text:
# Electron-Ion Recombination Rate Coefficients and Photoionization Cross Sections for Astrophysically Abundant Elements. V. Relativistic calculations for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV for X-ray modeling

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Photoionization and recombination of Li-like and He-like ions is of particular interest in X-ray astronomy (e.g. Proceedings of the NASA workshop on Atomic data needs in X-ray astronomy 2000). X-ray Photoionization models in general require these parameters over all ranges of photon energies and temperatures prevalent in high-temperature sources such as the active galactic nuclei, supernova remnants, hot stellar coronae (Canizares et al. 2000, Brickhouse and Drake 2000, Kaastra and Mewe 2000). High precision is increasingly a prime requirement owing to the detailed observational spectroscopy from space obeservatories, particularly ASCA, CXO and XMM-Newton. X-ray emission in the 6.7 keV K$`\alpha `$ complex of He-like Fe XXV, from the $`n=21`$ transitions yields valuable spectral diagnostics for temperature, density, ionization balance, and abundances in the plasma source (Gabriel 1972, Mewe and Schrijver 1978, Pradhan and Shull 1981, Bely-Dubau et al. 1982, Pradhan 1985). Dielectronic satellite lines of Fe XXIV formed due to (e + ion) recombination with Fe XXV are useful as temperature diagnostics in both laboratory and astrophysical sources. Ionization balance and spectral studies therefore require comprehensive sets of photoionization/recombination cross sections.

For highly charged ions it is important to consider relativistic fine structure explicitly in the theoretical formulation, in addition to the often strong electron correlation effects. The close coupling approximation, employing the R-matrix method, has been widely employed to compute radiative and collisional parameters, such as under the Iron Project (Hummer et al. 1993). The close coupling calculations for the He- and Li-like ionization states involve eigenfunction expansions for the H- and He-like target ions, respectively, and it is necessary to include relativistic effects for high precision. Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy of available photoionization/recombination parameters, as well as to provide extensive sets of data needed for astrophysical models, we have re-calculated these using relativistic Breit-Pauli R-matrix method (hereafter BPRM). The first such calculations were reported for He- and Li-like C V and C IV in the present series (Nahar et al. 2000), together with a detailed description of the relativistic close coupling calculations for photoionization and recombination cross sections (total and level-specific), and unified (e + ion) recombination rates. The present work is basically similar and extends the treatment to iron ions.

## 2 THEORY

The electron-ion recombination calculations entail close coupling calculations for photoionization and electron-ion scattering. Identical eigenfunction expansion for the target (core) ion is employed for both processes; thus enabling inherently self-consistent photoionization/recombination results in an ab initio manner for a given ion. General details of the theory and close coupling BPRM calculations for photoionization and recombination are described in Nahar et al. (2000), and references therein. We sketch below the basic outline of the theoretical formulation.

We consider photoionization from, and recombination into, the infinity of levels of the (e + ion) system. These are divided into two groups of bound levels: (A) with $`\nu \nu _o`$ and all possible fine structure SLJ symmetries, and (B) $`\nu _o<\nu \mathrm{}`$; where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the target threshold(s). Photoionization and recombination calculations are carried out in detail for all group A levels. The photo-recombination cross sections are computed from the photoionization cross sections at a sufficiently large number of energies to delineate the non-resonant background and the autoionizing resonances, thereby representing both radiative and the dielectronic recombination (RR and DR) processes. Recombination into group B levels with $`\nu >\nu _o`$ is considered as entirely due to DR, neglecting the non-resonant background in the energy region where RR is usually extremely small. The theory by Bell and Seaton (1985) is applied (Nahar and Pradhan 1994) to calculate the DR collision strengths. The $`\nu _o`$ can assume any value consistent with the method, but is usually taken to be 10. Background photoionization cross sections of the high-Rydberg group B levels are computed hydrogenically (referred to as the “high-n top-up”, Nahar 1996), using procedures developed by Storey and Hummer (1992).

Several atomic effects related to the present calculations are also discussed in Nahar et al. (2000). In particular, it is pointed out that for the H-like and the He-like target ions, with strong dipole allowed $`2p1s`$ and $`1s2p(^1P_1^o)1s^2(^1S_0)`$ transitions respectively, autoionizing resonances are radiatively damped to a significant extent and this is taken into account in the calculation of detailed photoionization cross sections. In a test study on radiation damping, Pradhan and Zhang (1997) described a numerical fitting procedure to account for the autoionization vs. radiative decay of resonances. They also computed the dielectronic satellites of Fe XXIV (e + Fe XXV) and compared those with experimental data. Zhang et al. (1999) further reported BPRM calculations for a few individual resonance complexes (KLL, KLM, KLN, KLO, KLP), and compared with earlier works (discussed later).

## 3 COMPUTATIONS

Computations of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$ in the relativistic BPRM intermediate coupling approximations are carried out using the package of codes from the Iron Project (Berrington et al. 1995; Hummer et al. 1993), extended from the Opacity Project (OP) codes (Berrington et al. 1987, OP 1995, 1996). Radiation damping of resonances up to $`n=10`$ are included through use of the extended codes STGF and STGBF (Zhang et al. 1999, Nahar and Pradhan 1994). The BPRM calculations are carried out for each total angular momentum symmetry $`J\pi `$, corresponding to a set of fine structure target levels $`J_t`$. The target wavefunctions were obtained from atomic structure calculations using updated version of the code SUPERSTRUCTURE (Eissner et al. 1974)

The level-specific recombination cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}(i)`$, into level i of the recombined (e + ion) system, are obtained from the partial photoionization cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}(i,g)`$ of level i into the ground level of the recombining ion. These detailed (photo)recombination cross sections are calculated in the energy region from threshold up to about $`\nu =\nu _o=10`$, where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the target level of the recombining ion. Particular care is taken to delineate the resonances up to $`\nu \nu _o`$ completely. The electrons in this energy range generally recombine to a large number of final (e + ion) levels. Recombination cross sections are computed for all coupled symmetries and levels, and summed to obtain the total $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$.

In the higher energy region, $`\nu _o<\nu <\mathrm{}`$, below each threshold target level, where the resonances are narrow and dense and the background is negligible, we compute the detailed and the resonance averaged DR cross sections. The DR collision strengths in BPRM are obtained using extensions of the $`R`$-matrix asymptotic region code STGF (Nahar & Pradhan 1994, Zhang et al. 1999). It is necessary to use extremely fine energy mesh in order to delineate the resonance structures belonging to each $`n`$-complex.

The level specific recombination rate coefficients are obtained using a new computer program, BPRRC (Nahar et al 2000). The level specific rates are obtained for energies going up to infinity. These rates include both non-resonant and resonant contributions up to energies $`z^2/\nu _o^2`$; Contributions from all autoionizing resonances up to $`\nu \nu _o10`$ are included.

The program BPRRC sums up the level specific rates, which is added to the contributions from the resonant high-n DR, from resonances with $`\nu _o<\nu <\mathrm{}`$, to obtain total recombination rates. As an additional check on the numerical calculations, the total recombination rate coefficients, $`\alpha _R`$, are also calculated from the total recombination collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{RC}`$, obtained from all the photoionization cross sections, and the DR collision strengths. The agreement between the two numerical approaches is within a few percent.

Finally, the background (non-resonant) contribution from the high-n states, ($`10<n\mathrm{}`$), to the total recombination, is also included as the ”top-up” part and is computed in the hydrogenic approximation (Nahar 1996). This contribution is important at low temperatures, but negligible at high temperatures. The rapid rise in $`\alpha _R`$ toward very low temperatures is due to low energy recombination into the infinite number of these high-n states, at electron energies not usually high enough for resonant excitations and DR stabilization.

The program BPRRC is also used to extend the total photoionization cross sections in the high energy region, beyond the highest target threshold in the close coupling wavefunction expansion of the ion, by a tail from Kramers fit of $`\sigma _{PI}(E)=\sigma _{PI}^o(E^o/E)^3`$, where $`E^o`$ is the last tabulated energy above all target thresholds.

Below we describe the calculations individually for the ions under consideration.

### 3.1 e + Fe XXV $``$ Fe XXIV

The fine structure levels of the target ion, Fe XXV, included in the wavefunction expansion for Fe XXIV are given in Table 1. The 13 fine structure levels of Fe XXV up to $`1s3p`$ correspond to configurations $`1s^2`$, $`1s2s`$, $`1s2p`$, $`1s3s`$, and $`1s3p`$ (correlation configurations include those with the $`3d`$ orbital). Although calculated energies are close to one percent of the observed ones, the latter are used in the computations to obtain accurate positions of the resonances.

All levels of total angular momentum symmetries $`1/2J11/2`$ are considered. With largest partial wave of the outer electron $`l=7`$, these correspond to $`0L7`$ in doublet and quartet spin symmetries. The R-matrix basis set is represented by 30 continuum functions. It is necessary to represent the wavefunction expansion in the inner region of the R-matrix boundary with a relatively large number of terms in order to avoid numerical problems.

### 3.2 e + Fe XXVI $``$ Fe XXV

The wavefunction expansion of Fe XXV is represented by 9 fine structure levels (Table 1) of hydrogenic Fe XXVI from $`1s`$ to $`3d`$.

The highest partial wave considered is $`l=9`$ giving $`SL\pi `$ symmetries consisting of $`0L9`$ of singlet and triplet spin symmetries, for even and odd parities. All levels of Fe XXV with total angular momentum symmetry $`0J7`$ for even and 8 for odd parity are included. The R-matrix basis set consists of 20 terms.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results for photoionization and recombination are presented below, followed by a discussion of the physical features and effects.

