text:
# The Three – Dimensional 𝑍₂ Electrodynamics and the Two – Dimensional Ising Model

## 1 Introduction

Onsager  invented the formula for the partition function of the two – dimensional Ising model. Another method for the calculation of the partition function was proposed by Kac and Ward . They considered two formulae simultaneously: the determinant of the special matrix $`I+T`$ ($`I`$ is the identity matrix) is proportional to the partition function of the two – dimensional Ising model and it is proportional to the square of the partition function. For the proof of the first formula they used a topological statement. Sherman ,  constructed a counter – example for this statement and gave some arguments for the equality

$$Z^2=C(\beta )det(I+T)$$
(1.1)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function of the two – dimensional Ising model with the free boundary conditions and $`C(\beta )`$ is the positive function of the inverse temperature $`\beta `$. In the paper  the following formula

$$Z^2=C(\beta )det(IT)$$
(1.2)
is proved for an arbitrary lattice lying on the plane. For the rectangular lattice the expression (1.2) is independent of the sign of the matrix $`T`$. For an arbitrary lattice the formula (1.1) is wrong. In the paper  the free energy and the correlation functions of the two – dimensional Ising model with the free boundary conditions are calculated by using the formula (1.2).

In this paper we study the connection between the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics and the two – dimensional Ising model. We consider a finite three – dimensional cubic lattice. The vertices of this lattice are given by the vectors $`𝐩=(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ where the numbers $`p_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, are natural. The non – oriented edge of this lattice is given by the pair $`\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the edge initial vertex and the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is the edge direction. The unit vector $`𝐞`$ is one of six vectors: $`(\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`(0,\pm 1,0)`$, $`(0,0,\pm 1)`$. Since the edge is non – oriented, then $`\{𝐩+𝐞,𝐞\}=\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$. The non – oriented face of this lattice is given by the triplet $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the face initial vertex and the unit vectors $`𝐞_1,𝐞_2`$ are two orthogonal to each other vectors from six unit vectors $`(\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`(0,\pm 1,0)`$, $`(0,0,\pm 1)`$. Since the face is non – oriented, then $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩,𝐞_2,𝐞_1\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_1,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_2,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_1+𝐞_2,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$. By $`𝐙_2^{add}`$ we denote the group of modulo $`2`$ residuals. The modulo $`2`$ residuals are mulptiplied by each other and the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$ is the field. We consider the function $`A(\{𝐩,𝐞\})`$ on the non – oriented edges taking the values in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$. The energy of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics has the following form

$$H(A)=\underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}}{}E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})(1)^{A(\{p,e_1\})+A(\{p+e_1,e_2\})+A(\{p+e_2,e_1\})+A(\{p,e_2\})}$$
(1.3)
where the summing runs over all non – oriented faces of the lattice. The number

$`E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})`$ is called the interaction energy attached to the non – oriented face $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$. For the infinite interaction energy the energy (1.3) is also infinite. However, it is possible to consider the infinite values of the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})`$ for the correlation functions and for the quantity

$$\left(\underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}}{}\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})\right)^1\underset{A}{}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(A)\}.$$
(1.4)
(The product in (1.4) runs over all non – oriented faces of the lattice. The sum in (1.4) runs over all $`𝐙_2^{add}`$ valued functions on the non – oriented edges of the lattice.) We will show that for the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})`$ equaled $`+\mathrm{}`$ (or $`\mathrm{}`$) the correlation functions and the quantity (1.4) for $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics are related to the correlation functions and the partition function of the two – dimensional Ising model with the free boundary conditions.

In the second section the definitions of the partition function and the correlation functions of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics with the free boundary conditions are given. These quantities are calculated for the for the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=0`$. The third section is devoted to the connection between the quantity (1.4) for the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and the partition function of the two – dimensional Ising model with the free boundary conditions. In the fourth section we study the connection between the correlation functions of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics with the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and the correlation functions of the two – dimensional Ising model with the free boundary conditions.

## 2 $`𝐙_2`$ Electrodynamics

We consider a rectangular lattice formed by the points with the integral Cartesian coordinates $`x=k_1`$, $`y=k_2`$, $`z=k_3`$, $`M_i^{}k_iM_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and the corresponding edges connecting the neighbour vertices. We denote this graph by $`G_3=G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. The cell complex $`P(G_3)`$ is called the set consisting of the cells (vertices, edges, faces, cubes). A vertex of $`P(G_3)`$ is called a cell of dimension $`0`$. It is denoted by $`s_i^0`$. An edge of $`P(G_3)`$ is called a cell of dimension $`1`$. It is denoted by $`s_i^1`$. A face of $`P(G_3)`$ is called a cell of dimension $`2`$. It is denoted by $`s_i^2`$. A cube of $`P(G_3)`$ is called a cell of dimension $`3`$. It is denoted by $`s_i^3`$. To every pair of the cells $`s_i^p,s_j^{p1}`$ there corresponds the number $`(s_i^p:s_j^{p1})𝐙_2^{add}`$ (incidence number). If the cell $`s_j^{p1}`$ is included into the boundary of the cell $`s_i^p`$, then the incidence number $`(s_i^p:s_j^{p1})=1`$. Otherwise the incidence number $`(s_i^p:s_j^{p1})=0`$. For any pair of the cells $`s_i^{p+2},s_j^p`$ the incidence numbers satisfy the condition

$$\underset{m}{}(s_i^{p+2}:s_m^{p+1})(s_m^{p+1}:s_j^p)=0\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}.$$
(2.1)
Indeed, if the vertex $`s_j^0`$ is not included into the boundary of the square $`s_i^2`$ , then the condition (2.1) is fulfilled. If the vertex $`s_j^0`$ is included into the boundary of the square $`s_i^2`$, then it is included into the boundaries of the six edges $`s_m^1`$ two of which are included into the boundary of the square $`s_i^2`$. The condition (2.1) is fulfilled again. If the edge $`s_j^1`$ is not included into the boundary of the cube $`s_i^3`$, then the condition (2.1) is fulfilled. If the edge $`s_j^1`$ is included into the boundary of the cube $`s_i^3`$, then it is included into the boundaries of the four squares $`s_m^2`$ two of which are included into the boundary of the cube $`s_i^3`$. The condition (2.1) is fulfilled again.

A cochain $`c^p`$ of the complex $`P(G_3)`$ with the coefficients in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$ is a function on the $`p`$ – dimensional cells taking values in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$. Usually the cell orientation is considered and the cochains are antisymmetric functions: $`c^p(s_i^p)=c^p(s_i^p)`$. However, $`1=1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and we can neglect the cell orientation for the coefficients in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$. The cochains form an Abelian group

$$(c^p+c^p)(s_i^p)=c^p(s_i^p)+c^p(s_i^p)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}.$$
(2.2)
It is denoted by $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. The mapping

$$c^p(s_i^{p1})=\underset{j}{}(s_j^p:s_i^{p1})c^p(s_j^p)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}$$
(2.3)
defines the homomorphism of the group $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ into the group $`C^{p1}(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. It is called the boundary operator. The mapping

$$^{}c^p(s_i^{p+1})=\underset{j}{}(s_i^{p+1}:s_j^p)c^p(s_j^p)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}$$
(2.4)
defines the homomorphism of the group $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ into the group $`C^{p+1}(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. It is called the coboundary operator. The condition (2.1) implies $`=0`$, $`^{}^{}=0`$. The kernel $`Z_p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ of the homomorphism (2.3) on the group $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is called the group of cycles of the complex $`P(G_3)`$ with the coefficients in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$. The image $`B_p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ of the homomorphism (2.3) in the group $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is called the group of boundaries of the complex $`P(G_3)`$ with the coefficients in the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$. Since $`=0`$, the group $`B_p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is the subgroup of the group $`Z_p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. Analogously, for the coboundary operator $`^{}`$ the group of cocyles $`Z^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ and the group of coboundaries $`B^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ are defined.

It is possible to introduce the bilinear form on $`C^p(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$:

$$f^p,g^p=\underset{i}{}f^p(s_i^p)g^p(s_i^p)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}.$$
(2.5)
The definitions (2.3), (2.4) imply

$`f^p,^{}g^{p1}=f^p,g^{p1}`$
$`f^p,g^{p+1}=^{}f^p,g^{p+1}.`$ (2.6)
Let a cochain $`A^1C^1(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. Let the energy be expressed in the form

$$H^{}(^{}A^1)=\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}h_i(^{}A^1(s_i^2))$$
(2.7)
where $`h_i(ϵ)`$ is an arbitrary function on the group $`𝐙_2^{add}`$:

$$h_i(ϵ)=D_iE_i(1)^ϵ$$
(2.8)
and the constants

$$D_i=\frac{1}{2}(h_i(1)+h_i(0)),$$

$$E_i=\frac{1}{2}(h_i(1)h_i(0)).$$

The substitution of the equality (2.8) into the equality (2.7) gives

$$H^{}(^{}A^1)=\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}D_i+H(^{}A^1)$$
(2.9)
where the function

$$H(^{}A^1)=\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}E_i(1)^{^{}A^1(s_1^2)}$$
(2.10)
is called the energy of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics. The number $`E_i=E(s_i^2)`$ is the interaction energy attached to the face $`s_i^2`$ .

