format: text

text:
# Representations of the Schrödinger algebra and Appell systems

## 1 Introduction

The Schrödinger Lie algebra plays an important role in mathematical physics and its applications (see, e.g., ). Using the technique of singular vectors, a classification of the irreducible lowest weight representations of this algebra is given in . A main feature of the present paper is a classification of the representations of the Schrödinger algebra in an alternative way based on the semidirect product structure of the algebra.

We begin in §2 with some interpretations of the notion of ‘Appell systems’. Section 3 contains basic details of our approach to representations of the Schrödinger algebra. In particular, we show how it is built and determine a standard form. Some group calculations are done using a matrix realization of the algebra. In §4 we construct canonical Appell systems and find a family of probability distributions associated to the Schrödinger algebra that reflects its Lie algebraic structure. In particular, we see that the results of  on polynomial representations based on lowest weight modules fit into our picture. The details of the associated Hilbert space comprise §5. This starts with computing the Leibniz function. We show how to recover the Lie algebra from the Leibniz function and obtain an orthogonal basis for the Hilbert space. In the final section, we show how to construct Appell systems which provide solutions to generalized heat equations on the Schrödinger algebra, corresponding to classical two-dimensional real Lévy processes.

## 2 Appell systems: some interpretations

There are three interpretations of the notion of ‘Appell systems’:

1. Appell systems in the classical sense. These are considered below from a more general viewpoint.
2. Canonical Appell systems associated to a Lie algebra. One uses the Lie algebra to construct a Hilbert space with the Appell system as basis. See §4.
3. General Appell systems on Lie groups. Here one uses the Lie algebra and group structure as a ‘black box’ into which a classical stochastic process goes in and produces a ‘Lie response’ — typically a process consisting of iterated stochastic integrals of the input process (). In this paper, for simplicity, we restrict to the abelian case. Appell systems provide solutions to evolution equations related to the input stochastic process. See §6.

Now we shall expand on the first point of view.

Considering the differentiation operator $`D`$, we may think of the space of polynomials of degree not exceeding $`n`$ as the space of solutions, $`𝒵_n`$, to the equation $`D^{n+1}\psi =0`$. In this context an Appell system is defined to be a sequence of nonzero polynomials $`\{\psi _0,\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _n,\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying:

1. $`\psi _n𝒵_n`$, $`n0`$
2. $`D\psi _n=\psi _{n1}`$, for $`n1`$

(Note that this differs slightly from the usual definition, cf. , which has $`D\psi _n=n\psi _{n1}`$.) By analogy, for any operator $`V`$, called the *canonical lowering operator,* we define a $`V`$-Appell system as follows. Set

$$𝒵_n=\{\psi :V^{n+1}\psi =0\}$$

for $`n0`$. Then the $`V`$-Appell space decomposition is the system of embeddings $`𝒵_0𝒵_1𝒵_2\mathrm{}`$, and a $`V`$-Appell system is a sequence of nonzero functions $`\{\psi _0,\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _n,\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying:

1. $`\psi _n𝒵_n`$, $`n0`$
2. $`V\psi _n=\psi _{n1}`$, for $`n1`$

Typically, one starts with a ‘standard Appell system’, such as $`\psi _n=x^n/n!`$, for $`V=D`$. Then Appell systems are generated from the standard one via time-evolution. To accomplish this for $`V`$-Appell systems, the symmetry algebra of $`V`$ comes into play.

If $`V`$ is an operator acting on a space of smooth functions, we define its unrestricted symmetry algebra to be the Lie algebra $`\text{g}(V)`$ of vector fields, $`X`$, such that there exists an operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)`$ in the center of $`\text{g}(V)`$ with

$$[X,V]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)V$$

If in every case we require $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be multiplication by a scalar function, we shall talk of the restricted symmetry algebra, as in . If we consider only those $`X`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)=0`$, we have the strict symmetry algebra $`\text{g}_0(V)\text{g}(V)`$. Clearly, $`V\text{g}_0(V)`$. Also, it is clear that $`\text{g}_0(V)`$ contains the center of $`\text{g}(V)`$.

###### Proposition 2.1

The strict symmetry algebra contains the derived algebra of unrestricted symmetries: $`\text{g}^{}(V)\text{g}_0(V)`$. That is, $`Y\text{g}^{}(V)`$ implies $`[Y,V]=0`$.

Proof: Let $`[X_1,V]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_1)V`$ and $`[X_2,V]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_2)V`$. Then, by the Jacobi identity,

$`[[X_1,X_2],V]`$ $`=`$ $`[X_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_2)V]+[\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_1)V,X_2]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_2)[X_1,V]+\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_1)[V,X_2]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_1)V\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_2)V=0`$
using the property that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ operators are central.

The relevance for $`V`$-Appell systems is this.

###### Proposition 2.2

The unrestricted symmetry algebra $`\text{g}(V)`$ of an operator $`V`$ preserves the Appell space decomposition $`𝒵_0𝒵_1𝒵_2\mathrm{}`$, that is, $`X𝒵_n𝒵_n`$ for every $`X\text{g}(V)`$.

Proof: Write $`[X,V]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)V`$ in the form $`VX=(X\mathrm{\Lambda }(X))V`$. Fix $`n0`$ and let $`\psi 𝒵_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)`$ commutes with $`V`$, we have $`V^{n+1}X\psi =(X(n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(X))V^{n+1}\psi =0`$.

New Appell systems are generated from a given one by the adjoint action of a group element generated by a ‘Hamiltonian’ — a function of elements of the symmetry algebra. The structure of the spaces $`𝒵_n`$ is preserved, while the Appell systems provide ‘polynomial solutions’ to the evolution equation corresponding to the Hamiltonian. Indeed, if $`H`$ is a function of operators in $`\text{g}(V)`$, with $`H\psi _0=0`$, then $`h_n=\mathrm{exp}(tH)\psi _n`$ will be an Appell system. For each $`n`$, the function $`h_n`$ satisfies $`u_t=Hu`$, with $`u(0)=\psi _n`$. In the simplest situation where $`H`$ is a function of $`D`$ and the initial Appell sequence is $`\psi _n=x^n/n!`$, different choices of $`H`$ yield many of the classically important sequences of polynomials (with perhaps minor variations).

In the paper , a hierarchy of solutions to $`𝐒^{(p/2)}\psi =0`$ is developed for the Schrödinger operator $`𝐒`$. The representations discussed there can be viewed as $`𝐒`$-Appell systems in the above sense. These correspond to finite-dimensional representations of sl(2) in the standard form of the Schrödinger algebra given below.

## 3 Schrödinger algebra

Referring to  for details, recall that the ($`n=1`$, centrally-extended) Schrödinger algebra $`𝒮_1`$ is spanned by the following elements (commented by their physical origins):

$`M`$ mass
$`K`$ special conformal transformation
$`G`$ Galilei boost
$`D`$ dilation (not differentiation!)
$`P_x`$ spatial translation
$`P_t`$ time translation
which satisfy the following commutation relations, given here in the form of a matrix with rows and columns labelled by the corresponding operators

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & M& K& G& D& P_x& P_t& \\ M& (\mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& )\mathrm{}\\ K& 0& 0& 0& 2K& G& D\\ G& 0& 0& 0& G& M& P_x\\ D& 0& 2K& G& 0& P_x& 2P_t\\ P_x& 0& G& M& P_x& 0& 0\\ P_t& 0& D& P_x& 2P_t& 0& 0\end{array}$$

Note that elements $`\{M,G,P_x\}`$ span a Heisenberg-Weyl subalgebra, while $`\{K,D,P_t\}`$ span an sl(2) subalgebra. This fact, that the Schrödinger algebra is a semidirect product

$$𝒮_1_ssl(2)$$

is the basis for analyzing the representations of the Schrödinger algebra. We continue with the $`n=1`$ case and indicate how the general case $`n>1`$ goes at the end of the discussion of the standard form, since the rotation generators, $`J_{ij}`$, do not appear in the case $`n=1`$.

### 3.1 Structural decomposition for Fock calculus

In general, in order to construct representations, we first seek a generalized Cartan decomposition of the Schrödinger algebra into a triple $`\text{g}=𝒫𝒦`$ where $`𝒫`$ and $``$ are abelian subalgebras, and $`𝒦`$ is a subalgebra normalizing both $`𝒫`$ and $``$. The main idea is that elements of $`𝒫`$ and $``$ act as raising and lowering operators, respectively. The possibility of finding a scalar product in which each element of $`𝒫`$ has a corresponding adjoint in $``$ is important, since we wish to construct a family of selfadjoint operators that provide a family of commuting quantum observables or classical random variables in the probabilistic interpretation. In many cases, this family arises by conjugating elements of $`𝒫`$ by a group element with a generator from $``$. This technique may be viewed as an extension of the Cayley transform for symmetric spaces. Notice that for this to work, the subalgebras $`𝒫`$ and $``$ must be in one-to-one correspondence — the *Cartan involution* in the theory of symmetric spaces.

The Schrödinger algebra $`\text{g}=𝒮_1`$ admits the following generalized Cartan decomposition:

$$\{m,K,G\}\{D,P_x\}\{P_t\}$$
(1)
Note however that $`𝒫`$ and $``$ cannot be put into 1-1 correspondence and therefore this is of no direct use for us.

We will use instead the following decomposition ( cf. \[9, p. 31\]):

$$\underset{𝒫}{\underset{}{\{K,G\}}}\underset{𝒦}{\underset{}{\{M,D\}}}\underset{}{\underset{}{\{P_t,P_x\}}}$$
(2)
$`M`$ acts here as a scalar $`m`$. We take $`R_1=K`$ and $`R_2=G`$ as raising operators. Even though $`P_x`$ is not in “Cartan’s $``$”, as in equation (1), we use it as the lowering operator dual to $`G`$, so take $`L_1=P_t`$ and $`L_2=P_x`$.

Even though the decomposition (2) is not technically a Cartan decomposition, it will lead to interesting results for representations of the Schrödinger algebra.

### 3.2 A matrix representation and group calculations

A 4-dimensional representation (see ) of the Schrödinger algebra ($`n=1`$) is given by embedding into su(4). Let $`X`$ denote a typical element of the Lie algebra. Set,

$$X=a_1m+a_2K+a_3G+a_4D+a_5P_x+a_6P_t=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a_5& a_3& 2a_1\\ 0& a_4& a_2& a_3\\ 0& a_6& a_4& a_5\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
We will denote a typical group element according to the basis we have chosen by

$`g(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5,A_6)=`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(A_1m)\mathrm{exp}(A_2K)\mathrm{exp}(A_3G)\mathrm{exp}(A_4D)\mathrm{exp}(A_5P_x)\mathrm{exp}(A_6P_t)`$
The variables $`\{A_i\}`$ are *coordinates of the second kind.* The group element corresponding to (3) is

$$g(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5,A_6)=e^{A_4}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{A_4}& A_5e^{A_4}A_3A_6& A_3& 2A_1e^{A_4}A_3A_5\\ 0& e^{2A_4}A_2A_6& A_2& A_3e^{A_4}A_2A_5\\ 0& A_6& 1& A_5\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{A_4}\end{array}\right)$$

From this we have

###### Proposition 3.1

Given in matrix form a group element $`g`$, we can recover the second-kind coordinates $`(A_1,\mathrm{},A_6)`$ according to

$`A_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|\begin{array}{cc}g_{13}& g_{14}\\ g_{33}& g_{34}\end{array}\right|}{g_{33}}},`$ $`A_2={\displaystyle \frac{g_{23}}{g_{33}}},A_3={\displaystyle \frac{g_{13}}{g_{33}}},`$
$`A_4=\mathrm{log}(g_{33}),`$ $`A_5={\displaystyle \frac{g_{34}}{g_{33}}},A_6={\displaystyle \frac{g_{32}}{g_{33}}}`$
Referring to decomposition (2), we specialize variables, writing $`V_1,V_2,B_1,B_2`$ for $`A_2,A_3,A_6,A_5`$ respectively. Basic for our analysis is the partial group law:

$$e^{B_1P_t+B_2P_x}e^{V_1K+V_2G}=\mathrm{?}$$

We will get the required results using the matrix representation noted above. The general elements of $`𝒫`$ and $``$ are:

$`B_1P_t+B_2P_x`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& B_\mathit{2}& 0& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& B_\mathit{1}& 0& B_\mathit{2}\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`V_1K+V_2G`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& V_\mathit{2}& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& V_\mathit{1}& V_\mathit{2}\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
As the square of each of these matrices is zero, the exponential of each reduces to simply adding the identity. We find the matrix product

$$e^{B_1P_t+B_2P_x}e^{V_1K+V_2G}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& B_\mathit{2}& V_\mathit{2}+B_\mathit{2}V_\mathit{1}& B_\mathit{2}V_\mathit{2}\\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\ 0& 1& V_\mathit{1}& V_\mathit{2}\\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\ 0& B_\mathit{1}& 1B_\mathit{1}V_\mathit{1}& B_\mathit{1}V_\mathit{2}B_\mathit{2}\\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

Applying Proposition 3.1 to the matrix found above yields

###### Proposition 3.2

In coordinates of the second kind, we have the Leibniz formula,

$`g(0,0,0,0,B_2,B_1)g(0,V_1,V_2,0,0,0)=`$
$`g({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_1V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2B_2V_2+B_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V_1}{1B_1V_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{1B_1V_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{V_2+B_2V_1}{1B_1V_1}},`$
$`\mathrm{log}(1B_1V_1),{\displaystyle \frac{B_1V_2+B_2}{1B_1V_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{1B_1V_1}})`$
In general, a *Leibniz formula* is the group law for commuting the $`L`$ operators past the $`R`$’s, in analogy to the classical formula of Leibniz for derivatives.