### 4.1 Photoionization

Total and partial ground state cross sections (into the ground and excited levels of the residual ion, and into the ground level only, respectively) are needed for various astrophysical models, such as in determination of ionization fractions in photoionization equilibrium, and non-LTE spectral models. Figs. 1 and 2 present the ground state photoionization cross section for Fe XXIV ($`1s^22s^2S_{1/2}`$) and Fe XXV $`(1s^2{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$. Plots (a,b) in each figure show the partial cross section into the ground level (a), and the total cross section (sum of ionization into various target levels) (b) of the residual ion. For Fe XXIV and Fe XXV the first excited target n = 2 threshold(s) lie at high energies and the cross sections show a monotonic decrease over a relatively large energy range. The total and the partial cross sections are identical below the first excited level of the residual ion, as shown in the figures. The resonances at high energies belong to Rydberg series of $`n=2,3`$ levels. Owing to the high ion charge z, the resonance complexes \- groups of levels with the same principal quantum number(s) - are clearly separated, approximately as z2 (discussed in the next section).

The total cross sections Fig. 1(b) show the K-shell ionization jump at the n = 2 target levels, i.e. inner-shell photoionization:

$$h\nu +FeXXIV(1s^22s)e+FeXXV(1s2s,1s2p).$$

Figure 1(c) displays an expanded view of the resonance structures and the inner-shell ionization energy regions. In X-ray photoionization models the inner-shell edges play an important role in the overall ionization rates.

In order to fully delineate the resonances for recombination calculations it is necessary to compute the partial cross sections at a very large number of points, typically tens of thousands of energies. However, for ionization balance calculations it may not be necessary to compute the total photoionization cross sections at an equally fine mesh since the photoionization rate usually depends on the convolution over a slowly varying radiation field with frequency.

### 4.2 Recombination cross sections and rate coefficients

Figs. 3(a,b) present the total recombination cross sections $`\sigma _{RC}`$, summed over all contributing fine structure levels up to n = 10, for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV. The resonance complexes for Fe XXIV are marked as KLL, KLM, KLN etc., and those for Fe XXV as LL, LM, LN etc. These are the complexes of di-electronic satellite lines observed in tokamaks, Electron-Beam-Ion-Traps (EBIT), ion storage rings and astrophysical sources. In particular, the KLL complex has been well studied theoretically (e.g. Gabriel 1972, Bely-Dubau et al. 1982), and experimentally (e.g. Beirsdorfer et al. 1992). In an earlier work on radiation damping of resonances (Pradhan and Zhang 1997), the theoretical intensities of the individual KLL di-electronic satellite lines were calculated and compared with several other theoretical calculations and the EBIT experiment (Beirsdorfer et al. 1992). The agreement of the KLL satellite lines with experiment is generally about 10-20% (Pradhan and Zhang 1997). Later calculations by Zhang et al. (1999) were extended to the KLM, KLN, KLO, and KLP complexes and compared with other theoretical calculations (Badnell et al. 1998) to investigate the effects of radiation damping on the contribution of these complexes to the total recombination rate coefficients of Fe XXIV.

The unified total BPRM recombination rate coefficients, $`\alpha _R(T)`$, of $`e+FeXXVFeXXIV`$ and $`e+FeXXVIFeXXV`$ averaged over a Maxwellian distribution are presented in Table 2. The features of the total recombination rates (solid curves) are shown in Fig. 4 for Fe XXIV, and Fig. 5 for Fe XXV. The general features are similar to other ions, as explained in the first paper of this series (Nahar & Pradhan 1997). As pointed out in our earlier works on unified recombination rates, the total (e + ion) recombination rate generally decreases with temperature, dominated essentially by RR but possibly affected by a low-temperature DR ”bump”, until the relatively higher energy resonances enter via DR resulting in a large DR bump. In Figs. 4 and 5 these high temperatures bumps are at about $`log_{10}T(K)`$ =7.5 for Fe XXIV, and $`log_{10}T(K)`$ = 7.7 for Fe XXV, where the total rate rises due to dominance of DR over RR. The total recombination rate coefficients for the hydrogenic Fe XXVI are also given in Table 2 for completeness.

Fig. 4 compares the present total unified BPRM recombination rate coefficients (solid curve) for $`e+FeXXVFeXXIV`$ with several other available sets of data. However, since previous works treat RR and DR as independent processes, and obtain those rates individually, we compare the present unified rates with the sum of the two (RR + DR) rates from earlier works (with the exception of cases where only one set of data is available). The dotted curve is the sum of the RR and DR rates fitted by Woods et al. (1981), and the long dashed curves are similar fits by Arnaud and Raymond (1992); original references to the RR and DR data are given in these references. The present rates and those by Arnaud and Raymond (1992) agree quite well with each other except at very high temperature where DR dominates. The rates by Arnaud and Raymond show a lower DR peak than the present one. The rates by Woods et al. (1981) are much higher at all temperatures than the present rates, or those by Arnaud and Raymond who adopted the DR rates computed by Karim and Bhalla (1988) for individual resonances. Woods et al. obtained the RR rates using the Reilman and Manson (1978) sub-shell photoionization cross sections in the central-field approximation (without LS multiplet structure), and DR rates from the Burgess formula (1965). While the present unified rates include both the non-resonant (RR) and the resonant recombination (DR), previous calculations employ different approximations for these two processes from different sources. Therefore it is not possible to ascertain precisely the causes of these discrepancies. The short dashed curves are the RR-only rates by Verner and Ferland (1996), that agree well with present ones in the region (T $`<10^7`$ K) where DR is small. It may be noted that the partial rates given in Zhang et al. (1999) were obtained only for the resonant (i.e. DR) recombination cross sections, contributions from the low energy background cross sections were not included.

Total $`\alpha _R(T)`$ for $`e+FeXXVIFeXXV`$ are compared with others in Fig. 5. The unified total recombination rates are compared with the (RR + DR) rates from Woods et al. (1981, dotted), Arnaud and Raymond (1992, long-dashed), and Bely-Dubau et al. (1982, dot-long-dashed). The unified rates agree well with all except at high temperatures where the rates by Woods et al. are higher, and those by Arnaud and Raymond are lower. The DR-only rates by Romanik (1988, short-dash-dot) are much lower (without the RR contribution). The RR-only rates by Verner and Ferland (1996, short-dashed) are in reasonable agreement with the present rates up to about $`log_{10}T`$ = 7.3, in the temperature range with negligible DR contributions.

#### 4.2.1 Level-specific cross sections and rate coefficients

In Figs. 6 and 7 we show the level-specific recombination rate coefficients into the ground and the excited bound levels of Fe XXIV, for the $`1s^2ns,np`$ Rydberg series up to n = 10. These are the first such calculations, and level-specific data have been obtained for all $`\mathrm{}9`$ and associated $`J\pi `$ symmetries. The behavior of the level-specific rates mimics that of the total (this is only true for the simple ions under consideration; in general the level specific rates show significantly different structure for complex ions, as seen in our previous works on low ionization stages of iron, Fe I – V, for example). The only distinguishing feature is the slight DR bump. Since the computations are enormously involved, particularly related to the resolution of resonances, the consistency of the individual level-specific rates along the Rydberg series is an indication of numerical precision.

Fig. 8 presents level specific recombination rate coefficients of $`1sns(^3S)`$ Rydberg series of Fe XXV levels up to $`n`$ = 10. The features are similar to those of Fe XXIV. Although resolution of resonances in each cross section is very cumbersome, the sum of the level-specific rate coefficients, together with the DR contribution, agrees within a few percent with the total recombination rate coefficient obtained from the total collision strengths, thus providing a numerical and self-consistency check.

#### 4.2.2 X-ray transitions w,x,y,z in Fe XXV – photoionization and recombination

The first detailed BPRM calculations for level-specific photoionization from, and recombination into, the n = 2 levels of Fe XXV are presented. Figs. 9 and 10 respectively show the level-specific photoionization cross sections, and recombination rate coefficients, for the ground and the excited n = 2 levels that are of considerable importance in X-ray spectroscopy as they are responsible for the formation of the w,x,y,z lines from the 4 transitions $`1s^2(^1S_0)1s2p(^1P_1^o),1s2p(^3P_2^o),1s2p(^3P_1^o),1s2s(^3S_1)`$, respectively. The present work is particularly relevant to the formation of these X-ray lines since recombination-cascades from excited levels play an important role in determining the intensity ratios in coronal equilibrium and non-equilibrium plasmas (Pradhan 1985). The cross sections in Fig. 9 show the K-shell ionization jump at the n = 2 target levels, i.e., from photoionization as

$$h\nu +FeXXV(1s2s,1s2p)e+FeXXVI(2s,2p).$$

The level-specific rates in Fig. 10 are in reasonable agreement with those obtained by Mewe & Schrijver (1978, hereafter MS), that have been widely employed in the calculation of X-ray spectra of He-like ions (e.g. Pradhan 1982). This is quite unlike the case for He-like C V where the unified level-specific rates differed considerably with those of MS (Nahar et al. 2000). We compare with the direct (RR + DR) rates, separately calculated by MS using approximate Z-scaled RR and DR rates for the individual n = 2 levels of He-like ions. Their RR rates were from Z-scaled recombination rate of He II given by Burgess & Seaton (1960); the LS coupling data were divided according to the statistical weights of the fine structure levels. The MS DR rates were obtained using averaged autoionization probabilities for iron calculated with hydrogenic wavefunctions, together with radiative decay probabilities of the resonant $`2s2p,2p^2,(2p3s,2p3p,2p3d)`$ levels, decaying to the final n = 2 levels. Although the present work includes DR contributions from all resonances up to $`2pn\mathrm{};n10,\mathrm{}n1`$ (Figs. 3a,b), the final values appear to agree well. The most plausible explanation for the good agreement with MS is that their rates were optimized especially for Fe XXV.

