text:
# CP Violating Rate Difference Relations for 𝐵→𝑃𝑃 and 𝐵→𝑃𝑉 in Broken SU(3)

## Abstract

Within the standard model there exist certain relations between CP violating rate differences in $`B`$ decays in the $`SU(3)`$ limit. We study $`SU(3)`$ breaking corrections to these relations in the case of charmless, hadronic, two body $`B`$ decays using the improved factorization model of Ref.. We consider the cases $`BPP`$ and $`BPV`$ for both $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ mesons. We present an estimate for $`A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ in terms of $`A_{CP}(K^{}\pi ^+)`$.

$`a`$ Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, OR 97403, USA

$`b`$ Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

$`c`$ Department of Physics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

$`B`$ decays are a subject of very active research at present since they provide useful information on the dynamics of strong and electroweak interactions for testing the Standard Model (SM) and models beyond and are ideally suited for a critical analysis of CP violation. The mixing induced CP asymmetry in $`\overline{B}^0\psi K_s`$ versus $`B^0\psi K_s`$ has already provided an accurate measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ . This result is in excellent agreement with the SM. Other mixing studies, such as $`\overline{B}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, are underway for determining $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$, but require more data to reduce the theoretical uncertainty associated with penguin contributions. Rate asymmetry measurements in the branching ratios of $`B`$ mesons into mesons involving light quarks are also underway. These shed light on direct CP violation in the amplitudes. Analyses of these decays to extract fundamental parameters of the SM are more difficult because of theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of hadronic modes. In general, these asymmetries arise from interference of a Cabbibo suppressed tree amplitude with a (possibly enhanced) penguin amplitude. As such, these asymmetries are sensitive to contributions through loops, that could involve physics beyond the SM. Thus, the study of direct CP violation can be a powerful tool to probe for physics beyond the SM if the theoretical uncertainty can be reduced.

The goal of this letter is to study the direct CP violation asymmetry in a class of processes where there has been recent theoretical progress. These processes involve $`B`$ decays into two light pseudoscalars $`P_1P_2`$ or into a light pseudoscalar and a light vector meson $`PV`$. We identify relations between rate asymmetries which are valid in the SU(3) limit in the standard model, and we compute SU(3) breaking corrections to them using the QCD improved factorization model of Ref.. We also discuss additional relations which are valid in the SU(3) limit when annihilation contributions are neglected.

CP violation in the SM arises solely from the phase in the $`3\times 3`$ unitary CKM matrix, $`V_{CKM}=(V_{ij})`$, and any CP violating observable is proportional to $`Im(V_{ij}V_{il}^{}V_{kj}^{}V_{kl})`$, with $`ik`$ and $`jl`$. This simple property has important implications, as for example it leads to relations among CP violating rate differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PP}^B=\mathrm{\Gamma }(BPP)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{B}\overline{P}\overline{P})`$, for different decay modes. For instance, it has been shown that, with SU(3) flavor symmetry, when small annihilation contributions and phase space differences are neglected, naive factorization yields the relation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{f_K^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}.`$ (1)
This can be used to test the SM CP violation, or to predict one rate difference if the other one is known. The above equation leads to a relation for the CP violating rate asymmetry,

$$A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)\frac{f_\pi ^2}{f_K^2}\frac{Br(K^{}\pi ^+)}{Br(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)}A_{CP}(K^{}\pi ^+),$$
(2)
where $`Br(PP)`$ are the CP averaged branching ratios, $`Br(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)=(5.2\pm 0.6)\times 10^6`$ and $`Br(K^{}\pi ^+)=(18.6\pm 1.1)\times 10^6`$. Eq. 2 implies the following relation between the corresponding CP asymmetries: $`A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)2.4A_{CP}(K^{}\pi ^+)`$.

Preliminary data on these asymmetries is just emerging, with BaBar reporting $`A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)=0.30\pm 0.25\pm 0.04`$, $`A_{CP}(K^{}\pi ^+)=0.102\pm 0.050\pm 0.016`$ and Belle reporting $`A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)=0.94_{0.31}^{+0.25}\pm 0.09`$. At the moment the two experiments disagree on the value of $`A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ but they still have very large errors.

The most important question for theory is to establish the precision of Eqs. 1 and 2 within the standard model, or equivalently to estimate the corrections they receive. One can easily identify two sources of corrections for Eqs. 1 and 2: annihilation contributions, and SU(3)breaking effects. Even though the relation Eq. 1 already includes some SU(3) breaking effects in the factor $`f_\pi ^2/f_K^2`$, it is necessary to have better control over these corrections in order to test the Standard Model.

To begin our analysis of the $`BPP`$ modes, we first note that there are several relations among the rate differences in these decays that follow from SU(3) flavor symmetry in the SM. There are also other relations such as Eq. 1 which rely both on SU(3) symmetry and on the neglect of annihilation amplitudes. It is easy to understand the origin of these relations. The decay amplitude for $`BPP`$ can be parameterized as

$`A(BPP)=V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}T_{PP}^B+V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}P_{PP}^B,`$ (3)
and can be decomposed into SU(3) invariant amplitudes according to the representation of the effective Hamiltonian . SU(3) symmetry predicts that the amplitudes for $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+,K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0\pi ^{}K^+,K^{}K^+`$ are related and this can be proved by writing the decay amplitudes in terms of the SU(3) invariant amplitudes as

$`T_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=T_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=2A_{\overline{3}}^T+C_{\overline{3}}^T+C_6^T+A_{\overline{15}}^T+3C_{\overline{15}}^T,`$
$`T_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=T_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=C_{\overline{3}}^T+C_6^TA_{\overline{15}}^T+3C_{\overline{15}}^T,`$ (4)
where $`A_i`$ indicate the annihilation contributions. Both model calculations, and fits to experimental data indicate that these annihilation amplitudes are small. The penguin amplitudes $`P_{PP}^B`$ can be parameterized in a similar way.

We note that, even though $`T(P)_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=T(P)_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}`$ and $`T(P)_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=T(P)_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}`$ in the SU(3) limit, there are no simple relations between the branching ratios for these decays, because the CKM factors in the $`T`$ and $`P`$ amplitudes are different. However, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PP}^BIm(TP^{})Im(V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}V_{cb}^{}V_{cq})`$ and $`Im(V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}^{}V_{cd})=Im(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})`$ from the unitarity of the CKM matrix, we have the following relations among the CP violating rate differences:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0},\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}.`$ (5)
These relations can be obtained by interchanging the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks (U-spin symmetry). If annihilation contributions are neglected, all the amplitudes $`T_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}`$, $`T_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}`$, $`T_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}`$ and $`T_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}`$ are approximately equal and one gets additional relations,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}.`$ (6)
Similar relations exist as well for decays with neutral mesons in the final state. These relations are more complicated than those of Eq. 6 because there are more $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks to interchange, and consequently it is harder to study the effect of SU(3) breaking in that case. For the remainder of this paper we concentrate on the relations in Eqs.5 and 6.

One must be careful, however, about the validity of these relations. In the exact SU(3) limit, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PP}^B`$ are also exactly zero because the standard model conserves CP when $`m_s=m_d`$. It is well known that in this case it is possible to remove the phase in the CKM matrix with an appropriate rotation among $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks. In order to have a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PP}^B`$, one can not have an exact SU(3) symmetry. In order to have CP violation in the standard model no two quarks with the same charge can have the same mass; as long as $`m_sm_d`$ there will be CP violation regardless of how small these masses are. The relations in Eq. 5 are thus valid and non-trivial in the limit where $`(m_sm_d)`$ is much smaller than the QCD scale, but not zero.

When SU(3) breaking effects are included, the above mentioned relations will be modified and one needs a good understanding of these effects before using the relations to test the standard model. Our limited understanding of the strong interaction dynamics at low energies makes this task quite difficult. In what follows we illustrate the SU(3) breaking corrections that arise within the QCD improved factorization model of Ref. .

Within this approach, the relevant decay amplitudes for $`BPP`$ are given by

$`A(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)F_0^{B\pi }(m_\pi ^2)f_\pi [V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_1(\pi \pi )`$
$`+`$ $`V_{pb}V_{pd}^{}(a_4^p(\pi \pi )+a_{10}^p(\pi \pi )+r_\chi ^\pi (a_6^p(\pi \pi )+a_8^p(\pi \pi )))]`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Bf_\pi ^2[V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}b_1(\pi \pi )`$
$`+`$ $`(V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}+V_{cb}V_{cd}^{})(b_3(\pi \pi )+2b_4(\pi \pi )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(b_3^{EW}(\pi \pi )b_4^{EW}(\pi \pi ))]`$
$`A(\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)F_0^{B\pi }(m_K^2)f_K[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1(K\pi )`$
$`+`$ $`V_{pb}V_{ps}^{}(a_4^p(K\pi )+a_{10}^p(K\pi )+r_\chi ^K(a_6^p(K\pi )+a_8^p(K\pi )))]`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Bf_\pi f_K[(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}+V_{cb}V_{cs}^{})(b_3(K\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_3^{EW}(K\pi )],`$
where $`p`$ is summed over $`u`$ and $`c`$, $`r_\chi ^\pi =2m_\pi ^2/m_b(m_u+m_d)`$, $`r_\chi ^K=2m_K^2/m_b(m_u+m_s)`$ and