### 3.3 Standard form of the Schrödinger algebra

Now we show the internal structure of the Schrödinger algebra ($`n=1`$).

###### Remark 3.3

Note that we work in enveloping algebras throughout, so our calculations are based on relations in an associative algebra. In particular, we often use

$$[A,BC]=[A,B]C+B[A,C]\mathrm{and}[A,B^2]=[A,B]B+B[A,B]$$
(6)
###### Definition 3.4

Denote the basis for a standard Heisenberg-Weyl (HW) algebra, $`=\text{span}\{P,X,H\}`$, satisfying

$$[P,X]=H,[P,H]=[X,H]=0$$

A representation of HW-algebra such that $`H`$ acts as the scalar $`m`$ times the identity operator will be denoted as $`m`$-HW algebra.

###### Definition 3.5

Denote the basis for a standard sl(2) algebra, $`𝒦`$, by $`\{L,R,\rho \}`$, satisfying

$$[L,R]=\rho ,[\rho ,R]=2R,[L,\rho ]=2L$$

We write $`𝒦:=\{L,R,\rho \}`$.

The following Lemma is well-known. It follows readily from the equations in remark 3.3 (also see calculations below).

###### Lemma 3.6

Given an $`m`$-HW algebra, setting

$$L=\frac{1}{2m}P^2,\rho =\frac{1}{m}XP+\frac{1}{2},R=\frac{1}{2m}X^2$$

yields a standard sl(2) algebra.

Now for our first main observation, which follows immediately from the commutation rules for the Schrödinger algebra.

###### Theorem 3.7

(HW form of the Schrödinger algebra) Given an $`m`$-HW algebra, setting

$$m=H,K=\frac{1}{2m}X^2,G=X,D=\frac{1}{m}XP+\frac{1}{2},P_x=P,P_t=\frac{1}{2m}P^2$$

yields a representation of $`𝒮`$.

And the main theorem, which gives the standard form.

###### Theorem 3.8

(Standard form of the Schrödinger algebra) Any representation of the Schrödinger algebra $`𝒮=\text{span}\{m,K,G,D,P_x,P_t\}`$ contains a standard sl(2) algebra $`𝒦_0=\text{span}\{L_0,R_0,\rho _0\}`$ such that, with the $`m`$-HW algebra $`=\text{span}\{P_x,G,m\}`$ from the given representation of $`𝒮`$, the sl(2) subalgebra is of the form

$$K=R_0+\frac{1}{2m}G^2,D=\rho _0+\frac{1}{m}GP_x+\frac{1}{2},P_t=L_0+\frac{1}{2m}P_x^2$$

where $`𝒦_0`$ commutes with $``$.

Conversely, given any $`m`$-HW representation, use it for $`:=\{P_x,G,m\}`$. Now take any sl(2) algebra commuting with $``$, and form the direct product with the standard sl(2) algebra constructed from $``$ by the Lemma. Then this yields a representation of $`𝒮`$.

Proof: The converse is clear by construction and our previous observations. What must be checked is that given a representation of $`𝒮`$, setting

$$R_0=K\frac{1}{2m}G^2,\rho _0=D\left(\frac{1}{m}GP_x+\frac{1}{2}\right),L_0=P_t\frac{1}{2m}P_x^2$$

yields an sl(2) algebra that commutes with $``$. From equation (6), we have

$$[L_0,G]=[P_t,G]\frac{1}{2m}[P_x^2,G]=P_xP_x=0$$

and similar relations for $`R_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ show that $`𝒦_0`$ commutes with $``$. Now, using remark 3.3, we note these relations

$`[P_x^2,K]`$ $`=`$ $`P_xG+GP_x=2GP_x+m`$
$`[GP_x,K]`$ $`=`$ $`0P_x+GG=G^2`$
$`[P_t,GP_x]`$ $`=`$ $`P_x^2`$
Thus, using the fact that $`[𝒦_0,]=0`$, we have

$`[L_0,R_0]`$ $`=`$ $`[L_0,K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}G^2]`$
$`=`$ $`[P_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}P_x^2,K]+[L_0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}G^2]`$
$`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}GPx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\rho _0`$
while

$`[\rho _0,R_0]`$ $`=`$ $`[\rho _0,K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}G^2]=[\rho _0,K]`$
$`=`$ $`[D,K]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}[GP_x,K]`$
$`=`$ $`2K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}G^2=2R_0`$
and

$`[L_0,\rho _0]`$ $`=`$ $`[P_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}P_x^2,\rho _0]`$
$`=`$ $`[P_t,D][P_t,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}GP_x]`$
$`=`$ $`2P_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}P_x^2=2L_0`$
which completes the proof.

###### Remark 3.9

The theorem, extended to include rotations, holds also for $`n>1`$, where we use $`𝒦_0`$ spanned by

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2m}\underset{i}{}P_i^2,R_0=\frac{1}{2m}\underset{i}{}G_i^2,\rho _0=\frac{1}{m}\underset{i}{}G_iP_i+\frac{n}{2}$$

and for the rotations,

$$J_{0,ij}=J_{ij}\frac{1}{m}(G_iP_jG_jP_i)$$

with the $`J_0`$ rotations commuting with $``$.

As an application of Theorem 3.7, consider the special realization, with scalar $`M=m`$ and $`x`$ denoting multiplication by the variable $`x`$,

$$G=mx,P_x=\frac{d}{dx},P_t=\frac{1}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2},K=\frac{mx^2}{2},D=x\frac{d}{dx}+\frac{1}{2}$$
(7)
In this realization, acting on the function identically equal to 1, we have $`P_t1=P_x1=0`$, and $`D1=1/2`$. Applying a group element to the function $`1`$, we find

$$g(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5,A_6)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=\mathrm{exp}\left(A_1m+A_2\frac{mx^2}{2}+A_3mx+A_4/2\right)$$

Clearly, $`f(x)1`$ can be identified with the function $`f(x)`$ itself. Now apply the Leibniz formula, Proposition 3.2, to find

###### Corollary 3.10

The differential realization of the Schrödinger algebra $`𝒮_1`$ has the following “partial group law”

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+B_2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(V_1{\displaystyle \frac{mx^2}{2}}+V_2mx\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{1B_1V_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{mx^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_1B_2+V_2}{1B_1V_1}}mx\right)`$
$`\times (1B_1V_1)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_1V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2B_2V_2+B_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V_1}{1B_1V_1}}\right)`$
## 4 Canonical Appell systems for the Schrödinger algebra

Now to construct the representation space and basis — the canonical Appell system. To start, define a vacuum state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that, for constants $`m`$ and $`c`$,

$`K\mathrm{\Omega }=K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`G\mathrm{\Omega }=G\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`P_t\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ $`P_x\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$
$`M\mathrm{\Omega }=m\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`D\mathrm{\Omega }=c\mathrm{\Omega }`$
###### Notation

The standard form (cf. Theorem 3.8) gives $`D=\rho _0+(1/m)GP_x+1/2`$, which shows that $`\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }=(c1/2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence in the following we denote $`c1/2`$ by $`\dot{c}`$.

The (commuting) elements $`K`$ and $`G`$ of $`𝒫`$ can be used to form basis elements

$$|jk=K^jG^k\mathrm{\Omega },j,k0$$

of a Fock space $`=\text{span}\{|jk\}`$ on which $`K`$ and $`G`$ act as raising operators, while $`P_t`$ and $`P_x`$ act as lowering operators.

### 4.1 Adjoint operators and Appell systems

The goal is to find an abelian subalgebra spanned by some selfadjoint operators acting on the representation space just constructed. Such a two-dimensional subalgebra can be obtained by an appropriate “turn” of the plane $`𝒫`$ in the Lie algebra, namely via the adjoint action of the group element formed by exponentiating $`P_t`$. The resulting plane, $`𝒫_\beta `$ say, is abelian and is spanned by

$`X_1=e^{\beta P_t}Ke^{\beta P_t}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}\beta P_t)K=K+\beta D+\beta ^2P_t`$ (8)
$`X_2=e^{\beta P_t}Ge^{\beta P_t}`$ $`=`$ $`G+\beta P_x`$ (9)
Next we determine our canonical Appell systems. We want to compute $`\mathrm{exp}(z_1X_1+z_2X_2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Setting $`V_1=z_1`$, $`V_2=z_2`$, $`B_1=\beta `$, and $`B_2=0`$ in Proposition 3.2 yields

$`e^{z_1X_1}e^{z_2X_2}\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{\beta P_t}e^{z_1K}e^{z_2G}e^{\beta P_t}\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{\beta P_t}e^{z_1K}e^{z_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{z_1K}{1\beta z_1}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{z_2G}{1\beta z_1}})(1\beta z_1)^c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta z_2^2}{1\beta z_1}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (10)
To get the generating function for the basis $`|jk`$, set in equation (4.1)

$$v_1=\frac{z_1}{1\beta z_1},v_2=\frac{z_2}{1\beta z_1}$$
(11)
Substituting throughout, we have

###### Proposition 4.1

The generating function for the canonical Appell system, $`\{|jk=K^jG^k\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ is

$`e^{v_1K}e^{v_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }=`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(x_1{\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{1+\beta v_1}})\mathrm{exp}(x_2{\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{1+\beta v_1}})(1+\beta v_1)^c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\beta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_2^2}{1+\beta v_1}}\right)`$
where we identify $`X_1\mathrm{\Omega }=x_11`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{\Omega }=x_21`$ in the realization as functions of $`x_1,x_2`$.

With $`v_2=0`$, we recognize the generating function for the Laguerre polynomials, while $`v_1=0`$ reduces to the generating function for Hermite polynomials. This corresponds to the results of Section 4 of .

From the exponentials $`\mathrm{exp}(z_iX_i)`$, equation (4.1), we identify as operators $`z_1=/x_1`$ and $`z_2=/x_2`$. Using script notation for the $`v_i`$ as operators, relations (11) take the form

$`𝒱_1=\left(1\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}`$
$`𝒱_2=\left(1\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}`$
To act on polynomials, expand $`(1\beta /x_i)^1`$ in geometric series

$$(1\beta /x_i)^1=\underset{n0}{}\beta ^n\left(\frac{}{x_i}\right)^n$$

So we have both a $`𝒱_1`$-Appell system and a $`𝒱_2`$-Appell system as in Section 2. The Appell space decompositions are, for $`𝒱_1`$ and $`𝒱_2`$,

$`𝒵_n^{(1)}=|\text{poly}_n(K)\text{poly}(G)\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`𝒵_n^{(2)}=|\text{poly}_n(G)\text{poly}(K)\mathrm{\Omega }`$
respectively, where poly($``$), resp. poly$`{}_{n}{}^{}()`$, denote arbitrary polynomials in the indicated variable, resp. of degree a most $`n`$ in the variable. Now symmetries are generated by functions of $`/x_1`$ and $`/x_2`$. We will see explicit examples in Section 6.

