text:
# Spin light of neutrino in matter and electromagnetic fields

## Abstract

A new type of electromagnetic radiation by a neutrino with non-zero magnetic (and/or electric) moment moving in background matter and electromagnetic field is considered. This radiation originates from the quantum spin flip transitions and we have named it as ”spin light of neutrino”($`SL\nu `$). The neutrino initially unpolarized beam (equal mixture of $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _R`$) can be converted to the totally polarized beam composed of only $`\nu _R`$ by the neutrino spin light in matter and electromagnetic fields. The quasi-classical theory of this radiation is developed on the basis of the generalized Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation. The considered radiation is important for environments with high effective densities, $`n`$, because the total radiation power is proportional to $`n^4`$. The spin light of neutrino, in contrast to the Cherenkov or transition radiation of neutrino in matter, does not vanish in the case of the refractive index of matter is equal to unit. The specific features of this new radiation are: (i) the total power of the radiation is proportional to $`\gamma ^4`$, and (ii) the radiation is beamed within a small angle $`\delta \theta \gamma ^1`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the neutrino Lorentz factor. Applications of this new type of neutrino radiation to astrophysics, in particular to gamma-ray bursts, and the early universe should be important.

Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University, 119992, Moscow, Russia

There exist at present convincing evidences in favour of neutrino non-zero mass and mixing, obtained in the solar and atmospheric experiments (see  for a review on the status of neutrino oscillations). Apart from masses and mixing non-trivial neutrino electromagnetic properties such as non-vanishing magnetic, $`\mu `$, and electric, $`ϵ`$, dipole moments are carrying features of new physics. It is believed that non-zero neutrino magnetic moment could have an important impact on astrophysics and cosmology.

It is well known  that in the minimally extended Standard Model with $`SU(2)`$-singlet right-handed neutrino the one-loop radiative correction generates neutrino magnetic moment which is proportional to neutrino mass

$$\mu _\nu =\frac{3}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}eG_Fm_\nu =3\times 10^{19}\mu _0\left(\frac{m_\nu }{1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\mu _0=e/2m`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`m_\nu `$ and $`m`$ are the neutrino and electron masses. There are also models  in which much large values for magnetic moments of neutrinos are predicted. So far, the most stringent laboratory constraints on the electron neutrino magnetic moment come from elastic neutrino-electron scattering experiments: $`\mu _{\nu _e}1.5\times 10^{10}\mu _0`$ . More stringent constraints are obtained from astrophysical considerations .

In this paper we study a new mechanism for emission of photon by the massive neutrino in presence of matter, assuming that the neutrino has an intrinsic magnetic (and/or electric) dipole moment. This phenomenon can be expressed as a process

$$\nu \nu +\gamma $$
(2)
that is the transition from a flavour neutrino in the initial state to the same flavour neutrino plus a photon in the final state. The mechanism under consideration can be also effective in the case of neutrino transitions with change of flavour if neutrino transition moment is not zero.

Different other processes characterized by the same signature of Eq.(2) have been considered previously:

i) the photon radiation by massless neutrino $`(\nu _i\nu _j+\gamma ,i=j)`$ due to the vacuum polarization loop diagram in presence of an external magnetic field ;

ii) the photon radiation by massive neutrino with non-vanishing magnetic moment in constant magnetic and electromagnetic wave fields ;

iii) the Cherenkov radiation due to the non-vanishing neutrino magnetic moment in homogeneous and infinitely extended medium which is only possible if the speed of neutrino is larger than the speed of light in medium ;

iv) the transition radiation due to non-vanishing neutrino magnetic moment which would be produced when the neutrino crosses the interface of two media with different refractive indices ;

v) the Cherenkov radiation by massless neutrino due to its induced charge in medium ;

vi) the Cherenkov radiation by massive and massless neutrino in magnetized medium ;

vii) the neutrino radiative decay $`(\nu _i\nu _j+\gamma ,ij)`$ in external fields and media or in vacuum .

The process we are studying in this paper has never been considered before. We discover a mechanism for electromagnetic radiation generated by the neutrino magnetic (and/or electric) moment rotation which occurs due to electroweak interaction with the background environment. It should be noted that generalization to the case of a photon emission by neutrino due to the neutrino transition magnetic moment is straightforward. If neutrino is moving in matter and an external electromagnetic field is also superimposed, the total power of this radiation contains three terms which originate from (i) neutrino interaction with particles of matter, (ii) neutrino interactions with electromagnetic field, (iii) interference of the mentioned above two types of interactions. This radiation can be named as ”spin light of neutrino” ($`SL\nu `$) in matter and electromagnetic field to manifest the correspondence with the magnetic moment dependent term in the radiation of an electron moving in a magnetic field. A review on the spin light of electron can be found in . Whereas the radiation of a neutral particle moving in external electromagnetic field in the absence of matter has been considered previously starting from , the mechanism of radiation produced by interaction with matter is considered in this our paper for the first time. It should be emphasize that the neutrino spin light can not be described as the Cherenkov radiation.

The $`SL\nu `$ in the background matter ( similar to the radiation by neutrino moving in the magnetic field ) originates from the quantum spin flip transitions $`\nu _L\nu _R`$. Within the quantum approach the corresponding Feynman diagram of the proposed new process is the standard one-photon emission diagram with the initial and final neutrino states described by the ”broad lines” that account for the neutrino interaction with matter (given, for instance, by the effective Lagrangian of Eq.(9) below). In this paper we develop the quasi-classical approach to the radiation process when the neutrino recoil can be neglected. This approach is valid for a wide range of neutrino and photon energies that could be of particular interest for different astrophysical and cosmological applications. For example, if the initial neutrino energy is about $`10MeV`$ the allowed range of the radiated photon energies span up to gamma-rays.

We should like also to emphasize here that the initially unpolarized neutrino beam (equal mixture of active left-handed and sterile right-handed neutrinos) can be converted to the totally polarized beam composed of only $`\nu _R`$ due to the spin light in contrast to the Cherenkov radiation which can not produce the neutrino spin self-polarization effect.

Our approach is based on the quasi-classical Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi (BMT) equation

$$\frac{dS^\mu }{d\tau }=2\mu \left\{F^{\mu \nu }S_\nu u^\mu (u_\nu F^{\nu \lambda }S_\lambda )\right\}+2ϵ\left\{\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }S_\nu u^\mu (u_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\nu \lambda }S_\lambda )\right\},$$
(3)
that describes evolution of the spin $`S_\mu `$ of a neutral particle with non-vanishing magnetic, $`\mu `$, and electric, $`ϵ`$, dipole moments in electromagnetic field, given by its tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ 111Within this approach neutrino spin relaxation in stochastic electromagnetic fields without account for matter effects was considered in .. This form of the BMT equation corresponds to the case of the particle moving with constant speed, $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=\mathrm{const}`$, $`u^\mu =(\gamma ,\gamma \stackrel{}{\beta })`$, in presence of an electromagnetic field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. The spin vector satisfies the usual conditions, $`S^2=1`$ and $`S^\mu u_\mu =0`$. Note that the term proportional to $`ϵ`$ violates $`T`$ invariance.

In our previous studies  (see also ) we have shown that the Lorentz invariant generalization of Eq.(3) for the case when effects of neutrino weak interactions are taken into account can be obtained by the following substitution of the electromagnetic field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B})`$:

$$F_{\mu \nu }E_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+G_{\mu \nu },$$
(4)
where the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ accounts for the neutrino interactions with particles of the environment. The derivation of the quasi-classical Lorentz invariant neutrino spin evolution equation taking into account general types of neutrino non-derivative interactions with external fields is given in . Within the quantum approach the neutrino spin flip under the influence of different types of interactions was also considered in .

In evaluation of the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ we demand that the neutrino evolution equation must be linear over the neutrino spin, electromagnetic field and such characteristics of matter (which is composed of different fermions, $`f=e,n,p\mathrm{}`$) as fermions currents

$$j_f^\mu =(n_f,n_f\stackrel{}{v}_f),$$
(5)
and fermions polarizations

$$\lambda _f^\mu =(n_f(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\stackrel{}{v}_f),n_f\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\sqrt{1v_f^2}+\frac{n_f\stackrel{}{v}_f(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\stackrel{}{v}_f)}{1+\sqrt{1v_f^2}}).$$
(6)
Here $`n_f`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}_f`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f(0|\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f|^21)`$ denote, respectively, the number densities of the background fermions $`f`$, the speeds of the reference frames in which the mean momenta of fermions $`f`$ are zero, and the mean values of the polarization vectors of the background fermions $`f`$ in the above mentioned reference frames. The mean value of the background fermion $`f`$ polarization vector, $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f`$, is determined by the two-step averaging of the fermion relativistic spin operator over the fermion quantum state in a given electromagnetic field and over the fermion statistical distribution density function. Thus, in general case of neutrino interaction with different background fermions $`f`$ we introduce for description of matter effects antisymmetric tensor

$$G^{\mu \nu }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }g_\rho ^{(1)}u_\lambda (g^{(2)\mu }u^\nu u^\mu g^{(2)\nu }),$$
(7)
where

$$g^{(1)\mu }=\underset{f}{}\rho _f^{(1)}j_f^\mu +\rho _f^{(2)}\lambda _f^\mu ,g^{(2)\mu }=\underset{f}{}\xi _f^{(1)}j_f^\mu +\xi _f^{(2)}\lambda _f^\mu ,$$
(8)
(summation is performed over the fermions $`f`$ of the background). The explicit expressions for the coefficients $`\rho _f^{(1),(2)}`$ and $`\xi _f^{(1),(2)}`$ could be found if the particular model of neutrino interaction is chosen. For example, if one consider the electron neutrino propagation in moving and polarized gas of electrons within the extended standard model supplied with $`SU(2)`$-singlet right-handed neutrino $`\nu _R`$, then the neutrino effective interaction Lagrangian reads

$$L_{eff}=f^\mu \left(\overline{\nu }\gamma _\mu \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}\nu \right),$$
(9)
where

$$f^\mu =\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left((1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)j_e^\mu \lambda _e^\mu \right).$$
(10)
In this case the coefficients $`\rho _e^{(1),(2)}`$ are

$$\rho _e^{(1)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_F}{2\sqrt{2}\mu },\rho _e^{(2)}=\frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}\mu },$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_F=G_F(1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W).`$