$`a_1(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N_c}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(V_{M_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{N_c}}H_{M_1M_2})\right],`$
$`a_4^p(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(V_{M_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{N_c}}H_{M_1M_2})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi N_c}}P_{M_1,2}^p,`$
$`a_6^p(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}\left(16{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi N_c}}P_{M_1,3}^p,`$
$`a_8^p(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_8+{\displaystyle \frac{c_7}{N_c}}\left(16{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{9\pi N_c}}P_{M_1,3}^{p,EW},`$
$`a_{10}^p(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{10}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_9}{N_c}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(V_{M_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{N_c}}H_{M_1M_2})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{9\pi N_c}}P_{M_1,2}^{p,EW},`$ (8)
$`b_1(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N_c^2}}c_1A_1^i(M_1M_2),`$
$`b_3(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N_c^2}}[c_3A_1^i(M_1M_2)+c_5(A_3^i(M_1M_2)+A_3^f(M_1M_2))`$
$`+`$ $`N_cc_6A_3^f(M_1M_2)],`$
$`b_4(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N_c^2}}[c_4A_1^i(M_1M_2)+c_6A_2^i(M_1M_2)],`$
$`b_3^{EW}(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N_c^2}}[c_9A_1^i(M_1M_2)+c_7(A_3^i(M_1M_2)+A_3^f(M_1M_2))`$
$`+`$ $`N_CC_8A_3^f(M_1M_2)],`$
$`b_4^{EW}(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N_c^2}}[c_{10}A_1^i(M_1M_2)+c_8A_2^i(M_1M_2)],`$ (9)
where $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c`$ and $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors and $`c_i`$ are the Wilson coefficients. The vertex, the hard gluon exchange with the spectator, and the penguin contributions are:

$`V_M`$ $`=`$ $`12\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}18+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xg(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x),`$
$`P_{M,2}^p`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}G_M(s_p)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`c_3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}G_M(0)G_M(1)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`(c_4+c_6)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4n_f}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}(n_f2)G_M(0)G_M(s_c)G_M(1)\right]`$
$``$ $`2c_{8g}^{eff}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x),`$
$`P_{M,2}^{p,EW}`$ $`=`$ $`(c_1+N_cc_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}G_M(s_p)\right]3c_{7\gamma }^{eff}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x),`$
$`P_{M,3}^p`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\widehat{G}_M(s_p)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`c_3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\widehat{G}_M(0)\widehat{G}_M(1)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`(c_4+c_6)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4n_f}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}(n_f2)\widehat{G}_M(0)\widehat{G}_M(s_c)\widehat{G}_M(1)\right]`$
$``$ $`2c_{8g}^{eff},`$
$`P_{M,3}^{p,EW}`$ $`=`$ $`(c_1+N_cc_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\widehat{G}_K(s_p)\right]3c_{7\gamma }^{eff},`$
$`H_{M_1M_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_Bf_\pi }{m_B\lambda _BF_0^{B\pi }(0)}}\{{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1y}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(y)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _s)r_\chi ^\pi (\mu _s)}{\alpha _s(\mu _h)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1y}}\mathrm{\Phi }_p(y)\},`$
$`A_j^i(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \alpha _s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑yF_j^i(x,y),j=\overline{1,3},`$
$`A_3^f(M_1M_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \alpha _s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑yF_3^f(x,y),`$ (10)
with

$`F_1^i(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(y)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(1x\overline{y})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y\overline{x}^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu _{M_2}\mu _{M_1}}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{x}y}}\right\},`$
$`F_2^i(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(y)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}(1x\overline{y})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2\overline{x}}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu _{M_2}\mu _{M_1}}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{x}y}}\right\},`$
$`F_3^i(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{M_2}}{m_b}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x){\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{y}}{\overline{x}y(1x\overline{y})}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{M_1}}{m_b}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(y){\displaystyle \frac{2x}{\overline{x}y(1x\overline{y})}}\right\},`$
$`F_3^f(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{M_2}}{m_b}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(x){\displaystyle \frac{2(1+\overline{x})}{\overline{x}^2y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{M_1}}{m_b}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(y){\displaystyle \frac{2(1+y)}{\overline{x}y^2}}\right\},`$ (11)
where $`\overline{x}=1x`$, $`\overline{y}=1y`$ and the parameter $`2\mu _M/m_b`$ coincides with $`r_\chi `$. The functions $`g(x)`$, $`G_M(x)`$ and $`\widehat{G}_M(x)`$ are given by

$`g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{12x}{1x}}\mathrm{ln}xi\pi \right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left[2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(x)\mathrm{ln}^2x+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{ln}x}{1x}}(3+2i\pi )\mathrm{ln}x(x1x)\right],`$
$`G(s,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uu(1u)\mathrm{ln}[su(1u)x],`$
$`G_M(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xG(siϵ,1x)\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x),`$
$`\widehat{G}_M(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xG(siϵ,1x)\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x),`$ (12)
where $`s_i=m_i^2/m_b^2`$ are the mass ratios for the quarks involved in the penguin diagrams, while $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x)`$ are the distribution amplitudes of the $`M`$ meson. The twist-3 distribution amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x)`$, is equal to 1, to the order considered in the calculation. The distribution amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x)`$ has the following expansion in Gegenbauer polynomials

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x)=6x(1x)[1+\alpha _1C_1^{(3/2)}(2x1)+\alpha _2C_2^{3/2}(2x1)+\mathrm{}],`$ (13)
with $`C_1^{3/2}(u)=3u`$ and $`C_2^{3/2}(u)=(3/2)(5u^21)`$, and is different for $`\pi `$ and $`K`$. For $`\pi `$, the distribution in $`x`$ must be even because the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks have negligible masses and their distributions inside the pion are symmetric. This dictates $`\alpha _1^\pi =0`$. The coefficient $`\alpha _2^\pi `$ is estimated to be $`0.1\pm 0.3`$. For K, the $`u`$ (or $`d`$) and $`s`$ quarks inside the kaon are different, leading to an asymmetry in the $`x`$ distribution. So a non-zero value for $`\alpha _1^K`$ is needed and it is estimated to be $`0.3\pm 0.3`$, while $`\alpha _2^K=0.1\pm 0.3`$.

One also has to consider divergences contained in the hard scattering and annihilation contributions. The divergent part in the hard scattering comes from $`X_H=_0^1\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x)𝑑y/(1y)_0^1𝑑y/(1y)`$, while the divergent part in the annihilation is of the same form at leading order. These divergences are logarithmic and, in principle, would be absent in a full theory. Here, we follow Ref. to introduce an infrared cut-off at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h=0.5`$ GeV and use

$$X_{H(A)}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h}.$$
(14)
The final results are insensitive to the precise value of the cut-off. As for the numerical inputs, we will use the values of the Wilson coefficients at $`\mu =m_b`$, $`\mu _h=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h=0.5`$ GeV, $`\lambda _B=0.350`$ GeV.

The decay amplitudes for $`\overline{B}_s^0\pi ^{}K^+`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0K^{}K^+`$ can be obtained from Eq. LABEL:abppimpfac, by using the appropriate transition form factor $`F_0^{B_sK}`$ and by changing $`1/m_B^2\lambda _B`$ to $`1/m_{B_s}^2\lambda _{B_s}`$ in $`H_{M_1M_2}`$.

Putting everything together, we are now able to estimate the size of different contributions and, as expected, we find that the annihilation contributions are small.

Eq. 1 incorporates SU(3) breaking effects only through the difference in the decay constants $`f_\pi `$ and $`f_K`$ as they appear in naive factorization. To improve on this approximation we need to consider other sources of SU(3) breaking. For example there are SU(3) breaking mass differences in both the initial $`B`$ mesons and in the final state mesons. These mass differences induce corrections that are proportional to $`m_M^2/m_B^2`$ and are therefore small. The decay amplitudes are proportional to the decay constant $`f_{M_1}`$ of $`M_1`$ and to the transition form factor $`F_0^{BM_2}`$, depending on which $`B`$ is decaying into which final state. These form factors can also introduce SU(3) breaking effects. For $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, all the corrections mentioned above account for the factor $`f_\pi ^2/f_K^2`$ in Eq. 1. Additional SU(3) breaking effects can arise from the distribution amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x)`$, which is different for the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks. The important effect arises from the twist two distribution amplitudes. In our calculation we have used a constant $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p=1`$ for the twist-3 distribution amplitude so we have neglected SU(3) breaking in this term. However, SU(3) breaking effects in this term should also be taken into consideration at higher order.

To summarize, the SU(3) breaking effects that we do include are the difference in the decay constants and form factors; and the difference in the $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ terms that appear in the twist-2 distribution amplitude. With these effects taken into account, and using $`s_u=s_d=s_s=0`$ and $`s_c=(1.3/4.2)^2`$ in Eq. 10, the relation in Eq. 1 turns into

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}\frac{f_\pi ^2}{f_K^2}\left[\frac{10.748\alpha _1^\pi 0.109\alpha _2^\pi 0.017H_{\pi \pi }0.004\delta _A^\pi }{10.748\alpha _1^K0.109\alpha _2^K0.017H_{K\pi }+0.0004\delta _A^K}\right],$$
(15)
where $`\delta _A^\pi =11.34X_A^\pi 0.36(X_A^\pi )^2`$ and $`\delta _A^K=0.10.8X_A^K+1.4(X_A^K)^2`$ indicate the annihilation contributions. The numerical coefficients are obtained for the input parameters discussed before with $`X_{H(A)}`$ real, and using $`X_{H(A)}=\mathrm{ln}(m_B/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. With these input parameters, $`H_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`H_{K\pi }`$ are in the range between 0.8 to 1. This leads to very small annihilation and hard scattering contributions as can be seen from Eq. 15. If one allows complex values for $`X_{H(A)}`$, then the corrections can be larger , but we do not have a good estimate for these parameters.

