $`=f_{CP}||B^0`$, and $`\overline{}=f_{CP}||\overline{B^0}`$. From the experimental measurements of $`A_{f_{CP}}(t)`$, it may be possible to determine the values of angles $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$. For example, the value of $`\beta `$ may be determined by the measurement of $`B_d^0J/\psi K_s`$. More examples of process to determine each angle are shown in Fig. 1(b). Figure 1(b) also shows other processes to fix the profile of the unitary triangle.

The theoretical efforts in the $`B`$ physics have also been very extensive in the last twenty years and we cannot summarize all the developments in this talk. Perhaps, here we are just content with a very brief survey. In early 80’s, the value of $`V_{cb}`$ was investigated significantly with the QCD improved spectator model developed by Altarelli et al. . In the middle of 80’s, a model wavefunction due to Wirbel, Stech and Bauer called WSB model  was introduced for the heavy quark system. Then, in the late 80’s, the heavy quark symmetry was extensively studied by many authors . Perhaps, the most quoted work has been done by Isgur and Wise  introducing the Isgur-Wise function now frequently referred in the heavy quark effective theory (HQET). The basic idea of heavy quark symmetry is to realize the hidden symmetry of QCD that can be revealed only in the limit of infinitely heavy quark masses. The analogous observation in the opposite extreme of zero quark mass limit is the chiral symmetry. Whether the quark masses are heavy or light may be categorized by the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The current quark masses of $`u,d,s`$ are much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, while the masses of $`c,b,t`$ quarks are much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, i.e. $`m_u,m_d,m_s<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}<<m_c,m_b,m_t`$. Thus, in the limit that $`m_u,m_d`$ and $`m_s`$ go to zero, the QCD reveals the chiral symmetry $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ and the symmetry is spontaneously broken to $`SU(3)_V`$ due to the non-trivial QCD vacuum. Similarly, in the limit that $`m_c,m_b`$ and $`m_t`$ go to infinity, the heavy quark symmetry $`SU(6)`$(or $`SU(2N_f)`$) is revealed in QCD.

In the early 90’s, the HQET was applied extensively in the heavy quark systems. At the same time, the constituent quark model(CQM) was built by Isgur, Scora, Grinstein and Wise and named as ISGW model . This model emphasizes the importance of resonance contribution near the small invariant mass of final states in the inclusive semileptonic decays. In the case of semileptonic $`B`$ decay such as $`Be\nu cd`$, the invariant mass square $`P_X^2=m_X^2=(p_Bp_ep_\nu )^2`$ of the final state, continuum $`c`$ and $`d`$ quarks, is bound by $`(m_c+m_d)^2<P_X^2<(m_c+m_d)^2+(m_d/m_b)(m_bm_c)`$, where $`p_e,p_\nu `$ and $`p_B`$ are the four-momenta of electron, neutrino and the $`B`$ meson, respectively. ISGW criticized the early QCD improved spectator model by Altarelli et. al.  because the region of $`P_X^2(m_c+m_d)^2`$ is dominated by the resonances rather than the continuum. In the middle of 90’s, ISGW model was extended to a relativistic version and called ISGW2 model . Throughout 90’s, the lattice QCD  was also extensively used to analyze the heavy quark systems. In 90’s, the perturbative QCD(PQCD)  approach was used mainly to analyze the hadronic decays of heavy mesons. Then, in the later part of 90’s, dispersion relation was used for the analysis of timelike region using the inputs from CQM , lattice data , HQET and PQCD . The light-cone quark model(LCQM) was developed around this time. Perhaps, we may categorize the LCQM into four different versions. First, the ISGW2 model was extended to the LC formalism . However, the same input parameters as the ISGW2 model were used in this LCQM. Second, the LC version of HQET was developed . In this development, the WSB model developed in the middle of 80’s was ruled out because the WSB model doesn’t satisfy the constraint from the heavy quark symmetry. Third, the LC model wavefunction was also introduced . However, modelling the LC wavefunction didn’t give any information about the hadron spectra. Finally, we have implemented the variational principle to the QCD motivated effective LC hamiltonian to enable the analysis of meson spectra as well as many wavefunction-related observables such as the form factors, decay constants and electroweak decay rates, etc. . In late 90’s, also other approaches such as the light-cone QCD sum-rule , the Dyson-Schwinger equation  and the Bethe-Salpeter equation  were used to analyze the heavy quark systems. More recently, the quark-meson model  utilizing both HQET and chrial perturbation ($`\chi _{PT}`$) theory was used to analyze the heavy-to-light meson decays such as $`B(\pi ,\rho ,a_1)\nu l`$. In the twenty years of $`B`$-physics history, we may note that one of the focal point in most analyses has been the accurate prediction of exclusive semileptonic decays such as $`B(D,\pi )l\nu `$ and $`D(K,\pi )l\nu `$. In the next section, we now present some more details of exclusive semileptonic decays.