In the usual notations the antisymmetric tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ can be written in the form,

$$G_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{M}),$$
(12)
where

$$\stackrel{}{M}=\gamma \left\{(g_0^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{g}^{(1)})[\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{g}^{(2)}]\right\},\stackrel{}{P}=\gamma \left\{(g_0^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{g}^{(2)})+[\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{g}^{(1)}]\right\}.$$
(13)
It worth to note that the substitution (4) implies that the magnetic $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and electric $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ fields are shifted by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}`$, respectively:

$$\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{M},\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{P}.$$
(14)
We should like to emphasize here that precession of the neutrino spin can originate not only due to neutrino magnetic moment interaction with external electromagnetic fields but also due to the neutrino weak interaction with particles of the background matter. This is a very important point for understanding of the nature of the neutrino spin light in non-magnetized matter. In order to demonstrate how the neutrino spin procession appears in the background matter we consider below the neutrino spin evolution in matter in the absence of electromagnetic fields. We start with Eq.(3) and for simplicity neglect the neutrino electric dipole moment, $`ϵ=0`$. Then, in the absence of external electromagnetic field, we get the neutrino spin evolution equation in non-moving matter:

$$\frac{dS^\mu }{d\tau }=2\mu \left\{G^{\mu \nu }S_\nu u^\mu (u_\nu G^{\nu \lambda }S_\lambda )\right\}.$$
(15)
The tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by Eqs.(7),(8) and (11). For the further simplifications we consider unpolarized ($`\lambda _f^\mu =0`$) matter composed of only one type of fermions, so that there is now summation over $`f`$ in definition of $`g^{(1)\mu }`$ and we shall omit the index $`f`$. Then we get

$$G^{\mu \nu }=\gamma \rho ^{(1)}n\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \beta _3& \beta _2\\ 0& \beta _3& 0& \beta _1\\ 0& \beta _2& \beta _1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)`$ is the neutrino three-dimensional speed. It is easy to show that

$$u_\nu G^{\nu \mu }=0,$$
(17)
and from (15) we get the equation for the neutrino spin evolution in unpolarized and non-moving matter:

$$\frac{dS^\mu }{d\tau }=2\mu G^{\mu \nu }S_\nu .$$
(18)
In the laboratory reference frame the corresponding equation for the three-dimensional neutrino spin is

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{S}}{dt}=2\mu \rho ^{(1)}n[\stackrel{}{S}\times \stackrel{}{\beta }].$$
(19)
If neutrino is propagating along the OZ axis, $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=(0,0,\beta )`$, then solutions of these equations for the neutrino spin components are given by

$$S^1=S_0^{}\mathrm{cos}\omega t,S^2=S_0^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega t,S^3=S_0^3,S^0=S_0^0,$$
(20)
where

$$\omega =2\mu \rho ^{(1)}n\beta ,$$
(21)
$`S_0^{}`$ and $`S_0^{3,0}`$ are constants determined by the initial conditions.

From the above consideration it follows that if the initial neutrino state is not polarized longitudinally in respect to the neutrino momentum then the neutrino spin precession in the background matter always occurs. In its turn, a neutrino with processing magnetic momentum have to emit electromagnetic radiation. This is just the radiation which we have called the spin light of neutrino.

Recently we have derived the total radiation power of a neutral unpolarized fermion with anomalous magnetic moment  222The generalization to the case of neutrino with non-zero electric dipole moment in electromagnetic field can be found in . In that derivation we have supposed that the spin dynamics of a neutral particle is governed by the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation and that the energy of the radiated photons is much less than the particle energy. Now in order to treat the electromagnetic radiation by the neutrino moving in background matter and electromagnetic field we use the substitution prescription of Eq.(4) and for the total radiation power get (for simplicity the case of $`T`$-invariant model of neutrino interaction is considered hereafter)

$$I=\frac{16}{3}\mu ^2\left[4(\mu ^2u_\rho \stackrel{~}{E}^{\rho \lambda }\stackrel{~}{E}_{\lambda \sigma }u^\sigma )^2+\mu ^2u_\rho \dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}^{\rho \lambda }\dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{\lambda \sigma }u^\sigma \right].$$
(22)
We also get for the solid angle distribution of the radiation power :

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dI}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\mu ^2}{\pi \gamma (ul)^5}\{[4(\mu ^2u_\rho \stackrel{~}{E}^{\rho \lambda }\stackrel{~}{E}_{\lambda \sigma }u^\sigma )^2+(\mu ^2u_\rho \dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}^{\rho \lambda }\dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{\lambda \sigma }u^\sigma )](ul)^2+\\ +4(\mu ^2u_\rho \stackrel{~}{E}^{\rho \lambda }\stackrel{~}{E}_{\lambda \sigma }u^\sigma )(\mu u_\rho \stackrel{~}{E}^{\rho \lambda }l_\lambda )^2+(\mu u_\rho \dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}^{\rho \lambda }l_\lambda )^2+\\ +4\mu ^2(\mu u_\rho \stackrel{~}{E}^{\rho \lambda }l_\lambda )e^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }u_\mu \dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{\nu \sigma }u^\sigma \stackrel{~}{E}_{\rho \delta }u^\delta l_\lambda \},\end{array}$$
(23)
here $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mu \nu }=1\mathrm{/}2ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }E^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the dual tensor $`E_{\mu \nu },`$ $`l^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{l})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ is the unit vector pointing the direction of radiation. The derivatives in the right-hand side of Eqs.(22) and (23) are taken with respect of proper time $`\tau `$ in the rest frame of the neutrino.

Using Eqs. (14) and (22) we find the total radiation power as a function of the magnetic field strength in the rest frame of the neutrino, $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$, and the vector $`\stackrel{}{M}_0`$ which accounts for effects of the neutrino interaction with moving and polarized matter:

$$I=\frac{16}{3}\mu ^4\left[\left(2\mu (\stackrel{}{B}_0+\stackrel{}{M}_0)^2\right)^2+(\dot{\stackrel{}{B}_0}+\dot{\stackrel{}{M}_0})^2\right],$$
(24)
where

$$\stackrel{}{B}_0=\gamma \left(\stackrel{}{B}_{}+\frac{1}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{B}_{}+\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}\left[\stackrel{}{E}_{}\times \stackrel{}{n}\right]\right),$$
(25)
$$\stackrel{}{M_0}=\stackrel{}{M}{}_{0_{}}{}^{}+\stackrel{}{M_0_{}},$$
(26)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{M}_0_{}=\gamma \stackrel{}{\beta }\frac{n_0}{\sqrt{1v_e^2}}\{\rho ^{(1)}(1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_e\stackrel{}{\beta }}{1\gamma ^2})\\ \rho ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{\beta }\sqrt{1v_e^2}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{v}_e)(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{v}_e)}{1+\sqrt{1v_e^2}})\frac{1}{1\gamma ^2}\},\end{array}$$
(27)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{M}_0_{}=\frac{n_0}{\sqrt{1v_e^2}}\left\{\stackrel{}{v}_e_{}\left(\rho ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(2)}\frac{(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{v}_e)}{1+\sqrt{1v_e^2}}\right)+\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e_{}\rho ^{(2)}\sqrt{1v_e^2}\right\},\end{array}$$
(28)
and $`n_0`$ is the invariant number density of matter given in the reference frame for which the total speed of matter is zero.

It is evident that the total radiation power, Eq.(24), is composed of the three contributions,

$$I=I_F+I_G+I_{FG},$$
(29)
where $`I_F`$ is the radiation power due to the neutrino magnetic moment interaction with the external electromagnetic field, $`I_G`$ is the radiation power due to the neutrino weak interaction with particles of the background matter, and $`I_{FG}`$ stands for the interference effect of electromagnetic and weak interactions. It should be pointed out that the electromagnetic contribution $`I_F`$ to the radiation of a neutrino (or a neutral fermion) in different field configurations has been considered in literature (see, for example, (), whereas the contribution to radiation by neutrino moving in matter, $`I_G`$, and also the interference term $`I_{FG}`$ have never been considered before.

These three types of neutrino radiation have common nature: they originates as effects of the neutrino interactions with the external electromagnetic field and background matter under which the neutrino spin is rotating. As it has been pointed out above, the discussed here radiation cannot be treated as the neutrino Cherenkov  and transition  radiations. Contrary to the Cherenkov and transition radiations the considered new type of neutrino radiation is not forbidden when the refractive index of photons in the background environment is equal to $`n_\gamma ^{ref}=1`$. In order to highlight this distinction we consider here the particular case of $`n_\gamma ^{ref}=1`$, however generalization to the case $`n_\gamma ^{ref}>1`$ is straightforward.

One of the most important properties of the $`SL\nu `$ in the background matter is the strong dependence of the total radiation power on the density of matter,

$$I_Gn_0^4.$$
(30)
The total radiation power, Eq.(24), contains different terms in respect to dependence on the neutrino magnetic moment $`\mu `$. If we consider non-derivative terms and compare contributions to the neutrino spin light radiation power from the interaction with matter and electromagnetic field we come to the conclusion that, as it follows from Eq.(11), the ratio $`I_G/I_F`$ is proportional to $`\mu ^4`$. From Eq.(24) it is also obvious that the ratios of the radiation power in matter with varying density (in varying electromagnetic fields) to the radiation power in matter with constant density (in constant electromagnetic fields) are proportional to $`\mu ^2`$. Accounting for smallness of the neutrino magnetic moment, it follows that the proposed new mechanism of neutrino spin light radiation could be efficient in the environments with varying densities of matter (with varying electromagnetic fields).