The most important SU(3) breaking effect that we have identified (in addition to the difference in decay constants) arises from twist-2 distribution amplitudes. Using the central values $`\alpha _1^\pi =0`$, $`\alpha _2^\pi =0.1`$ and $`\alpha _1^K=0.3`$, $`\alpha _2^K=0.1`$, the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}`$ increases by a factor of 1.3, and is approximately $`0.87`$. By taking into account the full range of values for the $`\alpha `$-parameters, the maximum and minimum numerical values of the above ratios are, respectively, $`1.4`$ and $`0.6`$. This can be used to test the standard model and the QCD improved factorization. In particular, the sign of the rate difference is not changed by the SU(3) breaking effects we have considered.

Similar calculations can be carried out for $`B_sPP`$ decays. We find that the ratio of differences

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}}`$ (16)
is independent of the twist-2 distribution amplitudes or meson decay constants. This relation is particularly interesting because it can be used to test the SM with less uncertainties. The related CP asymmetries will be expressed in terms of the corresponding branching ratios which are scaled by transition form factors as

$`Br(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{B\pi }}{F_0^{B_sK}}}\right)^2Br(\overline{B}_s^0\pi ^{}K^+){\displaystyle \frac{Ph_{\pi \pi }^B}{Ph_{\pi K}^{B_s}}},`$
$`Br(\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{B\pi }}{F_0^{B_sK}}}\right)^2Br(\overline{B}_s^0K^{}K^+){\displaystyle \frac{Ph_{\pi K}^{B_d}}{Ph_{KK}^{B_s}}},`$ (17)
where $`C=(m_B^2\tau _{B_s}/m_{B_s}^2\tau _B)`$ and $`Ph_{P_1P_2}^B=[(1(m_{P_1}+m_{P_2})^2/m_B^2)(1(m_{P_1}m_{P_2})^2/m_B^2]^{1/2}/2m_B`$ is the phase space factor. In order to test the SM, one needs to know the form factors, these can be obtained from other processes or from theoretical calculations. Alternatively, one can use these relations to obtain the ratio of the form factors using experimental data.

There are similar relations for $`BPV`$ decays. By replacing one of the final octet pseudoscalar mesons with a corresponding octet vector meson in the previously discussed cases, one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\rho ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\rho ^+}^{\overline{B}^0},`$ (18)
where the approximate sign indicates relations that hold true only when annihilation contributions are neglected. These relations, Eq. 18, are again expected to receive SU(3) breaking corrections. To estimate the SU(3) breaking effects we use the QCD improved factorization model once again.

When $`M_2`$ (the meson which picks up the spectator) is a vector meson, as for example in $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\rho ^+`$, $`\overline{B}_s^0K^{}K^+`$ and $`\overline{B}^0K^{}\rho ^+`$, $`\overline{B}_s^0\pi ^{}K^+`$, the corresponding decay amplitudes can be obtained by replacing the form factor $`F_0^{BP}`$ with $`A_0^{BV}`$ and $`r_\chi `$ with $`r_\chi `$ in Eq. LABEL:abppimpfac, and by using the same expressions for Eq. 9, except for $`H_{M_1M_2}`$ which has no twist-3 terms. By neglecting the annihilation contributions, the analogue of Eq. 15 is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}\rho ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}\frac{m_B}{m_{B_s}}\frac{f_\pi ^2}{f_K^2}\left(\frac{A_0^{B\rho }}{A_0^{B_sK^{}}}\right)^2\frac{1+110\alpha _1^\pi +15.5\alpha _2^\pi }{1+110\alpha _1^K+15.5\alpha _2^K},$$
(19)
and the same for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\rho ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}`$. We observe the large coefficient of $`\alpha _1`$ in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. 19. Since $`\alpha _1^\pi =0`$ and $`\alpha _1^K=0.3\pm 0.3`$, the denominator has a vary large uncertainty, making a prediction for this asymmetry impossible within this framework. On the other hand, this provides an opportunity to constrain (or even to determine) $`\alpha _1^K`$ when the ratio in Eq. 19 is measured.

When $`M_1`$ is the vector meson, as in $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^+`$, $`\overline{B}_s^0K^{}K^+`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0\rho ^{}K^+`$, $`\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, the decay amplitudes can be obtained by replacing the $`r_\chi `$ factor in Eq. LABEL:abppimpfac with $`r_K^{}=\frac{2m_K^{}}{m_b}\frac{f_K^{}^{}}{f_K^{}}0.3`$ (and similarly for $`r_\rho `$), and by removing the penguin terms $`P_{2,3}^{p,EW}`$ in the expressions for $`a_6`$ and $`a_8`$ in Eq. 9, because the vector meson is described only by a twist-2 distribution amplitude. With all this we obtain:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}\frac{m_B}{m_{B_s}}\frac{f_\rho ^2}{f_K^{}^2}\left(\frac{F_1^{B\pi }}{F_1^{B_sK}}\right)^2\frac{11.25\alpha _1^\rho 0.18\alpha _2^\rho }{11.25\alpha _1^K^{}0.18\alpha _2^K^{}}.$$
(20)
Using the central values of the ranges $`\alpha _1^\rho =0`$, $`\alpha _2^\rho =0.16\pm 0.09`$, $`\alpha _1^K^{}=0.18\pm 0.05`$, $`\alpha _2^K^{}=0.05\pm 0.05`$ and taking $`f_\rho 0.96f_K^{}`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We extract this ratio $`f_\rho /f_K0.96`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}\rho ^{}\nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}K^{}\nu )`$. we find:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho ^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.15}\left(\frac{F_1^{B\pi }}{F_1^{B_sK}}\right)^2,\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho ^{}K^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{K^{}\pi ^+}^{\overline{B}^0}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.15}\left(\frac{F_1^{B_sK}}{F_1^{B\pi }}\right)^2.$$
(21)
Our calculations show that important SU(3) breaking effects arise from the light-cone distributions of mesons in addition to those already present in the decay constants. These effects can only be estimated with large uncertainty because the parameters $`\alpha _{1,2}^P`$ are not well determined at present. Using the currently allowed ranges we find,

$$A_{CP}(\pi ^{}\pi ^+)\left(3.1_{0.9}^{+1.9}\right)A_{CP}(K^{}\pi ^+),$$
(22)
which can also be used to test the standard model and the improved factorization model to some extent.

We have also shown that in the case of $`BPV`$, when the pseudoscalar meson is factored out, SU(3) breaking is large and estimates have very large uncertainty at present. In the case when the vector meson is factored out, as in Eq. 20, the corrections are smaller.

It is important to emphasize, however, that there are relations which are independent of $`\alpha _{1,2}^i`$ parameters and decay constants. Examples include Eq. 16, a corresponding relation for the ratio of branching ratios ($`Br(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+)/Br(\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+)Br(\overline{B}_s\pi ^{}K^+)/Br(\overline{B}_sK^{}K^+)`$), and their analogues in $`BPV`$ decays. These relations are more reliable than Eq. 1 in the sense that they do not receive the main SU(3) breaking corrections that we have investigated. Although this observation relies on the QCD improved factorization model, it may be more robust than model predictions for absolute values of rates because it only involves ratios.

A systematic framework to study SU(3) breaking in $`B`$ decays is, of course, needed before the relations we have presented can be used in precision tests of the standard model. With the estimates we have presented here, the relations are still useful. Large experimental violations of them would hint at possible new physics; at the very least they would provide information on the limitations of the QCD improved factorization model. To test some of the relations that we have discussed, charmless hadronic two body $`B_s`$ decays must also be measured. This can not be done by the B-factories at present, but in the near future such $`B_s`$ decays will be studied at the Tevatron II and at LHCb.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by US DOE contract numbers DE-FG03-96ER40969, DE-FG02-01ER41155, the Taiwan NSC grant N91-2112-M-002-42 and in part by the Ministry of Education Academic Excellence Project 89-N-FA01-1-4-3. One of us, (M.A.D.) wishes to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the University of Oregon where this work was done. She thanks the U.S. Department of State, the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (C.I.E.S.) and the Romanian-U.S. Fulbright Commission for sponsoring her participation in the Exchange Visitor Program no. G-1-0005.


format: text

text:
# New mathematical framework for spherical gravitational collapse

## 1. Introduction

The validity of the so called Cosmic Censorship Conjecture, i.e. the idea that physically acceptable collapsing systems should always form blackholes is, as is well known, seriously put in doubt by various counterexamples, that is, exact solutions of the Einstein field equations exhibiting naked singularities.

Recently, we re-considered this problem in an effort of studying the validity of censorship, at least in spherical symmetry, with the application to the geodesic equations of techniques of non-linear o.d.e. without resorting to exact solutions of Einstein’s. It is, in fact, obvious that exact solutions, despite their obvious interest, cannot give the complete answer to this problem due to the non-linearity of the field equations.

Our first results, presented recently , adopted the ‘censorist’ point of view, in that we provided a sufficient condition for black hole formation in spherical symmetry. However, the existence of such a condition does not necessarily mean that the room available for the Censor is very large (that is, that the hypotheses of the theorem are likely to be realized in generic situations). In order to face this problem, we take here the opposite viewpoint and obtain a sufficient condition for naked singularity formation (the condition, as we shall see, is also trivially shown to be necessary). The theorem allows us to give a simple, complete classification of (virtually) all the widespread zoo of naked singularities existing in the literature, and to produce new examples as well.

