text:
# Lax Pairs and Darboux Transformations for Euler Equations

## 1 Introduction

The governing equations for the incompressible viscous fluid flow are the Navier-Stokes equations. Turbulence occurs in the regime of high Reynolds number. By formally setting the Reynolds number equal to infinity, the Navier-Stokes equations reduce to the Euler equations of incompressible inviscid fluid flow. One may view the Navier-Stokes equations with large Reynolds number as a singular perturbation of the Euler equations.

Results of T. Kato show that 2D Navier-Stokes equations are globally well-posed in $`C^0([0,\mathrm{});H^s(R^2)),s>2`$, and for any $`0<T<\mathrm{}`$, the mild solutions of the 2D Navier-Stokes equations approach those of the 2D Euler equations in $`C^0([0,T];H^s(R^2))`$ . 3D Navier-Stokes equations are locally well-posed in $`C^0([0,\tau ];H^s(R^3)),s>5/2`$, and the mild solutions of the 3D Navier-Stokes equations approach those of the 3D Euler equations in $`C^0([0,\tau ];H^s(R^3))`$, where $`\tau `$ depends on the norms of the initial data and the external force  . Extensive studies on the inviscid limit have been carried by J. Wu et al.    . There is no doubt that mathematical study on Navier-Stokes (Euler) equations is one of the most important mathematical problems. In fact, Clay Mathematics Institute has posted the global well-posedness of 3D Navier-Stokes equations as one of the one million dollars problems.

V. Arnold  realized that 2D Euler equations are a Hamiltonian system. Extensive studies on the symplectic structures of 2D Euler equations have been carried by J. Marsden, T. Ratiu et al. . S. Friedlander and M. Vishik   found a Lax pair for Euler equations written in the Lagrangian coordinates.

Recently, the author   found a Lax pair for 2D Euler equations written in the Eulerian coordinates. S. Childress  found a Lax pair for 3D Euler equations. In this article, a Darboux transformation for 2D Euler equations and their Lax pair is found. Darboux transformations are powerful tools in generating explicit representations for figure eight structures in the phase spaces of Hamiltonian partial differential equations . Of course, Darboux transformations were traditionally used for generating multi-soliton solutions to soliton equations .

Understanding the structures of solutions to Euler equations is of fundamental interest. Of particular interest is the question whether or not 3D Euler equations have finite time blow up solutions. T. Beale, T. Kato, and A. Majda derived a necessary condition .

Our hope is that the Lax pair and the Darboux transformation can be useful in investigating finite time blow up solutions of 3D Euler equations and in establishing global well-posedness of 3D Navier-Stokes equations.

The rest of this article is organized as follows: In section 2, we will present a formulation of Euler equations. In section 3, we will present a recent result on a Lax pair for 2D Euler equations. In section 4, we will present a recent result on a Lax pair for 3D Euler equations by Steve Childress. In section 5, we will present a recent result on a Darboux transformation for 2D Euler equations and their Lax pair. In section 6, a short conclusion is presented.

## 2 Formulations of Euler Equtions

The three-dimensional incompressible Euler equation can be written in vorticity form,

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(u)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })u=0,$$
(2.1)
where $`u=(u_1,u_2,u_3)`$ is the velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)`$ is the vorticity, $`=(_x,_y,_z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\times u`$, and $`u=0`$. $`u`$ can be represented by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for example through Biot-Savart law.

When the fluid flow is of two dimensional, i.e.

$$u=(u_1(t,x,y),u_2(t,x,y),0),$$

the vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(0,0,\mathrm{\Omega }_3(t,x,y))`$. Dropping the subscript $`3`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$, the 2D Euler equation can be written in the form,

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}=0,$$
(2.2)
where the bracket $`\{,\}`$ is defined as

$$\{f,g\}=(_xf)(_yg)(_yf)(_xg),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the stream function given by,

$$u=_y\mathrm{\Psi },v=_x\mathrm{\Psi },$$

and the relation between vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and stream function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_xv_yu=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }.$$

## 3 A Lax Pair for 2D Euler Equation

###### Theorem 3.1 (Li, )

The Lax pair of the 2D Euler equation (2.2) is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
where

$$L\phi =\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \},A\phi =\{\mathrm{\Psi },\phi \},$$

and $`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, and $`\phi `$ is a complex-valued function.

This theorem was announced in  without proof. Here we furnish a detailed proof.

Proof: In order to solve the over-determined system (3.1), one needs a compatibility condition. To derive a compatibility condition, we first take a $`_t`$ to the first equation,

$$(_tL)\phi +L(_t\phi )=\lambda (_t\phi )=\lambda A\phi =A(\lambda \phi )=AL\phi ,$$

i.e.

$$(_tL)\phi LA\phi =AL\phi ,$$

and finally

$$\left[(_tL)+[A,L]\right]\phi =0,$$

where $`[A,L]=ALLA`$ is the commutator.

$$(_tL)\phi =\{(_t\mathrm{\Omega }),\phi \},$$

$`[A,L]\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Psi },\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \}\}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\{\mathrm{\Psi },\phi \}\}`$
$`=`$ $`[\{\mathrm{\Psi },\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \}\}+\{\mathrm{\Omega },\{\phi ,\mathrm{\Psi }\}\}`$
$`+\{\phi ,\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\}]\{\phi ,\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\},`$
where by Jacobi identity, $`[]=0`$. Thus

$$[A,L]\phi =\{\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\},\phi \}.$$

Finally

$$\left[(_tL)+[A,L]\right]\phi =\{_t\mathrm{\Omega }+\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\},\phi \}=0.$$

Therefore, the 2D Euler equation

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}=0$$

is a compatibility condition. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.1

A Darboux transformation for the above Lax pair will be presented in section 5. Recently, Darboux transformations have been used in constructing explicit representations of homoclinic structures .

## 4 A Lax Pair for 3D Euler Equation

###### Theorem 4.1 (Childress, )

The Lax pair of the 3D Euler equation (2.1) is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.1)
where

$$L\phi =\mathrm{\Omega }\phi \phi \mathrm{\Omega },A\phi =u\phi \phi u,$$

$`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, and $`\phi =(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ is a complex 3-vector valued function.

This theorem was obtained by Steve Childress . For a proof, see the proof of Proposition 1.

###### Remark 4.1

This Lax pair has the great potential that it can be very useful in investigating finite time blow up solutions of 3D Euler equation, and in establishing global well-posedness of 3D Navier-Stokes equations.

###### Remark 4.2

When one does 2D reduction to the Lax pair (4.1), one gets $`L=0`$. Therefore, the Lax pair (4.1) does not imply any Lax pair for 2D Euler equation.

###### Remark 4.3

The most promising research following from this Lax pair should be along the direction of Darboux transformations, group symmetries etc.. In building the inverse scattering transform, it is crucial to have constant coefficient differential operators in (especially the spatial part of) the Lax pair.

###### Proposition 1 (Li,)

We consider the following Lax pair,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
where

$$L\phi =\mathrm{\Omega }\phi \phi \mathrm{\Omega }+D_1\phi ,A\phi =q\phi \phi q+D_2\phi ,$$

$`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, $`\phi =(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ is a complex 3-vector valued function, $`q=(q_1,q_2,q_3)`$ is a real 3-vector valued function, $`D_j=\alpha ^{(j)}`$, $`(j=1,2)`$, and here $`\alpha ^{(j)}=(\alpha _1^{(j)},\alpha _2^{(j)},\alpha _3^{(j)})`$ are real constant 3-vectors. The following equation instead of the 3D Euler equation,

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })q+D_2\mathrm{\Omega }D_1q=0,$$
(4.3)
is a compatibility condition of this Lax pair. A specialization of (4.3) is the following system of equations,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })q=0,\hfill \\ D_1q=D_2\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

A chance in building an inverse scattering transform  is that one can first build the inverse scattering transform for (4.2), and then take the limits

$$\alpha ^{(j)}0,(j=1,2),qu,$$

to get results for 3D Euler equation.