We consider at first the $`SL\nu `$ in presence of constant density matter and constant magnetic field. For definiteness we assume that the spin light radiation is produced by the electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$ moving in unpolarized ($`\zeta _e=0`$) matter composed of only electrons. Then for the total spin light radiation power we get

$$I=\frac{64}{3}\mu ^6\gamma ^4\left[\left(\stackrel{}{B}_{}+\frac{1}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{B}_{}+n\rho ^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\beta }(1\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{v}_e)\frac{1}{\gamma }n\rho ^{(1)}\stackrel{}{v}_e_{}\right)^2\right]^2,$$
(31)
where the terms proportional to $`\gamma ^2`$ in the brackets are neglected. Here we use the notation,

$$n=\frac{n_0}{\sqrt{1v_e^2}},$$
(32)
$`\stackrel{}{B}_,`$ are the transversal and longitudinal magnetic field components in respect to the neutrino motion, $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ is the transversal component of the matter speed in the laboratory frame of reference. From Eq.(31) it follows that the correlation term $`I_{FG}`$ is suppressed in respect to the terms $`I_F`$ and $`I_G`$ by the presence of additional neutrino Lorentz factor. That is why there is a reason to compare contributions to the radiation power produced by the neutrino interaction with matter which is moving longitudinally with non-relativistic speed, $`v1`$,

$$I_G=\frac{64}{3}\mu ^6\gamma ^4\left(n\rho ^{(1)}\beta \right)^4,$$
(33)
and the contribution to the radiation power produced by the interaction with the transversal magnetic field333This our result is smaller by a factor $`1/2`$ relative to the result of  for the radiation power of the polarized neutral particle.,

$$I_F=\frac{64}{3}\mu ^6\gamma ^4B_{}^4.$$
(34)
Note that from Eq.(33) it follows that in the case of the standard model, when the neutrino magnetic moment is proportional to its mass, and constant neutrino speed the radiation power goes with the neutrino mass squared, as one might expect. If we take $`B_{}3\times 10^5\mathrm{G}`$ and $`n10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ that corresponds to the case of the solar convective zone and $`\mu _{\nu _e}10^{18}\mu _0`$, then we get that the matter term in the spin light exceeds the transversal magnetic field term by a factor of $`2\times 10^{26}`$. With increasing of the neutrino magnetic moment due to the inverse proportionality $`\rho ^{(1)}\mu _{\nu _e}^1`$ the ratio $`I_G/I_F`$ decreases and becomes equal to unit only for $`\mu _{\nu _e}3\times 10^{12}\mu _0`$.

Let us turn to consideration of the contribution to the $`SL\nu `$ that is generated by the neutrino interaction with matter of varying density. We again assume that matter is composed of electrons and neutrino interaction with matter is given by Lagrangian of Eq.(9). Since $`\dot{n}_e=\gamma \stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{}n_e`$, we get for the total power of the neutrino spin light in this case

$$I_G=\frac{2}{3}\mu ^2\gamma ^4\{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{G}_F^4n_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+\stackrel{~}{G}_F^2\left[(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{})n_e\right]^2\}.$$
(35)
If we consider the case of moving and polarized matter then the effective number density depends on the value of the total mater speed $`\stackrel{}{v}_e`$ and polarization $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e`$, as well as on neutrino speed $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ and correlations between these three vectors (see ):

$$\begin{array}{c}n_e=\frac{n_0}{\sqrt{1v_e^2}}\{(1(1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^1\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{v}_e)(1\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{v}_e)\\ (1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^1\sqrt{1v_e^2}[\frac{(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{v}_e)(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{v}_e)}{1+\sqrt{1v_e^2}}\stackrel{}{\zeta }_e\stackrel{}{\beta }]+O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma }\right)\}.\end{array}$$
(36)
Using Eqs. (23) and (35) for the solid angle distribution we get

$$\frac{dI_G}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{3}{8\pi }I_G\{\gamma ^4(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^3\gamma ^6(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^4+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^8(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^5\}.$$
(37)
From the last formula it follows that the $`SL\nu `$ is strongly beamed and is confined within the cone given by $`\delta \theta \gamma ^1`$. It should be noted here that this is a common feature of different contributions to the neutrino spin light radiation which is the inherent property of radiation by ultra-relativistic particles.

In conclusion, we have discovered a new mechanism of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a neutrino with non-vanishing magnetic moment moving in the background matter and external electromagnetic field (”spin light of neutrino”). The generalization to the case of a neutrino with non-zero electric dipole moment is just straightforward. Our general new result is the prediction of a new type of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by a massive neutral particle with non-vanishing magnetic (and/or electric) moment moving in the background matter. The $`SL\nu `$ originates from the quantum spin flip transitions. Therefore, the initially unpolarized neutrino beam can be converted to the totally polarized beam composed of only right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$ in the considered radiation process if the right-handed neutrinos are sterile states, i.e. do not interact with the background environment.

We have also developed the quasi-classical theory of the $`SL\nu `$ that is valid in the case when the neutrino recoil can be neglected or when the energy of the radiated photon is less than the neutrino energy.

The considered radiation must be important for environments with high effective densities, $`n`$, because the total radiation power is proportional to $`n^4`$. It is also shown that the $`SL\nu `$ is strongly beamed in the direction of neutrino propagation and is confined within a small cone given by $`\delta \theta \gamma ^1`$. The total power of the $`SL\nu `$ is increasing with the neutrino energy increase and is proportional to the fourth power of the neutrino Lorentz factor, $`I\gamma ^4`$. It is also possible to show that the average energy of photons of the spin light in matter is

$$\omega _\gamma G_Fn_e\gamma ^2.$$
(38)
Thus, the spin light emission rate in this case is proportional to $`\gamma ^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\gamma ^2\mu ^2G_F^3n^3.$$
(39)
From these estimations we predict that the $`SL\nu `$ is effectively produced if the neutrino energy and matter density are large. Such a situation can be realized in the dense matter of the early Universe.

It is interesting to compare the rate of the $`SL\nu `$ in matter with the rate of the Cherenkov radiation in magnetic field that is widely discussed in literature (see, for example, ). First of all, in contrast to the Cherenkov and transition radiations by neutrino, the spin light is produced by neutrino even in the case when the refractive index of photons in the background matter is equal to $`n_\gamma ^{ref}=1`$. Let us compare the rate of the neutrino spin light, Eq.(39), with the rate of the Cherenkov radiation in magnetic field given by formula (25) of Ref.. If the magnetic field is less than the electron critical field, $`B<B_0=4.41\times 10^{13}G`$, the ratio of the two rates is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ch}}=3.4\times 10^8\frac{\gamma ^2\mu ^2G_Fn^3}{p_0^5}\left(\frac{B_0}{B}\right)^6,$$
(40)
where $`p_0`$ is the neutrino energy. This ratio is equal to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ch}}=13$$
(41)
for the two sets of neutrino energy, strength of magnetic field and density of matter:

$`p_0=10MeV,B=10^4B_0,n=10^{30}cm^3,`$

$`p_0=1MeV,B=10^3B_0,n=10^{31}cm^3`$.

In both cases we take the neutrino mass equal to $`m_\nu =1eV`$ and magnetic moment equal to $`\mu =0.3\times 10^{10}\mu _0`$ that is near the present experimental limit for the electron neutrino. The neutrino spin light rate also dominates over the Cherenkov radiation rate in strong magnetic field ($`BB_0`$) if the matter density is increased to the level of $`n10^{33}cm^3`$. However, for such densities, neutrino magnetic moment and energies in the range span from $`1MeV`$ to $`10MeV`$ the quantum approach  to the $`SL\nu `$ has to be used. If we consider the case of much higher density, $`n=10^{37}cm^3`$, and smaller magnetic moment, $`\mu =0.3\times 10^{16}\mu _0`$, and neutrino energy $`p_0=1MeV`$ then the quasi-classical approach to the spin light is valid and the ratio of the two rates is given again by Eq.(41). Thus, we predict that the spin light of neutrino can be more effective than the neutrino Cherenkov radiation if the density of matter is rather large.

The spin light of neutrino together with the synchrotron mechanism of radiation by charged particles, should be important for understanding of astrophysical phenomena where powerful beams of gamma-rays are produced. One of the possible examples could be the gamma-ray bursts.

We would like to thank Leo Stodolsky for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Zero-curvature and linear equations (old tools)

## 1 Zero-curvature and linear equations (old tools)

The flatness of a gauge connection $`A`$,111 We suppress the spacetime coordinate dependence throughout.

$$F\left(A\right)\text{d}A+A^2=\left(\text{d}+A\right)^2=0,$$
(1)
may be seen as the compatibility condition for a linear system:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\text{with}\left(\text{d}+A\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0F\left(A\right)=0.$$
(2)
If we take the auxiliary function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be Lie-group valued, solutions of the linear system yield flat connections $`A=\mathrm{\Psi }\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }^1`$ which are, however, pure gauge and hence trivial.

The situation changes when d is just a partial differential and one has a second partial differential $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}`$ which anticommutes with the former. We may then combine the two and also their corresponding partial connections $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ to a family

$$A\left(\lambda \right)=\stackrel{~}{A}+\lambda A\text{and}\text{d}\left(\lambda \right)=\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}+\lambda \text{d}\text{with}\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}^2=\text{d}.^2=\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\text{d}+\text{d}\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}=0,$$
(3)
where some parameter $`\lambda P^1`$ is introduced. The extended zero-curvature equation reads

$$0=F\left(A\left(\lambda \right)\right)=\left(\text{d}\left(\lambda \right)+A\left(\lambda \right)\right)^2=\left(\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}^2\right)+\lambda \left(\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}A+\text{d}\stackrel{~}{A}+\{A,\stackrel{~}{A}\}\right)+\lambda ^2\left(\text{d}A+A^2\right).$$
(4)
Exploiting the gauge freedom herein allows one to gauge away222 on a topologically trivial manifold one of the two partial connections. We fix $`\stackrel{~}{A}=0`$ and remain with

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}A=0\text{and}\text{d}A+A^2=0.$$
(5)
As long as the d\- and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}`$-cohomologies are empty, either one of these two equations is solved by the introduction of a prepotential, for which the remaining equation imposes a second-order relation:

$`A=\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\text{d}\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)^2=0`$ $`,`$ (6)
$`A=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\text{d}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\left(\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\text{d}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0`$ $`.`$ (7)
The first and second of these reductions go back to  and , respectively. Despite appearance, $`A`$ is not pure gauge unless $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ in which case $`\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ qualifies as a gauge parameter compatible with $`\stackrel{~}{A}=0`$.