## 2. The existence of naked singularities

We consider a spherically symmetric collapsing object (the matter source can be any model compatible with the weak energy condition). The general, spherically symmetric, non–static line element in comoving coordinates $`t,r,\theta ,\phi `$ can be written in terms of three functions $`\nu ,\lambda ,R`$ of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only as follows:

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=e^{2\nu }\mathrm{d}t^2+e^{2\lambda }\mathrm{d}r^2+R^2(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\phi ^2),$$

A fundamental quantity is the mass function $`m(r,t)`$ defined in such a way that the equation $`R=2m`$ spans the boundary of the trapped region, i.e. the region in which outgoing null rays re-converge:

(2.1)
$$m(r,t)=(R/2)\left(1g^{\mu \nu }_\mu R_\nu R\right).$$

The curve $`t_h(r)`$ defined via $`R(r,t_h(r))=2m(r,t_h(r))`$ is called apparent horizon.

We consider here only those matter configurations, which admit a regular center, and we always suppose that the collapse starts from regular initial data on a Cauchy surface ($`t=0`$, say), so that the singularities forming are a genuine outcome of the dynamics. If the solution is initially regular, the spacetime can become singular whenever $`R=0`$ (focusing singularities) or $`R^{}=0`$ (crossing singularities). We consider here only focusing singularities.

The locus of the zeroes of the function $`R(r,t)`$ defines the singularity curve $`t_s(r)`$ by the relation $`R(r,t_s(r))=0`$. Physically, $`t_s(r)`$ is the comoving time at which the shell of matter labeled by $`r`$ becomes singular. The singularity forming at $`r=0,t=t_s(0)`$ is called central as opposed to those occurring at $`r=r_0>0,t=t_s(r_0)`$. A singularity cannot be naked if it occurs after the formation of the apparent horizon. Since $`R`$ vanishes at a singularity, any naked singularity in spherical symmetry must be massless; at a massless singularity the horizon and the singularity form simultaneously. Since regularity of the center up to singularity formation requires $`m(0,t)=0t<t_s(0)`$, the center is always a candidate for nakedness. Usually, all other points (”non-central points”) of the singularity curve lie after the formation of the apparent horizon, i.e. $`t_h(r)<t_s(r)`$ for $`r>0`$, and the singularity is therefore covered. This always happens, for instance, if the radial pressure is positive. Then we concentrate here on the central singularity, although our results can easily be extended to non-central singularities as well.

To analyze the causal structure, observe that, if the singularity is visible to nearby observers, at least one outgoing null geodesic must exist, that meets the singularity in the past. Such a geodesic will be a solution of

(2.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}r}=\phi (r,t),\hfill & \\ t(0)=t_s(0),\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`\phi (r,t):=e^{\lambda \nu }`$. For a problem of this kind, in which the initial point is singular (the function $`\phi `$ is not defined at $`(0,t_s(0))`$) no general results of existence/non existence are known.

In what follows we ere going to consider sub and super solutions of (2.2). We recall that a function $`y_0(r)`$ is called a subsolution (respectively supersolution) of an ordinary differential equation of the kind $`y^{}=f(r,y)`$ if it satisfies $`y_0^{}f(r,y_0)`$ (respectively $``$). In  we have shown the following results:

###### 2.1 Lemma.

If the weak energy condition holds and the radial stress is non-negative then the apparent horizon $`t_h(r)`$ is a subsolution of (2.2).

###### 2.2 Theorem.

If the weak energy condition holds and $`\phi /t<0`$ in a neighborhood of $`(0,t_s(0))`$ the singularity is covered.

###### 2.3 Remark.

The above results hold also in presence of radial tensions (i.e. negative radial stresses) provided that $`p_r`$ satisfies, near the centre, the bound $`8\pi R^2p_r1.`$

We take now the opposite point of view: we search for conditions for naked singularity formation.

###### 2.4 Definition.

A curve $`t_+(r)`$ is called a sub-horizon supersolution (SHS)  if

(2.3)
$$t_+(0)=t_h(0),t_+(r)<t_h(r)t_+^{}(r)\varphi (r,t_+(r))r>0.$$

###### 2.5 Theorem.

The singularity is naked if and only if a SHS exists..

###### Proof.

If the singularity is naked the singular geodesic (the solution) is also a supersolution. We now proof sufficiency. Take a point $`(r_0,t_0)`$ in the region $`S=\{(r,t):r>0,t_+(r)<t<t_h(r)\}`$. At this point the (regular) Cauchy problem for $`\phi `$ admits a unique local solution $`t_g(r)`$. Now the extension of this solution in the past cannot escape from $`S`$ since either it would cross the supersolution from above (leading to a regular geodesic, eventually escaping from the central point at a time prior to singularity formation) or it would cross the subsolution from below. Thus it must extend back to the singularity with $`lim_{r0^+}t_g(r)=t_s(0)`$. ∎

###### 2.6 Remark.

It is easy to show that, if a SHS exists, then $`\frac{\phi }{t}`$ cannot be strictly negative in a neighborhood of $`(0,t_0)`$, in accordance with theorem 2.2.

The above analysis is limited to radial null geodesics. However, it can be shown that, if no radial null geodesic escapes from the singularity, then no null geodesic escapes at all. In other words, we show that a radially censored singularity is censored . In the special case of dust spacetimes, this result has been was first given by Nolan and Mena .

###### 2.7 Theorem.

A radially censored central singularity is censored.

###### Proof.

Suppose, by contradiction, that the center is radially censored but that there exist a singular non radial null geodesics ($`\stackrel{~}{t}(r)`$, say). This curve satisfies to

(2.4)
$$\frac{\text{d}\stackrel{~}{t}}{\text{d}r}=\sqrt{e^{2\lambda 2\nu }+e^{2\nu }L^2/R^2}\phi (r,\stackrel{~}{t}),$$

where $`L^2`$ is the conserved angular momentum. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{t}(r)`$ is a supersolution of the null radial geodesic equation. Obviously, $`\stackrel{~}{t}(r)<t_h(r)`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{t}(r)`$ is a SHS. As a consequence of Theorem 2.5, there exist a singular null radial geodesic i.e. a contradiction. ∎

## 3. Old and new examples

Comoving coordinates $`r,t`$ are extremely useful in dealing with gravitational collapse because of the transparent physical meaning of the comoving time. We are, however, going to use in the present section another system of coordinates, the so-called area-radius coordinates, which were first introduced by Ori  to study charged dust, and then successfully applied to other models of gravitational collapse (see e.g. ). These coordinates prove extremely useful for technical purposes.

In area-radius coordinates the comoving time is replaced by $`R`$. The velocity field of the material $`v^\mu =e^\nu \delta _t^\mu `$ transforms to $`v^\lambda =e^\nu \dot{R}\delta _R^\lambda `$ and therefore the transformed metric, although non diagonal, is still comoving. In a recent paper, we have found the following class of solutions of the Einstein field equations in area-radius coordinates:

(3.1)
$$\text{d}s^2=\left(1\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }}{R}\right)G^2\text{d}r^2+2G\frac{Y}{u}\text{d}R\text{d}r\frac{1}{u^2}\text{d}R^2+R^2(\text{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{d}\phi ^2).$$

In the above formulae, the two functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)`$ and $`Y(r,R)`$ are arbitrary (positive) functions while

(3.2)
$$u^2=Y^2+\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }}{R}1.$$

and the function $`G`$ is given in terms of a quadrature:

(3.3)
$$G(r,R)=_R^r\frac{1}{Y(r,\sigma )}\frac{(1/u)}{r}(r,\sigma )\text{d}\sigma +\frac{1}{Y(r,r)u(r,r)}.$$

The matter distribution of the source is described in terms of energy density, radial and tangential stresses as follows (a comma denotes partial derivative):

(3.4) $`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r}}{4\pi R^2YuG}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,R}}{4\pi R^2}},`$
(3.5) $`p_r={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,R}}{4\pi R^2}},p_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi RuG}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,rR}}{Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r}Y_{,R}}{Y^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{,RR}}{8\pi R}}.`$
Special, very well known sub-cases of the metrics above are:

1) The dust (Tolman-Bondi) spacetimes. All stresses vanish, energy density equals the matter density, and this implies $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,R}=0`$ and $`Y=E\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r}`$.

2) The general exact solution with vanishing radial stresses. Vanishing of $`p_r`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,R}=0`$, while $`Y`$ depends, in general, also on $`R`$. The properties of these solutions have been widely discussed in .

We are now going to show that Theorem 2.5 allows for a complete classification of all the naked singularities contained in the metrics (3.1). Since in turn such metrics contain all111As far as we know the unique exceptions are the Vaidia spacetimes , which however can be easily accommodated in the present formalism, and the case of self-similar perfect fluids, where however the field equations become ordinary differential equations and the standard techniques of dynamical systems can be applied . the special cases for which censorship has already been investigated, we also get a unified treatment of all these - quite scattered around - results. In every such cases, the nature of the endstates has been obtained after a considerable amount of joint work by several authors, sometimes developing original mathematical techniques such as the so called root equation technique formalized by Joshi and Dwidedi .

The arbitrary functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`Y`$ must be chosen in such a way that the metric admits a regular center prior to singularity formation and that the weak energy condition is satisfied. It is not difficult to check that this implies constraints on the first non-vanishing terms of the two arbitrary functions near the center. It is, however, useful for technical reasons to express such constraints in an equivalent way using $`Ru^2`$ and $`Y^2`$, as follows:

(3.6)
$$Ru^2=\underset{i+j=3}{}h_{ij}r^iR^j+\underset{i+j=3+p}{}h_{ij}r^iR^j+\mathrm{},$$

(3.7)
$$Y^2(r,R)=1+f_lr^l+\underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=q+1\\ j>0\end{array}}{}k_{ij}r^iR^j+\mathrm{}.$$

where $`h_{30}`$ (that we will call $`\alpha `$ hereafter) is a strictly positive quantity, $`l2`$ and dots denote higher orders terms.

