text:
# An Optical Analog of a Black Hole

## Abstract

Using media with extremely low group velocities one can create an optical analog of a curved space-time. Leonhardt and Piwnicki have proposed that a vortex flow will act as an optical black hole. We show that although the Leonhardt - Piwnicki flow has an orbit of no return and an infinite red-shift surface, it is not a true black hole since it lacks a null hypersurface. However a radial flow will produce a true optical black hole that has a Hawking temperature and obeys the first law of black hole mechanics. By combining the Leonhardt - Piwnicki flow with a radial flow we obtain the analog of the Kerr black hole.

It has long been recognized that a moving dielectric acts as an effective curved space-time for light Fresnel (1818); Lorentz (1985); Gordon (1923). This was of only academic interest until recently, when it became possible to make materials with very low group velocities Hau et al. (1999). Shortly after this Leonhardt and Piwnicki Leonhardt and Piwnicki (1999, 2000) realized that these materials provided a laboratory test bed for general relativity. It is not of course possible to test the field equations, but one can investigate phenomena which depend solely on the underlying geometry. Black holes are the obvious example both because of their importance, and because black hole physics depends on the geometrical properties of null hypersurfaces, not the field equations. In a moving dielectric with a (three-dimensional) fluid flow $`𝐮`$, photons follow null geodesics of

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \text{ where }dx^\mu =(cdt,d𝐱).$$
(1)
The metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha u^2/c^2& \alpha 𝐮/c\\ \alpha 𝐮/c& 4\alpha 𝐮𝐮/c^2\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`𝐮`$ is the fluid flow, $`\alpha `$ is related to the group velocity $`v_g`$ by $`\alpha =c/v_g1`$ and $``$ denotes the three-dimensional direct product Gordon (1923); Leonhardt and Piwnicki (1999). This result can be generalized to

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha u^2/c^2& \alpha 𝐮/c\\ \alpha 𝐮/c& 4\alpha 𝐮𝐮/c^2\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric of the physical space-time. In principle the underlying physical space-time can be curved, but we will restrict ourselves to flat physical space-times. This does not mean $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the standard Minkowski metric because we will be working in curvilinear coordinates.

Leonhardt and Piwnicki work in cylindrical coordinates and choose a fluid flow given by

$$𝐮=\frac{𝒲}{r}𝐞_\phi $$
(4)
where $`2\pi 𝒲`$ is the vorticity. This flow yields a metric given by

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1+\frac{\alpha 𝒲^2}{c^2r^2}& 0& \alpha \frac{𝒲}{cr}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ \frac{\alpha 𝒲}{cr}& 0& \frac{4\alpha 𝒲^2}{c^2r^2}1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{r^2}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
This metric is slightly different from the one given by Leonhardt and Piwnicki Leonhardt and Piwnicki (2000) since we have explicitly included the factor of $`1/r^2`$ associated with cylindrical coordinates. By looking at the turning points of the radial motion Leonhardt and Piwnicki Leonhardt and Piwnicki (2000) show that there are two critical radii

$$r_{}=2\frac{𝒲}{c}\left(\frac{c}{v_g}\right)^{3/4}\text{and }r_+=\frac{𝒲}{c}\left(\frac{c}{v_g}\right)^{1/4}.$$

Leonhardt and Piwnicki call these the weak Schwarzschild radius and the Schwarzschild radius respectively. It is straightforward to compute $`g_{00}`$ and to show that $`r=2\sqrt{\alpha }𝒲/c`$ is an infinite red shift surface. The infinite red shift surface lies inside the weak Schwarzschild radius for all $`\alpha `$. For

$$\alpha >\left(1+\sqrt{65}\right)/32$$

the infinite red shift surface also lies inside the Schwarzschild radius.

The Leonhardt and Piwnicki metric does not however, represent a true black hole since it does not possess a nontrivial null hypersurface and thus will not have a horizon Hawking (1972). A hypersurface $`S`$ is null if the vector $`𝐧`$ which is normal to $`S`$ is null. Since the metric is stationary and axially symmetric we take

$$n_\alpha =(0,\frac{S}{r},\frac{S}{\phi },0).$$
(6)
The requirement that $`n_\alpha n^\alpha =0`$ gives

$$\left(\frac{4𝒲^2\alpha }{c^2r^2}1\right)\left(\frac{S(r,\phi )}{\phi }\right)^2\left(\frac{S(r,\phi )}{r}\right)^2=0.$$
(7)
This equation has no real solutions except for the trivial solution $`S=\text{constant}`$.

However, by choosing a radial flow one can get a optical black hole with a horizon. Working in spherical coordinates we choose a flow

$$𝐮=(f(r),0,0)$$
(8)
and specialize to the case

$$f(r)=\beta /\left(r+ϵ_0\right).$$
(9)
Here $`\beta `$ is a flow parameter, which we will take to be positive, and $`ϵ_0`$ is a cutoff which prevents the velocity from becoming infinite at the origin. As we will see none of the essential physics depends on $`ϵ_0`$. There is nothing special about our choice for $`f(r)`$, there are other choices which will give similar results. With $`f(r)`$ given by Eq. 9 it is straightforward to show that the metric has an infinite red shift surface at

$$r_H=\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha }\beta }{c}ϵ_0.$$
(10)
The radial flow metric does have a null hypersurface and thus a true horizon. Since the metric is spherically symmetric we take

$$n_\alpha =(0,\frac{S}{r},0,0).$$

The requirement that $`n_\alpha n^\alpha =0`$ then gives

$$\left(\frac{4\alpha \beta ^2}{c^2\left(r+ϵ_0\right)^2}1\right)\left(\frac{S}{r}\right)^2=0.$$
(11)
which is satisfied when $`r=r_H`$. Thus, for the radial flow metric given by Eqs. 3, 8 and 9, the horizon and the infinite red shift surface coincide. The flow velocity at the horizon is safely subluminal and is

$$u_{r_H}=\frac{c}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}.$$

Since the radial flow optical black hole has a horizon it will have a surface gravity and a Hawking temperature. The surface gravity $`\kappa `$ of a black hole is

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\beta ^\alpha \mathrm{}^\beta $$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Killing vector that generates the horizon Felice and Clarke (1990). Evaluating Eq.12 on the horizon gives the surface gravity on the horizon. For the radial optical black hole the Killing vector that generates the horizon is $`\mathrm{}=k`$ where

$$k=\frac{}{t}.$$

Evaluating Eq.12 on the horizon gives

$$\kappa =\frac{c^3}{\alpha \beta }$$
(13)
where we have restored the factors of $`c`$ that come from the fact that $`dx^0=cdt.`$ Note that $`\kappa `$ is constant on the horizon as is required by the zeroth law of black hole mechanics. The Hawking temperature of a black hole Hawking (1975) is

$$T_H=\frac{\mathrm{}\kappa }{2\pi k_Bc}.$$
(14)
which gives the optical black hole a Hawking temperature of

$$T_H=\frac{\mathrm{}c^2}{2\pi \alpha \beta k_B}.$$

Like a normal black hole the optical black hole has a negative specific heat. Larger values of $`\alpha `$ will give larger Schwarzschild radii, but cooler Hawking temperatures.

If we choose $`\alpha =2\times 10^7`$ which corresponds to a physically reasonable group velocity of $`v_g=15m/s`$ and $`\beta =1`$, we get $`r_H3\times 10^5\text{meters}ϵ_0`$, and a Hawking temperature of $`T_H5\text{ mK}`$. Although this is an enormous temperature compared to the Hawking temperature of a solar mass black hole ($`T_H6\times 10^8\text{K}`$), the prospects for experiential observation appear dim at best.