The extended linear system associated with (5) is

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}+\lambda \text{d}+\lambda A\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)=0.$$
(8)
Due to the $`\lambda `$-dependence, it gives rise to nontrivial solutions of (5). Indeed, if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ does not depend on $`\lambda `$ the partial connection $`A`$ must be pure gauge:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=\left(\text{d}+A\right)\text{e}^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(9)
The compactness of $`P^1`$ excludes nontrivial holomorphic $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)`$; hence we consider meromorphic $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)`$. Not allowing for poles at $`\lambda =0`$ or $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$, we fix the asymptotics

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)\{\begin{array}{cc}1\lambda \mathrm{{\rm Y}}+O\left(\lambda ^2\right)\hfill & \text{for}\lambda 0\hfill \\ \text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\right)\hfill & \text{for}\lambda \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
by a convenient residual gauge choice. The form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)`$ is constrained further by the antihermiticity of $`A`$ up to a gauge transformation. Hermitian conjugation extends to an involution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ which sends $`\text{d}\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\text{d}`$ but $`\lambda \overline{\lambda }`$. With this, an antihermitian connection requires that

$$\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(1/\overline{\lambda }\right)}.$$
(11)
Finally, we may reconstruct $`A`$ from a given solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)`$ via

$$A=\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)\left(\text{d}+\frac{1}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)^1.$$
(12)
## 2 Single-pole ansatz

The simplest non-constant meromorphic function possesses a single pole. The corresponding ansatz,333 This is an essential building block in the “dressing method”, a solution-generating technique invented by  and developed by .

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)=\mathbf{1}\frac{\lambda \left(1+\mu \overline{\mu }\right)}{\lambda \mu }P,$$
(13)
contains a moduli parameter $`\mu `$ (the location of the pole) and a Lie-group valued $`\lambda `$-independent function $`P`$ to be determined.

It turns out that all information resides in eqs. (11) and (12). Since their left hand sides are independent of $`\lambda `$, the poles at $`\lambda =\mu `$ and $`\lambda =1/\overline{\mu }`$ of their right hand sides must be removable. Putting to zero the residues in (11) yields algebraic relations,

$$P^2=P=\overline{P}P\text{ is a hermitian projector}.$$
(14)
As such, $`P`$ can be parametrized with a “column vector” $`T`$ via

$$P=T\frac{1}{\overline{T}T}\overline{T}.$$
(15)
Similarly, the vanishing residues in (12) produce differential equations,

$`P\left(\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}+\mu \text{d}\right)P=0=\left(\mathrm{𝟏}P\right)\left(\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\right)P`$ (16)
$``$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}P\right)\left(\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\right)T=0`$ (17)
$``$ $`\left(\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\right)T=0,`$ (18)
whose solution requires the analysis of the cohomology of the operator $`\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}`$.444 More generally, it suffices to solve the ‘eigenvalue’ equation $`(\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}})T=T\alpha `$ with a flat connection $`\alpha `$, but we can gauge $`\alpha `$ to zero locally. Hence, the original nonlinear problem (5) has been reduced (“linearized”) to a linear homogeneous equation for $`T`$. Any nonsingular element in the kernel of $`\text{d}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}`$ yields a projector $`P`$, through which the prepotentials and the connection are expressed as follows,

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{1+\mu \overline{\mu }}{\mu }P\text{and}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathbf{1}\left(1+\mu \overline{\mu }\right)P,`$ (19)
$`A=\frac{1+\mu \overline{\mu }}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}P=\left(1+\mu \overline{\mu }\right)P\text{d}P\left(1+\frac{1}{\mu \overline{\mu }}\right)\left(1P\right)\text{d}P.`$ (20)
## 3 String fields (new uses)

The complete structure presented so far carries over almost verbatim to string field theory. In addition to being Lie-group or Lie-algebra valued, our objects now are interpreted as string fields and are to be multiplied via Witten’s star product  (which we suppress). More precisely, the unextended situation (1) and (2) corresponds to the cubic open bosonic string , with $`\text{d}Q`$ (the BRST operator) and $`A`$ having ghost number one. The linear system $`\left(Q+A\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ yields only trivial solutions to the string field equation of motion, $`QA+A^2=0`$.

Surprisingly, the extended case (5) and (8) can be mapped onto the NS sector of cubic open superstring field theory , by $`\text{d}Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}\eta _0`$. Here, $`\eta _0`$ denotes the graded commutator action of the zero mode of $`\eta `$, which emerges from bosonizing the worldsheet supersymmetry ghosts via $`\gamma =\eta \text{e}^\phi `$ and $`\beta =\text{e}^\phi \xi `$. The NS string field $`A`$ carries ghost number one and picture number zero and lives in the “large Hilbert space” (including $`\xi _0`$). Consequentially, its equations of motion  are

$$\eta _0A=0\text{and}QA+A^2=0.$$
(21)
Berkovits’ nonpolynomial open superstring (in the NS sector)  is also found:

$$A=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }Q\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\eta _0\left(\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }Q\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0.$$
(22)
The Berkovits string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has vanishing ghost and picture numbers.

It is known that $`\eta _0`$ and $`Q`$ have zero cohomology in the large Hilbert space. Therefore, we can get all solutions to (21) from a “linear superstring system” ,

$$\left(Q+\frac{1}{\lambda }\eta _0+A\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)=0.$$
(23)
This is the key equation for generating nonperturbative classical superstring field configurations. Repeating the earlier analysis, the analog of the ansatz (13) produces a hermitian projector string field 555 The identity string field $``$ is the unit element in Witten’s star algebra.

$$P=T\frac{1}{\overline{T}T}\overline{T}\text{subject to}\left(P\right)\left(Q\overline{\mu }\eta _0\right)P=0.$$
(24)
A sufficient condition for the latter equation to hold is

$$\left(Q\overline{\mu }\eta _0\right)T=0.$$
(25)
From a solution $`T`$ one builds $`P`$ and finally (using star multiplication) one reconstructs  the string fields

$$\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(1+\mu \overline{\mu }\right)P\text{and}A=\frac{1+\mu \overline{\mu }}{\mu }\eta _0P.$$
(26)
## 4 Ghost-picture modification

Our “master equation” (23) has a flaw: It is inhomogeneous in picture number because $`\eta _0`$ lowers the picture by one unit. Therefore, any solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an infinite sum over all picture sectors (requiring an extension of standard superstring field theory), unless we modify our equation by introducing a picture-raising multiplier,

$$\eta _0X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0\text{with}X\left(\text{i}\right)=\{Q,\xi \left(\text{i}\right)\},$$
(27)
to be inserted at the string midpoint (with worldsheet coordinate i). The master equation then changes to

$$\left(Q+\frac{1}{\lambda }X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0+A\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)=0,$$
(28)
and the string field equations of motion become

$$QA+A^2=0\text{and}X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0A=X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0\left(\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }Q\text{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0.$$
(29)
The modification may create extra solutions due to zero modes of $`X\left(\text{i}\right)`$.

## 5 Shifting the background

We may view solving (28) as “dressing” the vacuum solution,

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_0,A_0)=(,0)(\mathrm{\Psi },A),$$
(30)
via $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`A=\mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)}A_0`$. This process can be iterated, and such transformations form a group. In fact, they generate all solutions and, hence, relate all classical backgrounds with one another. Clearly, shifting the vacuum background $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_0,A_0)`$ to a new reference $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,A_1)`$ is also a dressing transformation:

$$\text{background: }\text{XXXXXXXXXXXX}\text{ }\text{XXXXXXXXXXXX}\text{ deviation:}\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Psi }_0=& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Psi }_1}{}& \mathrm{\Psi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Psi }& & \mathrm{\Psi }^{}& & \\ \mathrm{\Psi }& & \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}A_0=0& \stackrel{\mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{\Psi }_1}}{}& A_1\\ \mathrm{Ad}_\mathrm{\Psi }& & \mathrm{Ad}_\mathrm{\Psi }^{}& & \\ A_0+A& & \stackrel{~}{A}\end{array}$$
(31)
where vertical arrows turn on a deviation, again via dressing. Composing the two dressing transformations (defining $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A_1+A^{}`$) one gets

$$0=\left(Q+\frac{1}{\lambda }X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0+\stackrel{~}{A}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\left[\left(Q^{}+\frac{1}{\lambda }X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0+A^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_1$$
(32)
with $`Q^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}:=Q\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+[A_1,\mathrm{\Psi }^{}]`$. Measuring fields from the new reference field $`A_1`$ we obtain

$$\left(Q^{}+\frac{1}{\lambda }X\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0+A^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=0$$
(33)
which takes the same form as (28), except for $`QQ^{}`$.

## 6 Tachyon vacuum superstring fields

Of particular interest is the structure of (super)string field theory around the (NS) tachyon vacuum. Let us suppose the latter can be reached as $`A_1`$ within our ansatz. It happens to be useful to redefine the fluctuations around $`A_1`$ by a world-sheet parametrization, inducing

$$A^{}𝒰A^{}=:𝒜\text{and}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝒰\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=:\psi $$
(34)
in such a way that $`𝒬:=𝒰Q^{}𝒰^1`$ is the proper zero-cohomology pure-ghost “vacuum” BRST operator . Note that $`\eta _0`$ and $`\xi \left(\text{i}\right)`$ remain unchanged. Thus, our key equation for vacuum superstring field theory reads

$$\left(𝒬+\frac{1}{\lambda }𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0+𝒜\right)\psi \left(\lambda \right)=0\text{with}𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)=\{𝒬,\xi \left(\text{i}\right)\}.$$
(35)
Its solutions have the by now familiar form and fulfill the cubic equation

$$𝒬𝒜+𝒜^2=0\text{with}𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0𝒜=0.$$
(36)
Assuming  that the vacuum string fields describing D-branes factorize,

$$𝒜=𝒜_g𝒜_m\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_g\mathrm{\Phi }_m,$$
(37)
the field equation (36) splits into

$$𝒜_m^2=𝒜_m\text{and}𝒬𝒜_g+𝒜_g^2=0\text{with}𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0𝒜_g=0.$$
(38)
The matter part $`𝒜_m`$ is only a “spectator” in the linear system. Our previous analysis then reduces to the solution for the ghost part,

$$𝒜_g=\frac{1+\mu \overline{\mu }}{\mu }𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0P_g\text{with}\left(P_g\right)\left(𝒬\overline{\mu }𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0\right)P_g=0$$
(39)
for a ghost projector $`P_g`$. Three remarks are in order. First, neither $`\psi `$ nor $`\text{e}^{\pm \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ factorize. Second, the form (39) is not compatible with the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m^2=\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ proposed by . Third, nontrivial solutions to (39) are not obtained via $`𝒬P_g=0`$ but rather governed by the cohomology of the operator $`𝒬\overline{\mu }𝒳\left(\text{i}\right)\eta _0`$ for a given moduli parameter $`\mu `$.