### 4.2 Probability distributions

Now we shall consider some probabilistic observations. We introduce an inner product such that $`K^{}=\beta ^2P_t`$ and $`G^{}=\beta P_x`$. The $`X_i`$, which are formally symmetric, extend to self-adjoint operators on appropriate domains.

Expectation values are taken in the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., for any operator $`Q`$,

$$Q_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega },Q\mathrm{\Omega }$$

where the normalization $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ is understood.

From $`P_t\mathrm{\Omega }=P_x\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ follows that $`P_t_\mathrm{\Omega }=P_x_\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and moving $`K`$ and $`G`$ across in the inner product, that $`K_\mathrm{\Omega }=G_\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ as well. Going back to equation (4.1), take the inner product on the left with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The exponential factors in $`K`$ and $`G`$ average to 1, yielding

$$e^{z_1X_1}e^{z_2X_2}_\mathrm{\Omega }=(1\beta z_1)^c\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m}{2}\frac{\beta z_2^2}{1\beta z_1}\right)$$

This result has an interesting probabilistic interpretation for positive values of $`\beta `$ and $`c`$. Observe that the marginal distribution of $`X_1`$ (i.e., for $`z_2=0`$) is gamma distribution, while the marginal distribution of $`X_2`$ (now $`z_1=0`$) is Gaussian. Note, however, that these are not independent random variables.

To recover the joint distribution of $`X_1,X_2`$, let us first recall some probability integrals (Fourier transforms):

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\xi y}e^{\lambda y}y^{t1}\lambda ^t\theta (y)𝑑y/\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1i\xi /\lambda )^t,\mathrm{for}t>0`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\eta u}e^{u^2/(2v)}𝑑u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\pi v}e^{\eta ^2v/2},\mathrm{for}v>0`$
where $`\theta (x)`$ denotes the usual Heaviside function, $`\theta (x)=1`$ if $`x0`$, zero otherwise. Replacing $`z_1,z_2`$ by $`iz_1,iz_2`$ respectively and taking inverse Fourier transforms, we have

###### Proposition 4.2

The joint density $`p(x_1,x_2)`$ of the random variables $`X_1,X_2`$ is given by

$$p(x_1,x_2)=e^{x_1/\beta }\left(x_1\frac{x_2^2}{2m}\right)^{\dot{c}1}\beta ^{\dot{c}}\theta \left(x_1\frac{x_2^2}{2m}\right)\frac{dx_1dx_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\dot{c})\sqrt{2\pi m\beta }}$$

for $`c,\beta >0`$, where $`\dot{c}=c1/2`$.

In the first factor, writing $`x_1=x_1x_2^2/(2m)+x_2^2/(2m)`$ shows where the Gaussian factor comes in. The result says that the marginal distribution of $`X_2`$ is Gaussian with mean 0 and variance $`2m\beta `$. Conditional on $`X_2`$, $`X_1`$ is gamma with parameters $`1/\beta `$ and $`c1/2`$ taking values in the interval $`(x_2^2/(2m),\mathrm{})`$. In the special case $`c=1/2`$, i.e., $`\dot{c}=0`$, the gamma density collapses to a delta function: $`\delta (x_1x_2^2/(2m))`$.

## 5 Leibniz function and orthogonal basis

Once the Leibniz formula for our Lie algebra $`𝒮_1`$ is known (Proposition 3.2), we can proceed to define coherent states, find the Leibniz function — inner product of coherent states — and show that we have a Hilbert space with self-adjoint commuting operators $`X_1=P_t+D+K`$ and $`X_2=G+P_x`$ (here the $`\beta `$ in equations (8) is set equal to 1). We recover the raising and lowering operators as elements of the Lie algebra acting on the Hilbert space with basis consisting of the canonical Appell system.

The two-parameter family of coherent states is defined as

$$\psi _V=\psi _{V_1,V_2}=e^{V_1K}e^{V_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Using Proposition 3.2, we see

###### Proposition 5.1

With $`K^{}=P_t`$ and $`G^{}=P_x`$, the Leibniz function is

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}=(1B_1V_1)^c\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m}{2}\frac{B_1V_2^2+2B_2V_2+B_2^2V_1}{1B_1V_1}\right)$$

Proof: Use Proposition 3.2 in the relation

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}=\psi _B,\psi _V=\mathrm{\Omega },e^{B_2P_x}e^{B_1P_t}e^{V_1K}e^{V_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Note that the Leibniz function is symmetric in $`B`$ and $`V`$, which is equivalent to the inner product being symmetric, and thus the Hilbert space being well-defined.

It is remarkable that the Lie algebra can be reconstructed from the Leibniz function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}`$. The idea is that differentiation $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}`$ with respect to $`V_1`$ brings down $`K`$ acting on $`\psi _V`$, while differentiation with respect to $`B_1`$ brings down a $`K`$ acting on $`\psi _B`$ which moves across the inner product as $`P_t`$ acting on $`\psi _V`$. Similarly for $`G`$ and $`P_x`$. We thus introduce canonical bosons, creation operators $`_i`$, and annihilation (velocity) operators $`𝒱_i`$, satisfying $`[𝒱_i,_j]=\delta _{ij}`$. We thus identify $`K=_1`$, $`G=_2`$. Note, however, that $`𝒱_1`$ is not the adjoint of $`_1`$, nor $`𝒱_2`$ that of $`_2`$. In fact, our goal is to determine the boson realization of $`P_t`$ and $`P_x`$, the respective adjoints.

Here is a method to find the boson realization. First, one determines the partial differential equations for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{B_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{V_1}}+V_1V_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{V_2}}+cV_1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\frac{m}{2}V_2^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{B_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{V_2}}+mV_2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$
Then, one interprets each multiplication by $`V_i`$ as the operator $`𝒱_i`$ and each differentiation by $`V_i`$ as the operator $`_i`$. This gives the following action of the operators $`P_x`$ and $`P_t`$ on polynomial functions of $`K`$ and $`G`$:

$$P_x=m𝒱_2+_2𝒱_1,P_t=c𝒱_1+_1𝒱_1^2+\frac{m}{2}𝒱_2^2+_2𝒱_1𝒱_2$$

This means that $`P_x`$ acts on $`|jk=_1^j_2^k|00`$ as follows

$$P_x|jk=mk|j,k1+j|j1,k+1$$

and $`P_t`$ does similarly. The element $`D`$ is recovered via

$$D=[P_t,K]=[c𝒱_1+_1𝒱_1^2+\frac{m}{2}𝒱_2^2+_2𝒱_1𝒱_2,_1]=c+2_1𝒱_1+_2𝒱_2$$

Summarizing, we have

###### Theorem 5.2

The representation of the Schrödinger algebra on the Fock space $``$ with basis $`|jk=K^jG^k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`_1`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`_2`$
$`P_x`$ $`=`$ $`m𝒱_2+_2𝒱_1`$
$`P_t`$ $`=`$ $`c𝒱_1+_1𝒱_1^2+\frac{m}{2}𝒱_2^2+_2𝒱_1𝒱_2`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`c+2_1𝒱_1+_2𝒱_2`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`m`$
###### Corollary 5.3

In the above representation, the Schrödinger operator $`𝐒=P_tP_x^2/(2m)`$ is represented by

$$𝐒=\dot{c}𝒱_1+_o𝒱_1^2$$

where we define $`_0=_1_2^2/(2m)`$, *cf.* Theorem 3.8.

A very important feature of the Leibniz function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}`$ is that it is the generating function for the inner products of the elements of the basis. Indeed, expanding the exponentials defining the coherent states yields

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}=\underset{j,k,j^{},k^{}}{}jk|j^{}k^{}\frac{B_1^jB_2^kV_1^j^{}V_2^k^{}}{j!k!j^{}!k^{}!}$$

For an orthogonal basis, a necessary and sufficient condition is that this must be a function only of the pair products $`B_1V_1`$ and $`B_2V_2`$. We proceed to find an orthogonal basis.

###### Lemma 5.4

The Leibniz function can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}=(1B_1V_1)^{\dot{c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{B_1}{2m}\frac{^2}{B_2^2}+\frac{V_1}{2m}\frac{^2}{V_2^2}\right)e^{mB_2V_2}$$

with $`\dot{c}=c1/2`$.

Proof: In the formulation of Corollary 3.10 first set $`B_2=0`$. Then use the special realization as in equation (7) with $`x=B_2`$. As in Corollary 3.10

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dB_2^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(V_1{\displaystyle \frac{mB_2^2}{2}}+V_2mB_2\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{1B_1V_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{mB_2^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_2}{1B_1V_1}}mB_2\right)`$
$`\times (1B_1V_1)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_1V_2^2}{1B_1V_1}}\right)`$
which combines to yield $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{BV}`$ up to the factor $`(1B_1V_1)^{\dot{c}}`$. Now observe that

$$e^{mB_2V_2+(m/2)V_1B_2^2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V_1}{2m}\frac{^2}{V_2^2}\right)e^{mB_2V_2}$$

where on $`\mathrm{exp}(mB_2V_2)`$, $`/V_2`$ acts simply as multiplication by $`mB_2`$. Combining with the above observations yields the result.

Now for the main result (expressed in terms of $`R_0=KG^2/(2m)`$, see Corollary 5.3)

###### Theorem 5.5

The set $`|ab=R_0^aG^b\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`a,b0`$, forms an orthogonal basis with squared norms equal

$$ab|ab=(\dot{c})_aa!b!m^b$$

where $`(\dot{c})_a=\dot{c}(\dot{c}+1)\mathrm{}(\dot{c}+a1)`$.

Proof: From Lemma 5.4,

$`(1B_1V_1)^{\dot{c}}e^{mB_2V_2}`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{B_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{V_2^2}}\right)e^{B_1K+B_2G}\mathrm{\Omega },e^{V_1K+V_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=e^{B_1(KG^2/(2m))+B_2G)}\mathrm{\Omega },e^{V_1(KG^2/(2m))+V_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=e^{B_1R_0+B_2G}\mathrm{\Omega },e^{V_1R_0+V_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
Now we have the generating function for the inner products $`ab|a^{}b^{}`$ depending only on the pair products $`B_1V_1`$, $`B_2V_2`$. Hence orthogonality. Expanding the left-hand side of the equation yields the squared norms.

Similarly, we have for the canonical Appell system,

###### Proposition 5.6

Let $`X_0=X_1X_2^2/(2m)`$, with the identification $`X_0\mathrm{\Omega }=x_01`$. Then

$$e^{v_0R_0}e^{v_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}(x_0\frac{v_0}{1+\beta v_0})(1+\beta v_0)^{\dot{c}}\mathrm{exp}(x_2v_2\beta mv_2^2/2)$$

Proof: First substitute $`v_0`$ for $`v_1`$ in Proposition 4.1. And observe that

$$e^{v_0R_0}e^{v_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{v_0}{2m}\frac{^2}{v_2^2}\right)e^{v_0K}e^{v_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Now use the special realization, equation (7), taking $`x=v_2`$ in Corollary 3.10, with

$$B_1=v_0,B_2=0,V_1=\frac{\beta }{1+\beta v_0},V_2=\frac{x_2/m}{1+\beta v_0}$$

After substituting accordingly and simplifying, one finds the stated result.

Note that now the system decouples into Laguerre polynomials in the variable $`x_0`$ and Hermite polynomials in the variable $`x_2`$.