It can now be shown that the following Taylor expansion of $`G(r,0)`$ near the centre follows:

(3.8)
$$G(r,0)=par^{p1}br^q,$$

where, defined

(3.9a) $`P(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=3}{}}h_{ij}\tau ^j,`$ $`Q(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=3+p}{}}h_{ij}\tau ^j,`$
(3.9b) $`S(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=q+1\\ j>0\end{array}}{}}k_{ij}(1\tau ^j),`$ $`T(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=3}{}}ih_{ij}\tau ^j,`$
it is

(3.10)
$$a=_0^1\frac{Q(\tau )\sqrt{\tau }}{2P(\tau )^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau ,b=_0^1S(\tau )\frac{\sqrt{\tau }T(\tau )}{2P(\tau )^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau .$$

Thus, we finally have

(3.11)
$$G(r,0)=\xi r^{n1}+\mathrm{},$$

where $`\xi >0`$ and $`n`$ is a positive integer, namely the smallest between $`p`$ and $`q+1`$, although very special cases – where the two terms balance each other and one must compute higher order terms – can conceived. In particular, the second term is related to the acceleration of the matter flow lines and vanishes if this does.

The folllowing can now be proved :

###### 3.1 Theorem.

In the spacetime described by the metric (3.1), a SHS exists - and therefore the singularity forming at $`R=r=0`$ is naked \- if and only if $`n=1`$, $`n=2`$, or $`n=3`$ and $`\xi >\alpha \xi _\text{c}`$ where $`\xi _c=\frac{26+15\sqrt{3}}{2}`$.

In what follows, we briefly discuss the cases already known as well as some new ones.

### 3.1. Dust clouds

In dust models both $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`Y=`$ depend only on $`r`$. The acceleration vanishes and therefore the index $`n=p`$. The solution can be given in explicit form. The spectrum of endstates for these models is very well known and was first calculated in full generality by Singh and Joshi . However, our unifying framework somewhat changes the way in which the physical content of this structure must be understood, so that we discuss it briefly.

Introduce the Taylor expansions

(3.12)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=F_0r^3+F_{\stackrel{~}{n}}r^{3+\stackrel{~}{n}}+\mathrm{},Y^2(r)=1+f_2r^2+f_{m+2}r^{2+m}+\mathrm{}.$$

Considering first the so-called marginally bound case (this case has been recently re-analyzed via o.d.e. techniques in ) $`Y1`$, we have that the index $`n=p=\stackrel{~}{n}`$ and $`\alpha =2F_0,P(\tau )=2F_0,Q(\tau )=2F_n`$. The central singularity is naked if $`n=1,2`$, censored for $`n>4`$. In the critical case $`n=3`$ the transition is governed by the parameter $`a`$ (3.10):

$$a=_0^1\frac{\sqrt{\tau }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}F_3}{2(2F_0)^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau =\frac{2F_3}{3(2F_0)^{3/2}}>\frac{2F_0}{3}\xi _c.$$

In the general (non marginally bound) case, the function $`Y`$ is no longer constant. As a consequence, the expansion of the initial density and velocity mix up to produce the index $`n`$ and the transitional behavior. The singularity is naked if $`(F_1,f_3)0`$, or if $`(F_1,f_3)=0`$ but $`(F_2,f_4)0`$, corresponding respectively to the cases $`n=1,2`$. The critical case occurs when $`(F_1,f_3)=(F_2,f_4)=0`$, but $`(F_3,f_5)0`$. Since $`\alpha =2F_0,P(\tau )=2F_0+f_2\tau ,Q(\tau )=(2F_3+f_5\tau )`$, for the singularity to be naked222In  a quantity called $`Q_3`$ plays the role of $`a`$, and its expression should be corrected - formula (36) in  \- to $`Q_3=3a\sqrt{F_0}`$, with $`a`$ given above. it must be

$$\begin{array}{c}a=_0^1\frac{(2F_3+f_5\tau )\sqrt{\tau }}{2(2F_0+f_2\tau )^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau =\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2F_0}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{f_2}{2F_0})\left(\frac{F_3}{F_0}\frac{3}{2}\frac{f_5}{f_2}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{f_2}{2F_0}}}\left(\frac{F_3}{F_0}\frac{f_5}{f_2}\right)\right]>\frac{2F_0}{3}\xi _c,\end{array}$$

where the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined as

(3.13)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{arcsin}\text{h}\sqrt{y}}{(y)^{3/2}}\frac{\sqrt{1y}}{y},\hfill & \text{for }y<0,\hfill \\ \frac{2}{3},\hfill & \text{for }y=0,\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{y}}{y^{3/2}}\frac{\sqrt{1y}}{y},\hfill & \text{for }y>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally, if $`(F_1,f_3)=(F_2,f_4)=(F_3,f_5)=0`$ the singularity is censored.

To discuss the physical meaning of this structure we start from an interesting example given by Dwidedi and Joshi .

Consider a mass distribution which generates a initially homogeneous energy density ($`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=F_0r^3`$). Now, keeping fixed $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, consider different initial velocities. If the cloud starts collapsing from rest the resulting spacetime is nothing but the ”paradigm” of blackhole formation, namely, the Oppenheimer-Snyder solution. However, it suffices a fifth-order $`Y^2`$, say $`Y^2(r)=1+f_0r^2+f_5r^5`$, to change drastically the behavior of the system. In fact, the fifth order term generates the critical case.

What actually happens is, that the mechanism controlling existence of SHS’s depends only on the value of $`n`$, independently from the details of its physical origin. The mechanism works as a ”kibbling machine” looking at just one term of the Taylor expansion of just function near the center. It accepts any (physically sound) input and returns an output which depends on the value of an integer: we can call it a n-machine .

As we shall see in next example, also the equation of state plays a similar role of ”just an input” for the n-machine.

### 3.2. Vanishing radial stresses

These solutions are characterized by a mass depending only on $`r`$, but by a function $`Y^2`$ which contains the contribution of the internal elastic energy and thus depends also on $`R`$. As a consequence, the metric cannot be given in explicit form in general (a notable exception exists however ).

For simplicity, we consider here only the marginally bound case. To describe the data it is convenient to consider the Taylor expansion of the mass and of the function $`gY^21`$. The constraints of physical acceptability then imply :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=F_0r^3+F_{\stackrel{~}{n}}r^{3+\stackrel{~}{n}}+\mathrm{},g(r,R)=\frac{\beta _kr^k(rR)^2}{1+\beta _kr^k(rR)^2}+\mathrm{},$$

where $`k1`$. Although the solutions are accelerating, it can be easily shown that acceleration terms do not enter into the first non-vanishing term of formula (3.11). We thus need to consider the Taylor expansion of $`Ru^2`$, given to lowest orders by $`2F_0r^3+2F_{\stackrel{~}{n}}r^{3+\stackrel{~}{n}}\beta _kr^kR(r^2+R^22rR)`$. Since in general the solution is known only by quadratures, when the spectrum of endstates was first calculated in full generality  the Taylor expansion was used under the integral using approximation techniques near the center (delicate estimates coming from Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem are required). The endstates look like to depend on two parameters $`\stackrel{~}{n},k`$, the second of them coming exclusively from the non-trivial equation of state. However, again, if we use the n-machine of Theorem 3.1 we see that the mechanism has no interest at all in the physical source of the parameter $`n`$: a naked singularity ($`n=1,2`$) can originate from $`k=1,2`$ or from $`\stackrel{~}{n}=1,2`$. The critical case always occurs at $`n=3`$ and what changes is only the value of the critical parameter, since it must be $`a_{k\stackrel{~}{n}}>\frac{2F_0}{3}\xi _c`$, where333In  a multiplying factor is missing.

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{k\stackrel{~}{n}}=_0^1\frac{2F_3\delta _{\stackrel{~}{n}3}\tau ^{1/2}+\beta _3\delta _{k3}(\tau ^{3/2}2\tau ^{5/2}+\tau ^{7/2})}{2(2F_0)^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau =\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{(2F_0)^{3/2}}\left[\frac{2}{3}F_3\delta _{\stackrel{~}{n}3}+\frac{8}{315}\beta _3\delta _{k3}\right],\end{array}$$

### 3.3. Acceleration free non-dust solutions

In recent years, spacetimes with cosmological (”lambda”) term have attracted a renewed interest both from the astrophysical point of view, since recent observations of high-redshift type Ia supernovae suggest a non-vanishing value of lambda, and from the theoretical point of view, after the proposal of the so-called Ads-Cft correspondence in string theory. The unique model of gravitational collapse with lambda term available so far is the Tolman–Bondi–de Sitter (TBdS) spacetime, describing the collapse of spherical dust (within the framework of the present paper, these solutions are obtained choosing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)=F(r)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}R^3`$). The spectrum of endstates for these solutions has recently been obtained .

One way to construct new collapsing solutions with lambda term is to choose a function of the type $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)=F(r)+M(R)R^3`$, with $`M(R)`$ not necessarily constant as in TBdS. It is easy to check that, in order to satisfy the requirements of physical reasonableness, one must have $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)=F_0r^3+F_{\stackrel{~}{n}}r^{3+\stackrel{~}{n}}+M_0R^3+M_kR^{k+3}+\mathrm{}`$. Then, if one among $`(F_1,F_2,M_1,M_2)`$ is non zero the singularity is naked. If otherwise they all vanish, and one among $`(F_3,M_3)`$ does not, we must compute the parameter $`a`$ (3.10):

$$a=_0^1\frac{\sqrt{\tau }(F_3+M_3\tau ^3)}{(2F_0+2M_0\tau ^3)^{3/2}}\text{d}\tau =\frac{2}{3(2F_0)^{3/2}}\left[M_3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{M_0}{F_0})\frac{F_3+M_3}{\sqrt{1+\frac{M_0}{F_0}}}\right],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given in (3.13). The singularity is naked if $`a>\frac{2F_0}{3}\xi _c`$. In all other cases the singularity is censored.444In the particular case when all the $`M_k`$ vanish for $`k>0`$, we recover Tolman–Bondi–de Sitter spacetime. The condition for nakedness at the transition reduces to $`\frac{F_3}{(2F_0)^{5/2}\sqrt{\frac{M_0}{F_0}+1}}>\frac{\xi _c}{2}`$, slightly correcting a wrong value given in . Once again, the physical parameters of the collapse (in this case, there is also the cosmological constant) are mixed up by the n-machine.

## 4. Discussion

Starting from the piooneristic work by Eardley and Smarr  and Christodoulou  on dust clouds, the number of papers containing analysis of examples of naked singularities in spherically symmetric spacetimes can, up to now, be estimated to more than one hundred. Authors have tried to make clear the connection between, on one side, the final states of the collapse and, on the other side, the choice of the initial data and of the matter models. To do this, a mathematical framework was developed (the so called root equation technique) which allows investigation of the behavior of solutions of a differential equation at a singular point. To be applicable, this framework requires explicit knowledge of the solution of the Einstein field equations in which the geodesic motion is studied: it cannot be applied if only a part of the field equations are integrated, and can be applied only with enormous technical efforts if the solution is known only by quadratures. It is anyway obvious that, due to the non-linear character of the Einstein equations one cannot have any choice of giving general answer to the censorship problem, even in spherical symmetry, using only exact solutions.

So motivated, we started re-considering the censorship problem in spherical symmetry in an effort of going beyond the need for exact solutions. Essentially, the idea was to rely as much as possible on the ”differential level” - the fact that the metric satisfies to the field equations - without resorting to the fortunate case of explicit solutions. This approach leads naturally to the application of comparison techniques in o.d.e. since the physical properties of the apparent horizon have as mathematical counterpart the fact that this horizon is a sub-solution of the geodesic motion . Here we presented a new framework for the investigation of censorship, based on such ideas. The framework can be easily applied when the exact solution is known only up to quadratures, and this allowed us to give a unified view of (virtually) all the examples of naked singularities which are scattered around in the literature, as well as to produce new examples. The application of such techniques allows, however, also to investigate cases in which the metric is not known at all, such as, for instance, the case of barotropic perfect fluids.


text:
# Top quark and 𝑊/𝑍 results from the Tevatron

## 1 Introduction

Studies of the top quark and the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons provide testing grounds for many important properties and calibrations of the Standard Model (SM) at large mass scales through their production rates, kinematic distributions, and decay characteristics. In the SM, $`m_t`$ and $`m_W`$ constrain $`m_H`$. Hence, precision measurements of these help guide the search for the SM Higgs boson. Measurement of the $`W`$ width provides a stringent test of the SM and helps to constrain certain scenarios beyond the SM.

The large mass of the top quark sets it apart from all other fermions. With a lifetime of $``$ $`10^{24}`$ s, the top quark is expected to decay before hadronization. This gives us an opportunity to study a bare quark, free from the long-range effects of the strong interaction, such as color confinement. Studies of the top quark could also shed light on the mechanism of mass generation and mass-dependent couplings. Significant deviations from SM predictions in mass, width, decay characteristics, and kinematic distributions could lead to new physics. Furthermore, top quark decay is an excellent place to look for on-shell production of certain particles beyond the SM (e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, $`H^\pm `$, …) that are believed to be heavier than other SM particles.

## 2 The collider and the detectors

Run 1 of the Tevatron (1992-96) delivered $`125\pm 6`$ pb-1 of data consisting of over $`5\times 10^{12}`$ $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV. With $`\sigma (p\overline{p}t\overline{t}X)6`$ pb for $`m_t175`$ GeV, and $`\sigma (p\overline{p}WX)24`$ nb, $``$750 $`t\overline{t}`$ events and $``$$`3\times 10^6`$ $`W`$ events are expected to have been produced. However, these events must be detected and filtered out from a much larger number of other processes with similar signatures. The two detectors, DØ, and CDF, are both modern multipurpose detectors designed to do just that. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ They consist of vertex detectors, precision tracking chambers, finely segmented hermetic calorimeters, muon momentum spectrometers, and fast data acquisition systems with several levels of online triggers and filters.

## 3 Studies of the top quark

### 3.1 Pair production cross section and mass measurements

At the Tevatron $`p\overline{p}`$ collider, most top quarks are pair-produced via the strong interaction through an intermediate gluon. This is the production channel that led to the joint discovery of the top quark by DØ and CDF in 1995. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ In the SM, the top quark should decay almost exclusively to a $`W`$ boson and a $`b`$ quark. Therefore, the final state of a $`t\overline{t}`$ decay is characterized by the decay modes of the two $`W`$ bosons: dilepton (BR$`=\frac{1}{9}`$), lepton+jets (BR$`=\frac{4}{9}`$), and all-jets (BR$`=\frac{4}{9}`$). Tagging of the $`b`$ quark jets using semileptonic decay modes or by isolating secondary decay vertices is a powerful means of suppressing background. All of these decay channels have been used in various studies of the properties of the top quark, including the $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section of $`5.7\pm 1.6`$ pb by the DØ collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and $`6.5_{1.4}^{+1.7}`$ pb by the CDF collaboration, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and of the top quark mass of $`174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV jointly by the two collaborations. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

### 3.2 Search for single top production

A second production mode is predicted to exist, where top quarks are produced singly through an electroweak $`Wtb`$ vertex. Measurement of the electroweak production of single top quarks could provide the magnitude of the CKM matrix element $`V_{tb}`$, since the cross section is proportional to $`|V_{tb}|^2`$. The SM predictions for single top production cross section are 0.73 pb in the $`s`$ channel, and 1.73 pb in the $`t`$ channel. In addition to having a smaller cross section than that for pair production, single top production suffers from larger background contamination. Neither experiment saw conclusive evidence of signal, but were able to place upper limits on the production cross section. At 95% CL, DØ puts an upper limit of 17 pb on the $`s`$ channel and 22 pb on the $`t`$ channel cross section while the corresponding CDF limits are 13 pb and 18 pb respectively. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ CDF also puts a limit of 14 pb on the combined cross section.

### 3.3 $`W`$ helicity in top decays

At the leading order, the fraction of longitudinally polarized $`W`$ bosons in top decays is given by

$$_0\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_W=0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_W=0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_W=1)}=\frac{m_t^2/(2m_W^2)}{1+m_t^2/(2m_W^2)}0.70.$$
(1)
The large mass of the top quark exposes the longitudinal mode of the $`W`$ boson, possibly offering a window to electroweak symmetry breaking. The charged lepton from a $`W_{}`$ ($`W_0`$) tends to move opposite (perpendicular) to the $`W`$ direction of motion. Consequently, the polarization of the $`W`$ is reflected in the $`p_T`$ distribution of the $`e`$ or $`\mu `$ in its leptonic decays. Fits of $`h_W=0`$, $`h_W=1`$, and $`h_W=+1`$ Monte Carlo to CDF dilepton and lepton+jets data yield $`_0(W)=0.91\pm 0.37\pm 0.13`$, $`_+(W)=0.11\pm 0.15\pm 0.06`$, consistent with SM predictions of $``$0.70 and 0 respectively. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

### 3.4 Top-antitop spin correlations

The top quark lifetime is much smaller than the timescale for hadronization which subsequently would lead to spin decorrelation. The decay products of top quarks produced in a definite spin state should therefore display angular correlations that characterize the production process. In the optimal basis, if the angle between a negatively (positively) charged lepton or $`d`$ ($`\overline{d}`$) -type quark and the spin quantization axis is denoted by $`\theta _{}`$ ($`\theta _+`$), then the differential decay rate of the top quark can be parametrized as $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\frac{1}{\sigma }\frac{d^2\sigma }{d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})}=\frac{1+\kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}}{4};1<\kappa <1.$$
(2)
All information on spin correlation is contained in $`\kappa `$.

For $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV, $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation through the $`s`$-channel via a spin-1 gluon is expected to account for $``$90% of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section. This leads to an expectation of $`\kappa 0.9`$. An analysis of the DØ dilepton data consisting of 6 candidate events favors a positive value for $`\kappa `$ ($`\kappa >0.25`$ at 68% CL). $`^\mathrm{?}`$

### 3.5 $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass and kinematics

Both CDF and DØ have searched for non-SM top quark condensates in the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass distributions. Comparing a theoretical predictions for $`\sigma (q\overline{q}Z^{})B(Z^{}t\overline{t})`$ as functions of $`m_Z^{}`$ with upper limits on the former based on data, CDF puts an lower limits on the mass of a leptophobic $`Z^{}`$ boson in a model of topcolor-assisted technicolor: $`m_Z^{}>480`$ GeV at 95% CL for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.012m_Z^{}`$ and $`m_Z^{}>780`$ GeV at 95% CL for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.04m_Z^{}`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Preliminary results from DØ are consistent with this finding.

Studies of kinematics of $`t\overline{t}`$ production and decays are important tests of QCD and electroweak theories. Both experiments have also examined distributions of various kinematic quantities for the candidate events. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ These include transverse momenta and rapidity of individual top quarks and of the $`t\overline{t}`$ system, opening angles etc. All distributions were found to be in excellent agreement with SM predictions.