Let us briefly expand on the last remark. From

$$\eta _0\psi \left(\lambda \right)=0\eta _0\mathrm{\Phi }=0\text{and}\eta _0P=0$$
(40)
we infer that $`\left(P\right)𝒬P=0`$ and indeed $`𝒜=0`$. Thus, the simplest situation of $`𝒬`$-closed projectors in the “small Hilbert space” cannot describe D-branes . Such “supersliver states” can be expressed as squeezed (i. e. generalized coherent) one-string states over the first-quantized vacuum and have been constructed recently . For a solution featuring a non-vanishing $`A`$, however, one must construct a ghost projector which satisfies (39) in a less trivial manner, e. g., by intertwining its $`(b,c)`$ and $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ ghost contents in an appropriate fashion.

## 7 Outlook

The “linearization” of the superstring field equations provides us with a new window to nonperturbative superstring physics. The ideas presented here are just the beginning. Among future developments one may consider

* the construction of nontrivial classical string fields ($`𝒜0`$)
* the precise relation with noncommutative solitons (in the Moyal basis)
* the generalization to the multi-pole ansatz for $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\lambda \right)`$
* the interpretation of solutions (as D-branes?) and their moduli $`\mu `$
* the computation of energy densities, tensions, etc. for a given solution
* the analysis of fluctuations around constructed classical configurations
* the extension to the Ramond sector

First steps have been made in .

Acknowledgement

O. L. would like to thank the organizers for a very stimulating conference in a pretty setting. He also acknowledges discussions with I. Aref’eva and L. Bonora.


text:
# Block to granular-like transition in dense bubble flows

## 1 Introduction

The dense granular flow of identical particles is a complex phenomenon which involves multiple processes such as friction, correlated motion and inelastic collisions . Various flow regimes have been identified in different experiments. Three major flow regimes are emphasized in Figure 1. Block motion occurs for example when particles form some jammed phases . In granular flows on a pile, only the surface grains are in motion. This rolling phase has typically a thickness of 10-20 grains and the velocity $`v_h`$ as a function of the height $`h`$ is roughly linear for that surface grains .

A lot of efforts has been devoted to the understanding of dense flows of particles. Some studies  address the problem of contact force networks, i.e. the presence of arches, which plays an important role . Fluctuations and correlations of the grain motion as a function of the shear rate have been also studied. Collective behaviors have been put into evidence such as the motion of clusters of grains . Different theoretical approaches have been developed for describing dense flows. Among them, one can cite the Saint-Venant approach which considers some conservation equations in the rolling phase . Pouliquen and coworkers  have also proposed that the granular flows can be considered as quasi-static flows, the global motion resulting from fractures. Nevertheless, no general theory can predict the occurrence of the different flow regimes and corresponding velocity profiles from the various physical parameters such as the density, the shear rate and the friction.

In 1947, Bragg and coworkers proposed a simple experiment  in order to put into evidence some crystallographic ordering. This experiment is also famous because it was quoted in the Feynman’s lectures . The experiment consisted in producing small identical bubbles at the surface of a liquid. Hexagonal packed structures appeared and crystallographic domains separated by grain boundaries were observed. Recent experiments  were devoted to the study of defects in such bubble rafts.

We propose to modify the Bragg’s experiment in order to study dense flows of identical bubbles. The flow of bubbles is of physical interest since contacting bubbles are characterized by a nearly zero friction  ! Our experimental system corresponds thus to an “ideal” dense flow. We show in this letter that this system of bubbles presents a phase transition between two distinct dense flow regimes depending on the kinetic energy of the incoming bubbles.

## 2 Experimental setup

Our experiment is analogous to the filling of a 2D-silo by continuous feeding of granular material from a central hopper. The experimental setup consists in a transparent inclined plane which is immersed into water \[see Fig. 2\]. The tilt angle $`\theta `$ is small and ranges from $`0^{}`$ to $`3^{}`$ in our experiments. The error on $`\theta `$ is $`0.1^{}`$. Spherical air bubbles are injected from below at the bottom of the tilted plane. The bubble production rate is kept constant at $`5`$ bubbles by one second. The size of the bubbles can be controlled by the air pump. The bubble radius is typically $`R=0.75`$ mm in the present study. In order to avoid the coalescence of the bubbles, a small quantity of commercial soap (based on SDS surfactants ) is added to the water. The mixture has a surface tension $`\gamma =0.03`$ N/m and a viscosity $`\eta =0.001`$ kg m$`^1`$s-1. Due to buoyancy $`B`$, the bubbles rise beneath the inclined plane. A rough rigid object has been placed at the top of the plane such that bubbles aggregate there. The obstacle roughness is typically one bubble diameter and avoids purely translational motions of the bubble stack . One should note that in the direction perpendicular to the plane, the bubble stack is only one layer of bubbles thick. We thus have a really 2D bubble pile. A CCD camera captures top views of the packing of bubbles through the transparent tilted plane.

The unique parameter to be investigated is the tilt angle $`\theta `$ of the plane. Indeed, the angle $`\theta `$ controls the buoyancy

$$B=\frac{4\pi R^3\mathrm{\Delta }\rho g}{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 1000`$ kg m-3 is the difference between air and liquid densities. One should also note that the bubble motion is mainly limited by the viscous drag force

$$f\eta Rv_i.$$
(2)
The bubble/plane friction is small with respect to the drag force $`f`$ as we will see below. Force equilibrium $`B=f`$ gives the terminal incoming velocity $`v_i`$ of the bubbles which is a few millimeters per second since $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 10^2`$ in our experiments. We are thus in a laminar regime ($`Re1`$).

## 3 Experimental results

Bubbles tend to aggregate in an ordered hexagonal packing since the bubble size is monodisperse. The packing is continuously fed by new bubbles. As a consequence, the packing evolves and a dense flow of bubbles is seen in both tails. As for usual granular flow, a thin layer of moving grains is observed . Moreover, smaller motions are also observed deeper inside the packing, even for low $`\theta `$ values.

Figure 2 presents a typical packing of bubbles for $`\theta =1^{}`$. The shape of the pile is clearly rounded. If the incoming bubble flow is interrupted, the bubbles slide on each other under the influence of buoyancy and the angle of the bubble stack tends to zero. The pile collapses completely. This indicates that the friction between contacting bubbles is quite low, as discussed in the introduction. As contacting bubbles are sliding on each other, small shape deformations are also observed at the bottom of the pile. Thus, the bubble pile is not a strict granular medium in the sense that no arch is created.

In the packing, the bubble motion is mainly due to moving dislocations \[see Fig. 3\]. Those punctual defects are created at the surface of the packing and propagate along bubble lines at various speeds. One should note that the mean dislocation speed is larger than the bubble speed. This is due to the cooperative motion of the bubbles. For larger values of $`\theta `$, several dislocations are seen in the different parts of the pile. The majority of the bubbles is in motion.

In order to quantify and to measure the bubble flow, we have tracked the motion of every bubble in the tail of the bubble pile. Movies of the evolution of different parts of the bubble stack have been recorded at a frame rate of $`12`$ fps. The recorded areas contains typically $`30\times 30`$ bubbles. A precision of $`0.03`$mm on bubble positions is obtained. We have then measured the bubble paths and deduced velocity profiles using a particle tracking algorithm. Figure 4 presents two typical instantaneous ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.083`$ s) velocity fields in the tail of the bubble pile, for respectively $`\theta =0.5^{}`$ and $`\theta =1.5^{}`$. One can observe slow bubble motions for a small $`\theta `$ value (left) and moving layers of bubbles over a quasi-static phase for a larger $`\theta `$ value (right). Velocity measurements presented hereafter result from averages over long movies (more than $`30`$s).

Figure 5 presents the mean velocity $`v`$ in the bubble pile as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta )`$. We propose a quadratic behavior of the mean velocity as emphasized by the fit in Figure 5. The mean velocity $`v`$ would then be controled by the tilt angle $`\theta `$ and would be proportional to the kinetic energy ($`v_i^2`$) of individual bubbles before they reach the packing.

In order to characterize the bubble flow, we have also performed measurements of the velocity fluctuations, similarly to the granular ‘temperature’ . The velocity fluctuations amplitude $`\sigma `$ is then defined by

$$\sigma =\sqrt{v^2v^2},$$
(3)
i.e. the second moment of the velocity distribution in both $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions . Those velocity fluctuations $`\sigma `$ are plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta )`$ in Figure 6. One can observe a ‘jump’ of the velocity fluctuations $`\sigma `$ for tilt angles above $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta _c)0.025`$. This suggests the presence of a broad second-order phase transition as a function of the tilt angle $`\theta `$. The critical angle corresponds to $`\theta _c1.4^{}`$. Around this critical angle, two dense flow regimes should be distinguished. They will be characterized below.