In order to be non-pathological, the metric must describe a space-time that is singularity free in the exterior of the horizon. To check for singularities, we have computed the Kretschamann invariant

$$I=R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }$$

which is a standard method of probing the singularity structure of a space-time Joshi (1993). We find

$$I=\frac{4\alpha ^2\beta ^4F(r)}{c^4r^4\left(r+ϵ_0\right)^8G(r)^4}$$

where $`F(r)`$ is a long polynomial in $`r`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G(r)& =3c^2\alpha \beta ^2\left(r+ϵ_0\right)^2\hfill \\ & +c^4\left(r+ϵ_0\right)^4+\alpha ^2\beta ^2\left(4\beta ^2+c^2\left(r+ϵ_0\right)^2\right)\hfill \end{array}.$$

For positive $`\beta `$, $`G(r)`$ has one positive real root. The root is

$$r_{\text{singular}}=\frac{\beta \sqrt{\alpha }\sqrt{3\alpha +\sqrt{25+\left(6+\alpha \right)\alpha }}}{\sqrt{2}c}.$$
(15)
However, this singularity always lies inside of the horizon and thus cosmic censorship is preserved. The singularity is similar to the ring singularity in the Kerr solution. In addition the space-time has a singularity at $`r=0`$ in the limit that $`ϵ_00`$

In order to make the connection to the four laws of black hole mechanics Bardeen et al. (1973), we must calculate the mass associated with the optical black hole. For an asymptotically flat space-time the mass as measured from infinity is

$$M=\frac{1}{4\pi G}\underset{S}{}^\mu k^\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu },$$
(16)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the surface element of $`S`$ and $`S`$ is the boundary of a space-like hypersurface $`S`$ and consists of $`B`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$. The boundary $`B`$ is the intersection of $`S`$ and the horizon, and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a 2-surface at infinity. Thus,

$$M=\frac{1}{4\pi G}\left(\underset{B}{}^\mu k^\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\underset{S_{\mathrm{}}}{}^\mu k^\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(17)
The first term in Eq. 17 is the mass associated with the horizon while the second term is the mass outside the horizon as measured at infinity. We can rewrite the first term in Eq. 17 as

$$M_H=\frac{1}{4\pi G}\underset{B}{}\kappa 𝑑a,$$
(18)
while the second term gives

$$M_{\text{exterior}}=\frac{1}{4\pi G}\underset{S_{\mathrm{}}}{}\kappa 𝑑a$$
(19)
where $`\kappa `$ is evaluated on $`B`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ respectively Bardeen et al. (1973) and $`da`$ is the area element. Evaluating Eq. 18 gives

$$M_H=4\frac{\beta c}{G}$$
(20)
where we have set $`ϵ_0=0`$ for simplicity. For $`\beta =1`$ the effective mass of the black hole is $`M_H1.8\times 10^{19}\text{Kg}1\times 10^4M_{}`$. The exterior mass, as seen at infinity is zero since for our flow the surface gravity $`\kappa `$ falls off as $`1/r^6`$. Of course, in any real experimental situation the space will be compact rather than asymptotically flat, and thus there will be an additional contribution to the mass. Although we will assume an asymptotically flat space-time, this opens up the possibility of investigating space-times whose topologies are not $`R^4`$.

By combining the radial flow with the vortex flow of Leonhardt and Piwnicki Leonhardt and Piwnicki (2000), we obtain the analog of a Kerr black hole. In spherical coordinates the fluid flow is $`𝐮=(f(r),0,𝒲/r)`$. Although the resulting metric is complicated one can show that there is an infinite red shift surface at

$$r_H=\frac{2\alpha \beta ^2\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2}{\sqrt{\alpha \beta ^2\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2(c^2\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^24𝒲^2\alpha )}}ϵ_0.$$
(21)
Just as in the Kerr case, the infinite red shift surface is no longer spherical. The infinite redshift surface is well defined only if $`|𝒲|<c/\left(2\sqrt{\alpha }\right)`$. For values of $`|𝒲|>c/\left(2\sqrt{\alpha }\right)`$, the sign of $`g^{\varphi \varphi }`$ changes, which changes the signature of the metric. When $`0<|𝒲|<c/\left(2\sqrt{\alpha }\right)`$ the hole will possess an ergosphere. The location of the horizon does not depend on the vorticity and is unchanged from the purely radial case. This is due to the fact that $`g_{rr}`$ is unchanged by the azimuthal fluid flow. This is a consequence of not having to satisfy the field equations, and is different from the Kerr case where $`g_{rr}`$ is affected by the rotation rate of the hole.

For the Kerr type black hole, we have a rotational Killing vector $`m=/\phi `$ as well as a time translational Killing vector $`k`$. The Killing vector that generates the horizon is

$$\mathrm{}=m+k=\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{\Omega }_H\frac{}{\varphi }$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H=2𝒲/\left(\sqrt{\alpha }\beta \right)`$ is the coordinate angular velocity on the horizon. The surface gravity for the Kerr type black hole is the same as for the radial flow metric and is given by Eq.13.

Although the surface gravity of the Kerr type hole is the same as the surface gravity of the radial flow hole they have different areas. The area of the Kerr type hole is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A=& \underset{r=r_H}{}\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta }g_{\phi \phi }}𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi \hfill \\ & =\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\frac{4\alpha \beta ^3}{\sqrt{c^4\beta ^2\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^24c^2𝒲^2(𝒲^2(\alpha 5)\beta ^2)}}𝑑\theta \hfill \\ & =\frac{16\pi \alpha \beta ^3\mathrm{arctan}(\frac{\sqrt{4𝒲^2\left(5+\alpha \right)\beta ^24𝒲^4}}{c\beta })}{c\sqrt{4𝒲^2\left(5+\alpha \right)\beta ^24𝒲^4}}\hfill \end{array},$$
(23)
if

$$\frac{𝒲^2\left(5\alpha +\frac{𝒲^2}{\beta ^2}\right)}{c^2}<\frac{1}{4}$$
(24)
where for simplicity we have set $`ϵ_0=0`$.

The bound on $`𝒲`$ comes from the requirement that the denominator in Eq. 23 be positive. The bound on $`𝒲`$ is also the the condition need to ensure that $`\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta }g_{\phi \phi }}`$ is positive. We denote the value of $`𝒲`$ that saturates this bound by $`𝒲_c.`$

To calculate the effective mass of the Kerr type black hole we evaluate the Komar invariant integral Komar (1959); Cohen and de Felice (1984)

$$M=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}d\xi _t,$$
(25)
where $`d\xi _t`$ is the Hodge dual of $`d\xi _t=g_{ti}dx^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a space-like surface of constant $`t`$ and $`r=r_H`$. Evaluating Eq. 25 gives

$$M=2\frac{\beta ^4c^2}{G}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\frac{\left(c^2+𝒲^2\alpha 𝒲^2\alpha \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\right)\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{\left|f(𝒲)\right|^{1/2}f(𝒲)}𝑑\theta $$
(26)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(𝒲)=& \left(c^2+2𝒲^2\left(\alpha 5\right)\right)\beta ^22𝒲^4\hfill \\ & +2𝒲^2\left(𝒲^2\left(\alpha 5\right)\beta ^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\hfill \end{array}.$$

Unlike the radial flow case, the exterior mass given by Eq. 19 does not go to zero even for an infinitely large container. This is due to the slow $`1/r`$ fall-off of the angular flow.

The angular momentum of the hole isKomar (1959); Cohen and de Felice (1984)

$$J=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}d\xi _\phi ,$$
(27)
where $`d\xi _\phi =g_{\phi i}dx^i.`$

Evaluating Eq.27 gives

$$J=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\frac{\left(8𝒲\sqrt{\alpha }\beta ^3(2𝒲^2(\alpha 10)\beta ^2)\right)\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^3}{\left|f(𝒲)\right|^{1/2}f(𝒲)}𝑑\theta $$
(28)
Although the integrals in Eqs. 26 and 28 can be done explicitly, the results are not particularly instructive. However, from the integrand in 28 we see that $`J=0`$ when $`𝒲=\beta \sqrt{\left(\alpha 10\right)/2}`$. A plot of the hole mass and area as a function of $`𝒲`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

From the definitions of the mass, angular momentum and surface gravity of the hole one can show that Bardeen et al. (1973)

$$M=\frac{\kappa A}{4\pi G}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_HJ$$
(29)
One can also verify the relation between the mass, angular momentum and area by explicit computation.

From Eq. 29 and from the fact that $`M=M(A,J)`$ is a homogeneous function of degree 1/2 it follows Townsend (1997) that

$$dM=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi G}dA+\mathrm{\Omega }_HdJ$$
(30)
which is the first law of black hole thermodynamics.

