text:
# FERMILAB-Pub-00/211-TMAD–PH–00–1190 hep-ph/0008321 Probing Light Sbottoms with 𝐁 Decays

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry predicts the existence of scalar partners for all Standard Model fermions. Scalar quarks are usually assumed to be heavy, based on direct searches at LEP  and the Tevatron . However, most of the collider searches rely on a large missing (transverse) energy cut, and supersymmetric particles with small masses may escape detection, because they lead to softer events with too little missing energy. On the other hand, decays of heavy Standard Model particles provide a powerful tool to search for such light superpartners. No new particles have been found in $`Z`$ decays at LEP-I and SLD. Hence supersymmetric scenarios with particle masses below $`m_Z/2`$ are constrained, as their couplings to the $`Z`$ boson must be very small. Recently the ALEPH collaboration has reported experimental hints for a light sbottom squark with a mass around 4 GeV and a lifetime of 1 ps . Its experimentally detected decay mode appears as a chargino-mediated decay into a charm quark, a lepton and an essentially massless anti-sneutrino . These findings have prompted a reanalysis of an old anomaly in the MARK-I data for the cross section of $`e^+e^{}\text{hadrons}`$: the existence of a squark with a mass between 3.6 and 3.7 GeV is found to bring the measured cross section into agreement with the theoretical prediction . Since the coupling of the $`Z`$ boson to sneutrino mass eigenstates is constrained by the measured invisible $`Z`$ width, one must supplement the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) by right-handed neutrino and sneutrino states. The light sneutrino is then predominantly right-handed. Interestingly, this model is consistent with electroweak precision data and LEP limits on the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson .

Yet the existence of a bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ with a mass *below* the $`b`$-quark mass and the conjectured chargino-mediated semileptonic decay has a striking consequence: In such a scenario the neutralino-mediated decays $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are kinematically allowed. In the Standard Model, bottom quarks dominantly decay as $`bcX`$. Hence $`b`$ decays are suppressed by the small element $`V_{cb}0.04`$ of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The new decay modes do not suffer from any CKM suppression and therefore have potentially large branching ratios. Since the light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ decays only semileptonically, the supersymmetric decay channels increase the lepton yield in $`b`$ decays through the cascade decay $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|c\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}|`$. Here $`\mathrm{E}|`$ denotes the missing energy from the (s)neutrinos. The measurement of the semileptonic branching ratio $`B_{SL}=Br(BX_{\overline{c}}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$, of $`B`$ mesons is a mature field. At the $`B`$ factory CLEO $`B`$,$`\overline{B}`$ pairs are copiously produced from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. The measurement of $`B_{SL}`$ amounts to counting the leptons in the final states of $`B`$-decays. The presence of secondary leptons from non-leptonic $`B`$ decays followed by a semileptonic decay of the decay products constitutes a background, which must be subtracted. The dilepton analysis by CLEO  subtracts this background using *measured* branching ratios and lepton spectra. Hence it is clear that the cascade decay $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|c\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}|`$ would be ascribed to the signal rather than the background. The extra events also pass the low cut $`p_{\mathrm{}}600\text{MeV}`$ on the lepton momentum in the $`B`$ rest frame, although leptons from the supersymmetric cascade decays are softer than the primary leptons. The CLEO result $`B_{SL}=(10.49\pm 0.46)\%`$  and the LEP measurement of $`Br(bc\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=(11.01\pm 0.38)\%`$  are consistent with the Standard Model prediction of $`9.9\%B_{SL}13\%`$ . $`B_{SL}`$ is the ratio of the semileptonic and the total rate. In the Standard Model the CKM element $`V_{cb}`$ drops out from this ratio and $`B_{SL}`$ depends only on Standard Model parameters whose values are unaffected by a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$.

In this letter we investigate the contributions to $`B_{SL}`$ from $`b\stackrel{~}{b}[c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }{}_{}{}^{}]\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{b}[c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }{}_{}{}^{}]\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$. We calculate the rates of these bottom decays and the decay rate for $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ in sect. II. In sect. III we correlate the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ lifetime with the new contribution to $`B_{SL}`$. We scan over the values of the supersymmetric parameters entering the considered decay rates allowing for a non-vanishing sneutrino mass. Finally we conclude in sect. IV.

## II Decay rates

As mentioned in the Introduction, we have to extend the MSSM by right-handed (s)neutrino states, because a purely left-handed light sneutrino would couple to the $`Z`$ and would therefore contribute to the well-measured invisible $`Z`$ width.Still such a scenario with dominantly right-handed sneutrinos might contradict cosmological bounds  and one could need additional small R-parity violating couplings to allow the LSP sneutrino to decay. Phenomenological constraints from flavor-changing neutral currents further imply that the CKM matrix accompanying quark-squark-chargino vertices is the same as in the couplings of quarks to the $`W`$ boson . Hence the semileptonic $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ decay is governed by the same CKM element $`V_{cb}0.04`$ as the standard semileptonic $`b`$ decay. We further assume that there are two light sneutrino states corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$, so that both semileptonic decays with $`\mathrm{}=e`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\mu `$ are possible. This assumption, however, does not influence the correlation between the sbottom lifetime and the branching ratio $`Br(b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|)`$, because it amounts to an overall factor of 2 for all relevant decay rates. We calculate all decay rates at the partonic level, in the tree level approximation of perturbation theory. Although $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ hadronize, the binding effects are suppressed by two powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/E`$, where $`E`$ is the average energy release to the final state hadron . We account for these power corrections and for contributions of uncalculated radiative corrections by conservatively inflating the allowed ranges for the input parameters in our phenomenological discussion in sect. III. Further, we remark that our formulae become inaccurate for sneutrino masses near the kinematic limit. In this case $`E=𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$, and the final state hadron moves too slowly in the rest frame of the decaying hadron. Therefore naive perturbation theory breaks down. Yet we will see in sect. III that in this region it is hard to accommodate for the conjectured sbottom lifetime.

We denote the light sbottom and light sneutrino mass eigenstates by $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1`$. The mixing angle $`\theta _b`$ relating $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ to scalar partners of the chiral $`b`$-fields is defined as $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _b\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{R}`$, with an analogous definition for the sneutrino mixing angle $`\theta _\nu `$. We adopt the standard notation  for the MSSM mass parameters and mixing matrices: the chargino mass matrix is diagonalized as

$$_c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)=U^T\text{diag}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\right)V.$$
(1)
By convention $`M_2>0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ is the lighter chargino. Since we are not interested in CP violation here, we choose all mass matrices and the unitary mixing matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$ real. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values. The neutralino mass matrix reads

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill M_1& \hfill 0& \hfill m_Zs_w\mathrm{cos}\beta & \hfill m_Zs_w\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \hfill 0& \hfill M_2& \hfill m_Zc_w\mathrm{cos}\beta & \hfill m_Zc_w\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \hfill m_Zs_w\mathrm{cos}\beta & \hfill m_Zc_w\mathrm{cos}\beta & \hfill 0& \hfill \mu \\ \hfill m_Zs_w\mathrm{sin}\beta & \hfill m_Zc_w\mathrm{sin}\beta & \hfill \mu & \hfill 0\end{array}\right)=N^T\text{diag}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\right)N,`$ (6)
where $`s_w,c_w`$ are the sine and cosine of the weak mixing angle. We choose $`N`$ as an orthogonal matrix. Then the mass eigenvalues can be negative and the physical neutralino masses are their absolute values.

