text:
# 1 Contribution of the Higgs sector of the MSSM or 2HDM(II) to 𝐵𝑅(𝐵⁰_{𝑠(𝑑)}→𝜇⁻𝜇⁺) as a function of the charged Higgs boson mass for tan𝛽= 0.5 (solid lines), 2 (dashed), 25 (dotted) and 50 (dot-dashed).

IFT-00/16

hep-ph/0008046

$`B_{d,s}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ DECAY IN THE MSSM

Piotr H. Chankowski, Łucja Sławianowska

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University,

00-681 Warsaw, Poland

Abstract

We present the results of the complete one-loop computation of the $`B_{d,s}^0l^+l^{}`$ decay rate in the MSSM. Both sources of the FCNC, the CKM matrix and off-diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices are considered. Strong enhancement of the branching ratio (compared to the SM prediction) can be obtained in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$ regime in which the neutral Higgs boson “penguin” diagrams dominate. We make explicit the strong dependence of this enhancement on the top squarks mixing angle in the case of the chargino contribution and on the $`\mu `$ parameter in the case of the gluino contribution. We show that, in some regions of the MSSM parametre space, the branching ratio for this process can be as large as $`10^{(54)}`$ respecting all existing constraints, including the CLEO measurement of $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$. We also estimate, that for chargino and stop masses $`𝒪(100`$ GeV) $`BR(B_s^0l^+l^{})`$ with $`ll^{}=e\tau `$ or $`\mu \tau `$ can be of the order of $`10^{11}`$ for the still allowed values of the off-diagonal entries in the slepton mass matrix.

PACS numbers: 11.30.Hv, 12.15.Ji, 12.15.Mm, 12.60.Jv, 13.20.He, 14.40.Nd

IFT-00/16

August 2000

1. Introduction

Extensions of the Standard Model (SM) usually predict new contributions to the flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) processes. For example, adding in the most general way a second doublet of the Higgs fields to the standard theory of electroweak interactions typically leads to large amplitudes of FCNC processes mediated at the tree level by neutral Higgs particles. Restricting appropriately the possible form of couplings of the two Higgs doublets to up- and down-type fermions eliminates such tree level contributions to FCNC processes but, of course, new contributions induced by loops involving the physical charged scalar still remain. Charged Higgs boson contributions to FCNC processes depend however on the same elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix as does the standard $`W^\pm `$ boson contribution and, thus, amplify the effects of the FCNC source that is present in the SM, rather than being an independent new source of such processes. Nevertheless, requiring the effects of the charged Higgs boson not to spoil succesful predictions of the standard theory leads to interesting bounds on the $`(M_{H^+},\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ plane where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. In particular, in the popular two Higgs doublet model of type II (2HDMII), in which the first doublet couples only to leptons and down-type quarks and the second one couples to up-type quarks only, processes like $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing together with $`Z^0\overline{b}b`$ constrain the plane $`(M_{H^+},\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. In particular, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}3`$ $`BX_s\gamma `$ requires $`H^\pm `$ to be heavier than $`165200`$ GeV .

Supersymmetric models like the MSSM, which are the most popular and best motivated extensions of the SM, apart from containing a charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$, induce yet additional contributions to the FCNC processes. Firstly, in such models the effects of the CKM mixing can be further amplified through the loops involving charginos and squarks. Secondly, as there is no reason why the squark mass matrices should be diagonal in the same (so-called super-CKM) basis as quarks, the sfermion sector of such models is in general a new, independent of the CKM matrix, source of the FCNC processes.

Current experimental data on FCNC processes provide important constraints on these sources of flavour nonconservation in supersymmetric models. (Extensive reviews are the refs.  and .) Taking the CKM matrix as the only source of the FCNC processes, the current exprimental data on $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixings impose some constraints on the MSSM parameter space. These constraints, which correlate masses and composition of charginos and top squarks with the mass of the charged Higgs boson, depend in part on the element $`V_{td}`$ of the CKM matrix which is not directly measured  and become weaker with growing sparticle masses. Effects of the nonzero off-diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices are usually analyzed separately . Stringent constraints apply to the entries causing transitions between the first two generations. Bounds on the entries connected to the third generation, which follow from the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay are much weaker. Thus, large deviations from the rates predicted in the SM can still be discovered in the forthcoming (or already running) experiments like BaBar (SLAC), BELLE (KEK), CLEO (Cornell), HERA-B (DESY) and LHC (CERN). In this context, particularily interesting process to look at are the decays $`B_{s(d)}^0l^+l^{}`$ because they are clean theoretically being almost free of hadronic uncertainties.

Several papers analysed this process in the MSSM  under various assumptions and with different approximations. In this paper we perform a complete calculation 111In what follows we display only formulae for the dominant contributions. The plots are, however, based on the programme including contributions from all relevant one-loop diagrams. of the process $`B_{s,d}^0l^{}l^+`$ in the MSSM with emphasise on qualitative understanding of the dominant effects. To this end we derive simple analytical formulae approximating the main contributions. We reconfirm that for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <20`$ the rate of this process is not significantly enhanced compared to the prediction of the SM (apart from the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 0.5`$ and light $`H^\pm `$  which is not favoured theoretically within the supersymmetric framework). In agreement with earlier papers  we find that large enhancement of the branching ratio is obtained in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values due the neutral Higgs boson penguin graphs. This has been previously made explicit in ref.  (possible role of such contributions to $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixings has been emphasized in ref. ) in which the contributions of charginos as a source of the flavour changing has been considered. We demonstrate strong dependence of the decay rate on the value of the stop mixing angle and explain it using our analytic formulae. Moreover, we extend previous calculations by analysing also the case of the flavour mixing induced by squark mass matrices. In the latter case we find very strong dependence on the $`\mu `$ parameter. Finally we correlate the predictions for $`B_{s,d}^0l^{}l^+`$ with the constraints imposed on the parameter space by other processes, in particular by the measurement by CLEO  of the $`BX_s\gamma `$ branching ratio. We find that even respecting all those constraints, $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ can be enhanced up to $`10^{(45)}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b50`$. Moreover, for such values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the off-diagonal 13 entries of the down-type squark mass matrix saturating the existing bound , also $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ can be of the same order of magnitude. This means that the unsuccesful search done at CLEO  already provides a constraint on the 13 off-diagonal entries of the down-type squarks which, for some values of the other MSSM parametres, is stronger than the one given in . Finally, we also estimate that for chargino and stop masses $`𝒪(100`$ GeV) $`B_s^0l^+l^{}`$ with $`ll^{}=e\tau `$ or $`\mu \tau `$ can be of order $`10^{11}`$ for the still allowed values of the off-diagonal entries in the slepton mass matrix.

2. General structure of the amplitude and the SM prediction

The effective Lagrangian describing the $`d_I\overline{d}_J\overline{l}_Al_B`$ transition has the general form

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}C_x𝒪_x`$ (1)
in which $`𝒪_x`$ are the local four-fermion operators and $`C_x`$ are their Wilson coefficients (we suppress quark and lepton flavour indices on $`𝒪_x`$ and $`C_x`$ as well as on various formfactors which will appear in the following). Four vector-vector operators $`𝒪_{XY}^V(\overline{d}_J\gamma _\mu P_Xd_I)(\overline{l}_B\gamma ^\mu P_Yl_A)`$ and four scalar operators $`𝒪_{XY}^S(\overline{d}_JP_Xd_I)(\overline{l}_BP_Yl_A)`$ (where $`X,Y=LL`$, $`RR`$, $`LR`$ and $`RL`$) contribute to this process. In addition, two tensor operators exist but they do not contribute to this process (their matrix elements vanish when taken between one meson and vacuum states). In the following we will specify the formulae to the case of $`B_{d(s)}^0=\overline{b}d(s)`$ decay, hence we will take $`J=3`$ and $`I=1=d`$ for $`B_d^0`$ or $`I=2=s`$ for $`B_s^0`$. Furthemore, due to the pseudoscalar nature of the $`B_I^0`$ mesons we need only two matrix elements222The second follows from the first one by using the QCD equation of motion for the quark field operators; this fixes their relative sign.:

$`0|\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5d_I|B_I^0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`if_{B_I}q^\mu `$
$`0|\overline{b}\gamma ^5d_I|B_I^0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`+if_{B_I}{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{m_{d_I}+m_b}}`$ (2)
Using (2) one finds the total $`B^0`$ width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{16\pi }}f(x_A^2,x_B^2)\left\{|a|^2\left[1(x_Ax_B)^2\right]+|b|^2\left[1(x_A+x_B)^2\right]\right\}`$ (3)
where $`f(x,y)\sqrt{12(x+y)+(xy)^2}`$, $`x_Am_{l_A}/M_B`$ and the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given in terms of the Wilson coefficients as

$$a=\frac{f_{B_I}}{4}\left\{(m_{l_B}+m_{l_A})\left[C_{LL}^VC_{LR}^V+C_{RR}^VC_{RL}^V\right]\frac{M_{B_I}^2}{m_b}\left[C_{LL}^SC_{LR}^S+C_{RR}^SC_{RL}^S\right]\right\}$$
(4)
$$b=\frac{f_{B_I}}{4}\left\{(m_{l_B}m_{l_A})\left[C_{LL}^V+C_{LR}^VC_{RR}^VC_{RL}^V\right]\frac{M_{B_I}^2}{m_b}\left[C_{LL}^S+C_{LR}^SC_{RR}^SC_{RL}^S\right]\right\}$$
(5)
where we have neglected $`m_{d_I}`$ compared to $`m_b`$.