Using the present level-specific data, recombination-cascade matrices may now be constructed for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV, to obtain effective recombination rates into specific fine structure levels nSLJ, with $`n10`$ and $`\mathrm{}n1`$ (e.g. Pradhan 1985). The present data is more than sufficient for extrapolation to high-n,$`\mathrm{}`$ necessary to account for all cascade contributions. Also needed are the radiative transition probabilities for all fine structure levels of Fe XXIV and Fe XXV, up to the n = 10 levels; those have also been calculated using the BPRM method under the Iron Project (Nahar and Pradhan 1999).

A discussion of some of the important atomic effects such as resolution and radiation damping of resonances, interference between non-resonant (RR) and resonant (DR) recombination, comparison with experimental data and uncertainties, and general features of the unified (e + ion) recombination rates, has been given in the first paper on the new BPRM calculations – paper IV in the persent series (Nahar et al. 2000).

## 5 CONCLUSION

New relativistic calculations for total and level-specific photoionization and recombination are presented for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV of general interest in X-ray spectroscopy of laboratory and astrophysical sources. The di-electronic satellite rates for the KLL complex of $`e+FeXXVFeXXIV`$, and for several higher complexes, have earlier been shown to be in very good agreement with experiments and other theoretical calculations (Pradhan and Zhang 1997; Zhang et al. 1999), to about 10-20%; it is therefore expected that the present rates should be definitive, with similar uncertainty.

The unified theoretical formulation and experimental measurements both suggest that the unphysical and imprecise division of the recombination process into ‘radiative recombination (RR)’ and ‘di-electronic recombination (DR)’ be replaced by ‘non-resonant’ and ‘resonant’ recombination, since these are naturally inseparable.

Further calculations are in progress for Oxygen (O VI and O VII).

The available data includes:

(A) Photoionization cross sections for bound fine structure levels of Fe XXIV and Fe XXV up to the n = 10 complexes – both the total and the partial (into the ground level of the residual ion).

(B) Total, unified recombination rates for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV, and level-specific recombination rate coefficients for levels up to n = 10.

(C) Recombination rate coefficients for H-like Fe XXVI, computed in LS coupling and included for completeness for the computation of ionization fractions towards the high ionization end.

All photoionization and recombination data are available electronically from the first author at: nahar@astronomy.ohio-state.edu. The total recombination rate coefficients are also available from the Ohio State Atomic Astrophysics website at: www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$``$pradhan.

This work was supported partially by grants from NSF (AST-9870089), NASA (NAG5-8423,EL9-1013A). The computational work was carried out on the Cray T94 at the Ohio Supercomputer Center.


format: text

text:
# A full one-loop charge symmetry breaking effective potential

(November, 2000)

Abstract. We calculate the one-loop contributions to the effective potential for the minimal supersymmetric model when scalar fields other than the Higgses have vacuum expectation values. The importance of these contributions for studies of charge and colour breaking bounds is discussed.

In supersymmetric models, in order to give mass both to the up and down-type quarks (and also to cancel chiral and $`SU(2)`$ anomalies), two Higgs doublets, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, are required. The neutral components of these fields have a non-zero vev which, much in the same manner as in the SM, breaks the electroweak gauge symmetry. However, there are now other scalar fields in the game, several of them carrying charge, colour or leptonic number, and a priori there is no reason why one or many of them cannot have a vev. This problem was first addressed in ref.  and used to impose restrictions on the undesirably large parameter space of supersymmetric models, by demanding that the minimum of the potential along charge and/or colour breaking (CCB) directions (meaning, when fields other than $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2^0`$ acquire vevs) be less deep than the so-called “real” minimum. This very appealing idea was developed by many authors , and of particular importance was the contribution from Gamberini et al : they showed that the one-loop corrections to the effective potential in supersymmetric theories were of immense relevance for gauge symmetry breaking, in that only at a given renormalisation scale $`M`$ \- namely, $`M`$ of the order of the most significant mass appearing in the one-loop corrections - can their contribution to the minimisation conditions be neglected and results derived from the tree-level potential trusted. Given that every work on CCB is based on an analysis of the tree-level potential only, they concluded that any bound on supersymmetric parameters we obtain in this way, if not evaluated at the scale $`M`$, will lead to an excessive constriction on the parameter space . A very comprehensive review of the subject is given in ref. . Recent use of CCB bounds in supersymmetric phenomenology may be found in refs. . In this article we will investigate the importance of the one-loop contributions to the effective potential in determining CCB bounds, as well as discuss the choice of renormalisation scale at which such bounds should be considered.

We will follow the analysis of reference , and use most of the conventions of that article (as in the factors of $`\sqrt{2}`$ for the vevs considered). Our convention for the sign of $`\mu `$ is, however, the opposite. The superpotential for the model we are considering (no Yukawa couplings other than those of the third generation) is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _tH_2Qt_R+\lambda _bH_1Qb_R+\lambda _\tau H_1L\tau _R+\mu H_2H_1`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\lambda _t(H_2^+b_LH_2^0t_L)t_R+\lambda _b(H_1^0b_LH_1^{}t_L)b_R+\lambda _\tau (H_1^0\tau _LH_1^{}\nu _L)\tau _R+`$
$`\mu (H_2^+H_1^{}H_2^0H_1^0),`$
The tree-level effective potential is the sum of the F, D and soft terms, which are given by:

$`V_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}}\right|^2`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`|\lambda _tb_Lt_R+\mu H_1^{}|^2+|\mu H_1^0+\lambda _tt_Lt_R|^2+`$
$`|\lambda _bb_Lb_R+\lambda _\tau \tau _L\tau _R\mu H_2^0|^2+|\lambda _bt_Lb_R+\lambda _\tau \nu _L\tau _R\mu H_2^+|^2+`$
$`|\lambda _tH_2^0t_R+\lambda _bH_1^{}b_R|^2+|\lambda _t(H_2^+b_LH_2^0t_L)|^2+|\lambda _tH_2^+t_R+\lambda _bH_1^0b_R|^2+`$
$`|\lambda _b(H_1^0b_LH_1^{}t_L)|^2+|\lambda _\tau (H_1^0\tau _LH_1^{}\nu _L)|^2+|\lambda _\tau H_1^0\tau _R|^2+`$
$`|\lambda _\tau H_1^{}\tau _L|^2,`$
$`V_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(|t_L|^2+|b_L|^2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|t_R|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|b_R|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\tau _L|^2+|\nu _L|^2)+`$ (3)
$`|\tau _R|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|H_2^0|^2+|H_2^+|^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|H_1^0|^2+|H_1^{}|^2)]^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}[4|H_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}H_2^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|H_1|^2|H_2|^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|H_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}Q^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|H_1|^2|Q|^2+`$
$`4|H_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}L^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|H_1|^2|L|^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|H_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}Q^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|H_2|^2|Q|^2+`$
$`4|H_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}L^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|H_2|^2|L|^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}|L_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}Q^i|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|L|^2|Q|^2+`$
$`|H_1|^4+|H_2|^4+|Q|^4+|L|^4],`$
$`V_S`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1}^2|H_1|^2+m_{H_2}^2|H_2|^2+m_Q^2(|t_L|^2+|b_L|^2)+m_t^2|t_R|^2+`$ (4)
$`m_b^2|b_R|^2+m_L^2(|\tau _L|^2+|\nu _L|^2)+m_\tau ^2|\tau _R|^2+`$
$`[\lambda _tA_t(H_2^+b_LH_2^0t_L)t_R+\lambda _bA_b(H_1^0b_LH_1^{}t_L)b_R+`$
$`\lambda _\tau A_\tau (H_1^0\tau _LH_1^{}\nu _L)\tau _R+B\mu (H_2^+H_1^{}H_2^0H_1^0)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}M_a\overline{\lambda }_a\lambda _a.`$
Other than the gauginos $`\lambda _a`$, all fields in the soft potential are scalars. The contributions of the first and second generation sparticles are not zero - for simplicity we do not write them, but they are identical in form to those of their third generation counterparts, minus all terms proportional to Yukawa couplings, which are set to zero. The one-loop contributions, at a renormalisation scale $`M`$, are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_1=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{n_\alpha }{64\pi ^2}M_\alpha ^4\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{M_\alpha ^2}{M^2}\frac{3}{2}\right),$$
(5)
where the $`M_\alpha `$ are the (tree-level) masses of each particle of spin $`s_\alpha `$ and $`n_\alpha =(1)^{2s_\alpha }(2s_\alpha +1)C_\alpha Q_\alpha `$. $`C_\alpha `$ is the number of colour degrees of freedom (1 for colourless particles, 3 for all others except the gluinos, which, being an $`SU(3)_C`$ octet, correspond to a factor of 8) and $`Q_\alpha `$ is 2 for charged particles, 1 for chargeless ones. Thus the factor $`n_\alpha `$ accounts for the multiplicity of each particle. When the neutral components of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ acquire vevs $`v_1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`v_2/\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain the “real” minimum, and the tree-level potential $`V_0`$ may be written as

$$V_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(m_1^2v_1^2+m_2^2v_2^2\right)B\mu v_1v_2+\frac{1}{32}(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_2^2)(v_2^2v_1^2)^2,$$
(6)
with $`m_1^2=m_{H_1}^2+\mu ^2`$ and $`m_2^2=m_{H_2}^2+\mu ^2`$, and where the vevs’ phases were chosen such that the term with the bilinear coupling is negative. Minimising with respect to $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ we obtain, for the value of the potential at the minimum,

$$V_{min}^{MSSM}=\frac{1}{32}(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_2^2)(v_2^2v_1^2)^2.$$
(7)
So that a CCB minimum can exist, we need negative terms in the potential other than the one containing $`B\mu `$. These arise from trilinear terms in the potential and require non-zero vevs for at least two fields other than $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2^0`$. As a working example, consider the case where the fields $`\tau _L`$ and $`\tau _R`$ have vevs ($`l/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\tau /\sqrt{2}`$ respectively). The vacuum tree-level potential is now given by