## 6 Evolution equations and Appell systems

We shall now consider evolutions on the 2-dimensional space $`M`$ spanned by $`G`$ and $`R_0`$ in terms of scalar functions $`u`$ on $`M`$ parametrized by time $`\tau `$. Note that polynomial functions on $`M`$ can be interpreted as vectors of the Fock space $`=\text{span}\{|jk=K^jG^k\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ of the representation of the Schrödinger algebra. The evolution equation is

$$u_\tau =Hu$$
(12)
where the subscript $`\tau `$ denotes differentiation over the time parameter. For generators of evolutions, we shall consider operator functions $`H=H(P_t,P_x)`$. In order to have an operator calculus, the function $`H`$ is chosen so that $`H(/x_1,/x_2)`$ generates a Lévy process on $`𝐑^2`$, with its associated convolution semigroup of probability measures providing the fundamental solution to the evolution equation (12). Taking such a process $`w(\tau )=(w_1(\tau ),w_2(\tau ))`$ with generator $`H`$, consider the action of the group element $`\mathrm{exp}(w_1(\tau )P_x+w_2(\tau )P_t)`$ as an operator on functions of $`K`$ and $`G`$. Then the (partial) group law yields the solution to the evolution equation $`u_\tau =Hu`$ with elements of the basis $`|jk=K^jG^k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as initial functions. These are Appell systems on the Schrödinger algebra. In this case, since the elements $`P_x`$ and $`P_t`$ commute, the process considered on the group is essentially the same as that in Euclidean space, and we have an operator calculus for the operators $`P_t`$ and $`P_x`$ via the generator of the process $`H`$.

As we have seen in the previous section, it is convenient to use $`R_0`$ instead of $`K`$, so we will take as initial functions $`|ab=R_0^aG^b\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A special case of Proposition 3.2, with $`B_2=V_2=0`$ gives the Leibniz formula for sl(2), namely

$$e^{w_1L_0}e^{v_0R_0}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{v_0}{1v_0w_1}R_0\right)(1v_0w_1)^{\rho _0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{w_1}{1v_0w_1}L_0\right)$$

Similarly, taking in the same formula $`B_1=V_1=0`$, yields the Leibniz formula for the HW-algebra, which we want in the form

$$\mathrm{exp}(w_2P_x)\mathrm{exp}(v_2G)=\mathrm{exp}(mw_2v_2)\mathrm{exp}(v_2G)\mathrm{exp}(w_2P_x)$$

Thus,

###### Proposition 6.1

The abelian subgroup generated by $`P_t`$ and $`P_x`$ on the basis $`|ab`$ has generating function

$`e^{w_1P_t+w_2P_x}e^{v_0R_0+v_2G}\mathrm{\Omega }=`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{1v_0w_1}}R_0\right)(1v_0w_1)^{\dot{c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(v_2(G+mw_2)+mw_1v_2^2/2\right)`$
Proof: First, use the fact that $`P_x`$ commutes with $`R_0`$ together with the Leibniz formula for the HW-algebra to yield

$$e^{w_1P_t}e^{v_0R_0}e^{v_2G}e^{mw_2v_2}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Now write, using the standard form, Theorem 3.8, $`L=L_0+L_1`$, with $`L_1=P_x^2/(2m)`$. Since $`L_1`$ commutes with $`R_0`$, we have

$$e^{w_1L_0}e^{v_0R_0}e^{w_1L_1}e^{v_2G}e^{mw_2v_2}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

We can reconstitute $`L_1`$ as $`P_t`$ since $`L_0`$ commutes with $`G`$, and use Proposition 3.2, or, equivalently, think of $`P_x`$ as acting formally like $`m{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dG}}`$. In any case, we arrive at

$$e^{w_1L_0}e^{v_0R_0}e^{w_1L_1}e^{v_2G}e^{mw_2v_2+mw_1v_2^2/2}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Now use the Leibniz formula for sl(2) mentioned above, and since the $`\rho _0`$ and $`L_0`$ commute with $`G`$, and $`\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }=\dot{c}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the stated result follows.

Finally, the solution to the evolution equation $`u_\tau =Hu`$ is found by averaging over $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$, i.e., the angle brackets on the right-hand side denoting expected value,

$$e^{\tau H(P_t,P_x)}|ab=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{v_0}{1v_0w_1}R_0\right)(1v_0w_1)^{\dot{c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(v_2(G+mw_2)+mw_1v_2^2/2\right)$$

Expanding in $`v_0,v_2`$ and evaluating moments of the process yields the corresponding Appell systems.

For $`w_1,w_2`$ independent Gaussians with mean zero and variance $`\tau `$, we have $`H(P_t,P_x)=\frac{1}{2}(P_t^2+P_x^2)`$, with $`u_\tau =Hu`$ a natural extension of the classical heat equation.


text:
# Implications of Recent Measurements of Nonleptonic Charmless 𝐵 Decays

## 1 $`B\pi \pi `$, $`\pi K`$ Decays

Both $`B`$ factories BELLE  and BABAR  have reported at this conference the preliminary results of $`BK\pi `$ and $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (see Table I). For the unitary angle $`\gamma 60^{}`$, the ratio $`R=(BK^\pm \pi ^{})/(B\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ is conventionally predicted to lie in the region 1.3$``$2.0, to be compared with the experimental values of $`4.0\pm 1.6`$, $`2.8\pm 2.0`$ and $`1.3\pm 0.5`$ obtained by CLEO , BELLE and BABAR, respectively. Hence, the expected ratio $`R`$ is smaller than the CLEO and BELLE results and in agreement with BABAR. Of course, more data are needed to clarify the issue.

If the CLEO or BELLE data are taken seriously, we may ask the question of how to accommodate the data of $`K\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ simultaneously. A fit to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ yields $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)<0.25`$ for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.09`$ and $`\gamma =60^{}`$. The $`K\pi `$ rates will then become too small compared to the data. By contrast, a fit to $`K\pi `$ modes usually implies a too large $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ rate. There are several possibilities that the CLEO or BELLE data of $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ can be accommodated: (1) $`\gamma 60^{}`$ and $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)<0.25`$ with a smaller strange quark mass, say $`m_s(m_b)=60`$ MeV. The idea is that the $`K\pi `$ mode will receive a sizable $`(SP)(S+P)`$ penguin contributions, while the $`\pi \pi `$ decay is not much affected. However, a rather smaller $`m_s`$ is not consistent with recent lattice calculations. (2) $`\gamma 60^{}`$ and $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)=0.30`$ with the following cases: (i) a smaller $`V_{ub}`$, say $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.06`$, so that the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ rate is suppressed. However, this small $`V_{ub}`$ is not favored by data. (ii) a large nonzero isospin $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift difference of order, say $`70^{}`$, can yield a substantial suppression of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode . However, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ will be substantially enhanced by the same strong phase. The CLEO new measurement  $`(B\pi ^0\pi ^0)<5.7\times 10^6`$ indicates that the strong phase cannot be too large. (iii) a large inelasticity for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`D^+D^{}`$ modes so that the former is suppressed whereas the latter is enhanced. (3) a large $`\gamma `$, say $`\gamma (110130)^{}`$, and $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)=0.30`$. Several calculations  based on generalized or QCD improved factorization imply $`\gamma >100^{}`$. This scenario is interesting and popular, but it encounters two problems: (i) It is in conflict with the unitary angle $`\gamma =(58.5\pm 7.1)^{}`$ extracted from the global CKM fit. (ii) The CLEO data other than $`K\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ do not strongly support a large $`\gamma `$ (see below). (4) $`\gamma 90^{}`$ and $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)=0.25`$ as assumed in a recent PQCD analysis . In this work, the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ rate is small because of the small form factor $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)`$, and $`K\pi `$ rates are enhanced by large penguin effects owing to steep $`\mu `$ dependence of the leading-order penguin coefficients $`c_4(\mu )`$ and $`c_6(\mu )`$ at the hard scale $`t<m_b/2`$.

As shown in , the nonfactorized term is dominated by hard gluon exchange in the heavy quark limit as soft gluon contributions to $`\chi _i`$ are suppressed by orders of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. However, there is an additional chirally enhanced corrections to the spectator-interaction diagram, which are logarithmically divergent . For example, an additional $`(VA)(VA)`$ spectator interaction proportional to the twist-3 wave function $`\varphi _\sigma ^\pi `$ will contribute to $`B\pi \pi ,\pi K`$. Consequently, the nonfactorized contribution to the coefficient $`a_2(\pi \pi )`$, for example, can be large ; its real part lies in the range 0.17–0.25. This will affect the prediction of $`B\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and in particular $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. We find that even in the leading-twist approximation, the same logarithmically divergent integral also appears in the charm quark mass corrections to the spectator-interaction diagram in $`BJ/\psi K(K^{})`$ decays . As a result, Re$`a_2(J/\psi K)`$ is in the vicinity of 0.22.

## 2 $`B\rho \pi ,\omega \pi `$ Decays

The class-III decays $`B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm ,\omega \pi ^\pm `$ are tree-dominated and sensitive to $`(N_c^{\mathrm{eff}})_2`$ appearing in $`a_2`$; their branching ratios decrease with $`(N_c^{\mathrm{eff}})_2`$. The present data

$`(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`(10.4_{3.4}^{+3.3}\pm 2.1)\times 10^6,`$
$`(B^\pm \omega \pi ^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`(11.3_{2.9}^{+3.3}\pm 1.5)\times 10^6,`$
imply $`(N_c^{\mathrm{eff}})_2<3`$ as in $`BD\pi `$ decays.

The decay rate of $`\rho ^0\pi ^\pm `$ is sensitive to $`\gamma `$, while $`\omega \pi ^\pm `$ is not. For example, $`(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )/(B^\pm \omega \pi ^\pm )1`$ for $`\gamma 60^{}`$, and $`(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )/(B^\pm \omega \pi ^\pm )>1`$ for $`\gamma >90^{}`$ if $`A_0^{B\omega }(0)=A_0^{B\rho }(0)`$. Therefore, a large $`\gamma `$ preferred by the previous measurement  $`(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )=(15\pm 5\pm 4)\times 10^6`$, is no longer favored by the new measurement of $`\rho ^0\pi ^\pm `$.

## 3 $`B\varphi K`$ Decays

The previous limit for the branching ratio of $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$ is $`0.59\times 10^5`$ at 90% C.L. However, CLEO has also seen a $`3\sigma `$ evidence for the decay $`B\varphi K^{}`$. Its branching ratio, the average of $`\varphi K^{}`$ and $`\varphi K^0`$ modes, is reported to be  $`(B\varphi K^{})=\left(1.1_{0.5}^{+0.6}\pm 0.2\right)\times 10^5`$. Theoretical calculations based on factorization indicate that the branching ratio of $`\varphi K`$ is similar to that of $`\varphi K^{}`$. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the non-observation of $`\varphi K`$.

An observation of the $`\varphi K`$ signal was reported at this conference to be $`(6.4_{2.12.0}^{+2.5+0.5})\times 10^6`$ by CLEO  and $`(17.2_{5.4}^{+6.7}\pm 1.8)\times 10^6`$ by BELLE . The decay amplitude of the penguin-dominated mode $`BK\varphi `$ is governed by $`[a_3+a_4+a_5\frac{1}{2}(a_7+a_9+a_{10})]`$, where $`a_3`$ and $`a_5`$ are sensitive to nonfactorized contributions. In the absence of nonfactorized effects, we find $`(B^\pm \varphi K^\pm )=(6.37.3)\times 10^6`$, which is in good agreement with the CLEO result, but smaller than the BELLE measurement.

## 4 $`BK\eta ^{},K^{}\eta `$ Decays

The decays $`BK^{()}\eta (\eta ^{})`$ involve interference between the penguin amplitudes arising from $`(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ and $`\overline{s}s`$ components of the $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$. The branching ratios of $`K\eta ^{}`$ ($`K^{}\eta `$) are anticipated to be much greater than $`K\eta `$ ($`K^{}\eta ^{}`$) modes owing to the presence of constructive interference between two comparable penguin amplitudes arising from non-strange and strange quarks of the $`\eta ^{}(\eta )`$.