## 3 Exclusive Semileptonic Decays

The current matrix element of the semileptonic pseudoscalar to pseudoscalar (PS$``$PS) meson decays involve the two form factors:

$`p_2|V^\mu |p_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_+(q^2)(p_1+p_2)^\mu +f_{}(q^2)(p_1p_2)^\mu `$
$`=`$ $`f_+(q^2)\left[(p_1+p_2)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2m_2^2}{q^2}}q^\mu \right]+f_0(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{q^2}}q^\mu `$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{M_1M_2}[h_+(q^2)(v_1+v_2)^\mu +h_{}(q^2)(v_1v_2)^\mu ],`$
(16)
where

$$f_0(q^2)=f_+(q^2)+\frac{q^2}{M_1^2M_2^2}f_{}(q^2).$$
(17)
In the limit of $`M_{1,2}\mathrm{}`$, the only one form factor remains, i.e. $`h_+(q^2)=\xi (v_1v_2)`$ and $`h_{}(q^2)=0`$, where $`\xi (v_1v_2)`$ is known as the Isgur-Wise function. Also, due to the Ademello-Gatto theorem , $`f_+(0)1`$. Note here that $`f_+(q^2)`$ corresponds to the charge form factor in the $`SU(3)`$ limit. The similar decomposition of the matrix element of the semileptonic pseudoscalar (PS) to vector (V) meson decays can be made with the four transition form factors. Again in the heavy quark mass limit, only one form factor $`\xi (v_1v_2)`$ is needed. Also, the Luke theorem  applies in the zero recoil limit. However, because of the limited space, we won’t discuss the details of PS$``$V semileptonic decays in this presentation but here focus only on the PS$``$PS semleptonic decays.

The analysis of exclusive processes can be made efficiently in the LC formalism with the rational energy-momentum relation. In the LCQM calculations presented in Ref. , the $`q^+0`$ frame has been used to calculate the weak decays in the timelike region $`m_{\mathrm{}}^2q^2(M_1M_2)^2`$, with $`M_{1(2)}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ being the initial (final) meson mass and the lepton ($`\mathrm{}`$) mass, respectively. However, when the $`q^+0`$ frame is used, the inclusion of the nonvalence contributions arising from quark-antiquark pair creation (“Z-graph”) is inevitable and this inclusion may be very important for the heavy-to-light and light-to-light decays. Nevertheless, the previous analyses  in the $`q^+0`$ frame considered only valence contributions neglecting the nonvalence contributions.

In this work, we treat the nonvalence state using the Schwinger-Dyson equation to connect the embedded-state shown as the black blob in Fig. 2 to the ordinary LC wave function (white blob in Fig. 2). To make the program successful, we need some relevant operator connecting one-body to three-body sector shown as the black box in Fig. 2. The relevant operator is in general dependent on the involved momenta. Our main observation is that we can remove the four-body energy denomenator $`D_4`$ using the identity $`1/D_4D_2^\gamma +1/D_4D_2^h=1/D_2^\gamma D_2^h`$ of the energy denominators and obtain the identical amplitude in terms of ordinary LC wave functions of photon and hadron (white blob). For the small momentum transfer, perhaps the relevant operator may not have too much dependence on the involved momenta and one may approximate it as a constant operator. In contact interaction case, we verified that our prescription of a constant operator in Fig. 2(d) is an exact solution of Fig. 2(a). In our previous analysis  for the exclusive PS$``$PS semileptonic decays, the form factor $`f_+(q^2)`$ obtained from $`j^+`$ in $`q^+=0`$ frame is not only immune to the zero-mode contribution but also in good agreement with the experimental data as well as other theoretical results. In order to obtain the form factor $`f_{}`$ in $`q^+=0`$ frame, one has to use another component (i.e. $`j_{}`$ or $`j_{}`$) of the current in addition to the $`j^+`$. However, as noted in Ref. , those $`j_{}`$ and $`j_{}`$ are not immune to the zero-mode contributions, which are not easy to be identified in LCQM. Thus, we use $`q^+0`$ frame to determine the constant operator by equating the slope of $`f_+`$ at $`q^2=0`$ in $`q^+0`$ frame to that in $`q^+=0`$ frame. Then, we apply the same operator to the calculation of $`f_{}`$. We present here some preliminery results for $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ using the approximation of constant operator to illustrate our method.