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{4}}[v_1^2(l^2+\tau ^2)+l^2\tau ^2]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}(A_\tau v_1+\mu v_2)l\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_1^2v_1^2+m_2^2v_2^2+m_L^2l^2+`$ (8)
$`m_\tau ^2\tau ^2)B\mu v_1v_2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{32}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)^2,`$
where we chose the phases of the vevs so that the terms with bilinear and trilinear couplings are negative 111Depending on the signs of $`A_\tau `$, $`\mu `$ and $`B`$, this isn’t always possible. This is however a detail, and it doesn’t have any impact on the conclusions we will draw.. With four different vevs in the potential, an analytical study of CCB is very difficult if not impossible. Following  we express all vevs in terms of, say, $`v_1`$, so that $`l=\alpha v_1`$, $`v_2=\beta v_1`$ and $`\tau =\gamma v_1`$, with constant and positive parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$. The potential 8 becomes a quartic polynomial in $`v_1`$ and its minimisation a trivial exercise. Comparing the value of the CCB minimum with that of eq. 7 and requiring this to be smaller, we find bounds on the MSSM parameters as function of $`\alpha ,\mathrm{}`$ . The vevs are found to be of order $`v|A_\tau |/\lambda _\tau `$, and the potential $`V|A_\tau |^4/\lambda _\tau ^2`$. An important observation throughout is the choice of the renormalisation scale at which this calculation is made: as first shown in , the tree-level vevs are only reliable at a renormalisation scale of the order of the largest mass present in the one-loop contributions 5. For our CCB potential, we expect this to be of order $`M\mathrm{max}(\lambda _\mathrm{t},\mathrm{g}_2)|\mathrm{A}_\tau |/4\lambda _\tau `$ . However, the highest mass present in the MSSM potential will be of the order of the gaugino mass, $`M_G`$, in principle different from $`M`$. This line of thought therefore dictates the two potentials should be compared at different renormalisation scales. Now, the work of Gamberini et al refers to the MSSM and demonstrates quite clearly that the tree-level vevs can be trusted in a given range of the renormalisation scale. Meaning, that in that range the one-loop contributions to the minimisation conditions, to wit

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{n_\alpha }{32\pi ^2}M_\alpha ^2\frac{M_\alpha ^2}{v_i}\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{M_\alpha ^2}{M^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right),$$
(9)
are not significant. It does not, however, say anything about the size of the one-loop contributions to the potential themselves. We expect them to be small, given that the choice of $`M`$ limits the size of the logarithmic terms, but notice this is not guaranteed. Another and stronger argument for the inclusion of the one-loop potential in CCB calculations comes from ref. . Their results are thus summarised: the sum $`V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$ is not one-loop renormalisation group invariant. Instead, the full RGE invariant effective potential is given by

$$V(M,\lambda _i,\varphi _j)=\mathrm{\Omega }(M,\lambda _i)+V_0(\lambda _i,\varphi _j)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1(M,\lambda _i,\varphi _j)+O(h^2),$$
(10)
where $`\lambda _i`$ stands for all couplings and masses of the theory and $`\varphi _j`$ for all its fields. The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends in principle on $`M`$ \- implicitly or explicitly - and $`\lambda _i`$, and receives contributions from all orders of perturbation theory. It is, however, field-independent 222Which of course means it usually has no effect whatsoever in particle phenomenology, given all quantities of physical interest are given by derivatives of $`V`$ with respect to the fields.. The authors of  give examples of explicit calculations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for different models and its importance. Notice now that the only difference between the “real” MSSM potential and the CCB one is that some fields have vevs, others do not - in other words, the two potentials correspond to two different sets of values for the fields in the theory. But the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is field-independent and is thus the same, CCB or not. So, when we compare $`V^{MSSM}`$ and $`V^{CCB}`$ at different renormalisation scales, we are not taking into account the contribution arising from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We are led to the conclusion that, to eliminate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ altogether from the calculation, we must compare $`V^{MSSM}`$ and $`V^{CCB}`$ at the same renormalisation scale. Also, notice that eq. 10 ensures that if $`V^{MSSM}>V^{CCB}`$ for a given scale $`M`$, the inequality holds for all scales. Now, the rationale we gave for comparing both potentials at different scales was the possibility of neglecting the complex one-loop contributions. The existence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ forcing a comparison at equal $`M`$, we conclude that, for one of the potentials at least, the full one-loop vevs must be used. By consistency we should then work with the value of the potential correct to one-loop as well. Unfortunately, this way we abandon all hope of obtaining analytical CCB bounds, given the complexity of the one-loop contributions. We now present their calculation in the CCB case. Non-zero vevs will be considered only for the real components of the fields $`H_1^0`$ ($`v_1/\sqrt{2}`$), $`H_2^0`$ ($`v_2/\sqrt{2}`$), $`\tau _L`$ ($`l/\sqrt{2}`$) and $`\tau _R`$ ($`\tau /\sqrt{2}`$). This choice should be favourable to CCB in that $`m_L`$ and $`m_\tau `$ are generally the smallest of the soft masses and, because no squarks have vevs, there are no $`SU(3)`$ D-terms, thus limiting the positive contributions to the potential. Also, $`\lambda _\tau `$ being typically quite small, a CCB minimum, should it exist, ought to be quite deep. The simplest sparticle mass is that of the gluinos ($`n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=16`$), it is simply $`M_3`$, from eq. 4. The gluino contribution to $`V_1`$ is thus field-independent and could be included in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ function in eq. 10 \- but in any case where colour breaking does occur the gluinos would mix with other fields, so, we prefer to single out this contribution 333Of course, given that $`V^{CCB}`$ and $`V^{MSSM}`$ will be compared at the same renormalisation scale, the gluino contribution will be identical in both potentials and have no impact on CCB.. Also very simple are the contributions from the top and bottom quarks ($`n_t=n_b=12`$), with their squared masses given, as usual, by $`\lambda _t^2v_2^2/2`$ and $`\lambda _b^2v_1^2/2`$ respectively. For the stop ($`n_1=n_2=6`$), we have

$`[M_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}t_{11}& t_{12}\\ t_{21}& t_{22}\end{array}\right]`$ (13)
with

$`t_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{t_Lt_L^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _t^2v_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{24}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`t_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{t_Lt_R^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _t}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_tv_2\mu v_1)=t_{21}`$
$`t_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{t_Rt_R^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _t^2v_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{6}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (14)
The equality $`t_{12}=t_{21}`$ arises from the fact we are considering all parameters in the potential to be real (the same happens for all the other mass matrices, who are thus symmetric). For the sbottom ($`n_1=n_2=6`$),

$`[M_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}b_{11}& b_{12}\\ b_{12}& b_{22}\end{array}\right]`$ (17)
with

$`b_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{b_Lb_L^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _b^2v_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{24}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`b_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{b_Lb_R^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _b}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_bv_1\mu v_2)`$
$`b_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{b_Rb_R^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _b^2v_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{12}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (18)
The masses for the first and second generations squarks are obtained from these matrices by setting the Yukawas to zero and replacing the soft masses by the appropriate ones. The squarks are degenerate for these two generations (assuming universality of the soft masses - but these results can be trivially generalised for non-universal models) and, for the up-type squarks ($`n_1=n_2=2\times 6`$ \- the extra factor of two accounts for both generations), we have

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{u}_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{24}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{u}_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_u^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{6}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (19)
For the down-type squarks ($`n_1=n_2=2\times 6`$),

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{d}_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{24}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{d}_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{12}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (20)
Likewise the first and second generation sleptons ($`n_1=n_2=2\times 2`$) will have degenerate masses given by

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_N^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_e^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (21)
In these expressions, $`m_R`$, $`m_u`$, $`m_d`$, $`m_N`$ and $`m_e`$ are the lower-generation equivalents of $`m_Q`$, $`m_t`$, $`m_b`$, $`m_L`$ and $`m_\tau `$ respectively. Finally, the first and second generation sneutrinos ($`n=2\times 2`$), also degenerate, have a mass given by

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_N^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2).`$ (22)
The masses of the gauge bosons are easily determined (see, for example, ). For the charged gauge bosons (we still call them W’s; $`n=6`$) we have

$$M_W^2=\frac{1}{4}g_2^2(v_1^2+v_2^2+l^2).$$
(23)
The mass matrix of the neutral gauge bosons ($`n_1=n_2=3`$) is given by

$`[M_{G^0}^2]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}G_{11}& G_{12}\\ G_{12}& G_{22}\end{array}\right]`$ (26)
with