The measured branching ratios of the decays $`B\eta ^{}K`$ are

$`(B^\pm \eta ^{}K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(80_9^{+10}\pm 7\right)\times 10^6,`$
$`(B^0\eta ^{}K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(89_{16}^{+18}\pm 9\right)\times 10^6,`$ (2)
by CLEO  and $`(62\pm 18\pm 8)\times 10^6`$, $`<1.12\times 10^4`$, respectively by BABAR . The earlier theoretical predictions in the range of $`(12)\times 10^5`$ are too small compared to experiment. It was realized later (for a review, see e.g. ) that $`\eta ^{}K`$ gets enhanced because of (i) the small running strange quark mass at the scale $`m_b`$, (ii) the sizable $`SU(3)`$ breaking in the decay constants $`f_8`$ and $`f_0`$, (iii) an enhancement of the form factor $`F_0^{B\eta ^{}}(0)`$ due to the smaller mixing $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing angle $`15.4^{}`$ rather than $`20^{}`$, (iv) contribution from the $`\eta ^{}`$ charm content, and (v) constructive interference in tree amplitudes. It was also realized not long ago that  the above-mentioned enhancement is partially washed out by the anomaly effect in the matrix element of pseudoscalar densities, an effect overlooked before. As a consequence, the net enhancement is not very large; we find $`(B^\pm K^\pm \eta ^{})=(4050)\times 10^6`$, which is still smaller than the CLEO result but consistent with the BELLE measurement. This implies that we probably need an additional (but not dominant !) SU(3)-singlet contribution to explain the $`BK\eta ^{}`$ puzzle.

Finally, it is worth remarking that if $`\gamma >90^{}`$, the charged mode $`\eta ^{}K^{}`$ will get enhanced, while the neutral mode $`\eta ^{}K^0`$ remains stable . The present data of $`K\eta ^{}`$ cannot differentiate between $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma >0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma <0`$.

## 5  $`B\omega K`$ and $`\rho K`$ Decays

The published CLEO result  of a large branching ratio $`\left(15_6^{+7}\pm 2\right)\times 10^6`$ for $`B^\pm \omega K^\pm `$ imposes a serious problem to the generalized factorization approach: The observed rate is enormously large compared to naive expectation . The destructive interference between $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$ terms renders the penguin contribution small. It is thus difficult to understand the large rate of $`\omega K`$. Theoretically, it is expected that (BωK)>

 2(Bρ0K)2×106similar-tosuperscript𝐵𝜔superscript𝐾>

2superscript𝐵superscript𝜌0superscript𝐾2superscript106{\cal B}(B^{-}\to\omega K^{-}){\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
}}}\ }2{\cal B}(B^{-}\to\rho^{0}K^{-})\sim 2\times 10^{-6}, which now agrees with the new measurement  of $`(B^{}\omega K^{})<7.9\times 10^6`$.


text:
# REFERENCES

p-BRANE ACTION FROM GRAVI-DILATON

EFFECTIVE ACTION

J. A. Nieto***nieto@uas.uasnet.mx and C. M Yee

Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas de la Universidad Autónoma

de Sinaloa, C.P. 80010, Culiacán Sinaloa, México

Abstract

Using a special ansatz for the metric, by straightforward computation we prove that gravi-dilaton effective action in higher dimensions is reduced to the p-brane action. The dual symmetry of the generic type $`a\frac{1}{a}`$ is an important symmetry of the reduced action.

Pacs numbers: 11.10.Kk, 04.50.+h, 12.60.-i

July/2000

In this brief note, by a straightforward computation we prove the surprising result that using a particular ansatz for the metric the gravi-dilaton action in $`d+1`$ dimensions is reduced to the $`p`$brane action. This result may be of special interest in the Randall-Sundrum scenario \[1-2\], string theory  and M-theory .

Our starting point is the graviton-dilaton effective action with cosmological constant:

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{d+1}}d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g}e^\varphi (R+(\varphi )^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(1)
where $`G_{d+1\text{ }}`$is the Newton constant in $`d+1`$ dimensions, $`\varphi =\varphi (y^\alpha )`$ is the dilaton field and $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar obtained from the Riemann tensor

$$R_{\nu \alpha \beta }^\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \beta ,\alpha }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha ,\beta }^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \alpha }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \beta }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \beta }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^\sigma $$
(2)
and the metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, with $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1\mathrm{},d`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ is the Christoffel symbol:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }(g_{\nu \alpha ,\beta }+g_{\nu \beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,\nu }).$$
(3)
Consider the ansatz

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g_{AB}& =& \stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}(y^C),\\ & & \\ g_{ij}& =& a_k(y^C)a_l(y^C)\eta _{ij}^{kl},\\ & & \\ g_{Ai}& =& 0.\end{array}$$
(4)
Here, the indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}etc.`$ run from $`0`$ to $`p,`$ the indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}etc.`$ run from $`p+1`$ to $`d`$ and the only non-vanishing terms of $`\eta _{ij}^{kl}`$ are

$$\eta _{ij}^{kl}=1\text{, when }k=l=i=j.$$
(5)
Assume that

$$\varphi =\varphi (y^C).$$
(6)
From (3), (4) and (6) we find that the only non-vanishing Christoffel symbols are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^A& =& a_k^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl},\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{jA}^i& =& a^k_Aa_l\eta _{kj}^{li},\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A& =& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BC}^A,\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BC}^A`$ is the Christoffel symbol associated to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}.`$ Here, $`a^i=a_i^1,`$ so we can take $`g^{ij}=a^ka^l\eta _{kl}^{ij}.`$

From (2), (4) and (7) we discover that the only non-vanishing components of the Riemann tensor are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_{BCD}^A& =& \stackrel{~}{R}_{BCD}^A,\\ & & \\ R_{iBj}^A& =& a_kD_B^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl},\\ & & \\ R_{AjB}^i& =& a^kD_B_Aa_l\eta _{kj}^{li},\\ & & \\ R_{jkl}^i& =& a^m^Aa_na_r_Aa_s(\eta _{mk}^{ni}\eta _{jl}^{rs}\eta _{ml}^{ni}\eta _{jk}^{rs}).\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`D_A`$ denotes a covariant derivative in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BC}^A`$. From (8) we find that the non-vanishing components of the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha `$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_{AB}& =& \stackrel{~}{R}_{AB}a^iD_B_Aa_i,\\ & & \\ R_{ij}& =& (a_kD^A_Aa_l+a^ma_k_Aa_m^Aa_l_Aa_k^Aa_l)\eta _{ij}^{kl}.\end{array}$$
(9)
Thus, the Ricci scalar $`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu \text{ }}`$is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R& =& 2a^iD^A_Aa_ia^ia^j_Aa_i^Aa_j\\ & & \\ & & +a^ia^j_Aa_k^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+\stackrel{~}{R}.\end{array}$$
(10)
Therefore, the action (1) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S& =& \frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi \{2a^iD^A_Aa_ia^ia^j^Aa_i_Aa_j\\ & & \\ & & +a^ia^j^Aa_k_Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+^A\varphi _A\varphi +\stackrel{~}{R}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\},\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`G_{p+1\text{ }}`$is the Newton constant in $`p+1`$ dimensions. The relation between $`G_{p+1\text{ }}`$and $`G_{d+1\text{ }}`$is

$$\frac{1}{G_{p+1\text{ }}}=\frac{V_n}{G_{d+1\text{ }}},$$
(12)
where $`V_n`$ is a volume element in $`n=dp`$ dimensions. This action can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}D^A(2\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi a^i_Aa_i)\\ \\ \frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi \{a^ia^j^Aa_i_Aa_j2^A\varphi a^i_Aa_i\\ \\ +^A\varphi _A\varphi a^ia^j^Aa_k_Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi \stackrel{~}{R}.\end{array}$$
(13)
Classically, since the first term in (13) is a total derivative we can be drop it. Therefore, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi \{a^ia^j^Aa_i_Aa_j2^A\varphi a^i_Aa_i+\\ \\ +^A\varphi _A\varphi a^ia^j^Aa_k_Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi \stackrel{~}{R}.\end{array}$$
(14)
Let us define $`x^0`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }a_se^\varphi =e^{x^0}.$$
(15)
We find

$$x^0=\varphi \mathrm{ln}a_s$$
(16)
and therefore,

$$_Ax^0=_A\varphi a^s_Aa_s.$$
(17)
Thus, the action (13) becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}e^{x^0}\{^Ax^0_Ax^0+a^ia^j^Aa_k_Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\\ \\ \frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}d^{p+1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}e^{x^0}\stackrel{~}{R},\end{array}$$
(18)
It is not difficult to see that (18) is invariant under the duality transformation

$`a_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_i}}.`$

Let us define the p-brane coupling “constant” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ in the form

$$\frac{e^{x^0}}{16\pi G_{p+1\text{ }}}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_p}$$
(19)
and the variables $`x^i`$ as

$$x^i\mathrm{ln}a_i.$$
(20)
Using the expression (19) we find that (18) can be rewritten in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S& =& \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\{^Ax^0_Ax^0+a^ia^j^Aa_k_Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{R}.\end{array}$$
(21)
If we now consider the definition (20) we find that (21) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S& =& \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\{^Ax^0_Ax^0+^Ax^i_Ax^j\delta _{ij}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\}\\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{R}.\end{array}$$
(22)
We easily note that (22) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S& =& \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}[\stackrel{~}{g}^{AB}_Ax^{\widehat{\mu }}_Bx^{\widehat{\nu }}\eta _{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}2\mathrm{\Lambda }]\\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{p+1}y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{R},\end{array}$$
(23)
where $`\eta _{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}=diag(1,1,\mathrm{},1).`$ Here the indices $`\widehat{\mu },\widehat{\nu },\mathrm{}`$etc run from $`0`$ to $`n=dp.`$ By setting the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{p1}{2},$$
(24)
we recognize the action (23) as the p-brane action.

Let us make some final comments. We have shown explicitly that the p-brane structure is contained in a higher dimensional effective gravi-dilaton theory. In fact, our result is very general since applies to any higher dimensional effective gravi-dilaton theory and any p-brane. The case of 0-brane (point particle) corresponds to a cosmological model and in fact such a case has already been considered in the literature (see Ref.  and references there in). The case of 1-brane, corresponding to strings, is of great importance and deserve a special discussion.

From the point of view of the traditional string theory history our result is clearly intriguing and surprising. Since for strings $`p=1,`$ from (24) we see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and the action (23) is reduced to the well-known Polyakov action. Let us assume that this reduced action is the bosonic sector of the superstring action. We know that for superstrings, at the quantum level, the Weyl invariance implies that $`n+1=10.`$ Therefore, in this case the effective action (1) is defined in $`d+1=11`$ dimensions. Consequently, (1) can be thought as the bosonic sector of eleven dimensional supergravity and in this sense our result is in agreement with M-theory.


text:
# A search for clusters at high redshift

## 1 Introduction

One of the most intriguing questions in modern astrophysics concerns the formation of large scale structure in the early Universe (e.g. Bahcall et al. 1997). Although various scenarios have been developed within the context of modern cosmological models, the epoch and mechanism of the formation of galaxy clusters are still open questions.
Despite several tentative identifications of clusters and groups at high redshift (e.g. Keel et al. 1999; Campos et al. 1999; Pascarelle et al. 1998), there is yet no solid identification of collapsed clusters or groups at redshifts above 1.5. Recently Steidel et al. (2000) reported the discovery of a significant overdensity of galaxies at $`z3.1`$ and pointed out its possible association with a quasar.
During the last few years evidence that distant radio galaxies may be located in over-dense environments has mounted (e.g. Röttgering et al. 1999). Because such objects can be detected out to $`z>5`$, we have begun a programme to survey their surroundings for galaxy overdensities. As a good candidate for a pilot project we selected the powerful radio galaxy 1138–262 from a compendium of more than 150 $`z>2`$ known radio galaxies, for several reasons, including (i) its extremely clumpy optical morphology and large size that resembles simulations of forming massive galaxies (Pentericci et al. 1998); (ii) its extreme Faraday rotation and distorted radio morphology indicating a dense magnetized surrounding gas and (iii) its detection of possibly extended X-ray emission (Carilli et al. 1998).
Deep VLT narrow and broad band imaging of 1138–262, carried out during April 1999 (Kurk et al. 2000, hereafter Paper I), revealed 50 candidate Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters in a $`7^{}\times 7^{}`$ field around the radio source. The derived luminosity function indicated a possible overdensity of galaxies in this field, expecially considering that a large fraction of the starburst galaxies and the more passive elliptical galaxies would not show Ly$`\alpha `$ emission. Therefore these observations strongly suggested the presence of a forming cluster around 1138–262. Here we report on follow up spectroscopic observations of these cluster candidates. 222 Throughout this paper we assume a Hubble constant of $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and a deceleration parameter of $`q_0=0.5`$

## 2 Selection, observations and data reduction

The observations were carried out on March 1, 2 and April 7, 2000 with the 8.2m VLT Antu telescope (UT1), using the FORS1 imaging spectrograph in the multi-object spectroscopic (MOS) mode with standard resolution, giving a pixel scale of 0.2′′ and a field of view of 6.8$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$ 6.8. The first two nights were photometric, the third was not. The spectra were obtained with the 600B grism, using a wavelength range from 3450 to 5900 Å, depending on the position of the slit in the set–up and with a dispersion of 1.2 Å pixel-1.