The decay $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}`$ is depicted in the left diagram of Fig. 1. The corresponding matrix element equals $`K\overline{c}P_R\mathrm{}`$, where $`P_R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$ and

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`V_{cb}g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{j1}}{m_{\chi _j}}}\left[g\mathrm{cos}\theta _bU_{j1}h_b\mathrm{sin}\theta _bU_{j2}\right].`$ (7)
Here we have neglected the sbottom momentum in the chargino propagator and the small Yukawa coupling to $`\mathrm{}`$. $`g0.65`$ is the SU(2) gauge coupling and $`h_b`$ is the bottom Yukawa coupling. Our result agrees with the expression in . We conveniently re-express $`V_{jk}`$, $`U_{jk}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}`$ in terms of $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{}}V_{ji}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\chi _j}}}U_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[V^TD^1U\right]_{ik}=\left[_c^1\right]_{ik}.`$ (8)
Then eq. (7) becomes

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`V_{cb}g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{g\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta _b+\sqrt{2}h_bm_W\mathrm{sin}\theta _b\mathrm{sin}\beta }{M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}}.`$ (9)
A lifetime of $`𝒪`$(1 ps)  implies that the semileptonic decay rate of the light sbottom ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^3/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2`$) exceeds the rate of the $`b`$ quark ($`m_b^5/m_W^4`$) by roughly a factor of 7. To accommodate for this, one is naturally lead to the portion of the parameter space with a large Yukawa coupling $`h_b`$ and thereby a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this region supersymmetric QCD corrections to the relation of $`h_b`$ to $`m_b`$ can be huge . Yet such $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhanced corrections can be summed to all orders :

$`h_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b^{SQCD}}}`$ (10)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b^{SQCD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta I(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}).`$ (11)
$`I(a,b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a^2b^2)(b^2c^2)(a^2c^2)}}\left(a^2b^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{b^2}}+b^2c^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c^2}}+c^2a^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{a^2}}\right).`$ (12)
Here $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the gluino mass. The strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ must be evaluated at a high scale of order $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ or $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}`$. Moreover, the light sbottom has to be included in the running of $`\alpha _s`$. The non-leading corrections to eq. (10) can be safely neglected . The semileptonic decay rate now reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{b}_1c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|K|^2}{32m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}\pi ^5}}p(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1},m_c,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}).`$ (13)
Since we assume that the two decay channels with $`\mathrm{}=e`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\mu `$ are allowed, the sbottom lifetime is given by $`\tau _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=1/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL})`$. The phase space integral reads

$$p(M,m_1,m_2)=\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_1}{2E_1}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_2}{2E_2}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_3}{2E_3}\delta ^{(4)}(Pp_1p_2p_3)p_1p_3,=M^4p(1,\frac{m_1}{M},\frac{m_2}{M})$$
(14)
with the masses $`p_3^2=0,p_{1,2}^2=m_{1,2}^2`$ and $`P^2=M^2`$. We find

$`p(1,x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}[x_1^4(1+x_2)^2y\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y+x}{yx}}+[4x_1^2x_2^2(1+x_2^2)(x_1^4+2x_2^2)]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{1x}}`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x\left[\left(1+x_2\right)^2x_1^2\right]}{6}}[1+10x_2^2+x_2^45x_1^2(1+x_2^2)2x_1^4]]`$
$`\text{with}x=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1x_2)^2x_1^2}{(1+x_2)^2x_1^2}}},y={\displaystyle \frac{1x_2}{1+x_2}}.`$
$`p(1,x_1,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{48}}\left[(1x_1^2)(15x_1^22x_1^4)12x_1^4\mathrm{ln}x_1\right]`$ (18)
Next we turn to the two neutralino-mediated decays $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1`$ in Fig. 1. The two different final states are possible because of the Majorana nature of the neutralinos. As for the sbottom decay we assume two light flavor-generations of neutrinos. The matrix element for $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}`$ can be written as $`K_R\overline{\nu }P_Rb`$ and the amplitude for $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1`$ is of the form $`K_L\overline{\nu }P_Lb`$ with $`P_L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. The coefficients are

$`K_R`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{j2}N_{j1}t_w}{m_{\chi _j^0}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}t_w\mathrm{sin}\theta _bN_{j1}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _bN_{j3}\right]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu }{d}}\left[g\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_2t_w^2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _b+{\displaystyle \frac{h_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\mu m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _b\left(M_1+M_2t_w^2\right)\right]`$ (20)
$`K_L`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{j2}N_{j1}t_w}{m_{\chi _j^0}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{3}}N_{j1}N_{j2}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{h_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _bN_{j3}\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu }{d}}\left[g\mu ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_2t_w^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta _b+{\displaystyle \frac{h_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\mu m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _b\left(M_1+M_2t_w^2\right)\right].`$ (22)
$`t_w`$ is given by $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _w=s_w/c_w`$, and $`d`$ is the determinant of the neutralino mass matrix in eq. (6):

$`d`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \left[M_1M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\left(M_1+M_2t_w^2\right)\right].`$ (23)
The couplings given in eq. (20) and eq. (22) nicely reveal that the term proportional to $`h_b`$ is zero for $`M_1=M_2t_w^2`$. In this case the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$ element of the inverse neutralino mass matrix vanishes. Then the Higgsino $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$, which couples with $`h_b`$ to the $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, cannot propagate into the Zino, which is the only gauge fermion coupling to the $`\nu `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ line. By comparing eq. (20) and eq. (22) with eq. (9) one can also identify the terms in the sbottom and bottom decay amplitudes which are related by electroweak SU(2) symmetry. The SU(2) symmetry leads to a high correlation between the two decay modes: if one picks SUSY parameters keeping $`K`$ large enough to accommodate the lifetime observed in , one cannot simultaneously make both $`K_R`$ and $`K_L`$ arbitrarily small.

After summing the decay rates for the two decay modes, each lepton flavor $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$ gives a new contribution to the bottom width of

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(b\stackrel{~}{b}_1(\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}+\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{|K_R|^2+|K_L|^2}{64m_b\pi ^5}}q(m_b,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1}).`$ (24)
Here the space space integral reads

$$q(M,m_1,m_2)=\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_1}{2E_1}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_2}{2E_2}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_3}{2E_3}\delta ^{(4)}\left(Pp_1p_2p_3\right)Pp_3=M^4q(1,x_1,x_2),$$
(25)
where again $`p_3^2=0,p_{1,2}^2=m_{1,2}^2`$ and $`P^2=M^2`$. We calculate

$`q(1,x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}[(x_1x_2)^2y\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y+x}{yx}}[x_1^2+x_2^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}x_1^2x_2^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_1^4x_2^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x_1^2x_2^4]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{1x}}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x\left[1\left(x_1x_2\right)^2\right]}{6}}[2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}x_1^2+5x_2^2x_1^4x_2^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}x_1^2x_2^2x_2^4]]`$
$`\text{with}x=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1(x_1+x_2)^2}{1(x_1x_2)^2}}},y={\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{x_1x_2}}.`$
$`q(1,x_1,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{48}}\left[(1x_1^2)(2+5x_1^2x_1^4)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}x_1^2\mathrm{ln}x_1\right].`$ (29)
In a $`B`$-factory like CLEO the $`B`$ mesons move too slowly to resolve a displaced vertex from the $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ in the cascade decay $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\mathrm{E}|c\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}|`$. Hence the signal of a $`b`$ decay into a light sbottom would basically be an increase of the semileptonic branching ratio $`B_{SL}`$ and a shift of the lepton spectrum to lower energies as discussed in the Introduction. Therefore it is useful to normalize $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the semileptonic decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ of the $`B`$ meson (which to order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/m_b^2`$ coincides with the semileptonic decay rate of the $`b`$ quark ). The experimental value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ is obtained by dividing the measured $`B_{SL}=(10.49\pm 0.46)\%`$  by the measured lifetime $`\tau _B=1.55\pm 0.03`$ps<sup>-1</sup> :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_{\overline{c}}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}})=(4.45\pm 0.21)10^{14}\text{GeV}`$ (30)
per lepton flavor $`\mathrm{}=e`$ or $`\mu `$. SUSY parameters yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }>5`$ are already excluded from the measured $`B`$ lifetime alone: since the total branching ratio into light leptons is $`2B_{SL}20\%`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would exceed the total decay rate $`1/\tau _B`$ in these scenarios. We further remark that the decay mode $`b\stackrel{~}{b}_1\mathrm{E}|c\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}|`$ would also influence the determination of $`V_{cb}`$, which enters our analysis of the sbottom lifetime, from inclusive semileptonic decays. The true value of $`V_{cb}`$ would be somewhat lower than the Standard Model value of 0.04 and our exclusion plots in the following section would become even more restrictive. On the other hand, measurements of $`V_{cb}`$ from exclusive decays near the kinematic endpoint are less affected because of the softer leptons from the supersymmetric decays.

## III MSSM Parameter Space

To determine how the semileptonic sbottom and the bottom decay widths are related, we perform an MSSM parameter scan: for all models leading to a sbottom lifetime between 0.5 and 2 ps we compute the additional semileptonic bottom decay width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and compare it to the measured value, as shown in Fig. 2(a,b). In the scan we assume a sbottom mass of $`3.5\text{GeV}`$ and fix the presumably small  sneutrino LSP mass to $`0.3\text{GeV}`$. Disregarding the large theoretical errors we emphasize that the results of the analysis become dependent on the sneutrino mass only close to threshold. For reasons discussed below, the case $`\mu >0`$ hardly ever leads to a sbottom lifetime below 2 ps, whereas $`\mu <0`$ generates a rich variety of scenarios. In particular, the case $`\mu >0`$ cannot accommodate sneutrino masses above $`0.5\text{GeV}`$.

We note that all Yukawa couplings contributing to the considered decays are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. i.e. to reach the measured sbottom lifetime one is automatically driven into the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime. We in fact observe that varying all other input parameters in the given ranges only allows values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >15`$ for $`\mu <0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >25`$ for $`\mu >0`$. As an upper limit we choose $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =60`$. Since both the bottom and the sbottom decay widths are enhanced, the minimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the scan depends only weakly on the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the given interval.

The parameters determining the masses of the virtual charginos and neutralinos are $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$. In addition the Higgsino mass parameter enters into the correction to the bottom Yukawa coupling: for positive values of $`\mu `$ the mass correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ is positive, leading to a decrease in $`h_b`$ and therefore a decrease in the sbottom decay width until the gaugino coupling to the sbottom becomes dominant, at the expense of the total decay width. For $`\mu <0`$ the mass correction becomes negative. Values around $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b=1`$ dramatically increase the Yukawa coupling<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§Models with $`h_b^2/(4\pi ^2)>1`$ we reject as non-perturbative.. A comparison of scenarios with the two signs of $`\mu `$ in Fig. 2(a,b) shows that the impact of the increased Yukawa coupling leads to an enhancement by a factor of two in the typical sbottom lifetime.

Since the sbottom decays through a virtual chargino, either $`M_2`$ or $`|\mu |`$ has to be sufficiently small, to keep the suppression moderate. For $`\mu >0`$ both parameters $`|\mu |`$ and $`M_2`$ have to to be smaller than $`400\text{GeV}`$. The light chargino mass, which we require to respect the LEP lower limit of $`103\text{GeV}`$This limit is based on a neutralino LSP scenario, but the sneutrino LSP does hardly change the signature and leads to an increased production cross section. We therefore assume a chargino mass limit close to the kinematical limit ., is found to be smaller than $`140\text{GeV}`$. In the less constrained case of $`\mu <0`$ only $`M_2`$ has a strict upper limit of $`500\text{GeV}`$, but large values of $`|\mu |500\text{GeV}`$ require $`M_2250\text{GeV}`$. The upper limit for the mass of the light chargino becomes $`350\text{GeV}`$. We vary the additional Bino mass parameter $`M_1`$ between $`1\text{TeV}`$ to always cover the decoupling point $`M_1=M_2t_w^2`$, as described in sect.II. In Fig.2(c,d) we show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }<50\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ can only be achieved for parameters close to this decoupling point. In particular for the Yukawa coupling dominated models with $`\mu <0`$ we observe a sharp decrease in the minimum value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The numerical width of the allowed parameter region is shown in Fig. 2(e,f). With $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _b1.0`$ the $`\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1`$ decay channel dominates. For $`M_1=M_2t_w^2`$ the Yukawa contribution vanishes, and the corresponding gauge coupling proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _b`$ leads to negligible values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the other decay channel $`\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}`$ the gauge coupling is enhanced by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _b`$ and thereby rescues the total MSSM contribution to the semileptonic decay width. However, typical values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ become significantly smaller, in particular for $`\mu <0`$, where the large bottom Yukawa coupling was further enhanced. By contrast, models sufficiently separated from the decoupling point easily yield an enhancement of several hundred times the Standard Model value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$.

The sbottom and the sneutrino mixing angle are constrained by the measurement of the $`Z`$ width: both particles have to decouple from the $`Z`$ boson. A right-handed LSP sneutrino does indeed not couple to the $`Z`$. However, it does not couple to the intermediate chargino in the sbottom decay either. We therefore assume a fraction of left-handedness in the LSP, parameterized by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu <0.2`$. A small fraction of left-handedness might be a hint for a see-saw mechanism in the scalar neutrino mass matrix. Since both the bottom and the sbottom decay width scale with the square of this fraction, we have checked that reducing $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\nu `$ does not affect the result, until it suppresses the sbottom decay widths too strongly to allow for any models with a lifetime $`\tau _{\stackrel{~}{b}}<2`$ ps.

The light sbottom decouples from the $`Z`$ for a leading order mixing angle of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _b|=s_w\sqrt{2/3}`$, i.e. a mixture of left and right-handed states aligned with the weak mixing angle. Taking into account possible experimental uncertainties we impose $`0.8<|\mathrm{sin}\theta _b|<1.0`$. Since the Yukawa coupling to the chargino is dominant in most of our valid models, the mixing angle strongly affects the sbottom decay width. A completely right-handed sbottom is preferred, because it gives the Yukawa coupling a maximal relative weight. However, the Majorana nature of the neutralino allows the two decay modes in Fig. 1, which couple to either the right-handed or the left-handed sbottom states. Therefore $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _b=1`$ also leads to an enhancement of the respective decay channel, while suppressing the other. Even at the decoupling point $`M_1=M_2t_w^2`$ it is impossible to switch off both decays simultaneously.

## IV Conclusions

We have investigated implications of recently reported experimental hints for a light sbottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ with a mass below $`m_b`$ and a lifetime around 1 picosecond decaying as $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$. We have studied the decay modes $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, which are related to the semileptonic sbottom decay by electroweak SU(2) symmetry. At $`B`$-factories these decay modes would manifest themselves through the cascade decay $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|c\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}|`$ and would increase the well-measured semileptonic branching ratio $`B_{SL}`$ of $`B`$ mesons. We have determined the correlation between the sbottom lifetime and the rates of these supersymmetric $`b`$ decays. A scan over the entire MSSM parameter space has shown that the rate of $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|`$ typically exceeds the semileptonic bottom decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$. It easily reaches values which are up to 1000 times the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}=B_{SL}/\tau _B`$. The minimal value is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|)1.4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ for $`\mu <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|)7\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ for $`\mu >0`$. Both are obtained for large values of the bottom Yukawa coupling. The minimal values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(b\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{E}|)`$ correspond to a small region of the supersymmetric parameter space in which a Zino-Higgsino mixing term in the neutralino sector vanishes. In view of the the good agreement of the measured $`B_{SL}`$ with the Standard Model prediction we conclude that experimental anomalies reported in  cannot be interpreted as light sbottoms decaying as $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$, unless the decays $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ and $`b\stackrel{~}{b}\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are kinematically forbidden.

We remark here that our reasoning similarly constrains a light sbottom interpretation of the anomalies of , if the sbottom is *heavier* than the bottom quark. If the decays $`\stackrel{~}{b}b\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}b\overline{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are kinematically allowed, they will by far be the dominant decay modes in most of the supersymmetric parameter space and the observed decay $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$ would be rare. This would point at a much higher sbottom production rate and we presume that the secondary vertices from the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and $`b`$ in these $`\stackrel{~}{b}b\mathrm{E}|`$ decays would have been detected in collider experiments. While a detailed study of this scenario is beyond the scope of this letter, we also consider this possibility as remote. The anomalies reported in  are essentially only compatible with a light sbottom interpretation, if $`|m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}|m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1}`$.

Even if we leave the framework of supersymmetry, it is hard to relate the experimental anomalies to some other bottom-flavored object. Consider any new SU(2)-invariant renormalizable model with conserved lepton number: the semileptonic decay mode will then have the topology of the left diagram in Fig. 1. By SU(2) symmetry then $`b`$ decays corresponding to the middle diagram are allowed. The suppression of this decay mode would involve fine tuning of the left and right-handed $`b`$ flavor components and between the U(1) and SU(2) gauge sectors.

## Acknowledgments

U.N. thanks Marcela Carena, Carlos Wagner and Frank Würthwein for stimulating discussions. T.P. wants to thank Toby Falk, Tao Han and Stephan Lammel for useful discussions and Toby Falk for carefully reading the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Infrared Star Count Models and Their Application to the Subaru Deep Field

## 1 Introduction

Deep infrared images have been obtained so far for the purpose of deep galaxy counts (e.g. Bershady et al. (1998)). It is indeed the case that the majority of the objects detected in those images are galaxies and stellar objects are the minority. Infrared images of the Subaru Deep Field (SDF), which we are going to analyze in this paper, were obtained also for the purpose of a galaxy count analysis (Maihara et al. (2000)). However as we show later, these images contain interesting information about faint stellar/substellar populations, since they reach the magnitude limits which no stellar astronomer has ever experienced.

The SDF images were obtained at $`J`$ and $`K^{}`$. Once stellar objects are selected from a catalog of detected sources by a criterion on the morphology of individual sources, only remaining information is color-magnitude information. As an aid to interpret the color-magnitude information, we extensively utilize Galaxy model predictions on the stellar/substellar populations. Infrared star count models at faint magnitudes have not been constructed previously. We generate models for $`J`$ based on those constructed for $`V`$ and color-magnitude relations for visual and infrared. We also take into account faint stellar/substellar populations such as L dwarfs, T dwarfs, and white dwarfs of the Galactic disk and halo. We compare the model predictions with observations and examine the consistency. We also utilize these models to predict the Galaxy observed by the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST).

In the past, infrared images as deep as $`K`$ = 19 were analyzed from the point of view of stellar astronomy. Hu et al. (1994) studied the deep imaging data obtained for a deep galaxy count and concluded that very little of dark matter in the Galactic halo can be made of low-mass hydrogen-burning stars. In our small field of view, there are only 14 stellar objects. However analyses of a small number of stellar objects have been already done in the Hubble Deep Field (Elson et al. (1996), Mendez et al. (1996)). Using different criteria, Elson et al. found 59 unresolved objects while Mendez et al. selected only 14 stellar objects. Elson et al. counted only nine objects as candidates for low mass halo stars and ruled out a steeply rising luminosity function fainter than $`M_V`$ = 12. Mendez et al. found that the luminosity function for halo objects must be a factor of 2 smaller than that predicted by an extrapolation of the solar neighborhood luminosity function for disk stars.

Star count models are constructed in §2. The reduction and analysis of the SDF data are described in §3. Model predictions are compared with observations in §4. Individual objects in SDF are discussed in §5 and the Galaxy seen by NGST is predicted in §6.

## 2 Star Count Models

Infrared star count models applicable to very faint magnitudes do not exist in the literature. So we construct them, starting from the models obtained in the visible, using color-magnitude relations. We also use a $`K`$ band luminosity function for the disk as a starting point when available. We obtain color-magnitude, magnitude-magnitude relations empirically from published photometric data when necessary. We first construct models by Gould et al. who used HST star count data. Their local luminosity functions (LLFs) of the disk and halo obtained by fitting distant stars are inconsistent with the LLFs of nearby stars. We also construct models different from those of Gould et al., using the nearby star LLFs.

### 2.1 Model A: Disk model by Gould et al.

We first construct an infrared version of the disk model by (Gould et al. (1997)) who fitted the disk structure parameters and the LLF to star count data from HST observations of high-latitude fields. The distribution of stars is modeled as a function of Galactic position and absolute magnitude by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V,z,R)=\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V)\nu (z)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{RR_0}{H}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V)`$ is the LLF, $`(R,z)`$ is the Galactic position in cylindrical coordinates, $`R_0`$ = 8 kpc is the Galactocentric distance, and $`H`$ = 2.92 kpc is the disk scale length. The vertical distribution function is given by

$$\nu (z)=(1\beta )\mathrm{sech}^2\frac{z}{h_1}+\beta \mathrm{exp}\frac{|z|}{h_2},$$
(2)
where $`h_1`$ = 320 pc, $`h_2`$ = 643 pc, and $`\beta `$ = 21.6%.

The local disk/thick disk ratio, $`\beta `$, adopted by Gould et al. is more than a factor of two higher than any other estimates and this discrepancy is reflected in the very small scale height, $`h_2`$. This small scale height results in a smaller star count estimate at faint magnitudes. The LF is given for main-sequence stars with $`8.0<M_V<18`$. Since we are interested in star counts at faint magnitudes, this range of the LF is appropriate. The infrared color-magnitude relation is not available for thick disk stars and we use the color-magnitude information of thin disk stars in Leggett (1992) for the entire disk stars to calculate star counts in the infrared. Reid et al. (1997) have found that the metallicity of the stars do not change significantly out to the scale height of 2 kpc. This may be a support for the use of the thin-disk color-magnitude relation for the entire disk stars.

### 2.2 Model B: Halo model by Gould et al.

We also construct an infrared version of the halo model by Gould et al. (1998) who fitted the halo structure parameters and the LLF to HST star count data. The distribution of halo stars is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V,R,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_h(M_V)\left[\frac{R^2+(z/c)^2}{R_0^2}\right]^{l/2},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(M_V)`$ is the LLF, $`c`$ = 0.82 is the flattening parameter, and $`l`$ = 3.13 is the power. There is no infrared color-magnitude relation available for halo stars. To calculate star counts at $`I`$, $`J`$, $`K`$ and $`JK`$ color, following empirical relations were obtained by fitting extreme M subdwarf data in Leggett et al. (1998);

$$M_I=0.745M_V+1.122,$$
(4)
$$M_J=0.638M_V+1.249,$$
(5)
$$M_K=0.649M_V+0.503,$$
(6)
$$JK=0.011M_V+0.747.$$
(7)
The sample in Leggett et al. also includes a small number of M subdwarfs (not extreme M subdwarfs), but they are not used in the fitting.

### 2.3 Model C: Exponential disk model based on nearby star LF

We construct a double exponential disk model using the nearby star $`K`$ band LLF by Reid and Gizis (1997). The distribution of disk stars is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K,R,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{R_0R}{H})\left[(1\beta )\mathrm{exp}(\frac{|z|}{h_1})+\beta \mathrm{exp}(\frac{|z|}{h_2})\right],$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K)`$ is the $`K`$ band LLF, $`R_0`$ = 8 kpc is the Galactocentric distance, $`H`$ = 3.5 kpc is the Galactic scale length, $`h_1`$ = 325 pc is the scale height of thin disk stars. For the scale height $`h_2`$ and the normalization $`\beta `$ of the thick disk, we consider the combinations of ($`h_2`$,$`\beta `$) = (910 pc, 6%) (Model C1: Buser et al. (1999)) and ($`h_2`$,$`\beta `$) = (1500 pc,2%) (Model C2: Reid and Majewski (1993)). Using the color-magnitude relation of thin disk stars by Leggett (1992), the model is constructed so that it predicts star counts at $`V`$, $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`K`$. We note that our model has a limitation in the use of the thin disk color-magnitude relation for the thick disk. However the effect of metallicity on the $`JK`$ color is relatively small and the $`J`$ band count is not significantly affected by this problem.

### 2.4 Model D: Halo model based on nearby star LF

The model D is based on the LLF of nearby stars by Dahn et al. (1995). The density distribution of halo stars is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V,R,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{R_0}}\right)^{7/8}\left\{\mathrm{exp}[10.093({\displaystyle \frac{x}{R_0}})^{1/4}+10.093]\right\}`$ (9)
$`\times \left[10.08669/({\displaystyle \frac{x}{R_0}})^{1/4}\right],`$
where $`x=(R^2+(z/c)^2)^{1/2}`$ and c = 0.85 (Reid and Majewski (1993)). $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_V)`$ of Dahn et al. is significantly greater than the LLF of Gould et al. (1998). Star counts at $`I`$, $`J`$, and $`K`$ are estimated from the magnitude-magnitude relations eqs (6), (7), and (8).

### 2.5 L dwarfs, T dwarfs and white dwarfs

Dwarfs later than M, namely L and T dwarfs (Kirkpatrick et al. (1999)) are also included in our models. The local number density of L dwarfs is estimated by the 2MASS observations of Kirkpatrick et al. to be 7.2$`\times 10^3`$ pc-3 using 1/Vmax estimates. The local density of T dwarfs is estimated by the SDSS observations of Strauss et al. (1999) and Tsvetanov et al. (2000) to be 1.4$`\times 10^1`$ pc-3. This assumes that the survey volume extend out to 10 pc. As for T dwarfs, we note that the 2MASS observations by Burgasser et al. (1999) give a lower number density than the SDSS observations. For simplicity, L dwarfs are assumed to be a single population with $`M_J`$ = 13.0 and $`JK`$ = 1.5, and T dwarfs with $`M_J`$ = 15.4 and $`JK`$ = -0.1 like Gl 229B (Matthews et al. (1996)). The ages of L and T dwarfs are expected to be order of 1 Gyr and they belong to the young disk population. The scale heights of both L and T dwarfs are assumed to be 200 pc or the scale height of F stars.

We then consider white dwarfs. For hot white dwarfs, we compute the LF by Liebert et al. (1988) at V. Since there is no good observational color-magnitude relation for hot white dwarfs usable to derive an infrared luminosity function, we are satisfied with the V band model to order estimate infrared star counts. The luminosity function of cool white dwarfs ($`M_{bol}>13`$) has been obtained by Leggett (1998) for $`M_{bol}`$ based on visual and infrared observations. By fitting her observational data, we have obtained following relations among $`M_{bol}`$, $`M_V`$, $`M_I`$, $`M_J`$, $`M_K`$ and $`JK`$;

$$M_V=1.103M_{bol}1.311,$$
(10)
$$M_I=0.743M_{bol}+3.084,$$
(11)
$$M_J=0.542M_{bol}+5.593,$$
(12)
$$M_K=0.494M_{bol}+6.041,$$
(13)
$$JK=0.047M_{bol}0.448.$$
(14)
Using these relations, we include cool white dwarfs in the disk models. It turned out that disk white dwarfs do not have significant contribution at faint magnitudes.

We also consider old white dwarfs in the halo (Hodgkin et al. (2000)). These white dwarfs are very faint and blue in the infrared. The absolute magnitudes are assumed to be of WD 0346+246 (Hodgkin et al. (2000)) and the number density is assumed to be 7$`\times 10^4`$ pc-3 (Ibata et al. (2000)). These old halo white dwarfs turn out to be important in the star count by NGST at the faintest magnitudes as will be discussed in §6.

## 3 Reduction and Analysis of the SDF data

Details of the observations of the Subaru Deep Field (SDF) are described in Maihara et al. (2000). The SDF is a 2$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 2^{}`$ field centered on ($`\alpha `$,$`\delta `$) = ($`13^h24^m21.3^s`$, 27$`{}_{}{}^{}29_{}^{}23^{\prime \prime }`$) (J2000) or (l,b) = ($`35.^{}7,82.^{}2`$). For the purpose of star-galaxy separation, exposure frames taken only under good seeing conditions were coadded to form final images. The total integration time of the coadded frames at $`J`$ is 4.97 h out of 12 h of observations and that at $`K^{}`$ is 4.13 h out of 10 h of observations. The FWHMs of the resultant PSFs are $`0.^{\prime \prime }39`$ and $`0.^{\prime \prime }29`$ respectively at $`J`$ and $`K^{}`$.

A source catalog was created for each band by the SExtractor (Bertin and Arnouts (1996)). For each source, its position, magnitude, FWHM of the image, and ‘stellarity’ were recorded. The stellarity is a parameter defined in the SExtractor which quantifies how stellar the object morphology is. It is unity for a completely stellar object and zero for a completely non-stellar object. The stellarity is an output parameter of a neural network. The purpose of the use of the neural network is to provide an optimal transformation from the parameter space defined by a set of observables describing the object, to the one dimensional space of stellarity. Input parameters are eight isophotal areas, the peak intensity, and the seeing FWHM.

Star-galaxy separation is a critical process in the analysis of a deep image. Its difficulty in a deep optical star count has been mentioned by Reid et al. (1996), who analyzed visible images obtained on the Keck telescope under $`0.^{\prime \prime }5`$ seeing. They conclude that the decreasing average angular size of galaxies with fainter magnitude limits star-galaxy separation to $`R`$ $`<`$ 25.5 mag. In separating stellar objects from galaxies, we impose a rather strict quantitative criterion for the selection of stellar objects and separate stars and galaxies. To evaluate the objectiveness of the selection criterion, we simulate images with different sizes at different magnitudes and apply the selection criterion to estimate the fraction of stars classified as galaxies (incompleteness) and that of galaxies classified as stars (contamination). So the incompleteness and contamination are obtained as functions of image size and magnitude. Then we apply an incompleteness factor for each stellar object to estimate the true star count and apply a contamination factor for each galaxy to evaluate the number of contaminating galaxies.

### 3.1 Selection Criterion

We first simulate 500 PSFs with FWHM of $`0.^{\prime \prime }39`$ per 0.25 mag for $`J`$ and 500 PSFs with FWHM of $`0.^{\prime \prime }29`$ for $`K^{}`$ between 16 and 26 mag. Simulated objects are meant to be stars. Then we run the SExtractor to detect each artificial source and measure its magnitude, FWHM and stellarity.

The details of the simulation procedure for each SExtractor run are as follows. We randomly place on the true object image 50 artificial objects with random counts within the magnitude range between m and m+0.25. We run the SExtractor using the same detection conditions as for the true objects and compare the resultant catalog with the true object catalog to create a list of new objects which newly appeared or brightened by more than 0.75 mag. We compare the coordinates of the 50 artificial objects placed prior to the SExtractor run with those of the resultant new objects and pick up the nearest neighbor pairs within 3 pixels ($`0.^{\prime \prime }35`$) as recovered artificial objects. We repeat the same procedure ten times and move to the next magnitude bin. The number of the artificial objects, 50 is smaller than the total number of true objects, 350, and the confusion in the recovery process is due to the true objects. If 500 artificial objects were placed at once, confusion among them would dominate. We have avoided this situation by limiting the number to 50 for each SExtractor run, which is still much more efficient than the ideal case of one at a time.

At $`J`$, the FWHMs of detected objects stay near $`0.^{\prime \prime }39`$ from 16 to 22 mag, grow gradually from 22 to 23.5 and start to diverge at 24 mag. Below 25.5 mag, most of the sources are undetected. At $`K^{}`$, the FWHMs of detected objects stay close to $`0.^{\prime \prime }29`$ from 16 to 21 mag, grow slowly from 21 to 22.5 mag, and diverge at 23 mag. Below 24.5 mag, most of the sources are undetected. At $`J`$, the stellarity stays close to unity from 16 to 23 mag, and then gradually drops below 0.8 at fainter magnitudes. Below 24.5 mag, only a few sources have the stellarity above 0.8. At $`K^{}`$, the stellarity stays close to unity from 16 to 22 mag, and gradually drops below 0.8 at fainter magnitudes. Below 24 mag, only one object has the stellarity above 0.8. From these simulations, we have found that $`J`$ is more sensitive than $`K^{}`$ for the sources with $`JK^{}`$ $`<`$1.0. In selecting stellar objects, we use the $`J`$ band image, and the $`K^{}`$ band image is used to measure the color.

We further simulate 500 PSFs per 0.25 mag with FWHMs of 1.26$`\times `$seeing, $`1.26^2\times `$seeing, and $`1.26^3\times `$seeing between 16 and 26 mag for $`J`$. These sources are meant to simulate non-stellar objects. We again run SExtractor to detect each artificial source and measure its magnitude, FWHM and stellarity. Simulated stellar objects are well separated from simulated non-stellar objects in FWHM down to 24 mag. Below $`J`$=24, stellar and non-stellar objects tend to mix toward fainter magnitudes. The stellarity stays above 0.8 at magnitudes brighter than $`J`$=17, 18, and 21 respectively for PSFs with FWHMs of $`1.26^3\times `$, $`1.26^2\times `$ and 1.26$`\times `$seeing, and goes down near zero and comes back up to 0.7 below 24 mag. At brighter magnitudes, the FWHM of each artificial source is a good discriminator between a stellar and non-stellar object. At fainter magnitudes, the stellarity appears to be a superior discriminator because that of a non-stellar object rarely becomes above 0.7.

From the simulations so far, we find following conditions for FWHM and stellarity to separate stellar objects from non-stellar objects for $`J`$. Stellar objects satisfy

$$\mathrm{FWHM}(^{\prime \prime })0.47+10^{0.4(J26)},$$
(15)
and

$$\mathrm{Stellarity}0.8.$$
(16)
The performance of the selection conditions is graphically shown in Figure 1.

### 3.2 Selected Stellar Objects

From the selection criterion given in the previous section, 14 objects are selected (Table 1). $`J`$ and $`K^{}`$ images of each object is shown in Figure 2. The completeness correction and the number of contaminants are estimated and given in Table 2. From Table 2, the star count is more than 94% complete above $`J`$ = 22.5 and 57% complete above $`J`$ = 24. The completeness is only 28% between $`J`$ = 24 and 24.5. After the completeness correction, the estimated total count is 24.3. The total number of contaminants is only 0.03 and is negligible. This indicates how strict the selection criterion is. The color-magnitude diagram of the stellar objects is given in Figure 3. Above $`J`$ = 24, the $`JK^{}`$ colors of eleven objects are between 0.40 and 0.72. However below $`J`$ = 24, one object is very blue (0.0) and two others are very red ($`>`$ 1.0).

## 4 Comparison of observations and models

The completeness of the observed star count is 57% at $`J`$ = 24. Model predictions and the completeness corrected counts are compared in Tables 3 and 4. The $`JK^{}`$ color of observed eleven objects brighter than $`J`$ = 24 is confined in the range from 0.4 to 0.7. If the completeness correction is applied, the effective star count brighter than $`J`$ = 24 is 13.5.

The disk model A predicts only 2.6 stars brighter than $`J`$ = 24, whose $`JK`$ color ranges from 0.78 to 0.96. We note that the color-magnitude relation is of the thin disk.

The halo model B predicts 7.8 halo stars. Combined with the disk model A, the models by Gould et al. based on HST observations predict 10.4 stars in the magnitude range between J = 18 and 24, which agrees with the completeness corrected count at $`0.84\sigma `$.

The disk model C1 (thick disk scale height 910 pc) predicts 5.5 stars with $`JK`$ between 0.87 and 0.96, while the disk model C2 (thick disk scale height 1.5 kpc) predicts 8.2 stars with $`JK`$ between 0.85 and 0.96. For both models, the thin disk contribution is small, 1.9 stars.

The halo model D predicts 11.8 halo stars within the color range of 0.59 and 0.65. If some halo stars have colors of M subdwarfs instead of those of extreme M subdwarfs, the observed stars brighter than $`J`$ = 24 may all be halo stars. In combining the disk model with the halo model D, the model C1 is preferred because of the smaller predicted number count. The total predicted star count of C1$`+`$D is 17.4 which is slightly greater than the completeness corrected count of 13.5 by 1.0 $`\sigma `$. The observed star count is between the prediction of models based on HST data by Gould et al. and that of models based on nearby stars LFs. Our limited statistics do not have strong constraint on the discrepancy between the results of two types of models.

Apart from stars, the disk models predict a small number of substellar objects brighter than $`J`$ = 24. The disk model A and C estimate the number of T dwarfs to be 1.4 and 0.39 respectively. Combining the local number density of T dwarfs with the Galactic structure of disk model A of Gould et al. apparently results in overestimating the number of T dwarfs. The disk model C is preferred for the combination with the local number density. The disk model A and C predict the number of L dwarfs to be 0.65 and 0.1. Since no object as red as L dwarfs brighter than $`J`$=24 was detected, the Galactic structure of the disk model C is again preferred.

## 5 Individual Objects

### 5.1 Blue M subdwarfs, #7 and LHS 1826

The object #7 is bluer ($`JK^{}`$ = 0.4) than any other object with $`J<24`$. It is also bluer than any of the nearby extreme subdwarfs whose colors are given in Leggett et al. (1998). According to the calculations by Saumon et al. (1994) of atmospheres of zero-metal low-mass objects, the $`JK`$ color of a zero-metal object near the stellar/substellar boundary will be blue and negative due to H2 collision induced absorption (CIA). The color of #7 may be affected by H2 CIA significantly. H2 CIA most likely affects the coolest and most-metal-poor object. In the solar neighborhood, the coolest and most-metal-poor object is LHS 1826 (Gizis and Reid (1997)) whose infrared color was previously unknown. We obtained $`JHK`$ photometry of LHS 1826 at the Okayama Astrophysical Observatory on 1999, November 30, using the facility infrared imager, OASIS (Okumura et al. (2000)). Resultant magnitudes are $`J`$ = 15.70 $`\pm `$0.04, $`H`$ = 15.43 $`\pm `$ 0.05, and $`K`$ = 15.32 $`\pm `$ 0.07. Therefore $`JK`$ = 0.36 $`\pm `$ 0.08 and it is as blue as #7. It is important to measure the parallax of LHS 1826 and obtain its absolute magnitude. It may be the least luminous extreme M subdwarf known so far. #7 and LHS 1826 indicate the presence of a faint blue halo population previously unnoticed.

### 5.2 Red objects, #11 and #12

Errors in $`JK^{}`$ colors of the objects with $`J>24`$ are large. However, it is very likely that at least either #11 or #12 has $`JK^{}>1.0`$. Only L dwarfs are the stellar/substellar objects as red as these, but the expected number of L dwarfs between J = 24 and 25 predicted by the model C1 is 0.06.

Now we consider the possibility that at least one of the objects is extragalactic, namely an AGN. In the local universe, the fraction of AGNs to the entire galaxy population is estimated to be 1.3% based on the data of the CfA redshift survey (Huchra and Burg (1992)). There are some 350 galaxies in SDF. If the fraction of AGNs does not evolve, there may be four AGNs in the field. However, we know that galaxies evolve and so do quasars (e.g. Schmidt et al. (1995)). So the validity of the number estimate based on the local universe information is questionable.

PG quasars are red and most of them have $`JK`$ between 1 and 2 (Neugebauer et al. (1987)). In terms of colors, low-redshift quasars are candidates. However they are extremely bright ($`J<`$12). If we assume that the object has a power-law continuum whose spectral index $`\alpha =0.653`$ is consistent with $`JK^{}`$ = 1.5, the combinations of absolute $`B`$ magnitude, $`M_B`$ and z can be obtained for the apparent magnitude of $`J`$ = 24.2. Here the cosmological parameters we assume are $`H_0`$ = 70 kms-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.3, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ = 0.7. Allowed combinations of ($`M_B`$,z) are (-22,1.2), (-24,2.9), and (-26,7.0). So if the object is a quasar with $`M_B`$ = -26, it must be located at very high redshift. If such quasars are as numerous as to be detected in a small field, the number density may be high enough to affect reionization of the universe.

## 6 The Galaxy Seen by NGST

Since we have obtained the star count models which are capable of predicting the appearance of the Galaxy at faint magnitudes, it is interesting to use them to envision the Galaxy seen by NGST. In Table 5, surface number densities (arcmin-2) of objects between $`K`$ = 27 and 30 are given for the north Galactic pole.

In the galactic disk, T dwarfs are by far the most dominant population. However the expected number count is small ($`<0.01`$) due to the small vertical scale height. There may be fainter and bluer M subdwarfs than predicted, because the LFs in the models extend only to $`M_V`$ = 14, while those of the disk extend to $`M_V`$ = 18. Old halo white dwarfs are the most numerous of all stellar populations. T dwarfs are blue in the near infrared due to molecular absorption bands. Cool M subdwarfs and halo white dwarfs are blue due to H2 CIA. Stellar astronomy will have a blue faint end in the near infrared.

## 7 Conclusions

Our primary conclusions follow.

(1) We constructed infrared star count models of the Galaxy applicable at faint magnitudes based on the models and luminosity functions obtained at $`V`$. There are two types of models derived in our paper. First we derived infrared versions of the disk and halo models by Gould et al. who obtained the local luminosity functions and functional forms of the models based on HST star counts. Second we constructed a double exponential disk model based on the luminosity function of the nearby stars by Reid and Gizis and a halo model based on the nearby subdwarf luminosity function of Dahn et al.. In addition to dwarfs and subdwarfs included in original models, we also took into account L dwarfs, T dwarfs, and white dwarfs of both disk and halo.

(2) As a test case of the models, we analyzed the infrared imaging data at $`J`$ and $`K^{}`$ obtained during the Subaru Deep Field (SDF) survey to study stellar objects. Out of some 350 objects, 14 stellar objects were selected in a $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ field based on a morphological criterion applied to the $`J`$ band image. Both completeness and contamination associated with the selection criterion were evaluated by simulations. The $`J`$ band image is 57% complete at $`J`$ = 24 and the number of contaminants was estimated to be negligible. The prediction of the HST based models agrees with the observed count at $`0.8\sigma `$ and that of the nearby star LF based models also agrees with the observations at $`+1.0\sigma `$. The observed count is between the predictions of the two types of models that have contradictory local luminosity functions. With our limited statistics, the observing data do not favor a particular type of models.

(3) Infrared star count models we obtained predict that the Next Generation Space Telescope will primarily see T dwarfs, M subdwarfs, and old halo white dwarfs at faint magnitudes.

We thank the staff of the Subaru Observatory for making the SDF observations possible. We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments on the manuscript. TN is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Science (No. 10640239).


text:
# Chiral Symmetry Breaking in the Light-Cone Representation (𝑀_𝜋²∼𝜇_𝑞⟨Ω|𝜓̄𝜓|Ω⟩+…)

## 1 Introduction

At the Heidelberg meeting in 1991 there was much talk of zero modes. I was one of the ones talking about zero modes but there were many others. The zero modes were discussed with regard to the puzzles: how can vacuum structure be represented? how can condensates form? how can one get a linear dependence of the physical-mass-squared of a composite like the pion or the Schwinger particle on the bare mass of the Fermion? The zero modes also received discussion in other contexts. Indeed there may have been some thought that the main problem facing the community was properly to include all necessary zero modes.

Now, in 2000, I have come to see the question not as one of zero modes, but as: how should one regulate the $`P^+=0`$ singularity? Zero modes are often involved in the answer to that question, but the central question is properly regulating the singularity. In two dimensions we can now can give answers to the above questions in full: we know how the vacuum gets dressed; we know how condensates form; we understand the difference between the continuum and the discretized cases and we know the operator which gives the linear dependence of the composite mass squared on the bare mass. In four dimensions we know far less but we do understand some things.

In the next section I shall discuss the case of the Schwinger model. That will let me illustrate some of the above remarks and set a framework for the things I really want to say. In particular, I will discuss vacuum structure and the chiral condensate.

I shall them move on the case of the massive Schwinger model. There I shall concentrate on how the mass squared of the Schwinger particle depends linearly on the mass of the electron; that is, on the relation $`m_S^2=\frac{e^2}{\pi }4\pi \mu \mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{}`$

Finally, I shall move on to four dimensions, particularly the case of QCD. At that point the discussion will become considerably more speculative.

## 2 The Schwinger Model

The Lagrangian for the massive Schwinger model is

$$=i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }A^\mu J_\mu \lambda A^+\mu \overline{\psi }\psi $$

In this section we shall consider the Schwinger model ($`\mu =0`$). For that case the solution is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+=Z_+e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{()}}\sigma _+e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{(+)}}$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=i2\sqrt{\pi }(\eta (x^+)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x^+,x^{}))$$

$$Z_+^2=\frac{m^2e^\gamma }{8\pi \kappa }$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=Z_{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{()}}\sigma _{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{(+)}}$$

$$Z_{}^2=\frac{\kappa e^\gamma }{2\pi }$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=i2\sqrt{\pi }\varphi (x^+)$$

$$\lambda =m_+(\eta \varphi )$$

$$A_+=\frac{2}{m}_+(\eta +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})$$

The solution is written in terms of three free fields which are described as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}MASSIVE(m=\frac{e}{\sqrt{\pi }})PSEUDOSCALAR$$

$$\varphi CHIRALSCALAR;\eta CHIRALGHOST$$

The massless fields are regulated using the Klaiber  procedure. For instance

$$\varphi ^{(+)}(x^+)=i(4\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_+k_+^1d(k_+)\left(\mathrm{e}^{ik_+x^+}\theta (\kappa k_+)\right)$$

It is important to realize that the solution is in light-cone gauge but not light-cone quantized. As written, it is representation independent. It can be found using equal-time quantization, light-cone quantization or by quantizing on $`x^{}=0`$. Unless care is taken, the massless fields, $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$, are likely to be missed in standard light-cone quantization. Therefore I wish to spend some time discussing the role these unphysical fields play in the solution.

The massless fields are needed to maintain covariance and to regulate the $`P^+=0`$ singularity. Consider the Fermi product for the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ field. First, we note that the product canot be regulated by splitting in the $`x^{}`$ direction. That is really the major complication in finding the solution using light-cone quantization. I shall return to that point in the discussion of the massive Schwinger model. For the solution to work, the singularity in the Fermi two point function must be the same as for free fields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(x+ϵ)\mathrm{\Psi }_+(x)\frac{1}{2\pi ϵ^{}}$$

where $`ϵ`$ is space-like. But if we include only the physical pseudoscalar we find

$$:e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x+ϵ)}::e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x)}:e^{2\gamma }\frac{4}{m^2}\frac{1}{ϵ^+ϵ^{}}$$

Things are put right by the contribution from the ghost

$$e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\eta ^{()}(x+ϵ)}\sigma _+^{}e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\eta ^{(+)}(x+ϵ)}e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\eta ^{()}(x)}\sigma _+e^{i2\sqrt{\pi }\eta ^{(+)}(x)}e^\gamma \kappa ϵ^+$$

With all this in place we can define a gauge invariant Fermi product as

$$\text{:}\psi ^{}\psi \text{:}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}0}{\mathrm{}^2<0}}{lim}\{e^{ie_x^{x+\mathrm{}}A_\nu ^{()}𝑑x^\nu }\psi ^{}(x+\mathrm{})\psi (x)e^{ie_x^{x+\mathrm{}}A_\nu ^{(+)}𝑑x^\nu }\mathrm{V}.\mathrm{E}.\mathrm{V}.\}$$

As far as I know, no gauge invariant, covariant regulator for the Schwinger model has been given which does not involve the use of a ghost field.

Of special interest to us will be the spurion operators; these operators are made up entirely of modes from the massless fields

$$\sigma _+=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\sqrt{\pi }\{Q_5+Q\}(4m)^1+_0^\kappa 𝑑k_1k_1^1\{\eta (k_1)\eta ^{}(k_1)\}\right]$$

$$\sigma _{}=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\sqrt{\pi }\{Q_5Q\}(4m)^1+_0^\kappa 𝑑k_1k_0^1\{\varphi (k_1)\varphi ^{}(k_1)\}\right]$$

$$\sigma _\pm ^{}=\sigma _\pm ^1$$

The charges are also composed entirely of modes from the massless fields

$$Q=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}m_+(\varphi \eta )dx^+$$

$$Q_5=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}m_+(\varphi +\eta )dx^+$$

Indeed, in the representation we are using, the spurions are the only operators which carry a charge or a pseudocharge

$$[Q,\sigma _+^{}\sigma _{}]=[Q,\sigma _{}^{}\sigma _+]=0$$

$$[Q_5,\sigma _+^{}\sigma _{}]=2\sigma _+^{}\sigma _{};[Q_5,\sigma _{}^{}\sigma _+]=2\sigma _{}^{}\sigma _+$$

All other independent operators commute with $`Q`$ and $`Q_5`$.

We have seen that the massless, zero-mode fields are necessary to regulate the theory and preserve covariance and gauge invariance. Now we want to see that once they are in place, they necessarily lead to the $`\theta `$-vacuum structure and to the chiral condensate. The physical subspace for the Schwinger model is defined by the completion of

$$\lambda ^{(+)}|S=Q|S=0$$

The completion of this space, $`\overline{S}`$, includes translationally invariant states which are not in the space of a free, massless Fermi field . These states all differ from the bare vacuum by sums of zero norm vectors. They are all given by

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }(M)=(\sigma _+^{}\sigma _{})^M|0$$

When we form the physical Hilbert space by factoring out the zero norm states in the physical space: $`𝒫S/𝒦`$, where $`𝒦`$ is the subspace of zero norm states, we must choose a state to represent the class which includes the bare vacuum; that will be the physical vacuum of the theory. Gauge invariance requires that this state be an eigenstate of the generators of residual gauge invariance which are the chargeless combinations of spurions

$$(\sigma _+^{}\sigma _{})A_+(\sigma _+\sigma _{}^{})=A_++\frac{\mathrm{sin}\kappa x^+}{\kappa }$$

Thus the physical vacuum must be of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )\underset{M=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{iM\theta }|\mathrm{\Omega }(M)$$

In that state we find the chiral condensate to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )=\frac{m}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta $$

## 3 Adding a Mass

We now consider the effect of a nonzero value of $`\mu `$. We shall concentrate on the question: How can we have $`M(\mu )^2=M(0)^24\pi \mu \mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )\mathrm{}`$? The Lagrangian will now include the term

$$\delta =\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }$$

This induces an additional term in $`P^{}`$

$$\delta P^{}=\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu (\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_++\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{})$$

To evaluate this expression we must solve the constraint equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}}{x^{}}+i\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+=0$$

The solution is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=i\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+𝑑x^{}$$

but which particular antiderivative should we take. What has usually been done in the past is to define the antiderivative as follows: if

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+(x^{})=𝑑k_{}(b(k_{})e^{ik_{}x^{}}+d^{}(k_{})e^{ik_{}x^{}})$$

then we shall take “$``$” to mean

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+(x^{})=𝑑k_{}(\frac{1}{ik_{}}b(k_{})e^{ik_{}x^{}}+\frac{1}{ik_{}}d^{}(k_{})e^{ik_{}x^{}})$$

If this expression is used as the solution to the constraint equation then we find, at least naively, that $`\delta P^{}\mu ^2`$ which leads to the puzzle as to how we can have $`M(\mu )^2=M(0)^24\pi \mu \mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )\mathrm{}`$.

But the general solution to the constraint equation is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0i\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_+𝑑x^{}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0`$ is any function of $`x^+`$. From our solution to the Schwinger model we see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0`$ is not zero since at $`\mu =0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0=Z_{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{()}}\sigma _{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{(+)}}$$

So we must have

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0=Z_{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{()}}\sigma _{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{(+)}}$$

For general values of $`\mu `$ the solution is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0=Z_{}(\mu )e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{()}(\mu )}\sigma _{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{(+)}(\mu )}$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{()}(\mu )=i(4\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk_+}{k_+}(\varphi (k_+)+f(\mu ,k_+)\lambda (k_+))\left(\mathrm{e}^{ik_+x^+}\theta (\kappa k_+)\right)$$

and the functions $`f(0,m,k_+)=0`$ and $`Z_{}(\mu )`$ are determined by the requirement that the full $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}(0,x^{})[i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_+]+C.C.)dx^{}$$

satisfy the relation

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x+ϵ_{SPACE})\}=\delta (ϵ_{SPACE})$$

From our solution to the Schwinger model we know that

$$f(0,m,k_+)=0\mathrm{and}Z_{}^2(0)=\frac{\chi e^\gamma }{2\pi }$$

When we construct the operator $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ it will include a piece given by $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0\mathrm{\Psi }_++\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0)`$. The only operator in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0`$ which can operate in the physical subspace is the spurion, $`\sigma _{}`$, so in the physical subspace the contribution to $`P^{}`$ from this piece of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by

$$\delta P^{}\mu \sigma _{}^{}\sigma _+Z_{}Z_+\text{:}e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(0,x^{})}\text{:}dx^{}+C.C.$$

Note that the product of spurions, $`\sigma _{}^{}\sigma _+`$, just acts like a c-number in the physical subspace. Let us now apply mass perturbation theory to our construction. We know that the wave function renormalization constants when expanded in a power series in $`\mu `$ have the forms

$$Z_{}(\mu )=\sqrt{\frac{\chi e^\gamma }{2\pi }}+𝒪(\mu )Z_+(\mu )=\sqrt{\frac{m^2e^\gamma }{8\pi \chi }}+𝒪(\mu )$$

If we take the unperturbed state to be a state of one Schwinger particle

$$|p\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}(p)|\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )$$

we find that

$$p|P^+\delta P^{}|p=4\pi \mu \mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }=2m\mu e^\gamma cos\theta $$

in agreement with many past calculations.

We must now notice a complication induced by the fact that the wave function renormalization constants must be calculated using Fermi products at space-like splitting. $`Z_+(\mu )`$ and $`Z_{}(\mu )`$ are determined by the relations

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_+(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_+(x+ϵ_{SPACE})\}=\delta (ϵ_{SPACE})$$

and

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x+ϵ_{SPACE})\}=\delta (ϵ_{SPACE})$$

To evaluate these expressions we have to use $`P^{}`$ to translate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ off the surface $`x^+=0`$. But $`P^+`$ depends on the wave function renormalization constants so the relations become implicit and a nonperturbative calculation would have to iterate, guessing a value for the renormalization constants then using the implied $`P^{}`$ to check the values of the renormalization constants.

I believe that this somewhat stark conclusion is softened by the following observation. The new piece of $`P^{}`$ has the form

$$\delta P^{}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Psi }_+(bleached;regulated)𝑑x^{}$$

where (in the physical subspace) # is a c-number which we know in terms of the renormalization constants. We know $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+(bleached;regulated)`$; no iteration is required for it. All the worst complications are necessary to determine #. So if we are willing to fit # to some fact to which it is sensitive (perhaps a piece of data from two-dimensional experimentalists or possibly a symmetry as suggested by Simon Dalley ) we can avoid the need to iterate. Other terms in $`P^{}`$ involve the renormalization constants and similar considerations obviously apply to them.

Let us list here the mechanisms by which the features we have been studying come about in two dimensions:

* Zero-mode fields, one of which is a ghost, are needed to regulate $`P^+=0`$.
* Completion of the space includes translationally invariant states which can mix with the vacuum.
* Gauge invariance forces mixing to form a $`\theta `$-state, an eigenstate of the chargeless combinations of spurions.
* The solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ constraint equation includes a solution to the homogeneous equation determined by $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(x+ϵ_{SPACE})\}=\delta (ϵ_{SPACE})`$.
* The solution to the homogeneous equation gives rise to an operator, proportional to the chiral condensate, which acts in the physical subspace.
* Once that operator is in place, the problem can be solved in the usual light-cone space of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ (the unphysical, zero-mode fields are not further needed).

I shall make two further remarks on the two-dimensional case: Once the problem is formulated and the “new” term is included, one can discretize and use DLCQ to solve it; indeed, starting with DLCQ (but being careful to include $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$) one can find the form of the “new” term but cannot correctly calculate the renormalization constants and so, cannot calculate the coefficient(#) . If one fit the #, one could solve the problem correctly and might never know that # is proportional to a chiral condensate. Finally, since the Schwinger particle has a nonzero mass for zero bare electron mass, the Schwinger model is a better model for the $`\eta ^{}`$ than the pion. A better model for the pion is furnished by adjoint $`QCD_2`$ where we find $`M(\mu )^2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 4 Four Dimensions

We know that many of the ingredients which lead to the “new”term in $`P^{}`$ are also present in the case of four dimensions:

* In light-cone gauge a Lagrange multiplier field, $`\lambda (x^+,x^{})`$, must be present ; that field is a zero norm field so the representation space is of indefinite metric.
* The constraint equation which relates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ admits an arbitrary function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^0(x^+,x^{})`$. That function is determined by the requirement that the full $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ satisfy $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(x+ϵ_{SPACE})\}=\delta (ϵ_{SPACE})`$ for ANY $`ϵ_{SPACE}`$; the point of ANY is that there are space-like separations in the initial value surface (the $``$ directions) and this relation will normally be set by the initialization of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$; but it must also be satisfied for all space-like $`ϵ`$’s which project onto z ($`x^3`$); thus the issue is really the isotropy of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ commutator.
* The zero-mode fields will appear in exponentials in the Fermi fields (that was an important piece of the two-dimensional structure).

I do not know for certain if the completion of the space will include translationally invariant states but it appears to me that it will and I shall assume it does.

Even with these known aspects of the problem in hand I cannot give a complete analysis as I could in two dimensions. Here I must proceed in part by analysis and in part by analogy. In what follows I shall use the notation of the discrete case but the continuum is the same with the sums replaced in an obvious way by integrals. We start by writing down a standard initialization of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^n(0,x^{},x^{})`$ (n is a color index) but with the terms grouped in such a way as to allow us to factor each oscillatory mode in $`x^{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^n(0,`$ $`x^{},x^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,k_{}}{}}e^{ik_{}x^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_{}}{}}b^n(k_{},k_{},s)e^{ik_{}x^{}}+d^n(k_{},k_{},s)e^{ik_{}x^{}}`$
Similarly for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{n0}(x^+,x^{})`$ (I shall come to the reason for the hat momentarily)

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{n0}(x^+,`$ $`x^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,k_{}}{}}e^{ik_{}x^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_+}{}}\beta ^n(k_+,k_{},s)e^{ik_+x^+}+\delta ^n(k_+,k_{},s)e^{ik_+x^+}`$
The second sum in each of these expressions is the initialization of a two-dimensional Fermi field and can be bosonized by standard methods. For $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^n`$ we get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+(0,x^{},x^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\underset{n,s,k_{}}{}e^{ik_{}x^{}}\underset{k_{}}{}e^{\lambda _+^{()}(n,k_{},s)}\sigma _+(n,k_{},s)e^{\lambda _+^{(+)}(n,k_{},s)}$$

where

$$\lambda _+^{()}(n,k_{},s)=i\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\underset{k_{}}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_{}}}C(k_{},n,k_{},s)e^{ik_{}x^{}}$$

with

$`C(k_{},n,k_{},s)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{k_{}}{}}}d^n(k_{},k_{},s)\left(\mathrm{}\right)b^n(k_{},k_{},s)\left(k_{}\mathrm{}+1\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b^n(\mathrm{},k_{},s)b^n(k_{}+\mathrm{},k_{},s)d^n(\mathrm{},k_{},s)d^n(k_{}+\mathrm{},k_{},s)`$
We rewrite the expression for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{n0}`$ in a similar way. For the case of the continuum, the fields $`\lambda _\pm `$ are Klaiber  regulated.

Except for zero bare quark mass, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{n0}`$ cannot be $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{n0}`$. That is because

$$\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }^{n0}}_{}(x),\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}^{n0}{}_{}{}^{}(y)\}=\delta (x^+y^+)\delta ^2(x^{}y^{})$$

But, for nonzero bare quark mass $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^n`$ includes a functional of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^n`$; indeed that is the only piece which is usually included. Here I shall assume that for nonzero bare quark mass, the total $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ field remains canonical through a mixing of $`\lambda `$ with $`\lambda _{}`$ in the exponential factors of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{n0}`$ but that the spurion, $`\sigma _{}(n,k_{},s)`$, remains unchanged; that is what happened in two dimensions and it seems to be the only thing allowed by kinematics and the requirement that the equations of motion are satisfied in the physical subspace.

We shall now assume that gauge invariance requires the physical vacuum to be an eigenstate of the products of spurions which carry the quantum numbers of the vacuum. We have concentrated the (color) charge, the spin and the transverse momentum of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^n`$ field in the spurions. We can therefore “bleach” the field by multiplying by the spurion from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{n0}`$ which carries the opposite quantum numbers. Under the assumptions we have made there will be a term in $`P^{}`$ which, in the physical subspace, acts as

$$\delta P^{}\mathrm{\#}\underset{n,s,k_{}}{}e^{\lambda _+^{()}(n,k_{},s)}e^{\lambda _+^{(+)}(n,k_{},s)}𝑑x^{}$$

Here, $`\mathrm{\#}\mu _q\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, although if we choose to fit the # as suggested above, we would not necessarily need to know that. If the pion has zero mass for zero bare quark mass, this operator will give

$$M_\pi ^2\mu _q\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{}$$

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.