In Table 1, we summarize the experimental observables for the $`K_\mathrm{}3`$ decays, where $`\lambda _i=M_\pi ^2f_i^{}(0)/f_i(0)(i=+,0)`$ and $`\xi _A=f_{}(0)/f_+(0)`$. We use our linear potential parameters given by Refs.  in this analysis. As one can see in Table 1, our results for the slope $`\lambda _0`$ of $`f_0`$ at $`q^2=0`$ and $`\xi _A`$=$`f_{}(0)/f_+(0)`$ are now much improved and comparable with the data. Especially, our result of $`\lambda _0`$= 0.025 obtained from our effective calculation is in excellent agreement with the data, $`\lambda _0^{\mathrm{Exp}.}`$=0.025$`\pm `$0.006. More theoretical details on our effective method as well as heavy-to-heavy and heavy-to-light semileptonic processes will be presented in the future communication.

## 4 Conclusion

With the wealth of new or upgraded experimental facilities, precision test of standard model is ever more promising. We presented a theoretical overview of B-physics and noted that the exclusive semileptonic B-decays and rare B-decays are very important to determine $`V_{bc}`$, $`V_{bu}`$, $`V_{td}`$, $`V_{ts}`$, and $`V_{tb}`$ stringently. As we discussed, an effective use of LC degrees of freedom seems crucial to make predictions consistent with many other exclusive processes. Our initial attempt to accomodate the contributions from embedded states seems to give encouraging results.

We would like to thank Prof. Chris Pauli for organizing a stimulating meeting and his outstanding hospitality at the Max Plank Institute. We also thank Chirag Lakhani for drawing a figure. This work was supported by a grant from the U.S. DOE under contracts DE-FG02-96ER40947.


text:
# Direct J/Ψ hadroproduction in 𝑘_⟂-factorization and the color octet mechanism

## Abstract

The hadroproduction of direct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the framework of the $`k_{}`$-factorization approach is studied. The color-singlet contribution is essentially larger than in the collinear approach but is still an order of magnitude below the data. The deficit may be well described by the color octet contribution with the value of the matrix element $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ substantially decreased in comparison with fits in the collinear factorization. This should lead to a reduction of the large transverse polarization, predicted in the collinear approach.

04.10.2000

Recently we have considered the $`\chi _c`$ hadroproduction within the $`k_{}`$ factorization scheme . The crucial element in the description of this process was the effective vertex for the production of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs with finite invariant mass, which appeared in calculations of the next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections to the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) kernel .

The effective $`q\overline{q}`$-production vertex contains - apart from the standard term - also additional terms describing the $`q\overline{q}`$ production by means of the Reggeon-Reggeon-gluon vertex . This additional part does not contribute, if the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is produced in the color-singlet (CS) state. For color-octet $`q\overline{q}`$ states these additional terms contribute and lead to a $`p_{}`$ dependence which is very different from the experimentally observed one. Thus we concluded that for $`\chi _c`$ hadroproduction our result suggest that the color octet mechanism (COM) is negligible. Specifically, a dominant color-singlet term and $`k_{}`$-factorization provide a fair description of the data.

It is interesting to extend this approach to the direct production of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which is known to be a long-standing puzzle (for review see e.g. ).

Because of the negative charge parity of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the effective $`q\overline{q}`$ vertex can only give a contribution via the COM. In the case of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in the CS model, one needs to know the $`q\overline{q}`$ production vertex with an additional produced gluon (fig.1). Such a $`q\overline{q}g`$ system with a finite invariant mass is called a cluster . In the context of the BFKL approach this vertex corresponds to NNLLA corrections and is not yet known. However, the unknown terms in this vertex (e.g. see figs. 1 c, 1 d and 1 e) should not contribute to the production of a CS state, in complete analogy with the $`\chi _c`$ case mentioned above . The unknown part of the NNLLA vertex can include only diagrams where the additional gluon is emitted by the $`t`$-channel or the $`s`$-channel gluons. To produce a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the CS model to LO in $`\alpha _S`$ three gluons have to be involved and one of them has to be emitted. Only those graphs contribute, in which the emitted gluon couples to a quark line (see fig. 1 a and b).