$`G_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Wl^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau ^2`$
$`G_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _W)l^2`$
$`G_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\left[v_1^2+v_2^2+\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta _W)l^2\right].`$ (27)
Notice that if $`l=\tau =0`$ this matrix produces the usual photon and $`Z`$ masses. The remaining sparticles’ mass matrices are complicated by mixing between fields. Even when there is no CCB some mixing occurs - the charginos are after all the result of the mixing between the charged gauginos and fermionic partners of the Higgses, the neutralinos a similar mix but between neutral fields - but with the vevs $`l`$ and $`\tau `$ in the game, mixing between neutral and charged particles occurs. In the case of the charginos, for instance, the interaction term in the Lagrangian between the gauge and matter multiplets, plus the Yukawa interactions in the superpotential, cause a mixing with the $`\tau `$ neutrino (see, for example, ), $`\overline{\nu }_L`$ (we use the bar so as to not confuse this field with $`\nu _L`$, one of the components of the scalar doublet $`L`$) so that, if $`\lambda ^\pm `$ are the charged gauginos and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm `$ the fermionic partners of the charged Higgs fields, the chargino mass matrix will be given by (the columns, from left to right, correspond to the fields $`\lambda ^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2^+`$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_L`$)

$$[M_{\chi ^\pm }]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& M_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2v_1& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2v_2& \mu & 0\\ M_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2v_2& 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2l\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2v_1& \mu & 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau \tau \\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2l& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau \tau & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
This matrix has one zero eigenvalue (corresponding to the neutrino which, despite the mixing, does not gain a mass in this scenario) and the squared masses of the two charginos ($`n_1=n_2=4`$) are determined by a simple quadratic equation. The neutralinos ($`n_{1\mathrm{}6}=2`$) now include mixing with the tau fermion, and their mass matrix is (from left to right, the entries of the matrix are $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}^3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2^0`$, $`\overline{\tau }_L`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_R`$)

$$[M_{\chi ^0}]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}M_1& 0& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_1& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_2& \frac{1}{2}g^{}l& g^{}\tau \\ 0& M_2& \frac{1}{2}g_2v_1& \frac{1}{2}g_2v_2& \frac{1}{2}g_2l& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_1& \frac{1}{2}g_2v_1& 0& \mu & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau \tau & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau l\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_2& \frac{1}{2}g_2v_2& \mu & 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}l& \frac{1}{2}g_2l& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau \tau & 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau v_1\\ g^{}\tau & 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau l& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _\tau v_1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
The charged Higgs ($`n_{1\mathrm{}3}=2`$) fields of the theory mix with the $`\tau `$ sneutrinos, so that their combined mass matrix is (from left to right, $`H_1^{}`$, $`H_2^+`$ and $`\nu _L`$)

$$[M_{H^\pm \nu _\tau }^2]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_\pm \hfill & b_\pm \hfill & d_\pm \hfill \\ b_\pm \hfill & c_\pm \hfill & e_\pm \hfill \\ d_\pm \hfill & e_\pm \hfill & f_\pm \hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(30)
with

$`a_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2+v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`b_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`B\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4}}v_1v_2`$
$`c_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2+v_1^2l^2)`$
$`d_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}A_\tau \tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4}}\right)v_1l`$
$`e_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\mu \tau +{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4}}v_2l`$
$`f_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`m_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2).`$ (31)
It is easy to check, using the tree-level minimisation conditions, that this matrix has a zero eigenvalue, corresponding to the two Goldstone bosons that give mass to the charged $`W`$ gauge bosons. The pseudoscalars ($`n_{1\mathrm{}4}=1`$) in this theory are a mix between the imaginary parts of the neutral components of $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$ and $`\tau _L`$ and $`\tau _R`$. The mass matrix is given by

$$[M_{\overline{H^0\tau }}^2]=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_{\overline{H}}\hfill & b_{\overline{H}}\hfill & d_{\overline{H}}\hfill & e_{\overline{H}}\hfill \\ b_{\overline{H}}\hfill & c_{\overline{H}}\hfill & f_{\overline{H}}\hfill & g_{\overline{H}}\hfill \\ d_{\overline{H}}\hfill & f_{\overline{H}}\hfill & h_{\overline{H}}\hfill & i_{\overline{H}}\hfill \\ e_{\overline{H}}\hfill & g_{\overline{H}}\hfill & i_{\overline{H}}\hfill & j_{\overline{H}}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(32)
where each of the entries of this matrix is a derivative of the form $`^2V/Im(\varphi _i)Im(\varphi _j)`$, the fields $`\varphi _i`$ corresponding to, from left to right, $`H_1^0`$, $`H_2^0`$, $`\tau _L`$ and $`\tau _R`$. We have

$`a_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(l^2+\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`b_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`B\mu `$
$`c_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`d_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}A_\tau \tau `$
$`e_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}A_\tau l`$
$`f_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\mu \tau `$
$`g_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\mu l`$
$`h_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(v_1^2+\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`i_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}(\mu v_2A_\tau v_1)`$
$`j_{\overline{H}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(v_1^2+l^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2).`$ (33)
Using the tree-level minimisation conditions, we see that this matrix has two zero eigenvalues, corresponding to the Goldstone bosons that give mass to the neutral gauge bosons - we thus have four Goldstone bosons, one charged and two neutral, exactly as we should have, given we are fully breaking the $`SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry. The “Higgs scalars” ($`n_{1\mathrm{}4}=1`$) of this theory are a mix of the real parts of the neutral components of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ and $`\tau _L`$ and $`\tau _R`$. The mass matrix is

$$[M_{H^0\tau }^2]=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_H\hfill & b_H\hfill & d_H\hfill & e_H\hfill \\ b_H\hfill & c_H\hfill & f_H\hfill & g_H\hfill \\ d_H\hfill & f_H\hfill & h_H\hfill & i_H\hfill \\ e_H\hfill & g_H\hfill & i_H\hfill & j_H\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(34)
where each entry is now given by $`^2V/Re(\varphi _i)Re(\varphi _j)`$ and we have

$`a_H`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(l^2+\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^23v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^23v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`b_H`$ $`=`$ $`B\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_2^2)v_1v_2`$
$`c_H`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(3v_2^2v_1^2l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(3v_2^2v_1^2+l^2)`$
$`d_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}A_\tau \tau +\left[\lambda _\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g_2^2)\right]v_1l`$
$`e_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}A_\tau l+\left(\lambda _\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)v_1\tau `$
$`f_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\mu \tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g_2^2)v_2l`$
$`g_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}\mu l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_2\tau `$
$`h_H`$ $`=`$ $`m_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(v_1^2+\tau ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^23l^2+2\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(v_2^2v_1^2+3l^2)`$
$`i_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{\sqrt{2}}}(\mu v_2A_\tau v_1)+\left(\lambda _\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}\right)l\tau `$
$`j_H`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{2}}(v_1^2+l^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}(v_2^2v_1^2l^2+6\tau ^2).`$ (35)
A simple check we can perform on the validity of these formulas is to calculate $`StrM^2=_\alpha n_\alpha M_\alpha ^2`$ \- because supersymmetry is broken in a “soft” way, this quantity should be field-independent. It is not difficult to verify that the mass matrices here presented satisfy this condition. Let us now apply these results to a simple example, the MSSM with universality (common values for the gaugino and scalar masses and the $`A`$ parameters at the gauge unification scale $`M_U10^{16}`$ GeV). Besides their simplicity there are several reasons these models are of interest: the absence of flavour changing neutral currents at the weak scale is a strong indicator of universal soft parameters. There is also the evidence that a vast range of theories have an universal form at $`M_U`$ as an infrared fixed point . Finally, these models are of phenomenological interest in that their predictions for the sparticle masses have not been excluded by the current experimental data (see, for instance, ref. ). A brief description of our procedure: we input at scale $`M_Z`$ the masses of the gauge bosons, third generation fermions, the values of the gauge couplings and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (ranging from 2.5 to 10.5). Using the two-loop $`\beta `$-functions, we then find the gauge unification scale (unification of $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ only) at which point we input the universal soft parameters ($`20M_G100`$ GeV, $`10m_G160`$ GeV, $`600A_G600`$ GeV). We then go down to scale $`M_S=\mathrm{max}(M_Z,M_G,m_G)`$ (of the order of the largest mass in the theory) and determine $`B`$ and $`\mu `$ from the minimisation of the full one-loop potential (see, for instance, ). At this stage we have about 3200 “points” of the parameter space of the MSSM. At the scale $`M=0.6g_2|A_\tau |/\lambda _\tau `$ we then solve the CCB minimisation conditions - the set of equations $`\{V_0/v_1=0,V_0/v_2=0,V_0/l=0,V_0/\tau =0\}`$, with $`V_0`$ from eq. 8 \- which is equivalent to determining the vevs $`\{v_1,v_2,l,\tau \}`$. Notice that we solve the tree-level minimisation conditions for the CCB potential - we are relying on the work of Gamberini et al, assuming that at the scale $`M`$ the contributions 9 are not significative 444We chose $`M`$, after several attempts, to be the value for which the ratio $`r=\mathrm{max}(M_\alpha ^2)/M^2`$ is closest to $`1`$. At this scale the one-loop contributions to the minimisation of $`V^{MSSM}`$ are expected to be significative, so, they are included.. We then calculate $`(V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1)^{CCB}`$ and compare it - at the same scale $`M`$ \- with $`(V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1)^{MSSM}`$. For much of the parameter space considered solving the CCB minimisation conditions is not possible. For $`1290`$ “points”, we find extrema for which the value of the potential is smaller than $`(V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V_1)^{MSSM}`$. We can evaluate the importance the choice of renormalisation scale has - if we choose, for instance, $`M=g_2|A_\tau |/4\lambda _\tau `$, we see CCB occurring for 200 more “points”. Notice how our choice of renormalisation scale is always a field-independent one . This dependence on $`M`$ would, one expects, vanish if we had performed a full one-loop minimisation of the CCB potential .