Three different set–ups were used, each with 19 slits. We have chosen a slit size of 1′′, which gives a resolution of $`5`$ Å corresponding to about 400 km s-1 at $`z=2.16`$. The MOS set–up constrains the choice of targets. Therefore, to allow a wider choice of targets, we included in our list of candidate Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters not only the 50 objects selected in Paper I, that had equivalent width (EQW) $`65`$ Å (corresponding to a rest-frame EQW of 20 Å) and a narrow band flux density $``$ 2 $`\times 10^{19}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1, but also those with fluxes below this limit. The total number of possible targets was then 75 instead of 50.

Of the 57 slits available, we placed 2 on different components of the central radio galaxy, and 46 on candidate Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters (3 of which were observed twice). Of the remaining 9 slits, 3 (one in each set–up) were placed on relatively bright stars to check that the slits were positioned properly, and 6 were placed on additional objects, with EQW just below the cutoff adopted in Paper I.
The observations were divided into multiple one hour exposures to facilitate removal of cosmic-ray effects from the final image. The first set–up was observed for a total of 6 hours, the second for 5.5 hours, and the third for 4 hours. All observations were carried out at airmass less than 1.5.

The data were reduced using standard IRAF procedures: after bias subtraction and flat field removal, for each slit the background was subtracted from the data avoiding regions where the spectrum was visible. A relative flux calibration was obtained from a longslit observation with the 600B grating of the spectrophotometric standard star GD108 (Oke 1990). Wavelength calibration was obtained from exposures of He and HgCd arc-lamps taken on the afternoon before the observations. The accuracy of the wavelength calibration was better than 0.2Å. One–dimensional spectra were extracted for all objects, using aperture sizes which included all the emission.

## 3 Results

For 15 candidates we obtained a clear detection of an emission line, which we identify as Ly$`\alpha `$ at redshift of 2.16$`\pm `$0.02. Alternative line identifications such as \[O II\]$`\lambda `$3727 from $`z0.02`$ objects are unlikely, since the H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\]5007 lines should then be visible in the spectra. Furthermore, the probability to observe a foreground galaxy is very small, since the differential volume element at $`z0.02`$ is 370 times smaller than that at redshift 2.16. One of the 15 emitters is an AGN. We also detect emission from several components of the central radio galaxy 1138–262, which we shall discuss in a companion paper (Kurk et al. *in preparation*).
Besides the 15 Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters, an additional 13 objects show (mostly faint) continuum emission, but none have detectable lines therefore their redshifts remain undetermined. Five of these 13 objects show a decrement in continuum around the wavelength which would correspond to a Lyman break at a redshift $`2`$, so they could also be high redshift galaxies. Alternatively this spectral shape could be attributed to evolved stellar populations in faint low redshift galaxies. Note that in general the objects observed do not have strong continuum emission, because of our selection criteria.

The success rate of our selection criteria is 70% for prime candidates (i.e. having an observed EQW $`>195`$ Å), 40% for secondary candidates (having EQW $`>130`$ Å), 19% for tertiary targets (EQW $`>65`$ Å), and 17% for the rest. The undetected objects with large EQW all have low expected Ly$`\alpha `$ flux. Therefore the non–detections are probably due to a lack of signal to noise.

Spectra of the newly discovered galaxies are shown in Fig. 1 and that of the AGN in Fig. 2. In Table 1 we report the positions, the redshift calculated from the peak position of the Ly$`\alpha `$ emission, the total flux in ergs s-1 cm-2, the rest frame EQW, the restframe deconvolved FWHM of the Ly$`\alpha `$ line in km s-1, determined by fitting the emission with a Gaussian function. Most of the emission lines have, to a first approximation, symmetric shapes, although in some cases the lines show structures and in one object a velocity gradient. We will consider this aspect further in follow-up work. In Table 1 we also report the B-band magnitude determined from the broad band observations of Paper I.

The mean rest frame EQW for our sample of galaxies is 60 Å and the distribution is nearly uniform from 15 to 150 Å. There are several objects with EQW in excess of 100 Å. This is significantly different from what is obtained by Steidel et al. (2000) for a large sample of galaxies at redshift around 3: they find no galaxies with EQW larger than 100 Å. While our results are most probably due to our observational strategy, that emphasizes large EQW objects, it is also possible that some of our targets contain an AGN component, since photoionization from hot stars is unlikely to produce rest frame EQW much higher than 100 Å (e.g. Charlot & Fall 1993).
The QSO shows Ly$`\alpha `$, Si IV and C IV emission lines, and the Ly$`\alpha `$ has a FWHM of 5800 km s-1. The Ly$`\alpha `$ and C IV lines have a double–peaked profile that is due to absorption by neutral gas. The fact that also C IV is absorbed indicates that the gas is metal enriched (e.g. Binette et al. 2000). The Ly$`\alpha `$/C IV line ratio appears depressed compared to normal values for QSOs (Ly$`\alpha `$/C IV $`2.5`$ from composite spectra of QSO BLRs, Osterbrock 1989). This could be caused by the presence of dust.

## 4 Discussion

In Fig. 3 we show the redshift distribution of the 15 newly discovered galaxies, together with a Gaussian curve representing the approximate normalized sensitivity of the narrow band filter, used at the beginning of the project to select the candidate emitters (Paper I). The velocities of the galaxies with confirmed redshifts are not distributed according to the selection function, but appear to be clustered around the redshift of the central radio source ($`z=2.156`$).

It is instructive to compare the total comoving volume density of this structure of galaxies to that of the spike at redshift 3.09, found by Steidel et al. (2000), which consists of 24 galaxies and represents an overdensity of a factor $`6`$ compared to the field. Note that only 12 of these 24 galaxies have been subsequently also found using NB selection criteria similar to ours: the remaining ones have weak or absent Ly$`\alpha `$ emission or Ly$`\alpha `$ deficits.
For a meaningful comparison, we adopt the same intrinsic luminosity cut as Steidel et al. (corresponding to their NB mangnitude limit of NB $``$ 25, in AB magnitudes). This brings down the number of emitters we would have detected in our field to 4 (including the central radio galaxy). We then multiply this number by a factor two to compensate for the galaxies without Ly$`\alpha `$ emission. The comoving volume for our field size (8.2 Mpc2) and redshift range ($`2.139z2.170`$) is 3830 Mpc3, resulting in a volume density of 2.1 $`\times 10^3`$ objects Mpc-3. This is approximately equal to the density of the Steidel et al. spike, with 24 galaxies in a total comoving volume of 11040 Mpc3, resulting in a density of 2.2 $`\times 10^3`$ objects Mpc-3.

The following obvious question is whether the overdensity of galaxies around 1138–262 is due to a structure that is, or will become, a gravitationally bound cluster. To investigate this matter further we discuss some additional properties of the data. The total velocity dispersion of the structure is 1200 $`\pm `$160 km s-1 (1000$`\pm `$140 km s-1 excluding the QSO), calculated as the standard deviation from the mean, i.e. assuming an underlying Gaussian velocity distribution. This would imply a mass larger than 5 (3.5) $`\times `$ 10$`{}_{}{}^{14}M_{}^{}`$, assuming a radius of 1.5 Mpc. However, the velocity distribution of the galaxies (Fig. 3) clearly differs from a Gaussian. The galaxies seem to cluster in two subgroups with seven members each, centered at median redshifts of 2.145$`\pm 0.002`$ and 2.164$`\pm 0.002`$, with the QSO as an outlier. Using the gapper sigma, suggested by Beers et al. (1990) as a better scale estimator for very small samples of objects, we obtain a velocity dispersion of 520$`\pm 140`$ km s-1 and 280$`\pm 70`$ km s-1 respectively. The implied total masses of each subgroup separately are considerably lower, $`9\times 10^{13}M_{}`$ and $`3\times 10^{13}M_{}`$. The detection of a larger number of galaxies is needed to establish the internal kinematics of these structures so that more definitive statements can be made about the virialization and mass distribution.
To further investigate possible spatial clustering of the galaxies we computed the angular two–point correlation function. The subgroups are too small to obtain any significant statistical results, but using the Landy-Szalay estimator (Landy & Szalay lan93 (1993)) for the 15 galaxies and 1138–262, we detect a signal at distances of $`25^{\prime \prime }`$ due to the occurrence of 6 close pairs in our sample and at $`150^{\prime \prime }`$ with significance of 99.7% and 99.8% respectively. We also used the estimator introduced by Phillips (1985) to measure the correlation between the positions of observed objects and the position of a known object (in this case the radio galaxy), but the distribution of emitters around 1138–262 was not found to be significantly different from a random one.
Although we find no significant spatial segregation between the two subgroups, this may be masked by (i) the small number of galaxies so far detected, (ii) bias introduced by constraints in the slit positions simultaneously accessible to the FORS MOS and (iii) our identification of all clumps within the 150–kpc sized Ly$`\alpha `$ halo surrounding 1138–262 as components of the central radio galaxy.
We note that the few high redshift clusters known show similar substructures and do not appear concentrated in the sky. Examples include the cluster around 3C234 (e.g. Dickinson 1997) at redshift $``$ 1.1; the concentration of red objects at $`z`$ 1.3 found by Liu et al. (2000), and the structure found by Rosati et al. at redshift $``$ 1.27, consisting of two collapsed systems (Rosati et al. 1999; Stanford et al. 1997). Similarly, Steidel et al. (2000) find that the distribution of the local density of galaxies for their z$`=`$3.09 spike, has 3 significant density peaks.
Cluster substructures are not only frequently observed, but they are also consistent with the predictions of hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation. As Governato et al. (1998) argue, such concentrations of galaxies at high redshift are probably the progenitors of local rich clusters. Given the small velocity separation, the velocity subgroups found in 1138–262 are likely to merge, evolving into the larger structures seen in the local Universe.

## 5 Conclusions

We have confirmed the existence of a substantial overdensity of galaxies within 1.5 Mpc of the high redshift radio galaxy 1138–262. We have found at least 15 galaxies at approximately the same distance as the radio source which seem to consist of two subgroups. The new results taken together with previous work show that 1138–262 at $`z=2.16`$ has many ingredients that might be expected from a forming cluster, namely a substantial galaxy overdensity, a central galaxy resembling a forming massive central cluster galaxy and the presence of hot X-ray–emitting gas. These results also confirm that radio galaxies can be used to pinpoint regions of galaxies overdensity at high redshifts and to probe the formation of large–scale structures in the early universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work by WvB at IGPP/LLNL was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-48.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Investigation of lepton–number violating processes is one of the most promising ways of probing physics beyond the standard model. A particular aspect of this topic is lepton–number violation in the neutrino sector, which in the case of massive neutrinos would allow a variety of new phenomena. For recent reviews see .