The emission vertex of this gluon is described by the usual vertex since the interaction of partons forming cluster with finite invariant mass is governed by the usual QCD lagrangian . Note that the colliding $`t`$-channel gluons are off-shell and longitudinally polarized.

In contrast to this the color-octet contribution requires the full effective NLLA vertex, as mentioned above. It is instructive to compare this situation with the standard collinear factorization case . In that case, the emission of an additional hard gluon is required to balance the large transverse momentum of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The role of the color-octet states is to allow the fragmentation of high-$`p_T`$ gluons to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

In our case, the transverse momentum of the colliding gluons allows for the production of a high-$`p_{}`$ color-octet state without emission of an additional hard gluon. The role of the gluon fragmentation (the production of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by a single gluon) is now played by the discussed additional term within the effective gluon vertex.

One should note the different role of singlet and octet contribution in comparison with $`\chi _c`$ production. While for $`\chi _c`$ the singlet and octet contributions are generated by the same hard scattering subprocess, the situation is different for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In this case the CS subprocess requires an extra gluon emission with respect to the CO one. Since the COM from the point of view of factorization corresponds to the emission of a soft gluon coupled through non-perturbative matrix elements, CO and CS contributions are in the perturbative expansion formally of the same order in $`\alpha _s`$. Therefore, one may expect a larger CO contribution for direct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production than for $`\chi _c`$ production. This point of view is confirmed by our results.

The cross section for heavy quarkonium hadroproduction with an additional produced gluon in the $`k_{}`$ -factorization approach is ,

$`\sigma _{P_1P_2J/\mathrm{\Psi }gX}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3P}{P^+}\frac{d^3k}{k^+}d^2q_1d^2q_2}`$ (1)
$`\delta ^2(q_1q_2P_{}k_{})(x_1,q_1)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_1^2)^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }g}^{c_2c_1}\psi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }g}^{c_2c_1}}{(N_C^21)^2}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_2^2)^2}}(x_2,q_2).`$ (3)
The momenta of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the produced gluon are denoted by $`P`$ and $`k`$. $`(x,q_{})`$ is the unintegrated gluon distribution. The production amplitude $`\psi _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }g}^{c_2c_1}(x_1,x_2,q_1,q_2,P,k)`$ is factorized in a hard part which describes the production of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair and the gluon and an amplitude describing the binding of this pair into a physical charmonium state. The explicit form of the hard part of the amplitude is given by the formulas from  supplemented with an usual additional gluon production vertex (figs. 1 a, 1b). The formalisms used to describe the binding of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair into a bound state as well as the unintegrated gluon distribution are the same as in .

Our results for the direct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production cross section are shown in fig.2 in comparison to the Tevatron data  and the color singlet NLO QCD calculations in collinear factorization . Although the color singlet contribution for $`k_{}`$ factorization is substantially larger than the corresponding part in collinear factorization it still lies about a factor of 10 below the experimental results. In contrast to $`\chi _c`$ production this leaves more room for the color octet mechanism. Since in $`k_{}`$ factorization there is no general need for an additional outgoing perturbative gluon in order to have some non-vanishing $`P_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ we include the color octet contribution using the NLLA effective $`q\overline{q}`$ production vertex.

A fit of the uncalculable color octet parameters $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$, $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ and $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_0)|0`$ which contribute in the lowest order of the NRQCD velocity expansion gives a good decription of the data (see figure 2). As in the $`\chi _c`$ production case the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{8}`$ part is smaller than for collinear factorization. This is again due to the flatter slope of the contribution which comes from the additional parts of the 3-gluon-vertex in the effective NLLA $`q\overline{q}`$ production vertex. Since the slopes of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{8}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J=0,1,2}^{8}`$ parts are very similar the fit cannot distinguish between these two, therefore only a certain linear combination