These CCB extrema are distributed uniformly through the input values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_G`$ and $`m_G`$, but concentrate on the high absolute values of $`A_G`$ \- we only see then occurring for $`|A_G|300`$ GeV. This of course reminds us of the “classic” CCB bound , according to which CCB would occur if $`|A_\tau |^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(m_1^2+m_L^2+m_\tau ^2)`$. Figure 1 shows us that the majority of rejected “points” doesn’t satisfy this bound. They also concentrate in specific values of the $`\mu `$ parameter, as may be seen in fig. 2. Interestingly, the rejected “points” target higher values of $`M_h`$ \- notice how few rejections occur for $`M_h<80`$ GeV - and do not occur for small values of $`|\mu |`$. This Higgs mass there plotted is that of the “real”, MSSM, Higgs boson, calculated from the full one-loop mass matrices. Another interesting observation is that the values found for the vevs $`l`$ and $`\tau `$ are very similar. To evaluate the impact of using the full one-loop potential and comparing both potentials at the same scale we performed the “usual” CCB analysis (i.e, compare the tree-level potential only, at two different renormalisation scales) as well. We found CCB happening for $``$ 10% more “points” than we have found using the full one-loop potential.

Some remarks: the CCB extrema we found are not minima, in that there are always some quadratic sparticle masses which are negative (specifically, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$). It has been shown  that a non-convex effective potential is the result of a bad summation of 1PI diagrams, and the way to proceed in such situations is to take the convex envelope of the potential. A good approximation is to consider the potential flat where negative second derivatives occur. We point out, however, that the negative masses found are very small when compared to the typical masses in the CCB potential, and can therefore be safely neglected. Also, we must remember that all that has been said here relates to the possibility of the “real” vacuum being the absolute minimum of the potential. There is however the argument  that CCB bounds should be determined from requiring the tunnelling time from the “real” minimum to the CCB one to be larger than the age of the universe. This, of course, leads to a relaxation on the bounds. We do not undertake this study here, but argue that, in any case, the one-loop contributions to the potential would be relevant, in that they determine how deep the CCB minima/extrema are. The importance of the one-loop contributions to CCB bounds had already been studied in ref. , but comparison with their results is difficult: they considered only the top-stop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1`$ (we found that those are very important, but no more so than the chargino and “Higgs scalars” ones) and used a calculational method very different from the one here presented. In conclusion, we calculated a full one-loop CCB potential, and argued that the existence of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ function - that is to say, the RG invariance of the effective potential - forces a comparison of the CCB and MSSM potentials at the same renormalisation scale $`M`$. Having the actual CCB masses informed our choice of $`M`$, higher than usually considered. In a simple example, we found a small, but nevertheless sizeable, difference between the parameter space rejected in the two CCB approaches here delineated. It remains to be seen what that difference might be for other models, more complex or with larger parameter space. In light of the (hopefully) impending discovery of the Higgs boson, a careful reconsideration of CCB bounds might be in order. Finally, the computation of the CCB mass matrices opens the way to the possibility of performing a full one-loop minimisation of the CCB potential. That way one could confirm if their impact in the bounds is indeed negligible, and eliminate the renormalisation scale dependence we encountered. This work is in progress .

Acknowledgements. I thank Tim Jones and Giovanni Ridolfi for very useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the European Commission TMR program ERB FMRX-CT96-0045.

Figure Captions.

$`A_\tau ^2`$ versus $`Q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(m_1^2+m_L^2+m_\tau ^2)`$, for the rejected CCB points at the scale $`M`$; all points below the solid line violate the “classic” CCB bound of Frère et al.

Mass of the lightest Higgs boson versus the value of the $`\mu `$ parameter at the unification scale, for the CCB-rejected points.


text:
# Density Effect on Hadronization of a Quark Plasma

## 1  Introduction

It is generally believed that there are two QCD phase transitions in hot and dense nuclear matter. One of them is related to the deconfinement process in moving from a hadron gas to a quark-gluon plasma, and the other one describes the transition from the chiral symmetry breaking phase to the phase in which it is restored. The theoretical evidence from the lattice simulations of QCD at finite temperature for these phase transitions has prompted experimental efforts to create the new phases of matter in the laboratory during the early stages of relativistic heavy ion collisions. Since it is still difficult to extract definite information about the phase transitions from the lattice simulations with nonzero baryon density, we need QCD models to investigate the phase transitions at finite density. From the recent study  based on the instanton model, the phase structure is more rich at high density than at high temperature. There exists a new phase of color superconductivity when the density is sufficiently high.

Chiral symmetry plays a crucial role for the behavior of light hadrons, in determining not only their static properties in the vacuum, but also the changes therein that are due to in-medium effects. One of the models that enables us to see directly how the dynamic mechanisms of chiral symmetry breaking and restoration operate is the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model applied to quarks. Within this model, one can obtain the hadronic mass spectrum and the static properties of mesons remarkably well. In particular, one can recover the Goldstone mode, and some important low-energy properties of current algebra such as the Goldstone-Treiman and Gellmann-Oakes-Renner relations. Because of the contact interaction between quarks that is introduced in the model, there is of course no confinement. A further consequence of this feature is that the model is non-renormalizable, and it is necessary to introduce a regulator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that serves as a length scale in the problem, and which can be thought of as indicating the onset of asymptotic freedom.

At low baryon density, the phase transition of chiral symmetry restoration in chiral limit is of second order, in the case with quarks of nonzero mass it becomes a smooth crossover as a function of temperature and density. This picture obtained in the NJL model with two flavors is consistent with present lattice simulations and many models. However, at high density several models suggest that the chiral symmetry restoration transition is of first order. Assuming that this is the case in QCD, this first order transition will remain in the case in which explicit chiral symmetry breaking is present. This raises the possibility that some consequences of chiral symmetry restoration obtained in the chiral limit may be found in the real world with massive pions. Some authors have discussed the signatures of a first-order phase transition, such as the event-by-event rapidity fluctuations and the associated variations in HBT radii.

In relativistic heavy ion collisions, nuclear matter is first heated and/or compressed up to a region of both a chirally symmetric and a deconfined phase of matter, and then in the cooling process the deconfined partons will recombine into the observed hadrons, which are mainly pions. It is important to understand how a quark plasma converts into a hadron gas at finite temperature and density, and especially what the influence of the chiral symmetry restoration transition is on the hadronization process. Although we are aware of the disadvantages of the NJL model, the lack of confinement and non-renormalizability of the effective 4-fermion interaction, its strengths, the transparent description of the chiral phase transition and the binding of quarks into mesons, it is worthwhile to discuss the effect of chiral phase transition on the hadronization rate in this model. From the study of the hadronization rate for the conversion of a quark-antiquark pair into two pions, $`q\overline{q}2\pi `$ at zero baryon density and in the chiral limit, the hadronization cross section diverges at the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the chiral phase transition. Since the phase transition at low density will be fully washed out when explicit chiral symmetry breaking is taken into account, the dynamic divergence will no longer exist in the real world. A natural question is whether any information about the chiral phase transition at high density is retained in the hadronization rate when a nonzero current quark mass is considered. In this paper, we investigate at finite temperature and density the hadronization rate for $`q\overline{q}2\pi `$ in the flavor $`SU(2)`$ NJL model with explicit chiral symmetry breaking.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we briefly review the quarks at the mean field level and mesons within the random phase approximation (RPA). We discuss especially the phase diagrams of the model in temperature-chemical potential ($`T\mu `$) plane and temperature-baryon density ($`Tn_b`$) plane. In Section 3, we study the behavior of the hadronization cross section to first order in a $`1/N_c`$ expansion as a function of the c.m. energy $`s`$, temperature $`T`$ and baryon density $`n_b`$. We focus our attention on the difference between temperature and density effects, and the influence of the chiral phase transition on the hadronization rate. We summarize in Section 4.

## 2 Phase Diagrams

The two-flavor version of the NJL model is defined through the Lagrangian density,

$$L_{NJL}=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m_0)\psi +G[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\tau \psi )^2],$$
(1)
where only the scalar and pseudoscalar interactions corresponding to $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ mesons, respectively, are considered, $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ are the quark fields, $`\tau `$ is the $`SU(2)`$ isospin generator, $`G`$ is the coupling constant with dimension $`GeV^2`$, and $`m_0`$ is the current quark mass.

The key quantity for dealing with the thermodynamics of a variable number of particles is the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the mean field approximation, which is the lowest order $`O(1)`$ in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion, it is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,\mu ,m_q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(m_qm_0)^2}{4G}}2N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}E_p}`$ (2)
$`2N_cN_fT{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\frac{E_p+\mu }{T}}\right)\left(1+e^{\frac{E_p\mu }{T}}\right)},`$
where $`E_p^2=𝐩^2+m_q^2`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and $`N_c,N_f`$ are the number of colors and flavors respectively. Equation (2) holds for any value of the quark mass $`m_q`$, which is the order parameter of the chiral phase transition. In the spirit of thermodynamics, the physical system is described by that value of $`m_q`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,\mu ,m_q)`$ is a minimum,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q}=0,\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q^2}0.$$
(3)
The above equality is the socalled gap equation to determine the constituent quark mass as a function of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$. The inequality is especially necessary in high density region where the thermodynamic potential has two minima and one maximum.

In the chiral limit when the current quark mass $`m_0=0`$, the solution of the gap equation separates the region of chiral symmetry breaking with $`m_q0`$ from the region of chiral symmetry restoration with $`m_q=0`$. The phase-transition lines demarcating these two regions are given in Fig.1a in the $`T\mu `$ plane and Fig.1b in the $`Tn_b`$ plane. The relation between the baryon density $`n_b`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is rather complicated and is also a function of $`T`$,

$$n_b=\frac{N_cN_f}{3}\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p+\mu )\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p\mu )\right],$$
(4)
where the factor $`3`$ reflects the fact that three quarks make a baryon.