In summary, we have shown that it is possible (at least in principle) to create an optical analog of a black hole which possesses all the important properties of a black hole, namely an event horizon which is a Killing horizon.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

According to the modern standpoint , spacetime theory is any one that possesses a mathematical representation whose elements are a smooth four-dimensional manifold $`M`$ and geometrical objects defined on $`M.`$ The system of real local coordinates on $`M`$ is defined as a topological mapping of an open region $`UM`$ onto the Euclidean four-dimensional space $`E_4.`$ Thus, the Euclidean four-dimensional space $`E_4`$ is a fundamental structure element of the mathematical formalism of contemporary physics. However, it can be shown that $`E_4`$ has an underlying structure that is exhibited in the existence of group of transformation that does not coincide with the $`SO\left(4\right)`$ group. In physical space $`E_3`$ \- and, for the sake of comparison, on physical plane $`E_2`$\- we consider the groups of rotations and dilatations with the generators

$$D=x\frac{}{x}+y\frac{}{y}+z\frac{}{z},M_1=z\frac{}{y}y\frac{}{z}$$

$$M_2=z\frac{}{x}x\frac{}{z},M_3=y\frac{}{x}+x\frac{}{y}$$

in $`E_3`$ and with generators

$$D=x\frac{}{x}+y\frac{}{y},M=y\frac{}{x}+x\frac{}{y}$$

in $`E_2.`$ We denote these groups by $`DSO\left(3\right)`$ and $`DSO\left(2\right),`$ respectively. It can be shown that an element of first group can be parametrized by the real numbers $`a,b,c,d;`$ it is suitable to consider them as a quaternion $`q=ai+bj+ck+d.`$ For the second group, we have two real parameters combined into a complex number $`w=u+iv.`$ It is easy to verify one- to- one correspondence between the algebras quaternions and complex numbers and the $`DSO\left(3\right)`$ and $`DSO\left(2\right)`$ groups. The transformations of the $`DSO\left(3\right)`$ and $`DSO\left(2\right)`$ groups in $`E_3`$ and $`E_2`$ can be represented as

$$R^{}=qR\overline{q}r^{}=wrw,$$

where $`R=xi+yj+zk`$ in the first case and $`r=x+iy`$ in the second case. When we consider $`DSO\left(3\right)`$ and $`DSO\left(2\right)`$ groups as linear spaces it can easily be seen, with the aid of the well-known algebra, that the four- dimensional space of quaternions $`Q_4`$ and the two- dimensional space of complex numbers, $`Q_2,`$ give spinor representations of the groups in question. These representations are realized as follows:

$$u^{}=qu,z^{}=wz,$$
(1)
where

$$u=u_1i+u_2j+u_3k+u_4,z=z_1+z_2i.$$

A remarkable property of this transformations is that there is only one point $`u=0,\left(z=0\right)`$ that is a stable under the transformations given by (1). When we fix any other point, the transformations reduce to the identity transformation. Another important feature of this transformations (1) is that the Euclidean scalar products in $`Q_4`$ and $`Q_2`$

$$(u,u)=u\overline{u}=u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2,(z,z)=z\overline{z}=z_1^2+z_2^2$$

are invariant under transformations (1), provided that $`q\overline{q}=1`$ and $`w\overline{w}=1.`$ But this does not mean that $`Q_4`$ and $`Q_2`$ are Euclidean spaces because (1) hold. It should be noted, that there is a simple mapping from $`Q_2`$ to $`E_2`$ of the form

$$r=z^2.$$

This mapping is known as the Bolin transformation. It can be shown, however, that there is no mapping from $`Q_4`$ to four-dimensional Euclidean space. Thus, what we usually call four-dimensional Euclidean by the analogy with a three-dimensional physical space is in fact $`Q_4.`$ That there is no such mapping follows from the fact that real Dirac matrices $`\gamma _i,`$ possessing the properties

$$\gamma _i\gamma _j+\gamma _j\gamma _i=2\delta _{ij},i,j=1,2,3,4$$

do not exist. However, there is mapping from $`Q_4`$ to $`E_3`$ which can be defined as

$$R=ui\overline{u}.$$

This mapping is known as Hopf mapping. Therefore, the components of a quaternion $`u`$ are not observable in a direct way, but only through some expressions constructed from these components. In seance, this situation is similar to that with a wave function in quantum mechanics. It is obvious that a three-dimensional sphere in $`Q_4,`$

$$u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2=\rho ^2$$

inherits the properties of the enveloping space. In view of the unusual properties of four-dimensional space and of, respectively, a three- dimensional sphere $`S^3,`$ we consider the investigations associated with the last object.

From the geometrical point of view a three-dimensional sphere is a space of constant positive curvature. The Kepler-Coulomb problem in this space has a long history and was first investigated by Schrödinger . The symmetry properties of the Schrödinger equation for the Kepler-Coulomb problem in a space of constant positive curvature was analyzed by Higgs  and by Leemon . On the other hand $`S^3`$ is the configuration space for a Top. The quantum-mechanical problem for the free motion of a Top was investigated shortly after the creation of quantum mechanics in its moderns form (see for example ). It is obvious that connections between these two directions of investigation are very important. Moreover in the 1930s, it was emphasized by Casimir  that, from the physical point of view, the notion of a rigid bogy is as fundamental as the notion of material point. At last, we would like to emphasize that QCD is conceptually a simple theory and that its structure is determined solely by symmetry principles. However, there is no connection between such important phenomena as confinement and quark-lepton symmetry, on one hand, and the first principles of QCD, on the other hand. Despite prolonged and complicated experiments, free quarks have not yet been observed, but it is commonly believed that quarks are true elementary particles like electrons. Experimentalists gradually arrived at the conclusion that the matter is not in the details of the experiments but rather in the fundamental properties of matter, which were sought under various assumptions. For instance, it is hypothesized that quark confinement can be explained by topological methods that have recently found still a wider use in physics. Nevertheless, the most natural and reliable approach to the problem of confinement must be sought in the possibility of modifying the original Dirac equation to take into account the unusual properties of the quarks.

Summarizing all the facts considered above, we conjecture that the configuration space of a quark coinces with the configuration space for a Top. Within this conjecture, we will derive the Dirac wave equation for a quark and consider some of its properties.

## 2 Formulation of the Problem

The choices of underlying spacetime manifold can be reasoning as followers. Consider a conventional quantum-mechanical operator of the 4-momentum with components

$$P_0=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^0},P_1=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^1},P_2=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^2},P_3=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^3},$$
(2)
where $`x^0=ct,x^1=x,x^2=y,x^3=z.`$ Further, the group of translations of spacetime is a finite continuous Lie group with the generators

$$X_0=\frac{}{x^0},X_1=\frac{}{x^1},X_2=\frac{}{x^2},X_3=\frac{}{x^3}.$$
(3)
Besides, the linear operators (3) are generators of a simply transitive group of transformations . In our case it is an Abelian simply transitive group of transformations because

$$[X_a,X_b]=0,a,b=0,1,2,3.$$

The connection between(2) and (3) is obvious. If a simply transitive group is a group of transformations of a certain spacetime, this spacetime is called homogeneous, as this group can transform any point of the spacetime to any a priori given point. To make further analysis more transparent, we present the general characteristic of homogeneous spacetime manifolds.

As any vector field with components $`V^i`$ can be associated with the linear operator $`X=V^i/x^i`$, the operator $`X`$ is called the vector field. Then, let the vector fields $`X_a`$

$$X_a=V_a^i\frac{}{x^i}\left(a=0,1,2,3\right)$$
(4)
are generators of a simply transitive group of transformations of a four-dimensional spacetime manifold $`M`$. Indexes from the beginning of the Latin alfavet numerate vectors. In this case

$$[X_a,X_b]=f_{ab}^cX_c,$$
(5)
where $`f_{ab}^c`$ are structure constants of the group in question. The vector fields $`V_a^i`$ uniquely determine the system of covector fields $`V_i^a`$ such that

$$V_a^iV_j^a=\delta _j^i,V_i^aV_b^i=\delta _b^a.$$
(6)
The simply transitive group induces a natural integrable connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`M`$ with Christoffel symbols

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=V_a^i_jV_k^a$$
(7)
and a natural metrics of the Lorentz signature on $`M`$

$$g_{ij}=\eta _{ab}V_i^aV_j^b,g^{ij}=\eta ^{ab}V_a^iV_b^j,$$
(8)
where $`\eta _{ab}=\eta ^{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. From (5) and (7) for the torsion tensor and torsion covector of the connection (7) we obtain

$$T_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kj}^i=f_{bc}^aV_a^iV_j^bV_k^c,T_i=T_{ki}^k=f_{ab}^aV_i^b.$$

From (5) and (8) we have

$$V_a^iV_{b;i}^j=\left(f_{ab}^c\eta _{ad}f_{bc}^d\eta ^{ce}\eta _{bd}f_{ae}^d\eta ^{ce}\right)V_c^j,$$
(9)
where semicolon means the covariant derivative with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of the metrics (8) with the Christoffel symbols

$$\{_{jk}^i\}=\frac{1}{2}g^{il}(_jg_{kl}+_kg_{jl}_lg_{jk}).$$

Knowing generators of the simply transitive group $`X_a`$ we can find generators $`Y_a`$ of the mutual simply transitive group by solving the equation $`_iV^jT_{ik}^jV^k=0`$, where $`_i`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the connection (7). For $`X_a,Y_a`$ we have $`[X_a,Y_b]=0,a,b=0,1,2,3`$.