$`M_8={\displaystyle \frac{0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_0)|0}{m_c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0}{R}}`$

of these parameters can be extracted . In our case the factor $`R`$ lies between $`6`$ (low $`P_{}`$) and $`4.5`$ (high $`P_{}`$). Taking only the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{8}`$ or the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J=0,1,2}^{8}`$ contributions we obtain two slightly different results (for the color singlet contribution we take parameters from ):

|  | only $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{8}`$ contr.  $`O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_J)=0`$ | only $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{8}`$ contr.  $`O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)=0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ | $`3.2(\pm 1.2)10^4`$ | $`5(\pm 1.2)10^4`$ |
| $`M_8`$ ($`R=5`$) | $`1.4(\pm 0.1)10^2`$ | $`1.2(\pm 0.1)10^2`$ |
| total $`\chi ^2/`$NDOF | $`0.42`$ | $`0.53`$ |

The errors are only statistical.

On the basis of these results we conclude that it is impossible to describe the data for direct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production entirely by the CS contribution. In our case the discrepancy between the CS contribution and the data is substantially smaller than for the NLO collinear factorization.

The results allow for a good description in the framework of the COM. We performed new fits of CO matrix elements. As a result, the value of $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ is reduced by a factor of $`30`$ in comparison with the analysis in the framework of collinear factorization. However, if this matrix element is put exactly to zero, the quality of the fit is much worse.

Let us note that from the strong reduction of the $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ matrix element in comparison to the collinear approximation it doesn’t follow that the same happens in the case of $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$ and $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_0)|0`$. Indeed we find that the linear combination $`M_8`$, which we can extract from a fit to the data, is of same order of magnitude as the analogous combination in the collinear case. Taking this together we see that our larger cross sections primarily give a reduction of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{8}`$ contribution and do not lead to a uniform decrease of all color octet matrix elements. Now since $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{8}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{8}`$ contributions to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ enter in a different combination into the photoproduction cross section (while the contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{8}`$ is negligible), we cannot make definite predictions about the impact of our $`k_t`$-factorization calculation on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction. Besides this there is of course the need for considering higher order subprocesses in order to determine the color octet matrix elements more accurately.

In the context of photoproduction we would like to comment on the article  in which the photoproduction of charmonia in collinear factorization is studied. There the color octet contributions are taken into account, using for the CO matrix elements the values obtained in the collinear approach by Cho and Leibovich  for the hadroproduction of quarkonia. The results of  for $`p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}1GeV`$ (see fig. 4 in ) suggest that our values for the octet matrix elements support the good description of the data shown there. The only discrepancy occurs in the region of small $`p_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (see , fig.3). But as it was shown in the recent work by Braaten et al  the naive use of the color octet mechanism doesn’t allow to describe the data in the small $`p_{}`$ region. The reason for this could be a stronger interplay of the soft-gluon emission from the hard $`q\overline{q}`$ subprocess with the soft gluon radition described by the color octet mechanism.

The smallness of the color octet matrix element $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ is, however, quite promising from the point of view of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization. Please recall, that in the collinear factorization approach this matrix element provides the dominant contribution to the cross-section through the gluon fragmentation subprocess. As soon as the gluon is almost on-shell, it has a strong transverse polarization which should result in a strong transverse polarization of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, in disagreement with the experimental data . In contrast, in our approach this fragmentation mechanism is suppressed as it leads to a wrong $`P_{}`$-dependence. Consequently the qualitative origin of the transverse polarization in the collinear approach is absent in the $`k_{}`$-factorization approach. In contrast the longitudinal polarization of the colliding gluons in the $`k_{}`$-factorization approach leads to a vanishing projection of the angular momentum of the produced $`q\overline{q}`$-pair on the collision axis resulting in particular in a longitudinal polarization of produced $`\chi _c`$’s.

Finally let us comment on the recent articles by F. Yuan and K.-T. Chao  who studied polarized and unpolarized charmonium production based on our approach . In  they performed independently analogous calculations as in the present paper and found very similar numerical results. They have shown  that the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$’s are in fact nearly unpolarized, which confirms our expectation on the absence of strong transverse polarization in charmonium hadroproduction. Furthermore they demonstrated that $`\chi _c`$ states are predominantly longitudinally polarized .

We acknowledge the discussion with A. Tkabladze. This work was supported by DFG and BMBF. O. T. was also supported in part by RFFI grant 00-02-16696.