Three groups of diagrams contribute to the Wilson coefficients: Box diagrams, $`Z^0`$ penguin diagrams and neutral Higgs boson penguin diagrams 333At the one-loop level the photon penguin diagram does not contribute for the $`\overline{l}l`$ final state due to the vector current conservation. As long as neutrinos are massless, the $`\overline{l}l^{}`$ final state can appear neither in the SM nor in the 2HDM; in the MSSM the $`\overline{l}l^{}`$ final state can only be due to box contribution provided the slepton mass matrices remain non-diagonal in the lepton mass eigenstate basis.. Denoting the self energy diagrams on the external quark lines as $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{)}p)`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{)}p)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^V\overline{)}pP_L+\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^V\overline{)}pP_R+\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^SP_L+\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^SP_R,$$
(6)
and vertex corrections to the couplings $`\overline{d}_Jd_IZ^0`$, $`\overline{d}_Jd_IS^0`$ and $`\overline{d}_Jd_IP^0`$, where $`S^0(P^0)`$ is a neutral scalar (pseudoscalar), respectively as

$`+i\gamma ^\mu (F_L^VP_L+F_R^VP_R)`$
$`i(F_L^SP_L+F_R^SP_R)`$ (7)
$`(F_L^PP_L+F_R^PP_R),`$
one finds (in the approximation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)`$, $`F(q^2)=F(0)`$) the following expressions for the Wilson coefficients generated by various penguin diagrams:

$$C_{XY}^V=\frac{e}{2s_Wc_WM_Z^2}\widehat{F}_X^Vc_Y^e,X,Y=L,R$$
(8)
from the $`Z^0`$ penguin diagram, with $`c_L^e=12s_W^2`$, $`c_R^e=2s_W^2`$ and $`s_W`$ ($`c_W`$) is the sine (cosine) of the Weinberg angle;

$$C_{LL}^S=C_{LR}^S=\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{1}{M_{H_k^0}^2}\frac{Z_R^{1k}}{v_1}\widehat{F}_L^Sm_lC_{RR}^S=C_{RL}^S=\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{1}{M_{H_k^0}^2}\frac{Z_R^{1k}}{v_1}\widehat{F}_R^Sm_l$$
(9)
from neutral scalar penguin diagrams; and

$$C_{LL}^S=C_{LR}^S=\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{1}{M_{H_{k+2}^0}^2}\frac{Z_H^{1k}}{v_1}\widehat{F}_L^Pm_lC_{RR}^S=C_{RL}^S=\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{1}{M_{H_{k+2}^0}^2}\frac{Z_H^{1k}}{v_1}\widehat{F}_R^Pm_l$$
(10)
from neutral pseudoscalar penguin diagrams. We use here (and throughout) the notation of ref.  in which $`H_k^0(h^0,H^0)`$, $`H_{2+k}^0(A^0,G^0)`$, $`H_k^\pm (H^\pm ,G^\pm )`$ and $`Z_R^{1k}`$ ($`Z_H^{1k}`$) denotes the projection of the $`k`$-th physical neutral CP-even (-odd) Higgs boson onto the real (imaginary) part of the neutral component of the Higgs doublet that couples to the down-type quarks. In addition, since at one loop penguin graphs cannot generate transitions $`B^0\overline{l}l^{}`$, we have set $`m_{l_A}=m_{l_B}=m_l`$. In these formulae

$$\widehat{F}_{L,R}^V=F_{L,R}^V+\frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}c_{L,R}^d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{L,R}^V$$
(11)
where $`c_L^d=12s_W^2/3`$, $`c_R^d=2s_W^2/3`$,

$$\widehat{F}_{L,R}^S=F_{L,R}^S\frac{Z_R^{1k}}{v_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{L,R}^S$$
(12)
and

$$\widehat{F}_L^P=F_L^P+\frac{Z_H^{1k}}{v_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^P,\widehat{F}_R^P=F_R^P\frac{Z_H^{1k}}{v_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^S$$
(13)
are the full effective vertices including the effects of flavour changing self energy diagrams on the external quark lines. Box diagram contributions to the Wilson coefficients can also be easily found. From eqs. (4,5,8-10) one sees that scalar penguin diagrams contribute only to $`b`$ in eq (3) whereas the coefficient $`a`$ receives contributions from both $`Z^0`$ and the pseudoscalar penguin diagrams. The relative sign of the $`Z^0`$ and the neutral Goldstone boson contributions to $`a`$ should be such that the total contribution is independent of the gauge chosen for the $`Z^0`$ propagator. This is the case if

$$m_J\widehat{F}_{L,R}^V+m_I\widehat{F}_{R,L}^V=M_Z\widehat{F}_{L,R}^P$$

for $`P`$ referring to the Goldstone boson. Since the formfactor $`\widehat{F}_{L,R}^P`$ for the physical pseudoscalar $`A^0`$ is related to the one for $`G^0`$ by the $`SU_L(2)`$ symmetry, this relation tests also the relative sign of the $`Z^0`$ and pseudoscalar penguin diagrams.

The SM contribution to the $`B^0ll`$ decay is well known  (see also ). The Higgs boson couplings to fermions are not enhanced so the scalar and pseudoscalar penguins are negligibly small. The only important box diagram is the one with two $`W^\pm `$ which contributes only to $`C_{LL}^V`$

$$C_{LL}^V=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{e}{s_W}\right)^4\frac{\lambda _{tI}}{M_W^2}\frac{x_t}{4}\left[\frac{1}{1x_t}+\frac{\mathrm{log}x_t}{(1x_t)^2}\right]$$
(14)
where $`x_t(m_t/M_W)^2`$ and $`\lambda _{tI}V_{tJ}^{}V_{tI}`$. The effective $`\overline{d}_Jd_IZ^0`$ vertex receives contributions from loops involving both $`W^\pm `$ and the charged Goldstone bosons. One finds

$$\widehat{F}_L^V=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{e^3}{4s_W^3c_W}\lambda _{tI}x_t\left[\frac{x_t6}{1x_t}\frac{3x_t+2}{(1x_t)^2}\mathrm{log}x_t\right]$$
(15)
and $`\widehat{F}_R^V=0`$ in the limit of $`m_{d_I}=0`$. Adding all one gets

$$BR(B_I^0\overline{l}l)=\tau (B_I^0)\left[\frac{G_F\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2}\right]^2\frac{f_{B_I}^2m_l^2M_{B_I}}{\pi }|\lambda _{tI}|^2\sqrt{14\frac{m_l^2}{M_{B_I}^2}}Y_0^2(x_t)$$
(16)
where $`\tau (B_I^0)`$ is the lifetime of the $`B_I^0`$ meson and

$$Y_0(x_t)=\frac{x_t}{8}\left[\frac{x_t4}{x_t1}+\frac{3x_t}{(x_t1)^2}\mathrm{log}x_t\right]$$
(17)
In general, taking QCD corrections into account consists of computing corrections to the Wilson coefficients at the scale $`M_Z`$, and subsequently evolving the latter from the electroweak scale down to the hadronic scale $`\mu _hm_b`$. The first step of this procedure amounts to replacing $`Y_0(x_t)`$ by $`Y(x_t)=Y_0(x_t)+(\alpha _s/4\pi )Y_1(x_t)`$  where now $`x_t=(\overline{m}_t(m_t^2)/M_W)^2`$. $`Y(x_t)`$ can be conveniently parametrized as

$`Y(x_t)=0.997\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m_t}(m_t)}{166\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right]^{1.55}`$
As far as the evolution is concerned, it has been noted in  that the vector operators contributing to $`B^0\overline{l}l`$ have zero anomalous dimensions. Hence, their Wilson coefficients do not evolve at all, whereas the evolution of the Wilson coefficients of the scalar operators result in multiplying them by $`m_b(\mu _h)/m_b(M_Z)`$. Consequently, if $`C_{XY}^S`$ are proportional to $`m_b(M_Z)`$, their evolution is taken into account if this factor is replaced by $`m_b(\mu _h)`$ which in turn cancels out with the factor $`1/m_b(\mu _h)`$ present in eqs. (4,5). As it will be apparent, whenever the coefficients $`C_{XY}^S`$ are large, they are indeed proportional to $`m_b(M_Z)`$. In the SM, including QCD corrections one finds

$$BR(B_s^0\overline{\mu }\mu )=4.1\times 10^9\left[\frac{\tau (B_s)}{1.54ps}\right]\left[\frac{f_{B_s}}{245\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right]^2\left[\frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.040}\right]^2\left[\frac{\overline{m}_t(m_t)}{166\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right]^{3.12}$$
(18)
3. Contribution of the extended Higgs sector

As remarked in the introduction, the presence of the physical charged Higgs boson in the extended Higgs sector of the MSSM (or 2HDM) in general enhances the FCNC transition rates generated by the CKM mixing matrix. This enhancement can appear through the $`H^\pm `$ contribution to box diagrams, $`Z^0`$ penguin diagrams and neutral Higgs boson penguin diagrams. The latter type of diagrams can only be important in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}30`$ regime in which the neutral Higgs boson couplings to the down-type quarks and charged leptons are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ factors.

For low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{_{}}20`$ the neutral Higgs boson penguin diagrams are small. It is also easy to check, that for such $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values no box diagram can give significant contribution. Thus, the only large contribution can be due to the $`H^\pm `$ contribution to the $`Z^0`$ penguin diagrams. Computing the relevant self energy diagrams (vector parts thereof) and vertex corrections one arrives at

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F}_L^V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{(s_Wc_W)^3}}\lambda _{tI}\mathrm{cot}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_t}{1y_t}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y_t}}\mathrm{log}y_t\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F}_R^V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{(s_Wc_W)^3}}\lambda _{tI}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_{d_I}}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_t}{1y_t}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y_t}}\mathrm{log}y_t\right]`$
where $`y_t(m_t/M_{H^+})^2`$. Taking into account only $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F}_L^V`$ which is enhanced for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <1`$ amounts to replacing $`Y(x_t)`$ in eq. (16) by

$$Y(x_t)Y(x_t)\mathrm{cot}^2\beta \frac{x_t}{8}\frac{y_t}{1y_t}\left[1+\frac{1}{1y_t}\mathrm{log}y_t\right]$$
(19)
The new contribution has the same sign as $`Y(x_t)`$ and, therefore, enhances the SM contribution. For example, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$ and $`M_{H^+}=M_W`$, $`BR(B^0\overline{l}l)`$ is enhanced by a factor of $`\left(1+\frac{1.566}{0.997}\right)^26.6`$ compared to the SM prediction.

For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$ in the case of $`B_s^0`$ decay, $`\widehat{F}_R^V`$, despite being suppressed by one power of $`m_s/M_W`$, is about two orders of magnitude larger than $`\widehat{F}_L^V`$ and, for $`M_{H^+}100`$ GeV, is of the order of the SM contribution. However, in this regime, there are other contributions which are more important .

Firstly, the mixed, $`W^\pm H^\pm `$, box diagram in which $`H^\pm `$ couples to the $`b`$-quark is also $`𝒪(\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )`$ and is not suppressed by $`m_{d_I}/M_W`$. After summation over different types of virtual quarks it gives

$$C_{LR}^S=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{e}{s_W}\right)^4\frac{m_lm_b}{M_W^2}\lambda _{tI}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \frac{1}{4}\frac{x_t}{x_Hx_t}\left[\frac{1}{x_H1}\mathrm{log}x_H\frac{1}{x_t1}\mathrm{log}x_t\right]$$
(20)
where $`x_H(M_{H^\pm }/M_W)^2`$. The other $`W^\pm H^\pm `$ box is proportional to $`m_{d_I}/M_W`$ and hence it is less important. The box diagrams containing two chaged scalars (either physical or Goldstone) are suppressed always by $`(m_l/M_W)^2`$. Therefore, although the $`H^\pm H^\pm `$ box grows as $`\mathrm{tan}^4\beta `$, it is not important even for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$.

Secondly, there are neutral Higgs boson penguin diagrams. It turns out , that the dominant i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ part of the genuine $`\overline{d}_Jd_IS^0(P^0)`$ vertex correction cancels out 444This cancellation is even simpler in the case of the MSSM than in the case of the 2HDM(II) considered in . and the only contribution arises from the scalar parts of the self energies of external quarks (for $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay it is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^S`$ which is dominant):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^S=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{e}{s_W}\right)^2m_b\lambda _{tI}x_t\frac{x_H1}{x_Hx_t}\left[\frac{x_H}{x_H1}\mathrm{log}x_H\frac{x_t}{x_t1}\mathrm{log}x_t\right]$$
(21)
where $`x_H=(M_{H^\pm }/M_W)^2`$.