Proof of Proposition 1: Following the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, one has the compatibility condition,

$$\left[(_tL)+[A,L]\right]\phi =0.$$

$$(_tL)\phi =(_t\mathrm{\Omega })\phi \phi (_t\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

$`[A,L]\phi `$ $`=`$ $`q(\mathrm{\Omega }\phi \phi \mathrm{\Omega }+D_1\phi )`$
$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\phi \phi \mathrm{\Omega }+D_1\phi )q`$
$`+D_2(\mathrm{\Omega }\phi \phi \mathrm{\Omega }+D_1\phi )`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(q\phi \phi q+D_2\phi )`$
$`+(q\phi \phi q+D_2\phi )\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`D_1(q\phi \phi q+D_2\phi )`$
$`=`$ $`[(q)\mathrm{\Omega }]\phi +\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }[(q)\phi ]}_{(1)}\underset{¯}{[(q)\phi ]\mathrm{\Omega }}_{(2)}`$
$`\phi [(q)\mathrm{\Omega }]+\underset{¯}{(q)D_1\phi }_{(3)}\underset{¯}{[(\mathrm{\Omega })\phi ]q}_{(4)}`$
$`+[(\phi )\mathrm{\Omega }]q\underset{¯}{(D_1\phi )q}_{(5)}+(D_2\mathrm{\Omega })\phi `$
$`+\underset{¯}{(\mathrm{\Omega })D_2\phi }_{(6)}\underset{¯}{(D_2\phi )\mathrm{\Omega }}_{(7)}(\phi )D_2\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+\underset{¯}{D_2D_1\phi }_{(8)}[(\mathrm{\Omega })q]\phi \underset{¯}{q[(\mathrm{\Omega })\phi ]}_{(1)}`$
$`+\underset{¯}{[(\mathrm{\Omega })\phi ]q}_{(4)}+\phi [(\mathrm{\Omega })q]\underset{¯}{(\mathrm{\Omega })D_2\phi }_{(6)}`$
$`+\underset{¯}{[(q)\phi ]\mathrm{\Omega }}_{(2)}[(\phi )q]\mathrm{\Omega }+\underset{¯}{(D_2\phi )\mathrm{\Omega }}_{(7)}`$
$`(D_1q)\phi \underset{¯}{(q)D_1\phi }_{(3)}+\underset{¯}{(D_1\phi )q}_{(5)}`$
$`+(\phi )D_1q\underset{¯}{D_1D_2\phi }_{(8)}.`$
All the terms $`\underset{¯}{}_{(j)},1j8`$, cancel each other. Thus, one has

$`[A,L]\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })qD_1q+D_2\mathrm{\Omega }\right\}\phi `$
$`\phi \left\{(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })qD_1q+D_2\mathrm{\Omega }\right\}.`$
Therefore the following equation

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })q+D_2\mathrm{\Omega }D_1q=0,$$

is a compatibility condition. Since this equation involves two vaiables $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`q`$, one can choose the specialization,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(q)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })q=0,\hfill \\ D_1q=D_2\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \end{array}$$

to be a compatibility condition. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 A Darboux Transformation for 2D Euler Equation

Consider the Lax pair (3.1) at $`\lambda =0`$, i.e.

$`\{\mathrm{\Omega },p\}=0,`$ (5.1)
$`_tp+\{\mathrm{\Psi },p\}=0,`$ (5.2)
where we replaced the notation $`\phi `$ by $`p`$.

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`f=f(t,x,y)`$ be any fixed solution to the system (5.1, 5.2), we define the Gauge transform $`G_f`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=G_fp=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}[p_x(_x\mathrm{ln}f)p],$$
(5.3)
and the transforms of the potentials $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }+F,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,$$
(5.4)
where $`F`$ is subject to the constraints

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}=0.$$
(5.5)
Then $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ solves the system (5.1, 5.2) at $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})`$. Thus (5.3) and (5.4) form the Darboux transformation for the 2D Euler equation (2.2) and its Lax pair (5.1, 5.2).

###### Remark 5.1

For KdV equation and many other soliton equations, the Gauge transform is of the form ,

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=p_x(_x\mathrm{ln}f)p.$$

In general, Gauge transform does not involve potentials. For 2D Euler equation, a potential factor $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}`$ is needed. From (5.1), one has

$$\frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}=\frac{p_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}.$$

The Gauge transform (5.3) can be rewritten as

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{f_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{p}{f}=\frac{p_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{f_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{p}{f}.$$

The Lax pair (5.1, 5.2) has a symmetry, i.e. it is invariant under the transform $`(t,x,y)(t,y,x)`$. The form of the Gauge transform (5.3) resulted from the inclusion of the potential factor $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}`$, is consistent with this symmetry.

###### Proposition 2

If $`F`$ satisfies the constraints

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Omega },F\}=0,$$
(5.6)
or the constraints

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}=0,$$
(5.7)
then $`F`$ satisfies the constraints (5.5).

Proof: Notice that $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_x=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\mathrm{\Delta }F_y`$. Thus,

$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}}\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)F_y(\mathrm{\Omega }_y+\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)F_x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_y+\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)F_y(\mathrm{\Omega }_y+\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)F_x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_y+\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },F\}.`$
Similarly, one has

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_y+\mathrm{\Delta }F_y)}{\mathrm{\Delta }F_y}\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}.$$

Thus the claim in the proposition is true. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.2

For soliton equations, $`F`$ can be represented in terms of $`f`$ .

Proof of Theorem 5.1: One notices that using (5.1), (5.2) can be rewritten as

$$p_t=\frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}.$$
(5.8)
To prove the theorem, one needs to check the two equations,

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=0,`$ (5.9)
$`\stackrel{~}{p}_t={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_x}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x}}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\}.`$ (5.10)
First we check (5.9),

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\frac{p_xfpf_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}\}=0,$$

leads to

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x\mathrm{\Omega }_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}A\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_y\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}B=0,$$
(5.11)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{xy}f+p_xf_yp_yf_xpf_{xy})\mathrm{\Omega }_xf(p_xfpf_x)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}f+\mathrm{\Omega }_xf_y)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{xx}fpf_{xx})\mathrm{\Omega }_xf(p_xfpf_x)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}f+\mathrm{\Omega }_xf_x)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}.`$
We will show that $`A=B`$. Using (5.1), one has

$$\left(\frac{p_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\right)_x=\left(\frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\right)_x,$$

which leads to

$$\frac{p_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{p_y\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y^2}=\frac{p_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{p_x\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2}.$$

Using (5.1) again,

$$\frac{p_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{p_x\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\mathrm{\Omega }_y}=\frac{p_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{p_x\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2}.$$

Similarly,

$$\frac{f_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{f_x\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\mathrm{\Omega }_y}=\frac{f_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{f_x\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2}.$$

Thus,

$$\frac{p_{xy}fpf_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}\frac{(p_xfpf_x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\mathrm{\Omega }_y}=\frac{p_{xx}fpf_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{(p_xfpf_x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2}.$$

That is,

$$\frac{(p_{xy}fpf_{xy})\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}=\frac{(p_xfpf_x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}f}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}+\frac{(p_{xx}fpf_{xx})\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{(p_xfpf_x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{xx}f}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}.$$
(5.12)
Using (5.1) again, one has

$$\frac{p_xf_yp_yf_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_y}=p_x\frac{f_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}f_x=0.$$
(5.13)
Using (5.12), (5.13), and (5.1), we have

$$A=B=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\left[f^2\mathrm{\Omega }_xp_{xx}f(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_xp_x+[f_x(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_xf_{xx}(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)]p\right].$$

Thus equation (5.11) becomes

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\mathrm{\Omega }\}\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}=0.$$

If we let

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\}=\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0,$$
(5.14)
then (5.11) is satisfied.

Next we check (5.10).

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_t=\left(\frac{p_xfpf_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}\right)_t.$$

Using (5.8) for both $`p`$ and $`f`$, one gets

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf[f\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)_x+p_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)`$ (5.15)
$`f_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)p\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)_x]`$
$`(p_xfpf_x)[f\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}_x+\mathrm{\Omega }_x{\displaystyle \frac{f_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}]\}`$
$`=`$ $`(fp_{xx}pf_{xx}){\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f}}`$
$`+(fp_xpf_x)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\right)_x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}\left(f\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)_x\right].`$
The right hand side of (5.10) is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_x}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x}}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(fp_{xx}pf_{xx}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x}}`$ (5.16)
$`+(fp_xpf_x){\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x}}.`$
From (5.15) and (5.16), the coefficients of “$`fp_{xx}pf_{xx}`$” leads to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x},$$
(5.17)
and the coefficients of “$`fp_xpf_x`$” leads to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}\left(\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\right)_x\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}\left(f\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\right)_x=\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x}.$$
(5.18)
We will show that (5.17) implies (5.18). The left hand side of (5.18) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\right)_x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\right)_x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_xf}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\right)_x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_xf\left({\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}\right)_x`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x{\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x{\displaystyle \frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}.`$
Thus (5.18) becomes

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }_xf)_x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2f^2}\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x}.$$

Therefore, (5.17) implies (5.18). From (5.17), we have

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Delta }F_x)\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}=\mathrm{\Omega }_x\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }+F\},$$

which leads to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_x\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}=\mathrm{\Omega }_x[\{\mathrm{\Omega },F\}+\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}+\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }\}].$$
(5.19)
Notice that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_x\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }\}\mathrm{\Omega }_x\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,\mathrm{\Psi }\}=\mathrm{\Psi }_x\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }F\}=0,$$

by (5.14). Then (5.19) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_x[\{\mathrm{\Omega },F\}+\{\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}]=0.$$
(5.20)
Thus if

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }F,F\}=0,$$

(5.20) is fulfilled. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Conclusion

We have briefly reported the most recent results on Lax pairs and a Darboux transformation for Euler equations of incompressible inviscid fluid flows. The most promising researches following from these Lax pairs should be along the directions of Darboux transformations, group symmetries, etc. These Lax pairs have the great potentials that they can be very useful in investigating finite time blow up solutions of 3D Euler equations, and in establishing global well-posedness of 3D Navier-Stokes equations.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

It is known that the FBAs of the dileptons in the inclusive decays of $`bsl^+l^{}`$ provide us with information on the short-distance (SD) contributions, which are dominated by the top quark loops in the standard model . The longitudinal lepton polarizations in $`bsl^+l^{}`$, which are another parity violating observables, are also interesting asymmetries. In particular, the tau polarization in $`bs\tau ^{}\tau ^{}`$ could be accessible to the B-Factories . It is noted that the FBAs of the exclusive decays $`BMl^+l^{}`$ are identically zero when $`M`$ are pseudoscalar mesons such as $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ but nonzero for $`M`$ being vector mesons such as $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$. However, the longitudinal lepton polarizations  as well as other components  are nonzero for both types of the exclusive B meson decay modes.