For low angle values ($`\theta <\theta _c`$), the dislocations are created at the surface of the pile. They propagate in diagonal directions and are reflected at the bottom of the bubble packing. As a consequence, we have observed the motion of giant triangular domains of bubbles. Above the critical angle $`\theta _c`$, we observe numerous dislocations. The density of dislocations is so high that they are interacting by pairs. Indeed, we have observed the collision, the merging, and the annihilation of dislocation pairs. The cooperative motion of the dislocations lead to the motion of small clusters of bubbles.

The above behaviors imply distinct velocity profiles. Velocity profiles have been measured as a function of the vertical position $`h`$ reduced by the bubble diameter $`2R`$ and counted from the obstacle. Three typical velocity profiles are given in Figure 7. Velocity profiles $`v_h`$ reveal two components: (i) a mainly constant profile which dominates for low $`\theta `$ values and (ii) a curved profile (a gradient) seen for high $`\theta `$ values. The curvature above $`\theta _c`$ is similar to the velocity profile of granular systems \[see Fig 1\] : a velocity profile decreasing abruptly in the more static phase (e.g. deeper in the pile) and growing in the flowing layer . The velocity profile penetrates as deeply in the pile as the tilt angle $`\theta `$ value is large, as in granular systems .

The ‘vertical’ profiles at low $`\theta `$ values can be explained in terms of block motions of the giant triangular domains of bubbles. Domains are sliced by fast moving dislocations. As the kinetic energy of the incoming bubbles increases, the size of the bubble domains decreases. The density of dislocations increases and the bubble stack becomes more ‘fluid’. At this stage, interacting dislocations which are created at the surface of the flow are observed to annihilate deep in the dense flow. The study of the interaction/annihilation between dislocations could explain the particular curvature of our velocity profiles. This needs more theoretical work and is outside the scope of this letter.

The ‘jump’ in the velocity fluctuations $`\sigma `$ suggests that we have a transition between block and granular flows depending on the density of dislocations in the packing. Varying the bubble size $`R`$ or the bubble production rate does not affect qualitatively the results reported herein. Moreover, the bubble motions and dislocation mechanisms reported hereabove are also observed when changing the soap-water mixture.

In the future, the analogy between granular and bubble flows could be developed by changing the geometry of the bubble flow and considering “chute flow”. By tilting the rough obstacle relatively to the incomming bubble flow, one would get a “chute” flow of bubble on an inclined substrate. Tuning the bubble rate production and the tilt angle, could control the thickness of the flowing layer.

## 4 Summary

We have studied bubbles moving and aggregating on inclined planes. We have underlined the similarities between dense bubble flows and granular flows. Dense bubble flows can be considered as ‘ideal’ granular flows with nearly zero friction. We have emphasized a broad second-order transition between two dense flow regimes as a function of the tilt angle $`\theta `$ of the plane below which the bubbles are injected.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is financially supported by the contract ARC number 02/07-293. HC thanks FRIA (Brussels, Belgium) for financial support. NV thanks A.Pekalski, O.Pouliquen, and S. Dorbolo for fruitful discussions. The authors are also grateful to G. Broze for surfactant informations (Colgate-Palmolive Research facility).


text:
# Experimental Challenges for QCD - The past and the future

## I Introduction

QCD is supposed to explain everything about Hadron Physics - But How?

QED is supposed to explain everything about Superconductivity .

Will explaining Hadron Spectrocopy from QCD be as difficult as explaining Superconductivity from QED?

The Past leaves us with many experimental regularities which await explanation by QCD. The future offers many new experimental opportunities to learn about QCD from heavy flavvor physics. .

### A  The Past - pre-QCD questions - Challenges for QCD

#### 1 What is a Hadron?

Present attempts to describe hadrons recall the story of the blind men and the elephant . Each investigation finds one particular property of hadrons and many contradictory conclusions arise that are all correct,

1. A pion is a Goldstone Boson and a proton is a Skyrmion,
2. A pion is two-thirds of a proton. The simple quark model prediction $`\sigma _{tot}(\pi ^{}p)(2/3)\sigma _{tot}(pp)`$  still fits experimental data better than 7% up to 310 Gev/c;
3. The $`a_1`$ is a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in a $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ state similar to other $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$ states: scalar and tensor ($`a_2`$)
4. The $`a_1`$ is the chiral partner of the $`\rho `$ coupled similarly to the $`W`$.
5. The $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are orthogonal linear combinations of the same strange and nonstrange ground state wave functions
6. The $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ contain other components like glueballs or radial excitations
7. Mesons and Baryons are made of the same quarks. Describing both as simple composites of asymptotically free quasiparticles with a unique effective mass value predicts hadron masses, magnetic moments and hyperfine splittings.
8. Lattice QCD can give all the answers,
9. Lattice calculations disagree on whether the H dibaryon is bound and offer no hope of settling this question until much bigger lattices are available.

#### 2 What is a good hadronic symmetry? Many contradictions

1. Light (uds) SU(3) symmetry and Heavy Quark symmetry (cbt) are good;
2. Light (uds) SU(3) symmetry is bad. All nontrivial hadron states violate SU(3). All light V, A and T mesons have good isospin symmetry with flavor mixing in (u.d) space and no $`s\overline{s}`$ component; e.g. $`\rho ,\omega `$.
3. The s-quark is a heavy quark. Flavor mixing in mass eigenstates predicted by SU(3) is not there. Most nontrivial strange hadron states satisfy (scb) heavy quark symmetry with no flavor mixing.; e.g. $`\varphi ,\psi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.
4. Light (uds) SU(3) symmetry is the basis of Cabibbo theory of weak interactions and gives excellent description of hyperon decays.
5. Violation of the Gottfried sum rule shows the proton sea is not isoscalar.
6. Isospin symmetry requires a proton with an isovector sea to have a component with a valence neutron and a charged sea
7. SU(3) requires proton with isovector sea to have a component with a valence hyperon and a strange sea to satisfy Cabibbo theory for vector current.
8. Experiment shows SU(3) symmetry manifestly broken in proton sea
9. No consistent explanation of Gottfried violation, strange sea suppression breaking SU(3) and Cabibbo theory requiring good SU(3).
10. Why are the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ degenerate while the $`\eta `$ and $`\pi `$ are not? Is there a symmetry beyond SU(3) that forbids octet-singlet splitting for vectors but not for pseudoscalars??

#### 3 Why do the constituent quark model and the OZI rule work so well?

Surprising agreement with experiment from simple Sakharov-Zeldovich model (1966) having quarks with effective masses and hyperfine interaction. Nambu’s (1966) Colored quarks with gauge gluons gave mass spectrum with only $`qqq`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ bound states.

The topological quark-line OZI rule does not follow from any symmetry and predicts experiments successfully without any solid theoretical justification.

### B  The Future - Heavy Flavor Decays Give New Insight

1. Weak Decays need hadron models and QCD to interpret decays, but have too many diagrams, too many free parameters
2. No rigorous QCD results for FSI and strong phases
3. Too many decay modes, too much data. Need phenomenologists to choose data for analysis
4. Experimental results from B and Charm factories that defy conventional wisdom can provide clues to new physics and inadequacies in hadron models.

## II  The Past - The constituent quark model and other pre-QCD Challenges for QCD

### A The Sakharov-Zeldovich 1966 Quark model (SZ66)

#### 1 The Model

Andrei Sakharov, a pioneer in quark-hadron physics asked in 1966 “Why are the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ masses different? They are made of the same quarks”. Sakharov and Zeldovich. assumed a quark model for hadrons with a flavor dependent linear mass term and hyperfine interaction,

$$M=\underset{i}{}m_i+\underset{i>j}{}\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j}{m_im_j}v_{ij}^{hyp}$$
(1)
where $`m_i`$ is the effective mass of quark $`i`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ is a quark spin operator and $`v_{ij}^{hyp}`$ is a hyperfine interaction with different strengths but the same flavor dependence for $`qq`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ interactions.

This model can be considered analogous to the BCS description of superconductivity. The constituent quarks are quasiparticles of unknown structure with a background of a condensate. They have effective masses not simply related to the bare current quark masses, and somehow including all effects of confinement and other flavor independent potentials. The only contribution to hadron masses not already included is a flavor-dependent two-body hyperfine interaction inversely proportional to the product of these same effective quark masses. Hadron magnetic moments are described simply by adding the contributions of the moments of these constituent quarks with Dirac magnetic moments having a scale determined by the same effective masses. The model describes low-lying excitations of a complex system with remarkable success.

#### 2 Striking Results and Predictive Power

Sakarov and Zeldovich already in 1966 obtained two relations between meson and baryon masses in remarkable agreement with experiment. Both the mass difference $`m_sm_u`$ between strange and nonstrange quarks and their mass ratio $`m_s/m_u`$ have the same values when calculated from baryon masses and meson masses

$$m_sm_u_{Bar}=M_\mathrm{\Lambda }M_N=177\mathrm{MeV}$$
(2)
$$m_sm_u_{mes}=\frac{3(M_K^{}M_\rho )+M_KM_\pi }{4}=180\mathrm{MeV}$$
(3)
$$\left(\frac{m_s}{m_u}\right)_{Bar}=\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}=1.53=\left(\frac{m_s}{m_u}\right)_{Mes}=\frac{M_\rho M_\pi }{M_K^{}M_K}=1.61$$
(4)
Further extension of this approach led to two more relations for $`m_sm_u`$ when calculated from baryon masses and meson masses. and to three magnetic moment predictions with no free parameters

$$m_sm_u_{mes}=\frac{3M_\rho +M_\pi }{8}\left(\frac{M_\rho M_\pi }{M_K^{}M_K}1\right)=178\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(5)
$$m_sm_u_{Bar}=\frac{M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{6}\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}1\right)=190\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(6)
$$\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.61\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{m}.=\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mu _p}{3}\frac{m_u}{m_s}=\frac{\mu _p}{3}\frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N}=0.61\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{m}.$$
(7)
$$1.46=\frac{\mu _p}{\mu _n}=\frac{3}{2}$$
(8)
$$\mu _p+\mu _n=0.88\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{m}.=\frac{M_p}{3m_u}=\frac{2M_p}{M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.865\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{m}.$$
(9)
Also in 1966 Levin and Frankfurt noted a remarkable systematics in hadron-nucleon total cross sections indicating that mesons and baryons were made of the same basic building blocks. The analysis supporting their ratio of 3/2 between baryon-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon cross sections has been refined and consistently confirmed by new experiments. QCD calculations have not yet explained such remarkably successful simple constituent quark model results. A search for new experimental input to guide us is therefore of interest.