Using the formulae (11,13) and the fact that in the MSSM for neutral CP-even scalars for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the following relations hold555The well-known large radiative corrections to $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$ masses do not spoil these relations. Moreover, these corrections do not affect the neutral Higgs boson penguin contributions because they always modify significantly only the mass of that Higgs boson which almost does not couple to the down-type quarks and charged leptons.

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 1,M_h^2M_A^2\mathrm{for}M_A<M_Z`$
$`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha 1,M_H^2M_A^2\mathrm{for}M_A>M_Z`$ (22)
$`M_{H^+}^2=M_A^2+M_W^2`$
we can now summarize the dominant contribution of the extended Higgs sector to the the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ given by eqs. (4,5) :

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_I}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{M_W^2}}\lambda _{tI}\left[Y(x_t){\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_I}^2}{8M_W^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r1}}\right]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_I}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{M_W^2}}\lambda _{tI}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_I}^2}{8M_W^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r1}}`$ (23)
where $`r1/y_t=(M_{H^+}/m_t)^2`$. Since $`\frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r1}>1`$, the CP-odd neutral Higgs exchange interferes destructively with the SM contribution. Figures 1 show the contribution of the extended Higgs sector of the MSSM (assuming that sparticles contribute negligibly) or of the 2HDM(II)666In the case of the 2HDM(II) the subleading in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ contributions of the genuine vertex corrections in the CP-even Higgs boson penguin may be different than in the MSSM because the dimensionfull couplings $`H^+H^{}H^0(h^0)`$ differ in both models . Still, unless these coulings in the 2HDM(II) are very large (and numerically very different from their MSSM counterparts) so as to enhance the otherwise subleading contribution, figs 1 should be fairly representative also for the 2HDM(II) results. to $`BR(B_{s,d}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ as a function of $`M_{H^+}`$ for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. These result which should be compared with the SM results $`4\times 10^9`$ and $`1\times 10^{10}`$, respectively, agree for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}30`$ with the ones given in  and, for smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, update the computations done earlier in refs. .

4. Chargino contribution

Another source of amplification of the flavour changing transitions induced by the CKM matrix is the chargino sector of the MSSM. Assuming that the squark mass matrices are diagonal in the super-CKM basis, the first result is that in the whole relevant parameter space the box diagram contribution to any of the Wilson coefficients remains small compared to the SM contribution. Furthermore, the $`Z^0`$ penguin can change the predicted $`BR(B_{s,d}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ by no more than $``$5-10% for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2`$ and $``$20% for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 0.5`$. The magnitude and sign of this contribution depends, apart from the masses of the sparticles involved, also on the chargino composition and on the mixing angle of the top squarks. For natural stop composition i.e. when the lighter stop is predominantly right-handed and the mixing angle is not too large , the chargino loop contribution to the Wilson coeffcients has opposite sign to that of the top quark loop and, hence, decreases the rate of the $`B_{s,d}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay. This is very similar to the opposite, as compared to the SM, sign of the chargino-stop loop contribution to $`R_b\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z^0\overline{b}b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z^0hadr)`$  since, in view of the smallness of the box contribution, the two calulations are very similar We conclude that in the whole range of the MSSM parameter space the box and $`Z^0`$-penguin diagrams arising from chargino exchanges do not change the order of magnitude of the $`B_{s,d}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay rate.

Huge contribution to this rate can be however induced for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}30`$ by neutral Higgs boson penguins. This has been first maded explicit in ref.  in the approach based on the effective lagrangian method. Our numerical results are obtained by full computation of all relevant Feynman diagrams. Here we present only the derivation of the approximate formulae summarizing the dominant effects. To this end we consider the limit in which all soft SUSY breaking parameters, except for the ones which determine the Higgs potential, are much larger than the electroweak scale. In this limit, which allows us to work in the symmetric phase of the theory (i.e. with $`v_i=0`$) in which sfermions still have definite chirality, we can construct the effective theory by integrating out sparticles (but not the Higgs fields). In this construction, threshold corrections shown in fig. 2 give rise to the effective Yukawa interactions of the down-type quarks summarized by

$`_{eff}=ϵ_{ij}\left(Y_d+\mathrm{\Delta }_dY_d\right)^{BA}H_i^dq_j^Ad^{cB}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_uY_d\right)^{BA}H_i^uq_i^Ad^{cB}+h.c.`$ (24)
where $`A`$, $`B`$ are the generation indices and we work in the language of two-component Weyl spinors. In order to diagonalize the quark mass matrix arising after the electroweak symmetry breaking we perform first the standard CKM rotations (diagonalizing the original matrix $`Y_d^{BA}`$) followed by the infinitesimal rotations

$$d^A\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }V_L^D\right)^{AB}d^B,d^{cA}d^{cB}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }V_R^D\right)^{AB}$$
(25)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_L^D`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_R^D`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{L,R}^D=\mathrm{\Delta }V_{L,R}^D`$. Diagonal mass matrix for down-type quarks is obtained with

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_d^{}Y_d\right)^{AB}+\frac{v_2}{v_1}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_d\right)^{AB}=(\mathrm{\Delta }V_R^D)^{AB}Y_d^B+Y_d^A(\mathrm{\Delta }V_L^D)^{AB}$$
(26)
where $`Y_d^A`$ are already diagonal and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u(d)}^{}Y_d`$ are related to the original $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u(d)}Y_d`$ by the rotation diagonalizing the original $`Y_d^{BA}`$. This leads 777Strictly speaking eq. (26) must hold only for off diagonal elements; for $`A=B`$ the relation $`m_{d_A}=Y_d^Av_1/\sqrt{2}`$ is corrected but the net result is that in eq. (27) $`Y_d^A\sqrt{2}m_{d_A}/v_1`$ again. to the effective Yukawa couplings of the neutral Higgs bosons of the form

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}d^c\left(Y_dZ_R^{1k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_R^{2k}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_R^{1k}\right)dH_k^0+h.c.`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}d^c\left(Y_dZ_H^{1k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_H^{2k}+\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_H^{1k}\right)dH_{k+2}^0+h.c.`$ (27)
(In the lagrangian (27) $`Y_d`$ is diagonal and the rest of the notation is explained below eq. (10)) which in general generates the FCNC transitions. Note that the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_dY_d`$ dissapeared altogether as it should, since it cannot cotribute to the FCNC transition.

The correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_uY_d`$ in eq. (24) is easily computed in the basis in which $`Y_u^{AB}`$ is diagonal and the initial $`Y_d^{AB}=Y_d^AV_{AB}^{}`$ where $`V_{AB}`$ is the CKM matrix. Starting from the SUSY breaking part of the lagrangian

$`_{soft}=\left(m_U^2\right)^{AB}U^{cA}U^{cB}\left(m_Q^2\right)^{AB}Q_i^AQ_j^B+(ϵ_{ij}A_U^{AB}H_u^iQ_j^AU^{cB}\mu ϵ_{ij}\stackrel{~}{H}_d^i\stackrel{~}{H}_u^j+h.c.)`$
we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_uY_d^{AB}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}Y_d^{AC}A_U^{BC}Y_u^B\mu C_0(\mu ^2,M_{Q_B}^2,M_{U_C^c}^2)$$
(28)
where $`C_0`$ is the standard three-point function.

$$C_0(a,b,c)=\frac{1}{ab}\left[\frac{a}{ac}\mathrm{log}\frac{a}{c}\frac{b}{bc}\mathrm{log}\frac{b}{c}\right]$$
(29)
Inserting (28) in eq. (24) and performing all steps making the usual assumption $`A_U^{AB}=Y_u^AA_u^A\delta ^{AB}`$ (i.e. that the trilinear soft terms are proportional to the Yukawa couplings) and keeping only the top Yukawa coupling leads to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_d^{JI}=\pm \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda _{tI}Y_d^JY_t^2A_tm_{C_1}C_0(m_{C_1}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)$$
(30)
where we have replaced $`\mu `$ with $`m_{C_1}`$ and the sign $`\pm `$ keeps track of the sign of $`\mu `$. Using eq. (27) in eqs. (9,10) yields the full vertex formfactors

$`\widehat{F}_L^S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_d\left[Z_R^{2k}Z_R^{1k}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_R^{1k}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$
$`\widehat{F}_L^P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_d\left[Z_H^{2k}+Z_H^{1k}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_u^{}Y_dZ_H^{1k}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (31)
(right formfactors are given by the Hermitean conjugation; they involve $`Y_d^I`$ and are, therefore, subleading).

Detailed comparison of the above simplified calculation with the standard diagramatic approach (in which one computes both, the self energy corrections the 1PI vertex diagrams, in the phase in which the electroweak symmetry is broken) reveals that the dominant contributions given by eqs. (31) to the formfactors arise only from the self energy diagrams (the 1PI vertex corrections contain one power of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ less). Moreover, the comparison shows that one should replace $`A_t`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{A}_tA_t+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta `$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ with the true mass eigenstates $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ and justifies the replacement of $`\pm \mu `$ by the mass of the lighter chargino.

Using eqs. (31) we get

$$a=\frac{f_B}{4}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda _{tI}\frac{2m_l}{M_W^2}\left(\frac{e}{s_W}\right)^4\left[Y(x_t)\frac{M_B^2}{8M_W^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r1}\pm \frac{M_B^2}{8M_W^2}\frac{m_t^2}{M_A^2}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta \stackrel{~}{A}_tm_{C_1}C_0\right]$$
(32)
$$b=\frac{f_B}{4}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda _{tI}\frac{2m_l}{M_W^2}\left(\frac{e}{s_W}\right)^4\left[\frac{M_B^2}{8M_W}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r1}\pm \frac{M_B^2}{8M_W^2}\frac{m_t^2}{M_A^2}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta \stackrel{~}{A}_tm_{C_1}C_0\right]$$
(33)
Knowing that $`Y(x_t)1`$ these formulae allow for a quick estimate of the effects. It is important to note that the contribution of chaginos to the rate grows as $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ and therefore can be much larger than the contribution of the Higgs sector.