The manifold $`M`$ that admits a simply transitive group of transformations and has the metrics (8) will be called the homogeneous spacetime manifold. The Minkowski spacetime is a particular case of homogeneous spacetime manifolds. If a homogeneous spacetime defined by a non-Abelian simply transitive group of transformations has a physical meaning, from (2) and (3) it follows that the operator

$$i\mathrm{}X_0=i\mathrm{}V_0^i\frac{}{x^i}$$

will be analog of the operator $`P_0`$ in the Minkowski spacetime.

## 3 The Dirac wave equation for a quark

Here we will define a homogeneous spacetime manifold that differs from the Minkowski spacetime by geometrical and topological properties and show that a spacetime manifold of that kind obeys all the required conditions and is of definite interest for the physics of quarks.

In the five-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $`M_{1,4}^5`$ with Cartesian coordinates $`x^A`$ (indices denoted by capital letters run through the five values $`0,1,2,3,4`$) and metrics

$$ds^2=\eta _{AB}dx^Adx^B=\left(dx^0\right)^2\left(dx^1\right)^2\left(dx^2\right)^2\left(dx^3\right)^2\left(dx^4\right)^2,$$

we will consider the one sheet hyperboloid $`H^4`$

$$\eta _{AB}x^Ax^B=\left(x^0\right)^2\left(x^1\right)^2\left(x^2\right)^2\left(x^3\right)^2\left(x^4\right)^2=a^2,$$
(10)
where $`a`$ is the radius of $`H^4`$, and prove that it is a homogeneous spacetime manifold.

We will use the scalar product $`(X,Y)=\eta _{AB}U^AV^B`$ for any vector fields $`X=U^A_A`$ and $`Y=V^A_A`$ on $`M_{1,4}^5`$. The vector fields

$$P_A=\delta _A^C_C,M_{AB}=\left(x_A\delta _B^Cx_B\delta _A^C\right)_C,$$

where $`x_A=\eta _{AB}x^B`$, are generators of the Poincare group of the five-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. All vectors fields $`M_{AB}`$ are orthogonal to the radius-vector $`R=x^C_C`$, but this is not the case for the vector fields $`P_A.`$ Representing $`P_A`$ as the sum of the component aligned with the direction of the radius vector $`R`$ and the component orthogonal to this direction, we obtain the vector fields

$$M_A=aP_A+\frac{1}{a}(R,P_A)R=\left(a\delta _A^C+\frac{1}{a}x_Ax^C\right)_C,$$

which are tangent to $`H^4`$, because from (10), it follows that $`(R,M_A)=0`$ at each point of $`H^4`$. The vector fields $`M_A`$ and $`M_{AB}`$ are generators of the group of conformal transformations of $`H^4`$ because we have

$$[M_A,M_B]=M_{AB},[M_A,M_{BC}]=\eta _{AB}M_C\eta _{AC}M_B.$$
(11)
Let us now introduce the vector fields

$$X_0=M_0,X_1=M_{14}+M_{23},X_2=M_{24}+M_{31},X_3=M_{34}+M_{12}$$
(12)
with the components

$$\begin{array}{c}X_0=(a+\frac{x_0^2}{a},\frac{x_0x^1}{a},\frac{x_0x^2}{a},\frac{x_0x^3}{a},\frac{x_0x^4}{a}),\hfill \\ X_1=(0,x_4,x_3,x_2,x_1),\hfill \\ X_2=(0,x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2),\hfill \\ X_3=(0,x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is straightforward to see that the vector fields $`X_0,X_1,X_2,`$ and $`X_3`$ are continuous and do not vanish at any point of $`H^4`$. Because $`(X_a,X_b)=0`$ for $`ab,a,b=0,1,2,3`$ and

$$(X_0,X_0)=(X_1,X_1)=(X_2,X_2)=(X_3,X_3)=a^2+x_0^2,$$

the vector fields $`X_0,X_1,X_2,`$ and $`X_3`$ are linearly independent at each point of $`H^4`$. From (11), it follows that

$$[X_0,X_i]=0,[X_i,X_j]=2e_{ijk}X_k,i,j,k=1,2,3,$$

where $`e_{ijk}`$ is the completely antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol specified by the equality $`e_{123}=1.`$ In this way, we have proven that the one sheet hyperboloid (10) admits a simply transitive group of transformations whose generators are given by (12) and which has only the following nonzero structure constants:

$$f_{23}^1=f_{31}^2=f_{12}^3=2.$$
(13)
Therefore, we will supply $`H^4`$ with a metrics of the type (8) and thus transform $`H^4`$ into the hyperbolic spacetime $`H_{1,3}^4.`$ From (9) and (13) it follows that the vector field $`X_0`$ is absolutely parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection on $`H_{1,3}^4`$ induced by the vector fields (12). For comparison we note that the vector field $`X_0=/x^0`$ defined in (2) is also absolutely parallel. Now it is natural to put forward the idea that in the realm of the strong interactions spacetime geometrically can be represented as a one-sheeted hyperboloid (10) in the five-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. A constant $`a`$ can be interpreted geometrically as the radius of the three-dimensional sphere $`S^3,`$ which is considered here as a space section $`x^0=0.`$ From the physical point of view we treat $`a`$ as the size of region of quark confinement, since a quark is a pointlike particle in the space of constant positive curvature $`S^3.`$ For comparison of leptons and quarks we note that free motion of the electron is represented as a straight line in the Euclidean usual space and free motion of the quark is a circumference on the 3d sphere. This correlation between leptons and quarks will be continued with an example of the Coulomb law for these objects. To do this consider the Dirac equation for a quark.

In accordance with the original Dirac equation, we write the Dirac equation in the homogeneous spacetime in the form

$$\gamma ^cP_c\psi =\mu \psi ,$$
(14)
where

$$\gamma ^a\gamma ^b+\gamma ^b\gamma ^a=2\eta ^{ab},$$

$$P_c=X_c+\frac{iqa}{\mathrm{}c}A_c\frac{1}{2}f_c,f_c=f_{ac}^a.$$

Here $`q`$ is the charge of a particle, and $`A_c`$ are the components of the vector potential of the electromagnetic field in the basis $`X_a.`$ In $`H_{1,3}^4,`$ we also have

$$\mu =mca/\mathrm{}.$$

For the time being, we do not specify the values of the structure constants of a simply transitive group of transformations of the spacetime $`H_{1,3}^4.`$ In general, $`[X_a,X_b]=f_{ab}^cX_c;`$ therefore, we have

$$[P_a,P_b]=f_{ab}^cP_c+\frac{iqa}{\mathrm{}c}F_{ab},$$

where

$$F_{ab}=X_aA_bX_bA_af_{ab}^cA_c$$
(15)
are the components of the strength tensor of the electromagnetic field in the basis $`X_a`$. When the wave equation is established it is not difficult to write the equations of electromagnetic field. The Jacobi identity $`\left[P_a[P_b,P_c]\right]+\left[P_b[P_c,P_a]\right]+\left[P_c[P_a,P_b]\right]=0`$ results in the first four Maxwell equations

$$X_aF_{bc}+X_bF_{ca}+X_cF_{ab}+f_{ab}^dF_{cd}+f_{bc}^dF_{ad}+f_{ca}^dF_{bd}=0$$
(16)
To establish the form of other four Maxwell equations, we set $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}e^{abcd}F_{cd}`$, where $`e^{abcd}`$ are components of the antisymmetric Levi-Civita unit tensor in the basis $`X_a`$. Then we can write equations (16) in the following equivalent form

$$X_a\stackrel{~}{F}^{ab}+f_a\stackrel{~}{F}^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}f_{ad}^b\stackrel{~}{F}^{ad}=0$$
(17)
By analogy, from (17) it follows that the remaining Maxwell equations are of the form

$$X_aF^{ab}+f_aF^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}f_{ad}^bF^{ad}=\frac{4\pi a}{c}j^b,$$
(18)
where $`j^b`$ are components of the current vector in the basis $`X_a.`$

