text:
# Negative Elliptic Flow from Anomaly Induced DCC Formation

## 1 Introduction

Some time ago we predicted that the chiral U(1) anomaly may provide an efficient trigger mechanism for the formation of coherent domains of pion fields, the disoriented chiral condensate (DCC), in relativistic heavy ion collisions . By implementing the anomaly effect into the linear sigma model simulation code developed by Asakawa et al. , we demonstrated that this mechanism indeed enhances the DCC formation .

In the following section, we present a compact summary of this idea. (Those who are familiar with our idea can skip the rest of the section and can go directly to the section 2.) It is natural to suspect a possible significance of the electromagnetic interaction in DCC formation because it breaks isospin symmetry, and DCC is the phenomenon of formation of coherent domains with definite isospin. In relativistic heavy ion collisions there exist transient strong electromagnetic fields, which could affect the formation of chiral domains. This idea provided our starting point of the subsequent development.

We quickly recognized that a time-independent and spatially uniform electromagnetic fields do not affect the chiral orientation of the ground state of the linear sigma model at the one-loop level. Instead, we found that a coherent effect can arise from electromagnetism via the chiral anomaly .

We have formulated the anomaly effect as an initial “kick” to the $`\pi ^0`$ fields, because the collision time scale is much shorter than the time required for DCC formation. In the framework of ref. , however, it was difficult to assess how effective the “kick” is; it is a small effect in magnitude, but it is a coherent effect which extends over the nuclear dimension. So we needed some powerful tool to analyze the intricate question of effectiveness of the kick. We found that the linear sigma model simulation is appropriate for this purpose. We have adopted the simulation code developed by Asakawa et al. , rather than the original one used by Rajagopal and Wilczek , because we wanted to be as realistic as possible. For example, the newer code takes into account the boost invariant longitudinal expansion of the hadronic debris.

We found, to our surprise, that the anomaly kick is efficient in triggering a coherent motion of the chiral order parameter and resulting in the formation of a domain of DCC . The effect of the kick survives the non-linear evolution of the system and the coherent motion triggered by the kick continues until times of order $``$ 10 fm (see Figs. 10 and 11 of ref. ). We need to emphasize that the persistence of the kick effect may be, in part, due to the neglect of quantum dissipation in the classical simulation. We refer to ref.  for further details.

To facilitate the discussion of experimental signatures of the anomaly mechanism in the next section we note here the crucial characteristic property of the anomaly kick. That is, the kick is proportional to the angular momentum of the two ions in collision and depends on the momentum direction perpendicular to the scattering plane. It points into the $`I_3`$ direction in the isospin space. These properties derive from the vector structure of the anomaly $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}`$ produced by two colliding ions .

## 2 Experimental signatures

We now discuss possible characteristic experimental signatures of the anomaly-induced DCC formation in relativistic heavy ion collisions. We first summarize our work done previously, and then come to our new results. We examine three types of observables, which we discuss one by one below. They are: (1) number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$ , (2) azimuthal angle distribution of the ratio of the number of $`\pi ^0`$ to all pions and photons , and (3) the elliptic flow parameters of $`\pi ^0`$ and photons. We report (3) for the first time in this article. We have found that the latter two types of observables are particularly suitable for this purpose.

In calculating experimental observables we use three values of the anomaly kick parameter $`a_n=0.05,0.1,`$ and $`0.2`$, and employ the coherent state approximation to extract particle number from field configurations of linear sigma model fields. Based on our previous estimate of the kick parameter at RHIC , we focus on $`a_n=0.1`$ to estimate the effect that would be seen in relativistic heavy ion collisions at RHIC. See  for the definition of the anomaly kick parameter $`a_n`$ and more details of our calculational procedure.

### 2.1 Number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$

Since the anomaly kick acts only on the $`\pi ^0`$ field, it is natural to expect that neutral pions behave differently from charged pions in our mechanism. Therefore, we first computed the number ratio $`n(\pi ^0)/n(\text{all}\pi `$$`s)`$ and found that the ratio exceeds 1/3 (the value expected by isospin invariance) by about 13% at low momenta, $`|\stackrel{}{k}|250`$ MeV .

### 2.2 Azimuthal angle distributions of number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$ and photons

We then searched for other, clearer signatures, which would unambiguously indicate the anomaly-induced DCC formation. Since the characteristic feature of the kick is that it has a momentum dependence perpendicular to the scattering plane, it is natural to study whether the number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$ exhibits an angular dependence correlated with the scattering plane. Thus, we examined the azimuthal angle distribution of number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$. We found that the number ratio of $`\pi ^0`$ to all $`\pi `$ shows a large variation with azimuthal angle, peaking in the direction perpendicular to the scattering plane. See Fig. 1. (Fig.3 of )

An important question is whether this azimuthal asymmetry persists in the inclusive photon distribution, which is much easier to measure. We have examined this possibility and obtained a very encouraging result: photons exhibit an azimuthal angle variation of about 10%, even if we include a rather wide range of photon transverse momenta $`k_T500`$ MeV. See Fig. 2 (Fig.4 of ). If it exists, the effect should be observable in the RHIC experiments.

### 2.3 Elliptic flow parameter of $`\pi ^0`$ and photons

It has become an industry to measure the elliptic flow parameter $`v_2`$  in heavy ion collisions. Of course, the main motivation for the enthusiasm comes from elucidating hydrodynamical behavior of the hadronic matter. But since our anomaly-induced mechanism of DCC formation also predicts an anisotropic flow of $`\pi ^0`$, it is quite natural to convert our prediction into the language of elliptic flow.

We have run a Monte-Carlo code coupled with the Asakawa et al. sigma model simulation code to compute the elliptic flow parameter $`v_2`$ for neutral pions and inclusive photons from $`\pi ^0`$ decay. Since the computation of the photon distribution is rather time consuming, we define an approximate $`v_2`$ as follows:

$$v_2^{app}(k_T)=\frac{(n_{}n_{})}{\frac{2}{\pi }(n_{}+n_{})},$$
(1)
where, $`n_{}`$ denotes the number of $`\pi ^0`$ or gammas emitted with azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ measured from the reaction plane in the range $`45\mathrm{deg}\varphi <45\mathrm{deg}`$, or $`135\mathrm{deg}\varphi <225\mathrm{deg}`$, and $`n_{}`$ the number of $`\pi ^0`$ or gammas in the range $`45\mathrm{deg}\varphi <135\mathrm{deg}`$, or $`225\mathrm{deg}\varphi <315\mathrm{deg}`$. This definition of $`v_2`$ is exact when the azimuthal asymmetry has solely a quadrupole contribution.

We present in Fig. 3 the result of our computation of the approximate $`v_2`$ for $`\pi ^0`$ and photons. The value of $`v_2^{app}`$ is $`45`$ % for $`\pi ^0`$ and $``$ 1 % for photons. In the absence of other effects generating an elliptic flow, $`v_2^{app}`$ approaches unity at high momenta. The relativistic kinematics of $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ decay is taken into account in the Monte-Carlo code and it is essential to produce this behavior.

As we see in Fig. 3 $`v_2^{app}`$ for both $`\pi ^0`$ and photons are negative at low $`k_T`$, the behavior quite opposite to the one commonly observed. The latter behavior is usually attributed to the hydrodynamical expansion of hadronic debris. It would be interesting to see such a peculiar feature as negative $`v_2`$ in either $`\pi ^0`$ or gamma distributions in heavy ion collisions. It may be the unique signature of DCC formation due to the anomaly mechanism.

Although they are small effects, we suspect that at least the photon $`v_2`$ is measurable. It may be difficult to measure $`v_2`$ for $`\pi ^0`$, because one needs event-by-event reconstruction of $`\pi ^0`$. But for photons, measurement of either the inclusive single particle distribution with identification of the scattering plane, or the two particle azimuthal correlation would be enough. Therefore, we urge RHIC experimentalists to try to measure the photon $`v_2`$ at low transverse momenta.


format: text

text:
# Rules for Computing Symmetry, Density and Stoichiometry in a Quasi-Unit-Cell Model of Quasicrystals

## I Introduction

Quasicrystals are solids with quasiperiodic translational order and rotational symmetry that is disallowed for periodic crystals, such as ten-fold symmetry in the plane or icosahedral symmetry in three dimensions Levine84 . This paper focuses on decagonal quasicrystals that are quasiperiodic in the $`xy`$-plane and periodic along the $`z`$ direction Ritsch96PML ; Tsai96PML . The atomic structure has conventionally been described as a periodic stacking of quasiperiodically ordered layers each of which can be interpreted as a Penrose tiling formed from two tile shapes. The two tiles correspond to two different atomic clusters which join to form the layer.

We have proposed an alternative picture in which the quasicrystal structure is described in terms of a single repeating unit called a “quasi-unit cell Steinhardt96 ; Jeong97 ; Steinhardt98Nat ”. For ten-fold symmetric layers, the quasi-unit cell is typically chosen to be a decagon, corresponding to a decagonal atomic cluster. The tiling picture and the quasi-unit cell picture are mathematically equivalent, but the latter has numerous advantages. First, the quasi-unit cell picture encodes the entire structure, both the symmetry and the detailed atomic decoration, within the single decagonal cluster Steinhardt98Nat ; Abe00 . This simplifies the problem of finding the atomic structure based on empirical data. Secondly, the quasi-unit cell suggests simple energetics that may explain why quasicrystals form Jeong94 ; Steinhardt96 ; Jeong97 .

A key difference between quasi-unit cells and tiles is that the quasi-unit cells overlap. The overlap corresponds physically to the sharing of atoms by neighboring decagonal clusters, a feature which is observed in real quasicrystals Pauling85 ; Burkov91 ; Henley91I . The overlaps are restricted to certain relative positions and orientations of the quasi-unit cells according to “overlap rules.” The overlap rules replace the Penrose rules for joining tiles. In real quasicrystals, these overlap rules are automatically enforced by the atomic decoration which only permits sharing corresponding to the allowed overlaps. For the decagonal case, this means that the decoration breaks 10-fold symmetry.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the precise relationship between atomic decorations in the quasi-unit cell and the rhombus Penrose tiling pictures, which is rather subtle, and to present a method for computing the density and stoichiometry of a quasicrystal given the atomic decoration of the quasi-unit cell. The latter is a simple but powerful tool for comparing data to proposed atomic structural models. For periodic crystals, the analogous calculation is trivial since the density and stoichiometry are the same as that of the unit cell because the unit cells join face-to-face. The technical complication for quasicrystals is finding a method that properly accounts for the overlap and avoids double-counting or under-counting. This paper presents a straightforward method for handling the problem that has already been used in analyzing data Abe00 .

Section 2 discusses the relationship between the overlapping decagon quasi-unit cell picture, the rhombus Penrose tiling and related tilings as ideal geometrical constructions (without atomic decoration). Section 3 discusses the relationship between their atomic decorations. Section 4 discusses how this relation can be used to construct a method for computing the density and stoichiometry based on the atomic decoration of a quasi-unit cell. Section 5 discusses an interesting subclass of quasi-unit cell decorations, “Almost Occupied Decoration” (AOD) for which we have a very simple method of computing density and stoichiometry. Section 6 discusses how to classify the symmetry of the atomic structure based on the decoration of the quasi-unit cell.

## II Relation between Decagon tilings and Penrose tilings

Figure 1 shows the overlap rule introduced by P. Gummelt which forces a perfect quasicrystalline structure with a single, repeating, decagonal quasi-unit-cell, the marked decagon shown in (a). The overlap rule allows two decagons to overlap only if the shaded regions overlap and if the overlap area is greater than or equal to the hexagon overlap region of Fig. 1(b). This permits five types of pairwise overlaps, four types of $`A`$-overlaps and one type of $`B`$-overlap as shown in (b). The two types of overlaps correspond to two separations between clusters whose ratio is the golden ratio. An infinite arrangement of decagons according to the above rule is called the decagonal “covering,” to distinguish it from a “tiling” in which the units join edge-to-edge without overlap. The covering can be mapped into a conventional edge-to-edge tiling in at least three ways:

* Convert the covering to a rhombus Penrose tiling by dividing up central area of each decagon into a Jack (known in the Penrose tiling literature to mean 5 fat and 2 skinny rhombi surrounding a Jack vertex). This construction leaves three skinny rhombus-shaped regions inside the decagon. When neighboring decagons overlap, these regions are filled in by skinny Penrose tile or a fraction of two fat Penrose tiles joined together, depending on the overlap. See Fig. 2(a).
* Convert the covering to a three-tile “core-area tiling” using the core area assignment. The core areas correspond to an area assigned to a given decagon in a decagon covering according to whether there are $`A`$ or $`B`$ overlaps on the sides. The core area tiling is useful in various computations with overlapping decagon tilings and is a quasiperiodic tiling in its own right. The fundamental decagon of Fig. 1(a) is marked with two “rocket”-shapes and one “star”-shape. The three types of core-area tiles are determined by the overlaps of the star-shaped region. They are a large rhombus (corresponding to two $`B`$-overlaps), a trapezoid (a $`B`$-overlap on one side and an $`A`$-overlap on the other), and a large kite (corresponding to two $`A`$-overlaps). See Fig. 2(b). If we draw only the long edges of the core areas, we get a hexagon-boat-star tiling Henley91I ; Cockayne00 .
* Convert to the original Penrose tiling Penrose74  consisting of star, ship, pentagon, and rhombus tiles by joining the centers of decagons. See Fig. 2(c).

The mapping can be reversed to produce a decagonal covering from a conventional tiling. The equivalence between the lattice structures of the decagonal covering and those of Penrose tiling has been shown explicitly Gummelt96 ; Jeong97 . However, the relationship between the atomic models constructed by the quasi-unit-cell decorations and those obtained by Penrose tile decorations is a different issue and has not been carefully investigated previously. We will call the former atomic models as decagonal quasi-unit-cell models and compare them with the latter Penrose-tile models. For Penrose-tile models, we will consider rhombus Penrose-tile decorations.

## III Atomic Decorations of Quasi-unit cells and Penrose tiles

We define a Penrose atomic model to correspond to decorating each fat rhombus identically, each skinny rhombus identically, and then joining them to form a Penrose tiling. A quasi-unit-cell model corresponds to decorating a fundamental decagon and then covering the plane with the identical decorated decagon according to the overlap rule. The decoration must satisfy the condition that, where two atoms overlap, they are the same atom type. The rule is that this represents a single atom shared by the two decagon clusters. (There can be more than two overlaps, too, in which case one atom is assigned to be shared by 3 decagons.) If an atom in one decagon overlaps an unoccupied site in a neighbor site, the atom is still assigned to the spot and shared. For any given site, the associated “image” sites are positions in the fundamental decagon which can overlay that site when decagons are joined according to the Gummelt overlap rules. The number of image sites varies, depending on where the original site is in the fundamental decagon.

One might suppose that atomic decorations of the quasi-unit-cell models form a subset of the Penrose-tile models due to there being a single unit and its being subject to overlap decoration constraints. On the contrary, as we will show next, the set of atomic decorations of the decagonal quasi-unit-cell models is greater than the set of atomic decorations of a Penrose tiling model with the same edge length.

Lemma I: Every rhombus Penrose-tile model is equivalent to a decagonal quasi-unit-cell model with the same edge length.

Proof: A fundamental decagon can be subdivided into a Jack configuration of fat and skinny rhombi plus 3 skinny-shaped rhombus areas surrounding. Decorate each fat and skinny rhombus in the Jack according to the Penrose decoration. Place no atoms in the 3 skinny-shaped rhombus areas surrounding. This defines a decoration of the fundamental decagon. When the decagons are joined by the overlap rules, the Jacks join to form a full Penrose tiling with no gaps or overlaps. This result comes from the proof of equivalence between Penrose tiling and decagon tiling in Jeong and Steinhardt Jeong97 . (The skinny outlying regions are always overlapped by Jack regions of neighboring decagon and thereby resolve into a skinny rhombus or parts of a pair of fat rhombi .) Hence, the Decagon decoration of the fundamental decagon obtained by this construction produces the same result as the Penrose decoration obtained by joining identically decorated fat and skinny Penrose tiles.

Lemma II: Some decagonal quasi-unit-cell models are not equivalent to rhombus Penrose-tile model with the same edge length.

Proof: This Lemma asserts that the converse of Lemma I is not true. Consider a configuration obtained by placing one atom at the center of the fundamental decagon as shown in Fig. 3(a). When the decagon is resolved into a Jack, one fat rhombus has an atom whereas the other four do not. When the decagons are joined to form an overlap tiling, many obtuse rhombi remain unoccupied despite the overlap (see the upper part of Fig. 3(a)). Hence, the decagon decoration is not equivalent to a Penrose-tile decoration based on these fat and skinny rhombi with the same edge length.

We have shown that the atomic decorations of decagons is strictly greater than the set of atomic decorations of Penrose tiles of identical edge length. However, the relationship between the two is more subtle than one might suppose. Let us next compare the atomic decorations of the decagons to decorations of inflated Penrose tiles whose edge length is greater than that of the decagons. For example, the quasi-unit-cell model of Fig. 3(a) is not a Penrose-tile model with the same edge size but it is a Penrose-tile model with the (single) inflated rhombi as shown in the lower part of Fig. 3(a). Each inflated fat rhombus is decorated identically and so is each inflated skinny rhombus. Is this true for a general atomic decoration of the quasi-unit-cell model? The answer is no, as can be seen from the example of Fig. 3(b). The inflated fat rhombi at the right upper corner are decorated with zero, one or two atoms depending on the context. Neither doubly (at the middle of the panel) nor triply (at the bottom of the panel) inflated Penrose rhombi are decorated identically. For example, some triply inflated fat tiles have six atoms while some others have five. Therefore, the quasi-unit cell decoration is not generally equivalent to a Penrose tiling even when one considers Penrose tiling edge lengths which are $`\tau ^3`$ times that of the decagon.

However, an equivalence does emerge if one considers a Penrose-tile model with fourfold inflated Penrose tiles as shown in Fig 3(c). This result is surprising at first and hard to imagine since the fourfold inflated rhombus tiles, whose edge is $`\tau ^4`$ times longer than the edge of the quasi-unit decagon, have scores of original decorated decagons. There are nine different types of decorations of the original (uninflated) decagons in general due to the nine different configurations of overlapping decagons in its neighbor Gummelt96 ; Jeong97  as shown in Fig. 4(a). In spite of this large number of different decorations, the decagons at the equivalent positions in all fourfold inflated rhombus tiles turn out to be the same type. Therefore, the fourfold inflated tiles of the same shapes are decorated identically. The rigorous proof for this and the inflation rules for the decorated decagons will be published elsewhere Jeong01p . The right-lower panel of Fig. 4(b) illustrates our claim in a finite part of decagon covering. We put the overlap-type of each decagon in a decagon covering and overlay them with the inflated fat tile. We see that the decagon arrangement of all inflated tiles of the same shapes are identical but their types are not identical for doubly and triply inflated tiles. However, for the quadratically inflated fat tiles, we see that the types of decagons are also identical as shown in the right-lower panel.

This relationship gives a precise quantification of the degree to which the quasi-unit cell picture simplifies the problem of defining (and finding) atomic structures of quasicrystals. That is, the quasi-unit cell description and the Penrose tiling description (allowing for fourfold inflation) are equivalent mathematically, but the quasi-unit cell has an area which is $`\frac{5}{\tau ^8}0.1`$ times smaller and, hence, defines the structure using $`\frac{1}{10}`$ times fewer atoms on average.

## IV Comparing density and stoichiometry in quasi-unit-cell and tiling models

We define the number density of $`\chi `$-type atom, $`n_\chi `$ as the average number of atoms of type $`\chi `$ per unit volume in the model where $`\chi =\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}`$ represents the atomic type of interest. (Greek letter, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}`$ signifies the different atom types.) For the purposes of this discussion, we will mod out the periodic direction in 3D decagonal quasicrystals which can be handled trivially. Therefore, $`n_\chi `$ can be considered as the average number of $`\chi `$-type atoms per unit area in the quasicrystalline plane. In this plane, we take the edge of the decagonal quasi-unit-cell as the unit length.

Note that the number density of $`\chi `$-type atoms in any finite region is, in general, different from $`n_\chi `$ due to the quasiperiodicity of the quasicrystalline lattice. We define $`n_{(\chi ,C)}`$ as the number density of $`\chi `$-type atom in a finite-area $`C`$ for a given local context. For example, $`n_{(\chi ,C_i)}`$ represents the number density of $`\chi `$-type atom in the core-area (Fig. 2(b)) of the decagon at the center of the $`i`$th decagon configuration (Fig. 4(a)) where $`i=1,\mathrm{},9`$. The stoichiometry of $`\chi `$-type atom, $`s_\chi `$ is the ratio of the $`\chi `$-type atoms to the total number

$`s_\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{n_\chi }{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{n_\chi }{n_\chi }},`$ (1)
where the total number density $`n`$ is

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\chi \{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}\}}{}}n_\chi .`$ (2)
Analogously, the mass density $`\rho _\chi `$ of the $`\chi `$-type atom with atomic mass $`m_\chi `$ is is $`\rho _\chi =m_\chi n_\chi `$ where $`\rho =_\chi m_\chi n_\chi `$ is the total mass density.

To compute the number density in a decagon tiling, we can first convert to a conventional tiling, where the calculation is trivial because tiles join edge-to-edge. The only complication for tilings is for atoms at the boundaries where the conventional approach works. Namely, if each boundary atom is treated as a disk with small finite radius, the atoms at the boundaries are assigned a fractional weight according to the fraction of the disk that lies within the tile.

In the previous section, we show that a quasi-unit-cell model is a rhombus Penrose-tile model with edge length $`\tau ^4`$. Each fourfold inflated fat ($`F_4`$) and skinny ($`S_4`$) tile is decorated identically. Therefore, in principle, we can calculate the number density of $`\chi `$-type atom $`n_\chi `$ in a quasi-unit-cell model in the following way. First, find the decorations of $`F_4`$ and $`S_4`$ which are equivalent to the given quasi-unit-cell model. Then, count the number of $`\chi `$-type atoms in a $`F_4`$, $`N_{(\chi ,F_4)}`$ and in a $`S_4`$, $`N_{(\chi ,S_4)}`$ including the fractional atoms at the boundaries. Since the area of $`F_4`$ and $`S_4`$ are $`A_{F_4}=\tau ^8\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi }{5})`$ and $`A_{S_4}=\tau ^8\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi }{10})`$ respectively, the number density of $`\chi `$-type atom in $`F_4`$ and $`S_4`$ are given by

$`n_{(\chi ,F_4)}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{(\chi ,F_4)}/\tau ^8\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{5}})`$
$`n_{(\chi ,S_4)}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{(\chi ,S_4)}/\tau ^8\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{10}}).`$ (3)
The number density of $`\chi `$-type atom in the model $`n_\chi `$ is now obtained by considering the fractional area occupied by $`F_4`$ and $`S_4`$ tiles:

$`n_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{F_4}A_{F_4}n_{(\chi ,F_4)}+N_{S_4}A_{S_4}n_{(\chi ,S_4)}}{N_{F_4}A_{F_4}+N_{S_4}A_{S_4}}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2n_{(\chi ,F_4)}+n_{(\chi ,S_4)}}{\tau ^2+1,}}`$
where $`N_{F_4}`$ and $`N_{S_4}`$ are the numbers of $`F_4`$ and $`S_4`$ tiles in the tiling and we used the fact that both $`N_{F_4}/N_{S_4}`$ and $`A_{F_4}/A_{S_4}`$ are $`\tau `$.

Another way to calculate the density and stoichiometry is using core areas Jeong97 , which have the advantage that they are not so large. We first assign the core-tile to each decagon in the decagon covering as described in Fig. 2(b) and then work out how the decagon decoration translates into a decoration of core-area tiles. In general, the same shaped core-area tiles can be decorated differently due to the overlap. There are nine different decorated core-area tiles due to the nine different ways of surrounding a decagon of Fig. 4(a). The computational method is to determine the number density for each of the nine configurations and then use the density of each nine decagon-surrounding configurations in a decagon Penrose tiling. Using the perp-space $`r`$-map volume, one can calculate the density of each nine configurations;

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}\rho __1=\tau ^2\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __2=\tau ^5\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __3=\tau ^5\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __4=\tau ^6\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __5=\tau ^5\rho __0,\hfill \\ \rho __6=\tau ^6\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __7=\tau ^6\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __8=\tau ^6\rho __0,\hfill & \rho __9=\sqrt{5}\tau ^6\rho __0,\hfill & \end{array}`$
where $`\rho __0=1/(3\tau +1)`$ and $`\rho __i`$ is the density of the $`i`$th configuration of Fig. 4(a). If $`N_{(\chi ,C_i)}`$ represents the number of atoms of type $`\chi `$ lying within the core-area tile of the $`i`$th configuration, the number density for atom type $`\chi `$ is:

$`n_\chi ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}}\rho __iN_{(\chi ,C_i)}`$ (5)
and the ratios of $`n(\chi )`$ give relative stoichiometry.

## V Simple Computation of Density and Stoichiometry

In the previous section, we presented two methods for calculating the density and stoichiometry for general quasi-unit cell models. However, both methods are somewhat cumbersome to use in practice. To calculate the density and stoichiometry for a given quasi-unit cell decoration using the first method, we must figure out the atomic decorations of the fourfold inflated fat and skinny tiles. The second method requires the atomic decoration of the center decagon in each of the nine different configurations of nearest-neighbor, overlapping decagons. A computer code is necessary to do the bookkeeping.

However, there is a subclass of decorations which includes the cases of most practical interest which can be calculated by hand. This class, which we call the “almost occupied decoration (AOD),” encompasses all decorations where core areas are decorated the same for any of the nine-configurations, so we can forego treating each of the nine separately. This class includes most decorations with physically reasonable densities. It is still includes and is larger than the Penrose tile decorations (with same edge length).

First, let’s consider the even simpler “fully occupied decoration (FOD)” in which overlap does not add any atoms to the core areas:

Definition: fully occupied decoration (FOD) — A single decagon decoration is a fully occupied decoration if, for every atom in the decagon, the image sites lying within the “big kite” core area are all occupied by the same atom type.

Here, the “big kite” core area is the kite core area shown in Fig. 5(a). Note that images outside the big kite core area may be unoccupied. The special property of FOD is that overlaps can be ignored in computing stoichiometry. The big kite core area is the largest of the core areas and all other core areas are subregions. If the decoration is fully occupied, then every atom anywhere in the decagon has all occupied image sites inside the big kite (and, therefore, inside each of the core areas). Therefore, overlapping neighbor tiles does not add any new atoms inside core areas in any case. Therefore, the stoichiometry can be computed by considering only three core-area types.

Let three Roman letters $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ will signify the three types of decagons:

* $`A=`$ decagons with two $`A`$-overlaps,
* $`B=`$ decagons with two $`B`$-overlaps,
* $`C=`$ decagons with one $`A`$\- and one $`B`$-overlap.

Here, we refer only to overlaps on the two sides of decagon. (In Fig 6, the center decagons in the configurations 1 and 2 are A type, 3 – 6 are C type and 7 – 9 are B type.) Associated with each type of decagon above, we can assign a “core area” of the decagon.

* $`A`$: kite shape
* $`B`$: rhombus shape
* $`C`$: trapezoid shape

as shown in Fig. 2(b) and these core areas join to completely cover the plane with no gaps.

Let $`N_{(\chi ,X)}`$ represent the number of atoms of type $`\chi `$ lying within the core area of an $`X`$ decagon where $`X=A,B`$, and $`C`$. Note that $`N_{(\chi ,X)}`$ can be counted directly from the fundamental decoration (the decagon decoration before overlap) since overlaps with the neighbor decagons do not add any new atoms inside core areas. The number density $`n_\chi `$ for atom type $`\chi `$ is now given by

$`n_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\rho __AN_{(\chi ,A)}+\rho __BN_{(\chi ,B)}+\rho __CN_{(\chi ,C)},`$ (6)
where, $`\rho __A=2\tau ^3\rho __0`$, $`\rho __B=\tau ^3\rho __0`$, and $`\rho __C=2\tau ^4\rho __0`$.

Equivalently, we can divide the fundamental decagon into regions and assign the weight for each region as shown in Fig. 5(b). Since the the core area $`A`$ (kite shape) and $`C`$ (trapezoid) include the core area $`B`$ (rhombus shape), the atoms in the region I should be counted fully when we calculate the number density. Region II does not belong to the core area $`B`$ but 50 percent of it belongs to the core area $`C`$ and the whole area belongs to core area $`A`$. Therefore, the number density weights, $`\rho __I`$ and $`\rho _{_{II}}`$ assigned to regions I and II are given by

$`\rho __I`$ $`=`$ $`\rho __A+\rho __B+\rho __C=\rho __0`$
$`\rho _{_{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho __A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho __C=\tau ^1\rho __0.`$ (7)
Now, we introduce the AOD class models, for which the same shape of core areas are decorated identically as for the FOD class models but the core area decoration (after overlap) may be different from that of the fundamental decoration (before overlap).

Definition: almost occupied decoration (AOD) — A single decagon decoration is an almost occupied decoration if, for every atom in the decagon outside of the “tiny central kite” area shown in Fig. 5(c), the image sites lying within the “big kite” core area are all occupied by the same atom type.

Lemma IV: All core areas of the same shape have the same decoration after overlap.

This Lemma means that, as with the FOD, we do not have to consider each of the nine local arrangements of decagons separately. Proof: For an FOD class model, the same shape of core areas have the same decoration since the overlap does not bring any new image atoms to the core areas. For an AOD class model, new image atoms may exist in the tiny central kite area. However, due to the way the decagons overlap, the image atom arrangements in the central kite are the same for each type of core, areas as shown in Fig. 6. When the central core area is the big kite shape (Conf.-1 and 2), overlapping decagons cannot add any images on the central kite area. Therefore, the big kite-shaped core areas (for both Conf. 1 and 2) have the same images. When the central core area is the rhombus shape (Conf.-7, 8 and 9), two neighboring decagons overlap with the tiny central kite area. For all three configurations, the relative position and the direction of the overlapping decagons are the same. Therefore, the image sites in the tiny central kite area are the same for all three cases. Finally, When the central core area is the trapezoid shape (Conf.-3, 4, 5, and 6), only one neighboring decagon can overlap the tiny central kite area. The position and the direction of the overlapping decagons are the same for the same orientation of the trapezoid (Conf.-3 and 4, and Conf.-5 and 6 are the same orientation respectively). Therefore, the trapezoid-shaped core areas with the same orientation have the same images. Altogether, the image sites in the tiny central kite area is the same decoration for the same shape of core areas.

Since the same shaped core areas are decorated identically, the number density $`n_\chi `$ for an AOD model can be calculated from Eq. (6) provided that $`N_{(\chi ,X)}`$ is the number of atoms in the the core area X ($`X=A,B,C`$) including image atoms. We can divide the fundamental decagon into regions with the weight for each region for AOD case too as shown in Fig. 5(d). Here, the atoms in the region III may bring new image atoms in the tiny central kite area and hence must be taken into account for the number density of the atoms. As mentioned, region III does not add any image atoms to the tiny central kite area for the A-decagons (Conf.-1 and 2) but always adds images for the B-decagons (Conf.-7, 8, and 9) and 50 percent for the C-decagons (Conf.-3, 4, 5 and 6). Therefore, the number density weights are given by

$`\rho __I`$ $`=`$ $`\rho __0`$
$`\rho _{_{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^1\rho __0`$
$`\rho _{_{III}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho __B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho __C=\tau ^2\rho __0`$ (8)
for the AOD class models. Note that the overlap does not add the new image atom if there was an atom at the image site in the tiny central kite area of the fundamental decoration. Therefore, the weight $`\rho _{_{III}}`$ should be assign to the atoms in the region III only if their images sites (in the tiny central area) are unoccupied. Also, it is possible that the image sites from the left and the right part of region III coincide as in the case of the mirror symmetric decoration. For these atoms, we should count them only once for the type-B decagons and, therefore, we should assign

$`\rho _{_{III}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\rho __B+\rho __C)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau ^3+\tau ^4)\rho __0`$
to the atoms in the regions III (whose image sites in the tiny central area are unoccupied).

While the description above may seem complex, a brief study will show that it is straightforward to apply the method using the back of an envelope for a wide class of useful decorations.

## VI Symmetry of a Quasi-Unit-Cell model

The unit cell construction in periodic crystals is used not only to determine the density and stoichiometry, but also to classify the symmetry. In this section, we analyze the symmetry of quasi-unit-cell models for decagonal quasicrystals whose atomic sites can be interpreted as projections from the higher dimensional hypercubic lattices. In general, the atomic positions in the fundamental decagon can be in any location as long as they satisfy the overlap decoration rule. However, here we only consider the fundamental decagon decorations whose atomic positions, relative to the position of a vertex of the decagon, are given by

$`\stackrel{}{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{4}{}}}m_k\widehat{e}_k,`$ (10)
where $`m_k`$ is an integer and $`\widehat{e}_k=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2k\pi }{5})\widehat{x}+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2k\pi }{5})\widehat{y}`$ is a unit vector in the physical space. Mathematically speaking, this quasilattice of points is a set of measure zero compared to the entire 2d interior of the decagon, but this does not impose any practical restriction on constructing physical atomic models since the quasilattice points are dense everywhere due to the irrationality between the basic vectors $`\widehat{e}_k`$s.

For these models, atoms can be lifted to the five dimensional hypercubic lattice points and the information on the correlations between positions of atoms in the model can be encoded into the geometry of the perp-space images which is the set of points given by

$`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{4}{}}}m_k\widehat{e}_k^{},`$ (11)
where $`\widehat{e}_k^{}=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{4k\pi }{5})\widehat{x}^{}+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{4k\pi }{5})\widehat{y}^{}`$ is a unit vector in a plane perpendicular to the physical space. When the perp-space images of two models have the same geometrical shape, they are indistinguishable Mermin91I  since the correlations between atomic positions are fully determined by the shape of the perp-space image. Following Mermin Mermin91I , we call an operation $`𝐠`$ a symmetry operation if the state after the operation is indistinguishable from the state before the operation. That is, if $`𝐠`$ is a symmetry operation for a model with density function $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ then $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\rho ^{}(\stackrel{}{r}):=\rho (𝐠^1\stackrel{}{r})`$ should have the identical correlation functions. Therefore, an operation $`𝐠`$ represented by

$`𝐠\widehat{e}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{jk}\widehat{e}_j`$ (12)
is a symmetry operation if the corresponding perp-space operation $`𝐠^{}`$ given by

$`𝐠^{}\widehat{e}_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{jk}\widehat{e}_j^{}.`$ (13)
preserves the geometry of perp-space images.

As one can see from the definition of $`\widehat{e}_k`$ and $`\widehat{e}_k^{}`$, $`\frac{2\pi }{10}`$ rotation in the real space corresponds to $`\frac{4\pi }{10}`$ rotation in the perp-space since it is equivalent to $`\widehat{e}_k\widehat{e}_k^{}`$ with $`k^{}=k+1`$(mod 5). A tenth of $`2\pi `$ ($`\frac{\pi }{10}`$) rotation in the real space is equivalent to $`\widehat{e}_k\widehat{e}_k^{}`$ with $`k^{}=k+3`$ (mod 5) and therefore corresponds to $`\frac{7\pi }{10}`$ rotation in the perp-space. Since the $`\frac{7\pi }{10}`$ rotation (with the modulus $`2\pi `$) generates all ten integer multiples of $`\frac{\pi }{10}`$, the quasi-unit cell model has ten-fold symmetry if and only if the perp-space image has ten-fold symmetry. Also, the quasi-unit cell model has reflection symmetry to an $`\widehat{e}_n`$-axis if and only if the perp-space image has reflection symmetry to the $`\widehat{e}_n^{}`$\- axis. This is because the the reflection to the $`\widehat{e}_n`$-axis in real space corresponds to the reflection to the $`\widehat{e}_n^{}`$-axis in the perp-space. They are equivalent to $`\widehat{e}_k\widehat{e}_k^{}`$ or $`\widehat{e}_k^{}\widehat{e}_k^{}^{}`$ with $`k+k^{}=2n`$ (mod 5) in both real and perp spaces.

The geometry of the perp-space image for a quasi-unit-model can be obtained from the perp-space image of the atoms in the fundamental decagon. Let us first consider a simple case where the fundamental decagon is decorated with only one atom. In this case, the perp-space image of the atoms in the decagons with a certain direction is a simply connected triangle shape. (The Gummelt decoration of a decagon breaks the 10-fold symmetry of the decagon. We can define the “direction” of a (Gummelt decorated) decagon from this. In Fig. 7, we define the direction of a decagon along the mirror symmetry line, from the intersection of two “rockets” to the center of the “star”. The decagon in a Gummelt covering has 10 different possible directions and the perp-space image of the Jack vertices in the decagons with the same direction is the triangle shown in Fig 7(b).) The perp-space images of all atoms in the model is then given by the union of ten triangles of ten different directions. Figure 7(a) shows such simple decoration of fundamental decagon which is equivalent to a Penrose lattice decoration where atoms decorate each Jack vertex. The perp-space image of this quasi-unit-cell model is simply the perp-space occupation domain of Jack vertices Bruijn81b  and given by Fig. 7(b). Here $`J_k`$ and $`J_{\overline{k}}`$ represent the perp-space image of Jack vertices in the $`\widehat{e}_k`$ direction and the $`\widehat{e}_k`$ direction respectively. Since the perp-space image has 10-fold symmetry and the mirror symmetry, the quasi-unit-cell model with the fundamental decoration of Fig. 7(a) has $`D_{10}`$ symmetry.

The symmetry for a general fundamental decoration can be obtained similarly. If the relative position (from a Jack vertex) of a decorated atom is given by $`\stackrel{}{r}=_{k=0}^4m_k\widehat{e}_k`$, then the perp-space image from the decagons with the $`\widehat{e}_0`$ direction will be the triangle given by the $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}=_{k=0}^4m_k\widehat{e}_k^{}`$ translation of the $`J_0`$ triangle. The perp-space image from the decagons with the $`\pm \widehat{e}_k`$ direction will be obtained by rotating the $`\widehat{e}_0^{}`$ direction triangle by the angle that the $`\pm \widehat{e}_k^{}`$ and the $`\widehat{e}_0^{}`$ axes make. The perp-space image of all decagons is then the union of these 10 triangles and always has 10-fold symmetry. Therefore we can conclude that all quasi-unit-cell models have 10-fold symmetry.

How about the mirror symmetry? The quasi-unit-cell model with the fundamental decoration of Fig. 7(b) has the the mirror symmetry as well as the 10-fold symmetry. Is the mirror symmetry also general for quasi-unit-cell models? The answer is no, as one can see from the example of Fig. 8(b). In this example, the perp-space image has no mirror symmetry axis. Then when does the perp-space image has the mirror symmetry? From the fact that the reflection transforms the base vectors in the perp-space equivalently to the transform of base vectors in the real space, we can say that the perp-space image has the mirror symmetry if the decoration of fundamental decagon has the mirror symmetry. However, the converse is not true. Some asymmetric decorations of the fundamental decagon can produce a quasi-unit-cell model with the mirror symmetry as shown in Fig. 8(c) and (d).

In sum, a quasi-unit-cell model has the 10-fold symmetry. If the decoration of fundamental decagon has a mirror symmetry, then the quasi-unit-cell model has a mirror symmetry as well as the 10-fold symmetry.

## VII Concluding Remarks

We have shown that a Penrose-tile model is a quasi-unit-cell model with the same edge size and a decagonal quasi-unit-cell model is a Penrose-tile model with the quadratically inflated rhombi. This means the set of all decagonal quasi-unit-cell models is the same as the set of all rhombus Penrose-tile models. However, mathematical equivalence between the two sets does not imply that they are physically equivalent in constructing atomic models for quasicrystals. We need only one kind of atomic clusters as a building unit in quasi-unit-cell models while at least two basic building units are needed in Penrose-tile models. Furthermore, the building unit size is much smaller for quasi-unit-cell models. For a general quasi-unit-cell decoration, the corresponding Penrose tiles, whose decorations are identical, have scores of original quasi-unit-cell. In other words, we have to look for more and larger building units when we use Penrose tile models.

This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant KRF-2001-041-D00062 (HCJ) and US Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-91ER40671 (PJS).

## Figure Captions

* Marked decagon and overlapping rules which force a quasiperiodic tiling. (a) Marked decagon can force a quasiperiodic tiling when it is arranged by the Gummelt overlapping rules. (b) Gummelt overlapping rules demand that two decagons may overlap only if shaded regions overlap and if the overlap are is no smaller than the hexagon overlap region in A.
* Decagon covering can be mapped into a conventional tiling by decorating decagon properly. (a) Rhombus Penrose tiling by dividing up central area of decagon into Jack. (b) Three-tile core-area tiling using the core area assignment of Jeong and Steinhardt Jeong97 . (c) Original Penrose tiling Penrose74  of 4-tile tiling by joining the centers of decagons.
* Quasi-unit-cell models and Penrose-tile models. (a) Decagon decoration at the top is not a decoration of original Penrose tile (upper part) but a decoration of single inflated tiles (lower part). (b) This decagon decoration is not a decoration of original (upper left) Penrose tile, nor single inflated (upper right) tile. Neither doubly (middle) nor triply (bottom) inflated Penrose tiles are decorated identically. (c) Decagon decoration of (b) is a Penrose decoration of quadratically inflated Penrose tiles.
* (a) Nine ways of surrounding a decagon found in a Gummelt decagon covering Gummelt96 . The numbers represent the surrounding configuration types. (b) Typed decagon arrangements in the decagon covering. The decagon arrangements in all inflated tiles of the same shapes are identical but their types are not identical for doubly and triply inflated tiles. For the quadratically inflated fat tiles, the types of decagons are also identical as shown in the right-lower panel.
* (a) The big kite for FOD. For an FOD model, image sites lying in the shaded big kite region must be fundamentally decorated. (b) The regions for the number density weights for the FOD models. Weights $`\rho __I=\rho __0`$ and $`\rho _{_{II}}=\tau ^1\rho __0`$ are assigned to the atoms in the regions I and II respectively. (c) The big and the tiny kites for AOD. For an AOD model, image sites lying in the shaded region must be fundamentally decorated. (d) The regions for the number density weights for the AOD models. The region II is the same as in (b). Weights for the region I and II are the same as the FOD case. For atoms in the regions III, weight 0, $`\rho _{_{III}}`$, or $`\rho _{_{III}}^{}`$ can be assigned (see text for detail).
* Overlaps between the core area of the central decagon and the surrounding decagons. The region III in Fig. 5(d) can overlap with the tiny central kite area of the central decagon for Conf.-3.,…,9.
* A decoration of the fundamental decagon and the perp-space image of the resulting quasi-unit-cell model. When the decagon covering is converted to the rhombus Penrose tiling by dividing up central area of decagon into a Jack, the decorated atom position corresponds to the Jack vertex. In the perp-space image, $`J_k`$ and $`J_{\overline{k}}`$ represent the perp-space image of Jack vertices in the $`\widehat{e}_k`$ direction and the $`\widehat{e}_k`$ direction decagons respectively.
* (a) A decoration of the fundamental decagon which results in a quasi-unit-cell model with no mirror symmetry. Both Fundamental decoration and the perp-space image have no mirror symmetry axis. (b) An asymmetric decoration of the fundamental decagon which results in a quasi-unit-cell model with the mirror symmetry. Although the fundamental decagon is decorated asymmetric, decagons in the covering are decorated with the mirror symmetry due to the overlap and their perp-space image has the mirror symmetry.


text:
# On the neutrino vector and axial vector charge radius11footnote 1Plenary talk given in the X Mexican School of Particles and Fields, Playa del Carmen, M xico. Based in part on hep-ph/0210137 written in collaboration with M. Hirsch and D. A. Restrepo.

## 1 Introduction

Experimental evidences for neutrino oscillations SK ; Ahmad:2002jz  imply that neutrinos are the first elementary particles whose properties cannot be fully described within the Standard Model (SM). This hints to the possibility that other neutrino properties might substantially deviate from the SM predictions, and is presently motivating vigorous efforts, both on the theoretical and experimental sides, to understand more in depth the physics of neutrinos and of their interactions.

Neutrinos electromagnetic interactions can play an important role in a wide variety of domains, as for example in cosmology Dolgov:2002wy  and in astrophysics Mohapatra:rq ; Raffelt:wa . The electromagnetic properties of Dirac neutrinos are described in terms of four form factors. The matrix element of the electromagnetic current between an initial neutrino state $`\nu _i`$ with momentum $`p_i`$ and a final state $`\nu _j`$ with momentum $`p_j`$ reads Nieves:1981zt ; Shrock:1982sc

$`\nu _j^D(p_j)|J_\mu ^{\mathrm{EM}}|\nu _i^D(p_i)`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{u}_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^D(q^2)u_i;`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^D(q^2)=(q^2\gamma _\mu q_\mu q/)`$ $`[V^D(q^2)A^D(q^2)\gamma _5]+`$ (2)
$`i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu [M^D(q^2)+E^D(q^2)\gamma _5],`$
where $`q=p_jp_i`$, and the $`(ji)`$ indexes denoting the relevant elements of the form factor matrices have been left implicit. In the $`j=i`$ diagonal case, $`M^D`$ and $`E^D`$ are called the magnetic and electric form factors, that in the limit $`q^20`$ define respectively the neutrino magnetic moment $`\mu =M^D(0)`$ and the (CP violating) electric dipole moment $`ϵ=E^D(0)`$, while the form factors $`q^2V^D(q^2)`$ and $`q^2A^D(q^2)`$ correspond to non vanishing neutrino charge distributions of the form

$$\rho _V(r)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}q^2V(q^2)e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}$$

that are induced by the virtual transitions $`\nu _ll^{}W^+`$ ($`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$). Intuitively, these distributions can be depicted as a positive core surrounded by a negative cloud:

In the static limit, the reduced Dirac form factor $`V^D(q^2)`$ and the neutrino anapole form factor $`A^D(q^2)`$ are related to the vector and axial vector charge radius $`r_V^2`$ and $`r_A^2`$ through:

$$r_V^2=6V^D(0);r_A^2=6A^D(0).$$
(3)
In the following we will refer to these form factors as the vector and axial vector charge radius also when $`q^20`$.

A long standing controversy about the possibility of consistently defining a gauge invariant, physical, and process independent neutrino charge radius controversy  has been recently settled Bernabeu:2000hf ; Bernabeu:2002nw ; Cabral-Rosetti:2002qx ; Bernabeu:2002pd .222 In the 2002 Review of Particle Physics Hagiwara:pw  the limits on the neutrino charge radius are reported as limits on “nonstandard contributions to neutrino scattering”. The corresponding section begins with the statement: “We report limits on the so-called neutrino charge radius squared in this section. This quantity is not an observable physical quantity, and this is reflected in the fact that it is gauge dependent.” The controversy was related to the general problem of defining improved one-loop Born amplitudes in $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ for processes like e.g. $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$. Let us consider schematically the amplitude for this process in QED. We can include the leading one-loop corrections while retaining a Born-like form simply by redefining the electromagnetic coupling:

$`_{QED}^0`$ $`=`$ $`e_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_Q^e\times J_Q^f}{q^2}}_{QED}^1=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_Q^e\times J_Q^f}{q^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_0^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(q^2),`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(q^2)`$ is the reduced photon self energy. In this approach it is consistent to neglect the additional corrections due to the photons box diagrams, since they are separately gauge invariant. The same is not possible in the SM. A factorized Born-like expression (with suitably renormalized couplings) for the one-loop neutral current amplitude of the form:

$$_{NC}^1=e^2\frac{J_Q^e\times J_Q^f}{q^2}+\left(\frac{e^2}{s_w^2c_w^2}\right)\frac{J_Z^e\times J_Z^f}{q^2M_Z^2iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}$$
(5)
(with $`fe,\nu _e`$) in general is not gauge invariant !

A sketchy argument to explain the problem goes as follows: if one tries to define for example an improved effective $`e^+e^{}Z`$ coupling that includes the one-loop vertex corrections (fig. 1a) one finds that the ‘improper vertex’ corresponding to the mixed $`\gamma `$-$`Z`$ self energy (fig. 1b) should also be included in order to obtain a finite expression. Still, the result is gauge dependent, and gauge invariance can be recovered only by including also the $`W`$ box diagrams (fig. 1c). One can easily convince himself

that things work in this way, by considering the cut of the diagrams sketched in fig. 1 that involve $`W`$ bosons, as depicted in fig. 2. Each single diagram obtained by cutting the vertex, the mixed self-energy and the $`W`$ box represents only a partial contribution to the full amplitude for the process $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$, and of course a single partial contribution has no well defined physical meaning: only the full amplitude is a physical quantity. On the other hand, the $`W`$ box diagrams needed to recover gauge invariance connect initial state fermions to the final states, and therefore depend on the specific process. This indicates that at one-loop, the amplitude cannot be straightforwardly written in the factorized form (5), and that the definition of an improved and process independent $`e^+e^{}Z`$ vertex is indeed problematic.

This problem is even more acute when one tries to define the charge radius of a neutrino as a physical, process independent property, intrinsic to this particle. This is due to the absence at tree level of a neutrino-photon coupling, so that there is no well defined quantity even at the lowest order.

Consistent definitions of one-loop gauge invariant vertexes, self-energies and box diagrams in the electroweak sector of the SM were first obtained by Deagrassi and Sirlin Degrassi:1992ue  through the systematic application of a procedure previously developed in QCD, the so called pinch technique Cornwall:1981zr . More recently, the same technique was used to construct a neutrino charge radius at one-loop, which is independent of the gauge fixing parameter, of the gauge fixing scheme, and of the particular scattering process Bernabeu:2000hf . That such a construction is possible can be intuitively understood by observing that for neutrino scattering off right handed polarized fermions, the $`W`$ box diagrams are absent to begin with, and thus no ambiguity can arise Bernabeu:2000hf . This suggested a way to derive a unique decomposition of loop contributions that separately respect gauge invariance, and from which a process independent charge radius could be defined as an intrinsic property of the neutrino. Furthermore, in Bernabeu:2002nw ; Bernabeu:2002pd  it was argued that the so-defined charge radius is a true physical observable, in the sense that its value could be extracted, at least in principle, from experiments.

Coming back to the neutrino form factors appearing in (1), not all of them survive when the neutrinos are Majorana particles ($`\nu ^M`$). In the non-diagonal case ($`\nu _j^M\nu _i^M`$) and in the limit of CP invariance the electromagnetic interaction is described by just two form factors Nieves:1981zt . If the initial and final Majorana neutrinos involved in the process have the same CP parity, only $`E_{ji}^M(q^2)`$ and $`A_{ji}^M(q^2)`$ are non vanishing, while if the CP parity is opposite, the electromagnetic interaction is described by $`M_{ji}^M(q^2)`$ and $`V_{ji}^M(q^2)`$. Finally, in the Majorana diagonal case $`\nu _j^M=\nu _i^M`$ the only surviving form factor is the anapole moment $`A^M(q^2)`$. As discussed in Kayser:1982br , this last result can be inferred from the requirement that the two identical fermions final state in $`\gamma \nu ^M\overline{\nu }^M`$ be antisymmetric, and it holds regardless of the assumption of CP invariance.

In the SM the neutrino electromagnetic form factors have extremely small values Dubovik:1996gx . Due to the left-handed nature of the weak interactions, the numerical value of the vector and axial vector charge radius coincide, and for the different $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ flavors they fall within the range $`r_{V,A}^2(14)\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Bernabeu:2000hf 333These values correspond to the $`q^2=0`$ limit, and decrease with increasing energies with a logarithmic behavior..

However, it could well be that, due to new physics, the electromagnetic interactions of neutrinos are enhanced with respect to the SM expectations. In general, the strongest limits on anomalous form factors come from astrophysical and cosmological considerations. For example the neutrino magnetic moments can be constrained from consideration of stellar energy losses through plasma photon decay $`\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ Raffelt:gv , from the non-observation of anomalous energy loss in the Supernova 1987A neutrino burst as would have resulted from the rapid emission of superweakly interacting right handed neutrinos Raffelt:gv , or from Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments. In the last case constraints are obtained by requiring that spin flipping Dirac magnetic moment interactions should be weak enough not to populate the right handed neutrinos degrees of freedom at the time of the freeze out of the neutron-to-proton ratio Dolgov:2002wy .

Since the charge radii do not couple neutrinos to on-shell photons, the corresponding interactions are not relevant for stellar evolution arguments. However, in the Dirac case, right handed neutrinos can still be produced through e.g. $`e^+e^{}\nu _R\overline{\nu }_R`$, and therefore constraints from the Supernova 1987A as well as from nucleosynthesis do apply. They yield respectively $`|r^2|<2\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Grifols:1989vi  and $`|r^2|<7\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Grifols:1986ed 444In the SM with right handed neutrinos the $`\nu _R`$ cannot be produced through the charge radius couplings, since the vector and axial vector contributions exactly cancel. Therefore, the quoted limits implicitly assume that, because of new physics contributions, one of the two form factors dominates and no cancellations occur..

However, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, they do not have light right-handed partners, and the previous constraints do not apply. In this case, in particular for $`\nu _\tau `$, a large anapole moment resulting in an interaction even stronger than electroweak could be allowed. In the early Universe such an interaction could keep $`\nu _\tau `$ in thermal equilibrium long enough to experience a substantial reheating from the annihilation process $`e^+e^{}\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$, and in turn this could affect the Universe expansion and change the abundance of primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$. In section 2 we will argue that this is not so, and that even an interaction one order of magnitude stronger than electroweak would hardly affect Helium abundance at the observable level. We can conclude that constraints on the Majorana neutrino axial charge radius can be obtained only from terrestrial experiments.

The present laboratory limits for the electron neutrino are $`5.5\times 10^{32}r_A^2(\nu _e)9.8\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Allen:qe 555These limits are twice the values published in Allen:qe  since we are using a convention for $`r_{V,A}^2`$ that differs for a factor of 2.. In the Dirac case these limits apply to the sum $`r_V^2+r_A^2`$ as well. Limits for $`\nu _\mu `$ have been derived from neutrino scattering experiments Vilain:1994hm ; Ahrens:fp . They are about one order of magnitude stronger than for $`\nu _e`$, and will be discussed in section 4. Due to the fact that intense $`\nu _\tau `$ beams are not available in laboratories, to date no direct limits on $`r_A^2(\nu _\tau )`$ have been reported by experimental collaborations. However, under the assumption that a significant fraction of the solar neutrinos converts into $`\nu _\tau `$, the limit $`|r_A^2(\nu _\tau )|<2\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ was derived from the SNO and Super-Kamiokande data Joshipura:2001ee . A limit on the $`\nu _\tau `$ vector charge radius (Dirac case) was obtained from TRISTAN data on $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ single photon production Tanimoto:2000am . As is discussed in section 3, the same data can be used to set limits also on the anapole moment of a Majorana $`\nu _\tau `$.

In the next section we will briefly analyze the possibility of deriving constraints on the axial charge radius of Majorana neutrinos from nucleosynthesis. In section 3 we will study the bounds on the tau neutrino charge radius implied by the TRISTAN and LEP experimental results. In section 4 we will discuss the constraints on the muon neutrino charge radius from the NuTeV, CHARM-II, CCFR and the BNL E734 experiments. They result in the following 90% c.l. limits:

$`8.2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ $`r_A^2(\nu _\tau )`$ $`9.9\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2,`$ (6)
$`5.2\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ $`r_A^2(\nu _\mu )`$ $`6.8\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2.`$ (7)
For $`r_A^2(\nu _e)`$ we could not find new experimental results that would imply better constraints than the existing ones Allen:qe . We just mention that the Bugey nuclear reactor data from the detector module closest to the neutrino source (15 meters) Declais:1994su  should imply independent limits of the same order of magnitude than the existing ones.

## 2 Nucleosynthesis

In this section we study the impact on the primordial Helium abundance $`Y`$ of an axial charge radius large enough to keep a Majorana $`\nu _\tau `$ in thermal contact with the plasma down to temperatures $`T<1`$MeV. In this case the neutrinos would get reheated by $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, and this would affect the Universe expansion rate. To give an example, assuming that one neutrino species keeps in thermal equilibrium until $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is completed ($`Tm_e`$) has the same effect on the expansion as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1(4/11)^{4/3}0.74`$ additional neutrinos.

The amount of Helium produced in the early Universe is determined by the value of the neutron to proton ratio $`n/p`$ at the time when the $`ne^+p\overline{\nu }`$ and $`n\nu pe^{}`$ electroweak reactions freeze out. This occurs approximately at a temperature $`T_{fo}0.7`$MeV Dicus:bz ; Kolb:vq . Apart for the effect of neutron decay, virtually all the surviving neutrons end up in $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ nuclei. Assuming no anomalous contributions to the electron neutrino reactions, the freeze out temperature can only be affected by changes in the Universe expansion rate, that is controlled by the number of relativistic degrees of freedom and by their temperature. If $`\nu _\tau `$ have only standard interactions, at the time of the freeze out they are completely decoupled from the thermal plasma. However, an anomalous contribution to the process $`e^+e^{}\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ would allow them to share part of the entropy released in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. The maximum effect is achieved assuming that the new interaction is able to keep the $`\nu _\tau `$ thermalized down to $`T_{fo}`$. The required strength of the new interaction can be estimated by equating the rate for an anomalously fast $`e^+e^{}\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ process $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu _\tau }=\sigma vn_e`$ to the Universe expansion rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_U=\left(8\pi \rho /3m_P^2\right)^{1/2}`$. In the previous formulas $`\sigma v`$ is the thermally averaged cross section times relative velocity, $`n_e0.365T^3`$ is the number density of electrons, $`\rho 1.66g_{}^{1/2}(T^2/m_P)`$ is the Universe energy density with $`g_{}10.75`$ the number of relativistic degrees of freedom, and $`m_P`$ is the Plank mass. The thermally averaged cross section can be written as $`\sigma v\kappa G_{\nu _\tau }^2T^2`$ where $`G_{\nu _\tau }(2\pi ^2\alpha /3)r_A^2`$ parametrizes the strength of the interaction that we assume sensibly larger than the Fermi constant $`G_F`$, and $`\kappa 0.2`$ has been introduced to allow direct comparison with the SM rate $`\sigma v^{SM}0.2G_F^2T^2`$Dicus:bz . By setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu _\tau }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_U`$ at $`T=T_{fo}`$, we obtain $`G_{\nu _\tau }13\times 10^5`$GeV-2. Therefore, to keep the $`\nu _\tau `$ thermalized until the ratio $`n/p`$ freezes out, an interaction about ten times stronger than electroweak is needed. However, even in the presence of such a large interaction, Helium abundance would only be mildly affected. This is because at $`T0.7`$MeV $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is still not very efficient, and the photon temperature is only slightly above the temperature of the thermally decoupled neutrinos: $`(T_\gamma T_\nu )/T_\gamma 1.5\%`$ Dicus:bz . This induces a change in the primordial Helium abundance $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y+0.04(\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\nu _\tau }/T_\nu )`$ which is below one part in one thousand. This effect could possibly be at the level of the present theoretical precision Lopez:1998vk ; however, it is far below the present observational accuracy, for which the errors are of the order of one percent Dolgov:2002cv .

## 3 Limits on $`\nu _\tau `$ vector and axial vector charge radius

Limits on $`r_V^2`$ and $`r_A^2`$ for $`\nu _\tau `$ can be set using experimental data on single photon production through the process $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu \gamma `$. A large set of data from TRISTAN and from LEP, spanning the energy range from 58 GeV up to 207 GeV, was analyzed in Hirsch:2002uv . Given that the form factors run with the energy, separate results were presented for data collected in different energy ranges: below $`Z`$ resonance (TRISTAN), between $`Z`$ resonance and the threshold for $`W^+W^{}`$ production (LEP-1.5), and finally for the data above $`W^+W^{}`$ production (LEP-2). Due to the much larger statistics collected at high energy, a combined fit of all the data does not give any sizable improvement with respect to the LEP-2 limits, that therefore represent the strongest bounds.

The SM cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ is given by Gaemers:fe

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\nu \nu \gamma }}{dxdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha /\pi }{x(1y^2)}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2y^2}{4}}]\times `$ (8)
$`\left\{N_\nu \sigma _s(s^{},g_V,g_A)+\sigma _{st}(s^{})+\sigma _t(s^{})\right\}`$
where $`\sigma _s`$ corresponds to the lowest order $`s`$ channel $`Z`$ boson exchange with $`N_\nu =3`$ the number of neutrinos that couple to the $`Z`$ boson. For later convenience in $`\sigma _s`$ we have explicitly shown the dependence on the electron couplings $`g_V=1/2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`g_A=1/2`$, where $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. The additional two terms $`\sigma _{st}`$ and $`\sigma _t`$ in (8) correspond respectively to $`Z`$-$`W`$ interference and to $`t`$ channel $`W`$ boson exchange in $`\nu _e`$ production. The kinematic variables are the scaled photon momentum $`x=E_\gamma /E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ with $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}=\sqrt{s}/2`$, the reduced center of mass energy $`s^{}=s(1x)`$, and the cosine of the angle between the photon momentum and the incident beam direction $`y=\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma `$. The expressions for the lowest order cross sections appearing in (8) read

$`\sigma _s(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sG_F^2}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}(g_V^2+g_A^2)M_Z^4}{\left(M_Z^2s\right)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}},`$ (9)
$`\sigma _{st}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sG_F^2}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(g_V+g_A)(M_Z^2s)M_Z^2}{\left(M_Z^2s\right)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}},`$ (10)
$`\sigma _t(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sG_F^2}{6\pi }},`$ (11)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`\alpha `$ the fine structure constant, $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ the mass and width of the $`Z`$ boson. Few comments are in order. Eq. (8) was first derived in Gaemers:fe . It holds at relatively low energies where $`W`$ exchange in the $`t`$ channel can be legitimately approximated as a contact interaction. This amounts to neglect the momentum transfer in the $`W`$ propagator, and to drop the $`W`$-$`\gamma `$ interaction, so that the photons are emitted only from the electron lines. While this approximation is sufficiently good at TRISTAN energies, to analyze the LEP data collected above $`Z`$ resonance some improvements have to be introduced. We will use an improved approximation where finite distance effects are taken into account in the $`W`$ propagator, however we will still work in the limit of vanishing $`W`$-$`\gamma `$ interactions, since the corresponding effects are of higher order in a leading log approximation Bardin:2001vt  and for our scopes can be safely neglected. Finite distance $`W`$ exchange effects can be taken into account in the previous expressions by replacing $`\sigma _{st}(s)`$ and $`\sigma _t(s)`$ by

$$\sigma _{st}(s)F_{st}\left(\frac{s}{M_W^2}\right),\mathrm{and}\sigma _t(s)F_t\left(\frac{s}{M_W^2}\right),$$
(12)
respectively, where $`M_W`$ is the $`W`$ boson mass, and

$`F_{st}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{z^3}}\left[(1+z)^2\mathrm{log}(1+z)z\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}z\right)\right],`$ (13)
$`F_t(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{z^3}}\left[2(1+z)\mathrm{log}(1+z)+z(2+z)\right].`$ (14)
The contact interaction approximation is recovered in the limit $`z0`$ for which $`F_{st,t}(z)1`$.

An anomalous interaction due to non-vanishing $`\nu _\tau `$ axial and axial vector charge radii can be directly included in (8) by redefining the $`Z`$ boson exchange term in the following way:

$`N_\nu \sigma _s(s^{},g_V,g_A)`$
$`(N_\nu 1)\sigma _s(s^{},g_V,g_A)+\sigma _s(s^{},g_V^{}(s^{}),g_A)`$ (15)
where

$`g_V^{}(s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`g_V\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{M_Z^2}}\right]\delta ,`$ (16)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{3G_F}}\left[r_V^2+r_A^2\right].`$ (17)
The substitution $`g_Vg_V^{}`$ in (15) takes into account the new photon exchange diagram for production of left-handed $`\nu _\tau `$. In the Dirac case, $`s`$-channel production of right handed $`\nu _\tau `$ through photon exchange must also be taken into account. This yields a new contribution that adds incoherently to the cross section, and that can be included by adding inside the brackets in (8) the term

$`\sigma _R(s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}G_F^2}{6\pi }}(\delta ^{})^2,`$ (18)
$`\delta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }{3G_F}}\left[r_V^2r_A^2\right].`$ (19)
In the SM $`r_V^2=r_A^2`$ and therefore there is no production of $`\nu _R`$ through these couplings. For a Majorana neutrino $`\delta ^{}=0`$ and $`r_V^2=0`$, and thus the limits on anomalous contributions to the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ translate into direct constraints on the axial charge radius $`r_A^2(\nu _\tau )`$.

### 3.1 Limits from TRISTAN

The three TRISTAN experiments AMY Sugimoto:1995bf , TOPAZ Abe:fq  and VENUS Hosoda:1994bd  have searched for single photon production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at a c.m. energy of approximately $`\sqrt{s}=58`$GeV. Anomalous contributions to the cross section for $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ would have been signaled by an excess of events. Limits on a Dirac $`\nu _\tau `$ charge radius from the TRISTAN data were derived in Tanimoto:2000am . The analysis was extended in Hirsch:2002uv  to the include the case of a Majorana neutrino with an anapole moment. The details of TRISTAN results can be found in table 1 of ref. Hirsch:2002uv . For a Majorana $`\nu _\tau `$ ($`\delta ^{}=0`$ and $`r_V^2=0`$) the data imply the following 90 % c.l. limits:

$$3.7\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2r_A^2(\nu _\tau )3.1\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(20)
For the Dirac case, the associated production of right-handed states through $`\sigma _R`$ in (18) allows us to constrain independently the vector and axial vector charge radius. The 90 % c.l. limits on $`r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\tau )r_V^2(\nu _\tau )+r_A^2(\nu _\tau )`$ are:

$$2.1\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\tau )1.8\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(21)
As we have already mentioned, strictly speaking the constraints just derived cannot be directly compared with the LEP constraints analyzed below, since the two experiments are proving neutrino form factors at different energy scales. Of course, since our limits constrain essentially only physics beyond the SM, it is not possible to make a sound guess of the form of the scaling of the form factors with the energy, which is determined by the details of the underlying new physics. However, if we assume a logarithmic reduction of the form factors with increasing energy as is the case in the SM, than we would expect a moderate reduction of about $`0.65`$ when scaling from TRISTAN to LEP-1.5 energies, and an additional reduction of about $`0.75`$ from LEP-1.5 up to LEP-2 measurements at 200 GeV.

### 3.2 Limits from LEP

Limits on $`r_V^2`$ and $`r_A^2`$ were derived from the observation of single photon production at LEP in a completely similar way Hirsch:2002uv . Contrary to magnetic moment interactions that get enhanced at low energies with respect to electroweak interactions, the interaction corresponding to a charge radius scale with energy roughly in the same way than the electroweak interactions, and therefore searches for possible effects at high energy are not in disadvantage with respect to low energy experiments. It is for this reason that LEP data above the $`Z`$ resonance are able to set the best constraints on the vector and axial vector charge radius for the $`\tau `$ neutrino.

All LEP experiments have published high statistics data for the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ for c.m. energies close to the $`Z`$-pole; however, due to the dominance of resonant $`Z`$ boson exchange, these data are not useful to constrain anomalous neutrino couplings to $`s`$-channel off-shell photons. Therefore, only off-resonance data collected above $`Z`$ resonance in the in the energy range 130 GeV – 207 GeV, were used in the analysis in Hirsch:2002uv . The data were divided into two sets: LEP-1.5 data collected below $`W^+W^{}`$ production threshold (table 2 of ref. Hirsch:2002uv ) and LEP-2 data collected above $`W^+W^{}`$ threshold up to 207 GeV (table 3 of ref. Hirsch:2002uv ).

LEP-1.5: The ALEPH Buskulic:1996hw , DELPHI Adam:1996am  and OPAL Alexander:1996kp ; Ackerstaff:1997ze ; Abbiendi:1998yu  collaborations have published data for single photon production at c.m. energies of 130 GeV and 136 GeV. During the fall 1995 runs ALEPH Buskulic:1996hw  and DELPHI Adam:1996am  accumulated about 6 pb-1 of data for each experiment, observing respectively 40 and 37 events. In the same runs OPAL Alexander:1996kp ; Ackerstaff:1997ze  collected a little less than 5 pb-1 observing 53 events. In addition, OPAL published data also for the 1997 runs (at the same energies) Abbiendi:1998yu  collecting an integrated luminosity of 5.7 pb-1 and observing 60 events. With a total integrated luminosity of about 28 pb-1 LEP-1.5 implies the following 90 % c.l. limits:

$$5.9\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2r_A^2(\nu _\tau )6.6\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(22)
for the axial vector charge radius of a Majorana $`\nu _\tau `$, and

$$3.5\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\tau )3.7\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(23)
for the Dirac case. In spite of the much larger statistics, the limits from LEP-1.5 (22) and (23) are roughly a factor of two worse than the limits from TRISTAN in (20) and (21). The main reason for this is that at LEP-1.5 energies initial state radiation tends to bring the effective c.m. energy $`s^{}`$ of the collision close to the $`Z`$ resonance, thus enhancing $`Z`$ exchange with respect to the new photon exchange diagram.

LEP-2: Above the threshold for $`W^+W^{}`$ production the four LEP experiments reported results for 24 different data points, corresponding altogether to about 1.6 nb-1 of data (see table 3 of ref. Hirsch:2002uv ).

ALEPH Barate:1997ue ; Barate:1998ci ; Heister:2002ut  published data for ten different c.m. energies, ranging from 161 GeV up to 209 GeV. DELPHI Abreu:2000vk  published data collected at 183 GeV and 189 GeV, and gave separate results for the three major electromagnetic calorimeters, the High density Projection Chamber (HPC) covering large polar angles, the Forward ElectroMagnetic Calorimeter (FEMC) covering small polar angles, and the Small angle TIle Calorimeter (STIC) that covers the very forward regions. In three papers Acciarri:1997dq ; Acciarri:1998hb ; Acciarri:1999kp  L3 reported the results obtained at 161 GeV, 172 GeV, 183 GeV and 189 GeV. Finally, OPAL published data for four different c.m. energies Alexander:1996kp ; Ackerstaff:1997ze ; Abbiendi:1998yu ; Abbiendi:2000hh . The 90 % c.l. limits implied by LEP-2 data read

$$8.2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2r_A^2(\nu _\tau )9.9\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(24)
for the Majorana case, and

$$5.6\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\tau )6.2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(25)
for a Dirac $`\nu _\tau `$.

These limits are about a factor of four stronger than the limits derived in Joshipura:2001ee  from the SNO and Super-Kamiokande observations and than the limits obtained in Tanimoto:2000am  from just the TRISTAN data.

It is worth mentioning that the limits on $`r_V^2(\nu _\tau )`$ and $`r_A^2(\nu _\tau )`$ are almost uncorrelated between them (see figure 3 of ref. Hirsch:2002uv ). The possibility of bounding simultaneously the vector and axial vector charge radii stems from the fact that in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation also the right-handed neutrinos can be produced, and they couple to the photon through a combination of $`r_V^2`$ and $`r_A^2`$ which is linearly independent with respect to the one that couples the left-handed neutrinos. In contrast, neutrino scattering experiments do not involve the right handed neutrinos, and therefore can only bound the combination $`r_V^2+r_A^2`$.

Before concluding this section, we should mention that independent limits could also be derived from the DONUT experiment, through an analysis similar to the one presented in Schwienhorst:2001sj  that yielded limits on the $`\nu _\tau `$ magnetic moment. We have estimated that the constraints from DONUT would be at least one order of magnitude worse than the limits obtained from LEP; however, it should be remarked that these limits would be inferred directly from the absence of anomalous interactions for a neutrino beam with an identified $`\nu _\tau `$ component Kodama:2000mp .

## 4 Limits on $`\nu _\mu `$ vector and axial vector charge radius

The NuTeV collaboration has recently published a value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ measured from the ratio of neutral current to charged current in deep inelastic $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering Zeller:2001hh . Their result reads

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\nu )}=0.2277\pm 0.0013\pm 0.0009$$
(26)
where the first error is statistical and the second error is systematic. In order to derive limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties one should compare the results obtained in neutrino experiments to a value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ determined from experiments that do not involve neutrinos. Currently, the most precise value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ from non-neutrino experiments comes from measurements at the $`Z`$-pole and from direct measurements of the $`W`$-mass Hagiwara:pw . In the numerical calculations in Hirsch:2002uv  we have used the value for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ obtained from a global fit to electroweak measurements without neutrino-nucleon scattering data, as reported in Zeller:2001hh ; Zeller:2002dx :

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2227\pm 0.00037.$$
(27)
The effect of a non-vanishing charge radius can be taken into account through the replacement $`g_Vg_V\delta `$ in the formulas for $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon and $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering Vogel:iv , where $`\delta `$ is given in (17). Since there are no right-handed neutrinos involved, there is no effect proportional to $`\delta ^{}`$ and therefore only $`\delta r_V^2(\nu _\mu )+r_A^2(\nu _\mu )`$ can be constrained. Upper and lower limits can be directly derived by comparing $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\nu )}`$ with the quoted value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ from non-neutrino experiments. Since the results for neutrino experiments and the measurements at the $`Z`$-pole are not consistent at the 1$`\sigma `$ level, in the following equations (28)-(30) we will (conservatively) combine the errors by adding them linearly.666Except for the CCFR data, which is consistent with the SM precision fits.

From the NuTeV result (26) we obtain the 90 % c.l. upper limit:

$$r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )7.1\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(28)
where $`r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )r_V^2(\nu _\mu )+r_A^2(\nu _\mu )`$. However, since (26) hints to a non-vanishing value of $`\delta `$, no lower limit is obtained from this measurement (see fig. 3). A reanalysis of the E734 data on $`\nu _\mu `$-$`e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-$`e`$ scattering Ahrens:fp  yields the 90 % c.l. limits:

$$5.7\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )1.1\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(29)
Note that in ref. Ahrens:fp  the E734 collaboration is quoting a lower limit about 3.6 times and an upper limit about 7.5 times tighter than the ones given in (29). This is because of various reasons: first of all, as was pointed out in Allen:1990xn , in Ahrens:fp  an inconsistent value for $`G_F`$ was used that resulted in bounds stronger by approximately a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. In addition, the errors were combined quadratically, which, due to the large negative trend in their data, resulted in a much stronger upper bound on $`r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )`$ than the one quoted here. Finally, our value of $`\delta `$ is defined through the shift $`g_Vg_V\delta `$ of the SM vector coupling, consistently for example with the notation of Vogel:iv , while the convention used by the E734 Collaboration Ahrens:fp  as well as by CHARM II Vilain:1994hm  define $`\delta `$ as a shift in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. This implies that our limits are larger for an additional factor of 2 with respect to the results published by these two collaborations.

From the CHARM II neutrino-electron scattering data Vilain:1994hm  we obtain at 90 % c.l.:

$$5.2\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )2.2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(30)
These limits differ from the numbers published by the CHARM II collaboration Vilain:1994hm  not only because of the mentioned factor of 2 in the definition of $`\delta `$, but also because the present value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ Hagiwara:pw  is smaller than the one used in 1995 in the CHARM II analysis.

From the data published by the CCFR collaboration McFarland:1997wx  one can deduce

$$5.3\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )6.8\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(31)
The four limits discussed above are represented in fig. 3, that makes apparent the level of precision of the NuTeV result. By combining the upper limit from CCFR (31) and the lower limit from CHARM II (30) we finally obtain:

$$5.2\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2r_{V+A}^2(\nu _\mu )6.8\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(32)
It is well known that the NuTeV result shows a sizable deviation from the SM predictions Zeller:2001hh , and as a consequence it also appears to be inconsistent (at the 90 % c.l.) with $`\delta =0`$. In fact, strictly speaking their result $`r_V^2(\nu _\mu )+r_A^2(\nu _\mu )=(4.20\pm 1.64)\times 10^{33}`$ cm2 (1 $`\sigma `$ error) could be interpreted as a measurement of $`r_V^2(\nu _\mu )+r_A^2(\nu _\mu )`$, that becomes consistent with zero only at approximately $`2.5`$ standard deviations. However, while the quoted value is not in conflict with other experimental limits, we believe that it would be not easy to construct a model that could generate a neutrino charge radius of the required size, without conflicting with other high precision electroweak measurements.

It is a pleasure to thank the Organizing Committee of the X Mexican School of Particles and Fields for their kind invitation, for the excellent organization and for the very pleasant atmosphere during the conference. This work was supported in part by COLCIENCIAS in Colombia and by CSIC in Spain through a joint program for international scientific cooperation.