### B The A…..Z or OZI rule and QCD

#### 1 OZI for light quarks

No rigorous QCD derivation has yet been found for this flavor-topology rule arising also in duality diagrams of Regge phenomenology where leading t-channel exchanges are dual to s-channel resonances and in more modern planar quark diagrams in large $`N_c`$ QCD. It has been repeatedly confirmed in a large variety of experimental results and theoretical analyses for strong interaction three-point and four-point functions, beginning with the first controversial prediction relating final states in completely different isospin and flavor-SU(3) multiplets unrelated by any known symmetry.

$$\sigma (K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^o)=\sigma (K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega )$$
(10)
Is this connected with the $`\omega \rho `$ degeneracy?

#### 2 OZI for heavy flavors - Why is $`J/\psi `$ narrow?

One diagram $`J/\psi 3G`$ light hadrons fits the narrowness but $`J/\psi D\overline{D}`$ light hadrons is larger and neglected along with ad hoc forbidden “hairpin diagrams”. Hand waving explanations with cancellations give predictive power which can be tested with future experimental data and still challenge QCD for explanation.

### C Problems with the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$

The pseudoscalars are conventionally decribed by adding an additional mass contribution to the SU(3) singlet state, thus breaking U(3) while conserving SU(3) and leaving SU(3) breaking as entirely due to quark mass differences.. The dynamical origin of this additional singlet contribution is still unclear and controversial, with some models attributing it the annihilation of an $`q\overline{q}`$ pair into gluons or instantons and no reason to limit the mixing to only ground state $`q\overline{q}`$ wave functions. Admixtures of radial excitations and glueballs have been considered.

### D How to go beyond SZ66 with QCD

Many approaches are being investigated to use QCD in the description of hadron spectroscopy. The complexity of QCD calculations necessitates the introduction of ad hoc approximations and free parameters to obtain results, thus losing the simplicity of the constituent quark model, with its ability to make many independent predictions with very few parameters, There is also a tendency to lose some of the good results of the constituent quark model; namely

* The universal treatment of mesons and baryons made of the same quarks
* The spin dependence of hadron masses as a hyperfine interaction
* The appearance of the same effective quark masses in hadron masses, spin splittings and magnetic moments
* The systematic regularities relating meson-nucleon and baryon-nucleon cross sections

While none of these results can be considered to have a firm theoretical foundation based on QCD, it is difficult simply to dismiss the striking agreement with experiment and the successful predictive power as purely purely accidental.

## III  The Future - Heavy Flavor Physics Gives New Insight

Weak Decays need hadron models and QCD to interpret decays, but have too many diagrams and too many free parameters. Use of flavor topology can simplify analyses on one hand and challenge QCD to explain them if they work.

### A  Experimental systematics challenging conventional wisdom

#### 1 Universality of vector dominance couplings

The large branching ratios observed for the appearance of the $`a_1(1260)^\pm `$ in all quasi-two-body decays $`Da_1(1260)^\pm X`$ and $`Ba_1(1260)^\pm X`$ are comparable to those observed for $`\pi ^\pm X`$ and $`\rho ^\pm X`$. No decays to the other p-wave mesons are within an order of magnitude of these values; e.g the difference between the $`a_1`$ and the $`a_2`$. All 24 $`B`$ decays of the form $`B\overline{D}W^+\overline{D}M^+`$ , where $`M`$ can denote $`a_1,\rho ,\pi ,\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}},D_s,D_s^{}`$, are dominant with branching ratios above $`0.3\%`$. Other $`B`$-decay modes have upper limits in the $`10^4`$ ball park, including the absence with significant upper limits of neutral decays $`B^o\overline{D}^oM^o`$ which are coupled by strong final state interactions to $`B^oD^{}M^+`$.

These experimental systematics suggested a “vector-dominance” model where the initial hadron state $`i`$ decays to a final state $`f`$ by emitting a $`W^\pm `$ which then hadronizes into an $`a_1^+`$, $`\rho ^+`$ or $`\pi ^+`$, along with a universality relation,

$$[if\pi ]\frac{BR[if\pi ^+]}{BR[if\rho ^+]}\left|\frac{W^+\pi ^+}{W^+\rho ^+}\right|^2$$

$$[ifa]\frac{BR[ifa_1(1260)^+]}{BR[if\rho ^+]}\left|\frac{W^+a_1^+}{W^+\rho ^+}\right|^2$$

for all states $`i`$ and $`f`$ with corrections for phase space.

$$[D^+\overline{K}^o\pi ][D^oK^{}\pi ][B^oD^{}\pi ][B^oD^{}\pi ][B^+\overline{D}^o\pi ][B^+\overline{D}^o\pi ]$$

$$.44\pm .17.35\pm .09.38\pm .08.41\pm .20.40\pm .06.30\pm .07$$

$$[D^+\overline{K}^oa][D^oK^{}a][B^oD^{}a][B^oD^{}a][B^+\overline{D}^oa][B^+\overline{D}^oa]$$

$$1.2\pm .5.68\pm .12.8\pm .41.9\pm 1.0.37\pm .301.2\pm .4$$

The $`a_1`$ data have large errors, b ut the experimental ratios $`[ifa]`$ are all consistent with 0.7, and more than order of magnitude higher than other upper limits

$$[D^oK^{}a_2^+]<0.019\pm 0.002;[D^+\overline{K}^oa_2^+]<0.045\pm 0.017$$

That such widely different decays should agree so well is impressive and suggests further investigation. e.g. reducing the experimental errors and looking for more decay modes like $`D_s^+\varphi a_1`$, $`D_s^+\omega a_1`$, $`D^+K^0a_1`$ and $`D^0K^{}a_1`$.

#### 2 Vector-Dominance Decays of the $`B_c`$

The $`B_c`$ meson is identified against a large combinatorial background by decay modes including a $`J/\psi `$. Vector dominance decay modes including the $`J/\psi `$ are expected to have relatively large branching ratios. These include: $`J/\psi \rho ^+`$, $`J/\psi a_1^+`$, $`J/\psi \pi ^+`$, $`J/\psi D_s^{}`$, $`J/\psi D_{s1A}`$, and $`J/\psi D_s`$. The corresponding modes with a $`\psi ^{}`$ instead of a $`J/\psi `$ are expected to have comparable branching ratios.

#### 3 Puzzles in Singly-Suppressed Charm Decays

Two Cabibbo suppressed $`D^+`$ decay modes have anomalously high branching ratios which are not simply explained by any model.

$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]=3.2\pm 1.5\%$$
(11)
$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.6\pm 1.1\%$$
(12)
These are the same order as corresponding Cabibbo allowed branching ratios

$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^o]=6.6\pm 2.5\%$$
(13)
$$BR[D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=2.1\pm 1.3\%$$
(14)
The dominant tree diagrams for these corresponding allowed and suppressed decays differ only in the weak vertices $`cW^++s\rho ^++s`$ and $`cW^++sK^{}(892)^++s`$ and have the same hadronization of the strange quark s and spectator $`\overline{d}`$. These diagrams should show the expected Cabibbo suppression which is not observed.

All standard model diagrams that can contribute to these anomalously enhanced decays (11-12) are related by symmetries to a very similar diagrams for one of the following decay modes which show the expected Cabibbo suppression

$$BR[D^+K^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.42\pm 0.05\%$$
(15)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+K^{}]=0.35\pm 0.08\%$$
(16)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^{}K^+]=0.18\pm 0.01\%$$
(17)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^o]<0.08\%$$
(18)
$$BR[D^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^oK^o]<0.16\%$$
(19)
$$BR[D^oK^{}(892)^o\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=0.14\pm 0.05\%$$
(20)
There is no simple diagram that enhances the suppressed diagrams (11-12) without also enhancing others that show no experimental enhancement. It is therefore of interest to check the branching ratios for the transitions (11-12) and reduce the errors. Using the present data we find:

$$BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^o]+BR[D^+K^{}(892)^+\overline{K}^{}(892)^o]=5.8\pm 1.9\%$$
(21)
This is still large even at two standard deviations. If the large branching ratios are confirmed with smaller errors, there may be good reason to look for a new physics explanation.

#### 4 Anomalously high $`\eta ^{}`$ in charmless strange $`B`$ decays

.

The large experimental branching ratio $`BR(B^+K^+\eta ^{})=6.5\pm 1.7\times 10^5`$ as compared with $`BR(B^+K^+\eta )<1.4\times 10^5`$ and $`BR(B^+K^o\pi ^+)=2.3\pm 1.1\times 10^5`$ still has no completely satisfactory explanation and has aroused considerable controversy Also the large inclusive $`B^+K^+\eta ^{}X`$ .branching ratio is equally puzzling.

A parity selection rule provides a clear experimental method to distinguish between two proposed explanations with different flavor topologies .

1. The OZI-forbidden hairpin diagram predicts a universal parity-independent enhancement for all final states arising from the flavor singlet component of the $`\eta ^{}`$ ..

2. Parity-dependent interference between diagrams producing the $`\eta ^{}`$ via its strange and nonstrange components predicts a large $`\eta ^{}`$/$`\eta `$ ratio for even parity final states like $`K\eta `$ and $`K\eta ^{}`$ the reverse for odd parity states like $`K^{}`$(892) $`\eta `$ and $`K^{}`$ $`\eta ^{}`$. This selection rule agrees with experiment, although so far the $`K^{}`$ $`\eta `$ has been seen and the $`K^{}`$ $`\eta ^{}`$ has not.