The function

$$Z_{G_3}=\underset{A^1C^1(P(G_3),Z_2^{add})}{}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(^{}A^1)\}$$
(2.11)
is called the partition function of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics.

Let the cochain $`\chi ^1C^1(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ take the value $`1`$ at the edges $`s_1^1,\mathrm{},s_m^1`$ and be equal to $`0`$ at all other edges of the graph $`G_3`$. The correlation function at the edges $`s_1^1,\mathrm{},s_m^1`$ of the lattice $`G_3`$ is the function

$$W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)=(Z_{G_3})^1\underset{A^1C^1(P(G_3),Z_2^{add})}{}(1)^{\chi ^1,A^1}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(^{}A^1)\}.$$
(2.12)
Proposition 2.1. The partition function of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics on the graph $`G_3`$

$$Z_{G_3}=2^{\mathrm{\#}(EG_3)}\left(\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(s_i^2)\right)Z_{r,G_3}$$
(2.13)
where the reduced partition function of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics on the graph $`G_3`$

$$Z_{r,G_3}=\underset{\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),Z_2^{add})}{}\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^2))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(s_i^2)})}$$
(2.14)
and $`\mathrm{\#}(EG_3)`$ is the total number of the non – oriented edges of the graph $`G_3`$.

The correlation function of $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics on the graph $`G_3`$

$$W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)=(Z_{r,G_3})^1\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),Z_2^{add}),}{\xi ^2=\chi ^1}}{}\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^2))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(s_i^2)})}.$$
(2.15)
Proof. The definition (2.10) implies

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(A^2)\}=\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta E(s_i^2)(1)^{A^2(s_i^2)}\}$$
(2.16)
where $`A^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. It is easy to verify that for $`ϵ=0,1`$

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\beta E(s_i^2)(1)^ϵ\}=(\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(s_i^2))\underset{\xi =0,1}{}(1)^{\xi ϵ}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^2))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^\xi )}.$$
(2.17)
The relations (2.16), (2.17) imply

$`\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(A^2)\}=`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}}\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(s_i^2)\right){\displaystyle \underset{\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),Z_2^{add})}{}}(1)^{\xi ^2,A^2}{\displaystyle \underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^2))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(s_i^2)})}.`$ (2.18)
The substitution of the equality (2) into the definition (2.11), the first relation (2) and the relation

$$\underset{\xi =0,1}{}(1)^{\xi ϵ}=\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2,ϵ=0,}{0,ϵ=1,}$$
(2.19)
give the equalities (2.13), (2.14). The substitution of the equality (2) into the definition (2.12), the first relation (2) and the relation (2.19) give the equality (2.15). The proposition is proved.

Here we used the definitions and the methods of the paper .

The relation (2.15) implies that the correlation function is not zero only for the cochain $`\chi ^1B_1(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. In other words, the cochain $`\chi ^1`$ is equal to $`1`$ on the closed contours which are the boundaries of the two – dimensional domains.

Let us consider a rectangular lattice formed by the points with the integral Cartesian coordinates $`x=k_1`$, $`y=k_2`$, $`M_i^{}k_iM_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, and the corresponding edges connecting neighbour vertices. We denote this graph by $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$. The cell complex $`P(G_2)`$ is defined analogously to the cell complex $`P(G_3)`$ for the three – dimensional graph $`G_3=G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. Let a cochain $`\sigma ^0C^0(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$. The Ising model energy is expressed in the following form similar to the form (2.10)

$$H(^{}\sigma ^0)=\underset{s_i^1P(G_2)}{}E(s_i^1)(1)^{^{}\sigma ^0(s_i^1)}.$$
(2.20)
The partition function and the correlation function of the two – dimensional Ising model are defined by the relations similar to the relations (2.11), (2.12)

$$Z_{G_2}=\underset{\sigma ^0C^0(P(G_2),Z_2^{add})}{}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(^{}\sigma ^0)\},$$
(2.21)
$$W_{G_2}(\chi ^0)=(Z_{G_2})^1\underset{\sigma ^0C^0(P(G_2),Z_2^{add})}{}(1)^{\chi ^0,\sigma ^0}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta H(^{}\sigma ^0)\}.$$
(2.22)
where the cochain $`\chi ^0C^0(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$.

It is possible to show  that similar to the relations (2.13) – (2.15)

$$Z_{G_2}=2^{\mathrm{\#}(VG_2)}\left(\underset{s_i^1P(G_2)}{}\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(s_i^1)\right)Z_{r,G_2},$$
(2.23)
$$Z_{r,G_2}=\underset{\xi ^1Z_1(P(G_2),Z_2^{add})}{}\underset{s_i^1P(G_2)}{}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^1))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^1(s_i^1)})},$$
(2.24)
$$W_{G_2}(\chi ^0)=(Z_{r,G_2})^1\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\xi ^1C^1(P(G_2),Z_2^{add}),}{\xi ^1=\chi ^0}}{}\underset{s_i^1P(G_2)}{}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^1))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^1(s_i^1)})}$$
(2.25)
where $`\mathrm{\#}(VG_2)`$ is the total number of the vertices of the graph $`G_2`$.

The equalities (2.23), (2.24) were proved for the first time in the paper .

Let us consider the relations (2.13) – (2.15) for the particular case of the interaction energy $`E(s_i^2)=0`$ for any face $`s_i^2`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$. For the graph $`G_3=G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$ the group $`Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ coincides with the group

$`B_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. (The homology group is trivial). A boundary of any set of the cubes contains a face $`s_i^2`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$. Hence the equality $`E(s_i^2)=0`$ implies that the sum (2.14) consists of the only term corresponding to the cycle which is equal to zero on any face. Thus the relations (2.13), (2.14) imply

$$Z_{G_3}=2^{\mathrm{\#}(EG_3)}\underset{s_i^2P(G_3)}{}\mathrm{cosh}\beta E(s_i^2).$$
(2.26)
Let us consider the sum (2.15). It is possible that the equation $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$ has no solution $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ such that the cochain $`\xi ^2(s_i^2)=0`$ for any face $`s_i^2`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$. In this case the relation (2.15) implies

$$W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)=0.$$
(2.27)
If the equation $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$ has a solution $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ such that the cochain $`\xi ^2(s_i^2)=0`$ for any face $`s_i^2`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$, then this solution is unique since the equality $`\xi ^2(s_i^2)=0`$ for any face $`s_i^2`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$ implies that the cycle $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is equal to zero on any face. It follows from the relations (2.13) – (2.15), (2.26) that in this case

$$W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_i^2P(G_3),}{\xi ^2=\chi ^1}}{}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(s_i^2))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(s_i^2)})}.$$
(2.28)
It is possible to set the infinite interaction energies $`E(s_i^2)=\pm \mathrm{}`$ into the reduced partition function (2.14) and the correlation functions (2.15).

## 3 Partition Function

In this section we study the connection between the reduced partition function (2.14) of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics and the reduced partition function (2.24) of the two – dimensional Ising model.

We consider the finite three – dimensional lattice $`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. The non – oriented edge of this lattice is given by the pair $`\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the edge initial vertex and the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is the edge direction. The unit vector $`𝐞`$ is one of six vectors: $`(\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`(0,\pm 1,0)`$, $`(0,0,\pm 1)`$. Since the edge is non – oriented, then $`\{𝐩+𝐞,𝐞\}=\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$. The intitial vertex $`𝐩`$ and the final vertex $`𝐩+𝐞`$ of the edge $`\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$ are the vertices of the graph $`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. Hence the components $`p_i,i=1,2,3`$, are the natural numbers and $`M_i^{}p_iM_i`$, $`M_i^{}p_i+e_iM_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. For the edge $`\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$ the incidence numbers $`(\{𝐩,𝐞\}:𝐩)=(\{𝐩,𝐞\}:𝐩+𝐞)=1`$. All other incidence numbers are equal to zero.

The non – oriented face of the lattice $`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$ is given by the triplet $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the face initial vertex and the unit vectors $`𝐞_1,𝐞_2`$ are two orthogonal to each other vectors from six unit vectors $`(\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`(0,\pm 1,0)`$, $`(0,0,\pm 1)`$. Since the face is non – oriented, then $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩,𝐞_2,𝐞_1\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_1,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_2,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}=\{𝐩+𝐞_1+𝐞_2,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$. Any of four vertices $`𝐩,𝐩+𝐞_1,𝐩+𝐞_2,𝐩+𝐞_1+𝐞_2`$ of the face $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$ is the vertex of the graph $`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. Hence the components $`p_i,i=1,2,3`$, are the natural numbers and $`M_i^{}p_iM_i,M_i^{}p_i+(𝐞_1)_iM_i,M_i^{}p_i+(𝐞_2)_iM_i,M_i^{}p_i+(𝐞_1)_i+(𝐞_2)_iM_i,i=1,2,3`$. For the non – oriented face $`\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}`$ the incidence numbers $`(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}:\{𝐩,𝐞_1\})=(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}:\{𝐩,𝐞_2\})=(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}:\{𝐩+𝐞_2,𝐞_1\})=(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}:\{𝐩+𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})=1`$. All other incidence numbers are equal to zero.