Such processes emerge immediately in case of Majorana masses of the neutrinos, which are predicted in most GUT–theories. Reactions associated with Majorana neutrinos are typically characterised by violating lepton number by two units ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ = 2).
The gold plated channel to search for massive Majorana neutrinos is neutrinoless double beta decay of nuclei ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_e`$ = 2)

$$(A,Z)(A,Z+2)+2e^{}$$
(1)
A lot of activity was spent over the past decades to push half-life limits for this decay beyond $`10^{25}`$ yrs and therefore the measuring quantity, called effective Majorana mass $`m_{ee}`$ down below 1 eV. The best limit currently available is obtained for $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge`$ and results in an upper limit of $`m_{ee}`$ of about 0.2 eV . The quantity $`m_{ee}`$ is given by

$$m_{ee}=U_{em}^2m_m\eta _m^{\mathrm{CP}}$$
(2)
where $`m_m`$ are the mass eigenvalues, $`\eta _m^{\mathrm{CP}}=\pm 1`$ the relative CP–phases and $`U_{em}`$ the mixing matrix elements.
In general, there is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix of effective Majorana masses, the elements being

$$\begin{array}{c}m_{\alpha \beta }=|(U\mathrm{diag}(m_1\eta _1^{\mathrm{CP}},m_2\eta _2^{\mathrm{CP}},m_3\eta _3^{\mathrm{CP}})U^\mathrm{T})_{\alpha \beta }|\\ =\left|m_m\eta _m^{\mathrm{CP}}U_{\alpha m}U_{\beta m}\right|\text{ with }\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau .\end{array}$$
(3)
In contrast to neutrinoless double beta decay little is known about the other matrix elements. In this paper the current status of the full matrix is reviewed as well as suggestions for future improvements are given.
The basic Feynman-graph under investigation is shown in Fig. 1.

## 2 $`\mu e`$ conversion and $`m_{e\mu }`$

Muon - positron conversion on nuclei

$$\mu ^{}+(A,Z)e^++(A,Z2)$$
(4)
is a process closely related to double beta decay and, within the context discussed here, is measuring $`m_{e\mu }`$. The current best bound is coming from SINDRUMII and is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{Ti}+\mu ^{}\mathrm{Ca}^{GS}+e^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{Ti}+\mu ^{}Sc+\nu _\mu )}<1.710^{12}(90\%\text{CL})$$
(5)
which can be converted in a new limit of $`m_{e\mu }`$$`<`$ 17 (82) MeV depending on whether the proton pairs in the final state are in a spin singlet or triplet state. Correction factors of the order one for the difference in Ti and S as given in  might be applied. As can be seen this limit is already about 8 orders of magnitude worse than neutrinoless double beta decay. Improvements on $`m_{e\mu }`$ by an order of magnitude can be expected by a new run of SINDRUM II in 1999. A further step forward might be the proposed AGS- E940 experiment (MECO) at BNL and PRISM at the Japanese Hadron Facility.
Notice that a process like $`\mu e\gamma `$ does not give direct bounds on the quantities discussed here, because it measures $`m_{e\mu }=\sqrt{U_{ei}U_{\mu i}m_i^2}`$. Therefore without specifying a neutrino mixing and mass scheme, the quantities are rather difficult to compare. On the other hand, if this is done, such an indirect bound is more stringent.

## 3 Trimuon production in $`\nu N`$ \- scattering and $`m_{\mu \mu }`$

The process under study is muon lepton–number violating ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_\mu =2`$) trimuon production in neutrino–nucleon scattering via charged current reactions (CC)

$$\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+X$$
(6)
where $`X`$ denotes the hadronic final state. The measured mixing matrix element is $`m_{\mu \mu }`$. Detailed calculations can be found in . Taking the fact that in past experiments no excess events of this type were observed on the level of $`10^5`$ with respect to $`\nu _\mu `$CC, a limit of $`m_{\mu \mu }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }10^4`$ GeV can be deduced. This has to be compared to $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ $`<1.110^5`$ GeV as obtained from earlier K–decay data . Even being an order of magnitude improvement the obtained bound is – like the kaon bound – still in an unphysical region because it is a simple extrapolation from small neutrino masses upwards neglecting effects from the propagator term. This means that the real cross section scales with

$$\sigma \left|\underset{m}{}\frac{m_m\eta _m^{\mathrm{CP}}U_{\mu m}^2}{(q_2^2m_m^2)}\right|^2.$$
(7)
which leads to a $`m_m^2`$ behaviour in case that $`m_m^2>>q^2`$. The total cross section for various neutrino energies is shown in Fig. 2.
Current experiments like CHORUS and NOMAD might improve on this quantity by an order of magnitude.

## 4 Rare kaon decays and $`m_{\mu \mu }`$

As already mentioned, a further possibility to probe $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ is the rare kaon decay

$$K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+.$$
(8)
Detailed calculations can be found in . Using old data a branching ratio of

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\mathrm{all})}<1.510^4(90\%\text{CL})$$
(9)
was obtained . Combined with the theoretical calculations of  a limit of $`m_{\mu \mu }`$$`<1.110^5`$ GeV could be deduced . In the meantime new sensitive kaon experiments are online and using the E865 experiment at BNL a new upper limit on the branching ratio of

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\mathrm{all})}<310^9(90\%\text{CL})$$
(10)
could be deduced , an improvement by a factor 50000. Assuming the branching ratio scales with $`m_{\mu \mu }^2`$ (valid as long as $`m_mq^2`$) this can be converted in the limit $`m_{\mu \mu }`$$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 500 GeV , a factor of eight better than the existing limits coming from HERA (see sec. 5) and three orders of magnitude better for this particular decay channel. Also here the propagator term is neglected and therefore even this improvement still does not imply any serious limit on heavy neutrinos . To improve on $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ the decay of charmed mesons could be considered as well. Among the Cabibbo favoured modes are $`D^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+,D_S^+K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$ or $`D_S^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$. The existing limits on the branching ratio for these processes are $`1.710^5,1.910^4`$ and $`8.210^5`$ respectively . While being competitive with the old bound for the kaon decay discussed, the new kaon branching ratio limit is now four orders of magnitude better. Therefore, to obtain new information on $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ from D+-decays, analyses of new data sets have to be done.
To improve significantly towards lighter neutrino masses ($`m_{\mu \mu }`$$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 1 GeV) one might consider other processes. The close analogon to double beta decay and also a measurement of $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ using nuclear scales would be $`\mu ^{}`$ – capture by nuclei with a $`\mu ^+`$ in the final state as discussed in . No such experiment was performed yet, probably because of the requirement to use radioactive targets due to energy conservation arguments. The ratio with respect to standard muon capture can be written in case of the favoured 44Ti and light neutrino exchange ($`m_mq^2`$) as

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+\mathrm{Ti}\mu ^++\mathrm{Ca})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+\mathrm{Ti}\nu _\mu +\mathrm{Sc})}510^{24}(\frac{m_{\mu \mu }}{250keV})^2.$$
(11)
Assuming that a branching ratio of the order of muon-positron conversion (eq.5) can be obtained, a bound $`m_{\mu \mu }`$$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 150 GeV results. Unfortunately this is only a slight improvement on the bound obtained from kaon decay and to make real progress a branching ratio of the order $`R10^{17}`$ has to be measured. Assuming heavy neutrino exchange ($`m_mq^2`$) for the muon capture, would result in a rate another four orders of magnitude lower than for light neutrino exchange.

## 5 Limits from HERA on the full mass matrix

A first set of full matrix elements including the $`\tau `$ \- sector was given by  using HERA data. The process studied is

$$e^\pm p\stackrel{()}{\nu _e}l^\pm l^\pm X,\text{ with }(ll^{})=(e\tau ),(\mu \tau ),(\mu \mu )\text{ and }(\tau \tau )$$
(12)
Such a process has a spectacular signature with large missing transverse momentum ($`p/_T`$) and two like–sign leptons, isolated from the hadronic remnants. The mass bounds given below are obtained for analysed luminosities of $`_{e^+}=36.5`$ pb-1 (H1) and $`_{e^+}=47.7`$ pb-1 (ZEUS) and are typically in the range $`10^310^4`$ GeV and given in eq. 13. The cross section is shown in Fig. 3 including indirect bounds on mixing elements deduced from other experiments .
An extension of the analysis allowing for any two final state leptons and the possibility of observing only one isolated lepton (because of applied cuts) is given in . This is studied within the context of the published unusual large number of events with single isolated leptons and large $`p/_T`$ observed by H1 .
Possible upgrades of HERA and a more sophisticated general analysis of $`\tau `$ \- decays might allow an improvement by a factor 20.
As stated before, applying limits from flavour changing neutral currents like $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ might be more stringent but require the specification of a mixing and mass scheme.

## 6 Future prospects

Beside the already mentioned steps for improvements two ways might be worthwile to follow. First of all more general meson decays. Improvements on the $`\tau `$ \- sector of matrix elements, especially $`m_{\tau \tau }`$, could be done by a search for rare B-decays. Limits on the branching ratio for decays $`B^+K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+,B^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$ of less than $`9.110^3`$ exist , however nobody looked into the decays $`B^+K^{}\tau ^+\tau ^+`$ or $`B^+\pi ^{}\tau ^+\tau ^+`$. With the new B-factories such a search might be possible at a level of producing limits on $`m_{\tau \tau }`$ competitive with the ones given.
A significant step forward is possible by using the proposed neutrino factory. Such a high luminosity neutrino machine, producing $`10^{13}`$ charged current interactions per year in a near detector, allow to improve significantly on the trimuon production process as discussed in . Furthermore in a ”parasitic” mode also improved searches for rare kaon decays are foreseen, which should include $`K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$. This might allow to bring $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ in a physical useful region.

## 7 Summary and conclusions

The underlying physical process of neutrinoless double beta decay by exchange of a virtual massive Majorana neutrino state was extended to three flavours. Processes studied within that context are reviewed.
Combining all obtained limits, ignoring possible phases in the elements $`U_{\alpha m}`$ (therefore getting a symmetrical matrix $`m_{\alpha \beta }`$) as well as skipping the intrinsic CP parities, the following bounds for the effective Majorana mass matrix emerge:

$$m_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{ee}& m_{e\mu }& m_{e\tau }\\ & m_{\mu \mu }& m_{\mu \tau }\\ & & m_{\tau \tau }\end{array}\right)\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}210^{10}& 1.7(8.2)10^2& 4.210^3\\ & 500& 4.410^3\\ & & 2.010^4\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(13)
A spread over 14 orders of magnitude can be seen. Again, these are direct limits and all elements other than $`m_{ee}`$ and $`m_{e\mu }`$ are still in an unphysical region because propagator effects are ignored. To bring at least $`m_{\mu \mu }`$ in the physical region as well, the neutrino factory could help a lot because improving both on trimuon production and rare kaon decays described above. This would not only allow to put upper limits on light masses, but also lower limits on heavy neutrinos can then be obtained.


text:
# 𝐷 and 𝐽/𝜓 production from deconfined matter in relativistic heavy ion collisions

(August 18. 2000)

## Abstract

We study the production of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mesons from deconfined quark matter at CERN SPS energy. Using the MICOR microscopical coalescence model we determine the transverse momentum spectra of these charm mesons. We predict the slopes of their transverse momentum spectra in Pb+Pb collision at 158 GeV/nucleon beam energy.

During the last decade charm hadron production was investigated with great interest at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS), because the theoretically predicted anomalous suppression of the $`J/\psi `$ particle could indicate the appearance of colour deconfinement and the formation of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) phase . An anomalous suppression has been detected in Pb+Pb collisions at 158 GeV/nucleon bombarding energy  and this result is considered as the strongest evidence of QGP formation (for an overview see Ref. ). However, the unambiguous confirmation of the QGP formation requires more charm related data, e.g. D-meson spectra and absolute yields. This provides motivation to measure open charm production in Pb+Pb collision at the CERN SPS . In parallel, new theoretical efforts work to determine charm hadron yields and ratios in this energy range using statistical , thermal  and non-equilibrium  models of charm hadron production.