Figure 3 shows the dependence of the full branching ratio $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$, including the SM, Higgs boson and chargino contributions, on the mixing angle of the top squarks for some values of the other MSSM parameters. The minimum around $`\theta _t0`$ corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_t0`$ is clearly seen. Incidentally this plot also supports the replacement of $`\mu `$ by $`\pm m_{C_1}`$ in eq. (30) because very similarly (up to a reflection $`\theta _t\theta _t`$ which follows from different signs of $`\mu `$) looking curves in the left and right panels have the same $`m_{C_1}`$ but distinctly different $`\mu `$. Another important feature of the chargino contribution is that it does not vanish if all sparticle mass parameters are scaled uniformly: $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}\lambda M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}`$, $`m_{C_i}\lambda m_{C_i}`$, $`\mu \lambda \mu `$, $`A_t\lambda A_t`$. This is clear from the fact that in such a case $`C_0\lambda ^2C_0`$. This is illustrated in figure 4 which shows $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ as a function of the lighter chargino mass for $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2},M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1})`$ equal to $`(m_C,3m_C)`$ and $`\theta _t=10^o`$ (solid lines), $`(m_C,3m_C)`$ and $`\theta _t=30^o`$ (dashed lines), $`(3m_C,5m_C)`$ and $`\theta _t=10^o`$ (dotted lines) and $`(3m_C,5m_C)`$ and $`\theta _t=30^o`$ (dash-dotted lines). In fact, keeping the stop mixing angle fixed requires that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_t`$ scales as $`\lambda ^2`$ rather than as $`\lambda `$, which explains the growth of the rates with $`m_{C_1}`$ in fig. 4.

To check the correlation of the prediction for $`BR(B_{s(d)}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ with the reslts for $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ we have performed scans over the relevant parameter space of the MSSM. We took the following ranges: $`100<m_{C_1}<1000`$ GeV, $`0.1<|M_2/\mu |<10`$, $`1<M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}/m_{C_1}<10`$, $`1<M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}/M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}<5`$ and $`60^o<\theta _t<60^o`$ and rejected points for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{squarks}>6\times 10^4`$ and $`M_h<107`$ GeV. For calculating $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ we have used the routine based on refs.  including the NLO matching conditions at the scale $`M_Z`$ for the top and charged Higgs contribution as in  and only the LO ones for the supersymmetric contribution . We have not used the available NLO matching conditions for the supersymmetric particles since they are computed under the specific assumptions about the sparticle spectrum, not necessarily satisfied in the scan and, moreover, they are not valid for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The theoretical uncertainty is taken into account by computing the rate for $`\mu _h=2.4`$ and 9.6 GeV and then by shifting its larger (smaller) value upward (downward) by the added in quadratures errors related to the uncertainties in $`\alpha _s`$, $`m_b`$, $`m_c/m_b`$, $`|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/V_{cb}|^2`$, and higher order electroweak corrections; we do not take into account the variation of the scale $`\mu _W`$. For a given set of the parameters of the MSSM the $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ value shown in fig. 5 corresponds to the lowest (highest) edge of the resulting band of theoretical predictions, if the whole band is above (below) the range allowed by CLEO , and to the central point of the overlap of the theoretical and CLEO bands in the case such an overlap exists.

The results of the scans, shown in fig. 5 demonstrate that the the CLEO result for $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ does not eliminate the points corresponding to the largest values of $`BR(B_{s(d)}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ and even does not exhibit any definite correlation between the two rates, especially for those points for which $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ is very large. This is mainly due to the fact that the (LO) chargino contribution to $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ decreases with growing sparticle masses whereas its contribution to $`BR(B_{s(d)}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ does not. 888For the same reason we do not expect strong constraints from the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ or $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mass differences, which a priori also depend on the chargino and stop parameters. This allows to hope that even the full NLO computation of $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ will not change this picture qualitatively. Moreover, fig. 5 shows that the present CLEO bound $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)<6.2\times 10^7`$ (shown in the upper-right plot by the vertical solid line) already puts some weak constraints on the MSSM parameter space in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$ and $`M_A\stackrel{<}{_{}}300`$ GeV.

5. Flavour changing induced by sfermion mass matrices

Up to now we have assumed that the fermion and sfermion mass matrices are flavour diagonal in the same basis (the so-called super-CKM basis). In this section we consider the effects of nondiagonal entries in the sfermion mass matrices. It is customary to parametrize such nondiagonal entries by the so-called dimensionless mass insertions :

$`(\delta _{XY}^K)^{IJ}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_K^2)_{XY}^{IJ}}{\sqrt{(_K^2)_{XX}^{II}(_K^2)_{YY}^{JJ}}}},`$ (34)
where $`X,Y=L,R`$, $`K=u,d,l`$, $`(_K^2)_{XX}^{II}`$ are the diagonal elements of the $`XX`$ blocks of the full mass squared matrices, and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_K^2)_{XY}^{IJ}`$ are the off diagonal entries of the $`XY`$ blocks. Most of these insertions are bounded by the existing experimental data (for review, see refs. ). In the case of the $`B^0\overline{l}^Bl^A`$ decay the relevant insertions are $`\left(\delta _{XY}^l\right)^{AB}`$ and $`\left(\delta _{XY}^d\right)^{I3}`$, $`I=1,2`$.

The first interesting point is to check the effects of the slepton mass insertions which are the only source of the decays $`B^0\overline{l}l^{}`$ (through the box diagrams with charginos in the loop). Very strong bounds from nonobservation of the transition $`\mu e\gamma `$ exist only on the $`(\left(\delta _{LR}^l\right)^{12}`$ insertions  whereas in the case of the $`B^0\overline{l}l^{}`$ decay most important are the insertions $`\delta _{LL}^l`$ on which the bounds are weaker 999Ref.  gives $`\left(\delta _{LL}^l\right)^{12}<0.2\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}}{0.5\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^2`$, $`\left(\delta _{LL}^l\right)^{13}<700\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}}{0.5\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^2`$ and $`\left(\delta _{LL}^l\right)^{23}<100\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}}{0.5\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^2`$, which in most cases are superseded by $`\delta _{LL}^l\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$ \- the limit in which one of the sneutrinos becomes tachionic.. Taking $`m_{C_1}=100`$ GeV, light stop $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}100`$ GeV and adjustnig the slepton sector mass parameters so to keep $`M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}\stackrel{>}{_{}}90`$ GeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\stackrel{>}{_{}}50`$ for $`\left(\delta _{LL}^l\right)^{13(23)}0.9`$ we get

$`BR(B_s^0\overline{l}l^{})`$ $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$
$`BR(B_d^0\overline{l}l^{})`$ $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ $`3.8\times 10^{13}`$ (35)
where $`ll^{}=e\tau `$ or $`\mu \tau `$. (The largest rates are obtained for $`|M_2/\mu |\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$ and small stop mixing angle $`\theta _t`$; the result scale approximately as $`|\delta _{LL}^l|^2`$.) For other parameters (heavier stops and charginos) branching fractions for these processes are, of course, smaller.

We now discuss the effects of the flavour non-diagonal mass insertions in the down-type squark mass matrix and return to the $`\overline{l}l`$ finel states. The approximate formulae accounting for the effects of the insertions $`\left(\delta _{XY}^d\right)^{IJ}`$ are easily derived in the so-called mass insertion method  in which fllavour off diagonal elements of the sfermion mass squared matrices are treated as additional interactions. Usually, the linear appromation in $`\left(\delta _{XY}^d\right)^{IJ}`$ is sufficient to account for the results obtained with the full diagramatic calculation. In the case of a nonzero $`\left(\delta _{XY}^d\right)^{I3}`$ insertion the dominant contribution is expected to come from the diagrams involving gluinos, due to their strong coupling, $`g_s=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _s}`$, to quarks and squarks. 101010For nonzero $`\left(\delta _{XY}^d\right)^{I3}`$ insertion also neutralinos contribute; moreover a nonzero $`\left(\delta _{LL}^d\right)^{I3}`$ insertion induces, via the CKM matrix (see e.g. ), nonzero $`\left(\delta _{LL}^u\right)^{I3}`$ insertions which affect in principle the chargino contribution. Both these effects are small but are taken into account in our numerical code. (This expectation is confirmed by the numerical computation in which all one-loop contributions are taken into account.) Since at one-loop there are no box diagrams with gluinos we are left only with the $`Z^0`$ and neutral Higgs boson penguin diagrams. As previously, the latter type of penguin diagrams is important only for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Another important remark is that because the change of flavour in the gluino diagrams does not originate from the CKM mass matrix, the rates of the $`B_d^0`$ decays need not be suppressed compared to the rates of the $`B_s^0`$ decays.

For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values not too large, only the $`Z^0`$ penguin contribution can be important. Direct computation shows however, that in the formula (11) terms linear in the mass insertions $`\left(\delta _{LL(RR)}^d\right)^{I3}`$ cancel out completely between the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^V`$ and the proper vertex correction $`F_X^V`$ ($`X=L,R`$). Because of that, the effects of the nonzero $`\left(\delta _{LL(RR)}^d\right)^{I3}`$ mass insertions, even taking into account their quadratic and higher contributions in gluino exchanges as well as neutralino diagrams, are small for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values for which the neutral Higgs boson penguin graphs are negligible. Larger effects could come only from nonzero $`\left(\delta _{LR}^d\right)^{I3}`$ mass insertions which, however, are strongly constrained : $`|\left(\delta _{LR}^d\right)^{13}|<0.07(m_{max}/1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$, $`|\left(\delta _{LR}^d\right)^{23}|<0.03(m_{max}/1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ (where $`m_{max}(max(M_{sq},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})`$). Respecting these constraints, $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ ($`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ ) remains of order $`4\times 10^9`$ ($`10^{10})`$.

In the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we have to compute in the linear approximation in the mass insertions both the scalar parts of the self energies and the 1PI vertex corrections to the couplings $`\overline{d}_Jd_IS^0(P^0)`$. For the self energies we get

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LR}^{IJ}C_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)`$
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}m_b(A_b+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)\}`$ (36)
where $`D_0`$ is the standard four-point function

$`D_0(a,b,c,d)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab}}\left[C_0(a,c,d)C_0(b,c,d)\right],`$ (37)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the gluino mass and $`M_D`$ is the average mass of the two botom squarks. Similar formula is obtained for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^S`$ with the replacement $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RR}`$.

