text:
# The Instantonic Approach With Non-Equivalent Vacua *footnote **footnote *Presented at the Seventh International Wigner Symposium. August 2001. College Park, MD, USA.

## I Introduction.

The tunneling through classically forbidden regions represents one of the most striking phenomenon in quantum theory and therefore plays a central role in many areas of modern physics. On the other hand, together with the operator formalism of quantum mechanics we have an equivalent description by means of path-integrals. In such a case the Schrodinger’s equation is substituted by a global approach where the quantum mechanical time evolution is analysed in terms of a functional integration. Qualitatively speaking, the path-integral representation corresponds to a sum over all histories allowed to the physical system we are dealing with. To be precise, we need to take into account an imaginary exponential of the classical action associated with every path which fulfill the appropiate initial and end points conditions. Of course, the quantum amplitude so built is difficult to handle due to the oscillating character of the exponential at issue. To avoid problems of this sort we carry out the change $`ti\tau `$ (known in the literature as the Wick rotation). In doing so, we can take advantage of the euclidean version of the path-integral which represents by itself a new tool for describing relevant aspects of the quantum theory.

Almost from the very beginning of the subject a semiclassical treatment of the tunneling phenomena (ranging from periodic-potentials in quantum mechanics to Yang-Mills models in field theories) has been performed by means of the so-called instantons . Going to more physical terms, the instantons represent localised finite-action solutions of the euclidean equation of motion. To be specific, the euclidean equation is the same as the usual one for our particle in real time except that the potential is turned upside down. Although more massive than the perturbative excitations, the instantons themselves become stable since an infinite barrier separates them from the ordinary sector of the model. The stability is reinforced by the existence of a topological conserved charge which does not arise by Noether’s theorem in terms of a well-behaved symmetry, but characterizes the global behaviour of the system when the imaginary time is large enough. Accordingly, it comes by no surprise that these classical solutions have been considered in the literature under the name of topological configurations. Once the appropiate classical solution is well-known, we make an expansion around the topological background to evaluate the quadratic fluctuations which arise in terms of the functional determinant of a second order differential operator. The integration is solved within the gaussian scheme except for the zero-modes which appear due to the invariances of the model. To deal with these excitations we introduce collective coordinates so that ultimately the gaussian integration is carried out only along the directions orthogonal to the zero-modes. As a functional determinant includes an infinite product of eigenvalues, the result should be in principle a highly divergent expression. Fortunately we can regularize the fluctuation factors by means of the ratio of determinants.

To start from scratch let us describe the instanton calculus for the one-dimensional particle as can be found in . The reader finds there a comprehensive description of this subject. To be specific we assume that our particle moves under the action of a confining potential $`V(x)`$ which yields a pure discrete spectrum of energy eigenvalues. If the particle is located at the initial time $`t_i=T/2`$ at the point $`x_i`$ while one finds it when $`t_f=T/2`$ at the point $`x_f`$, the functional version of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics allows us to express the transition amplitude in terms of a sum over all paths joining the world points with coordinates $`(T/2,x_i)`$ and $`(T/2,x_f)`$. Making the change $`ti\tau `$, known in the literature as the Wick rotation, the euclidean formulation of the path-integral reads

$$<x_f|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i>=N(T)[dx]\mathrm{exp}\{S_e[x(\tau )]\}$$
(1)
where $`H`$ represents the hamiltonian of the model, the factor $`N(T)`$ serves to normalize the amplitude while the symbol $`[dx]`$ indicates the integration over all functions which fulfil the boundary conditions at issue. Now we resort to the euclidean action $`S_e`$, i.e.

$$S_e=_{T/2}^{T/2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^2+V(x)\right]𝑑\tau $$
(2)
whenever the mass of the particle is set equal to unity for notational simplicity. In this approximation we take for granted the existence of a $`x_c(\tau )`$ configuration which represents a stationary point of the euclidean action. Next we perform the expansion of a generic $`x(\tau )`$ according to

$$x(\tau )=x_c(\tau )+\underset{j}{}c_jx_j(\tau )$$
(3)
where as usual $`x_j(\tau )`$ stand for a complete set of orthonormal functions

$$_{T/2}^{T/2}x_j(\tau )x_k(\tau )𝑑\tau =\delta _{jk}$$
(4)
vanishing at our boundary, i.e. $`x_j(\pm T/2)=0`$. The eigenfunctions $`x_j(\tau )`$ (with eigenvalues $`ϵ_j`$) appear associated with the so-called stability equation given by

$$\frac{d^2x_j(\tau )}{d\tau ^2}+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]x_j(\tau )=ϵ_jx_j(\tau )$$
(5)
To sum up, the euclidean transition amplitude reduces itself to

$$<x_f|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i>=N(T)\mathrm{exp}(S_{eo})\underset{j}{}ϵ_j^{1/2}$$
(6)
where $`S_{eo}`$ represents the classical action associated with the configuration $`x_c(\tau )`$ while the product of eigenvalues is usually written as

$$\underset{j}{}ϵ_j^{1/2}=\left\{Det\left[\frac{d^2}{d\tau ^2}+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]\right\}^{1/2}$$
(7)
according to the conventional notation of the finite-dimensional case. To fix the factor $`N(T)`$ we resort to a well-known problem where

$$V(x)=\frac{\nu ^2}{2}x^2$$
(8)
so that $`V^{\prime \prime }(x=0)=\nu ^2`$. As corresponds to the harmonic oscillator the relevant amplitude is given by

$$<x_f=0|\mathrm{exp}(H_{ho}T)|x_i=0>=N(T)\left\{Det\left[\frac{d^2}{d\tau ^2}+\nu ^2\right]\right\}^{1/2}$$
(9)
Next the evaluation of (9) is possible according to the general method exposed in . In other words

$$<x_f=0|\mathrm{exp}(H_{ho}T)|x_i=0>=\left(\frac{\nu }{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}\nu T\right)^{1/2}$$
(10)
## II The sextic-model.