The order of the chiral phase transition is determined by the behavior of the order parameter across the phase-transition line. If the quark mass $`m_q`$ is continuous, the phase transition is of second order indicated by dashed lines in Fig.1, otherwise it is of first order shown by thin solid lines. The tricritical point $`P`$ which separates the first- and second-order phase transitions is located at $`T=0.079GeV`$ and $`\mu =0.28GeV`$ or $`n_b/n_0=1.95`$ with $`n_0=0.17/fm^3`$ being the baryon density in normal nuclear matter. Its positions in the $`T\mu `$ and $`Tn_b`$ planes are close to that calculated in the Landau $`\varphi ^6`$ model and the instanton model.

At any critical point on the first-order phase-transition line in the $`T\mu `$ plane, the thermodynamic potential as a function of the quark mass has two minima and one maximum between them. The coexistence of two minima indicates a mixed phase of chiral symmetry breaking and chiral symmetry restoration. The two spinodal points on the left hand and right hand sides of the maximum are characterized by a stability equal to zero,

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q^2}=0.$$
(5)
Between the spinodal points, $`\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q^2}<0`$, the system is unstable with respect to a small fluctuation in quark mass. Outside the spinodal points and inside the minima, $`\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q^2}>0`$, the system is metastable. In these regions a finite fluctuation in $`m_q`$ may be amplified, and the system may not return to its original state after a sufficient deviation. Outside of the minima, $`\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m_q^2}>0`$, the system is stable. The unstable and metastable regions are marked by $`US`$ and $`MS`$ in Fig.1b.

In the real world with nonzero current quark mass, the second-order phase transition becomes a smooth crossover and the tricritical point $`P`$ becomes a critical end-point $`E`$ of a first-order phase-transition line. The end-point $`E`$ is a second-order critical point and shifted with respect to the tricritical point $`P`$ towards larger $`\mu `$ in the $`T\mu `$ plane and towards smaller $`n_b`$ in the $`Tn_b`$ plane. The first-order phase-transition lines are denoted by thick solid lines in the phase diagrams. Their shift with respect to the case of chiral limit is due to the fact that it is more difficult for a phase transition to happen in a system of massive particles than that in the corresponding system of massless particles.

In the calculations of the phase-transition lines shown in Fig.1, the $`3`$ parameters in the NJL model, namely the coupling constant $`G`$, the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the current quark mass $`m_0`$, are fixed by the constituent quark mass $`m_q=0.32GeV`$, the pion decay constant $`f_\pi =0.093GeV`$ and the pion mass $`m_\pi =0.134GeV`$ (in the chiral limit $`m_\pi =0`$) in the vacuum ($`T=\mu =0`$). In the self-consistent mean field approximation, it is well known that the masses of the $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons satisfy the dispersion relation

$$12G\mathrm{\Pi }_M(T,\mu ,m_M)=0,$$
(6)
where $`m_M`$ is the mass of the respective meson and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_M`$ is the associated retarded polarization function,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (T,\mu ,m_\pi )=N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{E_p}\frac{E_p^2}{E_p^2m_\pi ^2/4}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p+\mu )+\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p\mu )\right]},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (T,\mu ,m_\sigma )=N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{E_p}\frac{E_p^2m_q^2}{E_p^2m_\sigma ^2/4}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p+\mu )+\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p\mu )\right]}.`$ (7)
The pion coupling constant $`g_\pi `$ is related to the residue at the pole of the pion propagator,

$`g_\pi ^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (T,\mu ,m_\pi )}{m_\pi ^2}}`$ (8)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N_cN_f}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{E_p}{(E_p^2m_\pi ^2/4)^2}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p+\mu )+\mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2T}(E_p\mu )\right]}.`$
It is easy to see that when $`m_\pi >2m_q,g_\pi =0`$, the pions will decay into quark-antiquark pairs, $`\pi q\overline{q}`$. Therefore, we can determine a hadronization line by

$$m_\pi (T_h,\mu _h)=2m_q(T_h,\mu _h).$$
(9)
For temperature $`TT_h`$ and chemical potential $`\mu \mu _h`$ or baryon density $`n_bn_{bh}`$, mesons become resonant states and no more pions exist in the model, and one has a system of interacting quarks. For $`TT_h`$ and $`\mu \mu _h`$ or $`n_bn_{bh}`$, a quark-meson plasma is formed. This means that in the cooling process of relativistic heavy ion collisions the quark plasma begins to hadronize at the point $`(T_h,n_{bh})`$. The coexistence of quarks and mesons at low temperature and density is of course an artifact of the NJL model.

In the chiral limit, the equation (9) for determining the hadronization line is fully equivalent to the equation for defining the chiral phase-transition line. Therefore, the two lines coincide in the phase diagrams. When explicit chiral symmetry breaking is taken into account, the two equations become different. While there is no longer a phase transition at high temperature, one can still define the hadronization lines via equations (9) and (4) which are shown in Fig.1.

## 3  Hadronization Cross Section

The total hadronization cross section of a single quark in a flavor $`SU(2)`$ model is defined as

$$\sigma _q=\sigma _{u\overline{u}2\pi _0}+\sigma _{u\overline{u}\pi _+\pi _{}}\sigma _{u\overline{d}\pi _+\pi _0},$$
(10)
this is a measure of how quickly a quark hadronizes from a charge symmetric plasma. Since the NJL model is a strong-coupling theory, perturbation theory is inapplicable, and we require a selection procedure for the relevant Feynman graphs. We choose the $`1/N_c`$ expansion, and work to the first order. To $`O(1/n_c)`$, the relevant T-matrix amplitudes for the reaction $`q\overline{q}2\pi `$ are sketched in Fig.2. It depicts the s-channel amplitude $`T^s`$ in which an intermediate $`\sigma `$-meson is produced, and the t-channel which displays a quark exchange. It is understood that the crossed diagrams are included for a process in which the final state particles are identical, e.g. for $`u\overline{u}2\pi _0`$.

Using an obvious notation for the T-matrix amplitudes, one has for the process $`u\overline{u}2\pi _0`$ the s-channel amplitude

$$T^s=\overline{v}(p_2)u(p_1)\frac{2G}{12G\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (p_1+p_2)}g_\pi ^2A_{\sigma \pi \pi }(p_1+p_2,p_3)\delta _{c_1c_2},$$
(11)
where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are quark and antiquark spinors, the symbol $`\delta _{c_1c_2}`$ refers to the color degree of freedom, and $`A_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ represents the amplitude of the triangle vertex $`\sigma \pi \pi `$. By assuming the $`q\overline{q}`$ system to be at rest in the heat bath and evaluating the Matsubara sum in the triangle, one obtains the explicit dependence of the amplitude $`A_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ on the Mandelstam Lorentz scalar $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, and the temperature $`T`$ and chemical potential $`\mu `$,

$`A_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s,T,\mu )=`$ $`4m_qN_cN_f{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_F(E_p\mu )f_F(E_p\mu )}{2E_p}}\times `$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8(𝐩𝐩_3)^2(2s+4m_\pi ^2)𝐩𝐩_3+s^2/22sE_p^2}{(s4E_p^2)\left((m_\pi ^22𝐩𝐩_3)^2E_p^2s\right)}},`$
where $`𝐩_3^2=\sqrt{s/4m_\pi ^2}`$, and the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $`f_F(x)=\left(1+e^{x/T}\right)^1`$. In terms of the other two Mandelstam variables $`t=(p_1p_3)^2`$ and $`u=(p_1p_4)^2`$ with the constraint $`s+t+u=2m_q^2+2m_\pi ^2`$, the direct and exchange contributions to the t-channel amplitude are

$`T^{t,dir}=\overline{v}(p_2)\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu (p_1p_3)_\mu +m_q}{tm_q^2}}\gamma _5u(p_1)g_\pi ^2\delta _{c_1c_2},`$
$`T^{t,exc}=\overline{v}(p_2)\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu (p_1p_4)_\mu +m_q}{um_q^2}}\gamma _5u(p_1)g_\pi ^2\delta _{c_1c_2}.`$ (13)
Since the s-channel crossed graph equals the direct term, the differential cross section can be written as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{u\overline{u}2\pi _0}}{dt}(s,t,T,\mu )=\frac{1}{16\pi s(s4m_q^2)}\underset{c,s}{\overset{}{}}|2T^s(s,T,\mu )+T^{t,dir}(t,T,\mu )+T^{t,exc}(u,T,\mu )|^2,$$
(14)
where the prime on the summation indicates the average over spin and color degrees of freedom of the quarks in the initial state.

It is necessary to note that in the s-channel the triangle amplitude $`A_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ and the $`\sigma `$ polarization function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$ are both complex functions. Their real and imaginary parts are separated from each other by using the decomposition $`\frac{1}{x+iϵ}=P\frac{1}{x}+i\pi \delta (x)`$ for $`A_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s+iϵ,T,\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (s+iϵ,T,\mu )`$.