In the same approximation, for the vertex correction $`\overline{d}_Jd_IP^0`$ we get

$`F_L^P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}Z_H^{1k}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LR}^{IJ}C_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{M_W}}\left(m_{d_I}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RR}^{IJ}+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}m_{d_J}\right)Z_H^{2k}\mathrm{tan}\beta D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)`$
$``$ $`Z_H^{1k}\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_WM_W}}A_b(m_{d_I}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RR}^{IJ}+m_{d_J}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ})D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)\}`$
where for the three-linear soft term we have used $`A_D^{II}Y_d^IA_b`$. $`F_R^P`$ is similar, with $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RR}^{IJ}`$. Combining (S0.Ex17) and (36) according to (13), we see that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RL}^{IJ}`$ cancels out. Moreover, since the CP-odd scalar $`A^0`$ whose coupling to leptons is enhanced, corresponds to $`k=1`$ and $`Z_H^{21}=\mathrm{cos}\beta 0`$, the second line in (S0.Ex17) is suppressed compared to the third one. Therefore, we can write:

$`\widehat{F}_L^P{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{M_W}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mu \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)`$ (39)
where we have retained only $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}`$ which in $`\widehat{F}_L^P`$ is multiplied by $`m_{d_J}=m_b`$ and neglected $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{RR}^{IJ}`$ which is multiplied by $`m_{d_I}`$ (in $`\widehat{F}_R^P`$ it is the other way around). Similar calculation leads to

$`\widehat{F}_L^S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{M_W}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mu \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_D^2\right)_{LL}^{IJ}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)`$ (40)
Computing the relevant Wilson coefficients we finally find for the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{M_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}\right)^4\lambda _{tI}`$ (41)
$`\times `$ $`\left[Y(x_t){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_W}{e}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{M_{A^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\delta _{LL}^d\right)^{I3}}{\lambda _{tI}}}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu M_D^2D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)\right]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{M_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}\right)^4\lambda _{tI}`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_W}{e}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{M_{A^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\delta _{LL}^d\right)^{I3}}{\lambda _{tI}}}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu M_D^2D_0(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_D^2,M_D^2,M_D^2)\right]`$
in which we have displayed also the SM contribution to allow for easy estimate of the magnitude of the gluino contribution. It is essential that the dominant effect is due to the $`LL`$ insertion and not the LR one which is much more strongly constrained . Similarly as in the case of the chargino contribution through the neutral Higgs boson penguin graphs, also the gluino (and neutralino) contribution is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ and does not vanish when all SUSY mass parameters are uniformly scaled up (provided the dimensionless mass insertion is kept fixed). Figure 6 shows the result of the full diagramatic computation of the SM and gluino exchange contributions to $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ as a function of the $`\mu `$ parameter for $`(\delta _{LL}^d)^{23}=0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`M_A=200`$ GeV. The minimum for $`\mu =0`$ is clearly seen. The gluino contribution scales approximately as $`|(\delta _{LL}^d)^{23}|^2`$.

Figure 7 shows the results of the general scan over the MSSM parameter space in the form of the scatter plot $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ versus $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ for $`(\delta _{LL}^d)^{23}=0.1`$ and versus versus $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ for $`(\delta _{LL}^d)^{13}=0.05`$. The parameters have been varied in the following ranges: $`100<m_{C_1}<600`$ GeV, $`0.1<|M_2/\mu |<5`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=3M_2`$, $`60^o<\theta _t<60^o`$, $`A_b=A_t`$, $`0.5<M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}/m_{C_1}<1.5`$, $`1<M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}/M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}<5`$, $`0.25<(m_D^2)_{33}/m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2<2.25`$. For other entries of the squark mass matrices we took $`(m_X^2)_{KK}=(m_D^2)_{33}`$. All points for which $`M_h<107`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{sqark}>6\times 10^4`$ (as well as points with too light stops) have been rejected. Results for $`(\delta _{RR}^d)^{I3}`$ are similar.

In agreement with the bounds given in refs. , the measured by CLEO  $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ does not constrain the rate of the $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ decay (nor does it exhibit any particular correlation with the latter) and the latter can attain values of the order of $`10^4`$, respecting all the relevant phenomenological constraints. As expected, whenever the gluino contribution is dominant the rates of the $`B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ and $`B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decays are comparable which means that $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ can also be as large as $`10^4`$ for $`(\delta _{LL}^d)^{13}=0.1`$ (in the plot, we took $`(\delta _{LL}^d)^{13}=0.05`$ in order to satisfy the bound $`(\delta _{LL(RR)}^d)^{13}<0.2(m_{max}/1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$  for almost all points in the scan; however the biggest effects are for $`m_{max}`$ large for which $`(\delta _{LL(RR)}^d)^{13}`$ can be larger). It follows, that for such values of the MSSM parameters, the current CLEO bound, $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)<6.2\times 10^7`$  puts constraints on $`(\delta _{LL(RR)}^d)^{13}`$ which are much stronger than the ones given in .

6. Conclusions

We have performed a complete one loop diagramatic calculation of the decay rate of the $`B_{s(d)}^0`$ mesons into charged leptons. Both possible sources of the FCNC processe, the CKM mixing matrix and the off diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices, have been considered. For values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for which the neutral Higgs boson penguin graphs are negligible the rates of these decays in the MSSM remain of the order of the SM prediction.

Large enhancement of the SM prediction can occur for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ provided the additional Higgs bosons predicted by the MSSM are not too heavy (all the large contributions behave as $`1/M_A^2`$, where $`M_A`$ is the mass of the CP-odd neutral Higgs boson). The contribution of the Higgs sector grows like $`\mathrm{tan}^4\beta `$ and can give $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)2\times 10^8`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$. Dominant effects of the chargino sector grow as $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ and depend strongly on the top squark mixing. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$ and substantial mixing of the top squarks they can give $`BR(B_{s(d)}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ up to $`5\times 10^5`$($`10^6`$) respecting other phenomenological constraints including the maesurement of $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$. Large effects, growing as $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ and exhibiting strong dependence on the $`\mu `$ parameter, can be also induced by the off diagonal elements of the down-type squark mass matrix. As we have shown, $`BR(B_{s(d)}^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ is sensitive to the 23 (13) off-diagonal entries of the LL and RR blocks of these matrices, which are not so strongly constrained by $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_t/m_b`$ and $`M_A\stackrel{<}{_{}}200`$ GeV these effects can easily give $`BR(B_s^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ larger than $`10^4`$. It is also interesting that even for $`BR(B_d^0\mu ^{}\mu ^+)`$ these effects can be so large that they could exceed the present CLEO limit  which, therefore, already now puts constraints on the MSSM parameter space.

Finally it is important to stress that, both types of effects growing as $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ do not necessarily decrease as sparticles become heavy. However, they are sensitive to the mass scale of the extended Higgs sector. Thus, large deviation from the SM prediction observed in these decays, apart from being a signal of supersymmetry, would have important implications on the Higgs search at the LHC.

Acknowledgments P.H.Ch. would like to thank S. Pokorski for usefull discussion. His work was partly supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant 2 P03B 052 16 for 1999-2000.


format: text

text:
# Spatial coherence of thermal near fields

## Introduction

The typical textbook example of an incoherent source is a thermal source. From the point of view of temporal coherence, its spectrum is given by Planck’s function and modified by its emissivity. For usual sources, the emissivity is a smooth function of frequency. Thus, the spectral width is usually on the order of the peak frequency of Planck’s function. From the point of view of spatial coherence, a thermal source is often assumed to be delta correlated. Yet, an exact form of the cross-spectral density tensor has been derived for a blackbody radiator and it has been shown that the spatial coherence length is $`\lambda /2`$ . These exact results seem to support the statement that a thermal source is incoherent. Yet, one has to analyze more carefully the problem when dealing with a real thermal source. In this paper, we consider a source that consists of a half space filled with a lossy material at temperature $`T`$. We are interested in the emitted field so that we assume that there are no other sources. Thus there is no incident radiation illuminating the sample. Note in particular that this is not an equilibrium situation.

Since we explicitly introduce a model for the source, the emitted field contains evanescent waves in the vicinity of the interface. These evanescent waves are not taken into account when dealing with blackbody radiation. Yet, they modify the coherence properties of the source in the near field as was shown in . The effect is particularly striking if a resonant surface wave is excited. It has been shown that the coherence length can be either much larger than the wavelength or much shorter than $`\lambda /2`$ close to the surface. Temporal coherence is also dramatically modified. For example, the emitted radiation is almost monochromatic when a surface wave is excited . These results were obtained using a direct calculation of the field emitted by a half-space in the framework of fluctuation electrodynamics .

The subject of this paper is to analyze the spatial coherence of the emitted field by means of an asymptotic evaluation of the cross-spectral density tensor in the near-field limit (interface-detector distance small compared to the wavelength). This analysis permits to retrieve the properties reported in  and yields insight into the physical mechanism responsible for these effects. We are thus able to identify all the possible contributions to the cross-spectral density tensor : thermally excited surface plasmons, skin-layer currents and small-scale polarization fluctuations. We show that to a good approximation, the sum of these three asymptotic contributions coincides with the exact result. We obtain different characteristic behaviours that vary in accordance with the dominant term. Surface waves such as surface plasmon-polaritons or surface phonon-polaritons yield long-range spatial coherence on a scale of the surface wave propagation length which may be much larger than the wavelength when aborption is small. On the contrary, skin-layer currents and small-scale polarization fluctuations lead to a much shorter spatial coherence length that only depends on the distance to the interface. A surprising consequence of this property is that the macroscopic theory of radiometry may be extended into the mesoscopic regime insofar as emission is concerned. Note however that this conclusion is based on the assumption of a local medium. The ultimately limiting scale is thus given by the electron screening length or the electron Fermi wavelength, whatever is larger .

## 1 Overview

### 1.1 Radiation emitted by a thermal source

In this section, we review the source theory approach we use for the computation of the thermal electromagnetic field . We focus on the radiation in the vacuum close to a source that we model as a linear dielectric with dielectric function $`\epsilon (𝐫;\omega )`$. The frequency dependence will not be indicated explicitly in the following since we calculate quantities at fixed frequency (or, equivalently, at fixed wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi c/\omega `$. The source radiates because it contains a fluctuating polarization field $`𝐏(𝐫)`$. The spectral density of this field is characterized by the cross-correlation tensor $`S_P^{ij}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ that, according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem , is given by

$$S_P^{ij}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\frac{2\mathrm{}\epsilon _0\mathrm{Im}\epsilon (𝐫_1)}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT}1}\delta ^{ij}\delta (𝐫_1𝐫_2)$$
(1)
The Kronecker $`\delta ^{ij}`$ and the spatial $`\delta `$-function in this formula follow from the assumption that the dielectric function is isotropic and local. We have taken the normal-ordered form for the polarization field spectrum since we are ultimately interested in the electromagnetic field measured by a photodetector (given by normally-ordered field operators ). The electric field $`𝐄(𝐫)`$ radiated by the polarization $`𝐏(𝐫)`$ is now given by the Green function for the source geometry

$$E_i(𝐫)=\underset{V}{}d𝐫^{}\underset{j}{}G^{ij}(𝐫,𝐫^{})P_j(𝐫^{})$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the source, *i.e.*, the domain where $`\mathrm{Im}\epsilon (𝐫^{})`$ is nonzero according to (1). All quantities in (2) are understood as temporal Fourier transforms at frequency $`\omega `$. The coherence function $`W^{ij}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ of the electromagnetic field is now obtained as a thermal average of (2), using the polarization spectrum (1). One obtains

$`W^{ij}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}\epsilon _0}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT}1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}𝐫^{}\mathrm{Im}\epsilon (𝐫^{})\times `$ (3)
$`\times G^{ik}(𝐫_1,𝐫^{})G^{jk}(𝐫_2,𝐫^{})`$
The problem is now to evaluate this expression analytically and to obtain an estimate for its dependence on the separation $`𝐬𝐫_2𝐫_1`$ between the observation points.

> Fig.1: Model geometry for a planar source.