As anticipated in the introduction the tunneling phenomenon appears as first in the study of systems which have two or more degenerate classical minima separated by potential energy barriers. The standard example would be the point-particle in a double-well potential where, because of tunneling precisely, the two first eigenstates are the spatially even and odd combinations of harmonic oscillators centered at the bottom of the respective wells. In more physical terms, the degeneracy of the energy eigenvalues is broken so that the splitting term results proportional to the barrier-penetration factor. The euclidean configuration which leads the process is of course the instanton whose stability properties are decided by the behaviour of the small fluctuations in its neighborhood. As a matter of fact the stability is assured by a clever combination of translational invariance and conserved topological charges. In the following we consider the triple-well potential $`V(x)`$ given by

$$V(x)=\frac{\omega ^2}{8}x^2(x^21)^2$$
(11)
From a classical point of view we find three minima located at $`x_{}=1`$, $`x_+=1`$ and $`x_o=0`$. Two of them, namely $`x_{}`$ and $`x_+`$, are equivalent since can be connected by means of the discrete symmetry $`xx`$ at issue. However the third minimum $`x_o`$ is invariant under the action of such a symmetry. In other words, the central vacuum is not identical with the others located at both sides. When considering the limit $`\omega ^21`$ the energy barriers are high enough to decompose the system into a sum of independent harmonic oscillators. However the existence of finite barriers between the different wells of the potential yields a relevant tunneling phenomenon so that ultimately the symmetry $`xx`$ is not spontaneously broken at quantum level and the expectation value of the coordinate $`x`$ computed for the ground-state is zero as corresponds to the even character of the potential $`V(x)`$.

### A The one-instanton contribution.

The question we wish to address at this point should be the explicit description of the tunneling in the euclidean version of the path-integral. As regards the one-instanton amplitude we take into account the transition amplitude between $`x_o=0`$ and $`x_+=1`$. For such a purpose we need a classical configuration with $`x_i=0`$ at $`t_i=T/2`$ while $`x_f=1`$ when $`t_f=T/2`$. It is customarily assumed that $`T\mathrm{}`$ mainly because the explicit solution of the problem is much more complicated for finite $`T`$.

First of all we can find the explicit form of the instanton $`x_c(\tau )`$ just by integration of a first-order differential equation, i.e.

$$\frac{dx_c}{d\tau }=\pm \sqrt{2V(x_c)}$$
(12)
where we recognize the quantum mechanical version of the Bogomol’nyi condition . Now we solve (12) by a simple quadrature so that

$$x_c(\tau )=\sqrt{[1+\mathrm{tanh}\omega (\tau \tau _c)]/2}$$
(13)
where as usual the parameter $`\tau _c`$ indicates the point at which the instanton makes the jump. As expected equivalent solutions are obtained by means of the transformation $`\tau \tau `$ and $`x_c(\tau )x_c(\tau )`$ so that adjoint minima of the potential can be connected by means of a topological solution in a systematic way. In addition we have that $`S_{eo}=\omega /4`$. On the other hand we need classical configurations for which $`x_{}=0`$ and $`x_+=1`$ at large but finite values $`\tau =\pm T/2`$. However the explicit form of the instantons that appear in the literature corresponds to infinite euclidean time. Fortunately the difference is so small that can be ignored mainly because we are interested in the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$. Our description of the one-instanton amplitude between $`x_{}=0`$ and $`x_+=1`$ takes over

$`<x_f=1|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i=0>=N(T)\left\{Det\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\tau ^2}}+\nu ^2\right]\right\}^{1/2}`$
$$\left\{\frac{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]}{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+\nu ^2\right]}\right\}^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(S_{eo})$$
(14)
where we have multiplied and divided by the determinant associated with the harmonic oscillator of frequency $`\nu `$. As regards the determinant built over the instanton itself we find a zero-mode $`x_o(\tau )`$ which could jeopardize the computation procedure as a whole. However this eigenvalue $`ϵ_o=0`$ comes by no surprise since it reflects the translational invariance of the system. We can discover the existence of this zero-mode starting from (13). Including the adequate normalization one can check that

$$x_o(\tau )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{S_{eo}}}\frac{dx_c}{d\tau }$$
(15)
is just the solution of (5) with $`ϵ_o=0`$. The way out of this apparent cul-de-sac is simple. The integration over $`c_o`$ (see (3)) becomes equivalent to the integration over the center of the instanton $`\tau _c`$. To fix the jacobian of the transformation at issue we consider a first change like

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x(\tau )=x_o(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }c_o$$
(16)
Going back to the general expression written in (3) we find that under a shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c`$ the global effect corresponds to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x(\tau )=\sqrt{S_{eo}}x_o(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c$$
(17)
Finally the identification between (16) and (17) yields

$$dc_o=\sqrt{S_{eo}}d\tau _c$$
(18)
where the minus sign disappears since what matters is the modulus of the jacobian at issue. To sum up we have that

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]}{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+\nu ^2\right]}}\right\}^{1/2}=`$
$$\left\{\frac{Det^{}\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]}{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+\nu ^2\right]}\right\}^{1/2}\sqrt{\frac{S_{eo}}{2\pi }}d\tau _c$$
(19)
where $`Det^{}`$ stands for the well known reduced determinant once the zero-mode has been removed. To make an explicit computation of the quotient of determinants we resort to the Gelfand-Yaglom method where only the knowledge of the large-$`\tau `$ behaviour of the classical solution $`x_c(\tau )`$ is necessary . If $`\widehat{O}`$ and $`\widehat{P}`$ represent a couple of second order differential operators, whose eigenfunctions vanish at the boundary, the quotient of determinants is given in terms of the respective zero-energy solutions $`f_o(\tau )`$ and $`g_o(\tau )`$ according to

$$\frac{Det\widehat{O}}{Det\widehat{P}}=\frac{f_o(T/2)}{g_o(T/2)}$$
(20)
whenever the eigenfunctions at issue satisfy the initial conditions

$$f_o(T/2)=g_o(T/2)=0,\frac{df_o}{d\tau }(T/2)=\frac{dg_o}{d\tau }(T/2)=1$$
(21)
For the zero-mode $`g_o(\tau )`$ associated with the generic harmonic oscillator of frequency $`\nu `$ we have

$$g_o(\tau )=\frac{1}{\nu }\mathrm{sinh}[\nu (\tau +T/2)]$$
(22)
so that now we need the explicit form of the solution $`f_o(\tau )`$ which corresponds to the topological configuration written in (13). Starting from the $`x_o(\tau )`$ zero-mode we write a second solution $`y_o(\tau )`$ given by

$$y_o(\tau )=x_o(\tau )_0^\tau \frac{ds}{x_o^2(s)}$$
(23)
In doing so we may summarize the asymptotic behaviour of $`x_o(\tau )`$ and $`y_o(\tau )`$ as follows

$$x_o(\tau )\{\begin{array}{c}C\mathrm{exp}(2\omega \tau )if\tau \mathrm{}\\ D\mathrm{exp}(\omega \tau )if\tau \mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(24)
$$y_o(\tau )\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(2\omega \tau )/4\omega Cif\tau \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{exp}(\omega \tau )/2\omega Dif\tau \mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(25)
where the constants $`C`$ and $`D`$ derive from the explicit form of the derivative of (13). Starting now from the linear combination of $`x_o(\tau )`$ and $`y_o(\tau )`$ given by

$$f_o(\tau )=Ax_o(\tau )+By_o(\tau )$$
(26)
the employ of the initial conditions leads us to

$$f_o(\tau )=x_o(T/2)y_o(\tau )y_o(T/2)x_o(\tau )$$
(27)
From this expression we can extract the asymptotic behaviour of $`f_o(\tau )`$, i.e.

$$f_o(T/2)\frac{D}{4\omega C}exp(\omega T/2)ifT\mathrm{}$$
(28)
Now we need to take into account the lowest eigenvalue of the stability equation to obtain the value of the ratio of determinants. We can explain the situation as follows: the derivative of the topological solution does not quite satisfy the boundary conditions for the interval $`(T/2,T/2)`$. When enforcing such a behaviour, the eigenstate is compressed and the energy shifted slightly upwards. In such a case the zero-mode $`x_o(\tau )`$ is substituted for the $`f_\lambda (\tau )`$ which stands for

$$\frac{d^2f_\lambda (\tau )}{d\tau ^2}+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]f_\lambda (\tau )=\lambda f_\lambda (\tau )$$
(29)
whenever

$$f_\lambda (T/2)=f_\lambda (T/2)=0$$
(30)
Resorting now to the lowest order in perturbation theory we get

$$f_\lambda (\tau )f_o(\tau )+\lambda \frac{df_\lambda }{d\lambda }|_{\lambda =0}$$
(31)
so that

$$f_\lambda (\tau )=f_o(\tau )+\lambda _{T/2}^\tau [x_o(\tau )y_o(s)y_o(\tau )x_o(s)]f_o(s)𝑑s$$
(32)
The asymptotic behaviour of $`f^o(\tau )`$, $`x_o(\tau )`$ and $`y_o(\tau )`$, together with the condition $`f_\lambda (T/2)=0`$ allows us to find this lowest eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, i.e.

$$\lambda =2\omega D^2\mathrm{exp}(\omega T)$$
(33)
The Gelfand-Yaglom method provides us with the final expression of the quotient of determinants whenever we choose for the frequency $`\nu `$ of the harmonic oscillator of reference the average of the frequencies of the central and lateral wells. In other words $`\nu =3\omega /2`$. We can compare this situation with the well-grounded double-well model where the two minima of the potential are equivalent so that the aforementioned average is out of order. With this information we can write the one-instanton amplitude between the points $`x_i=0`$ and $`x_f=1`$, i.e.

$`<x_f=1|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i=0>=`$
$$\left(\frac{3\omega }{2\pi }\right)^{1/2}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}3\omega T/2\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{S_{eo}}\sqrt{\frac{4}{3\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(S_{eo})\omega d\tau _c$$
(34)
As expected we get a transition amplitude just depending on the point $`\tau _c`$ at which the instanton makes precisely the jump. Next we should take into account the configurations constructed out of instantons and antiinstantons which mimic the behaviour of a trajectory strictly derived from the euclidean equation of motion. In doing so we get an additional bonus since the integration over the centers of the string of instantons and antiinstantons is carried out in a systematic way. But this point is the subject of the next subsection.

### B The dilute-gas approximation.

Since the above calculations were carried out over a single instanton, it remains to identify the contributions associated with a string of widely separated instantons and anti-instantons along the $`\tau `$ axis. It is customarily assumed that these combinations of topological solutions represent no strong deviations of the trajectories just derived from the euclidean equation of motion without any kind of approximation. We evaluate the functional integral by summing over all such configurations, with $`k`$ instantons and anti-instantons centered at points $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _k`$ whenever

$$\frac{T}{2}<\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _k<\frac{T}{2}$$
(35)
If the regions where the instantons (anti-instantons) make the jump are narrow enough, the action of the proposed path is almost extremal. In this approach the total action is given by the sum of the $`k`$ individual actions. This scheme is well-known in the literature where it appears with the name of dilute-gas approximation . The translational degrees of freedom of the separated $`k`$ topological configurations yield an integral of the form

$$_{T/2}^{T/2}\omega 𝑑\tau _k_{T/2}^{\tau _k}\omega 𝑑\tau _{k1}\mathrm{}_{T/2}^{\tau _2}\omega 𝑑\tau _1=\frac{(\omega T)^k}{k!}$$
(36)
As regards the quadratic fluctuations we have now that the single ratio of determinants transforms into

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\omega }{2\pi }}\right)^{1/2}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}3\omega T/2\right)^{1/2}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{Det^{}\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]}{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+9\omega ^2/4\right]}}\right\}^{1/2}`$
$$\left(\frac{3\omega }{2\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(3\omega T/4)\left[\left\{\frac{Det^{}\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+V^{\prime \prime }[x_c(\tau )]\right]}{Det\left[(d^2/d\tau ^2)+9\omega ^2/4\right]}\right\}^{1/2}\right]^k$$
(37)
according to the limit of the factor associated with the harmonic oscillator when $`T`$ is large. When going to the dilute-gas approximation one considers a set of instantons and anti-instantons so that each topological configuration starts where its predecessor ends. For our amplitude the total number $`k`$ of instantons plus anti-instantons must be odd. The combinatorial factor $`F`$ associated with the number of possible configurations corresponds to $`F=2^{(k1)/2}`$ because the closed paths starting and coming back to the point $`x_o=0`$ require in a systematic way instanton-anti-instanton pairs. We remind the difference with the double-well potential where the instantons strictly alternate with the anti-instantons since the problem has only two minima and the combinatorial factor is not necessary. Now we can express the complete transition amplitudes for the triple-well potential so that

$$<x_f=1|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i=0>=\left(\frac{3\omega }{4\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(3\omega T/4)\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\omega Td)^{2j+1}}{(2j+1)!}$$
(38)
where as usual $`d`$ stands for the instanton density, i.e.

$$d=\sqrt{\frac{8}{3\pi }}\sqrt{S_{eo}}\mathrm{exp}(S_{eo})$$
(39)
To sum up

$$<x_f=1|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i=0>=\left(\frac{3\omega }{4\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(3\omega T/4)\mathrm{sinh}(\omega Td)$$
(40)
If we return to the euclidean transition amplitude written in (1), the insertion of the pure discrete spectrum of energy eigenfunctions, namely

$$H|n>=E_n|n>$$
(41)
allows us to write that

$$<x_f=1|\mathrm{exp}(HT)|x_i=0>=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{exp}(E_nT)<x_f=1|n><n|x_i=0>$$
(42)
Next we denote by $`E_o`$, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ the energies of the ground-state and the two first excited levels of our problem. As the triple-well potential we are dealing with is even we know that $`<1|x_i=0>`$ vanishes so that the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$ in (40) provides us with the following energy eigenvalues

$$E_o=\frac{3\omega }{4}\omega d,E_1=\frac{3\omega }{4},E_2=\frac{3\omega }{4}+\omega d$$
(43)
The tunneling transfers along the whole real axis the gaussian wave functions constructed over the points $`x_{}=1`$, $`x_+=1`$ and $`x_o=0`$ so that the splitting term results proportional to the barrier-penetration factor. In addition the average of the harmonic frequencies over the non-equivalent minima of the potential serves as the central position for the splitting.


format: text

text:
# Production Mechanism for Quark Gluon Plasma in Heavy Ion Collisions

## Abstract

A general scheme is proposed here to describe the production of semi hard and soft quarks and gluons that form the bulk of the plasma in ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions. We show how to obtain the production rates in the extended phase space - including the colour part - as a function of time in a consistent manner, and without having to make ad-hoc assumptions. All the required features - the back reaction on QCD vacuum, the non-Markovian nature of the production, and the quasi particle nature of the partons are naturally incorporated. We illustrate the results with a realistic albeit toy model and also show how physically tenable source terms may be obtained.

PACS: 12.38.Mh, 25.75.-q,24.85.+p

There is a general consensus that the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) phase of the Hadronic matter has already been produced in ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions (URHIC) at CERN. Future measurements at RHIC  and LHC  are expected to provide more information on QGP. Be it as may, it is still premature to claim that we have a full grasp of the space-time history of QGP. Indeed, a considerable effort has gone in addressing the issue of evolution of QGP; starting with the pioneering work of Bjorken  which was itself based on a highly prescient work of Landau , a number of results have been reported . All these approaches are based on the idea that the bulk of the plasma forms a classical gas, and evolves via an appropriate transport equation. Robust that this approach is , it has to be admitted that our understanding of the production process is not satisfactory. Recall that the transport equations (set up by incorporating The Yang-Mills (YM) dynamics) require source terms that need to be specified in the extended phase space (including the compact part corresponding to the colour degree) as a function of time; their derivation consequently requires care: the basic uncertainty principle should not be violated, and the multiple overlapping time scales that pervade the phenomenon should not be ignored. They should correctly reflect the dynamical nature of the vacuum , the non-Markovian nature of the production rates , and the quasi-particle nature of the excitations . It is needless to say that a source term lacking in one or more of the above of the requirements would predict incorrect and unreliable features for the plasma.

Lattice computations  suggest that even at twice the transition temperature $`T_C`$, the quarks and gluons do not behave as ideal gases. We thus need effective field approaches based on non-perturbative QCD. The transport equation approach mentioned above provides a means of introducing collective degrees of freedom appropriate for describing the non-perturbative dynamics, via the notion of a background chromoelectric field (CEF) which acts as a source for the production of the bulk of QGP. The acceleration of the partons in this field takes into account the long range interactions amongst them. The short range part of the interaction can then be suitably modelled by an appropriate collision term. That these aspects cannot be captured by the pQCD description  has been emphasized recently . We thus pay attention to the source terms obtained from the CEF degrees of freedom.

The pioneering work in Ref.  introduces the non-Markovian nature into the production process, by employing the Schwinger mechanism  for particle production. This mechanism is valid only for static electric field configurations. Production of particles from a space time dependent field would be described perturbatively by the Schwinger Dyson expansion ; it is well known from transport studies  that the CEF in URHIC is necessarily and strongly space-time dependent by virtue of energy momentum conservations. See  for a graphic comparison of the relative contributions of the Born and the Schwinger terms. A remedy would be to correctly invoke an appropriate perturbative mechanism  (over the nonperturbative vacuum with CEF), but unfortunately this study ignores the non-Markovian aspect and also makes unjustified assumptions in order to extract the time dependence of the source term. Both the above attempts completely ignore the essential dynamical nature of the colour charge, which is central to the non-abelian plasma that we are interested in. There has been some attempt  to enlarge the phase space to include the colour part; this attempt again involves the Schwinger mechanism apart from a lack of rigour in the derivation of the colour dependence. Finally, none of the above (and other) approaches acknowledges the quasi particle nature of the excitations. In short, the source terms obtained so far have utmost limited utility, and a simple framework containing all the required features is still lacking.

In this paper, we outline a general scheme for deriving such a source term, based on simple but general considerations. (i) The non-perturbative aspects of the mechanism are modelled after the colour flux tube model  which is known to provide a natural setting for discussing quark confinement. (ii) The rate is extracted not from an S-matrix computation, but by studying the time dependent evolution of the state in the Fock space. As a natural byproduct, the quasi particle and the non-Markovian nature emerge automatically.

We now describe the flux tube model in brief. Soon after the two nuclei collide, and start receding from each other, colour strings are formed between them. These strings merge to form the so called colour rope, a picturesque way of stating that a CEF is produced between the nuclei. The consequent production process tantamounts to the instability of the QCD vacuum in the presence of a classical CEF which is, in general, space time dependent. Of course, the dependence itself is to be obtained self consistently from a transport equation ; here we merely content ourselves by indicating how to infer the source term given an explicit history of CEF. We study both the $`q\overline{q}`$ and the gluon productions in the presence of a classical YM field below. We discuss The gluon case mainly since its production process is quintessentially non-abelian with no counterpart in QED.

Formalism: Consider the gluon case first. The gauge potentials $`A_\mu ^a`$ are expanded as a sum of the classical values $`C_\mu ^a`$ and their fluctuations $`\varphi _\mu ^a:<A_\mu ^a>=C_\mu ^a`$. Expanding the YM Lagrangian, the terms that are responsible for the gluon production are identified to be

$`L_{2g}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}[(_\mu C_\nu ^a_\nu C_\mu ^a)\varphi ^{\mu b}\varphi ^{\nu c}`$ (2)
$`+(_\mu \varphi _\nu ^a_\nu \varphi _\mu ^a)(C^{\mu b}\varphi ^{\nu c}+\varphi ^{\mu b}C^{\nu c})]+𝒪(g^2)`$
where we have kept terms quadratic in the fluctuations. The production rate is to be determined from the above Lagrangian, by a suitable choice of the background field $`C_\mu ^a`$.

Unlike in the Maxwell case, the YM configuration is not completely specified by the field tensor . It is well known  that the consequent vacuum polarization also differs for each of the above (physically distinct) configurations. It is thus pertinent to examine which are the configurations that would make the vacuum unstable against particle production. We have checked that a la the results for constant CEF  only the ‘abelian configuration’ of the CEF leads to the quark and gluon productions - atleast in the leading order. Keeping in mind the model and invoking (local) gauge covariance of CEF, we take the form of the gauge potential to be $`C_\mu ^a=\delta _{\mu ,0}_iC_i(t,\stackrel{}{r})\delta _{a,i}`$ where the summation is restricted to the diagonal generators of the gauge group. For all such configurations, the magnetic field vanishes. Denote as usual the initial vacuum state, at $`t=0`$, by $`|0>`$. Let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>(t)U(t,0)|0>`$ be the state at any later time $`t`$: $`U(t,0)`$ is the evolution operator determined by the standard Schwinger-Dyson expansion that is obtained from Eqn.1. Adapting the analysis in , the amplitude for the gluon production as a function of time is obtained by projecting $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>(t)`$ to the two gluon state $`|gg>|\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2;s_1,s_2;c_1,c_2>`$ labelled by momentum, spin and colour quantum numbers respectively. In the leading order which we consider for simplicity, the amplitude is given by

$`<gg|T(t)|0>={\displaystyle \frac{ig}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(E_2E_1)}{2\sqrt{E_1E_2}}}\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{s_1}(\stackrel{}{p}_1)\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{s_2}(\stackrel{}{p}_2)f^{ac_1c_2}`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}^{0,a}(E_1+E_2;\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2;t)`$ (4)
where $`T(t)U(t,0)1`$. Further,

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_0^a=_0^t𝑑t_1e^{i(E_1+E_2)t_1}d^3\stackrel{}{r}exp(i(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2)\stackrel{}{r})C^{0,a}(t_1,\stackrel{}{r})$$

is the incomplete Fourier transform of the gauge field and $`E_i`$ are the energies carried by the gluons. The lower limit of integration emphasizes that the CEF gets created at $`t=0`$ . The corresponding expression for the $`q\overline{q}`$ production is given by

$`<q\overline{q}|T(t)|0>={\displaystyle \frac{g}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{E_1E_2}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_0^aT_{c_1,c_2}^au_{s_1}^{}(p_1)v_{s_2}(\stackrel{}{p}_2),`$ (5)
with $`|q\overline{q}>|\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2;s_1,s_2;c_1,c_2>`$. $`T^a`$ are the generators of the gauge group in the fundamental representation, while $`u,v`$ are the usual Dirac spinors. For $`t`$ finite, the gluons and the quarks that are in the final state have non-overlapping projection with the unphysical degrees of freedom. We distinguish the physical pairs by projecting the states further onto the physical subspace, by imposing the on the mass shell and the transversality restrictions as subsidiary conditions (analogous to the separation of the transverse part of the electromagnetic field from the longitudinal part in the study of radiation by charged particles).

The probability that a pair is produced any time during the interval $`(0,t)`$ is given by $`|<\varphi |T(t)|0>|^2`$, $`\varphi `$ standing for either $`gg`$ or $`q\overline{q}`$. The production rate at any time $`t`$ is thus given by its derivative at that instant; clearly, the rate takes both positive and negative values, from which one concludes that the particles acquire a (time dependent) finite life time. Equivalently, vacuum has a dynamical role - both as a source and a sink. Further, the rate at any time depends not merely on the field configuration at that instant - it has a highly non-Markovian character, being determined by the entire history. In short, quantum interference effects dominate the production mechanism, and this cannot be accessed by the approaches based on Schwinger mechanism and pQCD.

A model example: We now illustrate the main results with an example drawn from its behaviour expected in real situations . Taking the gauge group to be $`SU(3)`$, let the CEF have the form $`_i^a=\delta _{i,z}_0(\delta _{a,3}+\delta _{a,8})exp\{(|z|t)/t_0\}\theta (t)\theta (t^2z^2)`$ with the initial field strength given by $`_0`$. This choice captures most of the features expected of a boost invariant description , although it is by itself not a boost invariant configuration. Notice that the field is characterised by a single time scale $`t_0`$, in the units of which all the observables will be expressed. Indeed, $`t_0`$ gives the decay time of the field or equivalently, the overall ‘production time’ of the partons, while $`g`$ is related to the string tension. The initial energy density $`𝒰`$, $`t_0`$ and $`g`$ are not entirely independent of each other: $`g𝒰t_0^41`$. We shall discuss the gluonic case in detail. Consider the spin summed rate in the momentum space (see below for the colour part description). We display the two particle rates because eventually they are the ones needed to study signals involving correlations such as dilepton production. Since the rate is defined in a six dimensional space, two dimensional sections will be plotted as filled contour diagrams after scaling them with respect to appropriate powers of $`t_0`$, $`E_0^2`$ and $`g^2`$. As an example, we fix the total centre of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=0.6`$ and the transverse momentum $`p_T=0.1`$. The rates are then exhibited as contour plots in the plane defined by time and the longitudinal momentum $`p_{L1}`$ of one of the particles. The longitudinal momentum $`p_{L2}`$ of the other particle then has two solutions, one with the same sign as $`p_{L1}`$, and the other having the opposite sign. We designate the two channels by (+,+) and (+,-) respectively, and show in figs. 1-4 the rates in both the channels. Observe the following features: The rate is a highly fluctuating function of all the variables involved, changing signs rapidly, both with the momenta as well as time, as shown in Figs 1-4. The rate oscillates over a much larger range for smaller values of $`p_T`$ at a given $`\sqrt{s}`$. For example, it oscillates roughly between $`(500,500)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=0.6,p_T=0.1`$ (Figs. 1, 2). In contrast, the range is restricted to $`(100,100)`$ when $`p_T`$ is increased to $`0.2`$ (Figs. 3, 4). Notice also that for a given $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`p_T`$, the fluctuations are more dominant for very small and very large values of longitudinal momenta. We have checked that the rate and its fluctuations are larger at small values of $`\sqrt{s}`$, dropping rapidly as $`\sqrt{s}`$ is increased. Though not shown here, the number of oscillations are also seen to increase as we increase $`\sqrt{s}`$. It may also be seen from the figures that the (+,+) channel is relatively placid in comparison with the (+,-) channel. However, the activity at intermediate values of longitudinal momenta is more pronounced in the (+,-) channel for a given value of $`\sqrt{s},p_T`$. In short, these figures exhibit in a vivid manner the production and the the absorption of the pairs, and the correlation between them, in the momentum space. The correlations are of vital importance in getting the screening lengths as well as in studying the hadronization. Coming to the quark production, suffice it to mention that they are equally rich in features differing only in the topology of the distributions. We do not show them here.

The analysis is incomplete in that the rates are still not described in the phase space. This has been a vexed issue, with solutions attempted by imposing additional conditions rather arbitrarily . We resolve this issue by projecting the amplitudes to a basis of coherent states in the extended phase space, a method that allows as accurate a classical description as possible for these quantum processes. As an illustration, consider the colour part which is unique and central to the plasma under discussion. The structure of Eqns.(2,3) guarantees that it is independent of momentum and spatial variables. Let the gauge group be $`SU(2)`$ for simplicity (it has a simple topology). Denoting the two gluon colour state in the coherent basis by $`|\widehat{n}_1,\widehat{n}_2>`$ , the colour part of the source term may be written as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^g(\widehat{n}_1,\widehat{n}_2)|\widehat{n}_1\times \widehat{n}_2|^2`$ This expression has been obtained by averaging over the direction of the CEF in the group space. Contrast $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^g`$ with its counterpart for $`q\overline{q}`$ production which has the structure $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^q(\widehat{n}_1,\widehat{n}_2)\frac{1}{2}(1\widehat{n}_1\widehat{n}_2)`$. While the gluons are predominantly produced in directions normal to each other in the colour space, the quark pair prefers to be produced in antiparallel directions, a feature that holds for $`SU(3)`$ as well, although in a more involved fashion due to its more complicated topology. Coupled with the fact that the colour charges are indeed vectors in the group space and that they are dynamical variables obeying the Wong equation , we conclude that the dyanmics of QGP would differ significantly in the bosonic and fermionic sectors in a manner that cannot be captured by simply multiplying the Maxwell results by the number of degrees of freedom. Finally, we have performed a preliminary computation and found that the phase space dependences of quarks and gluons in position and momenta bear no resemblence to each other; Those details will be presented in a separate communication.


text:
# Lepton flavor violation two-body decays of quarkoniums

## 1 Introduction

At present, Standard model (SM) not only has theoretical shortcoming but also must face to the experimental difficulties. The recent measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment by the experiment E821  disagrees with the SM expectations And there are also convincing evidences that neutrinos are massive and oscillate in flavor. It seems to indicate the presence of new physics just round the corner will be in the leptonic part. As probing new physics, lepton flavor violation (LFV) processes have as natural consequence an increased interest experimentally and theoretically. Several experiments that may considerably improve on lepton flavor violating processes, such as the two-body LFV of bosons, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ LFV decays, are under consideration. For example, the TESLA Linear Collider project will work at the $`Z`$ resonance, reaching a $`Z`$ production rate of $`10^9`$ per year . A number of theoretical studies are devoted to these LFV decays to investigate the new physics effects . For $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ meson, BES  has accumulated about $`10^7`$ \- $`10^8`$ $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ events which can be available to probe lepton flavor violation of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ . In this note, we study the LFV processed of the heavy vector bosons, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with some models beyond SM.

The LFV decays of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, such as $`J/\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e,\tau l`$, are absent in SM at tree level because of the strong GIM suppression. They are strongly suppressed by powers of small neutrino masses and have very small branching ratios. Experimentally, there are no clear bounds of these decays. Then, such decays give therefore existence room of new physics. Ref.  discuss these flavor decays by using the simple ”unitarity inspired” relations and get rather strong model-independent constraints on these two-body LFV processes

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $``$ $`4\times 10^{13}`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\tau \overline{l})`$ $``$ $`6\times 10^7`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $``$ $`2\times 10^9`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\tau \overline{l})`$ $``$ $`10^2`$ (4)
From the above constraints, we can see perhaps BES could observe some of these processes.

In fact, in many models beyond SM, there exist many bosons (scalars or vectors), such as leptoquarks in GUTs, sleptons in SUSY and $`Z^{}`$ in technicolor models, which can induce the LFV decays at tree level and contribute large branching ratios. In many GUTs, the existence of leptoquarks is predicted, which has been actively searched in many collider experiments . These new particles, which carry both the lepton and quark numbers, can couple to a current comprising of a lepton and a quark . Thus, they can lead to the vertices $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e`$, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau `$, and so on. Recently, Refs.  investigate the muon anomalous magnetic moment with the leptoquarks and get the restricting parameter space. Leptoquarks can induce the quarknioums decay to $`ll^{}`$ through $`t`$-channel.

The similar situation is in SUSY models without lepton number conservation and R-parity which the squarks play the same role as leptoquarks in GUTs. Although the present experiment constraint those couplings in various ways, the R-parity violating coupling may give large contribution to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e`$, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau `$, and so on.

In topcolor assisted technicolor (TC2) models, when the non-universal interactions, topcolor interactions are written in the mass eigenstates, it may lead to the flavor changing coupling vertices of the new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$, such as $`Z^{}\mu e`$, $`Z^{}\mu \tau `$. Thus, the $`Z^{}`$ has significant contributions to the lepton flavor changing process, like $`\mu 3e`$, and may have severe bound on the mass $`M_Z^{}`$ . $`Z^{}`$ can also, but different from leptoquarks and sleptons, induce the decays of quarknioums to $`ll^{}`$ through $`s`$-channel.

We investigate the bounds of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}ll^{}`$ with model-independent analysis in sec. 2. Then, in sec.3, we study these bounds with model-dependent analysis in three models, leptoquarks, SUSY and technicolor, respectively. We give our conclusion in the last section.

## 2 Bounds of $`V_ill^{}`$ with model independent analysis

Considering that a vector boson $`V_i`$, such as $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, couples to $`\overline{l}l^{}`$, the effective coupling between the vector boson $`V_i`$ and $`\overline{l}l^{}`$ as

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}=g_{Vll^{}}^{}\overline{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha l^{}V^\alpha +h.c.`$ (5)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =(\gamma _\alpha A_1^L+i\sigma _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\beta }{M}}A_2^L+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\beta }{M}}A_3^L)P_L+(LR),`$ (6)
where mass scale $`M`$ is introduced to make the form factors $`A_{2,3}^{L,R}`$ dimensionless. For on-shell vector mesons, the $`A_3^{L,R}`$ form factors do not contribute. With this langragian, we can calculate the decay $`\tau ll^{}\overline{l}^{}`$ (see Fig. 1). In the limit $`m_e0`$, we can obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ll^{}\overline{l}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{V\tau l}{}^{2}g_{Vl^{}l^{}}^2m_\tau ^5Q^2\alpha ^2}{192\pi ^3M_V^8}}\left(|A_1^L{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau A_2^R}{2M}}|^2+|A_1^R{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau A_2^L}{2M}}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}|{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau A_2^L}{M}}|^2\right)`$ (7)
$`+(LR),`$
where $`Q`$ is the charge of quark in the quarkoniums, $`Q=2/3`$ for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`Q=1/3`$ for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. $`g_{Vl^{}l^{}}`$ is the vector meson decay constants and no relate to the effective coupling $`g_{}^{}{}_{V\tau l}{}^{}`$.

Similarly, we can get LFV decay width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\tau l)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{V\tau l}{}^{2}}{24\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_V}}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_V^2}})^2(|A_1^L|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{m_VA_2^L}{M}}|^2+(LR)).`$ (8)
Using above equations and compared to the standard decays $`\tau \nu _\tau l\nu _l`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \nu _\tau l\nu _l)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_\tau ^5}{192\pi ^3}}`$ (9)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Vl^{}l^{})={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^2Q^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{Vl^{}l^{}}^2}{M_V^3}},`$ (10)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Br}(\tau ll^{}\overline{l}^{})}{\mathrm{Br}(V\tau l)\mathrm{Br}(Vl^{}\overline{l}^{})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ll^{}\overline{l}^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \nu _\tau l^{}\overline{\nu }_l^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(V\tau l)\mathrm{\Gamma }(Vl^{}\overline{l}^{})}}`$ (11)
$`\times \mathrm{Br}(\tau \nu _\tau l^{}\overline{\nu }_l^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^2\mathrm{Br}(\tau \nu _\tau l^{}\overline{\nu }_l^{})}{G_F^2m_\tau ^2M_V^4(1+2\frac{M_V^2}{m_\tau ^2})(1\frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_V^2})^2}}\times 𝒜,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ is the total decay width of the vector bosons $`V`$ and

$`𝒜={\displaystyle \frac{(|A_1^L\frac{m_\tau A_2^R}{2M}|^2+|A_1^R\frac{m_\tau A_2^L}{2M}|^2+\frac{3}{20}|\frac{m_\tau A_2^L}{M}|^2)+(LR)}{(|A_1^L|^2+\frac{1}{2}|\frac{m_VA_2^L}{M}|^2+(LR))}}.`$ (12)
By using the experimental bounds of $`\mathrm{Br}(\tau ll^{}\overline{l}^{})`$ and the experimental values of $`\mathrm{Br}(Vl^{}l^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \nu _\tau l^{}\overline{\nu }_l^{})`$ , we could obtain the bounds of $`V\tau l`$. For discussing the bounds, as like doing in , we consider two limiting cases:

* When $`|A_1^L|`$ or $`|A_1^R|\frac{m_\tau ^2}{M^2}|A_2^{L,R}|,𝒜1`$. From eq.(7), we get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\tau l)`$ $`<`$ $`1.0\times 10^7`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\tau \overline{l})`$ $``$ $`0.7\times 10^7`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\tau l)`$ $`<`$ $`8.0\times 10^5`$ (15)
Similarly, by using $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e^{}e^+e^{})10^{12}`$ and the experimental values of $`\mathrm{Br}(Ve^{}e^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu \nu _\mu e\overline{\nu }_e)`$

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`2\times 10^{13}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu e)`$ $``$ $`1.2\times 10^{13}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.7\times 10^9`$ (18)
* When $`|A_1^L|`$ or $`|A_1^R|\frac{m_\tau ^2}{M^2}|A_2^{L,R}|,𝒜\frac{13}{10}\frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_V^2}`$. We get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\tau l)`$ $`<`$ $`3.6\times 10^7`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\tau \overline{l})`$ $``$ $`2.5\times 10^7`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\tau l)`$ $`<`$ $`2.9\times 10^4`$ (21)
Similarly,

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`5.3\times 10^{13}`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu e)`$ $``$ $`3.6\times 10^{13}`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.5\times 10^8`$ (24)

From the above equations, we find some of them ( Eqs. (13) and (19)) can reach the current experimental level of BES.

## 3 Bounds of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }ll^{}`$ with model-dependent analysis

### 3.1 In leptoquark model

Many models beyond SM, like GUTs, naturally contain leptoquarks which can couple to a lepton-quark pair. This can induce the LFV two-body decays of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ through $`t`$-channel (see Fig. 2).

The Leptoquarks contributing to these diagrams are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ . Their couplings are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`:`$ $`\left[\lambda _{ij}^{(1)}\overline{Q}_{Lj}e_{Ri}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{ij}^{(1)}\overline{u}_{Rj}L_{Li}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ $`:`$ $`\left[\lambda _{ij}^{(3)}\overline{Q}_{Lj}^cL_{Li}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{ij}^{(3)}\overline{u}_{Rj}^ce_{Ri}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_3.`$
Confining ourselves to terms involving the $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, the relevant part of the interaction Lagrangian can be parametrized as

$`_{eff}^{Leptoquark}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{c}(\lambda _L^AP_L+\lambda _R^AP_R)\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ (25)
$`+\overline{c}(\lambda _L^AP_L+\lambda _R^AP_R)\tau \mathrm{\Phi }_A+h.c.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is one of the above two leptoquarks, $`\lambda _{L,R}`$ is the structure of the chiral couplings and $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma ^5)/2`$.

The decay width is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{32\pi ^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}{\displaystyle ||^2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{96\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _L^{c\mu }\lambda _L^{c\tau }|^2+|\lambda _R^{c\mu }\lambda _R^{c\tau }|^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}},`$
where $`g_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decay constant. Compared to electromagnetic decay $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{}`$ through $`\gamma `$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{27}}\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^3}},`$ (27)
we get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2^9\pi ^2\alpha ^2}}m_\tau ^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _L^{c\mu }\lambda _L^{c\tau }|^2+\lambda _R^{c\mu }\lambda _R^{c\tau }|^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}}`$ (28)
$`\times \mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})`$
We take the experimental value, $`(\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})=(6.020.19)\%`$ . To get the constraints of $`(|\lambda _L^{c\mu }\lambda _L^{c\tau }|^2+|\lambda _R^{c\mu }\lambda _R^{c\tau }|^2)/M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$, we consider another lepton flavor decay $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ through leptoquarks (see Fig. 3). Compared to electroweak decay $`\tau \mu \nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\mu `$, this gives a branching ratio of

$`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2^9\pi ^2G_F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _L^{c\mu }\lambda _L^{c\tau }|^2+\lambda _R^{c\mu }\lambda _R^{c\tau }|^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}}`$ (29)
$`\times \mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\mu ),`$
where $`G_F`$ is the effective electroweak couplings. By using the experimental values, $`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )<1.1\times 10^6`$ and $`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\mu )=(17.37\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$, we can obtain

$$\frac{|\lambda _L^{c\mu }\lambda _L^{c\tau }|^2+|\lambda _R^{c\mu }\lambda _R^{c\tau }|^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}<1.5\times 10^{10}$$
(30)
Then, we can obtain the bound of $`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ with a scalar leptoquark is

$$\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )<3.0\times 10^8.$$
(31)
Similarly, we get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`3.5\times 10^{15},`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`9.3\times 10^9,`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.1\times 10^{15},`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`1.3\times 10^7,`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.6\times 10^{14}.`$ (36)
### 3.2 In SUSY model

In the supersymmetry model without R-parity and lepton number conservation, rare processes $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}ll^{}`$ is induced by squark through $`t`$-channel, (see Fig. 2).

The superpotential for the lepton number violation supersymmetry can be written as:

$`𝒲=𝒲_{_{\mathrm{MSSM}}}+𝒲_{_{/L}}.`$ (37)
The $`𝒲_{_{\mathrm{MSSM}}}`$ represents the R-parity conservation sector supersymmetry and can be found in literatures. The R-parity violation sector superpotential is

$`𝒲_{_{/L}}=ϵ_{ij}\lambda _{_{\mathrm{IJK}}}\widehat{L}_i^^I\widehat{L}_j^^J\widehat{R}^^K+ϵ_{ij}\lambda _{_{\mathrm{IJK}}}^{}\widehat{L}_i^^I\widehat{Q}_j^^J\widehat{D}^^K`$ (38)
with $`\widehat{L}^^I`$ represents the $`I`$-th generation lepton superfields and $`\widehat{Q}^^I`$ represents the $`I`$-th generation quark superfields, which are all the doublet of $`SU(2)`$ group. The $`\widehat{R}^^I,\widehat{D}^^I`$ are the $`I`$-th generation $`SU(2)`$ singlet lepton- and quark- superfields. Here, we have ignore the bilinear lepton number violation terms in the superpotential. Although there are 36 trilinear R-parity couplings in the superpotential Eq.(38), our computation involve only two trilinear couplings $`\lambda _{_{222}}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{_{223}}^{}`$.

The calculation is similar to that of leptoquarks. The relative effective Lagrangian can be written as

$$_{eff}^{SUSY}=\frac{\lambda _{_{222}}^{}\lambda _{_{223}}^{}}{4M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}(\overline{c}P_L\mu \overline{\tau }P_Rc+\overline{c}P_L\tau \overline{\mu }P_Rc),$$
(39)
where $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ is the mass of squark.

From this Lagrangian, we can get decay width with squark $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _{_{222}}^{}\lambda _{_{223}}^{})^2g^2}{3\times 16^2\pi M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2.`$ (40)
Comparing to ordinary decay $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{}`$ (Eq. (8)), we obtain

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8\times 16^2\pi ^2\alpha ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _{_{222}}^{}\lambda _{_{223}}^{})^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^4}}\right)m_\tau ^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2`$ (41)
$`\times \mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})`$
As for tribilinear coupling constants, we adopt the single coupling hypothesis, where a single coupling constant is assumed to dominate over all the others, so that each of the coupling constants contributes once at a time. The analysis of tree level $`/R__\mathrm{P}`$ contributions to the D-mesons three body decays, $`DK+l+\nu ;DK^{}+l+\nu `$ yields the bounds

$$\lambda _{_{22K}}^{}<0.18,K=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}.$$

If the supersymmetry is weak-scale theory with $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, we can obtain the bound of $`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ with sleptons is

$$\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )<5.0\times 10^9.$$
(42)
Similarly, we get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`5.7\times 10^{16},`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`1.8\times 10^9,`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.9\times 10^{16},`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`2.2\times 10^8,`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`2.5\times 10^{15}.`$ (47)
### 3.3 In TC2 models

To solve the phenomenological difficulties of traditional technicolor theory, TC2 theory was proposed by combing technicolor interactions with topcolor interactions for the third generation at the energy scale of about 1 TeV. TC2 models predict the existence of the new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$, which lead to the LFV coupling vertices, $`Z^{}ll^{}`$. Thus, it can give significant contributions to some LFV processes. In TC2 models, the contributions of $`Z^{}`$ to the LFV process $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau `$ can be induced through $`s`$-channel, (see Fig. 4).

The couplings of the new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ to ordinary fermions, which are related to the LFV process $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau `$, can be written as:

$$_{eff}^Z^{}=\frac{g_1\mathrm{tan}\theta ^{}}{6}Z_\mu ^{}[\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu c_L+2\overline{c}_R\gamma ^\mu c_R+\mathrm{}.]\frac{g_1}{2}Z_\mu ^{}[k_{\tau \mu }(\overline{\mu }_L\gamma ^\mu \tau _L+2\overline{\mu }_R\gamma ^\mu \tau _R)+\mathrm{}..],$$
(48)
where $`g_1`$ is the $`U(1)_y`$ coupling constant at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TC}`$, $`k_{\tau \mu }`$ is the flavor mixing factor, and $`\theta ^{}`$ is the mixing angle. With the above Lagrangian, we can obtain the decay width contributed by the new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_1\mathrm{tan}^4\theta ^{}}{12M_Z^{}^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(k_L^2+4k_R^2)m_\tau ^2}{12\pi M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2`$ (49)
Compared to ordinary decay $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{}`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\times 12^2\alpha ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1\mathrm{tan}^4\theta ^{}}{M_Z^{}^2}}\right)^2(k_L^2+4k_R^2)m_\tau ^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}{m_\tau ^2}})`$ (50)
$`\times (1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2}})^2\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})`$
Using the results of Ref., we can obtain the bound of $`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )`$ with $`Z^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \tau )<3.3\times 10^8.$$
(51)
Similarly, we get

$`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`3.8\times 10^{15},`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`1.0\times 10^8,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.2\times 10^{15},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu \tau )`$ $`<`$ $`1.3\times 10^7,`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mu e)`$ $`<`$ $`1.6\times 10^{14}.`$ (56)
## 4 Conclusions

we have investigated the bounds of lepton flavor violation processes of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ two-body decays in leptoquarks, SUSY and TC2 models, respectively. We used the constraints of couplings from other ways to obtain the indirect bounds of $`\mathrm{Br}(J/\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{{\rm Y}}ll^{})`$ with model independent. It is interesting that some results would get th experimental level. And it is shown that these new particles perhaps can be seen or ruled out by the near future experiments.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Xinmin Zhang for suggestions on this project. One of the authors (W. J. Huo) acknowledges supports from the Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation and CAS K.C. Wong Postdoctoral Research Award Fund. The work of C. X. Yue was supported by the National Natural SScience Foundation of China(I9905004), the Excellent Youth Foundation of Henan Scientific Committee(9911), and Foundation of Henan Educational Committee.