Theorem 3.1. Let the reduced partition function $`Z_{r,G_3}`$ of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics be given by the relation (2.14). Let the reduced partition function $`Z_{r,G_2}`$ of the two – dimensional Ising model be given by the relation (2.24). Then

$`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)}|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)}|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_31}{}}}Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2),i}`$ (3.1)
where $`\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\}`$ is any face orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$. The reduced partition function $`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2),i}`$ is defined by the relation (2.24) with the interaction energies $`E(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\})`$.

Proof. Let us consider a cycle $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ for the graph $`G_3=`$

$`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$. By using this cycle we define $`M_3M_3^{}`$ cochains from the group $`C^1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ for the graph $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$

$$\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\xi ^2(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\})$$
(3.2)
where $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$ and the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is orthogonal to the unit vector $`(0,0,1)`$. The incidence numbers satisfy the following relations

$$(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}:(q_1,q_2))=(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\}:\{(q_1,q_2,i),(0,0,1)\})$$
(3.3)
where $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$. Hence the definition (2.3) implies

$$\xi _i^1((p_1,p_2))=\xi ^2(\{(p_1,p_2,i),(0,0,1)\}).$$
(3.4)
Since $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ the equality (3.4) implies $`\xi _i^1Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$.

By using a cycle $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ we define $`M_3M_3^{}+1`$ cochains from the group $`C^2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ for the graph $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$

$$\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})=\xi ^2(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞_1,𝐞_2\})$$
(3.5)
where $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_3`$ and the unit vectors $`𝐞_1,𝐞_2`$ are orthogonal to the unit vector $`(0,0,1)`$. Since $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ the definition (2.3) and the relations (3.2), (3.5) imply

$$\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\xi _{i1}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})+\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}),$$
(3.6)
$`i=M_3^{}+1,\mathrm{},M_31`$,

$$\xi _{M_3^{}}^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\xi _{M_3^{}}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}),$$
(3.7)
$$\xi _{M_3}^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\xi _{M_31}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})$$
(3.8)
where the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is orthogonal to the unit vector $`(0,0,1)`$.

For the graph $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$ the group $`Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ coincides with the group $`B_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ and the group $`Z_2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ consists of the only cochain which is equal to zero on any face. (The homology groups are trivial). Let the arbitrary cycles $`\xi _i^1Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$, be given. Then the equations (3.6) – (3.8) define the cochains $`\xi _i^2`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_3`$, uniquely. Now the relations (3.2), (3.5) define uniquely the cycle $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$. Hence the cycle $`\xi ^2Z_2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is given uniquely by the cycles $`\xi _i^1Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$. The relations (3.2), (3.5) imply

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}P(G_3)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(\{p,e_1,e_2\})})}=`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\}P(G_2)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\})})}\right)\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_31}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e\}P(G_2)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),e\})})}\right)`$ (3.9)
Since $`\beta >0`$, then

$$(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))|_{E(\{p,e_1,e_2\})=\pm \mathrm{}}=\pm 1.$$
(3.10)
If $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, then for any natural number $`m`$ we have

$$ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^m)}=ϵ^m.$$
(3.11)
It follows from the relations (3) – (3.11)

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}P(G_3)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(\{p,e_1,e_2\})})}\right)|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\pm \mathrm{}}=`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\}P(G_2)}{}}ϵ^{_{i=M_3^{}}^{M_3}\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\})}\right)\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_31}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e\}P(G_2)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),e\})})}\right)`$ (3.12)
where $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})`$ is an interaction energy attached to a face

$`\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\}`$ orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$ and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ in correspondence with the relation (3.10).

By summing up the relations (3.6) – (3.8) we have

$$\left(\underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_3}{}}\xi _i^2\right)=0.$$
(3.13)
The group $`Z_2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ consists of the only cochain which is equal to zero on any face. (The homology group is trivial). Hence the relations (2.14), (2.24), (3) and (3.13) imply the equality (3). The theorem is proved.

Let us consider the particular case when the interaction energy depends only on the face orientation: $`E(\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,0,1)\})=E_1`$, $`E(\{𝐩,(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\})=E_2`$. Then the relation (3) implies

$`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)}|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)}|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`(Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)})^{M_3M_3^{}}`$ (3.14)
where the reduced partition function $`Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)}`$ is defined by the relation (2.24) for the interaction energies $`E((p_1,p_2),(1,0))=E_1`$, $`E((p_1,p_2),(0,1))=E_2`$.

The total number $`\mathrm{\#}(EG_3)`$ of the non – oriented edges of the graph $`G_3=`$

$`G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3)`$ is equal to

$$(M_1M_1^{}+1)(M_2M_2^{}+1)(M_3M_3^{})+(M_1M_1^{}+1)(M_2M_2^{})(M_3M_3^{}+1)+$$

$$(M_1M_1^{})(M_2M_2^{}+1)(M_3M_3^{}+1).$$

Hence the relation (3) and Theorem 4.2 from the paper  imply

$`\underset{G_3Z^{\times 3}}{lim}(\mathrm{\#}(EG_3))^1(\mathrm{ln}Z_{r,G_3})|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`\underset{G_3Z^{\times 3}}{lim}(\mathrm{\#}(EG_3))^1(\mathrm{ln}Z_{r,G_3})|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_i\mathrm{},M_i^{}\mathrm{},}{i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2}}{lim}(M_1M_1^{}+1)^1(M_2M_2^{}+1)^1\mathrm{ln}Z_{r,G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta _2`$
$`\mathrm{ln}[(1+z_1^2)(1+z_2^2)2z_1(1z_2^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta _12z_2(1z_1^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta _2]`$ (3.15)
where the variables $`z_i=\mathrm{tanh}\beta E_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, satisfy the estimate $`|z_i|<1/3`$.

It is easy to show that the integral (3) has the singularity when

$$|z_1||z_2|+|z_1|+|z_2|=1.$$
(3.16)
## 4 Correlation Functions

In this section we study the connection between the correlation functions of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics and the correlation functions of the two – dimensional Ising model.

For the fixed cochain $`\chi ^0C^0(P(G_2(\chi ^0)),𝐙_2^{add})`$ where the graph $`G_2(\chi ^0)=`$

$`G(M_1^{}(\chi ^0),M_2^{}(\chi ^0);M_1(\chi ^0),M_2(\chi ^0))`$ we define

$$W_{Z^{\times 2}}(\chi ^0)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{G_2Z^{\times 2},}{G_2(\chi ^0)G_2}}{lim}W_{G_2}(\chi ^0).$$
(4.1)
Due to  we describe the correlation function (4.1). The oriented edge of the graph $`𝐙^{\times 2}`$ is giveh by the pair $`(𝐩,𝐞)`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the edge initial vertex and the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is the edge direction. The unit vector $`𝐞`$ is one of four vectors: $`(\pm 1,0)`$, $`(0,\pm 1)`$. A closed path is a sequence of the oriented edges $`C=((𝐩_1,𝐞_1),\mathrm{},(𝐩_k,𝐞_k))`$ such that

$$𝐩_{i+1}=𝐩_i+𝐞_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k1,𝐩_1=𝐩_k+𝐞_k.$$
(4.2)
The number $`|C|=k`$ is the length of the closed path $`C=((𝐩_1,𝐞_1),\mathrm{},(𝐩_k,𝐞_k))`$. If $`C`$ is a closed path, the support $`C`$ is the set of all non – oriented edges $`\{𝐩,𝐞\}`$ such that the oriented edge $`(𝐩,𝐞)`$ is included into the path $`C`$ or the oriented edge $`(𝐩+𝐞,𝐞)`$ is included into the path $`C`$. The closed path $`((𝐩_1,𝐞_1),\mathrm{},(𝐩_k,𝐞_k))`$ is called reduced if it satisfies the following condition

$$𝐩_{i+1}=𝐩_i+𝐞_i,𝐩_{i+1}+𝐞_{i+1}𝐩_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k1,𝐩_1=𝐩_k+𝐞_k,𝐩_1+𝐞_1𝐩_k.$$
(4.3)
The set of all reduced closed paths on the graph $`𝐙^{\times 2}`$ is denoted by $`RC(𝐙^{\times 2})`$.

Let with any pair $`(𝐩_1,𝐞_1)`$, $`(𝐩_2,𝐞_2)`$ of the oriented edges of the graph $`𝐙^{\times 2}`$ such that $`𝐩_2=𝐩_1+𝐞_1`$, $`𝐩_2+𝐞_2𝐩_1`$ there correspond the number

$$\rho ((𝐩_1,𝐞_1);(𝐩_2,𝐞_2))=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{2}\widehat{(𝐞_1,𝐞_2)}\}$$
(4.4)
where $`\widehat{(𝐞_1,𝐞_2)}`$ is the radian measure of the angle between the direction of the vector $`𝐞_1`$ and the direction of the vector $`𝐞_2`$. With any reduced closed path $`C=((𝐩_1,𝐞_1),\mathrm{},(𝐩_k,𝐞_k))`$ on the graph $`𝐙^{\times 2}`$ there corresponds the number

$`\rho (C)=\rho ((𝐩_1,𝐞_1);(𝐩_2,𝐞_2))\rho ((𝐩_2,𝐞_2);(𝐩_3,𝐞_3))\mathrm{}\rho ((𝐩_{k1},𝐞_{k1});(𝐩_k,𝐞_k))\times `$
$`\rho ((𝐩_k,𝐞_k);(𝐩_1,𝐞_1)).`$ (4.5)
The number $`\rho (C)=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{2}\varphi (C)\}`$ where $`\varphi (C)`$ is the total angle through which the tangent vector of the path $`C`$ turns along the path $`C`$.

Let a cochain $`\xi ^1C^1(P(𝐙^{\times 2}),𝐙_2^{add})`$. The support $`\xi ^1`$ is the set of all non – oriented edges of the graph $`𝐙^{\times 2}`$ on which a cochain $`\xi ^1`$ takes the value $`1`$. Let a cochain $`\chi ^0C^0(P(𝐙^{\times 2}),𝐙_2^{add})`$. The support $`\xi ^1`$ is called $`\chi ^0`$ – connected if any connected component of the support $`\xi ^1`$ contains the non – oriented edges incident to the vertices on which a cochain $`\chi ^0`$ equals $`1`$. Let $`i(\xi ^1)`$ be the set of all non – oriented edges incident to the vertices incident to the edges of the support $`\xi ^1`$.

Due to  the correlation function (4.1) has the following form

$`W_{Z^{\times 2}}(\chi ^0)={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\xi ^1C^1(P(Z^{\times 2}),Z_2^{add}),\xi ^1=\chi ^0,}{\chi ^0connected\xi ^1}}{}}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{CRC(Z^{\times 2}),}{Ci(\xi ^1)\mathrm{}}}{}}|C|^1\rho (C){\displaystyle \underset{(p,e)C}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞\})\}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{p,e\}P(Z^{\times 2})}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^1(\{p,e\})})}`$ (4.6)
The series (4) is absolutely convergent when the following estimate is valid

$$|\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞\})|<1/3$$
(4.7)
and the values of the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,𝐞\})`$ have the same sign for all collinear vectors $`𝐞`$.

Theorem 4.1. Let for the graph $`G_3(\chi ^1)=`$

$`G(M_1^{}(\chi ^1),M_2^{}(\chi ^1),M_3^{}(\chi ^1);M_1(\chi ^1),M_2(\chi ^1),M_3(\chi ^1))`$ the cochain $`\chi ^1B_1(P(G_3(\chi ^1)),𝐙_2^{add})`$ be given. For the graph $`G_2(\chi ^1)=G(M_1^{}(\chi ^1),M_2^{}(\chi ^1);M_1(\chi ^1),M_2(\chi ^1))`$ we define $`M_3(\chi ^1)M_3^{}(\chi ^1)`$ cochains from the group $`C^0(P(G_2(\chi ^1)),𝐙_2^{add})`$

$$\chi _i^0((p_1,p_2))=\chi ^1(\{(p_1,p_2,i),(0,0,1)\}),$$
(4.8)
$`i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1),\mathrm{},M_3(\chi ^1)1`$, and $`M_3(\chi ^1)M_3^{}(\chi ^1)+1`$ cochains from the group

$`C^1(P(G_2(\chi ^1)),𝐙_2^{add})`$

$$\chi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\chi ^1(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞\})$$
(4.9)
where $`i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1),\mathrm{},M_3(\chi ^1)`$ and the unit vector $`𝐞`$ is orthogonal to the unit vector $`(0,0,1)`$.

If the interaction energies of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics satisfy the estimate

$$|\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞,(0,0,1)\})|<1/3$$
(4.10)
and the values of the interaction energies $`E(\{𝐩,𝐞,(0,0,1)\})`$ have the same sign for all collinear vectors $`𝐞`$, then the correlation functions of the three – dimensional $`𝐙_2`$ electrodynamics

$`\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{G_3Z^{\times 3},}{G_3(\chi ^1)G_3}}{lim}W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1)}{\overset{M_3(\chi ^1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{}}}W_{Z^{\times 2},i}(\chi _i^0),`$ (4.11)
$`\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{G_3Z^{\times 3},}{G_3(\chi ^1)G_3}}{lim}W_{G_3}(\chi ^1)|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`(1)^{S(_{i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1)}^{M_3(\chi ^1)}\chi _i^1)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1)}{\overset{M_3(\chi ^1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{}}}W_{Z^{\times 2},i}(\chi _i^0)`$ (4.12)
where $`\{𝐩,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\}`$ is a face orthogonal to the coordinate axis $`z`$. The correlation function $`W_{Z^{\times 2},i}(\chi ^0)`$ is given by the relation (4) for the interaction energies $`E(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\})`$. For any cochain $`\chi ^1B_1(P(G_3(\chi ^1)),𝐙_2^{add})`$ the cochain

$$\underset{i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1)}{\overset{M_3(\chi ^1)}{}}\chi _i^1=\zeta ^2$$

where the cochain $`\zeta ^2C^2(P(G_2(\chi ^1)),𝐙_2^{add})`$ is defined uniquely. Then

$$(1)^{S(_{i=M_3^{}(\chi ^1)}^{M_3(\chi ^1)}\chi _i^1)}=(1)^{_{\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\}P(G_2(\chi ^1))}\zeta ^2(\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\})}.$$
(4.13)
Proof. For the graph $`G_3=G(M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{};M_1,M_2,M_3),G_3(\chi ^1)G_3`$, we consider a cochain $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ satisfying the equation $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$. The relations (3.2) define the cochains $`\xi _i^1C^1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$, for the graph $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$. The relations (3.4), (4.8) imply

$$\xi _i^1=\chi _i^0$$
(4.14)
where $`\chi _i^0=0`$ for $`i<M_3^{}(\chi ^1)`$ and $`iM_3(\chi ^1)`$.

For the same cochain $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ the relations (3.5) define the cochains $`\xi _i^2C^2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_3`$. Since $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$, the definition (2.3) and the relations (3.2), (3.5), (4.9) imply

$$\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\chi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})+\xi _{i1}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})+\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}),$$
(4.15)
$`i=M_3^{}+1,\mathrm{},M_31`$,

$$\xi _{M_3^{}}^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\chi _{M_3^{}}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})+\xi _{M_3^{}}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}),$$
(4.16)
$$\xi _{M_3}^2(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})=\chi _{M_3}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})+\xi _{M_31}^1(\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\})$$
(4.17)
where $`\{(p_1,p_2),𝐞\}`$ is a non – oriented face of the graph $`G_2`$ and the cochains $`\chi _i^1=0`$ for $`i<M_3^{}(\chi ^1)`$ and $`i>M_3(\chi ^1)`$.

Let the arbitrary cochains $`\xi _i^1C^1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$, satisfying the equations (4.14) be given. Since $`\chi ^1B_1(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})=Z_1(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$, the equations (4.14) imply that the right hand sides of the equations (4.15) – (4.17) are the cycles, i. e. they belong to the group $`Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$. For the graph $`G_2=G(M_1^{},M_2^{};M_1,M_2)`$ the group $`Z_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ coincides with the group $`B_1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ and the group $`Z_2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ consists of the only cochain which is equal to zero on any face. (The homology groups are trivial). Therefore the cochains $`\xi _i^2C^2(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$ are defined uniquely by the equations (4.15) – (4.17). Then the relations (3.2), (3.5) define uniquely the cochain $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ satisfying the equation $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$. Hence the cochain $`\xi ^2C^2(P(G_3),𝐙_2^{add})`$ satisfying the equation $`\xi ^2=\chi ^1`$ is given uniquely by cochains $`\xi _i^1C^1(P(G_2),𝐙_2^{add})`$, $`i=M_3^{},\mathrm{},M_31`$, satisfying the equations (4.14).

The relations (3.2), (3.5) imply

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}P(G_3)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(\{p,e_1,e_2\})})}\right)|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_31}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e\}P(G_2)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),e\})})}.`$ (4.18)
Now the relations (2.15), (2.25), (3), (4.1), (4) and Theorem 4.3 from the paper  imply the relation (4).

The relations (3.2), (3.5), (3.10), (3.11) imply

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\{p,e_1,e_2\}P(G_3)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{𝐩,𝐞_1,𝐞_2\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi ^2(\{p,e_1,e_2\})})}\right)|_{E(\{p,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)\})=\mathrm{}}=`$
$`(1)^{_{i=M_3^{}}^{M_3}_{\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\}P(G_2)}\xi _i^2(\{(p_1,p_2),e_1,e_2\})}\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_31}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{(p_1,p_2),e\}P(G_2)}{}}(\mathrm{tanh}\beta E(\{(p_1,p_2,i),𝐞,(0,0,1)\}))^{\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{\xi _i^1(\{(p_1,p_2),e\})})}\right).`$ (4.19)
Summing up the relations (4.15) – (4.17) we obtain

$$\left(\underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_3}{}}\xi _i^2\right)=\underset{i=M_3^{}}{\overset{M_3}{}}\chi _i^1.$$
(4.20)
The group $`Z_2(P(G_2,𝐙_2^{add})`$ consists of the only cochain which is equal to zero on any face. (The homology group is trivial). Hence the equation (4.20) defines the cochain $`_{i=M_3^{}}^{M_3}\xi _i^2`$ uniquely. Now the relations (2.15), (2.25), (3), (4.1), (4), (4.20) and Theorem 4.3 from the paper  imply the relations (4), (4.13). The theorem is proved.


format: text

text:
# *

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a new method for probing physical conditions in DLAs. In principle, this technique can be used to probe their masses, sizes, and baryonic content. The focus of this paper is on star formation. Specifically, in this paper I infer the star formation rates per unit area in DLAs by measuring the rate at which the neutral gas is heated. This is possible because it is reasonable to attribute heating to far UV radiation emitted by massive stars. Since the cross-sectional area times the comoving density of the DLAs is known, we can derive the rate of star formation per unit comoving volume. Until now, comoving star formation rates have been obtained for highly luminous objects such as the Lyman Break Galaxies. Here I derive comoving star formation rates for objects that are more representative of the protogalactic mass distribution.

## 2 \[C II\] 158 $`\mu `$m Emission From Damped Ly$`\alpha `$ Systems

\[C II\] 158 $`\mu `$m emission results from transitions between the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ fine-structure states in the ground term of C+. It dominates the cooling rate by the Galaxy ISM with a luminosity $`L`$(\[C II\]) = 5$`\times `$107$`L_{}`$ . Most of the emission from the Galaxy and other nearby spirals arises in the diffuse neutral gas rather than from star-forming regions in spiral arms, or PDRs on the surfaces of molecular clouds (e.g. ). The last point is especially relevant for DLAs where molecules are rarely detected .

In order to estimate the \[C II\] 158 $`\mu `$m emission rates, Pottasch et al.  derived the following expression for the 158 $`\mu `$m luminosity per H atom:

$$l_c=N(\mathrm{CII}^{})h\nu _{ul}A_{ul}/N(\mathrm{HI})\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{H}^1,$$
(1)
where $`N`$(C II ) is the column density of C+ ions in the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ state, $`N`$(H I) is the H I column density, and $`A_{ul}`$ and $`h\nu _{ul}`$ are the Einstein $`A`$ coefficient and energy of the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ transition. In fact, $`l_c`$ is the density$``$weighted average along the sightline of $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$, the emission rate per H atom at a given displacement vector $`𝐫`$. Here $`l_{cr}(𝐫)=n_{\mathrm{CII}^{}}(𝐫)A_{ul}h\nu _{ul}/n_{\mathrm{HI}}(𝐫)`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{CII}^{}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ are the volume densities of H I and C II .

Figure 1 shows estimates of $`l_c`$ versus $`N`$(H I), where $`N`$(C II ) is deduced from the strength of C II 1335.708 absorption and $`N`$(H I) from DLA absorption. The small stars depict measurements for several sightlines through the ISM  and . The large star depicts $`<l_c>`$, i.e., $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ averaged over the H I disk of the Galaxy. Figure 1 also shows our measurements of $`l_c`$ for 27 DLAs. As neither 158 $`\mu `$m nor 21 cm emission has been detected from any DLAs, $`<l_c>`$ cannot be inferred directly, where in this case $`<l_c>`$ corresponds to $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ integrated over the volume of the average DLA. Nevertheless, comparison between the two distributions of $`l_c`$ clearly indicates $`<l_c>`$ for the DLAs to be a factor of 30 or more lower than for the ISM.

## 3 PROPERTIES OF MULTI-PHASE MEDIA

To determine the heating rate from measurements of $`l_c`$ we consider the thermal and ionization equilibria of gas subjected to heating and cooling. The result is a multi-phase medium in which the various phases are in pressure equilibrium. There are indications that the H I gas in DLAs is in two phases: a cold ($`T`$ 50 K) neutral medium (CNM), and a warm ($`T`$ 8000K) neutral medium (WNM). The detection of 21 cm absorption in DLAs indicates the presence of a CNM since the 21 cm optical depth is inversely proportional to temperature . Evidence for a WNM comes from misalignment in velocity space between 21 cm absorption or C II 1335.7 absorption on the one hand and UV resonance lines on the other (see Figure 2), since the CNM dominates 158 $`\mu `$m emission (Fig. 3c).

To compute the properties of the multi-phase gas we focus on the thermal and ionization balance of the atomic CNM and WNM. By analogy with the ISM we assume that heating is dominated by photoelectric ejection of electrons from grains illuminated by far UV radiation ($`h\nu `$=8$``$13.6 eV). We adopt the formalism of  who considered small grains and PAHs and found the photoelectric heating rate at $`𝐫`$ to be given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(𝐫)=1.0\times 10^{24}ϵG_0(𝐫)\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{H}^1.$$
(2)
In the last equation $`G_0(𝐫)`$, the radiation field incident at r, equals 4$`\pi `$$`J(𝐫`$) and is in units of Habing’s  estimate of the local interstellar value (=1.6$`\times `$10-3 ergs cm-2 s-1). Here $`J`$ is the mean intensity integrated between 8 and 13.6 eV, and $`ϵ`$ is the far-UV heating efficiency. Following  we include ionization and heating by cosmic rays and assume that the dust-to-gas ratio equals the metallicity, $`Z/Z_{}`$. As a result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(𝐫)`$ is proportional to $`Z/Z_{}`$.

An example of the computed 2-phase diagrams is shown in Figure 3. Here we assume $`G_0`$ = 1.7 which corresponds to the far UV radiation field in the ISM (see ). We also let the cosmic ray ionization rate $`\zeta `$ = 1.8$`\times `$10-17 $`s^1`$ (see ). For comparisons with the DLA data we let \[Fe/H\] ($``$ log$`Z/Z_{}`$) = $``$1.5, the mean metallicity of the DLAs ( ). Since regions of thermal stability occur where $`(\mathrm{log}P)/(\mathrm{log}n)`$ $`>`$ 0, a stable 2-phase medium, comprising the WNM and CNM, can exist between the local pressure minimum and maximum. Figure 3c shows that $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ asymptotically approaches a maximum at log $`n`$ $`>`$ 1.5 cm-3 in the CNM where it dominates the cooling rate. Comparison with Figure 1 further indicates that this $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ is much lower than the $`<l_c>`$ observed in the ISM, but falls within the range of $`l_c`$ spanned by the DLAs.

## 4 Star Formation Rates

The previous discussion suggests that the far UV radiation field in high-$`z`$ DLAs is similar to that in the Galaxy. Because the far UV intensity is proportional to the rate at which massive stars form , the star formation rates should be likewise similar. More precisely, the similarity is between the star formation rates per unit area, since solutions to the radiative transfer equation for plane parallel slabs of dust and stars show that $`J_\nu `$ is proportional to the luminosity per unit area, $`\mu _\nu `$ . Here we compute $`J_\nu `$ at the center of a uniform slab of stars and dust, and then integrate solutions for $`J_\nu `$ to $`J`$ with ’s fit to the far UV spectrum of the ISM radiation field. Finally we combine $`J`$ with eq. (2) to compute the heating rates.

The curves in Figure 4 plot the resultant $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ versus \[Fe/H\]. The $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ are computed in the CNM limit, $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$=$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(𝐫)`$, and for r corresponding to the central points of uniform slabs. The curves are parameterized by 3 different values of $`\psi _{}`$, the star formation rate per unit area. Comparison with the DLA data reveals significant variations of $`l_c`$ at fixed \[Fe/H\]. This indicates that $`\psi _{}`$ is distributed at constant metallicity. The data also show tentative evidence for the predicted decrease in $`l_{cr}(𝐫)`$ with decreasing \[Fe/H\] at an apparent upper limit to the star formation rate of log$`\psi _{}2.12`$ $`M_{}`$y-1kpc-2. However, we cannot rule out entirely a possibility currently under investigation; namely, that the DLA sightlines pass through gas containing only WNM  in which case the $`\psi _{}`$ in Figure 4 are lower limits.

The star formation rate per unit comoving volume is given by

$$d\rho _{}/dt=\frac{<\psi _{}>(A/A_p)\times dN/dz}{(1+z)^3(cdt/dz)}.$$
(3)
where $`<\psi _{}>`$ is the average star formation rate per unit area, $`A`$ and $`A_p`$ are the average cross-sectional area and cross-sectional area projected on the sky, and $`dN/dz`$ is the number of DLAs per unit redshift interval. Assuming log$`<\psi _{}>=2.4\pm 0.3`$ $`M_{}y^1kpc^2`$ and $`dN/dz`$=0.24 at $`z`$ = 2.8 , the median redshift of our sample, we find that in the plane-parallel limit (i.e., $`A=2A_p`$), log$`d\rho _{}/dt`$ =$``$0.8$`\pm `$0.2 $`M_{}y^1Mpc^3`$. This result, plotted in Figure 5, is compared with estimates derived from objects detected in emission such as the Lyman Break galaxies . It is encouraging that the DLA measurement is not widely different from measurements made with independent techniques. The similarity could mean that the DLAs and Lyman Break galaxies are the same entity. More likely, our estimates of $`\psi _{}`$ and $`d\rho _{}/dt`$ suggest the DLAs to be characterized by low specific star formation rates and high comoving densities relative to the Lyman Break galaxies.

Acknowledgements: I wish to thank C. F. Mckee and J. X. Prochaska for many valuable comments. This research was partially supported by NSF grant AST0071257.

## Index


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The global analysis of the total rates measured in the Cl, Ga  and SK experiments and the day-night spectrum data of SK  indicate that the large mixing angle MSW solution gives the best description of the solar neutrino data . However before a particular solution can be established one should rule out other possibilities. In this spirit people have considered various non-standard neutrino properties and their implication for the solar neutrino problem . In this paper we consider a scenario where neutrinos are allowed to decay on their way from sun to earth after undergoing MSW transitions in the sun. Such a possibility was discussed earlier in .

We consider two flavor mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$/$`\nu _\tau `$ with the mass eigenstates $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$. We assume that the heavier mass state $`\nu _2`$ is unstable, while the lighter neutrino mass state $`\nu _1`$ has lifetime much greater than the sun-earth transit time and hence can be taken as stable. There are two possible non-radiative decay modes444Radiative decays are severely constrained.

* Model 1: If neutrinos are Dirac particles one has the decay channel $`\nu _2\overline{\nu }_{1R}+\varphi `$, where $`\overline{\nu }_{1R}`$ is a right handed singlet and $`\varphi `$ is an iso-singlet scaler. Thus all the final state particles for this model are sterile and there is no distinct signature of this decay apart from in disappearance experiments. This model is discussed in . In this model a light scalar boson $`\varphi `$ with lepton number -2 and a singlet right handed neutrino is added to the standard model. The neutrino coupling to this scalar boson is given by $`g_{21}\nu _{R_1}^TC^1\nu _{R_2}`$, $`C`$ being the charge conjugation operator.
* Model 2: If neutrinos are Majorana particles, the decay mode is $`\nu _2\overline{\nu }_1+J`$, where J is a Majoron, produced as a result of spontaneous breaking of a global $`U(1)_{L_eL_\mu }`$ symmetry . In this model the neutrino masses are generated by extending the higgs sector of the standard model. Though the original triplet majoron model proposed by Gelmini and Roncadeli  is ruled out from the LEP data on Z decay to invisible modes , the model discussed in , which needs two additional triplet and one singlet scalar boson in the theory, can avoid the conflict with the LEP data, and at the same time predict fast enough neutrino decay necessary to solve the solar neutrino problem. In this model the $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ can be observed as a $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ with a probability $`|U_{e1}|^2`$ and as a $`\overline{\nu }_\mu /\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ with a probability $`|U_{e2}|^2`$.

In both the decay scenarios the rest frame lifetime of $`\nu _2`$ is given by

$$\tau _0=\frac{16\pi }{g^2}\frac{m_2(1+m_1/m_2)^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }}$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant, $`m_i`$ is the $`\nu _i`$ mass and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$. Assuming $`m_2>>m_1`$ the equation (1) can be written as

$$g^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }16\pi \alpha $$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is the decay constant related to $`\tau _0`$ as $`\alpha =m_2/\tau _0`$. If we now incorporate the bound $`g^2<4.5\times 10^5`$ as obtained from K decay modes  we get the bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>10^6\alpha `$ 555Since the $`m_{ee}`$ element of the mass matrix is zero in the majoron decay model considered, the $`0\nu `$-majoron $`\beta \beta `$ decay does not take place in this model  and the more stringent bound on g from majoron emission in $`\beta \beta `$ decay  is not applicable.. Since for a typical neutrino energy of 10 MeV, one starts getting decay effects over the sun-earth distance for $`\alpha \stackrel{>}{}10^{13}`$ eV2, the corresponding limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\stackrel{>}{}10^7`$ eV2. In an earlier paper we had considered high values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ($`>10^3eV^2`$) so that the matter effects inside the sun can be neglected and one can have decay as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ independent average oscillations . In this paper we consider $`10^6\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^3`$ eV2 such that the matter effects inside the sun are important. We incorporate the earth matter effects as well.

In section 2 we discuss the usual two flavor MSW solutions to the solar neutrino problem. We perform a $`\chi ^2`$-analysis to the global data on rates and SK day-night spectrum and present the allowed regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ plane. In section 3 we introduce the possibility of having one of the neutrino states, $`\nu _2`$ to be unstable. We look for the effects of decay on the MSW solutions and present the allowed areas at various values of the decay constant. We show that for the majoron decay model (model 2) the SK data on $`\overline{\nu _e}p`$ events restricts the allowed values of the decay constant to extremely low values. In section 4 we discuss the implications of non-zero neutrino decay for the SNO experiment. We finally present our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 MSW effect for stable neutrinos

As was first indicated in , interaction of electron neutrinos propagating through the sun modifies the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta `$ to matter mixing angle $`\theta _M`$ where,

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _M=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta 2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_eE}.$$
(3)
Here $`n_e`$ is the ambient electron density, $`E`$ the neutrino energy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (= $`m_2^2m_1^2`$) the mass squared difference in vacuum. The vanishing of the denominator in eq. (3) defines the resonance condition, where the matter mixing angle is maximal.

The probability amplitude of survival for an electron neutrino is given by,

$$A_{ee}=A_{e1}^{}A_{11}^{vac}A_{1e}^{}+A_{e2}^{}A_{22}^{vac}A_{2e}^{}$$
(4)
where $`A_{ek}^{}`$ gives the probability amplitude of $`\nu _e\nu _k`$ transition at the solar surface,

$$A_{ek}^{}=a_{ek}^{}e^{i\varphi _k^{}}$$
(5)
$$a_{e1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=P_J\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _M+(1P_J)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _M=1a_{e2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(6)
$`P_J`$ is the non-adiabatic level jumping probability between the two mass eigenstates for which we use the standard expression from .

$`P_J={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}{1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )}}`$ (7)
$`\gamma =\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{E}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dlnn_e}{dr}}\right|_{r=r_{res}}^1`$ (8)
$`A_{kk}^{vac}`$ is the transition amplitude from the solar surface to the earth surface,

$$A_{kk}^{vac}=e^{iE_k(LR_{})}$$
(9)
where $`L`$ is the sun-earth distance and $`R_{}`$ the radius of the sun. $`A_{ke}^{}`$ denotes the $`\nu _k\nu _e`$ transition amplitudes inside the earth. We evaluate these amplitudes by assuming the earth to consist of two constant density slabs. The $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is given by

$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`|A_{ee}|^2`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`a_{e1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|A_{1e}^{}|^2+a_{e2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|A_{2e}^{}|^2`$
$`+2a_{e1}^{}a_{e2}^{}Re[A_{1e}^{}A_{2e}^{}{}_{}{}^{}e^{i(E_2E_1)(LR_{})}e^{i(\varphi _{2,}\varphi _{1,})}]`$
It can be shown that the square bracketed term containing the phases average out to zero in the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ in which we are interested .

Using eq. (10) as the probability we have done a $`\chi ^2`$-analysis of the current solar neutrino data on total rates from Cl, Ga666We use the weighted average of the rates from Sage, Gallex and GNO.  and SK and the 18+18 bins of data on the day-night electron energy spectrum from SK. The details of the code used can be found in . We use the 1117 days data of SK and incorporate the BBP00 solar model . The theory errors and their correlations in the analysis of total rates is included as in . In addition to the astrophysical uncertainties included in  for the analysis of the total rates, we have included the uncertainty in the $`S_0`$-factor for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}O(p,\gamma )^{17}F`$ . For the day-night spectrum analysis we have included the correlation between the systematic errors of the day and the night bins. As in  we vary the normalisation of the spectrum as a free parameter which avoids the overcounting of the rates and spectrum data for SK. Hence for the day-night spectrum analysis we have (36 - 1) degrees of freedom (d.o.f) while for the total rates we have 3, which makes a total of 38 d.o.f for the rates+spectrum analysis with no oscillation. For MSW analysis with two active neutrino flavors we present in Table 1 two sets of results

* with the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ normalisation factor $`X_B`$ in the total rates held at the SSM value.
* with the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ normalisation factor $`X_B`$ in the total rates kept as a free parameter.

|  | Nature of | $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ | $`\chi _{min}^2`$ | Goodness |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Solution | in eV2 |  |  | of fit |
|  | SMA | $`5.48\times 10^6`$ | $`5.79\times 10^4`$ | 43.22 | 19.01% |
| $`X_B`$ fixed | LMA | $`4.17\times 10^5`$ | 0.35 | 37.33 | 40.78% |
| at SSM value | LOW | $`1.51\times 10^7`$ | 0.64 | 39.54 | 31.48% |
|  | SMA | $`5.35\times 10^6`$ | $`4.34\times 10^4`$ | 37.98 | 33.51% |
| $`X_B`$ varying | LMA | $`4.22\times 10^5`$ | 0.25 | 34.20 | 50.67% |
|  | LOW | $`1.51\times 10^7`$ | $`0.64`$ | 39.88 | 26.20% |

Table 1: The best-fit values of the parameters, $`\chi _{min}^2`$, and the goodness of fit from the global analysis of rates and the day-night spectrum data for MSW analysis involving two neutrino flavors.

Thus the best-fit comes in the LMA region. In fig. 1 we plot the 90%, 95% and 99% C.L. allowed regions for the two-flavor MSW transition to an active neutrino. All the contours have been drawn with respect to the global minimum with the $`X_B`$ fixed at the SSM value. We have also done a $`\chi ^2`$-analysis for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ MSW conversion, $`\nu _s`$ being a sterile neutrino, for both $`X_B`$ fixed at SSM and $`X_B`$ varying freely. The best-fit values of parameters, $`\chi _{min}^2`$ and the goodness of fit (g.o.f) are

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }=3.74\times 10^6`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =5.2\times 10^4`$, $`\chi _{min}^2=44.85`$, g.o.f = 14.79%, $`X_B`$ fixed at SSM value.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }=3.71\times 10^6`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =4.72\times 10^4`$, $`\chi _{min}^2=43.42`$, g.o.f = 15.53%, $`X_B`$ free.

## 3 MSW effect and unstable neutrinos

If a neutrino of energy $`E`$ decays while traversing a distance $`L`$ then the decay term $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)`$ gives the fraction of neutrinos that survive, where $`\alpha `$ is the decay constant discussed before. In fig. 2 we plot this $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ for two different energy values. For $`\alpha `$ very small the exponential term is $``$ 1 and there is no decay. As $`\alpha `$ increases one starts getting decay over the sun-earth distance only for $`\alpha \stackrel{>}{}10^{13}`$ eV2. As we have discussed in the introduction, since from K-decay $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^6\alpha `$, one can have simultaneous MSW and decay for $`10^7`$ eV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }<10^3`$ eV2. Below this $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ the bound on the coupling constant coming from K-decay restricts the decay constant $`\alpha `$ to be small enough so that decay effects are negligible over the sun-earth distance. So henceforth we will be concerned with only the LMA and SMA solutions, the LOW region remaining unaffected due to decay. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>10^3`$ eV2 there will not be any MSW effect.

The probability amplitude for $`\nu _e`$ survival in presence of neutrino decay is again given by eq.(4), with $`A_{ek}^{}`$, $`A_{ke}^{}`$ and $`A_{11}^{vac}`$ as before, the only change being for $`A_{22}^{vac}`$ since the $`\nu _2`$ decays on its way from the sun to earth. $`A_{22}^{vac}`$ is given by

$$A_{22}^{vac}=e^{iE_2(LR_{})}e^{\alpha (LR_{})/E_2}$$
(11)
Then, the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is given by (ignoring the phase part),

$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{e1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|A_{1e}^{}|^2+a_{e2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|A_{2e}^{}|^2e^{2\alpha (LR_{})/E_2}`$ (12)
The day-time probability (i.e. without the earth effect) is given by

$`P_{ee}^{\mathrm{day}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta [P_J\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _M+(1P_J)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _M]`$ (13)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [(1P_J)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _M+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _MP_J]e^{2\alpha (LR_{})/E_2}`$
From eq.(13) we note that the the decay term appears with a $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and is therefore appreciable only for large enough $`\theta `$. Thus we expect the effect of decay to be maximum in the LMA region. This can also be understood as follows. The $`\nu _e`$ are produced mostly as $`\nu _2`$ in the solar core. In the LMA region the neutrinos move adiabatically through the sun and emerge as $`\nu _2`$ which eventually decays. For the SMA region on the other hand $`P_J`$ is non-zero and $`\nu _e`$ produced as $`\nu _2`$ cross over to $`\nu _1`$ at the resonance and come out as a $`\nu _1`$ from the solar surface. Since $`\nu _1`$ is stable, decay does not affect this region. Including the earth effect the survival probability can be expressed as

$$P_{ee}=P_{ee}^{\mathrm{day}}+\frac{(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta P_{2e})(P_{ee}^{\mathrm{day}}+e^{2\alpha (LR_{})/E_2}(P_{ee}^{\mathrm{day}}1))}{cos^2\theta sin^2\theta e^{2\alpha (LR_{})/E_2}}$$
(14)
$`P_{2e}`$ is the probability of the second mass eigenstate to get converted into the $`\nu _e`$ state at the detector.

In fig. 3 the solid lines show the survival probability versus neutrino energy for three different values of $`\alpha `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ fixed at the best fit value of the LMA solution. The introduction of decay reduces the survival probability, as the second term in eq.(12) reduces with $`\alpha `$. Decay also brings about a deviation from a flat probability towards the high energy end. The dotted line gives the probability for the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ but a higher value of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ with $`\alpha =10^{11}`$ eV2. We observe that there is a huge drop in the survival probability initially, followed by a sharp increase with energy. A comparison between the different curves shows that inclusion of decay results in the reduction of the survival probability as well as an energy distortion and both these effects increase with the mixing angle $`\theta `$.

We next perform a $`\chi ^2`$-analysis of the total rates and the day-night spectrum data for non-zero decay. The best-fit comes for $`\alpha =0`$, corresponding to no decay with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ as given in Table 1. However non-zero values of $`\alpha `$ giving finite decay probability also gives acceptable fit. For small values of $`\theta `$ as in the SMA region, the fraction of $`\nu _2`$ in the solar neutrino beam is very small. As a result very few neutrinos decay and all values of $`\alpha `$ may be allowed. On the other hand in the LMA region the $`\theta `$ is high and large number of neutrinos can decay producing a distortion in the energy spectrum. Therefore the data can put some restrictions on the allowed values of $`\alpha `$. In fig. 4 we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2(=\chi ^2\chi _{min}^2)`$ vs $`\alpha `$ keeping the other two parameters free (in the LMA regime). We also show the 99% C.L. limit for three parameters by the dotted line. From fig. 4 we see that in the LMA region, values of $`\alpha `$ upto $`3.5\times 10^{11}`$ eV2 are allowed at 99% C.L. from the global analysis.

In fig. 5 we show the allowed regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\text{ }\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ plane for various fixed values of $`\alpha `$. The first panel is for $`\alpha =0`$ which is the case of no decay and the contours are the same as those presented in fig. 1, modulo the difference in the definition of the C.L. as now there are three parameters whereas in fig. 1 we had two. The other three panels are for different non-zero allowed values of $`\alpha `$ obtained from fig. 4.

As expected, we find that the SMA allowed regions remain mostly unaffected due to a non-zero $`\alpha `$. The LMA solution on the other hand is appreciably affected and the allowed area shrinks as $`\alpha `$ increases. This effect is seen to be more pronounced for larger $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. The reason for this can be traced down to the fact that decay results in distortion of the high energy end of the neutrino spectrum and this distortion is more for higher $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, a feature explicit in fig. 3. As a result higher values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ are disfavored by the global data as $`\alpha `$ increases.

It is to be noted that although in the LOW region the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ is high, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is small and appreciable decay over the sun-earth distance is not obtained if one has to be consistent with the bounds on the coupling constant from K-decays. Because of this the LOW region is not plotted in fig. 5.

The results presented in this section are in general valid for both the decay models though in model 2 the $`\nu _2`$ decays to a $`\overline{\nu }_1`$, which can interact with the electrons in SK detector as $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. But since the $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ is degraded in energy . the effect of these additional ($`\overline{\nu }_ee`$) and ($`\overline{\nu }_xe`$) scattering events in SK is not significant  and the final results remain the same. However additional constraint on model 2 come from the $`\overline{\nu _e}pe^+n`$ events, which contribute to the background in SK. From the absence of a significant contribution above the background, the bound obtained on the total flux of $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ from $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu _e}}`$ $`(^8B)<1.8\times 10^5`$ cm-2 s-1 which translates to a bound on the probability $`P_{e\overline{e}}<3.5\%`$ . In fig. 6 we plot the conversion probability $`P_{e\overline{e}}`$ vs $`\alpha `$. For each $`\alpha `$ we find the $`\chi _{min}^2`$ and plot $`P_{e\overline{e}}`$ for the corresponding the best fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. We also show the allowed limit of $`P_{e\overline{e}}`$ = 0.035. So from this constraint for model 2 only $`\alpha 5.8\times 10^{13}`$ eV2 remain allowed.

## 4 Implications for SNO

The main detection processes in the heavy water of SNO are

$`\nu _e+dp+p+e^{}`$ (15)
$`\nu _x+dp+n+\nu _x`$ (16)
The first is a charged current (CC) reaction with energy threshold of 1.44 MeV and the second one is a neutral current (NC) process with an energy threshold of 2.23 MeV. While the CC is sensitive to only $`\nu _e`$, the NC process is sensitive to neutrinos and antineutrinos of all flavors. The rate of ($`\nu _ed`$) CC events recorded in the detector is given by

$`R_{CC}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑E_\nu \lambda _{\nu _e}(E_\nu )\sigma _{CC}(E_\nu )P_{ee}}{𝑑E_\nu \lambda _{\nu _e}(E_\nu )\sigma _{CC}(E_\nu )}}`$ (17)
$`\sigma _{CC}={\displaystyle _{E_{A_{th}}}}𝑑E_A{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E_TR(E_A,E_T){\displaystyle 𝑑E_\nu \frac{d\sigma _{\nu _ed}(E_T,E_\nu )}{dE_T}}`$ (18)
where $`\lambda _{\nu _e}`$ is the normalised $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrino spectrum, $`P_{ee}`$ is the time averaged $`\nu _e`$ survival probability, d$`\sigma _{\nu _ed}`$/dET is the differential cross section of the ($`\nu _ed`$) interaction , $`E_T`$ is the true and $`E_A`$ the apparent(measured) kinetic energy of the recoil electrons, $`E_{A_{th}}`$ is the detector threshold energy which we take as 5 MeV and R($`E_A`$,$`E_T`$) is the energy resolution function which is assumed to be Gaussian

$`R(E_A,E_T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }(0.348\sqrt{\frac{E_T}{\mathrm{MeV}}})}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(E_TE_A)^2}{0.242E_TMeV}}\right)`$ (19)
The NC event rate is given by

$`R_{NC}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑑E_\nu \lambda _{\nu _e}(E_\nu )\sigma _{NC}(E_\nu )𝒫}{𝑑E_\nu \lambda _{\nu _e}(E_\nu )\sigma _{NC}(E_\nu )}}`$ (20)
where $`𝒫=P_{ee}+P_{e\mu }`$ for two flavor $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillation. The left hand panels in fig. 7 give the range of predicted values of $`R_{CC}`$, $`R_{NC}`$ and the double ratio $`R_{NC}`$/$`R_{CC}`$ at 99% C.L., from the global MSW analysis of the solar neutrino data. The black dots in these figures represent the expected rates in SNO for the local best fit values of the parameters obtained. As the neutral current interaction is flavor blind, the $`R_{NC}`$ remains 1 for oscillations to active neutrinos for which $`𝒫=1`$. But for oscillations to sterile neutrinos $`𝒫=P_{ee}`$ and $`R_{NC}=0.78`$ for the best fit case.

The right hand panels in fig. 7 show the the corresponding rates in SNO for the LMA region if the neutrinos are assumed to be unstable (the SMA solution remains largely unaffected as discussed in the previous section). We consider the decay model 1 and present the 99% C.L. predicted range of values of the rates for three different allowed values of the parameter $`\alpha `$, along with the case for $`\alpha =0`$, which is the same as the LMA region of global MSW analysis, modulo the difference in the definition of the C.L.. Also shown are the rates for the best fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ for various fixed values of $`\alpha `$. For each fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ one expects $`R_{CC}`$ to fall sharply with alpha. But since the best fit of the global analysis for increasing $`\alpha `$ corresponds in general to a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ , that raises the value of $`R_{CC}`$. Hence $`R_{CC}`$ in SNO alone may not be able to distinguish the decay scenario from MSW conversion to active stable neutrinos. The value of $`R_{NC}`$ suffers a marked decrease from 1 as the decay constant $`\alpha `$ increases, since for the decay model 1 the $`\nu _e`$ decays to sterile particles which cannot be detected in SNO.

From fig.7 we see that if $`R_{NC}`$ is below 1, one can have either MSW conversion to sterile neutrinos, or the possibility of unstable neutrinos. But the ambiguity between the last two cases can be lifted if one next looks at the value of $`R_{CC}`$, which is much lower for the case of unstable neutrinos than what one would get for MSW conversion to sterile neutrinos. We also display the expected range of $`R_{NC}`$/$`R_{CC}`$ for various fixed values of the decay constant. It is clear from the figure that from the value of $`R_{NC}`$/$`R_{CC}`$ in SNO one can clearly distinguish the case of decay from the case of MSW transition to sterile neutrinos.

In the decay model 2 the $`\nu _e`$ decay to $`\overline{\nu }_1`$, which can in principle show up both in the NC events in SNO as well as in the charged current absorption reaction

$`\overline{\nu }_e+dn+n+e^+`$ (21)
But since the absence of ($`\overline{\nu }_ep`$) events in SK restrict $`\alpha 5.8\times 10^{13}`$ eV2, both the additional contribution to the NC event as well as the ($`\overline{\nu }_ed`$) absorption is negligible in SNO.

## 5 Conclusions

We have investigated the effect of neutrino decay on the MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem. There are two factors which control the effect of decay

* The mixing angle $`\theta `$ which determines the fraction of the unstable component in the $`\nu _e`$ beam
* The decay constant $`\alpha `$ which determines the decay rate

In order for the neutrinos to decay over the earth sun distance $`\alpha `$ should be $`10^{13}`$ eV2. Then eq.(2) and the bounds on the coupling constant from K decays restricts $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\stackrel{>}{}10^7`$ eV2 and decay does not take place in the LOW region. We therefore probe the SMA and the LMA regions. We find that even the SMA region is not affected much because the mixing angle being small very few neutrinos would decay. But the effect of decay on the LMA region is significant. This is borne out by the $`\chi ^2`$-analysis of the global solar data on rates and SK day-night spectrum. We point out that although the data prefers no decay, it still cannot rule out the possibility of unstable neutrinos completely. We put limits on the allowed range of the decay constant $`\alpha `$ and present the allowed areas in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ parameter space for various allowed values of $`\alpha `$. The LMA allowed zone is seen to be severely constrained by decay.

From fig. 4, values of $`\alpha 3.5\times 10^{11}`$ eV2 are allowed, implying a neutrino rest frame lifetime $`\tau _02\times 10^5`$ sec. Thus one may encounter decay before neutrino decoupling in the early universe. This may result in increasing the number of light neutrinos $`N_\nu `$ to greater than 3. However, the upper limit on $`N_\nu `$ can be as large as 6 . Hence our decay model is consistent with the bounds from early universe.

From the fact that the neutrinos from SN1987A have not decayed on their way one gets a lower bound on the electron neutrino lifetime as $`\tau >5.7\times 10^5(m_{\nu _e}`$/eV) sec. However if one includes neutrino mixing then shorter lifetimes are allowed provided $`|U_{e2}|<0.9`$ . This again is consistent with our analysis.

In this paper we assume one of the neutrino states to be unstable in vacuum and the values of the decay constant $`\alpha `$ are such that one has decay over earth-sun distance. For these values of $`\alpha `$ decay inside the sun or the earth is negligible. However as was shown in  matter can induce neutrino decay with majoron emission even when neutrinos are stable in vacuum. It was shown later in  that in the presence of only standard interactions, the matter induced decay cannot provide a solution to the solar neutrino problem due to strong bounds on neutrino-majoron couplings. As we have discussed in this paper, decay models where the $`\nu _2`$ decays to a $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ and a majoron is independently disfavored from the non-observation of ($`\overline{\nu }_ep`$) events in SK.

We have looked at the implications of unstable neutrinos for the SNO detector. We first present the values of the CC and NC rates which SNO is expected to observe for MSW transitions with stable neutrinos. We have given the values for transitions to both active as well as sterile species. For unstable neutrinos the NC rate is less than 1 and comparable to $`R_{NC}`$ for standard MSW SMA transition to sterile neutrinos. But even though the value of $`R_{NC}`$ may be nearly same for the two scenarios, comparing the values of $`R_{CC}`$ or $`R_{NC}/R_{CC}`$ it may be possible in principle to distinguish the decay scenario from the MSW transition to sterile neutrinos.

The authors wish to thank Carlos Peña-Garay for many useful discussions during the development of the solar code, Y. Suzuki for sending them the SK data and H.M. Antia for many helpful discussions.

Fig. 1: The 90, 95 and 99% C.L. allowed area from the global analysis of the total rates from Cl, Ga and SK detectors and the 1117 days SK recoil electron spectrum at day and night, assuming MSW conversions to stable sequential neutrinos.

Fig. 2: The decay term $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)`$ vs $`\alpha `$ for two different neutrino energies. $`L`$ is taken as the earth-sun distance.

Fig. 3: The survival probability as a function of $`\nu _e`$ energy for different values of $`\alpha `$. The solid lines are for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.35`$ while the dotted line is for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.85`$. For all the curves $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=4.17\times 10^5`$ eV2.

Fig. 4: The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ versus decay constant $`\alpha `$ for the global analysis of total rates and the SK day and night spectrum data. Also shown by the dotted line is the 99% C.L. limit for three parameters.

Fig. 5: The 90, 95 and 99% C.L. allowed area from the global analysis of the total rates and the 1117 days SK day-night spectrum data, for MSW conversion of unstable neutrinos at various values of the decay constant $`\alpha `$. The different fixed values of $`\alpha `$ in eV2 are indicated.

Fig. 6: The conversion probability of $`\nu _e`$ to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`P_{e\overline{e}}`$ versus decay constant $`\alpha `$. Also shown by the dotted line is the 99% C.L. value of $`P_{e\overline{e}}`$ allowed from the non-observance of ($`\overline{\nu }_ep`$) events in the SK detector.

Fig. 7: The predicted ranges of $`R_{CC}`$, $`R_{NC}`$ and $`R_{NC}/R_{CC}`$ in SNO for the standard MSW conversion to stable neutrinos (left hand panels) and for unstable neutrinos (right hand panels). The dots give the values of the rates for the local best fit.