Since momentum spectra could reveal some interesting details about the formation mechanisms of charm hadrons and thus the properties of the early (supposedly deconfined) phase, our aim is to determine the transverse momentum spectra of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mesons in heavy ion collisions. We assume that hadrons are produced directly from a deconfined state by quark coalescence. We neglect hadronic rescatterings. This hadronization scenario is modelled using MIcroscopical COalescence Rehadronisation (MICOR)  which has been successfully applied to reproduce the measured transverse slopes of the $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\rho `$ mesons . (The spectra of other light and strange hadrons were investigated previously in Refs. .) The MICOR model is the successor of the ALCOR  and the Transchemistry  models. While the ALCOR and Transchemistry models were constructed to determine the total number of hadrons produced from quark matter, the MICOR model can also determine the full momentum spectra of the produced hadrons. We therefore include charm quarks into the MICOR model and calculate the spectra of directly produced charm mesons.

In the MICOR model we start with a deconfined initial phase as motivated by lattice QCD calculations. (Note that phase differs from the idealized, asymptotically free quark-gluon plasma .) The lattice results for the QCD equation of state (with $`N_f=0,2,4`$ flavour) were parametrized phenomenologically as a massive quark matter . This parametrization reproduces the lattice QCD results regarding the pressure and energy density in the temperature region $`1T/T_c3`$  and thus it can be used as a suitable description of hadronization. The massive gluons (whose number is suppressed relative to the quarks and antiquarks) create an attractive effective force between the colored quarks and anti-quarks which drives the hadronization. According to our assumption, the quark matter here is a fully thermalized state, and in the hadronization stage is characterized by a hadronization temperature $`T_{had}`$, a transverse flow $`v_T^0`$ and a Bjorken-scaled longitudinal flow.

The coalescence of the massive quarks produces a hadron resonance gas, which is out of equilibrium . This out of equilibrium character will not change during the resonance decay. While the final state hadronic spectra can be fitted by exponential functions on transverse momenta, this does not mean that the obtained slope parameters characterize equilibrated hadronic gas states.

During hadronization meson-like objects are formed via quark-antiquark coalescence (see Ref.  for the coalescence cross section), while baryon-like objects are formed in two steps: the formation of diquarks from quarks are followed by the coalescence of diquarks and quarks into baryons. We assume that color-neutral prehadrons escape the deconfined state without desintegration and that they become part of the produced excited hadronic gas. These prehadrons are off-shell, however their off-shell masses are very close to the well-known bare hadron masses. This minor difference is corrected in a last step of the hadronization, when a prehadron absorbs or radiates the appropriate (small) energy to become on-shell. We assume that it conserves its velocity during this process. More details about the physics of the MICOR model can be found in Ref. .

The initial condition of the MICOR hadronization model consists of the hadronization temperature, $`T_{had}`$, and the initial transverse flow, $`v_T^0`$, of the deconfined phase. The analysis of the measured transverse momentum spectra of $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\rho `$ particles was performed in Ref.  and fits to these experiment data favor initial values of $`T_{had}=175\pm 15`$ MeV and of $`v_T^0=0.46\pm 0.05`$ in the Pb+Pb collision. We will use the mean values of these parameters to calculate charm meson production. The theoretical uncertainty of our calculation will be estimated through the uncertainty of these initial parameters. We consider a large enough longitudinal extension for the deconfined matter: $`\eta _0=\pm 2.2`$, where $`\eta _0`$ is the space-time rapidity (this parameter will not influence the transverse momentum spectra at $`y=0`$). The constituent quark masses are chosen to be $`m_Q=310`$ MeV, $`m_S=430`$ MeV, $`m_C=1540`$ MeV.

We calculate the transverse momentum spectra of $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mesons in Pb+Pb collision at $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV and $`v_T^0=0.46`$. The $`D`$ meson is produced from the coalescence of a charm quark and a $`\overline{Q}`$ antiquark, while the $`J/\psi `$ is produced as a $`C\overline{C}`$ state. Figure 1 displays the obtained spectra with arbitrary normalization. The full line shows the MICOR result and the dashed line indicates the best fit with the parametrization

$$dN/m_Tdm_T=Cm_T^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(m_T/T_{eff})$$
(1)
in the momentum regions $`0.3GeV<m_Tm_i<2.2GeV`$. In this region we obtain $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(D)=259`$ MeV and $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(J/\psi )=315`$ MeV for the effective slope parameters. Figure 1 shows how the non-thermal momentum distribution produced in the coalescence process (full curve) mimics the thermalized distribution of eq. (1) (dashed curve) in large momentum region.

The NA38 Collaboration has measured the transverse spectra of the $`J/\psi `$ in S+U collision at 200 GeV/nucleon bombarding energy . To apply our model, we assume that the massive quark-antiquark matter was already produced in S+U. In Figure 1 the experimental data from Ref.  are marked by full dots (at arbitrary normalization). The full curve is the MICOR calculation using $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV and a reduced transverse flow, $`v_T^0=0.33`$. This reduced value for the transverse flow can be understood, since the smaller project radius of S+U collision yields a smaller transverse size and shorter expansion time for the deconfined phase as compared to that in the Pb+Pb collision. Using the parametrization of eq. (1) in the momentum region $`0.3GeV<m_Tm_{J/\psi }<2.2GeV`$ we obtained $`T_{eff}^{S+U}(J/\psi )=234`$ MeV (dashed line) thus recovered the experimental value, $`\widehat{T}_{eff}^{S+U}(J/\psi )=234\pm 3`$ MeV, obtained in the highest transverse energy bin (see Ref. ). (The published slope value was obtained with the fit $`dN/m_Tdm_T=Cm_TK_1(m_T/T)`$, which is approximately the same one as eq.(1) in the temperature region $`T200300`$ MeV for particles heavier than the proton, see Ref. .) For the D-meson we obtain $`T_{eff}^{S+U}(D)=211`$ MeV. Figure 1 shows the MICOR result (full line), while the fit from eq.(1) is indicated by dashed line.

We now investigate the dependence of the final transverse slope on the hadronization temperature and transverse velocity. First we fix the hadronization temperature at $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV and vary the transverse flow parameter, $`v_T^0`$. Figure 2 shows our predictions on the effective slopes for the $`J/\psi `$ (upper curve) and for the $`D`$ meson (lower curve) spectra. The open squares show the MICOR results in the Pb+Pb collision at 158 AGeV energy at $`v_T^0=0.46`$. The uncertainty in the transverse flow, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_T^0=\pm 0.05`$, yields an errorbar on the theoretical predictions: $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(D)=259\pm 19`$ MeV, $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(J/\psi )=315\pm 35`$ MeV. The NA38 result on $`J/\psi `$ in S+U collision is indicated by the star and open circles show the MICOR predictions at $`v_T^0=0.33`$ . Assuming a 10 % uncertainty in the transverse flow, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_T^0=\pm 0.03`$, we obtain the theoretical predictions: $`T_{eff}^{S+U}(D)=211\pm 9`$ MeV, $`T_{eff}^{S+U}(J/\psi )=234\pm 13`$ MeV. These uncertainties show the strong dependence of the charm hadron slopes on the transverse flow of the intermediate deconfined phase. As new experimental data will appear, analysis of Figure 2 can be used to determine the appropriate $`v_T^0`$ parameter for the MICOR model at the $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV hadronization temperature.

We repeat this calculation also varying the hadronization temperature, $`T_{had}`$, with a $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{had}=15`$ MeV. The obtained theoretical uncertainty remains in the same scale, $`\pm 15`$ MeV.

In Figure 3, we display the MICOR results for the $`T_{eff}`$ slopes of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mesons produced in Pb+Pb collisions (they are marked with open squares). We also display the measured and the calculated slope parameters for the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . Experimental data on the slope parameter of other particles are from Refs. . (All data was parametrized by eq. (1) in the momentum region $`m_Tm_i>0.3`$ GeV. )

A similar plot can be created for the S+A collisions at 200 GeV/nucleon project energy. Figure 4. includes results for S+U , S+W  and S+Au  collisions. The open squares show the MICOR results for particles $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$. Here the $`J/\psi `$ data determines the transverse flow parameter, $`v_T^0=0.33`$, which reproduce the slope for the $`\varphi `$ meson.

Figures 3 and 4 support the assumption that the secondary hadronic interactions only slightly modify the transverse momentum spectra at higher momenta, $`m_Tm_i>0.3`$. They reveal that the separation of the $`p^+`$, $`\overline{p}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ from the weakly interacting $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is small. Even more, the slopes of the $`p^+`$ and $`\overline{p}^{}`$ are very close to that of the weakly interacting $`\varphi `$ meson. Thus we do not expect considerable modification of the much heavier charm mesons transverse spectra.

Our result sides with the analysis of hydrodynamical expansion versus hadronic cascade evolution performed by URQMD , where enhanced initial transverse flow was paired with a reduced influence of hadronic cascading in the transverse momentum spectra of heavier particle. In this manner, our result does not contradict to recent finding of Lin et al. , where relatively large modification was found from ”hadron+D” collisions of the D-meson spectra in a longitudinally expanding system. Allowing a relatively large transverse flow, e.g. $`v_T^0=0.46`$ as in MICOR, the lifetime of the fireball will be shortened and the efficiency of the hadronic rescattering will be reduced.

In this paper, we predict the transverse slope of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mesons in Pb+Pb collision at CERN SPS energy. Using the microscopical MICOR model we could follow the hadronization of the quark matter that we assume is produced in this heavy ion collision, and calculate the transverse momentum distributions. We obtained $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(D)=259\pm 19`$ MeV and $`T_{eff}^{Pb+Pb}(J/\psi )=315\pm 35`$ MeV. We compare our model with experimental data on $`J/\psi `$ production in S+U collision and demonstrate that we can reproduce the measured spectra with a reasonably reduced transverse flow of the quark matter at a hadronization temperature of $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV. We predicted the slope parameter of the D-meson to be $`T_{eff}^{S+U}(D)=211\pm 9`$ MeV. We urge future experiments to measure this quantity to provide further tests of this model.

Acknowledgment: We thank M. Gyulassy and J. Zimányi for stimulating discussions. One of the authors (P.L.) is especially grateful to S.E. Vance for his comments and his careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the OTKA Grant No. T025579, the US-Hungarian Joint Fund No. 652, and partly by the DOE Research Grant under Contract No. de-FG-02-93ER-40764.

Fig. 1. The transverse momentum spectra of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ meson calculated by the MICOR model with parameters $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV and $`v_T^0=0.46`$ for Pb+Pb collision at 158 AGeV and with $`v_T^0=0.33`$ for S+U collision at 200 AGeV (solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits of eq.(1) in the transverse momentum region $`0.3<m_Tm_i<2.2`$ GeV. The full dots are the data from the NA38 Collaboration for S+U collision .

Fig. 2. Prediction from the MICOR model for the $`T_{eff}`$ slopes of the $`D`$ and $`J/\psi `$ transverse momentum spectra as the function of initial flow $`v_T^0`$ at $`T_{had}=175`$ MeV. The open squares indicate the MICOR prediction with $`v_T^0=0.46`$ for Pb+Pb collisions at 158 AGeV and the open circles indicate the prediction with $`v_T^0=0.33`$ for the S+U collisions at 200 AGeV. The errorbars shows the influence of 10 % uncertainty in the transverse flow. The star represents the NA38 experimental data for the $`J/\psi `$ slope in S+U collisions, see Figure 1 and Ref. .

Fig. 3. Experimental hadronic slopes of the transverse momentum spectra in the PbPb collision at 158 AGeV energy from WA97  (squares), NA50  (dots) and NA44 Collaboration  (triangulars). The results of WA97 and NA50 were originally fit by eq.(1). We fit the NA44 data on $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, $`p^+`$ and $`\overline{p}^{}`$  in the same way in the momentum region $`m_Tm_i>0.3`$ GeV. Open squares indicate the MICOR results on charm mesons and other hadrons.

Fig. 4. Experimental hadronic slopes of the transverse momentum spectra in the S+W and S+Au collisions at 200 AGeV energy from WA85  (squares), NA38  (dots) and NA35 Collaboration  (triangulars). The results of WA85 and NA38 data were originally fit by eq.(1). We fit the NA35 data on $`\pi ^{}`$, $`K_S^0`$, $`p^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$  in the same way in the momentum region $`m_Tm_i>0.3`$ GeV. Open squares indicate the MICOR results on charm mesons and other hadrons.