In this paper, we study the dilepton forward-backward and various lepton polarization asymmetries in the heavy baryon decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$. To study these baryonic decays, one of the most difficulties is to evaluate the hadronic matrix elements. It is known that there are many form factors for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ transition, which are hard to be calculated since they are related to the non-perturbative effect of QCD. However, in heavy particle decays, the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) could reduce the number of form factors and supply the information with respect to their relative size . With the HQET, we shall use the QCD sum rule approach  and the pole model  in our numerical calculations for the form factors.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we study the effective Hamiltonian for the decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}(l=e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and form factors in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ transition. In Sec. 3, we derive the general forms of the lepton polarization and dilepton forward-backward asymmetries in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$. We give our numerical analysis in Sec. 4. In Sec. 5, we present our conclusions.

## 2 Effective Hamiltonian and Form factors

To study the heavy baryon decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ ($`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$), we start with the effective Hamiltonian for the $`b`$-quark decay of $`bsl^+l^{}`$, given by

$$=4\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}C_i\left(\mu \right)O_i\left(\mu \right)$$
(1)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`V_{ij}`$ are the CKM matrix elements, and $`C_i(\mu )`$ and $`O_i(\mu )`$ are the expressions for the renormalized Wilson coefficients and operators, whose expressions can be found in Ref. , respectively. In terms of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), the free quark decay amplitude is written as

$`\left(bsl^+l^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha _{em}}{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[\overline{s}(C_9^{eff}\left(\mu \right)\gamma _\mu P_L{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}C_7\left(\mu \right)i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_R)b\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l`$ (2)
$`+\overline{s}C_{10}\gamma _\mu P_Lb\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l]`$
with $`P_{L(R)}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. We note that in Eq. (2), only the term associated with the Wilson coefficient $`C_{10}`$ is independent of the $`\mu `$ scale. We also note that the dominant contribution to the decay rate is from the long-distance (LD), such as that from the $`c\overline{c}`$ resonant states of $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{}etc`$. It is known that to find out the LD effects for the B-meson decays, in the literature , both the factorization assumption (FA) and the vector meson dominance (VMD) approximation have been used. For the LD contributions in baryonic decays, we assume that the parametrization is the same as that in the B meson decays. Hence, we may include the resonant effect (RE) by absorbing it to the corresponding Wilson coefficients. The effective Wilson coefficient of $`C_9^{eff}`$ has the standard form

$$C_9^{eff}=C_9\left(\mu \right)+\left(3C_1\left(\mu \right)+C_2\left(\mu \right)\right)\left(h(x,s)+\frac{3}{\alpha _{em}^2}\underset{j=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{}k_j\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(jl^+l^{}\right)M_j}{q^2M_j^2+iM_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\right)$$

where $`h(x,s)`$ describes the one-loop matrix elements of operators $`O_1=\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\beta \overline{c}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_Lc_\alpha `$ and $`O_2=\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu P_Lb\overline{c}\gamma _\mu P_Lc`$ as shown in Ref. , $`M_j(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)`$ are the masses (widths) of intermediate states, and the factors $`k_j`$ are phenomenological parameters for compensating the approximations of FA and VMD and reproducing the correct branching ratios of $`B(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }Xl^+l^{}X)=B(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }X)\times B(J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{})`$. In this paper we take the Wilson coefficients at the scale of $`\mu m_b5.0`$ GeV and their values are taking to be $`C_1\left(m_b\right)=0.226,`$ $`C_2\left(m_b\right)=1.096,`$ $`C_7\left(m_b\right)=0.305,`$ $`C_9\left(m_b\right)=4.186,`$ and $`C_{10}\left(m_b\right)=4.599`$, respectively.

It is clear that one of the main theoretical uncertainties in studying exclusive decays arises from the calculation of form factors. With the HQET, the hadronic matrix elements for the heavy baryon decays could be parametrized as follows

$$<\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,s)|\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }b|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s^{})>=\overline{u}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(p,s)\left\{F_1(q^2)+\mathit{}F_2(q^2)\right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s^{})$$
(3)
where $`v=p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ is the four-velocity of the heavy baryon, $`q^2=(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}p_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ is the square of the momentum transform, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the possible Dirac matrix. Note that in terms of the HQET there are only two independent form factors, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, in Eq. (3) for each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the following, we shall use $`F_1`$ and $`RF_2/F_1`$ as the two independent parameters and adopt the HQET approximation to analyze the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$.

From Eqs. (2) and (3), the transition matrix element for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\left(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(p_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)l^+\left(p_+\right)l^{}\left(p_{}\right)`$ can be expressed as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}\right)=\frac{G_F\alpha _{em}}{\sqrt{2}\pi }V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left[H_{1\mu }L_V^\mu +H_{2\mu }L_A^\mu \right]$$
(4)
with

$`L_V`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l,`$
$`L_A`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l,`$
$`H_{1\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma _\mu \left(A_1P_R+B_1P_L\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \left(A_2P_R+B_2P_L\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_b,`$
$`H_{2\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma _\mu P_L\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+E_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_L\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+E_3q_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(P_L\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ (5)
where one has

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=p_++p_{},`$
$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}C_7f_i^T,B_i=C_9^{eff}f_i,E_i=C_{10}f_i,`$
$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_2^T=F_1+\sqrt{r}RF_1,f_2=f_3={\displaystyle \frac{RF_1}{M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}.`$ (6)
## 3 Lepton Asymmetries

In this section we present the formulas for the forward-backward and the longitudinal, normal and transverse lepton polarization asymmetries in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})\mathrm{\Lambda }(p_\mathrm{\Lambda })l^+(p_+,s_+)l^{}(p_{})`$. We shall concentrate on the $`l^+`$ spin for the polarizations. To do this, we write the $`l^+`$ four-spin vector in terms of a unit vector, $`\widehat{\xi }`$, along the $`l^+`$ spin in its rest frame, as

$`s_+^0={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_+\widehat{\xi }}{m_l}},\stackrel{}{s}_+=\widehat{\xi }+{\displaystyle \frac{s_+^0}{E_{l^+}+m_l}}\stackrel{}{p}_+,`$ (7)
and choose the unit vectors along the longitudinal, normal, and transverse components of the $`l^+`$ polarization to be

$`\widehat{e}_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_+}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_+\right|}},`$
$`\widehat{e}_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_+\times \left(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_+\right)}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_+\times \left(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_+\right)\right|}},`$
$`\widehat{e}_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_+}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \stackrel{}{p}_+\right|}},`$ (8)
respectively. The partial decay width for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ is given by

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}\left|\right|^2\left(2\pi \right)^4\delta \left(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}p_\mathrm{\Lambda }p_{l^+}p_l^{}\right)`$ (9)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_{l^+}}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_l^{}}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_2}}`$
with

$$||^2=\frac{1}{2}\left|^0\right|^2\left[1+\left(P_L\widehat{e}_L+P_N\widehat{e}_N+P_T\widehat{e}_T\right)\widehat{\xi }\right],$$
(10)
where $`|^0|^2`$ is related to the decay rate for the unpolarized $`l^+`$ and $`P_i(i=L,N,T)`$ are the longitudinal, normal and transverse polarizations of $`l^+`$, respectively. Introducing dimensionless variables of $`\lambda _t=V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$, $`r=M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2`$, $`\widehat{m}_l=m_l/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$, $`\widehat{m}_b=m_b/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$, $`\widehat{s}=q^2/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2`$ and $`\widehat{t}=p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}p_\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2=(1+r\widehat{s})/2`$, using the transition matrix element of Eq. (4), and integrating the angle dependence of the lepton, the differential decay width in Eq. (9) becomes

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2}d\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\left[1+\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{\xi }\right]$$
(11)
with

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}^2\lambda _t^2}{384\pi ^5}}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^5\sqrt{\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}}R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\left(\widehat{s}\right)d\widehat{s}`$ (12)
and

$`\stackrel{}{P}`$ $`=`$ $`P_L\widehat{e}_L+P_N\widehat{e}_N+P_T\widehat{e}_T,`$ (13)
where

$`\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)=(1r)^22\widehat{s}(1+r)+\widehat{s}^2`$ (14)
and

$`R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_b^2}{\widehat{s}}}|C_7|^2F_1^2\{(1R^2)[\widehat{s}\widehat{t}4(1\widehat{t})(\widehat{t}r)]`$ (15)
$`2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})(\widehat{s}4(1\widehat{t})^2)+8{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}[(1R^2)(1\widehat{t})(\widehat{t}r)`$
$`+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})(1\widehat{t})^2]2\widehat{m}_l^2((1+R^2)\widehat{t}+2R\sqrt{r})\}`$
$`+12\widehat{m}_bReC_9^{eff}C_7^{}\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}\right)F_1^2\left[\left(1R^2\right)\left(\widehat{t}r\right)+2R\left(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t}\right)\left(1\widehat{t}\right)\right]`$
$`+(|C_9^{eff}|^2+|C_{10}|^2)F_1^2\{(14{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}})[(1+R^2)\widehat{t}+2R\sqrt{r}]`$
$`+2(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}})(1\widehat{t})[(\widehat{t}r)(1R^2)+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})(1\widehat{t})]\},`$
$`+6\widehat{m}_l^2\left(|C_9^{eff}|^2|C_{10}|^2\right)F_1^2\left[\left(1+R^2\right)\widehat{t}+2R\sqrt{r}\right].`$
In Eqs. (12) and (15), the allowed range of $`\widehat{s}`$ is

$`4\widehat{m}_l^2\widehat{s}\left(1\sqrt{r}\right)^2.`$ (16)
Defining the longitudinal, normal and transverse $`l^+`$ polarization asymmetries by

$$P_i\left(\widehat{s}\right)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{e}_i\widehat{\xi }=1\right)d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{e}_i\widehat{\xi }=1\right)}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{e}_i\widehat{\xi }=1\right)+d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{e}_i\widehat{\xi }=1\right)},$$
(17)
from Eq. (11) we find that

$`P_L\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_L\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}},`$ (18)
$`P_N\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\pi \widehat{m}_l\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)}{\widehat{s}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_N\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}},`$ (19)
$`P_T\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\pi \widehat{m}_l\sqrt{\widehat{s}\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_T\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}},`$ (20)
where

$`R_L\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}[(1R^2)((1r)^2+\widehat{s}(1+r)2\widehat{s}^2)`$
$`+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})(2\widehat{s}+(1r+\widehat{s})^2)]`$
$`+6F_1^2ReC_{10}C_7^{}\widehat{m}_b\left[\left(1r\widehat{s}\right)(1R^2)+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})\left(1r+\widehat{s}\right)\right],`$
$`R_N\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`4F_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_b^2}{\widehat{s}}}|C_7|^2\left[\left(1R^2\right)\left(1r\right)+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})\left(1r+s\right)\right]`$
$`+F_1^2(1R^2)|C_9^{eff}|^2\widehat{s}+F_1^2ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}[(1r)(1R^2)`$
$`+2(1r+\widehat{s})R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})]`$
$`+2F_1^2\widehat{m}_b\left(2ReC_9^{eff}C_7^{}+ReC_{10}C_7^{}\right)\left(1R^2+2R(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t})\right),`$
$`R_T\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}}}ImC_7C_{10}^{}\left(1R^2+2R\left(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t}\right)\right)+F_1^2ImC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}\left(1R^2\right).`$ (21)
We note that the transverse part of the lepton polarization in Eq. (20) is a T-odd observable.

The differential and normalized dilepton forward-backward asymmetries (FBAs) for the decay of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ as a function of $`\widehat{s}`$ are defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right]`$ (22)
and

$`𝒜_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)/d\widehat{s}}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right],`$ (23)
respectively, where $`\theta `$ is the angle of $`l^+`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in the rest frame of the lepton pair. Explicitly, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{d\widehat{s}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}^2\lambda _t^2}{2^8\pi ^5}}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^5\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)\left(14{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}\right)R_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ (24)
and

$`𝒜_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\varphi \left(\widehat{s}\right)}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}{R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\left(\widehat{s}\right)}}`$ (25)
where

$`R_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2\left(1R^2\right)\left[2\widehat{m}_bReC_{10}C_7^{}\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{R\sqrt{r}+R^2\widehat{t}}{1R^2}}\right)+\widehat{s}ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}\right].`$ (26)
From Eqs. (15), (18)-(21), and (25)-(26), we see that $`P_i(i=L,N,T)`$ and $`𝒜_{FB}`$ depend only on $`R`$ since the factor $`F_1^2`$ is canceled out. Thus, once one gets the value of $`R`$, the only uncertainty for the asymmetries is from the Wilson coefficients. It is interesting to note that these asymmetries are sensitive to the chiral structure of electroweak interactions since they are related to the products of $`C_9C_7^{}`$, $`C_{10}C_7^{}`$ and $`C_9C_{10}^{}`$.

## 4 Numerical Analysis

In our numerical calculations, the Wilson coefficients are evaluated at the scale $`\mu m_b`$ and the other parameters are listed in Table 1 of Ref. . For the form factors in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ transition, we use the results from both the QCD sum rule approach  and the pole model . In the QCD sum rule approach we use the form

$$F_i(q^2)=\frac{F_i(0)}{1+aq^2+bq^4},$$
(27)
where the parameters in Eq. (27) are shown in Table 1. From the Table, we find that $`R(0)=F_2(0)/F_1(0)=0.17`$ and $`R(q_{\mathrm{max}}^2)=0.44`$ which are consistent with the CLEO result of $`R=0.25\pm 0.14\pm 0.08`$ .

In the pole model, we adopt

$`F_i(q^2)=N_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}+z}}\right)^2`$ (28)
where $`z=p_\mathrm{\Lambda }p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}=(1+rq^2/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2)M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is chosen around $`200MeV`$. Assuming the form factors for the transition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are similar to that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and using $`R=0.25`$  and the branching ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\mathrm{\Lambda }e^+\nu _e`$, we obtain that $`N_{1,2}`$ are $`(52.32,13.08)`$ .

### 4.1 Forward-backward Asymmetries

From Eqs. (24) and (25), we see that the FBAs for the light charged lepton modes of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ ($`l=e`$ and $`\mu `$) are close to each other. As a result, we shall not mention the electron mode of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }e^+e^{}`$. In Figures 1 and 2, we show $`𝒜_{FB}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{})`$ as a function of dimensionless variable $`\widehat{s}`$ for $`l=\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, respectively. From Figure 1(a), we see that $`𝒜_{FB}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ has a zero value at $`\widehat{s}_0`$ which satisfies the condition

$`ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}_0}}ReC_7C_{10}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1R^2+2R\left(\sqrt{r}+R\widehat{t}\right)}{\left(1R^2\right)}}.`$ (29)
Furthermore, we find that the contributions from the pole and QCD sum rule models to FBAs overlap at the low $`q^2`$ region so that in both models Eq. (29) can be simplified to

$`ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}_0}}ReC_7C_{10}^{},`$ (30)
which is independent of the hadronic form factors. Explicitly, from Figure 1(a), in the standard model we get that $`\widehat{s}_0`$ is $`0.109`$ and $`0.114`$ with and without $`R`$ terms for excluding LD effects, and $`0.098`$ and $`0.102`$ for including LD effects, respectively. It is clear that the zero point of $`𝒜_{FB}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ is mainly affected by the weak Wilson coefficients of $`C_7`$ and $`C_9`$ that are sensitive to physics beyond the standard model. For example, if one of $`C_7`$ and $`C_9`$ has an opposite sign to that in the standard model, the condition for the zero point in Eq. (30) will not be satisfied. Therefore, measuring a sizable value of the FBA around $`\widehat{s}_0`$ is a clear indication of new physics. This result is similar to $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ decays mentioned by  with large energy effective theory (LEET) . We note that the vanishing of the FBAs in the inclusive decays of $`b(s,d)l^+l^{}`$ and the exclusive ones of $`B(K^{},\rho )l^+l^{}`$ were first studied by Burdman . Our conclusion for the baryonic decays coincides with that in Ref. .

From the figures, we find that there is no much difference for the FBAs between the QCD sum rule approach and the pole model at the lower values of $`q^2`$, especially for that in the muon mode. By taking $`R`$ to be zero, the distributions for both models in Figures 1 and 2 should be identical. Thus, the differences for the FBAs in the different QCD models actually reflect the effects of the ratio $`R`$. The insensitivity to the form factors for the FBAs provides us a candidate to test the standard model.

In Figure 3, we show the differential FBA of $`dA_{FB}(\widehat{s})/d\widehat{s}`$ which, unlike $`𝒜_{FB}`$, is insensitive to R. This can be understood that due to Eqs. (24) and (25) it is proportional to $`R_{FB}(\widehat{s})`$ in which the terms with $`F_1^2`$ are the dominant contributions and those with $`R`$ are negligible since these terms are related to either $`R^2`$ or $`R\sqrt{r}`$, which are small.