Now we will write the Maxwell equations in the three-dimensional vector form. As usual, we put

$$j^a=(c\rho ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{j}}),A_a=(\phi ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{A}}),$$

$$E_i=F_{0i},H_i=\frac{1}{2}e_{ijk}F^{jk},i,j,k=1,2,3.$$

Then from (13) and (15) we obtain

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{A}}\phi ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{H}}=\mathrm{rot}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{A}}=\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{A}}2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{A}}.$$
(19)
where

$$=(_1,_2,_3),_0=X_0,_i=X_i,i=1,2,3.$$

Considering that $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{A}=_{i=1}^3_iA_i`$, we can recast the Maxwell equations (17) and (18) into the familiar vector form

$$_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{H}}=\mathrm{rot}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}},\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{H}}=0,\mathrm{rot}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{H}}=_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}+\frac{4\pi \mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=4\pi \mathrm{a}\rho .$$
(20)
Making use of the commutation relations $`[_i,_j]=2e_{ijk}_k,i,j,k=1,2,3,`$ we can easily verify the identities

$$\mathrm{div}\mathrm{rot}=0,\mathrm{rot}\mathrm{grad}=0.$$

In addition, we have

$$\mathrm{div}\mathrm{grad}=\mathrm{},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Laplacian on a three-dimensional sphere. Torsion ( that is, the non- Abelian character of a simply transitive group of transformations of $`H^4`$ ) manifests itself not only in the definition of the operator $`\mathrm{rot}`$, (21), but also in the identity

$$\left(\mathrm{rot}+1\right)^2=\mathrm{}+1+\mathrm{graddiv}.$$

Since the space section of the $`H_{1,3}^4`$ is a three dimensional sphere, it is interesting to show that the Dirac equation (14) is associated with the Schrodinger equation for a spherical Top. To verify this, we will derive eigenvalues $`E`$ of the Dirac Hamiltonian in question when there is no electromagnetic field that is, for $`F_{ab}=0`$. Squaring equation (14) and using (13), we obtain the following equation for $`E`$

$$E^2\psi =m^2c^4\psi \frac{c^2\mathrm{}^2}{a^2}\left(\mathrm{}+P\right)\psi ,$$
(21)
where

$$P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2_2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3_3$$

and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=\frac{1}{2}e_{ijk}\gamma ^j\gamma ^k.`$ The operator $`P`$ has properties analogous to those of the operator $`\mathrm{rot}`$. In particular, we have

$$\left(P+1\right)^2=\mathrm{}+1$$
(22)
Since $`\mathrm{}+P=P\left(P+1\right),`$ then

$$E^2=m^2c^4+p\left(p+1\right)\frac{c^2\mathrm{}^2}{a^2},$$

where $`p`$ is an egenvalue of the operator $`P.`$

To determine eigenvalues of the operator $`P`$, we consider Hermitian operators acting in the space of solutions to the Dirac equation (14). Generators of the group mutual to the simply transitive group of transformations of the spacetime $`H_{1,3}^4`$ are given by

$$Y_0=X_0,Y_1=M_{14}M_{23},Y_2=M_{24}M_{31},Y_3=M_{34}M_{12}.$$

This leads to the three Hermitian operators

$$N_i=\frac{i}{2}Y_i$$

which are analogous to the momentum operators. The remaining three operators,

$$M_i=\frac{i}{2}\left(_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)=\frac{i}{2}\left(X_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)$$
(23)
are analogs of the electron angular momentum operators. From (23), it follows that the spin of a particle in question is $`\mathrm{}/2.`$ We have

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{M}}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{M}}=\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{M}},\stackrel{}{\mathrm{N}}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{N}}=\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{N}}$$

and, in addition,

$$2\left(M^2+N^2\right)=\left(P+\frac{3}{2}\right)^2\frac{3}{4},2\left(M^2N^2\right)=P+\frac{3}{2}.$$
(24)
Hence, we have the operator equation

$$2\left(M^2+N^2\right)+\frac{3}{4}=4\left(M^2N^2\right)^2.$$

Since, $`M^2=l\left(l+1\right),N^2=k\left(k+1\right),`$ we find from the operator equation that $`l`$ and $`k`$ satisfy the equation

$$2\left[l\left(l+1\right)+k\left(k+1\right)\right]+\frac{3}{4}=4\left[l\left(l+1\right)k\left(k+1\right)\right]^2.$$

This equation has two solutions, $`l=k+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`k=l+\frac{1}{2},`$ whence it followers that $`p=2\left[l\left(l+1\right)k\left(k+1\right)\right]\frac{3}{2}=2k3.`$ Since $`S^3`$ has a metric invariant with respect to the isometrical reflection, $`p=2k+3`$ is an eqenvalue too. For the energy, we then have

$$E^2=m^2c^4+n\left(n+1\right)\frac{c^2\mathrm{}^2}{a^2}=m^2c^4\left(1+\frac{\lambda ^2}{a^2}\right),$$
(25)
where $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}/mc.`$ If formula (25) gives the quantum-mechanical value of the energy of the relativistic spherical Top, we can then conclude that, at large $`a,`$ the moment of inertia $`I=ma^2`$ is also large, so that the angular velocity is small. Therefore, the nonrelativistic limit can be found from the condition $`a\lambda .`$ In the limit of large $`a`$ it follows from (25) that

$$E=mc^2+\frac{L^2}{2I},$$

where $`L^2=n\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{}^2`$ is the angular momentum of the spherical top and $`I`$ is its moment of inertia. The last formula is in accordance with the classical formula

$$E=\frac{L^2}{2I}$$

for the energy of a Top. Thus, the formula (25) gives energy of rotation.

Let us now consider the Coulomb law. The Coulomb potential can be derived as a solution of the equations of electrostatics, which are invariant under the group of Euclidean motions, including rotations and translations. In the case being considered, we will seek a Coulomb potential in an analogous manner. From (19) and (20), it follows that for a constant electric field $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=4\pi \mathrm{a}\rho ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}}=\phi ,`$ and consequently, $`\phi `$ obeys the equation

$$\mathrm{}\phi =4\pi a^2\rho .$$
(26)
As it is well known, the electron Coulomb potential

$$\varphi _e\left(r\right)=\frac{e}{r}$$

is the fundamental solution to the Laplace equation $`\mathrm{}\varphi =\text{div\hspace{0.17em} grad}\varphi =o.`$ In accordance with our conjecture the Coulomb potential for quarks can be derived as follows. Consider the stereographic projection $`S^3`$ from point (0,0,0,-a) onto the ball $`x^2+y^2+z^2a^2:`$

$$x^1=fx,x^2=fy,x^3=fz,x^4=a\left(1f\right),$$

where $`f=2a^2/\left(a^2+r^2\right).`$ Then, it follows that the element of length on the three-dimensional sphere can be represented in the form

$$ds^2=f^2\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right)$$

and hence the Laplace equation on $`S^3`$ can be written as follows

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =f^3\text{div}\left(f\text{grad }\varphi \right)=0.$$

We seek the solution to this equation that is invariant under the transformation of the group $`SO\left(3\right)`$ with generators

$$x^1\frac{}{x^2}x^2\frac{}{x^1}=x\frac{}{y}y\frac{}{x},etc.$$

This subgroup of the $`SO\left(4\right)`$ group is determined by fixing the point $`(0,0,0,a).`$ Let us put

$$\psi =f\frac{1}{r}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}.$$

Since

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =f^3\left(r\frac{d\psi }{dr}+3\psi \right)=r^2f^3\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^3\psi \right),$$

then $`r^3\psi =c_1=constant.`$ Thus, we have

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=c_1\frac{a^2+r^2}{2a^2r^2}=c_1\left(\frac{1}{2r^2}+\frac{1}{2a^2}\right)$$

and hence

$$\varphi _q=c_1\left(\frac{1}{2r}+\frac{r}{2a^2}\right)+c_2.$$
(27)
Generally speaking, expression (27), that we have derived, coincides with the well-known Cornell potential ,. If we demand that $`\varphi _e\left(a\right)=\varphi _q\left(a\right),`$ then $`c_2=e/a`$ and the Coulomb law for quarks has the form

$$\varphi _q\left(r\right)=q\left(\frac{1}{2r}\frac{r}{2a^2}\right)+\frac{e}{a},$$
(28)
where $`q`$ is the quark charge.

From our consideration it follows that the idea of rotating matter can be realized in the framework of relativistic quantum mechanics by the Dirac equation (14).

## 4 Conclusion

As the basic wave equation describing the dynamics of quarks, we have proposed the modified Dirac equation (14), which has been written here in homogeneous coordinates. The conclusion that quarks are described by the wave equation different from the conventional wave equation for electrons is quite natural. In fact, it would be strange if the description of such different particles were based on the same equation.

The physical meaning of the confinement phenomenon is tightly connected with idea of a rotating matter and consists in that quarks possess properties of a quantum-mechanical spherical Top. Among other things, this means that the interquark potential expresses the Coulomb law for quarks and, in fact, coincides with the well-known Cornell potential that was first very successfully used by the Cornell group.

For $`a\mathrm{},`$ the theory of electrons can be derived from the theory of quarks, but the electrons are obviously deconfined because in this case, the region of confinement covers the entire Euclidean space. Thus, the symmetry between quarks and leptons has a natural explanation.

Since the kinematics of quarks differs from the kinematics of electrons, decays of hadrons and nuclei such that the energy is conserved, but the momentum is not, are possible. Much has to be done, but the problem is worth efforts as many interesting applications become possible.


text:
# Prospective Analysis of Spin- and CP-sensitive Variables in H → ZZ → l₁⁺l₁⁻l₂⁺l₂⁻ with Atlas

## 1 Introduction

Although the standard $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ electroweak gauge theory successfully explains all current electroweak data, the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking has been tested only partially. Since in the Standard Model spontaneous symmetry breaking is due to the Higgs Mechanism, the search for a Higgs particle will be one of the main tasks of future colliders.

At present, LEP gives a lower limit of 114.4 GeV/c2  for the Higgs boson mass. There is also an indirect upper limit from electroweak precision measurements of 219 GeV/c2 at a 95% confidence level  which is valid in the minimal standard model. However, this limit is still preliminary and the quality of the SM fit, when including all EW measurements from both low and high energy experiments, is still an object of discussion amongst experts . Furthermore, a heavier Higgs boson would be consistent with the electroweak precision measurements in models more general than the minimal standard model . In this first analysis we will therefore also consider higher Higgs masses well above this limit, as can be produced at high energy hadron colliders such as the LHC (pp collisions at 14 TeV). A Standard Model Higgs boson lying below the $`WW`$ threshold will mainly decay into a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair. In this case, there is an overwhelming direct QCD background which dominates the signal. Therefore, the Higgs boson is difficult to study in detail in this mass region, even though one can use rare decays as a signal. Rare decays considered in the literature include, for example, $`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, $`H\gamma \gamma `$, $`HZ\gamma `$, $`HZZ^{}`$ or $`HWW^{}`$. All of these signals are rather difficult to see, but can eventually be used to establish the existence of the Higgs boson . While these decay modes can be used to discover the Higgs boson, a detailed study of its properties will be difficult.

The situation is much better for a heavy Higgs boson ($`m_H>2m_W`$). For such a Higgs boson the main decay products are vector boson pairs, $`W^+W^{}`$ or $`ZZ`$. For the latter decay mode, a clear signal for the Higgs consists of a peak in the invariant mass spectrum of the produced vector bosons. The double leptonic decay of the $`Z`$ boson, $`HZZl_1^+l_1^{}l_2^+l_2^{}`$, leads to a particularly clean signal.

In this case, the basic strategy for discovering a Higgs boson in a clean mode is to select events with 4 high PT leptons that can be combined to form two Z-bosons. Here, an exposure of 30 fb-1 is already sufficient. If one finds such a signal one might be tempted to assume this to be the Standard Model Higgs boson. However, given the fact that the Higgs sector is not fully prescribed, one has to allow for other possibilities. In strongly interacting models, for instance, low lying (pseudo-)vector resonances are possible. Also, pseudoscalar particles are present in a variety of models . Therefore, the first priority after finding a signal is to establish the nature of the resonance, in particular its spin and CP-eigenvalue. This can be done by studying angular distributions and correlations among the decay leptons. In the following, we will make this study. We will limit ourselves to (pseudo-)vector and (pseudo-)scalar particles. To demonstrate consistency with a Spin 0, CP even hypothesis, we will compare the angular distributions, to those produced by different particles, always assuming the production rate of a Standard Model Higgs boson. This is the right assumption to make because, in order to be recognized as a candidate for a Standard Model like Higgs, the detected signal must be a resonance with the appropriate width and branching ratios. Since the production mechanism - gluon-fusion rules out spin 1 particles, due to Yang’s theorem \- cannot be seen, the only way to prove that the spin and CP nature of the new particle is Standard Model like is to study the decay angles of the leptons.

Theoretical studies of angular distributions have been performed in the literature \[9-15\]. So far, such studies have been limited to theoretical discussions. However, it was shown in  that acceptance and efficiencies of the detector can play a role since they can generate correlations, mimicking physical ones. Therefore, it is necessary to use a detector simulation in order to establish how well one can do in practice.

The complete triple differential cross-sections for a Higgs-boson decaying into two onshell Z-bosons which subsequently decay into fermion pairs can be calculated at tree level. The angular dependence of this cross section is given in the appendix together with the most important integrated angular distributions. For the definition of the angles see Figure 1.

We study essentially two distributions. One is the distribution of the cosine of the polar angle, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, of the decay leptons relative to the $`Z`$ boson. Because the heavy Higgs decays mainly into longitudinally polarised vector bosons the cross section $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ should show a maximum around $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta `$)=0. The other is the distribution of the angle $`\varphi `$ between the decay planes of the two $`Z`$ bosons in the rest frame of the Higgs boson. This distribution depends on the details of the Higgs decay mechanism. Within the Standard Model, a behaviour roughly like $`1+\beta \mathrm{cos}2\varphi `$ is expected. This last distribution is flattened in the decay chain $`HZZ4l`$, because of the small vector coupling of the leptons, in contrast to the decay of the Higgs Boson into W’s or decay of the Z into quarks. Also, cuts can significantly affect the correlations. Therefore one needs a precise measurement of the momenta of the outgoing leptons. The Atlas-detector should be well-suited to measure these distributions, since the muon and electron reconstruction is very precise over a large solid angle. A detector Monte-Carlo is however needed in order to determine whether the angular distributions can be measured sufficiently well in order to determine the quantum numbers of the Higgs particle.

The present paper is organized as follows. In Chapter 2 the generator is described, in Chapter 3 detector simulation and reconstruction are given. In Chapter 4 we define quantities that can be used to characterize the different distributions. In Chapter 5 we present the results, concluding that the quantum numbers of the Higgs particle can indeed be determined. In the appendix we give formulae for the complete differential and integrated distributions for the decay of the resonance assuming arbitrary couplings computed in tree level and narrow width approximation.

## 2 The Generators

In order to distinguish between different spins J=0,1 and/or CP-eigenvalues $`\gamma _{CP}=1,+1`$ one needs to study four different distributions: that resulting from the decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson, and the three distributions that would result from hypothetical particles with spin and CP-eigenvalue combinations (0, 1), (1, 1), (1, -1).

The feasibility of using angular correlations in the decay of the Z bosons in order to distinguish between these particles has been evaluated using two different Monte-Carlo generators. One was written for the Standard Model Higgs ($`ggHZZ4l`$) and the irreducible ZZ-background. The latter includes contributions from both gluons and quarks to the ZZ production ( $`ggZZ4l`$ and $`q\overline{q}ZZ4l`$) , whereas all Higgs production mechanisms other than the gluon fusion are neglected. This generator keeps all polarisations of the Z-boson for the quark initiated as well as for the gluon initiated processes. This allows for an analysis of the angular distributions of the leptons. The gluonic production of Z-boson pairs is only about 30% of the total background. However, one should not ignore its contribution, since it has different angular distributions from the other backgrounds and its presence can affect measured correlations. The programme contains no K-factors, therefore our conclusions regarding the feasibility of the determination of Higgs quantum numbers are conservative. Indeed, K-factors are expected to be larger for gluon-induced processes (such as the signal) than for quark-induced processes (70% of the background). Since the narrow width approximation is used, the results are only valid for Higgs masses above the ZZ threshold.

For the alternative particles, a new generator was written based on an article by C. A. Nelson and J. R. Dell’ Aquilla . The programmes for the production of background, the Standard Model Higgs and all alternative particles use Cteq4M structure functions  and hdecay  for branching-ratio and width of the Higgs, and all use the narrow width approximation. The background as well as all cross sections for the four simulations are taken from the first generator. Thus, all cases show identical distributions of invariant mass of the Z-pairs and transverse momentum $`P_T`$ of Z-bosons and leptons and have the same width and cross sections. The only difference lies in the angular distributions of the leptons. For the alternative particles no special assumption concerning the coupling has to be made; only CP-invariance is assumed. It is worth mentioning that the angular correlations are completely independent of the production mechanism.

## 3 Detector Simulation and Reconstruction

The detector response is simulated using ATLFast , a software-package for particle level simulation of the Atlas detector. It is used for fast event-simulation including the most crucial detector aspects. Starting from a list of particles in the event, it provides a list of reconstructed jets, isolated leptons and photons and expected missing transverse energy. It applies momentum- and energy- smearing to all reconstructed particles. The values of the detector-dependent parameters are chosen to match the expected performance that was evaluated mostly by full simulations using Geant3.

The event selection is modeled exactly after the event selection in the Atlas-Physics-TDR . Four leptons (electrons or muons) are required in the pseudorapidity range $`|\eta |=|\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}(\frac{\theta _{Beam}}{2})|<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}`$ ($`\theta _{Beam}`$ being the angle to the beam axis). Two of the leptons are required to have transverse momenta greater than 20 GeV/c and the two other leptons must have transverse momenta greater than 7 GeV/c each. A lepton identification efficiency of 90% per lepton was assumed. Two Z bosons are reconstructed by choosing lepton-pairs of matching flavour and opposite sign. If the flavours of all four leptons are equal, the combination is chosen, which minimizes the sum of the squared deviation of the invariant mass of the pairs with opposite sign from the Z mass (i.e. choose combination ab/cd that minimizes (m$`_{a^+b^{}}`$-mZ)2 \+ (m$`_{c^+d^{}}`$-mZ)2). The reconstructed invariant mass of the two reconstructed Z bosons has to lie within two times the width of the reconstructed mass peak of the Higgs resonance around the centre of the peak. For high Higgs masses ($`m_H>`$ 300 GeV/c2) this is only little more than two times the decay width, while for smaller masses the experimental resolution dominates.

Throughout this paper, we use the term signal for distributions where the background has been statistically subtracted. The only background considered is the Z pair production. Other possible backgrounds like top pair production or Zbb are negligible for masses of the Higgs boson above 200 GeV/c2. Systematic uncertainties due to the simulation of the background could be studied by comparing distributions from the sidebins of the Higgs signal with the results of the generator. A proper treatment of the background is very important, since the angular distributions of the background itself and correlations introduced by detector effects have a large impact on the shape of the distributions discussed. These effects are detailed below.

For high invariant masses, the Z bosons from the background processes are mainly transversely polarised leading to a polar angle distribution of the form $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. This distribution flattens the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ distribution expected for the Higgs decay. Figure 2 shows the polar angle distributions of the signal (left) and the background (right). The dashed line shows the shape of the distribution expected when no cuts are applied and the detector response is not taken into account. It has just been scaled by the overall acceptance of the cuts, so that the shape can be compared. The expected distribution with all cuts and smearing applied is drawn as a solid line. Figures 2 and 3 are produced assuming a Higgs mass of 200 GeV/c2 and Z decaying to muons only. For the decay ZZ $``$ e+e-e+e- or ZZ $``$ $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$e+e- the graphs look similar. The smearing effects are largely independent of the Higgs mass.

The effect of the detector acceptance and isolation cuts on the decay plane angle distribution is shown in Figure 3. Again, the distribution of the signal is shown left and the background right. The dashed histogrammes are scaled to have the same integral as the solid histogrammes, and zero is suppresssed in order to facilitate the comparison of the shape. The definition of the line styles are the same as above. For the decay plane angle, the background shows an almost flat distribution before applying selection cuts. But a minor correlation is introduced by detector effects. This has been simulated and taken into account for the analysis of decay plane angle distributions. In conclusion, the isolation cuts lead to a small distortion of the angular distributions as discussed in , but these effects are almost negligible for the Atlas detector. The cut on $`|\eta |`$ enhances the decay plane correlation a little, but the smearing and the $`P_T`$ requirements reduce this effect. Altogether, there is a small enhancement of the correlation of almost the same amount for all four particles.

A further cut on the transverse momentum of the Z bosons $`P_T^{max}(Z_1,Z_2)>m_H/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ is known to additionally reduce the background, but it also affects the correlation. Since an optimisation of the signal-to-background ratio is not crucial to this analysis, this cut has not been applied, rendering the analysis less dependent on the details of the production mechanism like initial $`P_T`$ of the Higgs boson.

## 4 Parametrisation of Decay Angle Distributions

The differential cross sections for the different models can be computed directly or can be derived from the formulae given in . The explicit distributions are given in the appendix. From the article  we quote the simple distributions of the alternative particles. Table 1 shows the distribution of the polar angle $`\theta `$. $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the polar angles of the leptons originating from the Z Bosons $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ respectively. In Table 2, the distribution of the decay plane angle $`\varphi `$ is shown where the polar angle $`\theta `$ is integrated over different ranges. F11 gives the distribution for $`0\theta _{1,2}\pi /2`$, F22 for $`\pi /2\theta _{1,2}\pi `$, F12 for $`0\theta _1\pi /2`$ and $`\pi /2\theta _2\pi `$, and F21 for $`\pi /2\theta _1\pi `$ and $`0\theta _2\pi /2`$. $``$, $`𝒰`$, $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒲`$ are the parameters that characterise the decay density matrix. For the decay modes used in this analysis, they amount to the following values: $``$ = $`𝒰`$ = -1/2, $`𝒯`$ = $`𝒲`$ = $`\frac{2r}{1+r^2}`$. r is the ratio of the axial vector to vector coupling which for the muons amounts to r = (1 - 4 $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^1`$. We used $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ = 0.23.

The plane-correlation can be parametrised as

$$F(\varphi )=1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+\beta \mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )$$
(1)
In all four cases discussed here, there is no $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$ contribution. For the Standard Model Higgs, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depend on the Higgs mass while they are constant over the whole mass range in the other cases.

The polar angle distribution can be described by

$$G(\theta )=T(1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ))+L\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )$$
(2)
reflecting the longitudinal or transverse polarisations of the Z boson. We define the ratio

$$R:=\frac{LT}{L+T}$$
(3)
of transversal and longitudinal polarisation.
The dependence of the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`R`$ on the Higgs mass is shown in Figure 4. The pseudoscalar shows the largest deviation from the SM Higgs. It would have $`\beta =0.25`$ and $`R=1`$ whereas the scalar always has $`\beta >0`$ and $`R>0`$. The vector and the axialvector can be excluded through the parameter $`R`$ for most of the mass range, but for Higgs masses around 200 GeV/c2 the main difference lies in the value of $`\beta `$ which is zero for $`J=1`$ and $`\gamma _{CP}=\pm 1`$ and about 0.1 for the scalar. The value for $`\alpha `$ can only discriminate between the scalar and the axialvector but the difference is very small.

## 5 Background Estimation

The subtraction of the angular distributions of the background is necessary to obtain and analize the angular distributions of the signal alone. This bears a risk of introducing systematic errors. Thus, the background distributions as produced by Monte-Carlo-Generators have to be checked against the data. In this chapter we will estimate the effects and possible systematic errors introduced by the subtraction.

First, the absolute number of background events has to be estimated. This can be done by comparing the sidebands of the signal to a simulated distribution of the background only. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 5. In order to obtain the number of expected events the number of simulated events in the signal region N$`{}_{signal}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{MC}`$ is scaled by the number of events in the sidebands N$`{}_{side}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{Data}`$ divided by the number of simulated events in the sidebands N$`{}_{side}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{MC}`$. The error from this calculation is $`\sigma _\mathrm{N}`$ = $`\sqrt{N_{side}^{Data}}\frac{N_{signal}^{MC}}{N_{side}^{MC}}`$. In the case of a 250 GeV/c2 Higgs boson the estimated number of background events is N=130 with a systematic error of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Nsyst}}`$ = 4.1 which is well below the statistical error of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Nstat}}`$ = 11.4.

Checking of the shape of the background distribution can be done by using bins below and above the signal region, too. This is demonstrated in Figure 6. It shows the parameter $`R`$ derived from a fit described in chapter 4 to the background distribution only (black line) and the background plus signal (points with errorbars). For most of the fitted values a bin width of 20 GeV/c2 was used, except for the last bin where 100 GeV/c2 were used to compensate for the fact that there are less events for higher invariant masses. From the expected errors one finds that the parameter $`R`$ for the background can be estimated with a precision of about $`\sigma _\mathrm{R}`$ = 0.08. This might not seem too good, but the effect of using a slightly wrong background distribution is not so large. To demonstrate this, a fit to the angular distribution of the angle $`\theta `$ was performed, where a wrong background distribution was subtracted from the signal-plus-background distribution as obtained from the generator. The parameter Rsub of the subtracted distribution was changed to values higher and lower than the value of RMC of the generated distributions. In Table 3, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R = RMC \- Rsub and the value of Rsignal obtained from the fit to the signal distribution produced by subtracting the wrong background distribution are shown.

The shift of the parameter is thus expected to be less than $`\pm `$0.01. Again, this is very small compared to the statistical error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Rstat = 0.053. This error is not considered in the rest of the analysis. Furthermore, the effects will be even smaller when considering K-factors. Any K greater than 1 will give better conditions to check the background distributions. And, since the K-factor of the gluonic Higgs production is higher than the K-factor of the main ZZ production process by quark antiquark pairs, the signal to background ratio will be even higher than predicted here.