To proceed in the calculation, we focus on the simplified geometry shown in figure 1: an infinite half-space with uniform dielectric constant $`\epsilon `$, separated by the plane $`z=0`$ from the empty half-space $`z>0`$. For this arrangement, the Green tensor is explicitly known as a spatial Fourier transform with respect to the lateral separation $`𝐒=(s_x,s_y)𝐑_2𝐑_1`$. Details may be found in  and in appendix A. As to be expected for this source geometry, the electric coherence tensor depends on the distances $`z_1,z_2`$ of the observers and their lateral separation $`𝐒`$. For simplicity, we put in the following $`z_1=z_2=z`$. We also normalize the coherence tensor $`W^{ij}`$ to its value for $`𝐫_1=𝐫_2`$ in the case of blackbody radiation

$$W_{bb}=\frac{2\mathrm{}k^3}{3\pi \epsilon _0(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT}1)}$$
(4)
where as usual $`k=\omega /c`$. As outlined in appendix A, we thus get the following expression for the spatial Fourier transform of the coherence tensor

$`w^{ij}(𝐒,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W^{ij}(𝐒,z)}{W_{bb}}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝐊}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐊𝐒2z\mathrm{Im}\gamma }w^{ij}(𝐊)}`$
where $`𝐊`$ denotes a wave vector parallel to the interface and $`(𝐊,\gamma )`$ is the vacuum wave vector of a plane wave emitted by the source. The tensor $`w^{ij}(𝐊)`$ is given in appendix A, eq.(37). The integration over $`𝐊`$ in (5) also includes wave vectors $`|𝐊|>k`$, describing evanescent waves the source excites in the vicinity of the interface (the quantity $`\gamma `$ is then purely imaginary with positive imaginary part).

### 1.2 Near field coherence function

In this subsection, the typical behaviour of the field coherence function is discussed. We identify several distance regimes showing a very different behaviour of the lateral coherence function. Analytical approximations for the coherence function are deferred to the next section.

In figure 2 is shown the ‘energy density’ (the trace of the coherence tensor at coinciding positions) above a metal surface in double logarithmic scale. One observes a strong increase with respect to the far field energy density when the distance $`z`$ is smaller than the wavelength. For moderate distances $`z\lambda `$, the energy density is dominated by an exponentially increasing contribution \[cf. fig.2(b)\]. This is due to the excitation of surface plasmon resonances, whose contribution is calculated analytically in subsection 2.1. The other curve in fig.2(b) shows the energy density for the case of tungsten with $`\mathrm{Re}\epsilon >1`$ where no surface mode exists and no exponential increase is found. For small distances $`z\lambda `$, the energy density follows a $`1/z^3`$ power law (‘static limit’) that is discussed in subsection 2.2. The prefactor of this power law involves the imaginary part of the electrostatic reflection coefficient Im\[$`(\epsilon 1)/(\epsilon +1)`$\]. The second curve in fig.2(a) illustrates the resonantly enhanced energy density for a wavelength where $`\mathrm{Re}\epsilon 1`$. The ‘static limit’ contribution then overwhelms that of the plasmon resonance.

In figure 3, we show the normalized lateral coherence function at chosen distances from the interface. In the far field \[plot 3(a)\], the coherence length is $`\lambda /2`$, and the coherence function the same as for the blackbody field ($`(\mathrm{sin}ks)/ks`$ behaviour). This is not surprising since at large distances $`z\lambda `$, only propagating plane waves radiated into the vacuum half space contribute to the field.

When the surface plasmon excitation dominates the field energy ($`z\lambda `$), the field coherence extends over much longer distances \[plot 3(b)\]. This is because of the weak damping of the plasmon modes in this case. We show below (subsection 2.1) that the coherence length is indeed given by the plasmon propagation length. The figure also shows that the field is strongly polarized perpendicular to the interface, as is the surface plasmon mode.

At distances $`z\lambda `$ even closer to the source, the field coherence length gets shorter again \[plot 3(c)\]. We show below that in this regime, the field behaves as if it was quasi-static (subsection 2.2). This leads to a lateral coherence length equal to the vertical distance $`z`$ from the interface and hence much shorter than the wave length. We thus find the surprising result that thermal near fields have no lower limit in their coherence length, as long as the dielectric function of the source may be taken as local.

One might finally ask whether the skin depth $`\delta `$ \[defined in (23)\] is relevant for the radiation emitted by a metallic source. This question is discussed in subsection 2.3 where we show that in the regime $`\delta z\lambda `$, a different power law ($`1/z^2`$) governs the energy density (see fig.4(a) below). The lateral coherence behaves similar to the static regime $`z\delta `$, however, as shown in fig.4(b) below.

## 2 Analytical approximations

### 2.1 Plasmon contribution

It is well known that a dielectric-vacuum interface supports surface plasmon polariton (or phonon polariton) modes provided the dielectric constant satisfies $`\mathrm{Re}\epsilon <1`$ . These surface modes propagate parallel to the surface with a wave vector $`K_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ and are exponentially localized in the direction perpendicular to the interface. In addition, if there are losses in the dielectric, the propagation parallel to the interface is damped which may be described by a nonzero imaginary part of $`K_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. Mathematically, we obtain the plasmon dispersion relation by identifying the poles of the transmission coefficients $`t_\mu `$ ($`\mu =\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}`$) as a function of the wave vector $`K`$. Only the p-polarization (magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of incidence) gives a pole at the (complex) position

$$K_{\mathrm{pl}}=k\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon 1}},\mathrm{Re}K_{\mathrm{pl}},\mathrm{Im}K_{\mathrm{pl}}>0$$
(6)
The plasmon pole shows up as a sharp peak when the integrand $`w^{ij}(𝐊)`$ in (5) is plotted as a function of the lateral wave vector magnitude $`K`$ \[cf. eq.(37)\]. This suggests that we get a good approximation to the plasmon contribution by taking slowly varying terms outside the integral and evaluating the pole contribution by contour integration. For example, the denominator of the $`|t_\mathrm{p}|^2`$ transmission coefficient may be approximated as

$$\frac{1}{|\epsilon \gamma +\gamma _2|^2}\frac{4|\epsilon |^2}{|\epsilon +1||\epsilon 1|^2}\mathrm{Im}\frac{1}{K^2K_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}$$
(7)
where $`\gamma =\gamma (K)`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are the vertical wave vector components above and below the interface. It is essential for the contour integration to work that one expresses the absolute square on the left hand side as the imaginary part of an analytic function of $`K`$ (right hand side).

It is easily checked from (37) that the trace of $`w^{ij}(𝐊)`$ only depends on the magnitude $`K`$ of the lateral wave vector $`𝐊`$. The integration over the angle between $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐒`$ therefore gives

$`\mathrm{Tr}w^{ij}(𝐒,z)=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{d}K}{2\pi }}J_0(Ks)\mathrm{e}^{2z\mathrm{Im}\gamma }\mathrm{Tr}w^{ij}(𝐊)`$ (8)
where $`J_0()`$ is the ordinary Bessel function and $`s=|𝐒|`$. The individual tensor components also involve Bessel functions $`J_2(Ks)`$, as discussed in appendix B.1. The integration over $`K`$ may be done using the identity (39) proven in appendix B.2.1. The diagonal elements of the coherence tensor finally take the suggestive form

$`w^{ii}(𝐒,z)`$ $``$ $`C_{\mathrm{pl}}\mathrm{e}^{2\kappa _{\mathrm{pl}}z}g^i(K_{\mathrm{pl}}s)`$ (9)
$`g^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Re}\left[H_0(u)H_2(u){\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{i}}{\pi u^2}}\right]`$ (10)
$`g^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Re}\left[H_0(u)+H_2(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{i}}{\pi u^2}}\right]`$ (11)
$`g^z(u)`$ $`=`$ $`|\epsilon |\mathrm{Re}H_0(u)`$ (12)
$`C_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\epsilon |^2}{|\epsilon +1|^{7/2}}}.`$ (13)
where $`\kappa _{\mathrm{pl}}=\mathrm{Im}\gamma (K_{\mathrm{pl}})`$ is the perpendicular plasmon decay constant and $`H_{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}()H_{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{(1)}()`$ are Hankel functions (or Bessel functions of the third kind) . The superscripts $`,`$ indicate the directions parallel and perpendicular to the separation vector $`𝐒`$ in the interface plane.

Eq.(9) shows that the plasmon resonance gives a contribution to the energy density that increases exponentially when approaching the source. This behaviour is reproduced by the numerical evaluation of (37), as shown in fig. 2(b). As a function of the lateral distance $`s`$, the correlation tensor eq.(9) shows damped oscillations whose wavelength is fixed by the plasmon wave vector $`K_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, as shown in fig.3(b). These oscillations can be made explicit using the asymptotic form of the Hankel function

$`|K_{\mathrm{pl}}s|1:`$
$`H_n(K_{\mathrm{pl}}s)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi K_{\mathrm{pl}}s}}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(K_{\mathrm{pl}}s\pi /4n\pi /2)}`$ (14)
We thus conclude that the propagation distance of the plasmon resonance, as contained in the imaginary part of $`K_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, determines the coherence length of the field in this regime. For a dielectric constant with small imaginary part, the inverse propagation distance is approximately

$$\mathrm{Im}K_{\mathrm{pl}}\frac{(\mathrm{Re}K_{\mathrm{pl}})^3}{k^2}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\epsilon }{2(\mathrm{Re}\epsilon )^2}k.$$
(15)
Thermally excited plasmons thus lead to a spatially coherent field on a length scale well exceeding the vacuum wave length. They also create a net field polarization, as shown by the anisotropy of the tensor elements in (10-12) \[see also fig.3(b)\]. This anisotropy may be understood from the fact that the coherence between points separated by $`𝐒`$ is created by plasmons propagating parallel to this direction, and the latter are polarized in the plane spanned by $`𝐒`$ and the normal vector $`𝐞_z`$.

### 2.2 Extreme near field: quasi-static regime

We now turn to the near field limit $`z\lambda `$. Inspecting the integrand of (37), one finds that in addition to the plasmon resonance, large wave vectors $`Kk`$ dominate the integral. This is because the exponential cutoff $`\mathrm{e}^{2z\mathrm{Im}\gamma (K)}\mathrm{e}^{2zK}`$ gets effective only for $`K1/zk`$. We thus obtain the asymptotic behaviour of the integral when we expand the integrand to leading order in the limit $`1/zKk`$. The transmission coefficients, *e.g.*, become in this limit

$`|t_\mathrm{p}|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4|\gamma _2|^2|\epsilon |}{K^2|\epsilon +1|^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{K^2}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon +1}}\right)`$
$`|t_\mathrm{s}|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4|\gamma _2|^2}{K^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4K^2}}\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon +1)\right)`$ (16)
We perform the integration over $`K`$ using eq.(45), as explained in appendix B.2.2 and get the following asymptotic form for the diagonal elements of the cross-correlation tensor

$`w^{ii}(𝐒,z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{xnf}}}{(kz)^3}}g^i(s/z)`$ (17)
$`g^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1u^2/2}{(1+u^2/4)^{5/2}}}`$ (18)
$`g^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+u^2/4)^{3/2}}}`$ (19)
$`g^z(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2u^2/4}{(1+u^2/4)^{5/2}}}`$ (20)
$`C_{\mathrm{xnf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon 1}{\epsilon +1}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\epsilon }{|\epsilon +1|^2}}`$ (21)
The coherence tensor given by (17) shows a power law increase $`1/z^3`$ when the interface is approached, as plotted in fig. 2(a). It therefore takes over compared to the plasmon contribution in the ‘extreme near field limit’ $`z1/\kappa _{\mathrm{pl}}`$. In this regime, the lateral coherence of the field is characterized, as shown by the scale functions $`g^i(s/z)`$ in (18-20), by a lorentzian shape whose scale is set by the distance $`z`$ to the source. Hence, the closer one detects the field, the more it is spatially incoherent.