We now define the integrated FBA to be

$`\overline{𝒜}_{FB}={\displaystyle _{4\widehat{m}_l^2}^{\widehat{s}_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\widehat{s}𝒜_{FB}\left(\widehat{s}\right)`$ (31)
where $`\widehat{s}_{\mathrm{max}}=\left(1\sqrt{r}\right)^2`$. Without LD contributions, in the standard model we find that

$`\overline{𝒜}_{FB}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{})=0.13(0.12)`$ (32)
and

$`\overline{𝒜}_{FB}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau ^+\tau ^{})=0.04(0.03)`$ (33)
for the QCD sum rule approach (pole model), respectively.

### 4.2 Polarization Asymmetries

We now discuss the longitudinal, normal and transverse polarization asymmetries of the lepton and their implications. From Eqs. (18)$``$(20), the distributions of $`P_L`$, $`P_N`$ and $`P_T`$ with respect to the dimensionless kinematic variable $`\widehat{s}`$ are shown in Figures $`49`$, respectively. From the figures, we find that the results of the QCD sum rule and pole models to various polarizations are as follows: (1) they overlap fully for $`P_L`$; (2) $`P_N`$ is not sensitive to the models except for the small $`q^2`$ region in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$; and (3) the effects of the different QCD models to $`P_T`$ are significant at the large $`q^2`$ region. Clearly, $`P_L`$ and $`P_N`$ for the most $`q^2`$ region in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ are independent of the QCD models.

It is easily seen that outside the resonant states, both polarizations of $`P_L`$ and $`P_N`$ are insensitive to the LD effects. We note that $`P_L`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is close to $`1`$, while that for the tau mode is over 40%, in the most values of $`q^2`$ except that around resonant regions. The large asymmetries in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ are good candidates to test the standard model. For $`P_T`$, since it is proportional to the imaginary parts of the Wilson coefficient products, the LD contributions are important. Note that in the standard model, the effective Wilson coefficients of $`C_9^{eff}`$ contains absorptive parts, while $`C_7`$ and $`C_{10}`$ have only real values. From Eq. (20), the part of $`Im(C_9^{eff}C_{10}^{})`$ yields a nonzero value of $`P_T`$, but that of $`Im(C_7C_{10}^{})`$ vanishes. However, due to the enhanced factor $`1/\widehat{s}`$ at small $`\widehat{s}`$ for the term corresponding to $`Im(C_7C_{10}^{})`$, one could search for these regions since the contribution from some non-standard CP violation model may not be negligible.

Finally, in Table 2, we list the integrated lepton polarization asymmetries in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$, defined by

$`\overline{P}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{4\widehat{m}_l^2}^{\widehat{s}_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\widehat{s}P_i.`$ (34)
In the table, the results are calculated in the standard model without LD effects.

## 5 Conclusions

We have given a detailed analysis on the dilepton forward-backward and the longitudinal, normal and transverse lepton polarization asymmetries for the decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ ($`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$) in the standard model. Based on the HQET, there are only two independent form factors, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ or $`F_1`$ and $`R`$, involved in the matrix element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We have shown that all the asymmetries are related to $`R`$ and free of the other form factor $`F_1`$. Moreover, we have found that $`R`$ is always associated with $`\sqrt{r}`$ so that by neglecting their contributions, there are only a few percentages lose in the asymmetries. Thus, the asymmetries in the heavy baryonic dilepton decays have a less dependence on the non-perturbative QCD effects . We have also demonstrated that $`P_L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{})`$ are QCD model independent quantities. We have pointed out that the FBA for the light lepton mode gets to zero at $`\widehat{s}_0`$ which is only sensitive to the weak couplings. Finally, since the absolute values of the integrated T-odd observables of the transverse lepton polarizations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }l^+l^{}`$ are less than $`10^2`$ in the standard model, measuring $`P_T`$ such as in the tau model at a level of $`10^2`$ would be a clear signal for some new CP violation.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under contract numbers NSC-89-2112-M-007-054 and NSC-89-2112-M-006-033.

## Figure Captions

* FBAs as a function of $`q^2/M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2`$ for (a) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. The curves with and without resonant shapes represent including and no LD contributions, respectively. The solid (dash-dotted) curves stand for the QCD sum rule approach and the dashed (dotted) for the pole model with (without) $`R`$, respectively.
* The differential FBA of $`dA_{FB}/dq^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ as a function of $`q^2`$. Legend is the same as Figure 1.
* Longitudinal polarization asymmetries. Legend is the same as Figure 1.
* Normal polarization asymmetries. Legend is the same as Figure 1.
* Transverse polarization asymmetries. Legend is the same as Figure 1.


text:
# Spontaneous Orbifold Symmetry Breaking and Generation of Mass Hierarchy

## Abstract

A very simple mechanism is proposed that stabilizes the orbifold geometry within the context of the Randall-Sundrum proposal for solving the hierarchy problem. The electro-weak TeV scale is generated from the Planck scale by spontaneous breaking of the orbifold symmetry.

M-theory represents the most remarkable theoretical success of the end of the millenium. The moduli space of this theory contains all five, anomaly free, ten-dimensional superstring theories and the eleven-dimensional supergravity. In this context the most successfull cosmological construction is that of Horava and Witten. Compactification of the Horava-Witten theory on an eleven-dimensional orbifold $`R^{10}\times S^1/Z_2`$ to four dimensions on a deformed Calabi-Yau manifold yields that the resulting theory has $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. This implies, in turn, that the early universe has undergone a phase where it was five-dimensional. In Ref. an effective five-dimensional theory was derived by direct compactification of the Horava-Witten theory on a Calabi-Yau space. A static solution to the field equations of this theory exists that may be interpreted as a pair of parallel three-branes that are located at the fixed points of the circle that represent the boundaries of the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$.

A set-up with two three-branes located at the boundaries of a five-dimensional $`AdS_5`$ spacetime has been used recently by Randall and Sundrum to address the hierarchy problem. They proposed an scenario where the metric is not factorizable. The four-dimensional metric, in this scenario, is multiplied by a ”warp” factor which is a function of the additional dimension

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}\eta _{nm}dx^ndx^m+dy^2,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`k`$ is a scale of order the Planck scale, $`x^a`$ are the usual 4-d coordinates and $`0y\pi \lambda `$ is the coordinate of the extra dimension. This line-element is consistent with orbifold symmetry ($`yy`$) and with four-dimensional Poincare invariance. Randall and Sundrum have shown that this metric is a solution to Einstein’s equations in a simple set-up with two three-branes and appropriate cosmological terms. The two three-branes are located at the orbifold fixed points $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi \lambda `$. These represent the boundaries of the five-dimensional spacetime.

Working out the consequences of the localized energy density inherent to the brane set-up, Randall and Sundrum found a new solution to the hierarchy problem. In the Randall-Sundrum proposal four-dimensional mass scales are related to five-dimensional input mass parameters and the ”warp” factor, $`e^{2k|y|}`$. This small exponential factor is the source of the large hierarchy between the observed Planck and weak scales. In this set-up the relation between the Planck scale and the fundamental scale is found to be

$$M_{Pl}^2=2M^3_0^{\pi \lambda }𝑑ye^{2k|y|}=\frac{M^3}{k}(1e^{2k\pi \lambda }),$$
$`(2)`$
and $`M_{Pl}^2`$ is a well-defined value even in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, in contrast to the product-space expectation that $`M_{Pl}^2=M^3\lambda \pi `$. By taking the second ”regulator” brane at infinity and considering the coordinate $`y=0`$ to be the location of the Planck brane, one can derive

$$M_{Pl}^2=2M^3_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{2k|y|}=\frac{M^3}{k},$$
$`(3)`$
so that if $`M`$ and $`k`$ are of order $`M_{Pl}=10^{19}GeV`$, the graviton zero mode is coupled correctly to generate four-dimensional gravity. For a brane located a distance $`y_0`$ from the Planck brane we have $`M_{Pl}e^{k|y_0|}TeV`$, i. e., the electroweak scale (of order TeV) is reproduced by physics confined to the brane located a distance $`y_0`$ from the brane where the graviton is localized. The generation of this hierarchy requires an exponential of order 30. The advantage of taking a five-dimensional spacetime with infinite extension in the $`y`$-direction is that one has a better chance of addressing issues such as the cosmological constant problem and black-hole physics.

In this letter we further exploit the ideas of Randall and Sundrum. We present a very simple machanism of orbifold geometry stabilization that allows determining the location of the TeV brane. It is literally a mechanism of spontaneous orbifold symmetry breaking. Our starting point is a generalization of the Randall-Sundrum 5-d line-element in the form

$$ds^2=e^{2k\sigma (y)}g_{mn}(x)dx^mdx^n+e^{l\gamma (y)+h(x)}dy^2,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`l`$ is an arbitrary constant factor, $`\sigma `$ and $`\gamma `$ are arbitrary functions of the additional $`y`$-coordinate, while the four-dimensional metric $`g_{ab}`$ and $`h`$ are functions of the familiar 4-d coordinates $`x^a`$. For our purposes it suffices to study a general five-dimensional spacetime without fixing the matter content. Neither standard model nor hidden matter sectors are specified. Therefore, we do not pretend to give any realistic particle picture, but a general five-dimensional gravity set-up. The effective 5-d action we shall study is,

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{G}(2M^3R\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
$`(5)`$
where $`G`$ is the determinant of the five-dimensional metric $`G_{AB}`$ ($`A,B=\overline{0,4}`$), $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar obtained from the 5-d Ricci tensor $`R_{AB}`$ ($`R=G^{MN}R_{MN}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cosmological constant that playes the role of a vacuum energy density in the five-dimensional spacetime. The field equations derivable from (5) are

$$R_{AB}\frac{1}{2}G_{AB}R=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}G_{AB}.$$
$`(6)`$
These equations can be split into the following set of equations:

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}e^{2k\sigma }R=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}e^{2k\sigma }g_{ab},$$
$`(7)`$
$$R_{44}\frac{1}{2}e^{l\gamma +h}R=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}e^{l\gamma +h},$$
$`(8)`$
and

$$R_{a4}=\frac{3}{2}k\sigma ^{}h_{,a}=0,$$
$`(9)`$
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to the additional $`y`$-coordinate. Eq.(9) implies two possibilities; either $`\sigma ^{}=0`$ ($`\sigma =const.`$) or $`h_{,a}=0`$ ($`h=const.`$). In this letter we shall interested in the 2nd possibility and we shall set $`h=const.=0`$ so the line-element (4) can be written as,

$$ds^2=e^{2k\sigma (y)}g_{mn}(x)dx^mdx^n+e^{l\gamma (y)}dy^2.$$
$`(10)`$
Therefore the field equations (7) and (8) yield

$${}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab}^{}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}^4R=3ke^{2k\sigma l\gamma }(\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\frac{l}{2}\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}2k\sigma ^2)g_{ab}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}e^{2k\sigma }g_{ab},$$
$`(11)`$
and

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{e^{l\gamma }}{12k^2}(e^{2k\sigma }{}_{}{}^{4}R\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}),$$
$`(12)`$
respectively.$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab}^{}`$ refers to the familiar four-dimensional Ricci tensor made out of the 4-d Christoffel symbols $`\{_{bc}^a\}=\frac{1}{2}g^{an}(g_{bn,c}+g_{cn,b}g_{bc,n})`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}R=g^{mn}{}_{}{}^{4}R_{mn}^{}`$ is the four-dimensional Ricci scalar. The 5-d and 4-d Ricci scalars are related through $`R=e^{2k\sigma }{}_{}{}^{4}R+2ke^{l\gamma }(4\sigma ^{\prime \prime }2l\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}10k\sigma ^2)`$. Combining the trace of Eq.(11) with Eq.(12) one obtains:

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\frac{l}{2}\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}k\sigma ^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{24kM^3}e^{l\gamma }.$$
$`(13)`$
For further simplification of our analysis let us set $`g_{ab}=\eta _{ab}`$\- the usual four-dimensional Minkowski metric. In this case $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab}^{}=^4R=0`$ so, from Eq.(11), one gets

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\frac{l}{2}\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}2k\sigma ^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{12kM^3}e^{l\gamma }.$$
$`(14)`$
Combining Eqs.(13) and (14) yields

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{l}{2}\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{},$$
$`(15)`$
which, after integrating, gives

$$\sigma ^{}=Ce^{\frac{l}{2}\gamma },$$
$`(16)`$
where $`C`$ is some integration constant. If we put Eq.(15) into Eq.(13) or (14), we obtain

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{24k^2M^3}e^{l\gamma },$$
$`(17)`$
so the integration constant $`C=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{24k^2M^3}}`$. Eq.(17) (or Eq.(16)) makes sense only for negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ (i. e., $`C^2>0`$ and the constant $`C`$ is real). This leads that our model five-diemnsional spacetime is $`AdS_5`$.

If we introduce a new coordinate through $`\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma ^{}}=dy`$, it is encouraging noting that the line-element (10) can then be written as

$$ds^2=e^{2k|\sigma |}\eta _{mn}dx^mdx^n+r_c^2d\sigma ^2,$$
$`(18)`$
where $`r_c=\sqrt{\frac{24k^2M^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ and the orbifold symmetry $`\sigma \sigma `$ has been taken into account. While deriving Eq.(18) we have used the following chain of equalities: $`e^{l\gamma }dy^2=\frac{e^{l\gamma }}{\sigma ^2}d\sigma ^2=\frac{24k^2M^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\sigma ^2`$. The line-element (18) exactly coincides with that of Randall and Sundrum if we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=24k^2M^3`$.

The most interesting feature of our set-up is contained in Eq.(17) (or Eq.(16)). Since both $`\sigma `$ and $`\gamma `$ are functions of the coordinate $`y`$, Eq.(17) can be written in the general form

$$\sigma ^2+U(\sigma )=,$$
$`(19)`$
where $``$ is an arbitrary positive constant and $`U(\sigma )`$ is an arbitrary function of $`\sigma `$. Then Eq.(19) implies that (see Eq.(17))

$$e^{l\gamma }=r_c^2[U(\sigma )].$$
$`(20)`$
Therefore, any solution $`\sigma (y)`$ of the differential equation (19) in the form

$$\pm \frac{d\sigma }{\sqrt{U(\sigma )}}=y+C_1,$$
$`(21)`$
implies, in virtue of Eq.(20), a solution $`\gamma (y)`$. This feature enables us some freedom in the choice of the function $`U(\sigma )`$. This is, precisely, the feature we shall exploit in searching for a mechanism of orbifold geometry stabilization. In fact, Eq.(19) may be given the following particle interpretation: it represents a scalar $`\sigma `$-particle with kinetic energy $`\sigma ^2`$ and total energy $``$, that moves along the $`y`$-direction in a potential $`U(\sigma )`$. In other words this can be put as follows. The derivative of Eq.(20) yields

$$l\gamma ^{}=\frac{dU}{d\sigma }\sigma ^{}/(U),$$
$`(22)`$
so, if we put Eq.(22) into Eq.(15) and, taking into account Eq.(19), one gets

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dU}{d\sigma }.$$
$`(23)`$
This equation of motion can also be obtained with the help of the variational principle from the action $`S_y=𝑑y[\sigma ^{},\sigma ]`$, where $`[\sigma ^{},\sigma ]=\sigma ^2U(\sigma )`$.***From Eq.(23) one sees that the potential should respect orbifold symmetry, i. e., $`U(\sigma )=U(\sigma )`$ Solutions to the equation of motion (23) that correspond to states of least energy are those with $`\sigma =\sigma _i`$ such that $`U(\sigma _i)`$ is a minimum. For these solutions the classical hamiltonian $`H𝑑y[\sigma ^2+U(\sigma )]`$ is a minimum too. Therefore, solutions to Eq.(23) for which $`\sigma =\sigma _i`$ represent the ground $`\sigma `$-states of the system. These ground states stabilize the orbifold geometry in the sense that the points $`\sigma =\sigma _i`$ correspond to stable (ground) configurations of the scalar field $`\sigma `$, yielding that branes located at these points are stable against small perturbations of $`\sigma `$.

One instructive example is provided by the potential $`U(\sigma )=\lambda \sigma ^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary constant. For positive $`\lambda >0`$ Eq.(21) can be readily integrated to give

$$\sigma (y)=\sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\lambda }y,$$
$`(24)`$
where $`\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\lambda }}y\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\lambda }}`$, so $`\sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}\sigma \sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}`$ (we have set $`C_1=0`$). In this case the five-dimensional spacetime has two boundaries that are located at $`\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}`$ and $`\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}`$ respectively. However these are not stable configurations in $`\sigma `$. The only stable configuration may be localized at $`\sigma =0`$. For negative $`\lambda <0`$, we would have, instead,

$$\sigma (y)=\sqrt{\frac{}{\lambda }}\mathrm{sinh}\sqrt{\lambda }y,$$
$`(25)`$
where now $`\mathrm{}y\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\sigma \mathrm{}`$ so, the $`\sigma `$-direction is unbounded. In this case there is no stable configuration supporting four-dimensional physics. We recall that this is just an instructive example.