### 3.6 Search for $`tH^+b`$

Charged Higgs arise in the simplest extension of the SM Higgs sector to a two-Higgs doublet model. If $`m_{H^+}<m_tm_b`$, then $`tH^+b`$ could compete with $`tW^+b`$ depending on $`m_{H^+}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the two scalar doublets. Direct searches for charged Higgs pair production at LEP have resulted in a lower limit of $`m_{H^+}>69`$ GeV at 95% CL. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The decay $`tH^+b`$ dominates only if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is either very large ($`>40`$) or very small ($`<0.9`$) and loses ground as $`m_{H^+}`$ increases. Both DØ and CDF have searched for the subsequent decay $`H^+\tau \nu `$ which is the favored mode if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1`$. In addition, DØ has searched the region of small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where the favored decay mode would be $`H^+c\overline{s}`$, by examining the consistency of their lepton+jets data with SM predictions. The searches, based on leading order calculations, result in the exclusion of most of the $`[m_{H^+},\mathrm{tan}\beta ]`$ parameter space where $`B(tH^+b)>0.5`$.

## 4 Studies of the $`W`$ boson

### 4.1 $`W`$ mass measurements

CDF has used both $`We\nu `$ and $`W\mu \nu `$ decays to obtain $`m_W=80.433\pm 0.079`$ GeV while DØ measures $`m_W=80.483\pm 0.084`$ GeV using the $`We\nu `$ channel only. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The two experiments have combined their results and that from the UA2 experiment to get a hadron collider average of $`m_W=80.456\pm 0.059`$ GeV which is comparable in precision and in good agreement with the LEP result of $`m_W=80.450\pm 0.039`$ GeV. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The combined world average now stands at $`m_W=80.451\pm 0.032`$ GeV. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

### 4.2 Width of the $`W`$ boson

Both DØ and CDF have measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ by studying the $`W`$ transverse mass distribution (the direct method). The results are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.04\pm 0.11`$ (stat) $`\pm 0.09`$ (sys) GeV (CDF) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.23_{0.17}^{+0.18}`$ GeV (DØ, preliminary). $`^\mathrm{?}`$ These results are combined with the width extracted from the ratio of $`W`$ and $`Z`$ leptonic partial cross sections. The combined result from the Tevatron is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.160\pm 0.047`$ GeV. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ This is the most precise measurement of the $`W`$ width yet, in good agreement with the LEP direct measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.150\pm 0.091`$ GeV. The preliminary world average is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.158\pm 0.042`$ GeV. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 5 Future outlook

Run 2 of the Tevatron, presently in an early stage, holds much potential. The accelerator upgrade is designed to increase the center-of-mass energy by 10% (which translates to a $``$30% increase in $`\sigma (p\overline{p}t\overline{t})`$), and a much higher integrated luminosity: 2 fb-1 per experiment in Run 2a, 15 fb-1 in Run 2b. The detector upgrades will significantly improve signal efficiencies and background rejection. The number of events used for extracting the $`W`$ mass and width measurements by DØ in Run 2 is expected to be $`430`$ times that in Run 1. A combined enhancement of a factor of $``$300 for $`t\overline{t}`$ events, and even greater for single top events are expected by the end of run 2. These should enable us to reduce the uncertainties on the top and $`W`$ mass measurements by a factor of 2 to 3. All other studies, including those on which first results have been obtained, are dominated by statistical uncertainties. These will benefit greatly from Run 2. Table 1 summarizes the current results and expectations in the near future for some of the studies of top quark physics.

## References


text:
# Spectrum and correlation functions of a quasi-one-dimensional quantum Ising model

## Abstract

For a model of weakly coupled quantum Ising chains we outline the phase diagram and establish that well below the transition line the system has a remarkably one dimensional spectrum. We study the dynamical magnetic susceptibility and find a very rich spectrum with several modes corresponding to a fundamental particle and its bound states. The approach is based on Bethe ansatz and the Random Phase Approximation applied to the interchain exchange.

The Ising model is one of the generic models for many quantum and classical systems. Besides extensive applications to spin systems (here we refer the reader to qpt ; cds96 ; mat85 ), the model could also be used to describe interacting electric dipoles (like in systems with orbital degrees of freedom kk82 ) or arrays of interacting Josephson junctions (see, for example, dfi02 ). The low dimensions are the most interesting since here the model exhibits strongest correlations. In one dimension the quantum Ising model (see Eq.(2) below) is exactly solvable by means of Jordan-Wigner transformation which converts the spin Hamiltonian into a Hamiltonian of non-interacting fermions. In general the spectrum has a gap which is closed when the transverse magnetic field is equal to the exchange integral ($`g=0`$). The exact solution also exists when the magnetic field has $`z`$-component, although only when the $`x`$-component is kept equal to $`J`$ zam88 . The solution predicts a rich spectrum with as many as eight particles and a hidden E8 symmetry. An interesting question is whether some of this fascinating physics may survive in realistic systems which are almost never truly one-dimensional. The goal of this paper is to discuss this and related problems. We begin by introducing the model, go on to outline the phase diagram and then discuss spin-spin correlation functions in the ordered phase. In certain regions in parameter space we see that the one-dimensional behavior is clearly visible.

Let us consider the quasi-one-dimensional (weakly coupled one-dimensional chains) quantum Ising model described by the following Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}H_{1D}^{(j)}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,n,m}{}}J_{nm}(ij)\sigma _i^z(n)\sigma _j^z(m)`$ (1)
$`H_{1D}^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left\{\sigma _j^z(n)\sigma _j^z(n+1)+(1+g)\sigma _j^x(n)\right\},`$ (2)
where $`i,j`$ label the chains, $`n,m`$ label the sites on the chain and $`\sigma `$ are the Pauli spin operators. For simplicity we discuss the case where $`J_{nm}(ij)=J_{}(ij)`$ if $`n=m`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

The dimensionless parameter $`1+g`$ is the strength of the transverse field written in a way such that the one-dimensional model has a phase transition at $`T=0`$ at $`g=0`$. At $`T=0`$ the phase with $`g<0`$ is ordered with $`\sigma ^z0`$ and the phase with $`g>0`$ is quantum disordered (see e.g. qpt ). We would expect a non-zero inter-chain coupling to extend the ordered region to finite temperatures and shift the critical coupling to $`g0`$ as shown schematically in Fig. 1.

The spectrum and dynamics of the model close to the transition line is very well understood id89a . The transition itself falls into the 3D Ising model universality class, the Quantum Critical Point (QCP) falls into the 4D Ising model universality class. We concentrate our attention on the region of phase diagram well below the transition line where new non-universal physics can be found. We demonstrate that non-trivial physical effects are possible in this region.

If we are not very close to the phase transition line, the inter-chain coupling can be taken into account in the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). The RPA expression for the dynamical magnetic susceptibility in the disordered phase is

$$\chi (\omega ,k;𝐤_{})=[\chi _{1D}^1(\omega ,k)J_{}(𝐤_{})]^1.$$
(3)
where $`\chi _{1D}`$ is the susceptibility of a single chain:

$$\chi _{1D}(\omega ,k)=\text{i}\underset{n}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega t\text{i}kn}[\sigma ^z(t,n),\sigma ^z(0,0)],$$
(4)
where $`v=J_{}a_0`$ is the on-chain velocity and $`a_0`$ is the lattice spacing in the chain direction. Formally RPA is the first term in an expansion in the inverse transverse coordination number $`1/z_{}`$, where $`z_{}<6`$ if we are embedding our chains within a three dimensional structure. The application of RPA to other quasi-one-dimensional magnets ik00 ; boc01  have demonstrated that far from the transition it provides a good accuracy even for small coordination numbers.

In the ordered state expression (4) has to be modified. Namely, one has to replace $`\chi _{1D}`$ by the dynamical susceptibility calculated in the presence of an effective magnetic field generated by the neighboring chains sch96 . In other words, in calculating $`\chi _{1D}`$ one has to use the following Hamiltonian:

$$H_{1D}=\underset{n}{}\left\{J_{}\left[\sigma ^z(n)\sigma ^z(n+1)+(1+g)\sigma ^x(n)\right]+h\sigma ^z(n)\right\}$$
(5)
with the self-consistency relation

$$h=J_{}(q=0)\sigma ^z.$$
(6)
There are three energy scales in this problem. $`J_{}`$ the on chain coupling, $`m=|g|J_{}`$ is the spectral gap for a single chain, and $`J_{}`$ the inter-chain coupling. In order to treat the model as weakly coupled chains we must have $`J_{}J_{}`$ and in order to apply the non-perturbative results for the individual chains which have all been found in the continuous limit, we must have $`mJ_{}`$. However, $`m`$ and $`J_{}`$ can both be of the same order of magnitude.

In the scaling limit the one-dimensional problem is integrable along the lines $`g=0`$ or $`h=0`$, and conformally invariant when both these conditions are met. Throughout this work we use the standard conformal field theory normalization of the magnetization operator, fixed by

$$\chi _{1D}(\tau ,x)=\sigma (\tau ,x)\sigma (0)=\frac{(a_0/v)^{1/4}}{|r|^{1/4}},|r|0,$$
(7)
where $`r^2=\tau ^2+(x/v)^2`$, $`\tau `$ is the Matsubara time.

We first calculate the phase diagram of the model (1) plotted schematically in Fig. 1(b). To estimate the critical temperature, we set $`h=0`$ and then look for $`\omega =0`$ divergences in the correlation function which signify a developing instability.