This behaviour may be understood from electrostatics: in the near field, the electromagnetic fields behave as if they were quasi-static because they vary on a length scale much smaller than the wave length (retardation is negligible). A near field detector is thus sensitive to a source area of the order of $`\pi z^2`$, and spatial coherence is observed when these areas overlap, hence for a separation smaller than the distance $`z`$. Similar arguments have also been put forward to interpret subwavelength resolution in optical near field microscopy . The electrostatic analogy may be pushed even further: it is easily checked that we get the same result as (17) using electrostatic image theory. As a consequence of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem , we have indeed

$`W^{ij}(𝐫_2,𝐫_1)\mathrm{Im}G^{ij}(𝐫_2,𝐫_1)`$
$`\mathrm{Im}E_{\mathrm{image}}^i(𝐫_2;\overline{𝐫}_1,\overline{𝐝}_j),`$ (22)
where $`G^{ij}`$ is again the electric Green function. The electric field $`𝐄_{\mathrm{image}}`$ is created by the image $`\overline{𝐝}_j`$ of a dipole $`𝐝_j`$ (polarized along the $`x^j`$-axis) at position $`𝐫_1`$, the image dipole being located at the mirror position $`\overline{𝐫}_1=(x_1,y_1,z_1)`$. This image dipole field dominates the Green function $`G^{ij}`$ at sufficiently close distance from the source if the electrostatic reflection coefficient $`(\epsilon 1)/(\epsilon +1)`$ has a nonzero imaginary part \[see eq.(21)\].

We stress that there is no lower limit to the spatial coherence length of the near field, provided one uses the framework of a local dielectric susceptibility. Model calculations for a free electron gas confined to a half-space show that this framework breaks down at wave vectors $`K`$ of the order of the Fermi wave vector . For our problem, this corresponds to typical distances of the order of $`0.1`$nm that are difficult to achieve for near field probes even in the optical range.

### 2.3 Relevance of the skin depth

It has become clear from the two preceding subsections that the lateral coherence of near field radiation strongly depends on the distance of observation to the source. It might have been expected that the skin depth shows up in this discussion, since it governs the penetration depth for electric fields into the metal. We conclude our analytical work by identifying the relevance of this length scale.

Recall that the skin depth is given by

$$\delta =\frac{\lambda /2\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\sqrt{\epsilon }}$$
(23)
For good conductors and low frequencies, the dielectric function is dominated by its zero-frequency pole

$$\epsilon =\frac{\mathrm{i}\sigma }{\epsilon _0\omega }$$
(24)
where $`\sigma `$ is the (possibly frequency dependent) conductivity. In particular, one has $`|\epsilon |1`$ and $`\delta \lambda `$ in this regime: the source material hence approaches a perfect conductor. This implies that the large $`K`$ expansion of the transmission coefficients in (37) has to be reconsidered: while the limit $`Kk`$ may be justified, the limit $`Kk|\sqrt{\epsilon }|`$ may be not. We find that there exists an intermediate distance regime $`\delta z\lambda `$ (corresponding to wave vectors $`k|\sqrt{\epsilon }|Kk`$) where the coherence tensor shows a different behaviour . The expansion of the transmission coefficients in this regime reads

$`|t_\mathrm{p}|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4|\gamma _2|^2}{|\epsilon |K^2}}\left[1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{k\sqrt{\epsilon }}}\right)\right]`$
$`|t_\mathrm{s}|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4|\gamma _2|^2}{|\epsilon |k^2}}\left[1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{k\sqrt{\epsilon }}}\right)\right]`$ (25)
We finally get an isotropic coherence tensor

$`w^{ii}(𝐒,z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{kz^2}}g(s/z)`$ (26)
$`g(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+u^2/4)^{3/2}}}`$ (27)
The skin layer dominated regime is thus characterized by a $`1/z^2`$ power law for the energy density. As shown in figure 4(a), the skin depth $`\delta `$ separates this regime from the extreme near field where a different power law $`1/z^3`$ prevails.

We observe from fig.4(b) and (26) that the lateral coherence length is equal to the distance $`z`$ from the source, as in the extreme near field regime. This is not so surprising since the field propagation in the vacuum half space above the source is governed by the length scales $`\lambda `$ and $`z`$, whatever the smaller, while the skin depth is only relevant for the propagation inside the source.

To conclude, we recall that the different contributions to the correlation tensor originate in distinct domains on the $`K`$-axis in the integral (5). The total correlation tensor is therefore given by the sum of the surface plasmon, extreme near field, and skin-layer contributions. The accuracy of this approximation is visible in figs.2, 4(a). Note that in the figures, the numerically computed far-field energy density has been added to get the correct large distance limit.

## 3 Conclusion

In the near field, the spatial coherence of thermal radiation differs strongly from the blackbody field. Confined field modes like surface plasmon polaritons that propagate along the source surface make the field spatially coherent over large scales if they dominate the radiation density. At close distance (smaller than the skin depth), the radiation is dominated by quasi-static fields, and the coherence length drops well below the wave length, being limited only by the (non)locality of the dielectric response of the source material. The cross over between these regimes is determined by the skin depth and the electrostatic reflection coefficient. We conclude that in the near field, macroscopic concepts like a local emissivity are still meaningful at the subwavelength scale, provided coherent surface excitations are absent or subdominant.

The asymptotic forms for the cross spectral density tensor obtained in this paper are useful to characterize thermal noise fields that may perturb particles in integrated microtraps ‘mounted’ with electromagnetic fields above a solid surface . The concomitant scattering and decoherence of the guided matter waves is discussed elsewhere .

The fluctuation electrodynamics used in this paper enabled us to treat a non-equilibrium situation (thermal source in vacuum at $`T=0`$) where the fluctuation-dissipation theorem for the electric field is not immediately applicable. In particular, we neglected the zero-point radiation impinging on the interface from the empty half-space. The domain of validity of this approximation, as well as the calculation of anti-normal ordered correlation functions will be the subject of future investigations.

##### Acknowledgements.

C.H. thanks S. Scheel for many fruitful exchanges.

## Appendix A Notations for the plane interface

The Green tensor describing the emission from the source $`z^{}<0`$ into the vacuum half space $`z>0`$ may be written in spatial Fourier space as

$`G^{ij}(𝐫,𝐫^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝐊}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐊(𝐑𝐑^{})}G^{ij}(𝐊,z,z^{})}`$
$`G^{ij}(𝐊,z,z^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}k^2}{2\epsilon _0\gamma _2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mu =\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}}{}}e_{\mu ,i}^{(t)}e_{\mu ,j}^{(2)}t_\mu \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\gamma z\gamma _2z^{})}`$ (28)
We use bold capitals to denote vectors parallel to the interface, *e.g.*, $`𝐊=(k_x,k_y,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$. The vertical components of the wave vectors in vacuum and inside the source are, respectively,

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`+\sqrt{k^2𝐊^2},\mathrm{Im}\gamma >0`$ (29)
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`+\sqrt{\epsilon k^2𝐊^2},\mathrm{Im}\gamma _2>0`$ (30)
The polarization vectors for the s- (or TE-) and p- (TM-)polarized waves are taken as

$`𝐞_\mathrm{s}^{(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐞_\mathrm{s}^{(2)}=\widehat{𝐊}\times \widehat{𝐞}_z`$ (31)
$`𝐞_\mathrm{p}^{(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K\widehat{𝐳}\gamma \widehat{𝐊}}{k}}`$ (32)
$`𝐞_\mathrm{p}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K\widehat{𝐳}\gamma _2\widehat{𝐊}}{\sqrt{\epsilon }k}}`$ (33)
where $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ is the unit vector parallel to $`𝐊`$. Finally, with this choice for the polarization vectors, the Fresnel transmission coefficients are

$`t_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _2}{\gamma +\gamma _2}},t_\mathrm{p}={\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _2\sqrt{\epsilon }}{\epsilon \gamma +\gamma _2}}`$ (34)
When the Green tensor (28) is inserted into the integral (3), the spatial integration over $`𝐑^{}`$ yields a $`\delta `$-function for the lateral wave vectors. The integration over $`z^{}`$ is then

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}dz^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\gamma _2\gamma _2^{})z^{}}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{Im}\gamma _2}$$
(35)
where the convergence is ensured by the positive imaginary part of $`\gamma _2`$. The resulting coherence tensor is then of the form (5). We use the identity

$$k^2\mathrm{Im}\epsilon =2\mathrm{Im}\gamma _2\mathrm{Re}\gamma _2$$
(36)
and get after some elementary algebra:

$`w^{ij}(𝐊)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\gamma _2}{|\gamma _2|^2}}\times `$ (37)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}e_{\mu ,i}^{(t)}e_{\mu ,j}^{(t)}|𝐞_\mu ^{(2)}|^2|t_\mu |^2`$
## Appendix B Components of the coherence tensor

In this appendix, we outline the calculation for the components of the coherence tensor.

### B.1 Angular integrations

The only quantities in (37) that depend on the angle $`\phi `$ between the lateral wavevector $`𝐊`$ and the separation $`𝐒`$ are the polarization vectors $`𝐞_\mu `$. To simplify the calculation, we choose the $`x`$-axis parallel to $`𝐒`$. We then get the following azimuthal integrals (eq.9.1.18 of )

$$_\pi ^\pi \frac{\mathrm{d}\phi }{\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}Ks\mathrm{cos}\phi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi \\ \mathrm{cos}^2\phi \end{array}\right)=J_0(Ks)\pm J_2(Ks)$$
(38)
The integrals with $`\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi `$ vanish due to parity. We also note that one also gets nonzero off-diagonal elements $`W^{xz},W^{zx}`$ due to p-polarized modes. For simplicity, these are not discussed here.

### B.2 Radial integrations

We are left with integrals over the radial wave vector $`K`$. These are worked out using the definitions (33) of the polarization vectors and the transmission coefficients (34).