After performing the integration over the momentum transfer $`t`$, the integrated cross section is obtained from

$$\sigma _{u\overline{u}2\pi _0}(s,T,\mu )=_{t_{min}}^{t_{max}}𝑑t\frac{d\sigma _{u\overline{u}2\pi _0}}{dt}(s,t,T,\mu )\left(1+f_B(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2})\right)^2,$$
(15)
where we have the limits $`t_{max}=\frac{1}{4}(s4m_q^2)\frac{1}{4}(s4m_\pi ^2)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(s4m_q^2)(4m_\pi ^2)}`$, and $`t_{min}=\frac{1}{4}(s4m_q^2)\frac{1}{4}(s4m_\pi ^2)`$ for the process $`u\overline{u}2\pi _0`$ and $`t_{min}=\frac{1}{4}(s4m_q^2)\frac{1}{4}(s4m_\pi ^2)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(s4m_q^2)(4m_\pi ^2)}`$ for the other two processes. In equation (15) we have taken into account the Bose-Einstein distribution function $`f_B(x)=\left(e^{x/T}1\right)^1`$ for the final state pions.

In the same way as equation (14) was constructed, we can write the differential cross sections for the processes $`u\overline{u}\pi _+\pi _{}`$ and $`u\overline{d}\pi _+\pi _0`$ explicitly as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{u\overline{u}\pi _+\pi _{}}}{dt}}(s,t,T,\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi s(s4m_q^2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{c,s}{\overset{}{}}}|T^s(s,T,\mu )+2T^{t,dir}(t,T,\mu )|^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{u\overline{d}\pi _+\pi _0}}{dt}}(s,t,T,\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi s(s4m_q^2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{c,s}{\overset{}{}}}|\sqrt{2}T^{t,dir}(t,T,\mu )|^2.`$ (16)
The total hadronization cross section discussed above in the whole $`T\mu `$ (or $`Tn_b`$) plane and with explicit chiral symmetry breaking was studied in the chiral limit and along the $`T`$ axis in Ref.. The main result is the singularity structure of the cross section: $`\sigma _q(s,T)`$ displays singularities at the threshold energy $`s_{th}=4m_q^2`$ for any $`T`$ and at the critical temperature $`T_c`$ for any $`s`$. The singularity at $`s_{th}`$ results from the fact that the entrance channel has a threshold energy $`s_{th}`$, while the exit channel has $`s=0`$. The singularity at $`T_c`$ arises from the chiral symmetry restoration reflected on the quark exchange in the t-channel: As $`TT_c,m_q0`$, and then the amplitude $`T^{t,dir}\mathrm{}`$.

What we want to stress in this paper is the baryon density effect and the $`m_\pi `$ dependence of the hadronization rate. Fig.3 shows the energy dependence of the integrated total cross section as a function of energy $`s`$ for three values of the density $`n_b`$ at zero temperature (Fig.3a) and for three values of the temperature $`T`$ at zero density (Fig.3b). Because of the three-momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the energy range is restricted to $`4\left(Max(m_q,m_\pi )\right)^2s4\left(\left(Max(m_q,m_\pi )\right)^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)`$. At low densities, there is still a kinematical divergence at $`s_{th}=4m_q^2`$ when $`m_q>m_\pi `$. For $`\frac{n_b}{n_0}=1.1`$ shown by thin solid line in Fig.3a, the cross section drops down from the infinity at $`s_{th}=1.33GeV^2`$ and then goes up again and reaches the second infinity at $`s=m_\sigma ^2`$ which is the contribution from the $`\sigma `$-exchange in the s-channel. Then the cross section decreases and is fairly constant for large energies. With the increase of the density, when $`m_\pi >m_q`$, the threshold energy of the reaction is larger than the entrance energy, and therefore the first singularity disappears. In Fig.3a this is the case for $`\frac{n_b}{n_0}=1.25`$ denoted by dashed line. Further when the density is sufficiently high that the threshold energy $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$ of the reaction is larger than $`m_\sigma ^2`$, the second singularity disappears too, the cross section has no further singularities, see the thick solid line for $`\frac{n_b}{n_0}=1.5`$ in Fig.3a. The energy dependence of the cross section at finite temperature is similar and shown in Fig.3b.

The energy dependence of the singularity structure discussed here is very different from that in the chiral limit where there is always only one singularity at the threshold $`s_{th}=4m_q^2`$.

The temperature and density effects on the total cross section for three values of energy $`s`$ are given in Fig.4. At low density, the chiral phase transition is washed out in the case of a non-vanishing current quark mass $`m_0=0.005GeV`$, and so is the singularity in the cross section at the transition point. Even an expected maximum due to the small quark mass at this point does not exist. It reflects the chiral phenomenon that when the quark mass drops down with the increase of the temperature, the pion mass goes up simultaneously, and therefore it becomes more and more difficult for the quark plasma to hadronize into pions. At low temperature, while the first-order phase-transition remains, the dynamical singularity in the cross section is still washed out since the finite quark and pion masses. However, very different from the temperature dependence shown in Fig.4a where the quark plasma hadronizes smoothly and reaches the maximum rate within a temperature range $`\mathrm{\Delta }T0.1GeV`$, there is a cliffy boundary in the $`Tn_b`$ plane (Fig.4b) separating the quark-meson plasma at low density from the quark plasma at high density. This feature arises from the discontinuities of the quark and pion masses at the first-order phase-transition point. When the density decreases, the quark plasma first meets the hadronization point and begins to hadronize, and then it reaches the first-order phase transition, the sudden increase of the quark mass combined with the sudden decrease of the pion mass at the transition point leads to a jump in the cross section.

At zero temperature, the hadronization point and the chiral transition point are very close to each other, see in Fig.1, the quark plasma reaches the transition point immediately after the beginning of hadronization. Therefore, we see in Fig.4b a precipitous jump from zero to a maximum for any $`s`$. The maximum, although it is not strong, is also a consequence of the discontinuities of the quark and pion masses at the transition point.

## 4  Conclusions

The present investigation of the hadronization of a quark plasma in the NJL model to the first order in $`1/N_c`$ has been motivated by two aspects: 1) The chiral symmetry restoration in the chiral limit and its consequence in hadronization rate, a dynamical singularity at the critical point, are fully washed out when a non-vanishing current quark mass is taken into account. An important question is then what the influence of chiral dynamics is in the hadronization in the real quark world. 2) While the chiral phase transition happens at both high temperature and at high density, the order of the phase transition is different in two cases. The second-order phase transition due to temperature effect becomes a smooth crossover, but the first-order transition due to density effect is retained when the explicit chiral symmetry is considered. If such a first-order transition occurs in relativistic heavy ion collisions, we need to know what its experimental signatures are.

The NJL model may be used as a model of QCD as long as one is interested in the chiral properties of the quark world. In this model the hadronization point of the interacting quarks is above the chiral phase transition point in the real world at high density, and the two points approach each other when the current quark mass goes to zero. Above the hadronization point one has a deconfined phase of quarks, but a quark-meson plasma below the point. Therefore, in the process of hadronization of the quark plasma, we expect that the retained first-order chiral transition at high density may still play an important role in the hadronization rate.

We have calculated the energy, temperature and density dependence of the total hadronization cross section of a single quark in the framework of flavor $`SU(2)`$ NJL model. Corresponding to the motivations mentioned above, our main conclusions are: 1) The hadronization cross section is normally strongest for small values of the energy of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, and the singularity structure at low energies depends on the temperature and density. At low temperature or density, there are two singularities at the threshold energy and at the pole position ($`m_\sigma ^2`$) of the $`\sigma `$ propagator. As the temperature or density increases, the kinematical singularity at the threshold energy vanishes first when the pion mass $`m_\pi `$ exceeds the quark mass $`m_q`$, and then the singularity at the pole disappears too when the threshold energy of the hadronization process, $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$, is larger than $`m_\sigma ^2`$. As for the critical scattering, the divergence at the critical point for all values of $`s`$ in the chiral limit is fully washed away. 2) Very different from the temperature effect which leads to a gradual hadronization during the cooling process of the quark plasma, the hadronization cross section is fairly constant in the process of hadronization at low temperature. The sudden jump of the cross section at the beginning of the hadronization means that the first-order transition of chiral symmetry restoration at high density is still reflected in the hadronization in the real quark world. A direct consequence of this feature is a suddenly strong increase of pion number in the expansion process of relativistic heavy ion collisions, if chiral symmetry is restored in the collisions. Our qualitative conclusions here derived from the NJL model may be more general because the first-order transition of chiral symmetry restoration looks like an essential feature of a strong interacting system at high density.

acknowledgments: We are grateful to S.P.Klevansky for careful reading of the manuscript. The work was supported in part by the NSFC under grant numbers 19845001 and 19925519, and by the Major State Basic Research Development Program under contract number G2000077407.

Figure Captions
Fig.1: The phase-transition line and hadronization line in $`T\mu `$ plane (Fig.1a) and $`Tn_b`$ plane (Fig.1b). The dashed lines indicate a second-order transition while the thin solid lines indicate one of first order in the chiral limit. The point $`P`$ is tricritical. The thick solid lines with critical end-point $`E`$ are the lines of first-order transition with non-vanishing current quark mass. For the first-order transition with and without current quark mass, the mixed region is divided into regions of instability ($`US`$) and metastability ($`MS`$). The hadronization line separating the region of quark plasma from that of quark-meson plasma is indicated by thin solid lines in the two planes.

Fig.2: The Feynman diagrams for the hadronization of a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair into two pions to the first order in $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The solid lines denote quarks and antiquarks, the dashed lines denote mesons.

Fig.3: The total hadronization cross section as a function of the collision energy $`s`$, for three different baryon densities (Fig.3a) at $`T=0`$ and for three different temperatures (Fig.3b) at $`n_b=0`$.

Fig.4: The total hadronization cross section as a function of the temperature (Fig.4a) at $`n_b=0`$ and as a function of the baryon density (Fig.4b) at $`T=0`$. In each case, the collision energy takes three different values.