text:
# Search for 𝜈̄_𝑒 from the Sun at Super-Kamiokande-I

## Abstract

We present the results of a search for low energy $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from the Sun using 1496 days of data from Super-Kamiokande-I. We observe no significant excess of events and set an upper limit for the conversion probability to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ of the 8B solar neutrino. This conversion limit is 0.8% (90% C.L.) of the standard solar model’s neutrino flux for total energy = 8 MeV - 20 MeV. We also set a flux limit for monochromatic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ for $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ = 10MeV - 17MeV.

Solar neutrino measurements at Super-Kamiokande SK1500  and SNO SNOCC  have established that the solar neutrino problem is explained by the transformation of electron neutrinos to other active neutrinos. The mechanism for this transformation is generally assumed to be via neutrino flavor oscillations from $`\nu _e`$ to some superposition of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. However, measurements reported so far do not rule out the possibility of spin flavor precession(SFP) in which some of the $`\nu _e`$ transform to antiparticles ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$). In the so-called “hybrid models” VVO , SFP and oscillation can transform solar neutrinos to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ if the neutrino is Majorana, it has a large magnetic moment, and the Sun has a large magnetic field. If the neutrino has a magnetic moment, there are two possibilities: (1) the neutrino is a Dirac particle ; (2) it is a Majorana particle. In the Dirac neutrino case, $`\nu _e^L`$ changes to $`\nu _e^R`$ by the spin magnetic moment transition. The $`\nu _e^R`$ is a sterile neutrino. On the other hand, in the Majorana neutrino scenario, SFP causes $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }`$. Neutrino oscillation then yields $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }\overline{\nu }_e`$. Solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ could also originate from neutrino decay decay . In this paper, we present a search for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from the Sun.

The inverse beta decay process, $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$, is predominant for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interactions in Super-Kamiokande (SK). The cross section for this process is two orders of magnitude greater than that for elastic scattering, and therefore SK has good sensitivity for the detection of solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. The positron energy is related to the neutrino energy by $`E_{e^+}E_{\overline{\nu }_e}1.3`$ MeV. The positron angular distribution relative to the incident $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ direction is nearly flat with a small energy dependent slope Vogel , which is in contrast to the sharply forward peaked elastic scattering distribution. The difference between these distributions can be used to separate solar neutrino events from $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events.

Super-Kamiokande is a 22.5 kton fiducial volume water Cherenkov detector, located in the Kamioka mine in Gifu, Japan. The data used for the search were collected in 1496 live days between May 31, 1996 and July 15, 2001. A detailed description of SK can be found elsewhere SK1500 ; SK . Dominant backgrounds to the solar neutrino signal are 222Rn in the water, external gamma rays and muon-induced spallation products. Background reduction is carried out in the following steps: first reduction, spallation cut, second reduction, and external $`\gamma `$-ray cut. The first reduction removes events from electronic noise and other non-physical sources, and events with poorly reconstructed vertices. The spallation cut removes events due to radio-isotopes (X) produced by cosmic ray muon interactions with water: $`\mu +^{16}O\mu +X`$. These radio-isotopes are called “spallation products.” The spallation products emit beta and gamma rays and have lifetimes ranging from 0.001 to 14 sec. We cut these events using likelihood functions based on time, position, and muon pulse height. The time and position likelihood functions are measures of the proximity of a candidate event to a muon track, while the pulse height likelihood function measures the likelihood that a muon produced a shower. These three likelihood functions are used together to discriminate against spallation events SK . The second reduction removes events with poor vertex fit quality and diffuse Cherenkov ring patterns, both characteristics of low-energy background events. The external $`\gamma `$-ray cut removes events due to $`\gamma `$-rays from the surrounding rock, photomultipliers(PMTs), etc.. Fig. 1 shows the energy spectrum after each reduction step.

At SK, a positron from inverse beta decay is indistinguishable from an electron or a gamma ray because the delayed 2.2 MeV gamma ray from n + p $``$ d + $`\gamma `$ is below the detector’s energy threshold. In order to remove elastic scattering events due to solar neutrinos, we cut events with cos$`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ $``$ 0.5, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ is the event direction with respect to the direction from the Sun. The region $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}<`$ 0.5 would be occupied by solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events, in addition to events due to known background sources which could not be removed by the standard data reduction. For E $``$ 8 MeV, most background events are due to radioactivity in the detector materials (such as 222Rn). Spallation accounts for a small fraction of background events in this region. In contrast, for E $``$ 8 MeV, most background events are produced by spallation.

The spallation cut used in the data reduction efficiently removes short-lifetime spallation products. This cut also removes $``$90% of long-lifetime products such as $`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$N ($`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ = 7.1 sec) and $`{}_{4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}`$Be ($`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ = 13.8 sec). Event by event removal of the remaining $``$ 10% of these events is impractical because this introduces large dead time. However, we can estimate the contribution of these events to the post-reduction data sample using a statistical subtraction technique. First, we made a time distribution of muon events preceding each low energy event by up to 200 seconds (Fig. 2(A)). Since the average muon rate at SK is $``$ 2.5 Hz, there are, on average, $``$ 500 events for each low energy event. If the low energy event is due to a long lifetime spallation product, its event time will be correlated with one of the $``$500 preceding muon events. If this is not the case, then its event time will be uncorrelated with all of the muon events. To estimate the number of $`\mu `$ responsible for spallation events, we have to subtract the number of $`\mu `$ which did not make spallation events from the total number of $`\mu `$. In order to perform this subtraction, we made a sample of simulated events distributed randomly in space and time. We applied the spallation cut to this sample as in the actual data sample in order to account for biases introduced by this cut. The muon time distribution of the random sample is shown in Fig. 2(B). The dip near Delta-T = 0 is due to the accidental loss of events by the spallation cut. To estimate the number of muons which made spallation products, distribution (B) with suitable normalization is subtracted from distribution (A); the result of this subtraction is shown in Fig. 2(C). The number of muon events in the delta-T = 100 sec - 200 sec region is used to calculate the normalization factor because the contamination from muons which make spallation products is negligible in this region. The number of spallation events is obtained as

$$Spa=N_{050sec}^{observed}N_{050sec}^{random}\times \frac{N_{100200sec}^{observed}}{N_{100200sec}^{random}}$$

$`N_{050sec}^{observed}`$ is the number of muon events within 50 seconds preceding the observed events, while $`N_{050sec}^{random}`$ is the corresponding number for random events. $`N_{100200sec}^{observed}`$ and $`N_{100200sec}^{random}`$ are similarly defined, but with a timing window of 100 to 200 seconds preceding the events. For 8.0-20.0 MeV, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}0.5`$, the number of spallation background events obtained by this method is (2.77 $`\pm `$ 0.20) $`\times `$ 104. The number of observed $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ candidate events is 29781, so the ratio of spallation events to observed events is (93$`\pm `$7)%. The spallation contamination in each energy bin is shown in Fig. 3.

The energy spectrum of the solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is not known because the mechanism for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ creation is not known. Even if one assumes the SFP-oscillation hybrid model, the energy spectrum depends on $`\mu _\nu \times `$ B$`_{\text{s}olar}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )`$, none of which are known precisely, if at all. In order to deal with this ambiguity, we have chosen two spectrum models: the 8B neutrino spectrum ortiz  and monochromatic spectrum (spectrum independent analysis).

For the 8B spectrum dependent analysis, we obtain an upper limit on the solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux by comparing the observed number of events outside of the elastic scattering peak ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}0.5`$) with the expected number of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events assuming that all 8B neutrinos convert to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. The expected number is obtained by Monte Carlo simulation of solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interaction with the detector. The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ dependence was simulated , and the effect of this dependence on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ efficiency is taken into account. The standard solar model(SSM) 8B neutrino flux was assumed (5.05 $`\times 10^6`$ /cm2/sec) BPB2001  . Through the rest of this paper, electron neutrino spectrum and flux refer to the unoscillated quantities at the Sun. The solid lines in Fig.4 show 90% C.L. limits on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux before statistical spallation subtraction. The dashed lines show the limits after statistical subtraction (only for E $``$ 8 MeV). By combining the statistics for 8 MeV $``$ E $``$ 20 MeV, we obtained a global upper limit of 0.8% of the SSM neutrino flux.

Some authors have indicated that the positron angular distribution may be useful for the search for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ in the SK data (e.g. ang0 ; Lujan ). $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ is distributed as f($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$) = 0.5 $`\times `$ (1 + $`\alpha \times \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$), where $`\alpha `$ is a monotonically increasing function of neutrino energy (except near threshold), and $`\alpha `$ $`<`$ 0 for $`E_\nu 13`$ MeV and $`>`$ 0 above this Vogel . The angular information is useful for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ search at the lowest neutrino energies where f($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$) has sufficient slope and the event statistics are large. $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events with the predicted $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution were input to a detector simulator to obtain the expected positron angular distribution. The resulting distribution has the same form as above. The fit value of $`\alpha `$ is $``$0.076 at $`E`$ = 5 - 6 MeV, 0.107 at $`E`$ = 12 - 20 MeV, and crosses 0 at $``$ 9 MeV.

Solar neutrino elastic scattering is one of the backgrounds for this analysis. Almost all such events have $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}>`$ 0.5, so events with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}>`$ 0.5 are cut. We also subtract the small amount of spill-over into $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ $``$ 0.5 using Monte Carlo simulation ($``$5% for 5-20MeV). Another background is due to 18O($`\nu _e`$;$`e`$)18o18 . There is only a small number of events from this source (0.03% $``$ 2%, depending on energy), but electrons from this process, like the low-energy $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, have negative slope in their angular distribution. So they are subtracted from the data. The $`\nu _e`$ flux is taken as the charged current flux value from SNO, $`1.76\times 10^6`$ /cm2/sec SNO .

A $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux upper limit is obtained using a probability test with the slope of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution serving as a constraint. This test is based on a $`\chi ^2`$ test with $`\chi ^2(\delta ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ defined for each energy as follows:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{cos}}}{}}\left\{\frac{N_i^{data}N_i^{el}N_i^{{}_{}{}^{18}O}\delta N_i^{\overline{\nu }_e}\beta n_i^{BG}(1+\gamma x_i)}{\sigma _i^{stat.}}\right\}^2$$

$$+\left(\frac{\gamma }{\sigma ^{syst.}}\right)^2$$

$`i`$ is the index for the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ bins ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ 0.5, $`N_{\mathrm{cos}}`$= 30), $`x_i`$ is $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}})_i`$, $`N_i^{data}`$ is the number of observed data events, $`\sigma _i^{stat.}`$ is the statistical error of the observed data, $`N_i^{el}`$ is the expected number of elastic scattering events, $`N_i^{{}_{}{}^{18}O}`$ is the expected number of events from the 18O($`\nu _e`$;$`e`$)18F reaction, $`N_i^{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ is the number of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events assuming all SSM $`\nu _e`$ convert to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ (the number in each bin $`i`$ depends on the slope $`\alpha `$), and $`n_i^{BG}`$ is the shape for all other background events that are almost uncorrelated in direction with the Sun (this background is essentially flat). $`N_i^{el}`$ and $`N_i^{{}_{}{}^{18}O}`$ are both $``$ 2% of $`N_i^{data}`$, and the systematic errors of these terms are negligible. $`\sigma ^{syst.}`$(= 0.5%) is the systematic error of the slope of the background shape and $`\gamma `$ is the parameter that takes this into account. $`\beta `$ parameterizes the amount of such background events. We divided the parameter space for $`\delta `$ into a grid, and minimized $`\chi ^2`$ with respect to $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ at each grid point. The resulting $`\gamma `$ and $`\chi _{min}^2`$ indicated good fits to the data. $`\chi ^2`$ as a function $`\delta `$ obtained in this way is input to a probability function. From this analysis, we set a 90% C.L. upper limit for each energy bin. The dotted lines in Fig. 4 show the result. It should be noted that the spallation background subtratction is not applied in this analysis for two reasons. First, for E $`<`$ 8 MeV, spallation subtraction is ineffective because spallation events form a small subset of the total background. Second, for E $`>`$ 8 MeV, there are insufficient statistics after spallation subtraction to perform an angular analysis of the data.

The analysis described so far assume that the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ originate from 8B solar neutrinos. We also generalized our search by assuming a monochromatic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ source at various energies and set conservative $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux upper limits. The interaction of such $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ with the detector was simulated, and standard data reduction cuts were applied. The positron spectrum is well described by a Gaussian. We then counted the number of events in the data in the $`\pm `$ 1$`\sigma `$ range of this Gaussian. We took this number to be the number of events due to monochromatic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and obtained an upper limit. This upper limit is very conservative because we do not take account of the large spill-over from lower energy bins that is implied by the sharply falling spectrum seen in the data. We also obtained limits after statistical subtraction of long lifetime spallation events. The 90% C.L. limits are shown in Fig5.

In summary, a search for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux from the Sun was performed using all 1496 live days of solar neutrino data from Super-Kamiokande-I. Using the 8B and monochromatic energy spectra, 90% C.L. upper limits were set for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux. For the 8B spectrum dependent analysis, the upper limit to the flux was 0.8% of the SSM $`\nu _e`$ flux prediction for E = 8.0-20.0MeV. This can be compared with the Kamiokande result of 4.5% KID . For $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ fluxes with various monochromatic energies, the resulting upper limits are shown in Fig. 5.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the Kamioka Mining and Smelting Company. The Super-Kamiokande has been built and operated from funding by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. National Science Foundation. This work was partially supported by the Korean Research Foundation (BK21) and the Korea Ministry of Science and Technology.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on Charged Vortices in the Maxwell-Chern-Simons Model

## I Introduction

Since the appearance of the first works on field-theoretic models defined in the (2+1)-dimensional space-time, nearly two decades ago firstones1 ; firstones2 ; reviewsWDK ; Dunne , a great deal of efforts has been driven to the subject GFT . Actually, planar physics has not only shed light on theoretical questions concerning the structure and topology of such a space-time, but has also provided a number of new and powerful ideas and techniques with wide applications, for example, in Condensed Matter phenomena. “Exotic objects” exhibiting fractional statistics and charge, for instance, have been proposed as the keystone entities for a better and deeper understanding of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (for details, see Ref. fqhe ). Along this line, there is also a broad literature claiming for their importance in a number of mechanisms involved in the so-called High-Tc Superconductivity, whenever planar physical effects cannot be neglected (for reviews, see Ref. htcsup ).

In this sense, the so-called Chern-Simons action is a simple and good example of a model which provides such requirements. This comes about by virtue of its topological nature, which gives rise to a number of novelties, whenever coupled to matter or even to other models. Actually, besides the fractional statistics, such an action also displays the interesting feature of providing a gauge invariant mass gap for matter and gauge fields (for further details, see Ref. firstones2 ). In this case, the excitations described by the matter fields are shown to be attached to the magnetic vortex-like objects. As a consequence of the connection between an Aharonov-Bohm type phase and quantum physics, these composite objects display fractional statistics anyons ; reviewsWDK ; Dunne ; htcsup .
In a recent paper, we have studied issues concerning planar radiation in Maxwell and Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS) models, namely, how the Huyghens Principle and Planck’s Law read in the planar world pla . A number of results have indicated that “planar photons” should behave quite different from their (3+1)-dimensional counterparts. In this sense, the present work may be viewed as a step forward in the issue of planar radiation propagation. Indeed, Section 4 is devoted to the Aharonov-Casher-type effect between a MCS charged vortex and a neutral spinless particle. In this case, the results may be considered as a way to measure the Chern-Simons parameter, as long as experiments concerning planar aspects of physical radiation could be performed.

## II The MCS vortex-like configuration

Let us start off with the pure Chern-Simons model, which may be written as:111$`\mathrm{diag}(\eta _{\mu \nu })=(+,,)`$, greek letters label space-time components, $`\mu ,\nu `$, etc $`=0,1,2`$, while latin ones are spatial indices, $`i,j,\mathrm{etc}=1,2`$. We also take $`ϵ^{012}=ϵ_{012}=+1`$, and $`ϵ^{0ij}=ϵ^{ij}=ϵ_{ij}`$, and set $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, except when otherwise indicated.

$`_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa }A_\mu _\nu A_\kappa A_\mu j^\mu ,`$ (1)
where $`j^\mu `$ is the conserved current, $`_\mu j^\mu =0`$. The equations of motion are simply:

$`F_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa }j^\kappa ,`$ (2)
while Bianchi identity reads: $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =0`$; with the usual definitions: $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa }F_{\nu \kappa }`$. Now, if we take a point-like electric charge, $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x})=q\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x})`$, then we get a point-like magnetic vortex, $`B(\stackrel{}{x})=(q/m)\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x})`$ attached to the charge. This vortex has finite flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B=d^2\stackrel{}{x}B(\stackrel{}{x})=q/m`$, but the magnetic energy, $`_B=\frac{1}{2}d^2\stackrel{}{x}B^2(\stackrel{}{x})`$, blows up, highlighting its point-like structure. In addition, we should notice that, in this framework, electromagnetic interaction takes place only by “contact”, since there is no photon dynamics. Then, whenever two (or more) of these composites (charged vortex) interact amongst themselves, topological phases (Aharonov-Bohm type) are induced in one another, and fractional statistics takes place (some reviews on the subject are listed in Refs. reviewsWDK ; Dunne ).

On the other hand, whenever Higgs fields are coupled to Chern-Simons Lagrangian density, i.e.:

$`_{\mathrm{CSH}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa }A_\mu _\nu A_\kappa +|D_\mu \varphi |^2V(\varphi ),`$ (3)
then, the eqs. of motion (for the $`A_\mu `$-field) take the forms:

$`F_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa }j^\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa }\left[\varphi ^{}D^\kappa \varphi (D^\kappa \varphi )^{}\varphi \right],`$ (4)
while Bianchi identity remains $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =0`$. The magnetic field, for example, now reads:

$`B(x)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}\left[\varphi ^{}D_0\varphi (D_0\varphi )^{}\varphi \right].`$ (5)
The magnetic vortex-like configurations associated to the solution above are electrically charged (like those appearing in pure CS model), in contrast with their counterparts of the usual Abelian Higgs model. Moreover, it is well-known that such a model supports topological ($`|\varphi |\nu `$ as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}`$) and non-topological ($`|\varphi |0`$ as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}`$) solitons, as well. Their flux, charge and energy are respectively given by:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B=2\pi N,Q=m\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{and}=\nu ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_B|,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B=2\pi (N+\alpha ),Q=m\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{and}=\nu ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_B|,`$ (7)
with integer $`N`$, measuring the vorticity of the soliton solutions, while $`\alpha `$ is a continuous parameter. Notice also that all of these three quantities are finite. Namely, the finiteness of the energy implies that such configurations are finite-size (for a review, see Ref. Dunne  and related references therein).

In the present work, we would like to concentrate on the Maxwell-Chern-Simons Electrodynamics, whose Lagrangian density reads as below:

$`_{\mathrm{MCS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa }A_\mu _\nu A_\kappa A_\mu j^\mu ,`$ (8)
which leads us to the following eqs. of motion:

$`\left(_\nu ^\nu +m^2\right)\stackrel{~}{F}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa }_\nu j_\kappa j^\mu ,`$ (9)
besides the geometric one, $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =0`$.

By virtue of the Maxwell term, Gauss Law becomes a dynamical equation, and interaction between electric charges turns out to be of finite range. As we shall see in what follows, such a feature is responsible for another very interesting aspect concerning solutions of the $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`B`$ fields, specially the magnetic sector, which now appears to have associated *finite-energy*.

For that, let us consider eq. (9), describing a point-like electric charge, $`j_0=\rho (\stackrel{}{x})=q\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x})`$, integrated over the two-dimensional volume. Then, we get (using that the classical fields, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`B`$ are short-range; a more general study of this problem, including time-dependent solutions, may be found in Ref. prd63 ):

$`{\displaystyle _V}d^2\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{E}={\displaystyle _V}\stackrel{}{E}𝑑\stackrel{}{S}_r\mathrm{}=0=qm\mathrm{\Phi }_B,`$ (10)
which implies that the total magnetic flux associated to the $`B`$-field is:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B={\displaystyle _V}B(x)d^2\stackrel{}{x}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{m}},`$ (11)
and the total electric flux vanishes.

Let us now seek for possible solutions to the eq. (11). An immediate solution consists in taking the magnetic field concentrated at a unique point (like in the pure Chern-Simons case): $`B(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{q}{m}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x})`$. It is easy to check that, while this field satisfies (11), it does violate Gauss Law, $`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{x})=\rho (\stackrel{}{x})mB(\stackrel{}{x})`$, whenever $`\stackrel{}{E}0`$. Actually, the suitable solution for the magnetic and electric fields which satisfy the eqs. (9), (10) and (11) are given by:

$`B(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{mq}{2\pi }}K_0\left(m|\stackrel{}{x}|\right),`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{mq}{2\pi }}K_1\left(m|\stackrel{}{x}|\right)\widehat{𝐱}.`$ (13)
Here, $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are modified Bessel functions of 2nd kind and $`\widehat{𝐱}=\stackrel{}{x}/|\stackrel{}{x}|`$.

The gauge potential, in turn, appears to be:

$`A^0(\stackrel{}{x})=+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\pi }}K_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|),`$ (14)
$`A^i(\stackrel{}{x})=+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\pi m}}ϵ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}mK_1(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right).`$ (15)
Now, let us remark that, since $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ behave like $`e^{\sqrt{m|\stackrel{}{x}|}}/\sqrt{m|\stackrel{}{x}|}`$ as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}`$, then $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, $`B`$ and $`A^0`$ vanish asymptotically. In contrast, the vector potential is long-range: $`A^i(\stackrel{}{x})=+\frac{q}{2\pi m}ϵ^{ij}\frac{x_j}{|\stackrel{}{x}|^2}`$ as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}`$, which is a pure-gauge term, $`^i\theta (\stackrel{}{x})`$, and supports, similarly to the pure Chern-Simons case, the magnetic vortex-like solutions, eq. (12). Another interesting feature of such quantities concerns their behavior near the origin: while $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, $`B`$ and $`A^0`$ blow up as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|0`$, the vector potential, $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, vanishes. Then, although CS Electrodynamics quantities are recovered at large distances (what is equivalent to take $`m\mathrm{}`$, as usual), the finite scale behavior of both models are quite different, mainly as $`|\stackrel{}{x}|0`$.