#### B.2.1 Plasmon pole

To find the plasmon contribution, we extract, as mentioned in the main text, the pole of the $`t_\mathrm{p}`$ coefficient and approximate the other factors by their values at the pole. The remaining integral can be reduced to the following standard form

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{d}x}{x^2q^2}J_0(xs)=\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi }{2}H_0^{(1)}(qs)$$
(39)
for $`\mathrm{Im}q>0,s>0`$. To prove this identity, we use contour integration. The Bessel function is written as (, eqs. 9.1.3, 9.1.39)

$$J_0(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left[H_0^{(1)}(x)H_0^{(1)}(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi }x)\right]$$
(40)
where $`H_0^{(1)}(x)`$ is the Hankel function. The integral may now be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi }\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{d}x}{x^2q^2}H_0^{(1)}(xs)$$
(41)
with an integration path running just above the negative real axis. The Hankel function is analytic in the upper half plane and vanishes exponentially for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ there \[see eq.(14)\]. Therefore, closing the integration contour with a half circle, the integral is given by the residue at the pole $`x=+q`$ (because $`\mathrm{Im}q>0`$), and we get

$$_{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi }\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{d}x}{x^2q^2}H_0^{(1)}(xs)=\mathrm{i}\pi H_0^{(1)}(qs)$$
(42)
This proves (39). Taking the imaginary part, we find both the trace and the $`zz`$-component (12) of the correlation tensor (9).

For the $`xx`$\- and $`yy`$ components of the coherence tensor, we also need the integral (39) with the Bessel function $`J_2(xs)`$ instead of $`J_0(xs)`$ \[cf. eq.(38)\]. Using the same reasoning as above, this integral is transformed into

$$\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi }\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{d}x}{x^2q^2}H_2^{(1)}(xs)$$
(43)
In addition to the pole at $`x=q`$, we now have a contribution from the $`4\mathrm{i}/(xs)^2`$ singularity of the Bessel $`H_2^{(1)}(xs)`$ function at the origin. This singularity lies on the integration path and is therefore taken into account by half its (negative) residue at $`x=0`$. Combining the latter with the residue at $`x=q`$, we get

$$_{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi }\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{d}x}{x^2q^2}H_2^{(1)}(xs)=\mathrm{i}\pi H_2^{(1)}(qs)\frac{4\pi }{q^2s^2}$$
(44)
We may verify the sign of the second term by checking that the function (44) vanishes in the limit $`s0`$, as is the case for the left hand side of (43).

#### B.2.2 Near field regime

In the near field regimes $`Kk|\sqrt{\epsilon }|`$ (extreme near field) and $`k|\sqrt{\epsilon }|Kk`$ (skin layer dominated regime), the expansions (16, 25) of the transmission coefficients are straightforward to obtain. The final integration involves integer powers of $`K`$ times products of Bessel functions and exponentials and is performed using the following identity

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dKJ_0(Ks)\mathrm{e}^{2Kz}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4z^2+s^2}}$$
(45)
This may be proven starting from the Fourier expansion of the Coulomb potential (writing $`𝐤=(𝐊,k^z)`$)

$$\frac{1}{r}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{d}^2𝐊dk^z\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐫}}{𝐤^2}$$
(46)
and evaluating the integral over the vertical wave vector component $`k^z`$ with contour integration (for $`z>0`$, a single pole at $`k^z=\mathrm{i}|𝐊|`$ contributes). The derivatives of (45) with respect to $`z`$ and $`s`$ then provide all necessary integrals.


text:
# Kinematic Evidence of Minor Mergers in Normal Sa Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Sa galaxies are the earliest Hubble types exhibiting clear evidence of spiral structure. But while the small pitch angle of the arms in Sa’s is distinctive, tightly wound spirals show a wide range of bulge size and current star formation rate, the other two criteria used to distinguish among the spiral types. Thus, the Sa class is heterogeneous, including gas-rich and gas-poor disks and large and small–bulged systems. Furthermore, in contrast to their later spiral counterparts, Sa’s typically occupy higher density environments and require little or no dark matter within their optical disks.

The origin of the heterogeneity of the Sa class has been the focus of a detailed study of the morphology, environment, kinematics and dynamics of a sample of nearby, undisturbed and relatively isolated Sa galaxies. Broad–band optical imaging observations provide luminosity profiles, colors and measures of morphological asymmetry in the stellar distribution. Long–slit spectroscopy along both the major and minor axes provide details of the kinematics of both stellar and ionized gas components. Narrow–band H$`\alpha `$ imaging identifies the sites of current massive star formation, while HI synthesis imaging provides measures of both morphological and dynamical asymmetry in the gas disk and details of the dynamics which can be used to trace the mass. The body of this work is presented in Jore (1997), Kornreich (2001), Jore et al. (1996), Haynes et al. (2000), Jore et al. (2000) and Kornreich et al. (2000).

## 2. Counterrotation in NGC 4138

Jore et al. (1996) presented results for the surprising case of NGC 4138, the first Sa we studied, specifically chosen for its relative isolation and morphological “boring”–ness. NGC 4138 is a smooth, undisturbed, small-bulged Sa, classified by the small pitch angle of its arms. An outlying member of the Ursa Major cluster, its nearest neighbor lies more than 9 times further than the observed HI extent. As evident in Figure 1, the HI gas is extended, with RHI/Ropt = 2.2, and the HI surface density is very low throughout. The HI rotation curve can be traced to 16 disk scale lengths, and while the observed HI rotation curve declines by 80 km s-1 beyond the optical edge, a significant warp is evident from the bending of the minor axis velocity contours, making the derivation of the mass distribution ambiguous. Nonetheless, at least 50% of the total mass within the optical radius is dark. Most curiously, however, all of the gas, as traced both by the HI and the optical emission lines, counterrotates with respect to the primary stellar component; a secondary stellar population, kinematically coupled to the gas, is also visible. The amplitude of the cross-correlation function of the stellar lines coincides spatially with an H$`\alpha `$ ring, previously noticed by Pogge & Eskridge (1987) and also shown in Figure 1, at a radius of $``$ 20′′. The two stellar components are characterized by distinct velocity dispersions, implying separate origins. Thakar et al. (1997) showed that the extended counter–rotating component might be the result either of the accretion of a gas–rich dwarf or retrograde primordial gas infall.

## 3. More Evidence of Minor Mergers

Of the overall sample of 20 Sa galaxies studied by Jore (1997), nearly half show some spectroscopic evidence of kinematic peculiarity. The degree and circumstances of the distinct kinematics vary from complete counterrotation of all of the gas from all/most of the stars (NGC 3626, NGC 4138) to nuclear gas disks decoupled from the stars (NGC 5854) to anomalous velocity central gas components (NGC 3623, NGC 3900, NGC 4772). The HI distribution in nine Sa’s was mapped with the VLA, and of those, all but NGC 3623, known to be a member of the interacting Leo Triplet, show RHI/R$`{}_{opt}{}^{}`$ 2. Rings are prominent features in both the optical light and in the distributions of ionized and neutral gas. While the HI velocity fields are dominated by circular rotation, the HI disks are significantly warped. In general, the HI surface density is very low and the outer HI is patchy and asymmetric (NGC 3900, NGC 4138) or found in a distinct ring, exterior to the optical edge (NGC 3626, NGC 4772, NGC 5448). While the overall HI velocity fields are dominated by circular motions, warps are suggested in the outer regions by bending of the minor axis isovelocity contours (NGC 1169, NGC 4138) and/or systematic shifts in position angle of the inner and outer rings (NGC 3626, NGC 4772). In the eight cases where the HI is extended, significant dark matter halos are required; in the other case (NGC 3623), the mass of the halo cannot be constrained by the detected rotation curve.

Kornreich et al. (2000) apply quantitative measures of morphological and dynamical asymmetry to the HI synthesis maps. While the stellar light distribution is axisymmetric, significant deviations from symmetry were found in both the HI morphology and dynamics. The complex kinematics seen in both the the optical long–slit spectroscopic data and the HI velocity fields is also evident in the warping of the HI disks. With the exception of the kinematically-normal SBa NGC 1169, none of these galaxies shows the simple warping behavior seen in the Briggs’ (1990) sample. Rather, the warping observed in most of the Sa galaxies is more complex and of order 15, as predicted by the simulations of minor mergers presented by Quinn et al. (1993) and Hernquist & Mihos (1995).

While Sa’s tend to be found in higher density environments, it may be very important that the present sample consists principally of relatively isolated, unbarred and undisturbed Sa galaxies. Although all show tightly wound arms, they span a range of bulge–to–disk ratios (B/D). Giuricin et al. (1995) have concluded that the observed tendency of galaxies to have greater B/D in higher density regions is simply reflective of morphological segregation. To try to see if B/D might correlate with environment within the Sa class, we have applied the 2-D decomposition scheme of Moriondo et al. (1998) to derive $`I`$ band B/D for a nearly-complete sample of northern Sa’s fitting a generalized exponential to the bulge light, $`I_b(r)=I_eexp[(r/r_e)^{1/n}],`$ where $`n`$ is the shape index. In on-going work, we find marginal evidence that Sa’s with close neighbors show a larger range of B/D than ones with no near neighbors (Hagemann 2000) and that $`n`$ may vary with environment.

While the current sample is small and consists of relatively isolated objects, their optical morphology bears no hint of the disturbances responsible for the complex kinematics evident in half the galaxies. Thus, minor mergers may play an important role in producing the heterogeneity of the Sa class through the triggering of starbursts, bulge–building or the dislocation of disk gas, but the evidence of such minor events is quickly lost from the morphological appearance of the stellar distribution as evident in optical images. Morphological criteria alone thus may seriously underestimate the rate of minor-to-moderate mergers.

### Acknowledgments.

I would know little about minor mergers in Sa galaxies were it not for my Cornell students Liz Barrett (M.Engr. 1999), Katrin Hagemann (M.S. 2000), Katie Jore (Ph.D. 1997), and Dave Kornreich (Ph.D. 2001) whose hard work and adviser–tolerance I gratefully acknowledge. This work has been supported by NSF grants AST–9023450, AST–9528860, and AST-9900695.

## References

Briggs, F. H. 1990, ApJ, 352, 15

Giuricin, G., Tektunali, F.L., Monaco, P., Mardirossian, F., & Mezzetti, M. 1995, ApJ, 450, 41

Hagemann, K.S. 2000, M.S. thesis, Cornell University

Haynes, M.P., Jore, K.P., Barrett, E.A., Broeils, A.H., & Murray, B.M. 2000, AJ, 120, 703

Hernquist, L., & Mihos, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 448, 41

Kornreich, D.A. 2001, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University

Kornreich, D.A., Haynes, M. P., Jore, K. P., & Lovelace, R.V.E. 2000, preprint

Jore, K. P. 1997, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University

Jore, K. P., Broeils, A. H., & Haynes, M. P. 1996, AJ, 112, 438

Jore, K.P., Haynes, M.P., Barrett, E.A. & Broeils, A.H. 2000, preprint

Moriondo, G., Giovanardi, C. & Hunt, L. K. 1998, A&A, 130, 81

Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L. and Fullagar, D. 1993, ApJ, 403, 74

Thakar, A. R., Ryden, B. S., Jore, K. P., & Broeils, A. H. 1997, ApJ, 479, 702