We begin by considering the line $`g=0`$ where the uncoupled chains are critical. At finite temperature the spin-spin correlation function (7) becomes

$$\chi _{1D}(\tau ,x)=\left[\frac{(\pi Ta_0/v)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi T(x/v\text{i}\tau ))\mathrm{sinh}(\pi T(x/v+\text{i}\tau ))}\right]^{1/8},$$
(8)
The Fourier transform (4) gives the dynamic susceptibility sb83

$$\chi _{1D}(\omega =0,k=0)=\frac{a_0}{v}(2\pi Ta_0/v)^{7/4}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{8}B^2(1/16,7/8)$$
(9)
where $`B(x,y)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x+y)`$ is the Beta function. Using the RPA we extract the transition temperature:

$$T_c/J_{}=2.12\left[\frac{z_{}J_{}}{J_{}}\right]^{4/7}.$$
(10)
Now let us estimate the position of the Quantum Critical point on the $`g`$ axis. Again we use the RPA equation (3) substituting in the expression for the dynamical spin susceptibility of the off-critical Ising model. According to wmtb76

$$\chi _{1D}(r)=\frac{Z_0(ma_0/v)^{1/4}}{\pi }K_0(mr)+O(e^{3r})$$
(11)
where $`Z_0=1.8437`$. Hence for small $`\omega `$,

$`\chi _{1D}(\omega ,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0(ma_0/v)^{1/4}}{\omega ^2(vk)^2m^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (12)
where the dots indicate further terms in the form-factor expansion bb92 . The next term, the three particle contribution can be represented asess00

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(s^2)}{\chi _1(s=0)}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{4\pi }\frac{dy}{4\pi }\frac{f(2x)f(y+x)f(yx)}{(s/m)^2\left[1+4\mathrm{cosh}x(\mathrm{cosh}x+\mathrm{cosh}y)\right]}}`$
$`f(x)=\mathrm{tanh}^2(x/2),`$ (13)
with $`s^2=\omega ^2(vk)^2`$ and is plotted in Fig. 2. The imaginary part of this term (which is the contribution to the structure factor) and all higher terms in the series is $`0`$ below $`\omega =3m`$, however all terms in the expansion contribute towards the real part at $`\omega =0`$. Fortunately the contribution from higher order terms are negligible at small $`s`$ (see e.g. bn97 ). We see explicitly in this case that $`\chi _3(s=0)/\chi _1(s=0)=0.0002`$ so that (12) is indeed a very good approximation for small $`s`$.

From Eq. 3, we can see that the QCP where $`T_c0`$ is given by the condition

$$g_c1.42(z_{}J_{}/J_{})^{4/7}.$$
(14)
In the vicinity of QCP the low-energy behavior of the quantum Ising model is universal and falls in the universality class of the (d+2)-dimensional classical Ising model, where d is the number of transverse dimensions. Since d =2 corresponds to the upper critical dimension of that model, in three dimensions the fluctuations give only logarithmic corrections to RPA. The RPA expression for the susceptibility at the QCP is

$$\chi (\omega ,k;𝐤_{})\frac{1}{\omega ^2(vk)^2(𝐯_{}𝐤_{})^2}$$
(15)
where $`𝐯_{}=(1/2)Z_0g^{1/4}J_{}\text{d}^2J_{}(𝐤_{}=0)/\text{d}𝐤_{}^2`$.

Near the critical point, we can examine the shape of the phase boundary. For low temperature, the correlation functions at finite temperature can be well approximated qpt  by

$$\chi _{1D}(\omega ,k)=\frac{Z_0(ma_0)^{1/4}v^{1/4}}{(\omega +\text{i}/\tau _\psi )^2(vk)^2m^2}.$$
(16)
where $`\tau _\psi `$ is the quantum dephasing time given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\psi }=\frac{2T}{\pi }\text{e}^{m/T}.$$
(17)
The RPA then gives the condition for a singularity at $`\omega =0`$, $`k=0`$ as

$$m^2+1/\tau _\psi ^2=Z_0J_{}J_{}g^{1/4},$$
(18)
so the transition temperature in the vicinity of the critical point is approximately

$`T_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{ln}(1/y)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}(1/y)}}`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(Z_0(J_{}/J_{})g^{7/4}1\right)^{1/2}.`$ (19)
For $`g<0`$, uncoupled chains are completely ordered at $`T=0`$, and at $`T>0`$ and $`m`$ not too small there is order on a length scale

$$\xi _c=v(2mT/\pi )^{1/2}e^{m/T}.$$
(20)
A crude estimate for the transition temperature can be is given by

$$\frac{J_{}}{T_c}\left(\frac{\xi _c(T_c)}{v/m}\right)^21$$
(21)
which gives

$$T_c\frac{2m}{\mathrm{ln}(m/J_{})}.$$
(22)
Now we go on to calculate the dispersion and spectrum within the ordered phase, where we have to consider $`h0`$. Model (5) is exactly solvable at $`g=0`$ only zam88 . As we have mentioned, the spectrum consists of eight particles which for completeness are listed in Table 1. The contributions to the dynamical susceptibility for small $`\omega `$ decline quickly with the growth of the particle mass and the decrease in spectral weight of the mode. Therefore the magnetic susceptibility at $`T=0`$ can be well approximated by keeping only the first three poles below the incoherent continuum

$$\chi _{1D}(s)=\left(\frac{4m_1^2}{15\pi J_{}h}\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{Z_i}{s^2m_i^2},$$
(23)
with $`s`$ defined as before. In this model, the mass scale is given byfat94

$`m_1(h)/J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1(h/J_{})^{8/15},`$
$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`4.40490858`$ (24)
and the single-particle expectation value is

$`\sigma ^z(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2(h/J_{})^{1/15},`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`1.07496.`$ (25)
The self-consistency relations 6 therefore give

$`h/J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\alpha _2J_{}(0)/J_|\right]^{15/14}`$
$`m/J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1\left[\alpha _2J_{}(0)/J_{}\right]^{4/7}`$ (26)
In the RPA (3) the dispersion is given by the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{J}_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_i}{s^2m_i^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4m_1^2}{15\pi h}}\right)^2J_{}=\alpha _3m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_{}(𝐤_{})}{J_{}(0)}}`$ (27)
where the final relation is obtained from the self-consistent relations and $`\alpha _3=(4/15\pi )^2\alpha _1^2/\alpha _2=0.130`$. To second order in $`J_{}`$ this is solved to give

$$s^2/m_1^2=m_i^2/m_1^2+Z_i\stackrel{~}{J}_{}\left[1+\underset{ji}{}\frac{Z_jm_1^2\stackrel{~}{J}_{}}{m_i^2m_j^2}\right].$$
(28)
In numerical values this gives for the first three modes

$$(s/m)^2\{\begin{array}{c}1.0+0.032J_{}(𝐤_{})/J_{}(0),\hfill \\ 2.618+0.009J_{}(𝐤_{})/J_{}(0).\hfill \\ 3.956+0.003J_{}(𝐤_{})/J_{}(0).\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
The relative weights of each mode are not significantly changed from those for the pure one-dimensional case.

It is remarkable how weak the dispersion in the perpendicular direction is, so the ordered phase probably remains very one-dimensional in character even when $`J_{}/J_{}`$ is not very small.

We can obtain some results slightly away from the integrable lines. In the neighborhood of the QCP where $`h`$ is small, the dynamic susceptibility is given by (12) with the mass replaced by dms96

$$mm[1+(h/J_{})^2+O(h^4)].$$
(30)
For small $`h`$, we must also have

$$\sigma =\chi (\omega =0,k=0)h$$
(31)
which combined with the mean-field condition (5) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{J_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g\left[J_{}/(Z_0J_{}(0))\right]^{4/7}}}1}`$ (32)
$`m/J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Z_0J_{}(0)/J_{}\right)^{4/7}.`$ (33)
Here, the dispersion in the perpendicular direction is much stronger than in (29). It is given by (15) at the QCP; in the vicinity of $`g_c`$ the gap is given by $`m(g_cg)^2`$ in the ordered phase to be contrasted with $`m(gg_c)`$ at $`g>g_c`$.

Our results indicate that some of the beautiful physics of quantum Ising model in magnetic field with a hidden E8 symmetry may be observed even in a realistic quasi-one-dimensional model in its ordered phase far from the transition line (in the vicinity of point 0 on Fig. 1). At this point it may be possible to observe at least three coherent peaks in the dynamical magnetic susceptibility whose relative strength is approximately $`1:0.28:0.09`$ (see Eqs.(23) and Table 1). At this point the spectrum is remarkably one-dimensional in character. We expect that when one moves along the $`g`$-axis of phase diagram of Fig. 1 towards the QCP, the excitation gaps will decrease and the transverse dispersion will grow. At the QCP the spectrum is three-dimensional gapless and the spin-spin correlation function is given by Eq.(15) with logarithmic corrections. These corrections will convert the pole into a continuum; at criticality all excitation modes will collapse into it. This is illustrated schematically in Fig. 3.

A good candidate experimental compound to see these effects is NaV2O5. In mk00  it is shown that the charge ordering at low temperatures is well described by the Hamiltonian (2) where the $`\sigma `$ variables correspond to an isospin that describes which rung of a ladder the electron is sitting. These isospin excitations should be experimentally probable with optical absorbtion mkk02 .

The work is supported by the US DOE under contract number DE-AC02-98 CH 10886 and EPSRC grant number 99307266. STC would like to thank Fabian Essler for many helpful discussions and Kasper Ericken for suggestions whilst preparing the manuscript.