## 6 Results

In Chapter 4, the exact results for the signal were given. However, in practice one needs a procedure to separate signal from background, which will lead to uncertainties in the distributions. The expected errors have been calculated by generating a large number of events and scaling the distributions to the expected number of events, since the expected values of the parameters follow a Gaussian distribution. The background was statistically subtracted after applying the same cuts to it as were applied to the signal. The error reflects the statistical error from the number of the signal events, the statistical error from the number of background events subtracted and the error made by the estimation of the number of background events as described in Chapter 5. No error from a possibly different angular distribution of background events has been taken into acount, but we have shown that the effect is small. Then the parametrisations for $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ as described above were fitted to the distributions. Signal and background are summed over muons and electrons.

Figure 7 (top) shows the expected values and errors for the parameter R, using an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1. It is clearly visible that for masses above 250 GeV/c2 the measurement of this parameter allows the various hypotheses considered here for the spin and CP-state of the “Higgs Boson” to be unambiguously separated.

For a Higgs mass of 200 GeV/$`c^2`$ only the pseudoscalar is excluded. Figure 7 (bottom) shows the expected values and errors for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ for a 200 GeV/c2 Higgs and an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1.

The parameter $`\alpha `$ can be used to distinguish between a spin 1 and the SM Higgs particle, but its use is statistically limited. The same applies to the parameter $`\beta `$. Measuring $`\beta `$, which is zero for spin 1 and $`>`$ 0 in the SM case, can contribute only very little to the spin measurement even if $`m_H`$ is in the range where $`\beta `$, in the SM case, is close to its maximum value. Nevertheless, $`\beta `$ can be useful to rule out a CP odd spin 0 particle.

The values of $`\alpha `$ get more widely separated when the correlation between the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ for the two Z Bosons and $`\varphi `$ is exploited. In Figure 8, we plot the parameters separately for $`sign(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)=sign(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)`$ (F11 + F22 in Table 2) and $`sign(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)=sign(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)`$ (F12 + F21 in Table 2). As can be seen, the difference in $`\alpha `$ becomes bigger for $`J=1`$ and $`\gamma _{CP}=+1`$. For higher masses $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the SM Higgs approach 0; thus only $`\alpha `$ can be used to measure the spin. But the measurement of R compensates this.

Figure 9 shows the significance, i. e. the difference of the expected values divided by the expected error of the SM Higgs. We add up the significance for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ exploiting the $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ \- $`\varphi `$ correlation and plot the significance from the polar angle measurement separately. For higher Higgs masses the decay plane angle correlation contributes almost nothing, but the polarisation leads to a good measurement of the parameters spin and CP-eigenvalue. For full luminosity (300 fb-1) the significance can simply be multiplied by $`\sqrt{3}`$. This is especially interesting for a Higgs mass of 200 GeV/c2. The Spin 1, CP even hypothesis can then be ruled out with a significance of 6.4$`\sigma `$, while for the Spin 1, CP odd case the significance is still only 3.9$`\sigma `$.

In conclusion, for Higgs masses larger than about 230 GeV/c2 a Spin 1 hypothesis can be clearly ruled out already with 100 fb-1. For mH around 200 GeV/c2 the distinction is less clear, and one will need the full integrated luminosity of the LHC. A spin-CP hypothesis of 0- can be ruled out with less than 100 fb$`{}_{}{}^{}1`$ for the whole mass range above and around 200 GeV/c2.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been performed within the ATLAS Collaboration, and we thank collaboration members for helpful discussions. We have made use of the physics analysis framework and tools which are the result of collaboration-wide efforts. This work was supported by the DFG-Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo-Simulation” and by the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.

## Appendix A Formulae for differential angular distributions

The most general coupling of a (pseudo) scalar Higgs boson to two on-shell Z-bosons is of the following form:

$$_{scalar}=𝐗\delta _{\mu \nu }+𝐘k_\mu k_\nu /M_h^2+i𝐏ϵ_{\mu \nu p_Zq_Z}/M_h^2$$
(4)
Here the momentum of the first Z-boson is $`p_Z^\mu `$, that of the second Z-boson is $`q_Z^\nu `$. The momentum of the Higgs boson is $`k`$ and $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the total antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ_{1234}=i`$. Within the Standard Model one has $`𝐗=1`$, $`𝐘=𝐏=0`$. For a pure pseudoscalar particle one has $`𝐏0,𝐗=𝐘=0`$. If both $`𝐏`$ and one of the other interactions are present, one cannot assign a definite parity to the Higgs boson.

The same formula for a (pseudo) vector with momentum $`k_\rho `$ reads:

$$_{vector}=𝐗(\delta _{\rho \mu }p_Z^\nu +\delta _{\rho \nu }q_Z^\mu )+𝐏(iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho p_Z}iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho q_Z})$$
(5)
It is to be noted that the coupling to the vector field actually contains only two parameters and is therefore simpler than to the scalar.

In the following we give the angular dependence of the triple differential cross section for the case of a scalar or vector Higgs decaying into two on-shell Z bosons which subsequently decay into two lepton pairs. The meaning of the angles $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$ is explained in Figure 1. $`p`$ is the absolute value of the momentum of the Z boson, $`p^2=(\frac{1}{2}M_h)^2M_Z^2`$. In the following we use the definitions $`x=\frac{M_h}{M_Z}`$ and $`y=\frac{p}{M_Z}`$. $`c_v`$ and $`c_a`$ are the vector and axial vector couplings: $`c_v=t_32q\mathrm{sin}(\theta _W)`$, $`c_a=t_3`$, where $`t_3`$ is the weak isospin, $`q`$ the charge of the fermion and $`\theta _W`$ the Weinberg angle. For our case, the values of $`c_v`$ and $`c_a`$ are $`c_v`$ = -0.0379 and $`c_a`$ = -0.5014.

### A.1 The general case

#### Scalar Higgs

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}\hfill \\ & 8\mathrm{𝐗𝐘}c_a^2c_v^2x^2(x^24)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & \mathrm{𝐗𝐘}(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2x^2(x^24)(2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+(x^22)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2)\hfill \\ & +16\mathrm{𝐗𝐏}c_a^2c_v^2xy(x^22)\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +4\mathrm{𝐗𝐏}(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2xy\mathrm{sin}\varphi (2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2+(x^22)\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\hfill \\ & +16𝐗^2c_a^2c_v^2x^2(2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)\hfill \\ & +𝐗^2(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2x^2\{4(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)+x^2(x^24)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\}\hfill \\ & 8\mathrm{𝐏𝐘}c_a^2c_v^2xy(x^24)\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & 2\mathrm{𝐏𝐘}(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2xy(x^24)\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +1/4𝐘^2(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2x^2(x^24)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ & +8𝐏^2c_a^2c_v^2(x^24)\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +𝐏^2(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(x^24)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2)\hfill \end{array}$$

#### Vector Higgs

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}\hfill \\ & 16\mathrm{𝐗𝐏}c_a^2c_v^2xy\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +4\mathrm{𝐗𝐏}(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2xy\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +4𝐗^2c_a^2c_v^2x^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +𝐗^2(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2x^2(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\hfill \\ & 4𝐏^2c_a^2c_v^2(x^24)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +𝐏^2(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(x^24)(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\hfill \end{array}$$

### A.2 The special cases

In this appendix we list the triple differential cross section for pure Higgs spin and CP states. In addition, we also give the differential cross sections, where some of the angular variables have been integrated over. F11, F12, F21, F22 refer to the different quadrants as defined in Chapter 4. The spin 0, CP even part only contains the pure SM contribution.

#### Spin 0, CP even

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& +16c_a^2c_v^2(2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)\hfill \\ & +(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2\{4(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)+x^2(x^24)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& +32c_a^2c_v^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2\{4(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)+(x^44x^2+2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{F11 = F22: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2(8+\pi ^2(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \\ & +4/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(x^44x^2+10+(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +4\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )\hfill \\ \hfill \text{F12 = F21: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2(8\pi ^2(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \\ & +4/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(x^44x^2+10(x^22)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +4\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )\hfill \end{array}$$

#### Spin 0, CP odd

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& +8c_a^2c_v^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2)\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& +16c_a^2c_v^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F11 = F22: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2+1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(52\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F12 = F21: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2+1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(52\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )\hfill \end{array}$$

#### Spin 1, CP even

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& +4c_a^2c_v^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& 1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F11 = F22: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& +c_a^2c_v^2\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(324\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F12 = F21: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& +c_a^2c_v^2\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(32+4\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \end{array}$$

#### Spin 1, CP odd

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& 4c_a^2c_v^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\hfill \\ & +(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}& 1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F11 = F22: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2)(32+4\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \\ \\ \hfill \text{F12 = F21: }\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }& c_a^2c_v^2\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +1/9(c_v^2+c_a^2)^2)(324\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\hfill \\ \end{array}$$