A potential that supports the Randall-Sundrum mechanism for generating the mass hierarchy is the following

$$U(\sigma )=\lambda (\sigma _0^2\sigma ^2)^2,$$
$`(26)`$
where $`\mathrm{}\sigma \mathrm{}`$, i. e., we have an orbifold of $`AdS_5`$ geometry with infinite extent in the $`\sigma `$-direction. Following Ref. we locate the Planck brane at the origin of the $`\sigma `$-coordinate $`\sigma =0`$. The constant $`\sigma _0`$ is taken in such a way that $`e^{k|\sigma _0|}=TeV/M_{Pl}`$ ($`k10^{19}GeV`$). For positive $`\lambda >0`$, the potential $`U(\sigma )`$ in Eq.(26) has two minimuma at $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ respectively. The origin $`\sigma =0`$ is a local maximum. In other words, the stable ground $`\sigma `$-states are located at the minimuma $`\sigma =\pm \sigma _0`$.For negative $`\lambda <0`$, instead, this potential has two maxima at $`\sigma =\pm \sigma _0`$ and a local minimum at $`\sigma =0`$. This theory has no bound $`\sigma `$-states since there may be tunneling from the region $`|\sigma |\sigma _0`$ into the unbounded region $`|\sigma |>\sigma _0`$ In this case the electroweak TeV scale is generated from the Planck scale by spontaneous orbifold symmetry breaking. In fact, if the system was initially at $`\sigma =0`$ (the Planck brane) it ”rolls down” until the ground state at $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ or at $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ is reached. Once the ground state is reached, say at $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$, the orbifold symmetry inherent to the line-element (18) is not a symmetry of this ground state.

This mechanism also applies in the case of an arbitrary metric $`g_{ab}`$ if we make the identification

$${}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}3ke^{l\gamma }[\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\frac{l}{2}\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}2k\sigma ^2])e^{2k\sigma },$$
$`(27)`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a four-dimensional cosmological constant. In this case Eq.(11) can be written as

$${}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab}^{}\frac{1}{2}^4R=^4\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab},$$
$`(28)`$
therefore, the requirement that the 4-d cosmological constant should be zero ($`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) enables our mechanism to work since, in this case, Eq.(14) and the subsequent set of equations (including Eq.(17)) hold true.

What we have proposed here is a very simple mechanism, literally a mechanism of spontaneous orbifold symmetry breaking, that allows stabilization of the orbifold geometry while solving the hierarchy problem a la Randall-Sundrum. However it is not addressed to give a realistic particle picture. A more realistic approach must contain matter sectors. This will be the subject of forthcoming work.

I acknowledge useful conversations with colleagues Rolando Cardenas and Rolando Bonal and MES of Cuba by financial support of this research.


text:
# Nature of Spin Excitations in Two-dimensional Mott Insulators: Undoped Cuprates and Other Materials

## Abstract

We investigate the excitation spectrum of a two-dimensional resonating valence bond (RVB) state. Treating the $`\pi `$-flux phase with antiferromagnetic correlations as a variational ground state, we recover the long wavelength magnon as an “RVB exciton”. However, we find that this excitation does not exhaust the entire spectral weight and the high energy spectrum is dominated by fermionic excitations. The latter can be observed directly by inelastic neutron scattering and we predict their characteristic energy scales along different high symmetry directions in the magnetic Brillouin zone. We also interpret experimental results on two magnon Raman scattering and mid-infrared absorption within this scenario.

PACS numbers: 75.50.Ee, 75.40.Gb, 74.72.Dn

The undoped high $`T_c`$ cuprates, such as $`La_2CuO_4`$ etc.,  and compounds like $`Cu`$($`DCO_2`$)$`{}_{2}{}^{}4D_2O`$ (CFTD)  are ideal realizations of two-dimensional (2D) spin 1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnets on the square-lattice composed of $`Cu`$ ions and, consequently, are interesting systems to study. The antiferromagnetism that is observed in the undoped cuprates plays a crucial role in some theories of the metallic state of doped Mott insulators. For these reasons, it is important to understand the nature of magnetic excitations in these materials. A direct way to probe the spectrum of magnetic excitations is inelastic neutron scattering (INS). The presence of long range antiferromagnetic order below the Néel temperature was established in the insulating cuprates by neutron scattering measurements . Well defined peaks, identified as magnons, have been observed to disperse along the magnetic zone boundary in different compounds . Since then, a spin wave dispersion throughout the entire Brillouin zone in $`La_2CuO_4`$, has been extracted from INS measurements . The antiferromagnetic correlation length diverges exponentially as the temperature is lowered, indicative of long range order at $`T=0`$ . This is in agreement with the analysis of the 2D antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, with superexchange coupling $`J`$ between adjacent spins, in terms of the quantum non-linear $`\sigma `$ model , and other approaches based on spin waves . These results, concerning essentially the low energy regime, are construed as evidence favoring the hypothesis that the excitation spectrum in these materials can be described adequately by renormalized spin wave theory .

On the other hand, optical probes such as Raman and mid-infrared absorption spectroscopy highlight the inadequacy of the spin wave hypothesis. Typically, the positions of primary peaks observed in these experiments coincide reasonably well with calculations based on spin wave theory, but the observed line shapes cannot be explained, owing to the presence of finite spectral weight at high energies. For instance, the $`B_{1g}`$ shift in Raman scattering experiments spans a rather broad range of energies in insulating cuprates . Recent measurements on insulating $`Sr_2CuO_2Cl_2`$ as well as in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.1}`$ show very broad line shapes, spectral weight at higher energies, and a broad feature around $`4J`$ . Optical absorption spectra show similar features. Experiments on insulating cuprates  show a primary peak identified with bimagnon plus phonon absorption . But as in Raman scattering, the spectrum has a long tail extending to $`8000`$ $`cm^1`$ in $`La_2CuO_4`$ and $`6000`$ $`cm^1`$ in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_6`$. By analyzing the lineshape and the high energy spectra, Grüninger and coworkers have presented strong experimental evidence against the spin wave hypothesis for the insulating cuprates .

The two classes of experiments described in the preceding paragraphs do not necessarily contradict each other. Though the dispersing peaks observed in INS measurements can be interpreted as spin waves, an analysis of the spectral weight shows that long range order and spin waves can account only for about 50% of the observed spectrum . These results indicate the presence of excitations beyond the one magnon mode. Thus, taken in conjunction, INS and optical spectroscopy suggest two possible theoretical approaches. One is to start from spin wave theory, and look for consistent explanations for the experimental results outlined above. This is not an easy task, as spin wave theory is an effective theory of long wavelength excitations. The other approach is to postulate a new set of excitations that offers a natural explanation of the high energy spectra, and describing the magnons in terms of this new basis. It is the latter approach that we shall pursue.

In this paper, we consider the flux-phase resonating valence bond (RVB) theory, treated within the random phase approximation (RPA). Gapless spin wave excitations are recovered as a Goldstone mode. Besides this, the RVB theory also makes specific predictions about novel excitations- spin 1/2 flux fermions or spinons, and their direct observation. We predict the characteristic energy scales of these excitations along various high symmetry directions and show how their presence can naturally account for the spectral weight seen at high energies in optical probes.

Our starting point is the $`\pi `$-flux state with staggered magnetization as a variational parameter . For the case of the 2D Heisenberg antiferromagnet, the above state yields the best variational energy when the Gutzwiller constraint is enforced exactly . We assume that the excited states of the flux fermion spectrum are also good variational states for the spin excitations of 2D Mott insulators. The $`\pi `$-flux state with staggered magnetization $`m`$ is obtained in the mean-field approximation of the Hamiltonian

$$=\frac{J_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}\underset{ij,\sigma }{}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}}(f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }+h.c.)+V\underset{i}{}n_in_i,$$
(1)
which is an extension of the RVB mean field theory . The lattice fermions pick up a phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$=$`\pi `$ on hopping around an elementary plaquette, and also experience an on-site potential $`V`$, which is included to induce a spin density wave (SDW) coexisting with the flux order. The excitation spectrum is given by $`E_𝐤`$=$`J_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2k_x+\mathrm{cos}^2k_y+(m/2)^2}`$ where $`m`$ is determined self-consistently as $`V^1`$=$`N^1^{}E_𝐤^1`$, $`N`$ being the number of lattice sites and the summation being over momenta in the magnetic Brillouin zone (MBZ).

The above Hamiltonian, with $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}J`$, was first considered by Hsu . Invoking a Gutzwiller approximation, Hsu determined the projected variational energy and the sublattice magnetization as a function of the SDW mass parameter $`m`$, induced by the potential $`V`$. The analysis of the excitation spectrum, however, is complicated by the Gutzwiller approximation. Owing to this difficulty, Hsu could only obtain the poles of the particle-hole Green’s function ($`S_z=\pm 1`$ excitations) and not the complete dynamical spin susceptibility. To obtain the latter, we find it convenient to follow an equivalent approach, proposed first by Laughlin . In this scheme, a spinon pair is created as a projected particle-hole excitation and the spinons constituting the pair experience an on-site repulsion, favoring the formation of an SDW. This interaction also enhances the exchange integral $`J`$ to $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The quantities $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`m`$ are determined self consistently to be $`1.5J`$ and $`0.5`$, respectively . The Gutzwiller approximation technique employed by Hsu gives similar results.

We now obtain the dynamical spin susceptibility from Eq.(1) using RPA. The calculation parallels that of Schrieffer et al., on the SDW instability of the 2D Hubbard model . We obtain, for the (transverse) spin susceptibility, $`S(𝐪,\omega )=\mathrm{Im}\chi ^+(𝐪,\omega )`$, where

$$\chi ^+(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{\chi _0^+(𝐪,\omega )}{1V\chi _0^+(𝐪,\omega )},$$
(2)
and

$`\chi _0^+(𝐪,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}^{}}`$
$`[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}(k_x+q_x)+\mathrm{cos}k_y\mathrm{cos}(k_y+q_y)(m/2)^2}{E_𝐤E_{𝐤+𝐪}}}]`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (E_𝐤+E_{𝐤+𝐪})+i\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +(E_𝐤+E_{𝐤+𝐪})i\delta }}].`$
Here, $`\chi _0^+`$ is defined as the time-ordered product $`TS^+S^{}`$ with respect to the SDW ground state.

At the magnetic wave vector $`𝐪`$=Q=$`(\pi ,\pi )`$, $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ is singular when $`\omega `$=0. The spectrum is gapless, which result is guaranteed by the self-consistency of the RPA. Since the gapless mode is a bound state between particle-hole pairs, it is interpreted as an “RVB exciton”. The dispersion of this mode can be obtained analytically. Evaluating $`lim_{𝐪𝐐}\chi ^+`$ for small $`\omega `$, we obtain $`\omega (𝐪)1.14J_{eff}|𝐪|`$. For arbitrary q, Eq.(2) has to be evaluated numerically. The results for $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ are shown in Fig. 1. For each q, we see a strong peak at low energy. This magnon (or RVB exciton) peak disperses as $`𝐪`$ varies. By tracking the position of the intense peaks at low energy, we obtain the magnon dispersion for the entire MBZ (see Fig. 2), recovering Hsu’s results . Near the zone boundary, the dispersion deviates from that of linear spin waves.

It is important to realize that our approach is much more than just a complicated way of describing magnons. This is borne out by our explicit evaluation of $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$. For example, consider $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$, at ($`\pi ,\pi `$) in Fig. 1. The intensity drops at higher energy, and grows again at $`\omega 0.5J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The intensity at higher energies is interpreted as the manifestation of the particle-hole (spinon) excitations. Within this interpretation, we can estimate the characteristic energy at which the continuum becomes visible. Consider a spin-flip excitation with momentum q as a convolution of particle-hole excitations. Then, its energy $`\omega (𝐪)`$ is given by $`\omega (𝐪)=E_{𝐪𝐤}+E_𝐤`$, where we have ignored the residual interaction. For $`𝐪`$=$`𝐐`$, $`\omega (𝐐)`$=$`2J_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}k_x^2+\mathrm{cos}k_y^2+(m/2)^2}`$. Its minimum, occurring when the two fermions are created at the Dirac point $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, is exactly $`mJ_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, as seen in Fig. 1. This analysis shows that the continuum emerging for energies $`0.5J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and above can be interpreted as arising from a convolution of free flux fermions or spinons. The line shape is, however, determined by the interaction. Due to the phase space available for convolution, the onset of the continuum is a strong function of momentum. Hence, as seen in Fig. 1, the magnon peak as well as the lower boundary of the flux-fermion continuum shift in energy, as q is varied. As $`𝐪(\pi ,0)`$, the onset of the continuum shifts towards lower energies. At $`(\pi ,0)`$, there is no easy way to isolate the magnon and spinon contributions . In Fig. 1(b), we display the behavior of $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ along the direction $`(\pi ,\pi )(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$. In this case, the lower boundary of the fermion continuum shifts towards higher energies. At $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, we find the onset of the continuum around $`1.7J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. As before, this value can be understood by considering the spin-flip excitation with momentum $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ as a particle-hole pair. A similar analysis as in the previous case yields a minimum energy, $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}(m+2\sqrt{2+(m/2)^2})/2`$ at the Dirac point $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$. For $`m=0.5`$, this turns out to be $`1.7J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, confirming our interpretation.

From our results for the magnon peak and the fermion continuum, we obtain the spectrum of excitations over the whole MBZ, which is shown in Fig. 2. Note that by putting $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ in Eq.(1), results from the weak coupling approach to the Heisenberg antiferromagnet  can be obtained. We have verified that the excitation spectrum, in this case, is distinct from ours . Thus, our calculations are specific to the existence of a $`\pi `$-flux phase . Our results for small $`𝐪𝐐`$ are consistent with calculations based on the bosonic RVB scheme . At higher energies, it has been shown  that the bosonic RVB state can support vortex like topological excitations that are fermionic. This agrees with our picture of fermionic excitations at high energies. The shaded region in Fig. 2 depicts these excitations and can, in principle, be observed directly by INS. At the magnetic wave vector $`𝐐`$, there is a well defined gap between the strong magnon peak and the spinon continuum, which may facilitate detection of the continuum along this direction. For typical values of the superexchange coupling $`J`$ in undoped cuprates, this gap is of the order of 100 meV. Recently, Coldea et al.  have reported results from high-energy (0.1-0.5 eV) neutron scattering in $`La_2CuO_4`$. Given the possibility of studying high energy spin excitations with enhanced resolution, INS may be a good probe for the direct observation of spinon excitations, should they exist. It is therefore extremely interesting to examine, both theoretically and experimentally, whether our predictions are realized in this measurement. Experiments show that as q varies from $`(\pi ,0)`$ to $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, the spectral weight at high energies decreases. This is certainly consistent with our calculation. A detailed comparison incorporating appropriate structure factors for neutron scattering is forthcoming .

Let us now turn our attention to the two magnon experiments. As mentioned earlier, these experiments are characterized by a broad spectral distribution of intensity and secondary peaks. Both these features can be explained naturally within our scheme. First, let us consider the observed widths of the primary peaks in two magnon Raman scattering. We identify two reasons why the observed linewidths are very broad. (a) Conventional spin wave theory yields magnons that do not disperse along the zone boundary, leading to a singularity in the density of magnon states. Consequently, the Raman spectrum is dominated by zone boundary magnons. The singularity is, however, smoothened by magnon-magnon interactions. On the other hand, in the RVB scenario, a broad spectrum is obtained even with non-interacting magnons. This is because the low lying mode in Fig. 2 disperses along the zone boundary and there is no singularity in the density of states. Thus, the two magnon spectrum is not dominated by zone boundary excitations, and is broader than the spectrum obtained from linear spin wave theory. (b) In addition to this intrinsic width of the two magnon spectrum, we expect the line shape to be broadened further by the contribution from the spinon continuum as is evident from Fig. 2.

To illustrate the above, we calculate the the density of states (DOS) corresponding to one spin-flip excitation, $`^{}\delta (\omega \omega (𝐪))`$. In Fig. 3, the dashed line shows the DOS obtained by considering only the magnon peak. To incorporate the entire excitation spectrum, i.e., both the magnon and the spinon excitations, we also plot (solid line) $`\pi ^1_𝐪^{}S(𝐪,\omega )`$. As seen in the figure, the presence of spinon excitations leads to a hump at $`\omega 2J`$, followed by a long tail extending to energies $`\omega 4J`$ and beyond. These features are clearly absent when only the magnon peak is considered. The results indicate that the two magnon DOS (relevant to Raman experiments) would show a primary peak around $`\omega 3J`$ (from the low lying mode) and a broad hump at $`\omega 4J`$ (arising from the continuum). We expect similar features in the mid-infrared absorption spectra. In this case, the spectrum is broader as the two spin-flip excitation can carry finite momentum, and the final result involves summing over all such momenta . To summarize this discussion, the unconventional dispersion of the magnon in the RVB scheme leads to broad primary peaks in the optical spectra and the contribution of the spinon continuum leads to secondary peaks.

In conclusion, the observation of dispersing magnon peaks in spin 1/2 Mott insulators does not rule out the existence of spinons per se. The magnon can be recovered as an RVB exciton and the presence of spinons can be directly observed by a careful analysis of the line shapes obtained from inelastic neutron scattering. We have obtained, within the framework presented in this paper, the characteristic energy scales at which the spinon continuum can be observed. Dispersing magnons seen in neutron scattering and the observation of spectral weight at high energies in optical experiments, as well as the ubiquitous secondary peaks, can all be reconciled by our picture. While our results do not prove the existence of spinons, they certainly demonstrate how their presence modifies the spin excitation spectrum. It is hoped that these results would spur further experimental investigation of these issues, in particular, a careful analysis of the high energy spin excitation spectrum.

We thank G. Aeppli, B. Keimer, P. A. Lee, T. K. Lee, N. Nagaosa, T.-K. Ng, and Z. Y. Weng for discussions. CMH was supported in Japan by the Grant-In-Aid for the COE project from Manbusho. Work at Princeton is supported by NSF Grant DMR-9104873.