The magnetic field of eq. (12) presents finite flux and energy given respectively by (see expressions 6.561-16 in page 684, and 5.54-2 in page 634 of the Ref. grad1 ):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{m}},`$
$`_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2m^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}\left[K_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right]^2}={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8\pi }},`$
which could suggest that our electrically charged magnetic vortex-like configuration, (12), presents finite-size. However, since magnetic vortices in MCS framework always appear electrically charged, then their total energy (electric + magnetic) blows up, since solution (13) leads to a divergent electric energy. Then, although the magnetic sector presents finite energy, the charged vortices are structure-less, similarly to their counterparts in pure Chern-Simons model.

To end this section, let us perform a brief comparison amongst our magnetic results and those found by Nielsen and Olesen NO  in the case of the (3+1)-dimensional Abelian Maxwell-Higgs (AMH) model with axial-symmetry (then, an effective (2+1)d theory). Their asymptotic results read as below:

$`|\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})|_{\text{N-O}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{er}}|\varphi |K_1(e|\varphi |r),`$ (16)
$`|\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{x})|_{\text{N-O}}=+e|\varphi |^2K_0(e|\varphi |r),`$ (17)
where $`e`$ is the minimal coupling constant, $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$, while $`|\varphi |=\text{constant}`$ is the absolute value of the Higgs field as $`r`$ becomes large.

Since their results and ours are strictly obtained in different space-times, then the gauge potential and the classical electromagnetic fields have different canonical dimensions. So, at a first stage, only the arguments of the Bessel functions could be compared. In this case, the similarity in behavior demands that:

$$m=e|\varphi |,$$

which states us that the CS-parameter is fixed by the value of the Higgs field (times the constant $`e`$).

Nevertheless, Nielsen-Olesen solutions, eqs. (16,17), are strictly valid whenever AMH model is defined in (2+1) dimensions. Now, the gauge coupling constant and the Higgs field possess the same canonical dimension, $`[e]=[\varphi ]=[\mathrm{mass}]^{1/2}`$ (even though a $`\varphi ^6`$ -type potential be included). In such a scenario, a “complete identification” amongst $`\stackrel{}{A}_{\text{N-O}}`$, $`B_{\text{N-O}}`$ and expressions (12-15) may be carried out, provided that the following constraints hold:

$`m=e|\varphi |={\displaystyle \frac{eq}{2\pi }}.`$ (18)
If we now take into account that the electric charge appears as multiple of the elementary one, $`q=ne`$ ($`n`$ integer) then, we finally have that:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi m}{e^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi |}{e}}=n.`$ (19)
Even though the relation above could not be considered as a *Dirac-like quantization condition* for the mass parameter (or Higgs field) in (2+1)-dimensional Abelian Electrodynamics, since no quantum mechanics was involved, it is interesting to remark that expression (19) *fixes the possible values* of $`m`$ (and/or $`|\varphi |`$), in those regimes in which (2+1)-dimensional AMH and MCS models present the same physical behavior, whenever $`|\varphi |`$ takes a constant value (see however, Refs.HTetc , dealing with some cases in which the topological mass parameter appears to be quantized). Then, we may also conclude that the magnetic sector of the non-linear AMH model behaves as if it were a linear one, as long as distances become very large (and $`|\varphi |\mathrm{constant}`$).

## III Magnetic Symmetry between Charges and Azimuthal Currents

Let us again consider eq. (9), in which the source is now taken tobe a steady and azimuthal electric current, say $`j_i=Qϵ_{ij}x_j/2\pi |\stackrel{}{x}|^2`$; $`\rho =0`$. The electric and magnetic fields associated with such a configuration read:

$`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2\pi m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}mK_1(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right),`$ (20)
$`B(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2\pi }}K_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|).`$
Notice that the $`B`$ above exactly coincides with (12), whenever $`Q=qm`$, which states us that we have a magnetic symmetry between a point-like charge and such a electric current. It should be mentioned that a similar scenario does not hold, for example, neither for the pure Maxwell nor the Chern-Simons models. Notice also that both fields yield finite flux. The magnetic energy is also finite while the electric one presents infrared and ultraviolet divergences.

Another interesting point here is that, if we introduce a cutoff in the current above:

$`j_i(\stackrel{}{x})=\{\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|<r_0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{Q}{2\pi }\frac{ϵ_{ij}x_j}{|\stackrel{}{x}|^2}\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|>r_0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
then $`r_0`$ will be naturally fixed by the Chern-Simons parameter, as we shall see in what follows.

Nevertheless, before that, let us explain what we mean by the expression above. For that, consider a very thin finite-size sample placed in a region where a perpendicular magnetic field of strength $`B_0`$, crosses it. In addition, suppose, for simplicity, that such a field could be confined to a very small disc (of radius $`r_0`$) around a given point in the sample. Then, an electric current looking like (24) would appear in the sample. To some extent, this scenario could be taken as an analogue to the presence of a unique neutral magnetic vortex inside a high-Tc superconducting sample (an Aharonov-Bohm-type flux) surrounded by such an external current. The solutions to the eq. (9) associated to the current above read as below:

$`\begin{array}{c}B(\stackrel{}{x})=B_0I_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|),\hfill \\ \mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|<r_0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{x})=B_0I_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\widehat{𝐱},\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
$`\begin{array}{c}B(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{Q}{2\pi }K_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|),\hfill \\ \mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|>r_0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{Q}{2\pi m}\left(\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}mK_1(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right)\widehat{𝐱}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
In addition, the scalar potentials associated to the solutions above read respectively, as follows:

$`A_0(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{m}}I_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|),\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|<r_0,`$ (33)
(34)
$`A_0(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{m}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)+K_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right),\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|>r_0,`$
while the vector potential takes the forms below:

$`A^i(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{m}}I_0(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)ϵ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{x^j}{|\stackrel{}{x}}}|\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|<r_0,`$ (35)
(36)
$`A^i(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{Qϵ^{ij}x^j}{2\pi m^2|\stackrel{}{x}|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}mK_1(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)\right),\mathrm{if}|\stackrel{}{x}|>r_0,`$
where $`I_0`$ is the modified Bessel functions of 2nd kind. Notice the similarity between the scalar and vector quantities above, namely, observe that the electric field is dual to the vector potential (up to the multiplicative constant $`m`$).

In order that the solutions above make sense, the expressions for the scalar potential should be continuous at the “effective vortex radius”, $`|\stackrel{}{x}|=r_0`$. This condition leads us to the following set of equations:

$`B_0I_0(mr_0)={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2\pi }}K_0(mr_0),`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{m}}I_0(mr_0)={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2\pi m}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(mr_0)+K_0(mr_0)\right),`$ (38)
which can be simultaneously satisfied if and only if $`r_0=1/m`$. This amounts to saying that an eddy-like current around a neutral vortex, in the MCS framework, naturally fixes the radius of the latter as being the inverse of the CS parameter (value identical to that obtained in pure CS model for its charged vortex; see Ref. Jackiwvortex , for details). Furthermore, we also obtain that the strength of the eddy current increases, as an external magnetic field is brought about, and vice-versa; this means: $`|Q|=2\pi B_0\frac{I_0(1)}{K_0(1)}6\pi B_0`$. \[Figure 1 shows how the magnetic field above behaves “inside” and “outside” this vortex. We have taken $`r_0=1`$ and $`B_0=1`$\].

## IV Neutral Spinless Particle, Charged Vortices and the Aharonov-Casher Effect

As it is well-known, in (2+1) dimensions, even spinless particles may carry anomalous magnetic momenta (AMM), whenever they interact with an electromagnetic field. The reason for this peculiarity lies in the fact that the canonical momentum of particles can naturally be supplemented by the dual of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, by means of a non-minimal coupling as follows:

$`p_\mu p_\mu +f\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ,`$ (39)
where the constant $`f`$ measures the planar AMM of the particle (see Ref. nonminimal ; see also Refs. prd65 ; CK ; Hagen ).

Now, let us recall that the field-strength generated by a charged vortex in MCS framework reads like eqs. (12-13):

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^\mu =(B;ϵ^{ij}E^i\widehat{x}^j)={\displaystyle \frac{mq}{2\pi }}[K_0(mr);ϵ^{ij}\widehat{x}^jK_1(mr)].`$ (40)
Thus, for a neutral spinless particle (of mass M) which experiences the fields above, its energy will be given by (the case of spin particles may be carried out in an analogous way):

$`𝐇=+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left(p_\mu +f\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu \right)^2.`$ (41)
Indeed, since its free wave-function ($`f=0`$) satisfies the free Schrödinger equation, $`[2i\mathrm{}M_t+^2]\psi ^0(𝐱,t)=0`$, then WKB approximation will lead us to (hereafter, we write $`\mathrm{}`$ constant explicitly):

$`\psi (𝐱,t)=\psi ^0(𝐱,t)exp\left[i\mathrm{}f{\displaystyle 𝑑x_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^\mu }\right].`$ (42)
Here, we clearly realize that the non-minimal prescription, (39), is equivalent (at WKB level) to introducing a non-integrable phase to $`\psi ^0`$. Now, the interesting case to be considered regards the particle performing a spatial loop, $`\theta `$, in an adiabatic way around the charged vortex. In such a case, we have:

$`\theta =f{\displaystyle 𝑑x_i\stackrel{~}{F}^i}=f{\displaystyle _C}\stackrel{}{E}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}=f\mathrm{\Phi }_E.`$ (43)
Now, using that $`_C\stackrel{}{E}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}=_S\stackrel{}{E}d^2\stackrel{}{x}=_Sd^2\stackrel{}{x}\left[q\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x})mB\right]`$, we get:

$`\theta =f\mathrm{\Phi }_E=f(qm\mathrm{\Phi }_B).`$ (44)
The point to be stressed is that the electric or the magnetic flux above is not the total flux, but only that part contained inside a circular region of radius $`R`$ ($`R`$ is the distance between the MCS vortex and the neutral particle). This flux is given by (see formula 6.561-8 on page 683, in Ref. grad1 ):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B=qm_0^RrK_0(mr)𝑑r=\frac{q}{m}\left[1mRK_1(mR)\right].$$

Finally, we obtain that the Aharonov-Casher phase is given as below:

$`\theta _{AC}=\mathrm{}fqmRK_1(mR),`$ (45)
which implies that $`\psi (𝐱,t)=\psi ^0(𝐱,t)e^{i\theta _{AC}}`$. Therefore, the wave-function describing the neutral spinless particle acquires a topological phase that depends upon mass and distance parameters, as previously announced (see also Fig. 2). The pure Maxwell limit, $`m0`$ (or equivalently, $`R0`$), taken in this phase, yields the result obtained by Carrington and Kunstatter CK , namely, $`\theta _{AC}|_{m0}=\mathrm{}fq`$. On the other hand, as $`m\mathrm{}`$ (pure CS limit) then $`\theta _{AC}`$ vanishes. This result agrees with Gauss law in MCS framework and also with the fact that in pure CS framework there is no static electric field, yielding $`\mathrm{\Phi }_E0`$ everywhere in this case.

Concerning the limit discussed above, let us recall that the energy density radiated, per unity of frequency, for “planar photons” in thermal equilibrium, $`U^{2+1}(\nu ^{},m)`$, is vanishing, whenever it is taken in the planar version of the Planck’s Law pla . Then, we may conclude that, when the dynamics is switched off, the same occurs with $`U^{2+1}(\nu ^{},m)`$. Indeed, a similar scenario seems to take place here, since if $`m\mathrm{}`$, so does $`\theta _{AC}`$. This is interesting because such a phase has topological origin, but as long as dynamics is turned off the phase vanishes.

Notice also that, by virtue of the connection between spin and quantum statistics, then the neutral particle formerly taken to be spinless, could now display non-trivial statistics, namely fractional spin.

As a final remark, we mention that, since actual experiments would deal with finite values for $`R`$ and $`m`$, then our present result, (45), suggests a way to determine the Chern-Simons parameter (as long as $`q`$ and $`f`$ are known), whenever one could provides conditions such that the experiments are able to take into account planar effects on the quantum radiation.

## V Conclusions and Prospects

Chern-Simons Electrodynamics naturally associates a point-like magnetic flux to each (point-like) electric charge. Whenever a Maxwell term is taken into account, leading to the MCS model, the magnetic sector presents finite energy, despite the lack of structure of the composite object. In addition, we have pointed out that, in the MCS framework, the magnetic field created by a static point-like charge is identical to that generated by an azimuthal-like steady current. Moreover, if we consider a ‘ neutral magnetic vortex’ surrounded by such a current (like those eddy-current around magnetic fluxons observed in High-Tc superconductors) the vortex radius is fixed to be exactly $`r_0=1/m`$. A comparison between our magnetic configurations and those obtained by Nielsen and Olesen NO  was also performed at large distances, where they were seen to present analogous behavior, provided that a relation between the Chern-Simons parameter and the Higgs field is implemented.

We have also seen that, whenever a neutral spinless particle interacts with an MCS charged composite vortex, the Aharonov-Casher (AC) effect is induced in the former, as expected. The novelty found here is that such a topological phase depends upon mass and distance between the spinless particle and the vortex. Furthermore, as $`m0`$, we recover the usual result known in the literature CK .

Our results concern photons as if they were planar excitations, possibly carrying a mass given by the Chern-Simons parameter, $`m`$. However, for the time being, we do not know any condition which could provide such a scenario. Perhaps, new experimental findings in Quantum Hall Effect and High-Tc Superconductivity, among other phenomena, might settle MCS theory as fundamental for explaning them. In addition, neutral spinless particles together with the AC effect could be important in new scenarios in which fractional statistics is demanded. In such cases, new techniques could provide ways to determine the AC-phase and whether it behaves like we have presented here.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank CNPq-Brasil for partial financial support.