text:
# Do quantum nonlocal correlations imply information transfer?- A simple quantum optical test.

## I Introduction

Quantum information has opened up a new era in recent times both in fundamental and applied physics. Its nonclassical resources of quantum superposition and entanglement are at the heart of powerful future applications in communication  and computation . And yet, the fundamentally very important question whether the correlated measurements on entangled systems imply an ”action-at-a-distance” effect remains somehow unclear. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) thought that it did, which was the basis of their claim of quantum mechanical incompleteness . Quantum nonlocal correlations have been confirmed in experiments since the mid-1980’s performed both on spin entangled systems , based on the Bohm version  of the EPR thought-experiment, which are shown to violate Bell’s inequality , and also on systems entangled in continuous variables (Refs.  and references therein), where nonlocality is manifested in multi-particle interferences.

Bell’s celebrated theorem  tells us only that any realistic model of quantum mechanics should be nonlocal. Informed opinions diverge between on the one hand the view that quantum nonlocality implies no information transfer, but only a change in the mutual knowledge of the two nonlocal systems, to the acknowledgement on the other hand of a tension between quantum theory and special relativity . The tension stems from the possibility that the nonlocal correlations might imply a superluminal transfer of information. A majority of physicists in the field, it would seem, accept the scenario of a spacelike but causal enforcement of correlation, as for example in quantum dense coding . In this view, entanglement cannot be used to transmit classical signals nonlocally because statistically the single particle outcome at any one particle is not affected by measurements on its entangled parties . This understanding is echoed in statements of “a deep mystery” , and “peaceful coexistence”  between quantum nonlocality and special relativity.

In the present article, we propose a simple quantum optical experiment whose aim is to test in a philosophically unpredisposed way whether information transfer occurs in nonlocal systems.

## II A practical experiment

Figure 1 presents a ‘folded out’ plan of an experiment in which two observers, designated Alice and Bob, share entangled photons from a nonlinear crystal pumped by a suitable laser (eg., Ar laser in $`\lambda `$ 351.1 nm). The correlated photons are produced by spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) . Photons not down-converted are filtered out (not shown in Figure 1), leaving only entangled photon pairs to be shared between Alice and Bob.

Alice’s observes her photons through a lens of focal length $`f`$. It is positioned at distance $`2f`$ from the EPR source. By classical optics, coplanar rays that are parallel in front of her lens converge to a single point on the focal plane. A detection by Alice at some point on the focal plane on her side of the lens implies that Bob’s photon is left in a definite momentum state, but with its point of origin in the source indeterminate as expected on basis of the uncertainty principle. This has indeed been confirmed by observing an interference pattern in Bob’s photons detected in coincidence with Alice’s momentum measurement .

On the other hand, by positioning her detector at some point on the image plane of her lens, Alice images the source, and hence measures the point of origin of her photon, but here the momentum with which it left the source remains indeterminate. Bob’s photon is also left in a position eigenstate, with the position of its detection being correlated with that of Alice’s coincidentally detected photon . Bob is equipped with a Young’s double-slit interferometer and a direction filter permitting only horizontal momenta to reach Bob’s interferometer. The filter consists of two convex lenses, of radius $`R`$ and focal length $`g`$, sharing a focal plane. A diaphragm is placed at this plane, perforated with a small hole, of diameter $`h`$, at the point where the principal axis of the lenses intercepts the diaphragm.

Provided $`h/g\lambda /s`$, where $`s`$ is the interferometer slit-seperation, the permitted deviation from horizontality of the rays will not affect the fringe pattern observed on the interferometer screen. Bob’s interferometer is located at distance $`d`$.

According to the scheme of Figure 1, the general nonlocal multi-mode vacuum state of the photons in the experiment is given by:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{vac}+ϵ(|s_{po}i_{po}+|s_pi_{p+}+|s_{qo}i_{qo}+|s_qi_{q+}$$
(1)
where $`|\mathrm{vac}`$ is the vacuum ground state; $`s_{po}`$ and $`s_p`$ are the photon modes on the $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{down}}`$ signal (Alice’s) beams, emanating from point $`p`$ in the source, as shown in Figure 1, and $`i_{po}`$ and $`i_{p+}`$ are the photon modes on the $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{up}}`$ idler (Bob’s) beams, emanating from the same point in the source. Analogously, for the modes originating from point $`q`$ on the source, $`s_{qo}`$ and $`s_q`$ are the modes on the $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{down}}`$ signal beams, and $`i_{qo}`$ and $`i_{q+}`$ are the modes on Bob’s $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{up}}`$ idler beams. The quantity $`ϵ(1)`$ depends on the pump laser and nonlinearity in the downconverting crystal .

Because of the narrowness of the hole, a ray entering it diffracts to enter both slits $`u`$ and $`v`$ in the interferometer. In the Schrödinger picture, let the diffracting wavefunction, for some ray $`|X`$, be:

$$|X\alpha \left[\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)|u+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)|v\right]+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
where the $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate other points on the double-slit diaphragm where the photon could fall, but which do not concern us since they do not pass through the double slit. Here $`\alpha `$ $`(<1)`$ depends on $`h`$ and the cross-section of the slits, $`\varphi `$ is (some function of) $`|X`$’s angle of incidence on the diaphragm as measured from the $`+y`$-axis whose origin is at the hole. Note that for a ray perpendicular to the diaphragm, the amplitude for entering both slits is equal. Given the finite width of the downconverted beam, all of which Bob’s first lens is assumed to intercept, $`\varphi `$ will take values between some some $`\varphi _0`$ ($`>0`$) and $`180^{}\varphi _0`$.

By virtue of the direction filter, only the rays $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ can fall on Bob’s detector. As a result, the (positive mode) electric field $`E_B^{(+)}`$ at a point $`x`$ on Bob’s detector has contributions from two of the modes: $`i_{p0}`$ falling on the hole at some angle $`\varphi `$, and $`i_{q0}`$ at angle $`180\varphi `$. The phase for each ray depends on the distance along its path.

$`E_B^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \widehat{i}_{po}\left(\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(d^{}+\overline{ux})}+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(d^{}+\overline{vx})}\right)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\alpha \widehat{i}_{qo}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(d^{}+\overline{ux})}+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(d^{}+\overline{vx})}\right),`$ (4)
where the ”hatted” quantities represent corresponding annihilation operators, $`d^{}2g+\overline{KN}+\overline{Nv}=2g+\overline{LM}+\overline{Mu}`$, and the overline quantities are distances between the named points. The four terms in right hand side of Eq. (3) can be understood as follows. The first term is the product of three amplitudes: for beam $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$’s movement (a) from point $`p`$ to the hole, (b) from the hole to slit $`u`$, (c) from slit $`u`$ to point $`x`$ on Bob’s screen. Similarly with the other terms.

### A Alice measures position

Alice positions her detector on the image plane. A detection at point $`y`$ (Figure 1) means that the rays $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{down}}`$ were chosen on the signal beam. Alice knows that her photon originated at point $`p`$, but its momentum remains indeterminate between directions $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{down}}`$. Correspondingly, the idler photon is left in the correlated ray states $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{up}}`$.

The (positive mode) electric field, $`E_A^{(+)}`$, of Alice’s detector has a contribution from both signal rays, $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{down}}`$, that converge to $`y`$. Therefore, Alice’s detector is given by the field:

$$E_A^{(+)}=\widehat{s}_{po}e^{ik(2f+\overline{ry})}+\widehat{s}_pe^{ik(\overline{py})}.$$
(5)
The correlation function for Alice finding her photon at $`y`$ and Bob his at $`x`$ is $`E_A^{(+)}E_B^{(+)}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates an averaging over the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of Eq. (1).

$$E_A^{(+)}E_B^{(+)}=ϵ\alpha (\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(2f+\overline{ry}+d^{}+\overline{ux})}+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)e^{ik(2f+\overline{ry}+d^{}+\overline{vx})})$$
(6)
The probability $`P_{AB}`$ of coincident detections between these detectors is given by $`|E_A^{(+)}E_B^{(+)}|^2`$, which is:

$$P_{AB}=ϵ^2\alpha ^2[1+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\overline{ux}\overline{vx})].$$
(7)
In Eq. (7), the $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ term will be different for different localizations of Bob’s photon.

Bob’s observed intensity pattern will therefore be an averaged pattern over the closed interval $`\varphi [\varphi _0,180^{}\varphi _0]`$. Integrating over $`\varphi `$ and assuming for simplicity a flat profile for the converging beam distributed in this range (which is obtained for a laser profile that goes as $`g^1\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$), the ensemble intensity pattern that he finds on his screen is:

$$I_p=I_0ϵ^2\alpha ^2(1+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0))(\mathrm{cos}(\overline{ux}\overline{vx}),$$
(8)
where $`I_0`$ is the idler beam intensity. We note that the interference pattern is observed in the single (as against coincidence) count intensity. The reason is that $`P_{AB}`$ in Eq. (7) does not depend on any Alice variables, whose presence would have, upon being marginalized, resulted in washing out the interference pattern. This is made possible by Bob’s filter.

### B Alice measures momentum

Alice positions her detector on the focal plane. A detection at some point means that the signal beam is left with only parallel rays converging to this point. To obtain coincidence events, we need consider only signal rays converging to point $`m`$ in Figure 1, since Bob’s filter permits only rays entangled to them. A detection here implies that the rays $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ were chosen on the signal beam. Correspondingly, the idler photon is left in ray states corresponding to ray $`p_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$. Thus, Bob’s photon has a definite (horizontal) momentum, but its point of origin is indeterminate between $`p`$ and $`q`$.

Here Alice’s detector’s electric field is given by:

$$E_A^{(+)}=\widehat{s}_{po}e^{ik(2f+\overline{rm})}+\widehat{s}_{qo}e^{ik(2f+\overline{tm})}$$
(9)
Noting that $`\overline{rm}=\overline{tm}`$, we find: $`P_{AB}=|E_A^{(+)}E_B^{(+)}|^2`$ using Eqs. (1) and (3):

$$P_{AB}=2ϵ^2\alpha ^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right)[1+\mathrm{cos}(\overline{ux}\overline{vx})].$$
(10)
Here, too, $`P_{AB}`$ depends only on the path difference, $`\overline{ux}\overline{vx}`$, from the slits to $`x`$. It does not depend on any of Alice’s variables.

The intensity pattern observed by Bob in the single counts is therefore given by the function:

$$I_m=2I_0ϵ^2\alpha ^2(1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0)[1+\mathrm{cos}(\overline{ux}\overline{vx})].$$
(11)
This has a visibility function of 1.0 in contrast to $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0`$, found in the case of $`I_p`$ given in Eq. (8). Furthermore, $`I_m`$ is about twice more intense than $`I_p`$. Therefore the intensity and visibility of Bob’s single count interference pattern are affected by what Alice observes. She transmits one classical bit of information nonlocally.

The experiment is essentially a delayed choice experiment , as applied to entangled particles instead of a single particle. Alice forces Bob’s entangled particle to behave like a wave or particle by measuring a wave (i.e, momentum) or particle (i.e, path) property of her photon. The interesting part is that she may delay her choice of which aspect to manifest until after the photons have left the source.

A more dramatic demonstration of the signaling is obtained by minimizing diffraction at the hole by increasing size $`h`$. Position measurement by Alice will result in an idler ray passing through only one of the two slits. No interference will result. On the other hand, her momentum measurement will result in an interference because the optics will ensure that Bob’s photon passes through both slits thereby producing an interference. Thus, Bob simply checks for the presence or absence interference pattern to infer Alice’s action. One complication here is that a larger hole size would allow non-horizontal momenta to enter the interferometer, thereby reducing the visibility. Therefore the hole cannot be too large. The condition $`1h/\lambda g/s`$ ensures that these criteria are satisfied. But it could require larger $`g`$ than may be feasible for entangled beams of finite coherence length. Nevertheless, the origin of the signaling can be more simply understood for this case, as done in the next subsection.

## III Understanding the classical signal

The no-signaling theorem implies that statistically the outcomes for Bob’s particle is independent of Alice’s action . It is of interest to know how the above experiment circumvents it. The answer is basically that the proofs of no-signaling assume that both Alice and Bob make complete measurements, whereas in the above experiment, their interferometric measurement is incomplete, because a detection does not uniquely indicate an eigenmode. Furthermore, Bob employs a filter, which restricts his observation to the incomplete measurement projector $`\widehat{M}_B=|i_{p0}i_{p0}|+|i_{q0}i_{q0}|`$. Another factor is a subtlety concerning the scope of the complementarity principle in multi-particle interferences.

In a position measurement, Alice collapses $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with one of the incomplete measurement projectors $`\widehat{P}_1=|s_{p0}s_{p0}|+|s_ps_p|`$ and $`\widehat{P}_2=|s_{q0}s_{q0}|+|s_qs_q|`$. In a momentum measurement, her operators are $`\widehat{M}_1=|s_{p0}s_{p0}|+|s_{q0}s_{q0}|`$ or $`\widehat{M}_2=|s_ps_p|+|s_qs_q|`$. If Alice measures position, the state of photons observed by Bob is $`\widehat{M}_B\widehat{P}_i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This is given by the statistical mixture:

$$\rho _p=\frac{1}{2}\left(|s_{p0}i_{p0}s_{p0}i_{p0}|+|s_{q0}i_{q0}s_{q0}i_{q0}|\right).$$
(12)
As there are no cross-terms between the paths, Bob observes no interference in this case.

On the other hand, if Alice measures momentum, the state of photons observed by Bob is:

$$\widehat{M}_B\widehat{M}_1|\mathrm{\Psi }=(1/\sqrt{2})(|s_{p0}i_{p0}+|s_{q0}i_{q0}),$$
(13)
since $`\widehat{M}_B\widehat{M}_2|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. A direct application of complementarity would suggest that Bob’s rays $`|i_{p0}`$ and $`|i_{q0}`$ in Eq. (13) cannot produce an interference pattern because their entanglement with the signal photon, whose states $`|s_{p0}`$ and $`|s_{q0}`$ are mutually orthogonal, makes them distinguishable. This is equivalent to saying that interference is not possible because tracing over the signal states  in the density matrix $`\widehat{M}_B\widehat{M}_1|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{M}_1^{}\widehat{M}_B^{}`$ results in $`\rho _p`$. But this conclusion is not supported by the experimentally attested two-particle coincidence interferences . The more rigorous approach would be to analyze interference in terms of the phase accumulated by Bob’s particle’s wavefunction along each path, without reference to external states . Though complementarity is an excellent thumb-rule to elucidate many non-classical effects, it is essentially a qualitative idea, and its use warrents some caution .

The observation of two-particle interference implies that the phase contribution to the wavefunction on a path is accounted for by the distance traversed by a ray along its path. No phase (or uniform phase) is picked up at the detector. Bob’s filter-interferometer system is crucial as it ensures that only two horizontal modes are allowed (i.e, it implements $`\widehat{M}_B`$). This fixes the point of Alice’s detection in coincidences. Therefore, the relative phase in Bob’s wavefunction at the two slits remains constant, permitting the formation of an observable interference pattern on his screen. For the set-up in Figure 1, the relative phase vanishes. Classical signaling is the direct consequence of the distinguishability of $`\widehat{M}_B\widehat{M}_1|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Eq. (13) from $`\rho _p`$ in Eq. (12). We note that the single mode probabilities for states $`|i_{p0}`$ and $`|i_{q0}`$ are the same for both cases. Thus, the no-signaling theorem, within the scope of its implicit assumption, is not violated. Also, for the same reason, no violation of probability conservation occurs.

## IV Discussion

The above experiment aims to prove a much stronger condition about nonlocal correlations than does Bell’s theorem, in two ways. First: unlike Bell’s theorem, it does not assume the reality of underlying variables; just the tested principles of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics suffice. Second: the nonlocal influence is shown to transmit classical information, which means that the correlations are not uncontrollable. Of course, this leads to the problematic situation that the effective speed $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the transmission of this nonlocal classical signal can be made arbitrarily large. In one sense this need not be surprising: for quantum mechanics is a non-relativistic theory. The no-signaling theorem is based on quantum mechanical unitarity and assumptions of quantum measurement rather than relativisitc signal locality. If the instant of Alice’s choice is $`t_a`$ and that of Bob’s measurement is $`t_b`$, where $`t_bt_a`$, then $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}=(d+4f)/(t_bt_a)`$, where the upper limit occurs in the situation where Alice delays her choice until just before her photon reaches her. Since this can be made arbitrarily large by increasing $`4f`$ and $`d`$ and/or decreasing the time difference, suggesting that nonlocality does not prohibit a superluminal classical signal, it is of interest to examine factors inhibiting such a possibility.

The situation is not improved by considering a no-collapse scenario like the relative-state (or many-worlds) interpretation , because each branching universe would have to contend with the classical signal. Requiring collapse to be subluminal (even simply non-instantaneous) would imply significant changes to quantum theory, and furthermore permit non-conservation of entangled quantities. By demonstrating a classical transfer of information, the above experiments would corraborate the objective nature of state vector reduction.

It appears that to restore causality we would need the light to somehow decohere into disentangled momentum pointer states  before reaching Bob’s double-slit so that he will always find a Young’s double-slit interference pattern irrespective of Alice’s action. But it is not clear how such a decoherence can be brought about. Perhaps somehow spacetime itself would act as a measuring environment to the system, thereby decohering it, in order to safeguard its own causal structure? Such an explanation is related to an incompleteness in quantum mechanics as a formal axiomatic theory , and would probably require new axioms in the theory. But it would also reveal an unexpected connection between quantum information and decoherence. In any case, the technical feasibility of the above described thought experiment permits a facile test for nonlocal communication of the type claimed in this paper.

## V Conclusion

The question raised in the title of this article is answered in the affirmative. It is unclear how this is to be reconciled with signal locality. Perhaps this points to the need for new physics to understand state vector ”collapse”, more so in nonlocal cases.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am thankful to Dr. R. Tumulka, Dr. R. Plaga, Dr. M. Steiner, Dr. J. Finkelstein and Dr. C. S. Unnikrishnan for their constructive criticism. I thank Ms. Regina Jorgenson for her valuable suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Precision Electroweak Measurements

## Introduction

The motivations to perform precision electroweak measurements today are as strong as ever. Today’s generation of experiments now have data of such precision that the electroweak measurements are probing the quantum corrections to the SM, otherwise known as radiative corrections. These are tested by a wide variety of measurements ranging from the muon magnetic moment to precision measurements at the Z pole and above in $`\mathrm{e}^+e^{}`$ collisions, as well as precision measurements at hadron colliders. This talk is not an exhaustive survey but rather a biased summary of recent and new results, in particular: those which have an influence on the indirect determination of the Higgs mass, and those which are devised to be extremely stringent tests of the SM.

The measurements that are described here and which enter the first category are: the Z line shape and branching ratio measurements as well as the Z peak asymmetries from which $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is extracted, the W mass, the top quark mass, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}=1m_\mathrm{W}^2/m_\mathrm{Z}^2`$ at NuTeV and $`\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$. The relation between the electroweak quantities are affected by radiative corrections. The most precisely known quantities being $`\alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$, $`G_F`$ and $`m_\mathrm{Z}^2`$, the W mass is related to them as follows

$`m_\mathrm{W}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)}{\sqrt{2}G_F(1m_\mathrm{W}^2/m_\mathrm{Z}^2)(1\mathrm{\Delta }r^{\mathrm{e}w})}}`$ (1)
and the effective weak mixing angle, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}=(1/4)(1g_V^{\mathrm{}}/g_A^{\mathrm{}})`$, by the relation

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)}{\sqrt{2}G_Fm_\mathrm{Z}^2(1+ϵ_1)(1ϵ_3/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})}},`$ (2)
where $`ϵ_1`$, $`ϵ_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r^{\mathrm{e}w}=f(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3)`$ are the radiative corrections. They are functions of $`m_{\mathrm{t}op}^2`$ and of $`\mathrm{log}(m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}/m_\mathrm{Z})`$. The W mass and effective weak mixing angle measurements help to constrain the yet unobserved Higgs mass. Still, it can be deduced from the above expressions that reducing the error on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$ will constrain $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}`$ even more particularly if the error on $`\alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$ is reduced simultaneously. The same relationship exists between the W mass and the top quark mass: reducing the experimental errors simultaneously will help to constrain the Higgs mass better.

The measurements which enter the second category are: the Z measurements from which Universality tests are performed, fermion pair production and asymmetries from the LEPII $`\mathrm{e}^+e^{}`$ collider above the Z pole, W production and decays, gauge boson self-interactions and atomic parity violation. These measurements stringently test family Universality, Universality of weak neutral and charged current couplings, symmetry breaking and radiative corrections.

## Z Best of Both Worlds

The measurements described in the following sections were made at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders: at SLC using the SLD detector, and at LEP using the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL detectors, at the Z pole and above in the case of LEPII. Approximately $`4\times 10^6`$ Zs were accumulated per LEP experiment, while 555k Zs were taken at SLD using a polarized electron beam. The measurements help to constrain the Higgs mass and serve as stringent tests of the SM. The Z electroweak observables (at the Z peak, after QED corrections) are

* Line Shape: $`m_\mathrm{Z},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z},\sigma _\mathrm{h}^0=12\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{e}e}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{h}ad}/(m_\mathrm{Z}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$
* Branching Ratios: $`R_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{h}ad}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}},R_\mathrm{b}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{b}\overline{b}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{h}ad}\mathrm{a}ndR_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{c}\overline{c}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{h}ad}`$
* Unpolarized FB Asymmetries for $`f=\mathrm{},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}`$: $`A_{FB}^f=\frac{\sigma _F^f\sigma _B^f}{\sigma _F^f+\sigma _B^f}=0.75A_\mathrm{e}A_\mathrm{f}`$
* Polarization of $`\tau `$ leptons:

$$𝒫_\tau (\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{\sigma _R\sigma _L}{\sigma _R+\sigma _L}=\frac{A_\tau (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+2A_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +2A_\tau A_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cos}\theta }$$
* Left-Right Asymmetry:

$$A_{LR}^m=\frac{\sigma ^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)\sigma ^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)}{\sigma ^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)+\sigma ^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)}=𝒫_\mathrm{e}A_{LR}^0=𝒫_\mathrm{e}A_\mathrm{e}fe$$
* Left-Right FB Asymmetries for $`f=\mathrm{},\mathrm{b},c,s`$:

$$A_{\mathrm{F}B}^{\mathrm{p}ol}=\frac{\sigma _F^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)\sigma _B^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)\sigma _F^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)+\sigma _B^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)}{\sigma _F^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)+\sigma _B^f(|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)+\sigma _F^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)+\sigma _B^f(+|𝒫_\mathrm{e}|)}=0.75𝒫_\mathrm{e}A_\mathrm{f}$$

### Z Resonance Parameters at LEP

The Z resonance parameters ($`m_\mathrm{Z}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}^0`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$) are measured at LEP using $`\mathrm{q}\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ event samples collected during scans of the Z peak. Since the lepton asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{F}B}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are sensitive functions of $`\sqrt{s}`$, they are also extracted from a simultaneous fit to the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ lineshape data. The SM values are used for the $`\mathrm{Z}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ cross sections and the radiatively corrected lineshape functions are fit to data.

Combining the results from the four LEP experiments and for all years, assuming lepton Universality \[?\]: $`m_\mathrm{Z}=91.1871\pm .0021(.0017\mathrm{s}yst)`$ (SM: 91.18692) GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}=2.4944\pm .0024(.0013\mathrm{s}yst)`$ (SM: 2.49589) GeV, $`\sigma _h^0=41.544\pm .037(.035\mathrm{s}yst)`$ (SM: 41.4804) nb, $`R_{\mathrm{}}=20.768\pm .024(.017\mathrm{s}yst)`$ (SM: 20.7394), $`A_{\mathrm{F}B}^{0,\mathrm{}}=.01701\pm .00095(.00060\mathrm{s}yst)`$ (SM: .016342).

The dominant sources of systematic uncertainties are the normalization of the cross sections, the knowledge of the center-of-mass energy $`\mathrm{E}_{cm}`$ and the QED radiative corrections to the line shape function.

### Left-Right Asymmetry at SLD

This is a powerful, almost systematic free measurement made using a polarized electron beam ($`𝒫_\mathrm{e}`$=22% in 1992; 63% in 1993; 73 to 78% from 1994 to 1997). The helicity of the polarized electrons is changed pulse to pulse. A feedback system keeps the left and right-handed electron currents equal to $`10^4`$. The left and right-handed luminosities are equal to very good approximation. The asymmetry is defined as $`A_{\mathrm{L}R}^0=(1/𝒫_\mathrm{e})[N_\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{L})N_\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{R})]/[N_\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{L})+N_\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{R})]=A_\mathrm{e}`$ where $`N_\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{L},R)`$ are the number of hadronically decaying Zs counted with left and right-handed electron beams. $`A_\mathrm{e}`$ is a function of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$: $`A_\mathrm{e}=[2(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}})]/[1+(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}})^2]`$, such that the $`A_{\mathrm{L}R}`$ measurement is translated into an effective weak mixing angle measurement \[?\]

$$A_{\mathrm{L}R}=.15108\pm .00218\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}=.23101\pm .00028(.00018\mathrm{s}yst)(\mathrm{S}M:.23145).$$

The dominant sources of systematic uncertainties are the electron polarization and the center-of-mass energy. As a cross check, the polarization of the positron beam was measured, and it was found to be consistent with zero: $`𝒫_{\mathrm{e}^+}=.02\pm .07\%`$.

### Z Summed Up

The lineshape parameters are used to extract the partial decay widths \[?\]: not assuming lepton Universality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{e}e}=83.90\pm .12`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \mu }=83.96\pm .18`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }=84.05\pm .22`$ MeV; assuming lepton Universality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=83.96\pm .09`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{h}ad}=1743.9\pm 2.0`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{i}nvisible}=498.8\pm 1.5`$ MeV. Taking the measured value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{i}nvisible}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=5.941\pm .016`$ and dividing it by the SM expectation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \nu }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=1.9912\pm .0012`$, the number of neutrino families is extracted: $`N_\nu =2.9835\pm .0083`$. Converted into a 95% C.L. upper limit on an additional invisible width assuming $`N_\nu =3`$ gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{i}nvisible}<2.0\mathrm{M}eV`$.

From the leptonic widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=(1+3\alpha /4\pi )(G_Fm_\mathrm{Z}^3/24\pi \sqrt{2})[1+(g_V^{\mathrm{}}/g_A^{\mathrm{}})^2](1+ϵ_1)`$ and asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{}}=2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}/(g_V^{\mathrm{}2}+g_A^{\mathrm{}2})`$, the vector and axial vector coupling ratios are determined \[?\]: $`g_A^\mu /g_A^\mathrm{e}=1.0001\pm .0014`$, $`g_V^\mu /g_V^\mathrm{e}=0.981\pm .082`$, $`g_A^\tau /g_A^\mathrm{e}=1.0019\pm .0015`$ and $`g_V^\tau /g_V^\mathrm{e}=0.964\pm .032`$, consistent with Universality of the leptonic weak neutral couplings.

The effective weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is extracted from the SLD and LEP Z-pole leptonic asymmetries. The asymmetries entering the world average (LEP+SLD) effective weak mixing angle determination are presented in Figure 1 \[?\].

The LEP quark asymmetry measurement $`A_{fb}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ and the SLD leptonic asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ differ by $`3\sigma `$. This discrepency remains unresolved: possibly a statistical fluctuation, or an unkown systematic effect, or new physics. Nonetheless. $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$ remains the strongest constraint on the Higgs mass today.

### Fermion Pair Production and Asymmetries at LEPII

Fermion pairs are produced through the radiative return diagram, when an initial state photon is emitted and the effective center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is approximately equal to the Z mass, and through the non-radiative diagram, when $`\sqrt{s^{}/s}>0.85`$. The cross section and asymmetries are determined for these non-radiative events. From these measurements, limits on a wide range of physics scenarios can be set.

For example, the cross sections and asymmetries for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states can be used to set limits on contact interactions between leptons expected to occur in the presence of composite fermions. These interactions are parametrised by an effective Lagrangian which is added to the SM one: $`_{\mathrm{e}ff}=[g^2\eta /(1+\delta )\mathrm{\Lambda }^2]_{i,j=L,R}\eta _{ij}[\overline{\mathrm{e}}_i\gamma _\mu \mathrm{e}_i][\overline{\mathrm{f}}_j\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{f}_j]`$, where $`g^2/4\pi =1`$ by convention, $`\eta =\pm `$ defines a constructive or destructive interference with the SM, $`\delta =1(0)`$ for $`\mathrm{f}=e(fe)`$, $`\eta _{ij}=\pm 1,0`$ is the helicity coupling between initial and final state, $`\mathrm{e}_{L,R}`$, $`\mathrm{f}_{L,R}`$ are the left and right-handed spinors, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale of the contact interactions.

For all LEP results combined, the excluded values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for models leading to large deviations in $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states are \[?\]: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{A}A}^{(+,)}<(17.6,13.9)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{V}V}^{(+,)}<(20.4,17.2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{R}R}^{(+,)}<(12.3,9.7)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{L}L}^{(+,)}<(12.8,10.2)`$ TeV, where $`\eta _{LL}=1,1,0,1`$, $`\eta _{RR}=1,1,1,0`$, $`\eta _{LR}=1,1,0,0`$ and $`\eta _{RL}=1,1,0,0`$ for the AA, VV, RR and LL models respectively.

## W Bosons on Tour

W boson related measurements were performed by the UA1 and UA2 experiments at the SPS collider ($`\mathrm{p}\overline{p}`$, $`E_{cm}=630`$ GeV, $`_{\mathrm{i}nt}12pb^1/expt.`$), at the Tevatron by the CDF and D0 experiments ($`\mathrm{p}\overline{p}`$, $`E_{cm}=1.8`$ TeV, $`_{\mathrm{i}nt}120pb^1/expt.`$), and at LEPII ($`\mathrm{e}^+e^{}`$, $`E_{cm}=161209`$ GeV, $`_{\mathrm{i}nt}>500pb^1/expt.`$). The W electroweak observables described here are: the W production and decays, the gauge boson self interactions and the W mass and width. These observables help to constrain the Higgs mass or serve as stringent tests of the SM.

### W Pair Production and Decays at LEPII

W pairs are produced via the t-channel neutrino exchange and via the s-channel $`\gamma Z`$ interference. The cross section is measured by the four LEP experiments for all decay channels: the fully hadronic channel (4q; BR$``$46%), the semileptonic channel ($`\mathrm{}\nu q\overline{q}`$; BR$``$43%), and the fully leptonic channel ($`\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$; BR$``$11%). The combined measurements are shown in Figure 2 as a function of the center-of-mass energy \[?\]. The curves correspond to three calculations of the cross section: the two lower curve calculations (top:YSFWW3; bottom:RacoonWW) contain non leading $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ terms, whereas the upper curve calculation (Gentle) does not. The $`\chi ^2`$/dof for data versus Gentle is 11.6/6, whereas that of data versus Racoon is 5.6/6.

The branching ratio measurements from LEPII and the Tevatron $`\mathrm{B}R(We\nu )`$ measurement are consistent with Universality of the leptonic weak charged current \[?,?\]: $`\mathrm{B}R(We\nu )=10.63\pm 0.20\%`$, $`\mathrm{B}R(We\nu )(Tevatron)=10.43\pm 0.25\%`$, $`\mathrm{B}R(W\mu \nu )=10.56\pm 0.19\%`$, $`\mathrm{B}R(W\tau \nu )=11.02\pm 0.26\%`$. The result from LEPII assuming lepton Universality is given by: $`\mathrm{B}R(W\mathrm{}\nu )=10.71\pm 0.10\%`$, $`\mathrm{B}R(Wq\overline{q})=67.85\pm 0.33\%`$.

Using the measured hadronic branching ratio, the following relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{qq}}}{1\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{qq}}}}=(|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{cd}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{cs}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2+|V_{cb}|^2)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_\mathrm{W}^2)}{\pi }})`$ (3)
and the known values of the other CKM matrix elements, one finds $`|V_{cs}|=.993\pm .016`$ \[?\]. This improves by a factor of ten the precision of the PDG value, which is also obtained without requiring Unitarity of the CKM matrix.

### Gauge Boson Self Interactions

Any deviation from the SM prediction for gauge boson self-interactions is a true indication of non-SM physics and could indicate W compositeness. Triply charged (TGC), neutral or quartic gauge couplings have been investigated. Only the TGCs are discussed here. The general Lagrangian for TGCs contains 14 parameters. By requiring C, P and CP invariance and $`\mathrm{U}(1)_{em}`$ invariance ($`\mathrm{q}_W=e`$), 5 free parameters are left. Measurements made at LEP at the Z pole set bounds on the couplings. Finally, by requiring the additional $`\mathrm{S}U(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ invariance, three couplings are left: $`\kappa _\gamma `$, $`g_1^\mathrm{Z}`$ and $`\lambda _\gamma `$ where the SM predictions are 1, 1, 0. $`g_1^\mathrm{Z}`$ is the coupling strength of the W to the Z. $`\kappa _\gamma `$ and $`\lambda _\gamma `$ define the magnetic moment and the electric quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{W}^+`$: $`\mu _{\mathrm{W}^+}=(\mathrm{e}/2m_\mathrm{W})(1+\kappa _\gamma +\lambda _\gamma )`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{W}^+}=(\mathrm{e}/m_\mathrm{W}^2)(\kappa _\gamma \lambda _\gamma )`$.

#### At Tevatron

Limits on TGCs are set by looking at the $`p_T^\mathrm{}\nu `$ distribution of $`\mathrm{W}W,WZ(e,\mu )+\nu +jets`$ events ($`\lambda ,\kappa `$), the cross section of $`\mathrm{W}Z(e,\mu )+\nu +ee`$ events ($`\lambda ,g_1`$), the $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}`$ distribution of $`\mathrm{W}Wdileptons`$ events ($`\lambda ,\kappa `$), and the $`E_T^\gamma `$ distribution of $`\mathrm{W}\gamma (e,\mu )+\nu +\gamma `$ events ($`\lambda ,\kappa `$). Any excess of events is an indication for anomalous TGCs. Since the cross section with non-SM couplings increases with $`s`$, to avoid Unitarity violation, the anomalous couplings are expressed as form factors with a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ e.g. $`\lambda _V(s)=\lambda _V/(1+s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^2`$. Under the assumption that the WW$`\gamma `$ couplings equal the WWZ couplings, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.0`$ TeV, the one dimensional 95% C.L. limits are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _\gamma =(0.25,0.39)`$ and $`\lambda _\gamma =(0.18,0.19)`$ \[?\], where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ indicates the deviation with respect to the SM prediction. Assuming the WW$`\gamma `$ couplings are at the SM value, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.0`$ TeV, the one dimensional 95% C.L. limit is $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_1^\mathrm{Z}=(0.37,0.57)`$ \[?\].

#### At LEPII

Limits on TGCs are set through measurements of the cross section and W production and decay angles for WW events ($`\kappa ,g_1,\lambda `$), and through measurements of the cross section, energy and $`\theta `$ of the lepton, jets or $`\gamma `$, for single W or single $`\gamma `$ events ($`\kappa ,\lambda `$). The largest sensitivity comes from the measurement of the W production and decay angles for WW events decaying semileptonically. The one dimensional 95% C.L. limits for the four LEP experiments combined are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _\gamma =(0.09,0.15)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_1^\mathrm{Z}=(0.071,0.024)`$ and $`\lambda _\gamma =(0.066,0.035)`$ \[?\].

### W Mass and Width

#### At Tevatron

Single Ws are produced in $`\mathrm{q}\overline{q}`$ annihilations of the proton and anti-proton valence quarks. The W hadronic decays are lost in the QCD di-jet background and thus only leptonic decays are used for the measurement. The longitudinal information is lost at large $`\eta `$ due to high background and lack of instrumentation, such that transverse quantities are used to determine the W mass. Two complementary variables are the transverse mass $`m_T=\sqrt{2p_T^{\mathrm{}}/E_T(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\stackrel{}{/E_T}\stackrel{}{p_T^{\mathrm{}}}})}`$ and the transverse momentum of the lepton $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}`$. $`m_T`$ and $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}`$ are respectively, to first order independent and linearly dependent, of $`p_T^\mathrm{W}`$. They are less-more sensitive to the W production process, and more-less sensitive to detector resolutions. A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the W production, decay and detector response is used to generate the $`m_T`$ and $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}`$ distributions as a function of $`m_\mathrm{W}^{true}`$. Today’s Tevatron W mass is $`m_\mathrm{W}=80.450\pm .063(.040\mathrm{s}tat;.049\mathrm{s}yst)`$ GeV (CDF: $`80.433\pm .079`$ ; D0: $`80.474\pm .093`$) \[?\]. The W width is extracted from a fit to the high end of the $`m_T`$ distribution by CDF $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}=2.06\pm .13`$ GeV \[?\].

The main systematics originate from the uncertainty on the energy response and resolution, and on the $`p_T`$ and $`/E_T`$ MC modelling. Since Z events are needed to set the energy-momentum scales and the W $`p_T`$ and $`/E_T`$ models, the systematic uncertainties are dominated by the limited Z statistics.

#### At LEPII

The W mass can be extracted via three different methods at LEPII. The first is a measurement of the W pair production cross section at the threshold center-of-mass energy (161 GeV). At this energy, the cross section is most sensitive to the W mass.

In the second method, the lepton energy spectrum of the fully leptonic or semileptonic events is measured: its endpoints are a function of the W mass $`E_\pm ^{\mathrm{}}=(\sqrt{s}/4)(1\pm \sqrt{14m_\mathrm{W}^2/s})`$.

Finally, the direct reconstruction is the third and most powerful method. Only the fully leptonic events are not used here because they are underconstrained and the invariant mass of the Ws cannot be unambiguously determined. The center-of-mass energy is known very precisely and acts as a very strong constraint. The invariant mass is determined using a five or two constraint kinematic fit, for 4q or semileptonic events respectively. In addition, the 4q events require a jet pairing algorithm to determine which jets correspond to which W. Bad pairings bring about combinatorial background and contain little or no information on the W mass. A convolution or binned likelihood method is used to extract the W mass from the invariant mass distribution. Combining the direct reconstruction results from the four LEP experiments gives $`m_\mathrm{W}=80.401\pm .048(.027\mathrm{s}tat;.040\mathrm{s}yst)`$ GeV (Aleph: $`80.449\pm .065`$; Delphi: $`80.308\pm .090`$; L3: $`80.353\pm .088`$; Opal: $`80.446\pm .065`$) \[?\]. The W width and mass are extracted simultaneously in a two dimensional fit and the LEP combined result for the width is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}=2.19\pm .15`$ GeV \[?\]. The main systematics originate from the uncertainties on the LEP center-of-mass energy (17 MeV), the final state interactions (18 MeV), and the fragmentation (28 MeV).

Combining all results from all methods at LEPII with the Tevatron and UA2 results, the world average is given by \[?\]

$$m_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{W}A}=80.419\pm .038\mathrm{G}eV.$$

## Top Mass at Tevatron

The top quark was discovered at Tevatron in 1995. Its mass is measured with a precision of 3% and makes it the most precisely known quark mass. The top mass measurement strongly constrains the Higgs mass, since the radiative corrections are functions of both of these parameters.

Top quark pairs are produced through $`\mathrm{q}\overline{q}`$ annihilation into a gluon which splits into a $`\mathrm{t}\overline{t}`$ pair. The gluon is not a colour singlet, such that colour strings are allowed to form between the top and the anti-top. This colour crosstalk is difficult to model and is one of the main sources of systematic uncertainties. The top (anti-top) then decays almost exclusively into a b (anti-b) quark and a W boson, and the W decays either hadronically or leptonically.

The combined CDF and D0 error on the top mass for the all hadronic channel, when both Ws decay hadronically (BR$``$44%, Signal/Noise$``$1/4), is approximately $`8.5(7stat)`$ GeV. The invariant mass of the top decay products is determined in a three constraint kinematic fit. The di-lepton channel (BR$``$5%, S/N$``$4) has approximately the same precision and statistical weight. The events are underconstrained such that no invariant mass can be calculated. In this case, the decay dynamics of the data is compared with the MC expectation e.g. using the $`p_\nu `$ distribution. The top mass determined from the lepton+jet channel (BR$``$30%, S/N$``$1) has an error of $`5.5(4stat)`$ GeV, corresponding to a statistical weight of $``$80% in the average. A two constraint kinematic fit is used to determine the invariant mass of the top quark decay products. The Tevatron top mass, for all channels and for CDF and D0 combined, is \[?\]

$$m_{\mathrm{t}op}=174.3\pm 5.1(3.2\mathrm{s}tat;4.0\mathrm{s}yst)\mathrm{G}eV$$

with CDF: $`176.0\pm 6.5`$ GeV and D0: $`172.1\pm 7.1`$ GeV. The main systematics originate from the uncertainties on the jet energy scale, and on the MC modelling of the QCD effects.

## $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ at NuTeV

The weak mixing angle has been measured by CCFR and more recently by NuTeV, at Fermilab. Early determinations of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ gave the SM’s successful prediction of $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$. More precise measurements gave the first useful limits on the top quark mass. The most recent results are the most precise to date and help to constrain the Higgs mass.

The Lewellyn Smith relation $`\mathrm{R}^\nu =NC/CC=f(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,\chi )`$ can be used to extract $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$. NC (CC) is the number of neutral (charged) current events, and $`\chi `$ is the effect of the sea quark scattering e.g. the charm quark mass. Unfortunately, $`\chi `$ is the largest source of systematic uncertainties. NuTeV rather uses the Paschos Wolfenstein relation $`\mathrm{R}^{}=(NC^\nu NC^{\overline{\nu }})/(CC^\nu CC^{\overline{\nu }})=(R^\nu rR^{\overline{\nu }})/(1r)=1/2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ where $`\mathrm{r}=CC^{\overline{\nu }}/CC^\nu `$. Using this relation, almost all sensitivity to $`\chi `$ cancels out but separate $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ beams are needed. These are supplied by the FNAL sign selected quadrupole train which selects mesons of the appropriate sign. Contamination of the beams remains small: $`<`$1/1000 ($`<`$1/500) of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ ($`\nu _\mu `$) in the $`\nu _\mu `$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) beam; 1.3% (1.1%) of $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ in the $`\nu _\mu `$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) beam.

The NC and CC events are characterized by their event length: CCs produce long event length muons, whereas NCs produce short hadronic showers. For $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ separately, NuTeV measures $`\mathrm{R}_{\nu (\overline{\nu })}^{meas}=`$ $`[\mathrm{\#}shortevtsin\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu )mode]/`$ $`[\mathrm{\#}longevtsin\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu )mode]`$. $`\mathrm{R}_{MC}^\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{R}_{MC}^{\overline{\nu }}`$ are both functions of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\chi `$. The relation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}^{}=R^\nu xR^{\overline{\nu }}`$ is minimized with respect to $`\chi `$, giving $`x=.5136`$. $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ is then varied until $`\stackrel{~}{}R_{\mathrm{M}C}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mathrm{d}ata}`$. For $`m_{\mathrm{t}op}=175`$ GeV and $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}=150`$ GeV \[?\]

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}=1m_\mathrm{W}^2/m_\mathrm{Z}^2=.2253\pm .0021(.0018\mathrm{s}tat;.0010\mathrm{s}yst)(\mathrm{S}M:.2227)$$

with residual dependence on $`m_{\mathrm{t}op}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}`$: $`\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}=.00435[(m_\mathrm{t}/175)^21]+.00048\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{H}/150)`$ with $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{H}`$ in GeV. This translates into a value of the W mass: $`m_\mathrm{W}=80.26\pm .11\mathrm{G}eV.`$

## Extra Beautiful Measurements

A precise determination of $`\alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$ becomes extremely important in the context of the electroweak fits. From Equation 1, one can deduce that the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$ limits the precision on $`\mathrm{log}m_\mathrm{H}`$ via the radiative corrections $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$.

A precise measurement of the muon magnetic moment is also of great importance. The relation between the $`\mu `$ magnetic moment and the spin is given by $`\stackrel{}{\mu }=g(\mathrm{e}/m)\stackrel{}{s}`$. Radiative corrections bring deviations from $`g=2`$, defined as $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$, but these could also originate from non-SM effects.

Thirdly, the Cesium atomic parity violation measurement is discussed.

### In the case of $`\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$

The electromagnetic constant at center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ can be written as \[?\] $`\alpha (s)=\alpha (0)/[1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{l}ept}(s)\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{h}ad}(s)]`$. The leptonic contribution is precisely calculated to three loop order: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{l}ept}(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)=314.97686\times 10^4`$. The hadronic vacuum polarization term has the largest uncertainty and is determined via a dispersion integral: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{h}ad}(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)=[\alpha (0)m_\mathrm{Z}^2/3\pi ]Re_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\{R(s)/[s(sm_\mathrm{Z}^2)iϵ]\}`$, where $`R(s)=\sigma _{\mathrm{e}ehad}/\sigma _{\mathrm{e}e\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$. $`R(s)`$ is measured from $`\mathrm{e}^+e^{}hadron`$ data for $`\sqrt{s}<40`$ GeV, and is evaluated using perturbative QCD (PQCD) for $`\sqrt{s}>40`$ GeV, giving $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{h}ad}=(280\pm 7)\times 10^4`$. Summing these results, one obtains $`\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)=128.902\pm .090`$, which in today’s electroweak fits translates into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}m_\mathrm{H}=\pm .30`$.

However, it is possible to reduce the error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{h}ad}`$ by taking more data at $`\sqrt{s}=0.35.0`$ GeV, by using PQCD down to $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ GeV and by applying theory constraints from QCD sum rules \[?\]. These steps should bring the error down to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=\pm .02`$, which would translate into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}m_\mathrm{H}=\pm .20`$.

$`\mathrm{e}^+e^{}hadron`$ data are presently being taken by various experiments, in particular by BESII in China ($`2<\sqrt{s}<5\mathrm{G}eV`$), and by CMD-2 and SND in Novosibirsk ($`0.6<\sqrt{s}<1.4\mathrm{G}eV`$). The first run of BESII in 1998 has brought the error on $`R(s)`$ from 15-20% down to 7% \[?\]. Combining the Novosibirsk and BESII data, a 1999 preliminary evaluation has given $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2).035`$. An update will be presented this summer (2000).

### In the case of $`(g2)_\mu `$ at E821 BNL

Both experimentally and theoretically, $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$ is known with a precision of $`10^9`$. Theoretically, it is senstitive to large energy scales and to very high order radiative corrections. Its precision is limited by second order loop effects from the hadronic vacuum polarization. Experimentally, it is extremely sensitive to new physics.

The theoretical expression can be written as $`a_\mu =a_\mu ^{\mathrm{q}ed}+a_\mu ^{\mathrm{w}eak}+a_\mu ^{\mathrm{h}ad}`$. As in the case of $`\alpha ^1`$, the hadronic contribution has the largest uncertainty. Today’s theoretical calculation gives $`a_\mu (SM)=(\mathrm{116\; 591\; 594.7}\pm 70)\times 10^{11}`$ \[?\]. Experimentally, $`a_\mu `$ is being measured at BNL by the E821 $`g2`$ experiment. A 3.1 GeV $`\pi `$ beam from the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron is used. The E821 goal is to achieve a precision of $`\pm 40\times 10^{11}`$. The present day world average on $`a_\mu `$ is $`(\mathrm{116\; 592\; 050}\pm 450)\times 10^{11}`$.

The polarized muons from the decay $`\pi \mu `$ move in a uniform $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ field which is $``$ to the muon spin $`\stackrel{}{s}_\mu `$ and to the orbit plane. A quadrupole electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is used for vertical focusing. The spin precession $`\omega _s`$ minus the cyclotron frequency $`\omega _c`$ is given by $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_a=(\mathrm{e}/m)\{a_\mu \stackrel{}{B}[a_\mu 1/(\gamma ^21)]\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{E}\}`$. The second term in the brace cancels out for muons with the magic $`\gamma _\mu =29.3p_\mu =3.01\mathrm{G}eV`$. This is exactly the energy chosen for the experiment. The decay time spectrum of the positrons from the decay $`\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ is given by $`N_0e^{t/\gamma \tau }[1+A(E)cos(\omega _at+\varphi (E))]`$. One counts the number of positrons versus time and fits the above relation to extract $`\omega _a`$.

Any deviation from the SM prediction could be interpreted as new physics e.g. muon sub structure, W compositeness, SuperSymmetry.

### Atomic Parity Violation in Cesium

The atom is not a purely electromagnetic system. Parity violation can occur inside the atom. In order to detect this violation, the atoms in a gas are first given a preferential handedness e.g.right. Some suitable property is measured. The handedness is then reversed e.g.left, and the property is measured again. If the results of the two measurements differ, then parity is violated. The left-right asymmetry is expressed as $`A_{LR}Z^3/m_\mathrm{Z}^2`$, where $`Z`$ in the numerator is the number of protons in the atom. The asymmetry is very small due to the large Z mass in the denominator. Cesium (Cs) 55 has been chosen because it has a reliable atomic structure calculation, it has one electron in its outer shell, and the remaining 54 electrons are tightly bound around the nucleus. Cs is the simplest of the heavy atoms, and the heaviest of the simplest.

In the Boulder experiment \[?\], a Cs beam passes through a region of perpendicular electric, magnetic and laser fields. The highly forbidden 6S$``$7S transition occurs in the Cs as the weak Parity Non Conserving (PNC) transition with a probability of $`10^{11}`$. An electric field provokes a Stark induced transition which has a probability $`10^5`$ times larger than the PNC transition and which can interfere with it. In order to have non zero interference between the two, the 6S$``$7S transition is excited with an elliptically polarized laser field. The handedness of the region is changed by reversing each of the field directions. The parity violation is apparent as a small modulation in the 6S$``$7S excitation rate synchronous with all of these reversals. The modulation is related to the weak charge $`Q_W`$. The Boulder result for the weak charge of Cs is \[?\]

$$Q_WCs_{55}^{133}=72.06\pm .28_{expt}\pm .34_{th}$$

The SM prediction is given by the relation \[?\] $`Q_W^{\mathrm{S}M}=72.72\pm .13102ϵ_3^{rad}+\delta _NQ_W`$ where $`\delta _NQ_W`$ indicates new physics, and $`ϵ_3^{\mathrm{r}ad}`$ are the radiative corrections which are evaluated to be $`(4.9\pm 1)10^3`$ from high energy data results. Using this SM prediction and the experimental result, one finds $`Q_W^{expt}Q_W^{SM}=1.18\pm .46`$ or $`0.28\delta _NQ_W2.08`$ at 95% C.L. , which corresponds to a 2.6$`\sigma `$ discrepency with the SM. This result can be interpreted in the context of contact interations, as a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LL}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RR}`$: $`12.1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{L}L,RR}^+32.9\mathrm{T}eV`$. The LEPII fermion pair cross section and asymmetry measurements exclude the regions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RR}^+<12.3`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LL}^+<12.8`$ TeV.

## How Fit Is The Standard Model

Z Universality tests, fermion pairs at LEPII, W production and decays, triple gauge couplings, $`a_\mu `$ and atomic parity violation measurements are all consistent with the SM. All are stringent tests of the SM and help to set limits on a wide range of physics scenarios.

Amongst other measurements (see Figure 3), $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`m_\mathrm{W}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{t}op}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$ enter in the overall electroweak fit from which the Higgs mass is extracted. The $`\chi ^2/dof`$ of the fit is 23/15, $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}=67_{33}^{+60}\mathrm{G}eV`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}<188`$ GeV at 95% C.L. . The direct searches at LEPII give $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}>107.7GeV`$ at 95% C.L. \[?\].

The weak mixing angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}=.23149\pm .00017`$) is the strongest constraint on the Higgs mass today \[?\]. $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ would be in the race if its error were $``$25 MeV. The W mass measurement confirms the existence of the weak radiative corrections to $`7\sigma `$. Reducing the error on $`\alpha ^1(m_\mathrm{Z}^2)`$ will make the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{e}ff}^{\mathrm{}}`$ measurement an even stronger constraint on the Higgs mass. The same can be said about the top mass error with respect to the W mass measurement as a constraint on the Higgs mass.

## Future Prospects

By the end of LEPII, each experiment will have accumulated well over 500 $`\mathrm{p}b^1`$. A realistic goal for the W mass measurement is to attain a world average error of 25 MeV, and a factor of two improvement on the TGCs. The goal of the E821 $`g2`$ experiment is to reach an error on $`a_\mu `$ of $`40\times 10^{11}`$. New measurements of $`R(s)`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=0.3`$ to 5.0 GeV at BESII and in Novosibirsk will help to reduce the error on $`\alpha ^1`$, such that it will most likely reach $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1.02`$.

In the near future (2001), Tevatron will start RUNII. During the four years of data taking, more than 14 $`\mathrm{f}b^1`$ per experiment are expected at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. The top mass error will come down to 2-3 GeV per experiment, the overall Tevatron W mass error will be 20-40 MeV. Approximately 20 $`\mathrm{f}b^1`$ will be needed for a $`3\sigma `$ discovery of a SM Higgs of $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}<180GeV`$ \[?\].

In the far future, each LHC (ATLAS and CMS) experiment will accumulate about 300 $`\mathrm{f}b^1`$ over the ten years of running at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV. The LHC combined experiments top mass error will be of the order of 2 GeV, the W mass error will be $`25`$ MeV per experiment. Approximately 30 $`\mathrm{f}b^1`$ will be needed for a $`5\sigma `$ discovery of a SM Higgs of $`m_{\mathrm{H}iggs}<1000GeV`$ \[?\].

## Conclusion

The SM is in good shape. Nothing really anomalous has been observed. A beautiful future exists for stringent tests e.g. fermion pair production, TGCs, $`a_\mu `$ and atomic parity violation. The same can be said about precision measurements constraining the Higgs mass e.g. at LEPII, Tevatron and LHC. There are many good reasons to be optimistic about the future of precision electroweak measurements !!

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the LEPEWWG, D.Abbaneo, T.Barklow, A.Blondel, T.Diehl, P.Dornan, A.Höcker, K.Grupen, M.Lancaster, B.Pietrzyk, G.Quast, L.Roberts, D.Schlatter, Z.Zhao and many more… An extra special thanks to the CIPANP2000 organizers.

## REFERENCES


text:
# From PDE Systems and Metrics to Generalized Field Theories

## 1 Generalized Lorentz-Udrişte world-force law and a generalized approach of inverse problem

Let $`T`$ and $`M`$ be two smooth, real, connected manifolds of dimensions $`p`$ and $`n`$, with coordinates $`(t^\alpha )_{\alpha =\overline{1,p}}`$ and $`(x^i)_{i=\overline{1,n}}`$. Greek, respectively Latin, letters will be used for indexing the components of geometrical objects attached to the manifold $`T`$, respectively $`M`$.

From physical point of view, $`T`$ is regarded like a ”multi-temporal” manifold while the manifold $`M`$ like a ”spatial” one. Let us consider the jet fibre bundle of order one $`J^1(T,M)`$, which is well known as a basic object in the study of classical and quantum field theories. The local coordinates on $`J^1(T,M)`$ are $`(t^\alpha ,x^i,x_\alpha ^i)`$, where $`x_\alpha ^i`$ have the physical meaning of ”partial directions” or ”partial derivatives”.

Let us start with a given d-tensor $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}(t^\gamma ,x^k)`$ on $`J^1(T,M)`$, which defines the PDEs system of order one

(1.1)
$$x_\alpha ^i=X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}(t^\gamma ,x^k(t^\gamma )),$$

where $`x_\alpha ^i={\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{t^\alpha }}`$. Obviously, the complete integrability conditions,

$$\frac{X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}}{t^\beta }+\frac{X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}}{x^m}X_{(\beta )}^{(m)}=\frac{X_{(\beta )}^{(i)}}{t^\alpha }+\frac{X_{(\beta )}^{(i)}}{x^m}X_{(\alpha )}^{(m)},$$

are required by the existence of solutions.

The Lorentz world-force law, initially stated for particles in non-quantum relativity , was generalized by Udrişte, using the notion of potential map , . In this direction, starting with $`h=(h_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ))`$ and $`\phi =(\phi _{ij}(x^k))`$ as semi-Riemannian metrics on $`T`$, respectively $`M`$, the first author proved the following

###### Theorem 1.1

(Lorentz-Udrişte World-Force Law)
Every $`C^2`$ solution of the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ is a horizontal potential map of the semi-Riemannian-Lagrange manifold

$$(T\times M,h+\phi ,M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu x_\mu ^i,N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}=\gamma _{jm}^ix_\alpha ^mF_{j\alpha }^i),$$

where $`H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ (resp. $`\gamma _{jk}^i`$) are the Christoffel symbols of $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`\phi _{ij}`$), and

$$F_{j\alpha }^i=_jX_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}\phi ^{ir}\phi _{js}_rX_{(\alpha )}^{(s)}$$

is the external distinguished tensor field which characterizes the helicity of the distinguished tensor field $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}`$.

A new version of the Lorentz-Udrişte World-Force Law was formulated by the second author. Its advantage is the possibility of construction a generalized field theory, naturally attached to the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$.

In order to give this version, we suppose that the metrics $`h`$ and $`\phi `$ are just Riemannian metrics and we endow the jet fibre bundle $`J^1(T,M)`$ with the canonical nonlinear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(\underset{(\alpha )\beta }{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{M}}},\underset{(\alpha )j}{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{N}}})`$ associated to the Riemannian metrics pair $`(h,\phi )`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{(\alpha )\beta }{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{M}}}=H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu x_\mu ^i,\hfill \\ \underset{(\alpha )j}{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{N}}}=\gamma _{jm}^ix_\alpha ^m.\hfill \end{array}$$

At the same time, let us consider $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(H_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma ,0,\gamma _{jk}^i,0)`$ the Berwald $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-linear connection on $`J^1(T,M)`$ and $`\mathrm{"}_{//\beta }\mathrm{"}`$, $`\mathrm{"}_j\mathrm{"}`$, $`\mathrm{"}_{(i)}^{(\beta )}\mathrm{"}`$ its local covariant derivatives .

Taking into account the $`x_\mu ^m`$-independence of the d-tensor field $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}`$, by a simple calculation, we obtain

###### Proposition 1.2

The horizontal local covariant derivatives of $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}`$ have the following expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}X_{(\alpha )//\beta }^{(i)}=\frac{X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}}{t^\beta }X_{(\mu )}^{(i)}H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu ,\hfill \\ X_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}=\frac{X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}}{x^j}+X_{(\alpha )}^{(m)}\gamma _{mj}^i.\hfill \end{array}$$

In this context, supposing that $`T`$ is a compact and orientable manifold, it follows the following generalization of the Theorem 1.1.

###### Theorem 1.3

(Generalized Lorentz-Udrişte World-Force Law)
The $`C^2`$ solutions of the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ are harmonic maps of the multi-time dependent spray $`(H,G)`$ on $`J^1(T,M)`$, defined by the temporal components

(1.2)
$$H_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}H_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma x_\gamma ^i,$$

and the local spatial components

$$G_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{jk}^ix_\alpha ^jx_\beta ^k+h_{\alpha \beta }F^i,$$

where,

$$F^i=\frac{h^{\mu \nu }}{2p}\left\{\phi ^{il}X_{(\nu )l}^{(s)}\phi _{sr}\left[X_{(\mu )}^{(r)}x_\mu ^r\right]+X_{(\nu )m}^{(i)}x_\mu ^m+X_{(\nu )//\mu }^{(i)}\right\},p=dimT.$$

In other words, the $`C^2`$ solutions of $`(1.1)`$ verify the harmonic map equations , ,

$$h^{\alpha \beta }\left\{x_{\alpha \beta }^i+2H_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}+2G_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}\right\}=0.$$

Proof. Let us consider the multi-time least squares Lagrangian

$$\begin{array}{c}=\text{C}\text{X}^2\sqrt{h}=\left\{h_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma )\phi _{ij}(x^k)\left[x_\alpha ^iX_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}\right]\left[x_\beta ^jX_{(\beta )}^{(j)}\right]\right\}\sqrt{h}=\hfill \\ =\left\{h^{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma )\phi _{ij}(x^k)x_\alpha ^ix_\beta ^j+U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}(t^\gamma ,x^k)x_\alpha ^i+\mathrm{\Phi }(t^\gamma ,x^k)\right\}\sqrt{h},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

(1.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{C}=x_\alpha ^i\frac{}{x_\alpha ^i},U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}=2h^{\alpha \mu }\phi _{im}X_{(\mu )}^{(m)},\hfill \\ \text{X}=X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}\frac{}{x_\alpha ^i},\mathrm{\Phi }=h^{\mu \nu }\phi _{rs}X_{(\mu )}^{(r)}X_{(\nu )}^{(s)},\hfill \end{array}$$

and let $`_{}:C^2(T,M)R_+`$ (note that the Riemannian metrics $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\phi _{ij}`$ are positive definite) be the least squares energy of $``$, i. e. ,

$$_{}=_T𝑑t^1dt^2\mathrm{}dt^p=_T\text{C}\text{X}^2\sqrt{h}𝑑t^1dt^2\mathrm{}dt^p0.$$

It is obvious now that $`fC^2(T,M)`$, locally expressed by $`(t^\gamma )(x^i(t^\gamma ))`$, is a solution of the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ iff the map $`f`$ is a global minimum point for the least squares energy functional $`_{}`$. Therefore, a $`C^2`$ solution $`f`$ of $`(1.1)`$ verifies the Euler-Lagrange equations,

(1.4)
$$\frac{}{x^i}\frac{}{t^\alpha }\left(\frac{}{x_\alpha ^i}\right)=0,i=\overline{1,n}.$$

But, we proved in the paper  that the Euler-Lagrange equations $`(1.4)`$ can be rearranged in the general Poisson form,

$$h^{\alpha \beta }\left\{x_{\alpha \beta }^i+2H_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}+2G_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}\right\}=0,$$

where the temporal spray components $`H_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}`$ are given by $`(1.2)`$, while the spatial spray components have the expressions

$$G_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{jk}^ix_\alpha ^jx_\beta ^k+\frac{h_{\alpha \beta }g^{il}}{4p}\left[U_{(l)m}^{(\mu )}x_\mu ^m+\frac{U_{(l)}^{(\mu )}}{t^\mu }+U_{(l)}^{(\mu )}H_{\mu \gamma }^\gamma \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^l}\right],$$

where $`p=dimT`$ and

$$U_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}}{x^j}\frac{U_{(j)}^{(\alpha )}}{x^i}.$$

Now, using the relations $`(1.3)`$ and direct computations, it follows

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}=2h^{\alpha \mu }\left[\phi _{im}X_{(\mu )j}^{(m)}\phi _{jm}X_{(\mu )i}^{(m)}\right],\hfill \\ \frac{U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}}{t^\alpha }+U_{(i)}^{(\nu )}H_{\nu \alpha }^\alpha =2h^{\mu \nu }\phi _{im}X_{(\mu )//\nu }^{(m)},\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^l}=2h^{\mu \nu }\phi _{mr}X_{(\mu )}^{(m)}X_{(\nu )l}^{(r)}.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Remark 1.1 The method used in the proof of the theorem 1.3 is a general one and may be called the least squares variational calculus method. For example, let us consider $`X`$ a d-tensor field on the jet fibre bundle of $`r`$-order $`J^r(T,M)`$, supposed as being endowed with an ”a priori” Riemannian metric $`<,>`$, and let $`X(t,x^{(r)})=0`$ be the associated $`r`$-order PDEs system. Automatically, we can attach a least squares problem of variational calculus, using the Lagrangian function $`L=X^2`$, where the norm $``$ is buildet by the metric $`<,>`$. This remark works on any DEs or PDEs system. As example, the Yang-Mills functional

$$𝒴()=\frac{1}{2}_MR^{}^2𝑑𝒱_g,$$

on the space of connections $``$, is the least squares functional attached to the PDEs system $`R^{}=0`$. In this sense, $`𝒴()`$ measures the deviation from flatness.

The theorem 1.3 shows that the $`C^2`$ solutions of the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ can be viewed like some harmonic maps on $`J^1(T,M)`$, via two ”a priori” fixed Riemannian metrics $`h`$ on $`T`$, respectively $`\phi `$ on $`M`$.

We recall the well known fact that paracompactness of a real manifold implies the existence of a Riemannian metric. So, we can restrict the imposed condition concerning the ”a priori” existence of the Riemannian metrics $`h`$ and $`\phi `$, supposing the paracompactness of the manifolds $`T`$ and $`M`$.

In conclusion, we can formulate the following

###### Corollary 1.4

If $`T`$ and $`M`$ are paracompact manifolds, then the $`C^2`$ solutions of the PDEs system of order one $`(1.1)`$ can be regarded like harmonic maps on the jet fibre bundle of order one $`J^1(T,M)`$, in the sense of theorem 1.3.

In the sequel, let us denote $`J^s(T,M)`$ the total space of the jet fibre bundle of order $`s`$, whose local coordinates are

$$(t,x^{(s)})=(t^\gamma ,x^k,x_{\gamma _1}^k,x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}^k,\mathrm{},x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _s}^k),$$

where the coordinates $`x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _l}^k,l\{1,2,\mathrm{},s\}`$, $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, have the meaning of ”partial derivatives of order $`l`$ of the spatial variables $`x^k`$, with respect to the temporal variables $`t^{\gamma _1},t^{\gamma _2},\mathrm{},t^{\gamma _l}`$”.

###### Lemma 1.5

The dimension of the total space of the jet fibre bundle $`J^s(T,M)`$ is

$$p+n\left[C_p^0+C_p^1+\mathrm{}+C_p^{s1}\right],$$

where $`dimT=p`$ and $`dimM=n`$.

Let us consider the PDEs system of order $`r1`$ on $`J^r(T,M)`$, locally expressed by

(1.5)
$$x_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{r1}\alpha _r}^i=X_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{r1}(\alpha _r)}^{(i)}(t,x^{(r1)}),$$

where $`X_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{r1}(\alpha _r)}^{(i)}`$ is a d-tensor field on $`J^r(T,M)`$, with respect to the indices $`i`$ and $`\alpha _r`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the submanifold of $`J^r(T,M)`$, whose coordinates are only $`x^{(r1)}=(x^k,x_{\gamma _1}^k,x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}^k,\mathrm{},x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{r1}}^k)`$. In these conditions, we deduce the following important result.

###### Theorem 1.6

(Geometrical Solution of Generalized Inverse Problem)
If the manifolds $`T`$ and $`M`$ are paracompact, then the $`C^{r+1}`$ solutions of the PDEs system $`(1.5)`$ can be viewed like harmonic maps on the jet fibre bundle of order one $`J^1(T,\stackrel{~}{M})`$, whose dimension is

$$p+(p+1)\left[C_p^0+C_p^1+\mathrm{}+C_p^{r1}\right]n,$$

where $`dimT=p`$ and $`dimM=n`$.

Proof. Obviously, the paracompactness of the manifolds $`T`$ and $`M`$ implies the paracompactness of the jet fibre bundle $`J^r(T,M)`$ and, implicitly the paracompactness of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Moreover, if $`(x^{(r1)})=(x^k,x_{\gamma _1}^k,x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}^k,\mathrm{},x_{\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{r1}}^k)`$ are the coordinates of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`(x^{i(r1)})=(x_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{r1}}^i)`$, then the PDEs system $`(1.5)`$ writes in the form,

$$x_{\alpha _r}^{i(r1)}=X_{(\alpha _r)}^{(i)}(t,x^{(r1)}).$$

Now, the theorem 1.3 implies the required result.
Remark 1.2 In a general approach of the well known inverse problem, we consider that the previous theorem gives a final geometrical answer for this open problem. From our point of view, the old classical open problem was not solved because of two reasons:

i) Firstly, it was incorrectly formulated;

ii) Secondly, almost all attempts of solving this problem used an unsuitable Lagrangian function space of possible solutions.

In our opinion, the inverse problem must be formulated in the following way:
Generalized Inverse Problem: Find a space of Lagrangian functions such that the $`C^2`$ solutions of a givenPDEs system to become solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations of a Lagrangian on this space.

## 2 From PDEs system of order one and metrics to generalized Maxwell and Einstein equations

Let us return to the PDEs system of order one, given by $`(1.1)`$. The theorem 1.3 ensures us that a $`C^2`$ map $`f`$ is a solution of PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ iff $`f`$ is a global minimum point of the energy functional produced by the multi-time Lagrangian $`=L\sqrt{h}`$, whose least squares Lagrangian function $`L:J^1(T,M)R`$ is expressed by

(2.1)
$$L=\text{C}\text{X}^2=h^{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma )\phi _{ij}(x^k)x_\alpha ^ix_\beta ^j+U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}(t^\gamma ,x^k)x_\alpha ^i+\mathrm{\Phi }(t^\gamma ,x^k),$$

where $`U_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}=2h^{\alpha \mu }\phi _{im}X_{(\mu )}^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=h^{\mu \nu }\phi _{rs}X_{(\mu )}^{(r)}X_{(\nu )}^{(s)}`$.

But, the Lagrangian function $`L`$ is a natural generalization of the classical Lagrangian of electrodynamics , which governs the movement law of a particule placed concomitantly into a gravitational field and an electromagnetic one. For that reason, in our generalized context, the Riemannian metric $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`\phi _{ij}`$) will have the temporal (resp. spatial) gravitational potential physical meaning, the components $`X_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}`$ that of electromagnetic potentials on $`J^1(T,M)`$, and $`F`$ that of the potential function.

In this geometrical-physical context, following the terminology used in , we can introduce
Definition 2.1 The pair $`(J^1(T,M),L)`$, which consists of jet fibre bundle of order one and a Lagrangian function of the form $`(2.1)`$, is called the canonical autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics, attached to the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ and to the Riemannian metrics $`h`$ and $`\phi `$, and is denoted $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$.

On the jet fibre bundle of order one $`J^1(T,M)`$, a natural generalized theory of physical fields, attached to a given multi-time Lagrangian function of electrodynamics type was recently developed by the second author . Consequently, via the canonical autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$, we can construct a natural physical field theory, in a general setting, arising only from the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ and two ”a priori” given Riemannian metrics $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\phi _{ij}`$.
Definition 2.2 The multi-time dependent spray $`(H,G)`$ used in the theorem 1.3 is called the canonical multi-time dependent spray attached to $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$.

Using the canonical multi-time dependent spray $`(H,G)`$, one naturally induces a nonlinear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)},N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)})`$ on $`J^1(T,M)`$, which is also called the canonical nonlinear connection of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$. In this direction, denoting $`𝒢^i=h^{\alpha \beta }G_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}`$, we establish the folowing

###### Theorem 2.1

The canonical nonlinear connection of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ is determined by the temporal components

$$M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=2H_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=\underset{(\alpha )\beta }{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{M}}}$$

and the local spatial components

$$N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}=\frac{𝒢^i}{x_\gamma ^j}h_{\alpha \gamma }=\underset{(\alpha )j}{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{N}}}F_{j\alpha }^i,$$

where $`\underset{(\alpha )\beta }{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{M}}}=H_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma x_\gamma ^i`$, $`\underset{(\alpha )j}{\overset{(i)}{\stackrel{0}{N}}}=\gamma _{jk}^ix_\alpha ^k`$, and the d-tensor field

$$F_{j\alpha }^i=\frac{1}{2}\left[X_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}\phi ^{ir}X_{(\alpha )r}^{(s)}\phi _{sj}\right]$$

characterizes the helicity of the d-tensor field $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(i)}`$.

To determine the generalized Cartan canonical connection $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$, together with its torsion and curvature local d-tensors, we use the adapted dual bases $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta t^\alpha }},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta x^i}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_\alpha ^i}}\}𝒳(E)`$ and $`\{dt^\alpha ,dx^i,\delta x_\alpha ^i\}𝒳^{}(E)`$ of the nonlinear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, via the formulas

(2.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\delta }{\delta t^\alpha }=\frac{}{t^\alpha }M_{(\beta )\alpha }^{(j)}\frac{}{x_\beta ^j}\hfill \\ \frac{\delta }{\delta x^i}=\frac{}{x^i}N_{(\beta )i}^{(j)}\frac{}{x_\beta ^j}\hfill \\ \delta x_\alpha ^i=dx_\alpha ^i+M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}dt^\beta +N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}dx^j.\hfill \end{array}$$

In this context, by simple computations, we find

###### Theorem 2.2

i) The generalized Cartan canonical connection $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the metrical multi-time Lagrange space $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ has the adapted components

$$H_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =H_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma ,G_{j\gamma }^k=0,L_{jk}^i=\gamma _{jk}^i,C_{j(k)}^{i(\gamma )}=0.$$

ii) The torsion T of the generalized Cartan canonical connection of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ is determined by three adapted local d-tensors, namely,

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{(\alpha )\beta \gamma }^{(i)}=H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\mu x_\mu ^i,\hfill \\ R_{(\alpha )\beta j}^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[X_{(\alpha )j//\beta }^{(i)}\phi ^{ir}X_{(\alpha )r//\beta }^{(s)}\phi _{sj}\right],\hfill \\ R_{(\alpha )jk}^{(i)}=r_{jkm}^ix_\alpha ^m\frac{1}{2}\left[X_{(\alpha )jk}^{(i)}\phi ^{ir}X_{(\alpha )rk}^{(s)}\phi _{sj}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\mu `$ (resp. $`r_{ijk}^l`$) are the local curvature tensors of the Riemannian metric $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`\phi _{ij}`$), and

$$\begin{array}{c}X_{(\alpha )j//\beta }^{(i)}=\frac{X_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}}{t^\beta }X_{(\mu )j}^{(i)}H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu ,\hfill \\ X_{(\alpha )jk}^{(i)}=\frac{X_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}}{x^k}+X_{(\alpha )j}^{(m)}\gamma _{mk}^iX_{(\alpha )m}^{(i)}\gamma _{jk}^m.\hfill \end{array}$$

iii) The curvature R of the generalized Cartan canonical connection of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ is determined by two adapted local d-tensors, namely, $`H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\delta `$ and $`R_{ijk}^l=r_{ijk}^l`$, that is, exactly the curvature tensors of the Riemannian metrics $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\phi _{ij}`$.

Remarks 2.1 i) Both Cartan and Berwald connections on $`J^1(T,M)`$ have the same adapted components. However, they are two distinct linear connections. This is because the Cartan connection is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-linear connection while the Berwald connection is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-linear one.

ii) Let $`\mathrm{"}_{/\beta }\mathrm{"}`$, $`\mathrm{"}_{|j}\mathrm{"}`$ and $`\mathrm{"}|_{(j)}^{(\beta )}\mathrm{"}`$ be the local covariant derivatives of the Cartan connection $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and let us consider a distinguished tensor field $`D=(D_{\gamma k(\beta )(l)\mathrm{}}^{\alpha i(j)(\delta )\mathrm{}})`$, whose components do not depend on the partial directions $`x_\mu ^m`$. In these conditions, we obtain without difficulties that

$$D_{\gamma k(\beta )(l)\mathrm{}!A}^{\alpha i(j)(\delta )\mathrm{}}=D_{\gamma k(\beta )(l)\mathrm{}!!A}^{\alpha i(j)(\delta )\mathrm{}},$$

where $`\mathrm{"}_{!A}\mathrm{"}`$, respectively $`\mathrm{"}_{!!A}\mathrm{"}`$, is one of the local operators $`\mathrm{"}_{/\beta }\mathrm{"}`$, $`\mathrm{"}_{|j}\mathrm{"}`$ or $`\mathrm{"}|_{(j)}^{(\beta )}\mathrm{"}`$, respectively $`\mathrm{"}_{//\beta }\mathrm{"}`$, $`\mathrm{"}_j\mathrm{"}`$ or $`\mathrm{"}_{(j)}^{(\beta )}\mathrm{"}`$.

iii) The only geometrical objects of $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$, effectively dependent of the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$, are the spatial nonlinear connection components $`N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}`$ and the adapted local torsion d-tensors $`R_{(\alpha )\beta j}^{(i)}`$, $`R_{(\alpha )jk}^{(i)}`$.

In the sequel, following the paper , we shall write the generalized Maxwell and Einstein equations produced by $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$.

###### Theorem 2.3

i) The electromagnetic distinguished 2-form of $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ is

$$F=F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}\delta x_\alpha ^idx^j,$$

where

$$F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{h^{\alpha \mu }}{2}\left[\phi _{im}X_{(\mu )j}^{(m)}\phi _{jm}X_{(\mu )i}^{(m)}\right].$$

ii) The electromagnetic local components $`F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}`$ of the autonomous metrical multi-time Lagrange space of electrodynamics $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ are governed by the following generalized Maxwell equations,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}F_{(i)j//\beta }^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1}{4}𝒜_{\{i,j\}}\left\{h^{\alpha \mu }\phi _{im}\left[X_{(\mu )j//\beta }^{(m)}\phi ^{mr}X_{(\mu )r//\beta }^{(s)}\phi _{sj}\right]\right\}\hfill \\ _{\{i,j,k\}}F_{(i)jk}^{(\alpha )}=0\hfill \\ _{\{i,j,k\}}F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}_{(k)}^{(\gamma )}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝒜_{\{i,j\}}`$ represents an alternate sum and $`_{\{i,j,k\}}`$ means a cyclic sum.

###### Theorem 2.4

i) The gravitational $`h`$-potential on $`J^1(T,M)`$, induced by the metrical multi-time Lagrange space $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$, is given by the Sasakian-like metric

$$G=h_{\alpha \beta }dt^\alpha dt^\beta +\phi _{ij}dx^idx^j+h^{\alpha \beta }\phi _{ij}\delta x_\alpha ^i\delta x_\beta ^j.$$

ii) The generalized Einstein equations which govern the gravitational $`h`$-potential $`G`$ of $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ are locally expressed by

$`(E_1)`$
$$\{\begin{array}{c}H_{\alpha \beta }\frac{H+r}{2}h_{\alpha \beta }=𝒦𝒯_{\alpha \beta }\hfill \\ r_{ij}\frac{H+r}{2}\phi _{ij}=𝒦𝒯_{ij}\hfill \\ \frac{H+r}{2}h^{\alpha \beta }\phi _{ij}=𝒦𝒯_{(i)(j)}^{(\alpha )(\beta )},\hfill \end{array}$$

$`(E_2)`$
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}0=𝒯_{\alpha i},\hfill & 0=𝒯_{i\alpha },\hfill & 0=𝒯_{(i)\beta }^{(\alpha )}\hfill \\ 0=𝒯_{\alpha (i)}^{(\beta )},\hfill & 0=𝒯_{i(j)}^{(\alpha )},\hfill & 0=𝒯_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝒯_{AB},A,B\{\alpha ,i,\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\alpha )}{(i)}\}`$ represent the components of an intrinsic stress-energy d-tensor $`𝒯`$ of matter on $`J^1(T,M)`$, $`H_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`r_{ij}`$) are the components of Ricci tensor of $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`\phi _{ij}`$), and $`H`$ (resp. $`r`$) is the scalar curvature of the Riemannian metric $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ (resp. $`\phi _{ij}`$).

iii) The components $`𝒯_{\mu \beta }`$ and $`𝒯_{mj}`$ of the stress-energy d-tensor $`𝒯`$ of the metrical multi-time Lagrange space $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ satisfy the classical conservation laws,

$$𝒯_{\beta //\mu }^\mu =0,𝒯_{jm}^m=0.$$

Remark 2.2 The theorems 2.3 and 2.4 emphasize that only the electromagnetic field $`F`$ of the $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$ is effectively dependent by the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$, via the electromagnetic potentials $`X_{(i)}^{(\alpha )}`$. Consequently, in order to obtain some information upon the PDEs system $`(1.1)`$, via the canonical attached generalized field theory, it is interesting to study only the electromagnetism generated by this system.

## 3 Generalized electromagnetic theory induced by remarkable PDE systems

In this section we will consider some important particular PDE systems of order one and we apply them the previous general geometrical and physical results. Taking into account the remarks 2.1 and 2.2, we will study only the geometrical and physical objects which are effectively determined by these systems (i.e. , the nonlinear connection, the torsion d-tensors and the electromagnetic field). From this point of view, we will ignore their attached generalized gravitational theory, because it is dependent only of the Riemannian metrics used in the construction of the metrical multi-time Lagrange space $`PDEsEDML_p^n`$.

### 3.1 Orbits

Let $`T=[a,b]R,h_{11}(t)=1`$ and $`X_{(1)}^{(i)}(t,x^k)=\xi ^i(x^k)`$, where $`\xi ^i(x^k)`$ is a d-vector field on $`J^1([a,b],M)`$. The PDEs system $`(1.1)`$ becomes

$`(O)`$
$$\frac{dx^i}{dt}=\xi ^i(x^k(t)),$$

that is, the DEs system which gives the orbits of the spatial vector field $`\xi `$.