### B Predictions from simple easily-tested assumptions

#### 1 The Flavor-Topology OZI rule and QCD

Two predictions which challenge QCD if they agree with experimenmt.

$$BR(B^\pm K^\pm \omega )=BR(B^\pm K^\pm \rho ^o)$$
(22)
Because the $`\rho ^o`$ and $`\omega `$ mesons both come only from $`\overline{u}u`$ this prediction requires only exclusion of hairpin diagram topology and holds even in presence of strong final state rescattering via all other quark-gluon diagrams.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B^\pm K^\pm \varphi )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B^\pm K^o\rho ^\pm )$$
(23)
This prediction also assumes the SU(3) flavor symmetry relation between strange and nonstrange pair production

#### 2 The “inactive spectator” approach

Many interesting predictions that can be checked experimentally and challenge QCD if they work follow from a simple flavor-topology rule. The spectator quark line must flow continuously from initial to final state, emitting and absorbing gluons freely, but not undergoing annihilation or pair creation. One example arises in $`B`$ decays to final states containing charmonium. The first prediction forbids all decays without the spectator flavor in the final state :

$$A[B_dJ/\psi M(\overline{q}s)]=0=A[B_sJ/\psi M(\overline{q}d)]$$
(24)
$$A(B_sJ/\psi \rho ^o)=A(B_sJ/\psi \omega )=A(B_dJ/\psi \varphi )=0$$
(25)
where $`M(\overline{q}s)`$ and $`M(\overline{q}d)`$ denote any $`\overline{q}q`$ meson with these constituents. If this selection rule holds all other decays described by two amplitudes

$$B(\overline{b}q)J/\psi \overline{d}qJ/\psi M(\overline{d}q)$$
(26)
$$B(\overline{b}q)J/\psi \overline{s}qJ/\psi M(\overline{s}q)$$
(27)
Decay is product of $`\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{J}/\psi \overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ decay and hadronization function $`h`$

$`A[B_dJ/\psi M^0(\overline{s}d)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{s})h[\overline{s}dM^0(\overline{s}d)]`$ (28)
$`A[B_sJ/\psi M^0(\overline{d}s)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d})h[\overline{d}sM^0(\overline{d}s)]`$ (29)
$`A[B_dJ/\psi M^0(\overline{d}d)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d})h[\overline{d}dM^0(\overline{d}d)]`$ (30)
$`A[B_sJ/\psi M^0(\overline{s}s)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{s})h[\overline{s}sM^0(\overline{s}s)]`$ (31)
$`A[B^+J/\psi M^+(\overline{s}u)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{s})h[\overline{s}dM^+(\overline{s}u)]`$ (32)
$`A[B^+J/\psi M^+(\overline{d}u)]=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d})h[\overline{d}dM^+(\overline{d}u)]`$ (33)
Decays into charge-conjugate strange final states differ only by weak interaction vertex and kinematic and form factor differences induced by $`B_dB_s`$ mass difference. For any partial wave L in a vector-vector final state, we can write

$$A(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K}^0)_L=F_{CKM}^LA(B_dJ/\psi K^0)_L$$
(34)
If the weak transition is $`\overline{b}\overline{c}+W^+\overline{c}+c+\overline{q}`$ as in the dominant tree diagram.

$$F_{CKM}^L=\frac{A_L(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d})}{A_L(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{s})}V_{cd}/V_{cs}$$
(35)
If $`F_{CKM}^LV_{cd}/V_{cs}`$ other contributions are indicated.

Additional SU(3) assumption gives

$$A_L(B_dJ/\psi \rho ^o)=A_L(B_dJ/\psi \omega )=\frac{A_L(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K}^0)}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(36)
$$A_L(B_sJ/\psi \varphi )=A_L(B_dJ/\psi K^0)$$
(37)
$$A_L(B_sJ/\psi \rho ^o)=A_L(B_sJ/\psi \omega )=A_L(B_dJ/\psi \varphi )=0$$
(38)
#### 3 How to test $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing

If the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ system satisfies the standard mixing,

$$|\eta =|\eta _n\mathrm{cos}\varphi |\eta _s\mathrm{sin}\varphi ;|\eta ^{}=|\eta _n\mathrm{sin}\varphi +|\eta _s\mathrm{cos}\varphi $$
(39)
Then

$$r_d=\frac{p_\eta ^{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta )}{p_\eta ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta ^{})}=\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi ;r_s=\frac{p_\eta ^{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi \eta )}{p_\eta ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi \eta ^{})}=\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi $$
(40)
$$R\eta =\frac{p_{B\eta }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta )}{p_{Bs\eta }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi \eta )}\frac{p_{BsK}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi K^0)}{p_{BK}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \overline{K}^0)}=\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi $$
(41)
$$R_\eta ^{}=\frac{p_{B\eta ^{}}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta ^{})}{p_{Bs\eta ^{}}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi \eta ^{})}\frac{p_{BsK}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi K^0)}{p_{BK}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \overline{K}^0)}=\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi $$
(42)
$$r=\sqrt{r_dr_s}=1;R_B=\sqrt{R_\eta R_\eta ^{}}=1$$
(43)
Any large deviation of $`r`$ or $`R_B`$ from 1 would indicate evidence of non standard $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing.

#### 4 SU(3) Relations between Cabibbo-Favored and Doubly-Cabibbo Suppressed $`D^o`$ decays

.

The SU(3) transformation $`ds`$, also called a Weyl reflection or a U-spin reflection relates Cabibbo-favored $``$ doubly-cabibbo suppressed charm decays

$`ds;K^+\pi ^+;K^{}\pi ^{};D^+D_s;`$ (44)
$`D^oD^o;K^+\pi ^{}K^{}\pi ^+`$ (45)
If strong interaction final state interactions conserve SU(3) the only SU(3) breaking occurs in the CKM matrix elements.

A simple test of this SU(3) symmetry is

$$tan^4\theta _c=\frac{BR(D^oK^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^oK^{}\pi ^+)}=\frac{BR[D^oK^{}(892)^+\rho ^{}]}{BR[D^oK^{}(892)^{}\rho ^+]}$$
(46)
These relations involve only branching ratios and are easily tested . They involve no phases and only branching ratios of decay modes all expected to be comparable to the observed DCSD $`D^oK^+\pi ^{}`$. A similar relation .

$$tan^4\theta _c=\frac{BR[D^oK^+a_1(1260)^{}]}{BR[D^oK^{}a_1(1260)^+]}$$
(47)
may be subject to a different type of SU(3) breaking. . A weak vector dominance form factor can enhance

$$D^o(c\overline{u})(s\overline{u}K^{})_S(u\overline{d}a_1^+)_WK^{}a_1^+$$
(48)
where the subscripts S and W denote strong and weak form factors.

No such enhancement should occur in

$$D^o(c\overline{u})(d\overline{u}a_1^{})_S(u\overline{s}K^+)_Wa_1^{}K^+$$
(49)
If the SU(3) breaking is really due to the difference between products of weak axial and strong kaon form factors and vice versa, the SU(3) relation invlving the $`a_1`$ can be expected to be strongly broken and replaced by the inequality

$$\frac{BR[D^oK^{}a_1(1260)^+]}{BR(D^oK^{}\pi ^+)}\frac{BR[D^oK^+a_1(1260)^{}]}{BR(D^oK^+\pi ^{})}$$
(50)
#### 5 A problem with strong phases

.

The $`ds`$ interchange SU(3) transformation also predicts $`D^oK^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`D^oK^{}\pi ^+`$ have the same strong phases. This has been shown to be in disagreement with experiment showing SU(3) violation.

But the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ final states are charge conjugates of one another and strong interactions conserve charge conjugation. SU(3) can be broken in strong interactions without breaking charge conjugation only in the quark - hadron form factors arising in hadronization transitions like

$`D^o(c\overline{u})`$ $`(s\overline{u}K^{})_S(u\overline{d}a_1^+)_W`$ (51)
$`K^{}a_1^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ (52)
$`D^o(c\overline{u})`$ $`(d\overline{u}a_1^{})_S(u\overline{s}K^+)_W`$ (53)
$`a_1^{}K^+\pi ^{}K^+`$ (54)
with the SU(3) breaking given by the inequality (50).

The $`a_1`$ and $`\pi `$ wave functions are very different and not related by SU(3). The $`K^{}a_1^\pm K^{}\pi ^\pm `$ transition can proceed via $`\rho `$ exchange

#### 6 SU(3) relations between $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays

Both of the following ratios of branching ratios

$$\frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}\frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}O(tan^4\theta _c)$$
(55)
are ratios of a doubly Cabibbo forbidden decay to an allowed decay and should be of order $`tan^4\theta _c`$. The SU(3) transformation $`ds`$ takes the two ratios (55) into the reciprocals of one another. SU(3) requires the product of these two ratios to be EXACTLY $`\mathrm{tan}^8\theta _c`$.

$$\frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}\frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}=tan^8\theta _c$$
(56)
Most obvious SU(3)-symmetry-breaking factors cancel out in this product; e.g. phase space. Present data show

$$\frac{BR(D^+K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}{BR(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}0.65\%3\times tan^4\theta _c$$
(57)
Then SU(3) predicts

$$\frac{BR(D_sK^+K^+\pi ^{})}{BR(D_sK^+K^{}\pi ^+)}\frac{tan^4\theta _c}{3}0.07\%.$$
(58)
If this SU(3) prediction is confirmed experimentally some new dynamical explanation will be needed for the order of magnitude difference between effects of the final-state interactions in $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays.

If the final state interactions behave similarly in $`D_s`$ and $`D^+`$ decays, the large violation of SU(3) will need some explanation.

New physics enhancing the doubly suppressed decays might produce a CP violation observable as a charge asymmetry in the products of above the two ratios; i.e between the values for $`D^+`$ and $`D_s`$ decays and for $`D^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}_s`$ decays.

An obvious caveat is the almost trivial SU(3) breaking arising from resonances in the final states. But sufficient data and Dalitz plots should enable including these effects. In any case the SU(3) relation and its possible violations raise interesting questions which deserve further theoretical and experimental investigation. Any really large SU(3)-breaking final state interactions that we don’t understand must cast serious doubts on many SU(3) predictions.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.and in part by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel and by the Basic Research Foundation administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities