text:
# 1 Ladder diagrams in the calculation of the forward-scattering amplitude (𝒯_{𝑝𝑝}). The crossing points correspond to the annihilation term for chargino.

ICRR-Report-495-2002-13

YITP-02-68

Unitarity and Higher-Order Corrections
in Neutralino Dark Matter Annihilation
into Two Photons

Junji Hisano$`^a`$, Sh. Matsumoto$`^a`$, and Mihoko M. Nojiri$`^b`$

$`^a`$ ICRR, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8582, Japan
$`^b`$ YITP, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan

ABSTRACT

The neutralino pair annihilation into two photons in our galactic halo gives a robust dark matter signal, since it would give a quasi-monotonic gamma ray. This process is radiatively-induced, and the full-one loop calculation was done previously. However, for the heavy wino-like or Higgsino-like neutralino, the one-loop cross section violates unitarity, therefore the higher-order corrections may be important. We construct a non-relativistic theory for chargino and neutralino two-body states, and estimate all-order QED corrections and two-loop corrections by $`Z`$ and/or $`W`$ exchange. We find that the critical mass, above that the two-loop contribution is larger than one-loop one, is about 8 TeV ($`O(10)`$ TeV) in the limit where neutralino is wino (Higgsino)-like, respectively. Around and above the critical mass, the all-order Z and/or W exchange must be included to estimate the cross section. On the other hand, the QED corrections depend on the mass difference between the neutralino and chargino. In the wino-like limit where neutralino is highly degenerate with chargino in mass, we find that QED corrections enhance the pair annihilation cross section by 1.5-2.

I Introduction

Present observation of cosmological and astrophysical quantities allows a precise determination of the mean density of matter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$) and baryon density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$) in the Universe, and the existence of non-baryonic dark matter (DM) is established now . However, the constituent of the DM is still an unresolved problem. The supersymmetric (SUSY) models provides the candidates of the DM, since the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is stable due to the conserved R parity. The LSP may be the lightest neutralino in minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). It is a linear combination of gauginos (bino and wino) and Higgsinos, which are superpartners of gauge and Higgs bosons, respectively. Thermal  or non-thermal processes  in the early Universe may produce the lightest neutralino enough to explain the DM in the Universe.

The detection of exotic cosmic rays is feasible technique to search for the dark matter particles, since a pair of the lightest neutralino could annihilate into the SM particles with significant cross section . Among those, excess of monochromatic gamma ray due to the neutralino annihilation into two photons is a robust signal if observed, because the diffused gamma-ray background must have a continuous energy spectrum .

The neutralino annihilation to two photons is a radiative process. The dominant contribution to the cross section comes from the process where a neutralino pair is converted into a virtual chargino pair by $`W`$-boson exchange and then the chargino pair annihilates into two photons. The full one-loop cross section is calculated in Ref. . The surprising fact is that the cross section is suppressed only by the $`W`$-boson mass ($`m_W`$), not by the neutralino mass ($`m`$), as $`\sigma v\alpha ^2\alpha _2^2/m_W^2`$, if the lightest-neutralino mass eigenstate is very close to wino or Higgsino. Since other pair-annihilation cross sections are proportional to $`1/m^2`$, the potential of search for the monochromatic gamma ray in cases of the wino- or Higgsino-like neutralino DM then can be understood as follows; as the neutralino mass increases, the signal rate of the monochromatic gamma ray reduces less quickly compared with the other DM signatures.

On the other hand, this cross section should be bounded from above by the unitarity limit $`\sigma v<4\pi /(vm^2)`$ . Thus, for the extreme heavy neutralino, this one-loop result must fail , and the higher-order corrections should be included. Indeed, the wino- or Higgsino-like neutralino is accompanied with chargino in the same SU(2) multiplet, and their masses are almost degenerate. In these cases, the intermediate chargino-pair state in the process is almost on-shell, since the neutralino DM is non-relativistic (NR). When $`m`$ is large, the diagrams are enhanced by a factor of $`\alpha _2m/m_W`$ for each $`W`$ boson exchange, and the higher-order loop diagrams become more and more important. Then, the one-loop result is not valid anymore, and we need to sum the contributions from ladder diagrams of the weak-boson exchange to all orders.

This failure of the perturbative expansion is similar to the threshold singularity in pair creation or annihilation processes in QCD or QED . In the quark-pair annihilation process at the threshold (NR) region, the higher-order corrections are non-negligible since nearly on-shell quark is dominated in the loop integration due to the small relative velocity. In other words, the deformation of the quark wave function by the QCD potential is not negligible at the threshold region. In order to get the reliable cross section, we need to sum ladder diagrams by gluon exchange to all orders, or to use the wave function for quarks under the QCD potential. In the neutralino annihilation to two photons, we need to include the Yukawa potential of the weak boson. When $`1/(\alpha _2m)`$ is larger than the effective range of the Yukawa potential $`1/m_W`$, the Yukawa potential is point-like in the coordinate space, and does not deform the wave functions of neutralino and chargino. However, if $`m`$ is heavier, the wave functions of chargino and neutralino are deviated from plane waves inside $`1/(\alpha _2m)`$. In this case, the perturbative expansion at the threshold region should be broken.

The NR field theory is useful to investigate these higher-order corrections at the threshold region in QCD or QED . In this technique, we can factorize the short-distance physics, such as annihilation or production, from the long-distance physics related to the wave function . The evaluation of the contribution from the long-distance physics is possible either by systematical resummation of the ladder diagrams in diagrammatic methods or by evaluating the wave function under the potential. This formalism is also useful to evaluate the higher-order corrections in the neutralino annihilation to two photons. From a viewpoint of the NR field theory, the short-distance physics comes from the chargino-pair annihilation to two photons, and the long-distance physics from the weak-boson exchanges, in addition to the photon exchange between charginos.

In this paper, the higher-order corrections to the annihilation cross section of the neutralino to two photons is studied in cases of the wino- or Higgsino-like neutralino DM. First, we construct the two-body effective action of non-relativistic neutralino and chargino pairs. Using this formula, we estimate two-loop corrections by weak-boson exchange in a diagrammatic method. The two-loop contribution becomes important when the neutralino is as heavy as $`m_W/\alpha _2`$. From the explicit calculation, we found that the critical mass, above that the two-loop contribution is larger than one-loop one, is about 8 TeV for the wino-like neutralino, and is about $`O(10)`$ TeV for the Higgsino-like one. The resummation of the weak-boson exchange contributions to all orders is possible by solving numerically the wave functions of chargino and neutralino under the Yukawa potentials of the weak bosons . We also calculate all-order corrections by photon exchange, by using the wave function deformed by Coulomb potential. The QED corrections depend on the mass difference between neutralino and chargino, $`\delta m`$. The wino-like neutralino is highly degenerate with the chargino, and $`\delta m`$ is typically $``$ 0.1 GeV. For this case, we found that the QED corrections enhance the cross section by 1.5$``$2 when the neutralino mass is a few TeV.

This paper is organized as follows. In next section we briefly review masses and interactions of neutralino and chargino, especially in the wino- and Higgsino-like cases. In section III, we construct the two-body effective action of the NR neutralino and chargino pairs and show the strategy for our calculation. Here, in order to show the validity for our formalism, we reproduce the previous one-loop result, and show that the unitarity bound is satisfied in an extremely heavy neutralino mass limit. In section IV, we first include all-order QED corrections to the leading cross section, and we evaluate two-loop corrections by $`Z`$ and $`W`$ boson exchange. Section V is devoted to conclusion and discussion. We give a full effective Lagrangian relevant to our study in Appendix A.

II Non-Relativistic Action of Wino- or Higgsino-like Neutralino and Chargino.

In this section, we review the mass spectrum and the low-energy interaction of the SU(2) multiplets containing the lightest neutralino. We are interested in the case where the lightest neutralino LSP ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$) is almost degenerate with the lighter chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$) in mass. For simplicity, we assume that all the other SUSY particles, including the two heavier neutralino states ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$) and the heavier chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$), are so heavy that we can ignore their contributions to the DM annihilation.

Neutralinos are linear combinations of supersymmetric partners of gauge bosons, the bino ($`\stackrel{~}{B}`$) and the neutral wino ($`\stackrel{~}{W}^0`$), and those of Higgs bosons, the Higgsinos ($`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2^0`$). While those four fields have SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) invariant masses, they are mixed with each others by the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry breaking. The lightest neutralino is wino-like when $`M_2\mu ,M_1`$ and Higgsino-like if $`\mu M_1,M_2`$. Here $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the bino and the wino masses, respectively, and $`\mu `$ is the supersymmetric Higgsino mass parameter. When $`M_1,M_2,\mu m_Z`$, the lightest neutralino mass is

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2c_W^2}{M_2^2\mu ^2}}(M_2+\mu \mathrm{sin}2\beta )`$ (1)
for the wino-like case, and

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2(1+\mathrm{sin}2\beta )}{2(\mu M_1)(\mu M_2)}}(\mu M_1c_W^2M_2s_W^2)`$ (2)
for the Higgsino-like case ($`\mu >0`$). Here, we show the terms up to $`𝒪(m_Z^2/m_{SUSY})`$.

Charginos are linear combinations of the charged wino, $`\stackrel{~}{W}^\pm `$, and the charged Higgsino ($`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2^+`$). When $`M_2,\mu m_W`$, the lighter chargino mass is

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+}M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{M_2^2\mu ^2}}(M_2+\mu \mathrm{sin}2\beta )`$ (3)
for the wino-like case, and

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{M_2^2\mu ^2}}(\mu +M_2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )`$ (4)
for the Higgsino-like case. We show the terms up to $`𝒪(m_Z^2/m_{SUSY})`$ here, again.

The mass difference between chargino and the LSP, $`\delta m`$, is an important parameter for the neutralino annihilation cross section into two photons. For the wino-like case, their masses are highly degenerate. The tree-level mass difference is $`𝒪(m_Z^4/m_{SUSY}^3)`$ in a case $`m_Z,M_2M_1,\mu `$,

$`\delta m_{\mathrm{tree}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^4}{M_1\mu ^2}}s_W^2c_W^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta ,`$ (5)
since the $`𝒪(m_Z^2/m_{SUSY})`$ corrections to the masses are SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) invariant. The mass splitting receives the positive contribution from the gauge boson loops due to the custodial SU(2) breaking. The radiative mass difference in the wino limit is

$`\delta m_{\mathrm{rad}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2M_2}{4\pi }}\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{M_2}})c_W^2f({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{M_2}})f(0)\right),`$ (6)
where $`f(a)=_0^1𝑑x2(1+x)\mathrm{log}(x^2+(1x)a^2)`$ . This correction is about $`0.18`$GeV when $`M_2m_W`$.

For the Higgsino-like LSP, the mass splitting is $`𝒪(m_Z^2/m_{SUSY})`$,

$`\delta m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_2}}c_W^2(1\mathrm{sin}2\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_1}}s_W^2(1+\mathrm{sin}2\beta ).`$ (7)
The second-lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$) also degenerates with the LSP and chargino, since they are in common SU(2) multiplets. The mass difference between the LSP and the second lightest neutralino, $`\delta m_N`$, is again $`𝒪(m_W^2/m_{SUSY})`$,

$`\delta m_N={\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_2}}c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_1}}s_W^2.`$ (8)
This is roughly $`2\times \delta m`$ when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$.

Next, we consider interactions among neutralino(s) and chargino. After ignoring all SUSY particles except $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1(2)}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+`$, the interactions which we have to take into account are only the gauge interactions. The leading correction by non-vanishing $`\delta m`$ to the neutralino annihilation cross section to two photons is $`𝒪(\sqrt{\delta m})`$. As will be shown in next section, the $`𝒪(\sqrt{\delta m})`$ correction originates from an infrared behavior of the loop integrand which is controlled by $`\delta m`$. The next-to-leading order correction is $`𝒪(\delta m)`$. To this order, the Yukawa interactions of the Higgs bosons or unphysical (NG) bosons must be included to keep the gauge invariance. In this paper, we calculate the annihilation cross section up to the leading-order correction $`𝒪(\sqrt{\delta m})`$, however, it is straight-forward to include the next-to-leading order calculations.

In the wino limit, the gauge interactions of inos are

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}W_\mu ^{}+h.c.)+e{\displaystyle \frac{c_W}{s_W}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}Z_\mu +e\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}A_\mu .`$ (9)
The NR Lagrangian can be derived by taking a NR limit of neutralino and chargino and integrating out of the gauge fields, and we find

$`_{\mathrm{NR}}^{(W)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _N^{}\left(i_t+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\eta _N+\eta _C^{}\left(i_t\delta m+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\eta _C+\xi _C^{}\left(i_t\delta m{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\xi _C`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\eta _C^{}(x)\xi _C(\stackrel{}{y},t)\frac{1\frac{c_W^2}{s_W^2}e^{m_Z|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}\xi _C^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\eta _C(x)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2s_W^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3y(\eta _N^{}(x)\eta _N^c(\stackrel{}{y},t){\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_W|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}\xi _C^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\eta _C(x)+h.c.).`$
Here, $`\eta _C`$, $`\xi _C`$ and $`\eta _N`$ are defined as

$`\eta _C={\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^0}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}e^{imt},\xi _C={\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^0}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}e^{imt},\eta _N={\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^0}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{imt}.`$ (11)
We keep isospin singlet terms only, because only these terms are necessary to calculate the neutralino annihilation cross section.

The gauge interactions in the Higgsino limit are

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}W_\mu ^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}W_\mu ^{}+h.c.){\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_Wc_W}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_W^2)\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}Z_\mu `$ (12)
$`+e\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0Z_\mu .`$
The NR Lagrangian is derived in the same way as the wino-like case,

$`_{\mathrm{NR}}^{(H)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _N^{}\left(i_t+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\eta _N+\eta _C^{}\left(i_t\delta m+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\eta _C`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\xi _C^{}\left(i_t\delta m{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\xi _C+\xi _N^{}\left(i_t\delta m_N+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m}}\right)\xi _N`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\eta _C^{}(x)\xi _C(\stackrel{}{y},t)\frac{1\frac{(12c_W^2)^2}{4c_W^2s_W^2}e^{m_Z|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}\xi _C^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\eta _C(x)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8s_W^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3y(\eta _N^{}(x)\eta _N^c(\stackrel{}{y},t){\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_W|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}\xi _C^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\eta _C(x)+h.c.)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8s_W^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3y(\xi _N^{}(x)\xi _N^c(\stackrel{}{y},t){\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_W|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}\xi _C^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\eta _C(x)+h.c.)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{16c_W^2s_W^2}}{\displaystyle }d^3y(\eta _N^{}(x)\eta _N^c(\stackrel{}{y},t){\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_Z|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}\xi _{N}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{y},t)\xi _N(x)+h.c.).`$
Here, $`\xi _N`$ is defined as $`\xi _N=(1\gamma ^0)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0e^{imt}/2`$, since the sign of the the second-lightest neutralino mass is opposite to that of the LSP.

So far we have derived the NR Lagrangian relevant to the neutralino and chargino scattering. Now we would like to include the terms relevant to the neutralino pair annihilation into two photons in the framework. The process $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma \gamma `$ involves external photons whose momentums are of the order of the neutralino mass. Those photons cannot be described in the NR Lagrangian. However, it is possible to calculate the pair-annihilation cross section in this formalism, by introducing the a non-unitary four-Fermi terms in the NR Lagrangian. The optical theorem relates the imaginary part of neutralino forward-scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$ to the pair-annihilation cross section $`\sigma `$;

$$2\mathrm{Im}𝒯=s\sigma v.$$
(14)
Here $`s`$ and $`v`$ are square of the center-of-mass energy and the relative velocity, respectively. The LSP-pair annihilation cross section therefore can be obtained by calculating the imaginary part of the forward-scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$ if proper non-unitary terms are incorporated. This also justifies the factorization of the short-distance physics from the the long-distance one, and it is discussed in detail in Ref. .

When we explicitly keep the chargino fields in the NR action, the annihilation into two photons is described by a chargino four-Fermi operator. The annihilation term is given by

$`_{\mathrm{ann}}=d\eta _C^{}(x)\xi _C(x)\xi _C^{}(x)\eta _C(x).`$ (15)
The coupling $`d`$ is matched to the chargino pair-annihilation cross section to two photons using Eq. (14), or equivalently $`v\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}^{(c)}=\mathrm{Im}d/2`$. We find $`d=i\pi \alpha ^2/m^2`$. We do not include the annihilation terms for the LSP or the next-lightest neutralino, since they are responsible to the processes to $`W`$\- or $`Z`$-boson pairs, not to photons.

III Two-body State Effective Action

In order to calculate the neutralino annihilation cross section, it is convenient to use the effective Lagrangian for the neutralino and the chargino two-body states than the NR Lagrangian directly. The two-body state effective action is derived by introducing auxiliary fields for $`\eta _C^{}\xi _C`$, $`\eta _N^{}\eta _N^c`$, $`\xi _N^{}\xi _N^c`$ and their Hermitian conjugate fields. After some calculations, the two-body state effective action is found to be

$`S_{2\mathrm{b}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4P}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle }d^3r[\varphi _{C}^{(P)}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})(E2\delta m+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i\alpha ^2}{m^2}}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}))\varphi _C^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\varphi _{N_i}^{(P)}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\left(E2\delta m_i+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m}}\right)\varphi _{N_i}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$
$`+\zeta _C{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_Zr}}{r}}\varphi _{C}^{(P)}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _C^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\omega _i{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_Wr}}{r}}\{\varphi _{C}^{(P)}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _{N_i}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})+h.c.\}`$
$`+\zeta _N{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_Zr}}{r}}\{\varphi _{N_1}^{(P)}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _{N_2}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})+h.c.\}].`$
Here, $`\varphi _C^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\varphi _{N_1}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\varphi _{N_2}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ correspond to the chargino pair, the lightest neutralino pair and the second-lightest neutralino pair, respectively, and $`\delta m_1=0`$ and $`\delta m_2=\delta m_N`$. The capital $`P`$ is the center of mass energy and momentum of the two-body state, and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the relative coordinate. The internal energy of the neutralino pair, $`E`$, is defined as $`E=P^0\stackrel{}{P}^2/(4m)`$. The coupling constants $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, $`\zeta _C`$ and $`\zeta _N`$ in $`S_{2\mathrm{b}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}}`$ are

$$\omega _1=\frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha }{s_W^2},\omega _2=0,\zeta _C=\frac{\alpha c_W^2}{s_W^2},\zeta _N=0$$
(17)
for the wino-like case, and

$$\omega _1=\frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha }{4s_W^2},\omega _2=\frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha }{4s_W^2},\zeta _C=\frac{\alpha (12c_W^2)^2}{4c_W^2s_W^2},\zeta _N=\frac{\alpha }{4c_W^2s_W^2}$$
(18)
for the Higgsino-like case.

The S-wave states of the neutralino and chargino pairs must give the largest contribution to the annihilation cross section, because higher angular-momentum modes are suppressed by power(s) of the relative velocity $`v`$ compared with the S-wave state. Thus, the partial wave expansion of $`S_{2\mathrm{b}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}}`$ is convenient for us. For this purpose, we expand $`\varphi _{N_1}^{(P)}`$ as

$`\varphi _{N_1}^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})={\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }N_{plm}(P)(2p)j_l(pr)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )}.`$ (19)
Here, $`j_l(pr)`$ is the spherical Bessel function, and $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the spherical harmonic function. The quantum number $`p`$ is related to the internal energy $`E`$ as $`E=p^2/m`$ under the on-shell condition. In Eq. (19), $`N_{plm}`$ is the annihilation operator for the positive-energy state with quantum numbers $`(plm)`$.

As mentioned in Section II, the annihilation cross section of the neutralino pair can be calculated from the forward-scattering amplitude by using the optical theorem,

$`\sigma v\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}\mathrm{Im}𝒯_{pp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}\right)`$ (20)
where the forward-scattering amplitude $`𝒯_{pp}(E)`$ is

$`(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(PP^{})i𝒯_{pp}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{v^2}}0|N_{p00}(P)N_{p00}^{}(P^{})|0`$ (21)
and the relative velocity $`v=2p/m`$. The amplitude $`𝒯_{pp}`$ may be obtained by solving the equation of motion for the two-body state derived from Eq. (16), as in the scattering theory in the quantum mechanics. Or, we may also calculate it by using the perturbative theory in a diagrammatic method.

The dominant contribution to $`𝒯_{pp}`$ in the each loop order comes from the ladders of photon and weak-boson exchange, as illustrated in Fig. 1, provided that the intermediate neutralinos and charginos are almost on-shell and enhance the corresponding amplitudes. Similar phenomena are found in QED or QCD as mentioned in Section I. In the electron and positron pair annihilation/production at the threshold region, the ratio between the lowest-order amplitude and the amplitude with additional one-photon exchange between electron and positron is proportional to $`\alpha /v`$ at $`v0`$. This is well-known as the threshold singularity. In order to evaluate the cross section, we need the resummation of the ladder diagrams since a ladder diagram with $`n`$-photon exchange is proportional to $`(\alpha /v)^n`$. The other diagrams, such as the crossed ladder diagrams, are suppressed by additional factors of $`v`$.

The efficient evaluation for the effect of the resummation of the ladder diagrams to the electron and positron pair annihilation/production is to use the wave functions for electron and positron pair under the QED (Coulomb) potential. When we expand the two-body state of the electron and positron pair by the wave functions under the Coulomb potential, the Coulomb potential disappears from the two-body state action, and the calculation of the annihilation cross section at the threshold region is only for a tree-level diagram by the annihilation term, and becomes extremely simple.

In the evaluation for the neutralino annihilation cross section, the resummation of weak-boson exchange diagrams, in addition to that of photon exchange, is required for the heavy neutralino annihilation cross section. The wave functions of chargino and neutralino(s) under both Coulomb and Yukawa potentials can be derived numerically, not analytically. Then, we also consider the behavior of the cross section in a limit of $`m\mathrm{}`$. In next section we use the wave functions under the Coulomb potential for the chargino pair and the free wave functions for the neutralino pairs so that we can incorporate the all-order ladder diagrams of photon exchange, and we derive some numerical results.

In order to demonstrate the validity of the effective action Eq. (16), first, we reproduce the previous one-loop result for the neutralino annihilation cross section to two photons in our formulation. The leading contribution to $`\mathrm{Im}𝒯_{pp}`$ in the perturbative calculation is

$`\mathrm{Im}𝒯_{pp}\left(0\right)=4\pi \alpha ^2\left|(4\pi \omega _1){\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{i}{|\stackrel{}{k}|^2+m_W^2}\frac{i}{|\stackrel{}{k}|^2/m+2\delta m}}\right|^2.`$ (22)
The velocity of the incident neutralinos is almost $`0`$ in the above calculation since $`v/c10^3`$ for the neutralino DM in our galactic halo. By integrating the r.h.s. of Eq. (22) and using Eq. (20), we find

$`\sigma v_{1\mathrm{loop}}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2\omega _1^2}{m_W^2}}\left(1+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m\delta m}{m_W^2}}}\right)^2.`$ (23)
This agrees with the result  which is obtained of the full one-loop calculation in the heavy wino or Higgsino limit.

It is found from Eq. (22) that the amplitude is enhanced by a factor of $`\omega _1m/m_W`$, in which $`m`$ comes from chargino propagators in Eq. (22) if $`\delta m`$ can be neglected. Other factor $`1/m_W`$ comes from the weak-boson propagators and the loop integral. The same enhancement factors also appear in the higher-order calculations. Whenever one weak-boson exchange is added to the ladder graph, it gives an additional factor $`\omega _1m/m_W`$.

Note that the leading correction due to the mass difference $`\delta m`$ is $`𝒪(\sqrt{\delta m})`$ in Eq. (23), not $`𝒪(\delta m)`$ as mentioned in the previous section. If the correction was $`𝒪(\delta m)`$, the integrand in Eq. (22) could be expanded by $`\delta m`$. However, in this case, the integral is infrared-divergent.

The one-loop cross section is independent of the neutralino mass in small $`\delta m`$ limit. On the other hand, the cross section should be bounded by the unitarity condition $`\sigma v<4\pi /(vm^2)`$. Therefore the higher-order corrections must dominate the cross section, so that the correct $`1/m^2`$ behavior would be reproduced. This is explained as follow. If the neutralino mass is much larger than the weak-boson mass, we can neglect the effect of the weak-boson mass in the equation of motion. This can be seen by introducing the dimensionless coordinate $`x=\alpha _2mr`$ in Eq. (16). The factor $`e^{m_Wr}`$ can be approximated to 1 in such an extremely large $`m`$ case. Then, it is found that the cross section of the extremely heavy neutralino has the mass dependence $`\sigma 1/m^2`$ from the dimensional analysis. In fact, we can solve the equation of motion and obtain the forward-scattering amplitude analytically in the large mass limit, because gauge interactions in this Lagrangian generate a common potential $`1/r`$, say the Coulomb force.

Now we calculate the cross section in this large mass limit. We take the wino limit for the LSP as an example, however, the result is similar for the Higgsino-like neutralino. It is convenient to change the basis from ($`\varphi _C^{(P)},\varphi _N^{(P)}`$) to ($`\varphi _+^{(P)},\varphi _{}^{(P)}`$) in the two-body state effective action so that the $`1/r`$ potential terms are diagonalized as

$`\left(\varphi _C^{(P)}\varphi _N^{(P)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\alpha +\zeta _C}{r}& \frac{\omega _1}{r}\\ \frac{\omega _1}{r}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _C^{(P)}\\ \varphi _N^{(P)}\end{array}\right)\left(\varphi _+^{(P)}\varphi _{}^{(P)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda _+}{r}& 0\\ 0& \frac{\lambda _{}}{r}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _+^{(P)}\\ \varphi _{}^{(P)}\end{array}\right).`$ (32)
Here, $`\lambda _\pm =0.5\left(\alpha +\zeta _C\pm \sqrt{(\alpha +\zeta _C)^2+4\omega _1^2}\right)`$. Since $`\lambda _+>0`$ and $`\lambda _{}<0`$, $`\varphi _+^{(P)}`$ feels an attractive force, and $`\varphi _{}^{(P)}`$ feels a repulsive one. The neutralino annihilation cross section is derived from the $`\varphi _+^{(P)}`$ annihilation, while the contribution from $`\varphi _{}^{(P)}`$ is exponentially suppressed due to the repulsive force. Neglecting the $`\varphi _{}`$ contribution, the forward-scattering amplitude is written as follows;

$`\mathrm{Im}𝒯_{pp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\omega _1^2\alpha ^2\lambda _+}{v(\lambda _+^2+\omega _1^2)(1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \lambda _+/v))}}.`$ (33)
Then, the neutralino annihilation cross section to two photons in the large mass limit is

$`\sigma v={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\omega _1^2\alpha ^2\lambda _+}{m^2v(\lambda _+^2+\omega _1^2)(1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \lambda _+/v))}}2.8\times 10^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vm^2}}.`$ (34)
This cross section behaves as $`\sigma v1/vm^2`$, and satisfies the unitarity bound as expected.

IV Higher-order Corrections in Neutralino Annihilation to Two Photons

In the previous section, we showed that the higher-order corrections from the weak-boson ladder diagrams must be non-negligible if the neutralino mass $`m`$ is larger than $`m_W/\alpha _2`$. In this section we estimate more carefully the scale where the perturbative approximation is broken down. We also discuss another important higher-order corrections from the photon ladder diagrams.

We start our discussion from the effect of photon exchange. The corresponding diagrams in the perturbative calculation of $`𝒯_{pp}`$ are shown in Fig. 2. In this figure, the orders of the amplitudes are also shown. The lowest-order diagram at the left side of the figure gives the amplitude $`A_0`$ ($`A_0\alpha \alpha _2m/m_W`$). The diagrams have an addition factor $`\alpha \sqrt{m/\delta m}`$ for each photon exchange, and then, the higher-order diagrams of photon exchange become important if the mass difference ($`\delta m`$) is smaller than $`\alpha ^2m`$.

The enhancement factor $`\alpha \sqrt{m/\delta m}`$ comes from the massless photon exchange at $`t`$-channel. For the neutralino DM pair annihilation, the initial neutralinos is almost at rest, and then the intermediate charginos just slightly deviate from on-shell states by the mass difference between chargino and neutralino, $`\delta m`$. The situation is similar to calculation of the pair production at threshold in QED or QCD. In this case, the intermediate particles deviate from on-shell states by $`𝒪(v^2m)`$ where $`v`$ is the relative velocity of the incident particles, and the diagrams have an addition factor $`\alpha _{(s)}/v`$ for each photon (gluon) exchange.

If neutralino is highly degenerate with chargino in mass, we need resummation of the photon ladder diagrams. Similar to the positron and electron annihilation/production explained in the previous section, the resummation of the ladder diagrams is possible analytically, by expanding the chargino-pair field ($`\varphi _C(\stackrel{}{r})`$) in the two-body state effective action Eq. (16), in terms of the eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger equation with the Coulomb potential,

$`\varphi _C^{(P)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }C_{klm}(P)R_C^{(kl)}(r)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{nlm}(P)\stackrel{~}{R}_C^{(nl)}(r)\right]Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ).`$ (35)
Here, $`C_{klm}`$ is the annihilation operator of the continuum state of a chargino pair with quantum numbers $`(klm)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{nlm}`$ is one of a chargino-pair bound state with $`(nlm)`$. $`R_C^{(kl)}(r)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_C^{(nl)}(r)`$ are eigenfunctions of the radial direction for the states. Both $`R_C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_C`$ are given by the confluent hypergeometric function, and the S-wave parts of these functions are

$`R_C^{(k0)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}}e^{ikr}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2k}}i+1,2,2ikr),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_C^{(n0)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2n}}\right)^{3/2}e^{\alpha mr/2n}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n+1,2,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha mr}{n}}),`$ (36)
where $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the (Kummer’s) confluent hypergeometric function. With this expansion and Eq. (19), we derive the S-wave effective Lagrangian of the two-body states. We show details of the Lagrangian in appendix A.

In the following we calculate the higher-order corrections of gauge-boson exchange. The forward-scattering amplitude $`𝒯_{pp}`$ is calculated from the S-wave effective Lagrangian by treating weak-boson exchange interactions perturbatively. The effect of all-order photon-exchange effects are now automatically taken into account in $`\alpha `$ dependent coefficients of the interactions.

We first calculate the cross section in the leading level where the effect of only one $`W`$-boson exchange is included. After some calculation, we find

$`\sigma v\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{m^2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega _1}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{imA_{NC}(p,k)}{p^2k^22m\delta m+i0^+}\sqrt{\frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega _1}{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{imA_{N\stackrel{~}{C}}(p,n)}{p^2+\alpha ^2m^2/4n^22m\delta m+i0^+}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2}}\right)^{3/2}|^2.`$
The coefficients $`A_{NC}`$ and $`A_{N\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ are defined in Appendix A. Here the first term in r.h.s. comes from the continuum states of chargino pair, while the second term from the discrete states of chargino pair.

We first investigate contributions of the chargino bound states to the cross section. We can see from Eq.(39) that their contributions are suppressed by a factor $`\alpha `$ compared with the continuum part. This is because the overlap between the wave functions of the neutralino pair and the chargino bound states is suppressed by $`\alpha `$. If energy of the neutralino pair is on the pole of the chargino bound state ($`p^2/m2\delta m\alpha ^2m/4n^2`$), the cross section is enhanced beyond the suppression due to the small overlap of the wave functions. However, it is very unlikely for the pair annihilation of the neutralino DM. The average DM velocity in our galactic halo is roughly $`v/c10^3`$. Thus, the bound state contribution is negligible as far as the neutralino mass is smaller than 100TeV, since $`p^2/m10^6m`$ and the mass difference $`\delta m`$ may be larger than 100MeV.

Thus, we only have to take into account the contribution from the continuum chargino-pair states. Since the continuum part of the cross section is a smooth function around the $`p0`$, the cross section for the neutralino DM annihilation may be approximated by $`\sigma v(0)`$. The result is

$`\sigma v(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{m^2}}\left|C(0)\right|^2`$ (37)
where

$`C(0)`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _1{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{4im\pi \alpha mk}{1e^{\pi \alpha m/k}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2k}}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2m_Wk}{m_W^2k^2}})\right]}{k^2+m_W^2}\frac{1}{k^22m\delta m}}.`$
In a limit of vanishing $`\alpha `$, the $`\sigma v`$ reduces to $`\sigma v_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ in Eq. (23).

In Fig. 3 a), solid lines are $`\sigma v(0)`$ for $`\delta m=0.1`$GeV, 1 GeV and 10 GeV. The left axis corresponds to the wino-like neutralino annihilation cross section, and the right axis is for the Higgsino-like one. For comparison, $`\sigma v_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ in Eq. (23) are also shown by dashed lines. Note that influences of the QED potential always work to enhance the cross section. This is because the Coulomb force acts as an attractive force between the chargino pair. In Fig. 3 b), contours of $`\sigma v(0)/\sigma v_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ is shown in a ($`m`$, $`\delta m`$) plane. The enhancement is large if the mass difference $`\delta m`$ is small and $`m`$ is large as expected. For the wino-like neutralino, which is highly degenerate with chargino as $`\delta m𝒪(100)`$MeV, the enhancement by factor of 2 is possible when the neutralino mass is $`𝒪(1)`$TeV.

Next, we discuss the next-to-leading order corrections arising from the diagrams of two weak-boson exchange. The detail of the calculation will be given elsewhere , and we only show the ratio between the next-to-leading order corrections and the leading amplitude, $`R`$, in Fig.4.

In the wino-like case, the $`Z`$ exchange between the chargino pair, shown in Fig. 5, leads to the next-to-leading order corrections. In Fig. 4 a), the ratio $`R`$ in the wino-like case is plotted as a function of $`m`$ with $`\delta m`$ = 0.1 GeV and 1 GeV. We call the value of $`m`$ where $`|R|=1`$ as the critical neutralino mass $`m_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. Above and around the mass, the higher-order corrections is larger than the leading-order one, therefore the perturbation is not reliable any more. For the wino-like case, $`m_{\mathrm{crit}}10`$TeV, and for the Higgsino-like case $`m_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ $`O(10)`$TeV.

V Conclusion and Discussion

Although the existence of DM is established, we do not yet know the DM nature. The neutralino DM predicted in MSSM is actively searched for by various experiments, trying to solve this myth. The search for gamma-ray signal from the center of our galaxy is a feasible way to discover the neutralino DM. Especially the monochromatic gamma ray from the neutralino DM pair annihilation is a robust signal.

The reliable estimation of the signal rate is important to either set limit of the neutralino DM or interpret the observed signals. The major systematic error of the signal rate comes from the distribution of the dark matter in our galaxy. However, the pair annihilation cross section $`\sigma (\chi _1^0\chi _1^02\gamma )`$ has not been also understood completely. The problem arises when $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is wino- or Higgsino-like. In that case, the one-loop cross section $`\sigma v_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ is approximately constant, and does not scale as $`1/m^2`$. The one-loop cross section obviously breaks the unitarity bound in $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit. The enhancement comes from chargino in the loop, which is degenerate with the LSP neutralino.

In this paper we study the higher-order loop corrections to the pair annihilation process. We find that the dominant contribution comes from the ladder diagram of weak bosons and photon exchange. We study the corrections using NRQED technique, which allows us to incorporate ladder-type QED corrections analytically to all orders, while including weak boson exchange corrections perturbatively. We find the QED corrections enhance the cross section up to a factor of two. We also find the critical scale $`m_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, around and above which the next-to-leading order corrections by weak-boson exchange are larger than the leading contribution, is $``$ $`O(10)`$ TeV for the Higgsino-like LSP and $``$ 10 TeV for the wino-like LSP. The corrections reduce the cross section for $`m<m_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. We also find the pair-annihilation cross section satisfies the unitarity bound in a limit of $`m\mathrm{}`$. We note that our formulation may be used for any other DM candidate if the DM comes from SU(2) multiplets and the DM is degenerate with other components in mass.

The relic density of the Higgsino- or wino-like LSP with the mass above 1 TeV may be consistent to the matter density of the Universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. The monochromatic gamma ray in TeV region may be searched for the future atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (ACT) . The signal flux may be above the sensitivity, if the DM density distribution is singular at the center of our galaxy. Therefore it is important to estimate the neutralino pair-annihilation cross section reliably. For such a heavy Higgsino- or wino-like neutralino, one has to sum the weak corrections to all orders as we discussed in this paper. The resummation is possible by the solving the NR equation of motion of neutralino .

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Gondolo, Dr. Kinoshita, Dr. Onogi and Dr. Sumino for useful discussion, and Dr. Fukae for giving his master thesis to us. The work of SM is supported by JSPS. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No. 14046225 and No. 1313527 for JH, and No. 14540260 and No. 14046210 for MMN).

Appendix A S-wave Lagrangian

In this appendix, we list the full S-wave Lagrangian, which is used to calculate the leading and the next-to-leading order corrections of the cross section. The S-wave Lagrangian is obtained by substituting Eq. (19) and Eq. (35) to the two-body state effective action Eq. (16), and extracting the S-wave parts. We find

$`_S`$ $`=`$ $`_0+_W+_Z+_\mathrm{a},`$
where

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\left(E\frac{p^2}{m}\right)N_{p}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}N_p^{(1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\left(E2\delta m_N\frac{p^2}{m}\right)N_{p}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}N_p^{(2)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\left(E2\delta m\frac{k^2}{m}\right)C_k^{}C_k}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(E2\delta m+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha ^2}{4n^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}\stackrel{~}{C}_n,`$
$`_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\omega _i{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\frac{dk}{2\pi }A_{NC}(p,k)\left[C_k^{}N_p^{(i)}+N_{p}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}C_k\right]}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\omega _i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }A_{N\stackrel{~}{C}}(p,n)\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}N_p^{(i)}+N_{p}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\right]},`$
$`_Z`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _C{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }A_{CC}(k,k^{})C_k^{}C_k^{}}+\zeta _C{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}A_{\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}}(n,n^{})\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`\zeta _C{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }A_{C\stackrel{~}{C}}(k,n)\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}C_k+C_k^{}\stackrel{~}{C}_n\right]}`$
$`+`$ $`\zeta _N{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }\frac{dp^{}}{2\pi }A_{NN}(p,p^{})\left[N_{p}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}N_p^{}^{(2)}+N_{p^{}}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}N_p^{(1)}\right]},`$
$`_a`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{m^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}C_k^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2n}}\right)^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}\right]`$ (38)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\pi \alpha mk^{}}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k^{})}}C_k^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2n^{}}}\right)^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{C}_n^{}\right].`$
Here, we omit the arguments $`P`$, $`l`$, and $`m`$ for simplicity, which are the center of mass energy and momentum, and orbit-angular momentums, respectively. Coupling constants $`\omega _1`$, etc, are defined by the Eqs. (17,18). $`N_p^{(1)}`$ and $`N_p^{(2)}`$ are annihilation operators of the lightest and next-lightest neutralino pairs, respectively, and $`C_k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$ are for the continuum and discrete chargino pair states. The coefficients $`A_{NC}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{N\stackrel{~}{C}}`$, etc, are given by a little complicated functions,

$`A_{NC}(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha m}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Wi(p+k)}{m_Wi(pk)}}\right)^{i\alpha m/2k}\right],`$
$`A_{N\stackrel{~}{C}}(p,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2n}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W\alpha m/2nip}{m_W+\alpha m/2nip}}\right)^n\right],`$
$`A_{CC}(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{m_z^2+(kk^{})^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha mk^{}}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k^{})}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z+i(k+k^{})}{m_zi(kk^{})}}\right)^{i\alpha m/2k}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z+i(k+k^{})}{m_zi(k^{}k)}}\right)^{i\alpha m/2k^{}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2k}}i+1,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2k^{}}}i+1,2,{\displaystyle \frac{4kk^{}}{m_z^2+(kk^{})^2}}),`$
$`A_{\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}}(n,n^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4m_z^2\alpha ^2m^2(1/n1/n^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3m^3}{(nn^{})^{3/2}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_z\alpha m(1/n1/n^{})}{2m_z+\alpha m(1/n+1/n^{})}}\right)^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_z\alpha m(1/n^{}1/n)}{2m_z+\alpha m(1/n+1/n^{})}}\right)^n^{}`$
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1n,1n^{},2,{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2m^2/(nn^{})}{4m_z^2+\alpha ^2m^2(1/n1/n^{})^2}}),`$
$`A_{C\stackrel{~}{C}}(k,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{m_z^2+(ik\alpha m/(2n))^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha mk}{1\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha m/k)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2n}}\right)^{3/2}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z+\alpha m/(2n)+ik}{m_z+\alpha m/(2n)ik}}\right)^{i\alpha m/2k}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z+\alpha m/(2n)+ik}{m_z\alpha m/(2n)+ik}}\right)^n`$
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m}{2k}}i+1,1n,2,{\displaystyle \frac{2ik\alpha m/n}{m_z^2(\alpha m/(2n)ik)^2}}),`$
$`A_{NN}(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z^2+(p+p^{})^2}{m_z^2+(pp^{})^2}}\right).`$ (39)
Here, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the (Gauss’s) hypergeometric function.


format: text

text:
# Equivalence Postulate and the Quantum Potential of Two Free Particles

## 1 The Equivalence Postulate

Let us consider two one–dimensional one–particle state. The Equivalence Postulate (EP) is the condition that the coordinate transformation

$$𝒮_0^b(q^b)=𝒮_0^a(q^a),$$
(1)
be well–defined for any pair of states. $`𝒮_0`$ is also characterized by the condition that in a suitable limit reduces to the Hamiltonian characteristic function (also called reduced action) $`𝒮_0^{cl}`$. Eq.(1) implies that ($`𝒲(q)V(q)E`$)

$$𝒲^a(q^a)𝒲^b(q^b)=\left(_{q^b}q^a\right)^2𝒲^a(q^a)+(q^a;q^b),$$
(2)
where, due to the commutative diagram of maps

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & b& & \\ & & & & \\ a& & & & c\end{array}$$
(3)
the unknown term $`(q^a;q^b)`$ must satisfy the cocycle condition

$$(q^a;q^c)=\left(_{q^c}q^b\right)^2(q^a;q^b)+(q^b;q^c).$$
(4)
It is well–known that this is satisfied by the Schwarzian derivative. However, it turns out that it is essentially the unique solution, that is we have

Theorem 1. Eq.(4) defines the Schwarzian derivative up to a multiplicative constant and a coboundary term.

Since the differential equation for $`𝒮_0`$ should depend only on $`_q^k𝒮_0`$, $`k1`$, it follows that the coboundary term must be zero, so that

$$(q^a;q^b)=\frac{\beta ^2}{4m}\{q^a,q^b\},$$
(5)
where $`\{f(q),q\}=f^{\prime \prime \prime }/f^{}3(f^{\prime \prime }/f^{})^2/2`$ is the Schwarzian derivative and $`\beta `$ is a nonvanishing constant that we identify with $`\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, $`𝒮_0`$ satisfies the Quantum Stationary Hamilton–Jacobi Equation (QSHJE)

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{𝒮_0(q)}{q}\right)^2+V(q)E+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}\{𝒮_0,q\}=0.$$
(6)
$`\psi =𝒮_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\left(Ae^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}+Be^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}\right)`$ solves the Schrödinger Equation (SE)

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{q^2}+V\right)\psi =E\psi .$$
(7)
The ratio $`w=\psi ^D/\psi `$ of two real linearly independent solutions of (7) is, in deep analogy with uniformization theory, the trivializing map transforming any $`𝒲`$ to $`𝒲^00`$. This formulation, proposed in collaboration with Faraggi, extends to higher dimension and to the relativistic case as well.

Let $`q_{/+}`$ be the lowest/highest $`q`$ for which $`𝒲(q)`$ changes sign, we have

Theorem 2. If

$$V(q)E\{\begin{array}{cc}P_{}^2>0,\hfill & q<q_{},\hfill \\ P_+^2>0,\hfill & q>q_+,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
then $`w`$ is a local self–homeomorphism of $`\widehat{𝐑}`$ iff Eq.(7) has an $`L^2(𝐑)`$ solution.

Since the QSHJE is defined iff $`w`$ is a local self–homeomorphism of $`\widehat{𝐑}`$, it follows that energy quantization is implied by the QSHJE itself.

Let us now review the derivation of Eqs.(1)–(6). We first look for a coordinate transformation identifying two classical one–dimensional one–particle state. We could tentatively impose the apparently harmless condition for the classical reduced action to transform as a scalar

$$𝒮_0^{clb}(q^b)=𝒮_0^{cla}(q^a),$$
(9)
so that $`q^aq^b=𝒮_{0}^{clb}{}_{}{}^{1}𝒮_0^{cla}(q^a)`$. However, there is an inconsistency which arises for all possible pairs of states. In particular, since for a free particle of vanishing energy the reduced action is a constant, it follows that even if the transformation is well–defined, the same becomes inconsistent once the two actions are described in a frame which is at rest with respect to one of them. Hence, in Classical Mechanics (CM), the equivalence under coordinate transformations requires choosing a frame in which no particle is at rest. In order to make coordinate equivalence a frame independent concept, we postulate that Eq.(1) is always defined. That is given two one–particle state with reduced actions $`𝒮_0`$ and $`𝒮_0^v`$, it always exists the “$`v`$–map” $`qq^v`$ defined by $`𝒮_0^v(q^v)=𝒮_0(q)`$. Let $`𝐇`$ be the space of all possible $`𝒲`$. This condition is essentially the same of imposing the EP

For each pair $`𝒲^a,𝒲^b𝐇`$, there exists a $`v`$–transformation such that

$$𝒲^a(q)𝒲_{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{v}(q^v)=𝒲^b(q^v).$$
(10)
The fact that one point cannot be diffeomorphic to a line is essentially the reason why the EP excludes the existence of states corresponding to a point in phase space; that is the EP implies a sort of nonlocalization in phase space which is reminiscent of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Another way to see that the EP cannot be implemented in CM is to note that the two Classical Stationary HJ Equations (CSHJE)

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{𝒮_0^{cla}(q^a)}{q^a}\right)^2+𝒲^a(q^a)=0,\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{𝒮_0^{clb}(q^b)}{q^b}\right)^2+𝒲^b(q^b)=0,$$
(11)
and Eq.(9) give $`𝒲^b(q^b)=(_{q^b}q^a)^2𝒲^a(q^a)`$. It follows that the state corresponding to $`𝒲^00`$ is a fixed a point in $`𝐇`$, that is $`𝒲^0(_{q^v}q)^2𝒲^00`$. The only way to eliminate this fixed point is to admit an inhomogeneous term in the transformation properties of $`𝒲`$, as in Eq.(2). On the other hand, we saw that the transformation properties of $`𝒲`$ are fixed by the CSHJE, so to make (1) consistent with (2), we must modify the CSHJE by adding a term $`Q(q)`$ that for the time being is completely arbitrary, that is

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{𝒮_0(q)}{q}\right)^2+𝒲(q)+Q(q)=0.$$
(12)
Eqs.(1)(2) and (12) give $`𝒲^b(q^b)+Q^b(q^b)=(_{q^b}q^a)^2[𝒲^a(q^a)+Q^a(q^a)]`$, and

$$Q^a(q^a)Q^b(q^b)=\left(_{q^b}q^a\right)^2Q^a(q^a)(q^a;q^b).$$
(13)
The main steps in deriving theorem 1 are the two lemmas

\- If $`\gamma (q)\frac{Aq+B}{Cq+D}`$, then, up to a coboundary term, Eq.(4) implies

$$(\gamma (q^a);q^b)=(q^a;q^b),(q^a;\gamma (q^b))=\left(_{q^b}\gamma (q^b)\right)^2(q^a;q^b).$$
(14)
\- If $`q^a=q^b+ϵ^{ab}(q^b)`$, the unique solution of Eq.(4), depending only on the first and higher derivatives of $`q^a`$, is

$$(q^a;q^b)=c_1ϵ_{}^{ab}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime \prime }(q^b)+𝒪^{ab}(ϵ^2),c_10.$$
(15)
Let us review the proof of the second lemma and theorem 1. Since $`(q^a;q^b)`$ should depend only on $`_{q^b}^kq^a`$, $`k1`$, we have

$$(q+ϵf(q);q)=c_1ϵf^{(k)}(q)+𝒪(ϵ^2),$$
(16)
where $`q^a=q+ϵf(q)`$, $`qq^b`$ and $`f^{(k)}_q^kf`$, $`k1`$. Note that by (14)

$$(Aq+ϵAf(q);Aq)=(q+ϵf(q);Aq)=A^2(q+ϵf(q);q),$$
(17)
on the other hand, setting $`F(Aq)=Af(q)`$, by (16) $`(Aq+ϵAf(q);Aq)=(Aq+ϵF(Aq);Aq)=c_1ϵ_{Aq}^kF(Aq)=A^{1k}c_1ϵf^{(k)}(q)`$, so that $`k=3`$. One sees that $`(Aq+ϵAf(q);Aq)`$ at order $`ϵ^n`$ is a sum of terms of the form $`c_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}_{Aq}^{i_1}ϵF(Aq)\mathrm{}_{Aq}^{i_n}ϵF(Aq)=c_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}ϵ^nA^{n{\scriptscriptstyle i_k}}f^{(i_1)}(q)\mathrm{}f^{(i_n)}(q)`$, and by (17) $`_{k=1}^ni_k=n+2`$. On the other hand, since $`(q^a;q^b)`$ depends only on $`_{q^b}^kq^a`$, $`k1`$, we have $`i_k1`$, $`k[1,n]`$, so that either $`i_k=3`$, $`i_j=1`$, $`j[1,n]`$ $`jk`$, or $`i_k=i_j=2`$, $`i_l=1`$, $`l[1,n]`$, $`lk,lj`$. Hence

$$(q+ϵf(q);q)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ^n\left(c_nf^{(3)}f^{(1)^{n1}}+d_nf^{(2)^2}f^{(1)^{n2}}\right),d_1=0.$$
(18)
Inserting the expansion (18) in (4), we obtain

$$c_n=(1)^{n1}c_1,d_n=\frac{3}{2}(1)^{n1}(n1)c_1,$$
(19)
which are the coefficients in the power expansion of $`c_1\{q+ϵf(q),q\}`$.