In this context, the $`C^2`$ orbits of $`\xi `$ are the global minimum points of the least squares energy functional

$$_\xi =_a^b\left[\phi _{ij}(x^k)y^iy^j2\xi _j(x^k)y^j+\xi ^2(x^k)\right]𝑑t,$$

where $`y^i=x_1^i=dx^i/dt,\xi _j(x^k)=\phi _{jm}(x^k)\xi ^m(x^k)`$ and $`\xi ^2(x^k)=\xi ^m(x^k)\xi _m(x^k)`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

i) The canonical nonlinear connection, induced by the system $`(O)`$ on $`J^1([a,b],M)TM`$, is given by the components

$$M_{(1)1}^{(i)}=0,N_{(1)j}^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\xi _j^i\phi ^{ir}\xi _r^s\phi _{sj}\right].$$

ii) The torsion T of the generalized Cartan canonical connection, induced by the differential system $`(O)`$, is determined only by the local components

$$R_{(1)jk}^{(i)}=r_{jkm}^iy^m\frac{1}{2}\left[\xi _{jk}^i\phi ^{ir}\xi _{rk}^s\phi _{sj}\right].$$

iii) The electromagnetic components of the metrical time-dependent Lagrange space of electrodynamics, induced by the orbits system $`(O)`$, have the expressions

$$F_{(i)j}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\xi _{ij}\xi _{ji}\right].$$

Moreover, they are governed by the following generalized Maxwell equations:

$$\underset{\{i,j,k\}}{}F_{(i)jk}^{(1)}=0,\underset{\{i,j,k\}}{}F_{(i)j}^{(1)}_{(k)}^{(1)}=0.$$

### 3.2 Pfaffian systems

Let $`M=R,\phi _{11}(x)=1`$ and $`X_{(\alpha )}^{(1)}(t^\gamma ,x)=A_\alpha (t^\gamma )`$, where $`A_\alpha (t^\gamma )`$ is a distinguished 1-form on $`J^1(T,R)`$. The $`C^2`$ solutions of the Pfaffian system

$`(P)`$
$$x_\alpha =A_\alpha (t^\gamma ),$$

are the global minimum points of the least squares energy functional

$$_A=_T\left[h^{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma )x_\alpha x_\beta 2A^\alpha (t^\gamma )x_\alpha +A^2(t^\gamma )\right]\sqrt{h}𝑑t,$$

where $`x_\alpha =x_\alpha ^1=x^1/t^\alpha ,A^\alpha (t^\gamma )=h^{\alpha \mu }(t^\gamma )A_\mu (t^\gamma )`$ and $`A^2(t^\gamma )=A^\mu (t^\gamma )A_\mu (t^\gamma )`$.

###### Theorem 3.2

i) The nonlinear connection on $`J^1(T,R)`$, induced by the Pfaffian system $`(P)`$, has the components

$$M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu x_\mu ,N_{(\alpha )1}^{(1)}=0.$$

ii) The only local torsion d-tensor, induced by $`(P)`$, which does not vanish is

$$R_{(\alpha )\beta \gamma }^{(1)}=H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\mu x_\mu .$$

iii) The electromagnetic components $`F_{(1)1}^{(\alpha )}`$, induced by the Pfaffian system $`(P)`$, vanish.

### 3.3 Continuous groups of transformations

The fundamental PDEs system of a transformations group having the infinitesimal generators $`\{\xi _a(x^k)\}_{a=\overline{1,c}}`$, as d-vector fields on $`J^1(T,M)`$, is

$`(G)`$
$$x_\alpha ^i=\underset{a=1}{\overset{c}{}}\xi _a^i(x^k(t^\gamma ))A_\alpha ^a(t^\gamma ),$$

where $`\{A^a(t^\gamma )\}_{a=\overline{1,c}}`$ are d-forms on $`J^1(T,M)`$.

###### Theorem 3.3

The $`C^2`$ solutions of the PDEs system $`(G)`$ are the global minimum points of the least squares energy functional

$$_{\xi A}=_T[h^{\alpha \beta }\phi _{ij}x_\alpha ^ix_\beta ^j2A^{\alpha a}\xi _{aj}x_\alpha ^j+<A^a,A^b><\xi _a,\xi _b>]\sqrt{h}dt,$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}A^{\alpha a}(t^\gamma )=h^{\alpha \mu }(t^\gamma )A_\mu ^a(t^\gamma ),\hfill \\ \xi _{aj}(x^k)=\phi _{jm}(x^k)\xi _a^m(x^k),\hfill \\ <A^a,A^b>(t^\gamma )=h^{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma )A_\alpha ^a(t^\gamma )A_\beta ^b(t^\gamma ),\hfill \\ <\xi _a,\xi _b>(x^k)=\phi _{ij}(x^k)\xi _a^i(x^k)\xi _b^j(x^k).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 3.4

i) The canonical nonlinear connection on $`J^1(T,M)`$, induced by the PDEs system $`(G)`$, is determined by the components

$$M_{(\alpha )\beta }^{(i)}=H_{\alpha \beta }^\mu x_\mu ^i,N_{(\alpha )j}^{(i)}=\gamma _{jm}^ix_\alpha ^m\frac{A_\alpha ^a}{2}\left[\xi _{aj}^i\phi ^{ir}\xi _{ar}^s\phi _{sj}\right].$$

ii) The local d-torsions which characterize the geometry of $`J^1(T,M)`$, attached to the PDEs system $`(G)`$, have the expressions

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{(\alpha )\beta \gamma }^{(i)}=H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\mu x_\mu ^i,\hfill \\ R_{(\alpha )\beta j}^{(i)}=\frac{A_{\alpha //\beta }^a}{2}\left[\xi _{aj}^i\phi ^{ir}\xi _{ar}^s\phi _{sj}\right],\hfill \\ R_{(\alpha )jk}^{(i)}=r_{jkm}^ix_\alpha ^m\frac{A_\alpha ^a}{2}\left[\xi _{ajk}^i\phi ^{ir}\xi _{ark}^s\phi _{sj}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 3.5

i) The components of the electromagnetic field $`F`$ of the metrical multi-time Lagrange space attached to the PDEs system $`(G)`$, are

$$F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{A^{\alpha a}}{2}\left[\xi _{aij}\xi _{aji}\right].$$

ii) The following generalized Maxwell equations, derived from the PDEs system $`(G)`$, hold good:

$$\underset{\{i,j,k\}}{}F_{(i)jk}^{(\alpha )}=0,\underset{\{i,j,k\}}{}F_{(i)j}^{(\alpha )}_{(k)}^{(\gamma )}=0.$$

### 3.4 Constrained potentials of physical fields

Let $`(E,\pi ,T)`$ be a vector bundle of rank $`q`$ over the Riemannian temporal manifold $`(T,h)`$, whose structural group is the compact Lie orthogonal subgroup $`GO_q(R)`$. Let $`\{\sigma _a\}_{a=\overline{1,q}}`$ be local basis of cross-sections on $`E`$, and let us consider $`g=(g_{ab})_{a,b=\overline{1,q}}G`$, the coordinate transformations of the bundle $`E`$.

Let $`F\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2ITI^{}TEnd(E))`$ be a fixed $`End(E)`$-valued 2-form on $`T`$, locally expressed by

$$F=\underset{1\alpha <\beta p}{}F_{\alpha \beta }dt^\alpha dt^\beta ,$$

where the components $`F_{\alpha \beta }=(F_{b\alpha \beta }^a)_{a,b=\overline{1,q}}`$ are skew-symmetric matrices (i. e. , $`F_{\alpha \beta }L(G)L(O_q(R))=o(q),\alpha ,\beta \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$). Physically, the cross-section $`F`$ is a geometrical model for a given physical field, in Yang-Mills sense. For example, $`F`$ can be one of the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong or weak nuclear fields .

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1ITI^{}TEnd(E))`$ be a $`G`$-covariant derivative on $`E`$, whose locally described by

$$=_\alpha dt^\alpha ,$$

where $`_\alpha =(_{b\alpha }^a)_{a,b=\overline{1,q}}L(G)o(q),\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$. From a physical point of view, the $`G`$-connection $``$ can be viewed like a possible potential of the physical field $`F`$. We recall that a potential of the physical field $`F`$, in the sense of Yang-Mills, is a $`G`$-connection $``$ on $`E`$, which verifies the local identity

(3.1)
$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{_\beta }{t^\alpha }\frac{_\alpha }{t^\beta }+_\alpha _\beta _\beta _\alpha ,\alpha <\beta \{1,\mathrm{},p\}.$$

In the sequel, we will show that the $`G`$-potentials $``$ of the given physical field $`F`$ are harmonic maps on the jet space $`J^1(T,M)`$, where $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1ITI^{}TEnd(E)`$.

To reach this aim, let us suppose that the set of partial derivatives $`_\alpha /t^\beta ,\alpha \beta `$ verifies the constraints on $`J^1(T,M)`$,

$`(C)`$
$$\frac{_\alpha }{t^\beta }=f_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ,_\mu ),\alpha \beta ,$$

where $`f_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ,_\mu ),\alpha ,\beta \{1,2,\mathrm{},p\}`$, are ”a priori” given local components of a geometrical object on $`J^1(T,M)`$, which, under a multi-temporal reparametrization $`(t^\mu )(t^\mu ^{})`$, transform like the local components $`_\alpha /t^\beta ,\alpha ,\beta =\overline{1,p}`$. In this context, from PDE equations $`(3.1)`$ we obtain

$$\frac{_\alpha }{t^\beta }=_\alpha _\beta _\beta _\alpha +f_{\beta \alpha }(t^\gamma ,_\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ),\alpha >\beta .$$

Consequently, the PDE equations $`(3.1)`$, constrained by $`(C)`$, can be rewritten in the equivalent PDEs system form on $`J^1(T,M)`$,

$`(CPS)`$
$$\frac{_\alpha }{t^\beta }=_{(\alpha )(\beta )}(t^\gamma ,_\mu ),\alpha ,\beta =\overline{1,p},$$

where

$$_{(\alpha )(\beta )}(t^\gamma ,_\mu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ,_\mu ),\hfill & \alpha \beta \hfill \\ _\alpha _\beta _\beta _\alpha +f_{\beta \alpha }(t^\gamma ,_\mu )F_{\alpha \beta }(t^\gamma ),\hfill & \alpha >\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Obviously, the PDEs system $`(CPS)`$ is equivalent to

$`(CPS^{})`$
$$\frac{_{b\beta }^a}{t^\alpha }=_{b(\alpha )(\beta )}^a(t^\gamma ,_\mu ),\alpha ,\beta =\overline{1,p},a,b=\overline{1,q}.$$

Taking into account the Riemannian structure induced from $`T`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1ITI^{}T`$,

$$<dt^\alpha dt^\beta ,dt^\mu dt^\nu >=h^{\alpha \mu }h^{\beta \nu }h^{\beta \mu }h^{\alpha \nu },$$

and the well known Riemannian metric on the Lie algebra $`o(q)`$,

$$<A,B>=Tr(AB^t),A,Bo(q),$$

we can endow the vector bundle $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1ITI^{}TEnd(E)T`$ with a natural Riemannian structure, on each fibre.

Now, applying the ideas of this paper to the PDEs system $`(CPS^{})`$, we obtain the following important result:

###### Theorem 3.6

Every $`G`$-potential $``$ of the physical field $`F`$, which verifies the constraints $`(C)`$, is a harmonic map on $`J^1(T,M)`$, being global minimum point of the least squares Lagrangian $`=L\sqrt{h}`$, where the Lagrangian function $`L`$ is defined by

$$L=h^{\alpha \beta }h^{\mu \nu }\left\{\frac{_{a\alpha }^b}{t^\mu }_{a(\alpha )(\mu )}^b\right\}\left\{\frac{_{b\beta }^a}{t^\nu }_{b(\beta )(\nu )}^a\right\}.$$

Remarks 3.1 i) The least squares Lagrangian function $`L`$ from the previous theorem is more general than the Yang-Mills Lagrangian function, whose expression is

$$YM=h^{\alpha \beta }h^{\mu \nu }F_{a\alpha \beta }^bF_{b\mu \nu }^a.$$

Consequently, the Euler-Lagrange equations of the least squares Lagrangian $``$ may be called the jet-extension of the Yang-Mills equations. Moreover, the $`G`$-connections, that verify the PDEs system $`(CPS^{})`$, may be called jet-harmonic Yang-Mills connections.

ii) The use of the least squares Lagrangian in the study of PDEs systems, allows a natural approach of the multi-time geometric dynamics, in terms of computer simulation , . Via the multi-time geometric dynamics and its computer simulation induced by a given PDEs system of order one, it is possible to obtain an original geometrical classification of these systems. This study of classification is in our research group attention.
Open problem. What is the real physical meaning of our geometrical theory?
Acknowledgments. The authors express their sincere thanks to Professors V. Balan, V. Obădeanu and D. Opriş for their critical reading of an earlier version of this paper.

University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest

Department of Mathematics I

Splaiul Independentei 313

77206 Bucharest, Romania

e-mail: udriste@mathem.pub.ro

e-mail: mircea@mathem.pub.ro