In deriving the equivalence of states we considered the case of one–particle states with identical masses. The generalization to the case with different masses is straightforward. In particular, the right hand side of Eq.(2) gets multiplied by $`m_b/m_a`$, so that the cocycle condition becomes

$$m_a(q^a;q^c)=m_a\left(_{q^c}q^b\right)^2(q^a;q^b)+m_b(q^b;q^c),$$
(20)
explicitly showing that the mass appears in the denominator and that it refers to the label in the first entry of $`(;)`$, that is

$$(q^a;q^b)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m_a}\{q^a;q^b\},$$
(21)
from which the QSHJE (6) follows almost immediately.

The EP leads to the introduction of length scales, a fact related to the nontriviality of the quantum potential, even in the case of $`𝒲^0`$. We note that also $`𝒮_0`$, as follows by the EP, is never trivial, in particular

$$𝒮_0cnst,𝒲𝐇.$$
(22)
The QSHJE (6), first investigated by Floyd in a series of important papers, has been recently studied and reviewed by several authors.

## 2 The two–particle model

The real solution of the QSHJE (6) is $`e^{\frac{2i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0\{\delta \}}=e^{i\alpha }\frac{w+i\overline{\mathrm{}}}{wi\mathrm{}}`$, $`\delta \{\alpha ,\mathrm{}\}`$, with $`\alpha 𝐑`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_1+i\mathrm{}_2`$, $`\mathrm{}_10`$, are integration constants. The condition $`\mathrm{}_10`$ is necessary for $`𝒮_0`$ and the quantum potential $`Q`$ to be well–defined.

The formulation has a manifest duality between real pairs of linearly independent solutions, a property strictly related to Legendre duality. Whereas in the standard approach one usually considers only one solution of the SE, i.e. the wave–function itself, in our formulation the relevant formulas contain the linear combination $`\psi ^D+i\mathrm{}\psi `$. Since $`\mathrm{}_10`$, $`\psi ^D`$ and $`\psi `$ appears always in pair. So, Legendre duality, nontriviality of $`𝒮_0`$ and $`Q`$ are deeply related features which are direct consequences of the EP. In turn, these properties imply the appearance of fundamental constants such as the Planck length. The simplest way to see this is to consider the SE in the trivial case, that is $`_{q^0}^2\psi =0`$, so that $`\psi ^D=q^0`$, $`\psi =1`$ and the typical combination reads $`q^0+i\mathrm{}_0`$, implying that $`\mathrm{}_0\mathrm{}`$ should have the dimension of a length. The fact that $`\mathrm{}`$ has the dimension of a length is true for any state. Since $`\mathrm{}_0`$ appears in the QSHJE with $`𝒲^00`$, the system does not provide any dimensional quantity, so that we have to introduce some fundamental length. The appearance of fundamental constants also arises in considering the limits $`\mathrm{}0`$ and $`E0`$ in the case of a free particle. So, for example, a consistent expression for the quantum potential associated to the trivial state $`𝒲^0`$, which vanishes as $`\mathrm{}0`$, is

$$Q^0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4m}\{𝒮_0^0,q^0\}=\frac{\mathrm{}^3G}{2mc^3}\frac{1}{|q^0i\lambda _p|^4},$$
(23)
where $`\lambda _p=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}`$ is the Planck length. However, in considering the classical limit of the reduced action one should include the gravitational contribution. So, for example, it is clear that also at the classical level the reduced action for a pair of “free” particles should include the Newton potential. This may be related to the above mentioned appearance of fundamental constants in the QSHJE. Related to this is the Floyd observation that in the classical limit there is a residual indeterminacy depending on the integration constants. Thus we see that the classical limit may in fact lead to some effect which is of quantum origin even if $`\mathrm{}`$ does not appear explicitly. We also note that, in principle, the Planck constant may appear in macroscopic phenomena. This indicates that it is worth studying the structure of the quantum potential also at large scales.

It seems that the fundamental properties of $`Q`$ have not yet fully been investigated because the usual solutions one finds are essentially trivial. This is due to a clearly unsatisfactory identification, that may lead to some inconsistency, of $`Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}`$ with the wave–function. As noticed by Floyd, if $`Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}`$ solves the SE, then the wave–function will in general have the form $`R(Ae^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}+Be^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0})`$. This simple remark has important consequences. So, for example, note that a real wave–function, such as the one for bound states, simply implies $`|A|=|B|`$ rather than $`𝒮_0=0`$. As Einstein noticed in a letter to Bohm, the latter would imply that a quantum particle in a box is at rest and starts moving in the classical limit. Therefore, besides the mathematical consistency, identifying the wave–function with $`Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}`$ cannot in general lead to a quantum analog of the reduced action. This change in the definition of $`𝒮_0`$ implies a new view of $`Q`$ which needs to be further investigated. In this respect we note that $`Q`$ provides particle’s response to an external perturbation. For example, in the case of tunnelling, where according to the standard definition $`𝒮_0`$ would be vanishing, the attractive nature of $`Q`$ guarantees the reality of the conjugate momentum. As a consequence, the role of this intrinsic energy, which is a property of all forms of matter, should manifest itself through effective interactions depending on the above fundamental constants.

It is therefore natural to consider the so called two–particle model, consisting of two free particles in the three dimensional space. This provides a simple physical model to investigate the structure of the interaction provided by $`Q`$. The QSHJE decomposes in equations for the center of mass and for the relative motion. The latter is the QSHJE

$$\frac{1}{2m}(𝒮_0)^2E\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=0,(R^2𝒮_0)=0,$$
(24)
where $`r=r_1r_2`$ and $`m=\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2}`$. Due to the quantum potential the QSHJE has solutions in which the relative motion is not free as in the classical case. Also note that the quantum potential is negative definite. Since $`\psi =Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮_0}`$ is a solution of the SE, we have $`𝒮_0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\mathrm{ln}(\psi /\overline{\psi })`$, so that

$$(𝒮_0)^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4|\psi |^4}(\overline{\psi }\psi \psi \overline{\psi })^2,$$
(25)
where $`\psi =_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{m=l}^l_{j=1}^2c_{lmj}R_{klj}(r)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$, with $`Y_{lm}`$ the spherical harmonics and $`R_{klj}`$ the solutions of the radial part of the SE.

As $`m=l\mathrm{}`$ $`P_l^l\mathrm{sin}^l\theta `$ vanishes unless $`\theta =\pi /2`$, and the motion is on a plane as in the classical orbits. However, since $`lim_l\mathrm{}_\theta P_l^l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=0`$, we have $`lim_{ml\mathrm{}}_\theta P_l^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=0`$. Thus, considering solutions with $`c_{lmj}0`$ only for sufficiently large $`m`$ and $`l`$, we have

$$\psi =\underset{\{lmj\}}{}(c_{lmj}R_{klj}^{}Y_{lm},0,\frac{i}{r}c_{lmj}R_{klj}mY_{lm}).$$
(26)
Depending on the coefficients $`c_{lmj}`$, $`(𝒮_0)^2/2m`$ may contain nontrivial terms which do not cancel as $`\mathrm{}0`$. These may arise as a deformation of the classical kinetic term, which includes the centrifugal term. The $`c_{lmj}`$, which may depend on fundamental constants, fix the structure of the possible interaction in the two–particle model. The $`c_{lmj}`$ may be related to some boundary conditions implied by the geometry and the matter content of the three–dimensional space. This would relate the fundamental constants to possible collective effects which may depend on cosmological aspects.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank G. Bertoldi and A.E. Faraggi for collaboration and E.R. Floyd, J.M Isidro, L. Mazzucato, P. Pasti and M. Tonin for stimulating discussions. Work partially supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime.