text:
# Dualising the Dual Standard Model

## I Introduction

11footnotetext:  email: n$`\mathrm{\_}`$lepora@hotmail.com

Recently a remarkable correspondence has been discovered between the monopoles from Georgi-Glashow gauge unification and the observed elementary particles. Vachaspati found that the magnetic charges of the five stable SU(5) monopoles have a one-to-one identification with the electric charges of the five multiplets in one standard model generation . Motivated by this he conjectured that the elementary particles may originate as solitons from SU(5) gauge unification.

A concrete way for examining this conjecture has been proposed by Liu and Vachaspati in the form of the dual standard model . This relies on the notion, familiar from electromagnetism, that electric particles can also be described by monopoles in the dual gauge potential. In this sense the dual standard model would be the dual description of the standard model, with all of the elementary particles represented instead as monopoles.

By expressing the standard model in this dual formulation it is possible that there may emerge features that are presently hidden within the usual particle description. That is, a dual standard model may uncover a hidden simplicity and regularity of form that could prove crucial to understanding the nature and origin of the standard model. Also possible is that new physics may have to be included to arrive at a simple and consistent form.

This discovery of the SU(5) monopole-particle correspondence strongly hints that a dual standard model should be formulated around the monopoles from gauge unification. In Vachaspati’s words : This correspondence suggests that perhaps unification should be based on a magnetic SU(5) symmetry group with only a bosonic sector and the presently observed fermions are really the monopoles of that theory. Much work still needs to be done on this proposal, but several encouraging features do occur. For instance the incorporation of spin  and a consistent picture of confinement .

In this paper we are concerned with the construction of the dual standard model and whether it could be naturally dualised, in the sense of Chan and Tsou . In their dualised standard model  (which should not be confused with the dual standard model) they interpret many properties of the elementary particles as emerging from duality; for instance three generations arise from just one generation of dyons. Remarkably this gives accurate estimations for both the masses and mixing angles of the elementary particles .

A central point of this paper is that both the methodology and the conclusions of the dual and dualised standard models appear to be complementary to each other. That is, there is no overlap in their conclusions, whilst taking the two models together appears to explain most observed features of the elementary particles. For this reason we examine whether these two models could be considered together.

To illustrate how these models might be combined we investigate the dual standard model in a theta vacuum. Whilst there are issues to be considered, it appears that the initial assumptions of the dualised standard model can emerge. In this sense the dual standard model becomes naturally dualised. Also, giving further corroboration, this calculation appears to explain the chirality assignments of the elementary fermions; a feature that cannot be derived in either of the original models.

If the above two models can be combined together in such a simple and natural way then perhaps a very simple theory of particle and gauge unification could ensue. Indeed it seems possible that all features of a dual standard model could naturally emerge within the properties of SU(5) monopoles in a theta vacuum. As we have mentioned such a behaviour does seem to be occurring. However more research is necessary to determine whether this can be fully realised.

The composition of this paper is as follows. In sec. (II) we briefly discuss the dual and dualised standard models and how they relate to each other. Then in sec. (III) we discuss how the two models may naturally combine in a theta vacuum. Finally in sec. (IV) we draw our conclusions.

Before starting we note that an alternative viewpoint for realising a dual standard model has been presented by Vachaspati and Steer .

## II Duality and the Standard Model

In this section we quickly remind the reader of some results within the dual standard model and the dualised standard model. This discussion is also intended to clarify the complementary roles these theories presently take.

### A The Dual Standard Model

The construction of a dual standard model is based around a Georgi-Glashow unification  of the standard model gauge symmetry within an SU(5) group Note that (1) relies on the elementary particles forming representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)/_6`$; as is implied by an observed $`_6`$ relation between their colour, isospin and hypercharge assignments .

$$\mathrm{SU}(5)H_{\mathrm{SM}}=\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm{C}\times \mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{I}\times \mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{Y}/_6,$$
(1)
which breaks via condensation  of an adjoint scalar field. This implies a spectrum of stable SU(5) monopoles, having various colours, isospins and hypercharges. Their magnetic charges are specified by the magnetic field

$$𝑩\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{r^2}M,M=m_\mathrm{C}T_\mathrm{C}+m_\mathrm{I}T_\mathrm{I}+m_\mathrm{Y}T_\mathrm{Y},$$
(2)
with a suitable choice of generators, for instance,

$`T_\mathrm{C}=\mathrm{diag}(\text{-}\frac{1}{3},\text{-}\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},0,0),T_\mathrm{I}=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,0,\text{-}1,1),`$ (3)
$`T_\mathrm{Y}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\text{-}\frac{3}{2},\text{-}\frac{3}{2}).`$ (4)
When the scalar masses are much smaller than the gauge masses Gardner and Harvey showed there are five, topologically distinct, stable monopoles with magnetic charges forming the pattern :

Based upon this a dual standard model could be constructed along the following lines:

(i) First and foremost the magnetic charges in table I are identical to the electric charges in one standard model generation . This suggests that one generation of standard model particles have a monopole description as solitons from a dual $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(5)`$ unification of the magnetic gauge symmetry $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{SM}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(3)_\mathrm{C}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(2)_\mathrm{I}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{U}}(1)_\mathrm{Y}/_6`$ in the dual standard model.

(ii) To represent standard model fermions these solitons should have an intrinsic one-half angular momentum. This can be naturally achieved through the fermions from bosons effect ; from which the dyons formed from combining SU(5) monopoles and quanta of a $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ scalar field $`H`$ have the requisite angular momenta .

(iii) Confinement is expressed through breaking dual colour $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(3)_\mathrm{C}_3`$ , which attaches the appropriate monopoles to topological vortices.

(iv) When normalising the generators (4) to tr$`T^2=1`$ the gauge-monopole couplings naturally scale within the minimal coupling $`gA_\mu ^aT^a`$. This suggests the dual standard model unifies when $`\frac{1}{3}g_\mathrm{C}=g_\mathrm{I}=\sqrt{\frac{15}{2}g_\mathrm{Y}}`$ . Curiously such scaled coupling do unify, although the scale of unification is rather low and could prove problematic:

### B The Dualised Standard Model

To construct a dualised standard model Chan and Tsou propose the elementary fermions are dyonically charged, with dynamics depending upon both an electric and magnetic gauge symmetry

$$H_{\mathrm{SM}}\times \stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{SM}}.$$
(6)
Note an independent treatment of Abelian dualised gauge symmetry has been given by Kleinert .

The main implication of the dualised structure (6) is associated with the existence and properties of three standard model generations . Following a theorem of ’t Hooft, colour confinement implies dual colour $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(3)_\mathrm{C}`$ breaks to triviality . Then a dual colour multiplet

$`\psi =(\psi ^{\stackrel{~}{r}},\psi ^{\stackrel{~}{g}},\psi ^{\stackrel{~}{b}}),`$

splits into three components, with each component’s mass determined by the details of the breaking. Interpreting this dual colour as a horizontal generational symmetry naturally leads to three generations of fermions from one generation of dual colour charged particles.

To describe symmetry breaking the relevant condensing scalar degrees of freedom must be identified. Chan and Tsou claim such scalar fields occur as frame vectors within the non-Abelian electric-magnetic duality. In this sense these scalar fields are interpreted as independent degrees of freedom arising naturally from the dualised nature of (6). Within a dualised standard model this gives two isospin doublets and three dual colour triplets.

This structure allows an estimation of fermion masses by constructing Yukawa couplings between the fermions and the dual colour scalar fields. Analogous to electroweak theory this is possible when only the isospin doublet fermions are dual colour charged. At tree level this coupling diagonalises into only one massive generation, which roughly approximates the standard model. To first order non-zero masses are induced for the other two generations :

Note the poor match for the lightest generation, which they attribute to their approximation techniques. The CKM mixing angles also derive from the same inputs

$`V_{rs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.9752& 0.2215& 0.0048\\ 0.2210& 0.9744& 0.0401\\ 0.0136& 0.0381& 0.9992\end{array}\right);`$

again these compare favourably with experiment

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97450.976& 0.2170.224& 0.00180.0045\\ 0.2170.224& 0.97370.9753& 0.0360.042\\ 0.0040.013& 0.0350.042& 0.99910.9994\end{array}\right).`$

### C Complementarity of the Dual and Dualised Standard Models

In this section we discuss how the above two models complement each other. That is, how their physical implications have no overlap, whilst their total implications explain most of the standard model. It is important to stress that these models are completely independent, and that they discuss different aspects of non-Abelian duality.

Firstly, the principle success of the dual standard model is to predict the electric charges for just one standard model generation, whilst it gives no explanation for three generations. Complementary to this the dualised standard model takes these electric charges as input, whilst deriving three generations.

Secondly, the dual standard model explains the origin of spin through considering dyons instead of monopoles. Complementary to this the dualised standard model takes these spins as input, whilst assuming the fermions are dyonic to derive three generations. Later we will see that the specific representations required to achieve these effects can be consistent.

Thirdly, no particle masses have been derived in the dual standard model, whilst this is a central aspect of the dualised standard model. Currently the only indication for the dual standard model mass scale is through the gauge unification in fig. 1, which suggests a few GeV.

Finally for electroweak symmetry breaking and confinement the dual standard model assumes the necessary scalar field structure. Complementary to this the dualised standard model derives such fields from the properties of non-Abelian duality.

We hope this gives some motivation for treating these two theories together. For further corroboration we now make some additional comments.

The point of both the dualised standard model and the dual standard model is to express the standard model in a simpler form. The dualised standard model does this by reducing the situation to essentially one generation of fermions. In the dual standard model one generation of fermions is understood to originate from gauge unification. In this sense the dual standard model reduces the fermions to simply a consequence of gauge interaction.

Finally the dual and the dualised standard model complement each other on a theoretical level. The dual standard model is based on the notion that electric particles can also be described as monopoles in the dual gauge potential. The dualised standard model is based on a quite different aspect of duality, where both electric and magnetic interactions are considered together as a dualised theory.

### D Combining the Dual and Dualised Standard Models

In the previous section we discussed how the dual and dualised standard models are complementary theories. This motivates that perhaps they should be combined together to give a full description of the standard model. A natural way to do this would be to dualise the dual standard model by somehow inducing colour charges on the monopoles.

However as the two models presently stand there are difficulties with this dualisation. This is because the construction of dual colour Yukawa couplings requires dual colour matter assignments $`\mathrm{𝟑}_L,\mathrm{𝟏}_R\times 3`$, with only $`(u,d)_L`$ and $`(\nu ,e)_L`$ dyonic . That is, the dualised standard model derives three generations by postulating a dual colour structure analogous to electroweak isospin. The evidence for this are the rather accurate estimations of fermion masses and mixing angles .

However this structure is not compatible with dualising the dual standard model. There only one generation of $`u_R`$, $`d_R`$ and $`e_R`$ are derived; not the three required to construct dual colour Yukawa couplings. Instead, from a dual standard model perspective, it appears natural that all SU(5) monopoles should somehow gain dual colour charge; then three generations would originate solely from dual colour. Certainly the physical mechanism of dual colour breaking still appears to apply, although the fermion masses and mixing angles would not.

Perhaps an investigation of the effective couplings between monopoles may yield similar couplings; for instance if $`\mathrm{𝟑}_R`$ is first broken to $`\mathrm{𝟏}_R\times 3`$ then such Yukawa couplings can be constructed. In the dualised standard model these Yukawa couplings are effective anyway; since they are not gauge invariant unless derived from a non-renormalisable interaction .

Perhaps many of these issues relate to quantising the dual standard model (indeed we will see later there are other problems with quantisation). As a preliminary investigation one might determine whether such dual colour charges may naturally occur within the classical monopole theory. That is the subject of the next section.

## III Dualising the Dual Standard Model

In the previous section we motivated that perhaps one should combine the dual standard model and the dualised standard model together. Within this section we give an illustration of the sort of methods that could be used.

Essentially we examine here only whether the most basic proposal in the dualised standard model is consistent with a dual standard model. That is whether the dual standard model can be naturally dualised such that every elementary particle has the dual colour required for three generations. In addition we check whether this procedure is consistent with the parity and angular momentum assignments of the elementary particles.

We should make it clear that there are some difficult issues when extrapolating the following to the fully quantised regime. These issues and some potential resolutions are discussed in sec. (III D). For this reason the following represents an investigation of whether a consistent classical/semi-classical theory can be obtained.

### A SU(5) Monopoles in a Theta Vacuum

To start we consider the effects of a theta vacuum on the SU(5) monopole spectrum of sec. (II A). Such a theta vacuum has been motivated to play an important role in formulating a dual standard model . This is because the SU(5) monopole spectrum is parity invariant (unlike the standard model) unless a theta vacuum is included.

The effect of a theta term in the SU(5) gauge theory

$$_\theta =\frac{\theta g^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{tr}𝑬𝑩$$
(8)
is to induce theta dependent electric charge  on the monopoles in table I. A simple way to see this is to consider the interaction of a monopole with a gauge field $`(\varphi ,𝒂)`$. Following an argument of Coleman’s  the electric and magnetic fields

$$𝑬=\mathbf{}\varphi ,𝑩=\mathbf{}𝒂+\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{r^2}M,$$
(9)
are substituted into (8) to give, upon integration by parts,

$$L_\theta =\mathrm{d}^3𝒓_\theta =\frac{\theta g}{2\pi }\mathrm{d}^3𝒓\delta ^3(𝒓)\mathrm{tr}\varphi M.$$
(10)
But this is precisely the interaction between the gauge potential and an electric charge $`Q_\theta =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }M`$. Consequently each monopole in table I gains a theta dependent electric charge, becoming a dyon

$$𝑬\frac{\theta g}{2\pi }\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{4\pi r^2}M,𝑩\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{r^2}M.$$
(11)
Here we are particularly interested in the effects of this theta vacuum on the interactions of these monopoles with electric charges. To be specific we consider the bosons associated with the components $`H_i`$, $`i=1,..,5`$, of a $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ scalar field. These source a non-Abelian electric field

$$𝑬=g\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{4\pi r^2}Q_i,$$
(12)
with $`Q_i`$ the electric generator, which has the form

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\frac{4}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5}),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ (14)
$`Q_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{4}{5}).`$ (15)
Similarly the $`\overline{H}`$ bosons have electric generators $`\overline{Q}_i`$ of opposite sign. Then $`\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\}`$ form a colour triplet and $`\{Q_4,Q_5\}`$ form an isospin doublet; each with the appropriate colour and isospin charges.

Note that this scalar field $`H`$ associated with the above bosons is directly relevant to constructing a dual standard model. In points (ii) and (iii) of sec. (II A) this field is used to obtain fermions from bosons and for breaking dual colour.

Because of the global properties of charge around a monopole the theta induced charge is always associated with an Abelian interaction. That is, not all electric charges can be defined in the presence of a monopole (with some gaining an infinite energy string singularity), but the theta induced charge is necessarily well defined as a $`\mathrm{U}(1)_M`$ interaction . This induced charge then interacts with the $`H_i`$ bosons through their $`\mathrm{U}(1)_M`$ charge components.

The feature we wish to draw attention to is that the theta induced charge will attract some electric charges and repel others in a parity violating manner. Whether they are attracted or repelled depends upon whether the $`H_i`$ bosons have positive/negative $`\mathrm{U}(1)_M`$ charges. This provides a natural, parity violating mechanism for forming dyonic composites. Many of these have one-half angular momentum, as is necessary to construct a dual standard model.

This can be illustrated by considering the theta induced Coulomb potential between a monopole with generator $`M`$ and a charge $`Q`$

$$V(r)\frac{\theta g^2}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{tr}QM}{4\pi r},r>\text{ }R_c.$$
(16)
Here both the charge and monopole are approximated as point sources outside the monopole core. Inside the core the magnetic field (and hence induced electric field) decreases continuously to zero by Gauss’s law. Clearly this potential is binding/repulsive depending upon whether $`\mathrm{tr}QM`$ is positive/negative.

That the potential (16) results in a parity violating spectrum of bound dyons is because of the even/odd properties of the electric/magnetic fields under parity inversion. Then $`𝒫:(Q,M)(Q,M)`$ takes a bound dyon into a non-bound state.

An interesting property of the stable dyons is that their angular momentum assignments also violate parity. For scalar electric charges the angular momentum of the resulting dyonic composites is

$$J_3=\mathrm{d}^3r[𝒓(𝑬𝑩)]_3=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}QM,$$
(17)
with the monopole-charge axis orientated to $`\widehat{𝒙}_3`$. Then their parity conjugates have the opposite angular momentum.

### B The Dual Standard Model in a Theta Vacuum

We now apply the above properties of a theta vacuum to the construction of a dual standard model. The central idea is to use the theta binding effect to naturally form a parity violating spectrum of SU(5) dyons, all of which have one-half angular momenta.

As well as trying to achieve angular momentum assignments compatible with the standard model we would also like the resulting dyon spectrum to be compatible with obtaining three generations through the methods of Chan and Tsou. To help along these lines we take some indications from the dualised standard model. There they require dual colour to be broken, whilst dual isospin appears to be confining, with a large confinement scale (say over a hundred GeV) to not be presently observed.

Therefore we do not consider SU(5) dyons with electric isospin, as in the dualised standard model these are confined into very heavy dual isospin hadrons. As we will see this conveniently simplifies the following calculations.

Such composite dyons can be formed by combining the monopoles in table I with the charges $`\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\}`$ in (13). However these are not the only dyons present in the dual standard model; there are also non-Abelian analogues of the Julia-Zee dyon . In principle the theta induced charge can also bind their electric charge to the monopoles.

The description of these monopole gauge excitations is quite involved and we refer to ref.  for a fuller discussion. Care has to be taken with the global properties of electric charge, because not all charges are well defined around a magnetic monopole. The dyon spectrum is obtained upon performing a semi-classical quantisation of the global electric degrees of freedom around a monopole. This results in the following spectrum of possible electric charges, with colour, isospin and hypercharges defined through $`Q=q_\mathrm{C}T_\mathrm{C}+q_\mathrm{I}T_\mathrm{I}+q_\mathrm{Y}T_\mathrm{Y}`$:

Here we restrict our attention to the lower charged and therefore least energetic excitations. Of these there are three that are uncharged under isospin

$`Q_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(0,1,1,\text{-}1,\text{-}1),Q_\mathrm{C}^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,2,\text{-}2,\text{-}2),`$ (20)
$`Q_\mathrm{Y}=\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,\text{-}3,\text{-}3).`$
From now on we will take these charges as input, and not consider their origin from the semi-classical quantisation.

Now we need to determine the angular momenta of these gauge excited dyons. For this there are two situations:

(i) Spherically symmetric dyons have vanishing angular momentum. There is a simple criterion for determining whether the dyons are spherically symmetric from their $`(Q,M)`$ charge, as described in sec. (VIII) of ref. .

(ii) Otherwise dyons will have angular momentum, although there are many issues that have not been fully understood. As a simple model for calculating their angular momentum we consider $`Q`$ to be composed of two components $`Q=Q_0+Q_s`$, where $`Q_0`$ defines a spherically symmetric dyon. Then the angular momentum originates from $`Q_s`$, which we interpret as a single gauge boson in the background of the monopole. This gives

$$J_3=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}Q_sM1,\mathrm{tr}Q_sM0,\\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}Q_sM+1,\mathrm{tr}Q_sM0,\end{array}$$
(21)
in which we have included the spin of the gauge boson as being energetically orientated opposite to the magnetic field  and taken the monopole-charge axis as $`𝒙_3`$.

It should be noted that there are many issues with gauge excitations that have not been fully understood. However the above configurations are present in the SU(5) monopole theory, and one may use Goldhaber’s argument  to show they are fermionic. It is possible that (21) is only valid for some gauge excitations, although we have checked that those dyons in table IV below are compatible with the semi-classical analysis of Dixon .

From this we can determine the angular momenta of the appropriate dyons in the dual standard model:

In this table we also include an $`\overline{e}^{}`$ monopole with $`M=(1,1,4,\text{-}3,\text{-}3)`$, which has extra non-topological magnetic charge. Vachaspati and Steer have motivated that this non-topological degree of freedom relates to the internal structure of the monopole, so that the long range magnetic interactions are unaffected. For more details we refer to their paper .

For the scalar boson-monopole composites only the states $`(Q,M)`$ with non-zero angular momentum can be bound configurations. This is because both the binding potential (16) and angular momentum (17) are proportional to tr$`QM`$. The charge conjugates $`(Q,M)`$ have also the same stability and angular momenta, whilst the parity conjugates $`(Q,M)`$ have the opposite stabilities.

In conclusion this mechanism has been of some success within the dual standard model. Certainly all of the monopoles become naturally dyonic, with a spectrum of non-zero angular momenta that violates parity maximally. Also all are colour charged, as is consistent with a dualised standard model. However there are problems:

(i) There is no $`\overline{e}`$ dyon with one-half angular momentum. To construct such a state requires two quanta of $`H`$, which is problematic as such a dyon possesses dual isospin.

(ii) As well as the desired standard model states there are other angular momentum analogues for the $`(\overline{\nu },\overline{e})`$, $`u`$ and $`\overline{e}`$ dyons. Certainly no such states have been observed in the standard model.

A way of solving problem (i) is to instead consider the $`\overline{e}^{}`$ monopole, which has dyons with one-half angular momentum. Later we will see that the $`\overline{e}`$ dyons have a complicated energy spectrum at non-zero theta. This raises the possibility that a dyon with non-topological magnetic charge could be the admissible state.

Problem (ii) is less straightforward. It seems that some energetic criterion should be applied. We examine this in the next section.

### C Dualising the Dual Standard Model

As the above mechanism stands there is another reason why all the above composites cannot represent standard model fermions. One should require each composite’s mass to be less than their possible decay products, since only then are the dyons absolutely stable to decay. Note that similar ideas have been proposed in ref. , although the following discussion is very different from that.

In this section we will take the charges and spins of the dyons as input and consider only the classical charge-monopole interactions. This is because there are some difficult issues associated with a fully quantised treatment, as discussed in the next section.

The SU(5) monopole masses can be estimated in a fairly simple way from their solitonic properties. Their scalar core energy and magnetic mass are determined by the coupling $`g`$, vev $`v`$, and core-size $`R_c`$

$`_s`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle _{r<R_c}}\mathrm{d}^3r\mathrm{tr}𝑫\mathrm{\Phi }^22\pi R_cv^2,`$ (23)
$`_B`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle _{r>R_c}}\mathrm{d}^3r\mathrm{tr}B^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2R_c}}M^2,`$ (24)
where $`M^2=\mathrm{tr}M^2`$. For simplicity we approximate the scalar and gauge core sizes as equal, which does not appreciably effect the central result (28) below. An equilibrium between the scalar and magnetic energies leads to

$$R_c\frac{M}{gv},m_{\mathrm{mon}}_B+_s\frac{4\pi v}{g}M.$$
(25)
It is interesting that the electromagnetic mass essentially determines the monopole’s mass $`m_{\mathrm{mon}}`$. The problem of electromagnetic mass has a long history (see ref. ); for instance it diverges in many situations. For the above solitons the role of electromagnetic mass is clear: it simply constitutes half of the monopole’s mass.

The electromagnetic mass is also central to calculating the soliton’s mass in a theta vacuum. Then the total mass is the sum of $`m_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ in (25) and the mass in the theta induced electric field (11)

$$_E\frac{1}{2}_{r>R_c}\mathrm{d}^3r\mathrm{tr}E^2\frac{\theta ^2g^3v}{32\pi ^3}M.$$
(26)
An interesting point is that a dyon’s electric charge can cancel off part of the theta induced electric field. This will decrease the electric mass of the dyon. There are many issues with this observation, but let us explore the consequences for the stable dyon spectrum.

Considering a dyon $`(Q,M)`$ in a theta vacuum,

$$𝑬g\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{4\pi r^2}(Q\frac{\theta }{2\pi }M),𝑩\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\widehat{𝒓}}{r^2}M.$$
(27)
Then the electric mass of this dyon is

$$_E\frac{1}{2}_{r>R_c}\mathrm{d}^3r\mathrm{tr}E^2\frac{g^3v}{8\pi M}\mathrm{tr}(Q\frac{\theta }{2\pi }M)^2,$$
(28)
whilst the magnetic mass stays the same.

For the dyons in table IV we now plot all of their electric energies with theta in figs. 2 to 7. Those dyons not included on the figures, which includes the different gauge orientations, have been verified to not be of least energy.

In conclusion for $`\theta (\frac{4}{5}\pi ,\frac{10}{11}\pi )`$ the states with least electric mass are:

Thus if the criterion for selecting relevant states is the dyon’s electric mass then this does give the required spectrum, with all states having $`J_3=\frac{1}{2}`$. We stress that in no way was this result necessary or predetermined; the dynamics just happened to give the desired answer. There are difficulties with the $`\overline{e}`$ states, but $`\overline{e}^{}`$ may be less massive and these two monopoles differ only by their internal structure .

Note that all dyons in table V are electrically colour charged, and transform fundamentally under electric colour. Therefore their dyonic charges are compatible with Chan and Tsou’s interpretation of three generations.

An interesting and unexpected bonus of the above calculation is that we also appear to have obtained an association between the fermion’s chirality assignments and the sign of the dyon’s angular momenta. In the high momentum limit $`pm`$ the angular momentum of a chiral fermion is unambiguously determined through the helicity projection operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm (𝒑)=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)`$. In that limit its angular momentum along the direction of motion is

$$J_3\psi _L=\frac{1}{2}\psi _L,J_3\psi _R=\frac{1}{2}\psi _R.$$
(30)
Therefore table V also gives a correspondence between these angular momenta and those of the associated dyons. Again the pattern $`\{+\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\}`$ occurred through the specific dynamics of the situation.

Thus the question is: does this least electric mass criterion justify that the dyon is stable? Fortunately there is at least one situation where this appears to be so.

At strong electric coupling $`g^2/4\pi 1`$ in a theta vacuum a monopole’s electric mass is the dominant mass contribution. Then the magnetic mass, the gauge boson masses, and the scalar boson masses may be consistently taken to be much smaller than this electric mass. If so then figs. 2 to 7 appear to represent the dyon’s masses, of which table V contains those with least mass.

However there are then some difficult issues, mainly relating to quantisation. These are discussed in the next section.

### D Issues and Interpretation

In the previous section we saw that a reasonable spectrum of dyons could be derived providing the gauge theory is strongly coupled. However there are then some difficult issues, as we now explain.

When the gauge theory is strongly coupled the nature of the monopoles is different from at weak coupling. This can be seen by comparing their core size $`R_c`$ with their Compton wavelength $`\lambda m^1`$

$$\lambda /R_cg^2/4\pi .$$
(31)
Thus at weak coupling the monopoles are classical soliton configurations, whilst at strong coupling they are fully quantum mechanical.

At first sight this seems promising for the dual standard model because the observed fermions are fully quantum mechanical. That is, the observed elementary particles are not quantised semi-classically but are fully quantised through methods such as the path-integral formalism. Then it would seem as if a proper quantisation of the dual standard model should yield a quantum field theory similar to the standard model.

However some difficult issues arise when extending the calculations in secs. (III A-III C) to the fully quantum regime at strong coupling. Specifically:

(i) Whilst the theta induced charge is valid at strong coupling in a classical context, the effects of quantisation are not known.

(ii) Also, a substantial theta vacuum would give a strong $`𝒞𝒫`$ problem. The strong interactions are time reversal symmetric to large accuracy and a large $`\theta `$ would appear to be at odds with this. Additionally, although we have not discussed weak $`𝒞𝒫`$ violation in this work, the induced violation would be too large there as well.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully address these issues. Indeed, as we discuss below, their resolution may require a detailed understanding of the quantisation of solitons at strong coupling; a subject that is poorly understood. We discuss now a couple of different perspectives on these issues.

Firstly it could transpire that the dual standard model is only appropriate as a classical, effective description of the elementary particles. This would be analogous to the Skyrme model, in which baryons are accurately described as solitons of a classical field theory .

It is worth commenting that the modern interpretation of the Skyrme model is as a consequence of large $`N`$ QCD , whereas the dual standard model is motivated by SU(5) unification and duality. Otherwise the Skyrme model and dual standard model share many similar features and outlook; indeed, many of Skyrme’s original motivations also apply to the dual standard model .

A second perspective is to tackle the above issues through a full quantisation of the dual standard model. Unfortunately, the techniques to carry out such a program have not been developed, so that no definitive conclusions can presently be made. However some tentative suggestions for resolving (i) and (ii) might then be:

(i) Perhaps the stable dyons can be represented by a second quantised fermionic field theory. In this sense the field theory may be largely insensitive to the internal details of the dyon, somewhat in analogy to how proton-electromagnetic interactions are described by QED, even though the proton has a quark substructure.

(ii) If a full quantisation of the SU(5) solitons was to yield a reasonable description of the standard model fermions then an $`O(1)`$ contribution to the theta angle should arise from the determinant of the resulting quark mass matrix. Perhaps this could be arranged to cancel with the classical part used in this paper. In some sense this situation arises naturally in the standard model, since a suitable $`\theta F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term is required to cancel this contribution; however here we interpret this necessary theta term as a starting ingredient of the dual standard model.

Whatever the interpretation we wish to stress that the classical arguments given in this paper do appear to produce the desired angular momentum assignments of the elementary particles. This is on top of the other successful features of the dual standard model.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we have stressed that the dual and dualised standard models are complementary theories. That is, their implications have no overlap, whilst taking their consequences together appears to yield an explanation for most of the standard model. For instance the dual standard model explains the properties of one generation of standard model fermions as solitons originating from SU(5) gauge unification; whilst the dualised standard model explains the properties of three generations as originating from a dualised fermion spectrum.

A central aspect of this paper is the suggestion that inclusion of a theta vacuum naturally combines these two theories together. Such a theta vacuum is expected to be important for a dual standard model because it should play a role in introducing parity violation. We have shown that in addition to this it has the effect of dualising the soliton spectrum. In doing so it also suggests an explanation for the chirality assignments of the elementary particles; a feature that cannot be derived in either of the original dual or dualised standard models.

There are difficult issues associated with the interpretation of these calculations at strong coupling. Whilst the arguments are well motivated classically, it is beyond the scope of this paper to carry them over to the fully quantised regime. We note, however, that the methodology is natural and the conclusions are consistent with the standard model.

If a consistent quantisation of the dual standard model does allows it to be naturally dualised by a theta vacuum, then perhaps a very simple theory of unification may ensue. In that instance particle and gauge unification could consist of merely a broken dual theta-gauge theory $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(5)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(3)_\mathrm{C}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{SU}}(2)_\mathrm{I}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{U}}(1)_\mathrm{Y}/_6`$, with all presently observed particle properties occurring within the resulting soliton spectrum.

###### Acknowledgements.

Part of this work was supported by a junior research fellowship at King’s College, Cambridge. I thank H-M. Chan, T. Kibble, D. Steer and S. Tsou for help and advice. I am also indebted to T. Vachaspati for his many helpful comments regarding this work.


format: text

text:
# Determination of hadronic partial widths for scalar-isoscalar resonances 𝑓₀(980), 𝑓₀(1300), 𝑓₀(1500), 𝑓₀(1750) and the broad state 𝑓₀(1530^{+ 90}₋₂₅₀)

## I Introduction

In  the combined $`K`$-matrix analysis was performed for the meson partial waves $`IJ^{PC}=00^{++},10^{++},02^{++},12^{++}`$ on the basis of GAMS data on $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$, $`\eta \eta n`$, $`\eta \eta ^{}n`$ , BNL data on $`\pi ^{}pK\overline{K}n`$  and Crystal Barrel data on $`p\overline{p}(atrest)\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\eta \eta `$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$ . The positions of amplitude poles (physical resonances) were determined together with the positions of the $`K`$-matrix poles (bare states) and bare-state couplings to the two-meson channels. The nonet classification of the bare $`q\overline{q}`$ states was suggested, and the possibilities for the location of the lightest scalar glueball in the mass region 1200–1700 MeV were discussed.

The $`K`$-matrix technique has an advantage of taking account of the unitarity condition constraints and, in this way, of a correct incorporation of threshold singulatities into the scattering amplitude. Since the search for resonances is always related to the investigation of analytical structure of the amplitude in the complex-mass plane by using data at real masses, it is important to perform analytical continuation of the amplitude into the lower half-plane of the complex mass, with correctly taken singularities on the real axis.

However, the $`K`$-matrix amplitude does not include resonance parameters in an explicit form, so additional calculations are needed to determine masses and couplings of real resonances. In paper  the pole positions have been found for the considered partial wave amplitudes (i.e. masses and total widths of resonances were found), but more complicated calculation of couplings has not been done yet. The decay coupling constants are to be determined as residues of the pole singularities of the multi-channel amplitude. In the present paper we overcome this deficiency and calculate coupling constants to the channels $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ and $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ for the resonances $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$, $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}})`$. This procedure provided us with partial widths for the decays of these resonances. The choice of the scalar-isoscalar sector for primary study follows from the interest in pursuing the destiny of the lightest scalar glueball after its mixing with neighbouring states; one needs a knowledge of the couplings $`f_0\pi \pi ,K\overline{K},\eta \eta ,\eta \eta ^{}`$ for all resonances over the mass region 1000–1800 MeV.

The paper is organized as follows.

In Section 2 the coupling constants are presented for the decays $`f_0\pi \pi ,K\overline{K},\eta \eta ,\eta \eta ^{},\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, and partial widths for the mesons $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$ and $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$ are determined.

In Section 3 the resonance $`f_0(980)`$ is considered in detail: the results of the analysis  tell us that standard formulae for the description of resonances, such as Breit-Wigner or Flatté ones, in the case of $`f_0(980)`$ are unable to give simultaneously the values of the decay coupling constants and the position of the amplitude pole. We suggest an alternative form of resonance amplitude for $`f_0(980)`$ in which the important role is played by the prompt transition $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$. In this Section another low-mass state, namely, the $`\sigma `$-meson, is also discussed.

The results are summarized in the Conclusion.

## II Decay couplings and partial decay widths

We determine the coupling constants and partial decay widths using the following procedure. The $`00^{++}`$-amplitude for the transition $`ab`$,

$$A_{ab}(s),a,b=\pi \pi ,K\overline{K},\eta \eta ,\eta \eta ^{},\pi \pi \pi \pi $$
(1)
is considered as a function of the invariant energy squared $`s`$ in the complex-$`s`$ plane near the pole related to the resonance $`n`$. In the vicinity of the pole the amplitude reads:

$$A_{ab}(s)=\frac{g_a^{(n)}g_b^{(n)}}{\mu _n^2s}e^{i\theta _{ab}^{(n)}}+B_{ab}.$$
(2)
Here $`\mu _n`$ is the resonance complex mass $`\mu _n=M_ni\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/2`$; $`g_a^{(n)}`$ and $`g_b^{(n)}`$ are the couplings for the transitions $`f_0a`$ and $`f_0b`$. The factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _{ab}^{(n)})`$ is due to a background contribution which can be the non-resonance terms or tails of neighbouring resonances. We also write down in (2) the non-pole background term $`B_{ab}`$.

The partial width for the decay $`f_0a`$ is determined as a product of the coupling constant squared, $`g_a^{(n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$, and phase space, $`\rho _a(s)`$, averaged over resonance density:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(n)=C_n\underset{s>s_{th}}{}\frac{ds}{\pi }\frac{g_a^{(n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\rho _a(s)}{(Re\mu _n^2s)^2+(\mathrm{Im}\mu _n^2)^2}.$$
(3)
Following , we write down the phase space factor as follows:

$$\rho _a(s)=\frac{2k_a}{\sqrt{s}},$$
(4)
where $`k_a`$ is the relative momentum of mesons in the decay channel (for example, for the $`\pi \pi `$ channel $`\rho _{\pi \pi }(s)=\sqrt{(s4m_\pi ^2)/s}`$ ). For the $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ channel the phase space factor was chosen in  to be the same as for the two-$`\rho `$-meson state at $`s<1`$ GeV2 or be equal to $`1`$ at $`s1`$ GeV2. The integration over $`s`$ in (3) is carried out in the region above the $`a`$-channel threshold, $`s>s_{th}`$ (for the $`\pi \pi `$ channel it is $`s>4m_\pi ^2`$). The resonance density factor, $`\left((Re\mu _n^2s)^2+(\mathrm{Im}\mu _n^2)^2\right)^1`$ guarantees rapid convergence of the integral (3). The normalization constant $`C_n`$ is determined by the requirement that the sum of all hadronic partial widths is equal to the total width of the resonance:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)=\underset{a}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(n).$$
(5)
In paper  three solutions for the wave $`IJ^{PC}=00^{++}`$ have been found; they are labelled as I, II-1 and II-2 (see Tables 4 and 5 in ). In practice Solutions II-1 and II-2 give the same physical parameters of resonances, though they differ from parameters found for the $`K`$-matrix elements. In particular, in Solution II-2 the state $`f_0^{bare}(1600)`$ may be identified as a gluonium, for the decay couplings satisfy all the requirements inherent to glueball state; in Solution II-1 such a state is $`f_0^{bare}(1230)`$. For Solution I, the same bare state, $`f_0^{bare}(1230)`$, should be considered as a gluonium.

In Table 1 we show the values of partial widths for the resonances $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$ and broad state $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}})`$. Partial widths for $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$, $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}})`$ are calculated within standard formulae for the Breit-Wigner resonances (3), (4) and (5). The resonance $`f_0(980)`$ being located near the strong $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold needs a special consideration that is presented below.

The decay coupling constants squared, $`g_a^{(n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$, are shown in Table 2 for $`a=\pi \pi ,K\overline{K},\eta \eta ,\eta \eta ^{},\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. The couplings are determined with the normalization of the amplitude used in : for example, we write the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude (2) as $`A_{\pi \pi \pi \pi }(s)=(\eta _0^0\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _0^0)1)/2i\rho _{\pi \pi }(s)`$, where $`\eta _0^0`$ and $`\delta _0^0`$ are the inelasticity parameter and phase shift for the $`00^{++}`$ $`\pi \pi `$-wave. The coupling constants $`g_a^{(n)}`$ are found by calculating the residues of the amplitudes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta \eta `$, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$, $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. Also we check the factorization property for the pole terms by calculating residues for other reactions, such as $`K\overline{K}K\overline{K}`$.

The position of poles in the complex-$`M`$ plane ($`M\sqrt{s}`$) is illustrated by Fig. 1. The complex-$`M`$ area, where the $`K`$-matrix fit  may reliably reproduce analyticity of the amplitude, is inside a semi-circle depicted by dashed line. The poles which are a subject of the $`K`$-matrix analysis and correspond to $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$, $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}})`$ are located on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sheets of the complex-$`M`$ plane. The resonance $`f_0(980)`$ is located near the strong $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, therefore two poles are related to $`f_0(980)`$: the nearest one is on the 3rd sheet ($`M1014i39`$ MeV) and a remote pole on the 4th sheet ($`M936i238`$ MeV). Coupling constants for $`f_0(980)`$ are determined as residues of the nearest pole (on the 3rd sheet). The $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ threshold is weak for $`f_0(1500)`$, and because of that positions of poles on the 5th and 6th sheets are practically the same (note that couplings related to these poles nearly coincide).

The $`K`$-matrix fit  has been carried out in a broad mass interval, $`450\mathrm{MeV}M1900`$ MeV. This very fact allows us to believe that we deal with successfully reconstructed analytical amplitude which goes rather deeply into lower half-plane $`M`$, and this area is restricted by dashed line in Fig. 1. It is of crucial importance that the pole of the broad state $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$ is inside this area, for this broad state plays a key role in a mixing of $`q\overline{q}`$-mesons with the lightest glueball, see  for details.

## III The low-mass mesons: $`f_0(980)`$ and $`\sigma `$

The two low-mass mesons, $`f_0(980)`$ and $`\sigma `$-meson, need special consideration and comments.

The analysis  shows us that $`f_0(980)`$ cannot be described either by standard Breit-Wigner formula or its modification for the case of the nearly located strong $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, that is, Flatté’s formula . Here we suggest another resonance formula for $`f_0(980)`$ which agrees with the results of .

In the compilation of Particle Data Group , the $`\sigma `$-meson is denoted as $`f_0(4001200)`$ that reflects a cumulative result obtained in a number of papers where the mass of $`\sigma `$ was found in this region or even higher. However, the analysis  definitely demonstrates the absence of poles in the $`00^{++}`$-amplitude at $`(600ReM1200)`$ MeV, with an exception of poles for $`f_0(980)`$ – we will discuss the situation with $`\sigma `$-meson in this Section later on.

### A  Description of $`f_0(980)`$

For $`f_0(980)`$, the $`K`$-matrix fit  gives us the position of the pole and coupling constant values, see Tables 1 and 2. These parameters are sufficient to reconstruct the Breit–Wigner resonance amplitude. However, in case of $`f_0(980)`$ there exists a strong $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold near the pole, so the resonance term in the amplitude (2) should be suggested not as the Breit-Wigner pole but in a more complicated form. For the $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}K\overline{K}`$ transitions near $`f_0(980)`$, the following resonance amplitudes can be written instead of the Breit-Wigner pole term $`R_n^{(ab)}=g_a^{(n)}g_b^{(n)}/(\mu _n^2s)`$ entering equation (2):

$`R_{f_0(980)}^{(\pi \pi ,\pi \pi )}=\left(G^2+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s4m_K^2}}{m_0}}F\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}},R_{f_0(980)}^{(K\overline{K},K\overline{K})}=\left(G_{K\overline{K}}^2+iF\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}},`$ (6)
where

$`F=2GG_{K\overline{K}}f+f^2(m_0^2s),`$ (7)
$`D=m_0^2siG^2i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s4m_K^2}}{m_0}}\left(G_{K\overline{K}}^2+iF\right).`$ (8)
Here $`m_0`$ is the input mass of $`f_0(980)`$, $`G`$ and $`G_{K\overline{K}}`$ are coupling constants to pion channels ($`\pi \pi +\pi \pi \pi \pi `$) and $`K\overline{K}`$. The dimensionless constant $`f`$ stands for the prompt transition $`K\overline{K}\pi \pi `$: the value $`f/m_0`$ is the ”transition length” which is analogous to the scattering length of the low-energy hadronic interaction. The constants $`m_0`$, $`G`$, $`G_{K\overline{K}}`$, $`f`$ are parameters which are to be chosen to reproduce the $`f_0(980)`$ charactristics (position of pole $`s(1.02i0.08)`$ GeV2 and couplings to the channels $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$, $`g_{\pi \pi }^20.076`$ GeV2 and $`g_{K\overline{K}}^20.184`$ GeV2, see Tables 1 and 2).

The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude in the $`f_0(980)`$ region is now defined as

$$A_{\pi \pi \pi \pi }=e^{i\theta }R_{f_0(980)}^{(\pi \pi ,\pi \pi )}+e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}.$$
(9)
This formula may be compared with equation (2): the background term in (9) is fixed by the requirement that $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude below $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold has the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta )\mathrm{sin}\delta `$.

At $`f0`$ the resonance amplitudes (6) turn into Flatté’s formula , which is used rather often for the description of $`f_0(980)`$ . Still, it happened that position of the pole (complex mass value) as well as the amplitude residue in the pole, which have been determined in  and shown in Tables 1, 2, do not obey the Flatté formula but require $`f0`$.

We obtained two sets of parameters, with sufficiently correct values of the $`f_0(980)`$ pole position and couplings. They are equal (in GeV units) to:

$`SolutionA:m_0=1.000,f=0.516,G=0.386,G_{K\overline{K}}=0.447,`$ (10)
$`SolutionB:m_0=0.952,f=0.478,G=0.257,G_{K\overline{K}}=0.388.`$ (11)
The above parameters provide us with a reasonable description of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude. The phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ and inelastisity parameter $`\eta _0^0`$ are shown in Fig. 2; the angle $`\theta `$ for the background term in Solutions A and B, determined as

$$\theta =\theta _1+(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_0}1)\theta _2,$$
(12)
is numerically equal to

$`SolutionA:\theta _1=189^{},\theta _2=146^{},`$ (13)
$`SolutionB:\theta _1=147^{},\theta _2=57^{}.`$ (14)
Solutions A and B give significantly different predictions for $`\eta _0^0`$; however, the existing data  do not allow us to discriminate between them.

Partial widths of $`f_0(980)`$ are calculated with the expression similar to (3) — with the replacement of the integrand denominator as follows:

$$(\mathrm{Re}\mu _n^2s)^2+(\mathrm{Im}\mu _n^2)^2|D|^2.$$
(15)
For both sets of parameters (11) the calculated partial widths are close to each other. For example, using Solution II-2 and the $`A`$-set of parameters we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }=62`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\overline{K}}=14`$ MeV, while for solution II-2 and the $`B`$-set of the parameters one has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }=66`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\overline{K}}=10`$ MeV. The values of partial widths for $`f_0(980)`$ averaged over Solutions $`A`$ and $`B`$ are presented in Table 1.

The total hadron width of $`f_0(980)`$ is defined in the same way as for the other $`f_0`$-mesons, namely, by using the position of pole in the complex-$`M`$ plane: the imaginary part of the mass is equal to a half-width of the resonance. For the Breit–Wigner resonance this definition is in accordance with what is observed from resonance spectrum (provided there is no interference with the background). If the resonance is located in the vicinity of a strong threshold, the observed resonance width can differ significantly from what is given by the pole position. In Fig. 3 one can see the magnitudes $`|R_{f_0(980)}^{(\pi \pi ,\pi \pi )}|^2\rho _\pi (s)`$, $`|R_{f_0(980)}^{(K\overline{K},K\overline{K})}|^2\rho _K(s)`$ and $`g_{\pi \pi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}/|D(s)|^2`$ for the parameter sets A and B: the width of peaks does vary, being less than the value determined by the complex mass of the resonance.

The only objective characteristic of the total hadron width is the position of pole in the complex-$`M`$ plane, due to this reason we employ such a definition of total hadron width. Multiple variations of total width in the compilation  are just due to the absence of a proper definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ for resonances near the strong threshold.

### B The light $`\sigma `$-meson

The light $`\sigma `$-meson reveals itself as a pole on the 2nd sheet: it is shown in Fig. 1 at $`M=(431i325)`$ MeV (or, in terms of $`s`$ which is more appropriate variable for light particles, at $`s=(4i14)m_\pi ^2`$ ) that corresponds to the magnitude obtained in . Although this pole does not appear in the area of complex $`M`$, where the $`K`$-matrix fit  reconstructs the amplitude rather reliably, it still deserves detailed comments.

The situation with $`\sigma `$-meson is as follows. The $`K`$-matrix representation allows us to reconstruct correctly the analytical structure of the partial amplitude in the physical region, at $`s4m_\pi ^2`$ by taking account of the threshold and pole singularities. The singularities related to forces (or left singularities, at $`s0`$), are not included directly into the $`K`$-matrix machinery. This does not allow us to be quite sure about the results of the $`K`$-matrix approach at $`s\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4m_\pi ^2`$. Concerning the low-mass region, $`s>4m_\pi ^2`$, an important result of the $`K`$-matrix fit  is the absence of the pole singularity in the $`00^{++}`$ amplitude at 500–800 MeV. Here the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering phase $`\delta _0^0`$ increases smoothly reaching $`90^{}`$ at 800–900 MeV. A straightforward explanation of such a behaviour of $`\delta _0^0`$ could consist in the existence of a broad resonance, with the mass about 600–900 MeV and width $``$800 MeV (for example, see discussion in  and references therein). However, as was stressed above, the $`K`$-matrix amplitude does not contain pole singularities at $`500ReM900`$ MeV: the $`K`$-matrix amplitude has a low-mass pole only, which is located near the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold or below it. In  the presence of the pole near the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold was not emphasized, since the $`K`$-matrix solution does not guarantee a reliable reconstruction of the amplitude at $`s4m_\pi ^2`$. In , in order to restore analytical structure at $`s4m_\pi ^2`$, the left-hand-side singularities were accounted for on the basis of the dispersion relation $`N/D`$-method. The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering $`N/D`$-amplitude was represented at $`M900`$ MeV being sewed with the $`K`$-matrix solution  at $`450M900`$ MeV. The $`N/D`$-amplitude reconstructed in this way has a pole near the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold, thus proving that qualitatively the results of  are also valid for the region $`s4m_\pi ^2`$. The pole of the $`N/D`$-amplitude  is shown in Fig. 1.

It is worth mentioning that the low-mass location of the $`\sigma `$-meson pole was also obtained in a set of papers, where the low-energy $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude has been investigated by taking into account the left-hand cut as a set of meson exchanges. These papers include: (i) dispersion relation approach, $`s(0.2i22.5)m_\pi ^2`$ , (ii) meson exchange models, $`s(3.0i17.8)m_\pi ^2`$ , $`s(0.5i13.2)m_\pi ^2`$ , $`s(2.9i11.8)m_\pi ^2`$ , (iii) linear $`\sigma `$-model, $`s(2.0i15.5)m_\pi ^2`$ . At the same time, in  the pole position was found in the region of higher $`s`$, at $`s>7m_\pi ^2`$, that reflects the ambiguities of approaches which treat the left-hand cut as a known quantity.

As to finding out the location of $`\sigma `$-meson on the basis of the available experimental data, one should make general remark. Since the width of the $`\sigma `$-meson is rather large, it is necessary to fit to data in the energy interval which is much larger than a total width of the $`\sigma `$-meson. For example, to speak about $`\sigma `$-meson with a mass $`M_\sigma 900`$ MeV and half-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2400`$ MeV, one should fit to data in the interval $`300\mathrm{MeV}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1400`$ MeV and at the same time to take a correct account of the nearest singularities, which are poles corresponding to $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1300)`$ and presumably $`f_0(1500)`$ as well as threshold singularities $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ and $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. Concerning $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, one should have in mind that the contribution of this channel is significant starting from 1300 MeV, so this channel is absolutely necessary. Such demands towards the fit of experimental data have been fulfilled in no paper under discussion, with an exception for .

## IV Conclusion

We have obtained partial decay widths for five scalar-isoscalar states $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1300)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1750)`$, $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$ by calculating the decay couplings as residues of pole singularities in the $`K`$-matrix amplitude : positions of poles in the complex-$`M`$ plane are shown in Fig. 1. The pole which corresponds to the light $`\sigma `$-meson is also shown in Fig. 1: it was not included into the $`K`$-matrix calculation procedure directly, being close to the left-hand cut; the discussion of its status can be found in  and references therein.

The results of our calculations of partial decay widths are presented below (the magnitudes are given in MeV units):

| Resonance | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\overline{K}}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \eta }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \eta ^{}}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi \pi \pi }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}/2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`f_0(980):`$ | $`64\pm 8`$ | $`12\pm 1`$ |  |  | $`4\pm 2`$ | $`40\pm 5`$ |
| $`f_0(1300):`$ | $`46\pm 12`$ | $`5\pm 3`$ | $`4\pm 2`$ |  | $`171\pm 10`$ | $`113\pm 10`$ |
| $`f_0(1500):`$ | $`37\pm 2`$ | $`7\pm 2`$ | $`4\pm 1`$ | $`0.2\pm 0.1`$ | $`79\pm 6`$ | $`62\pm 3`$ |
| $`f_0(1750):`$ | $`74_{30}^{+15}`$ | $`11_9^{+17}`$ | $`7\pm 1`$ | $`3\pm 1`$ | $`91_{60}^{+30}`$ | $`93_{40}^{+20}`$ |
| $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90}):`$ | $`380\pm 15`$ | $`185\pm 10`$ | $`40\pm 5`$ | $`1\pm 1`$ | $`560_{125}^{+260}`$ | $`590_{200}^{+120}`$ |

(16)
The values shown for partial widths as well as decay coupling constants of Table 2 need some comments.

The comparison of the hadron decays $`f_0(980)K\overline{K}`$ and $`f_0(980)\pi \pi `$ points to a large $`s\overline{s}`$ component in $`f_0(980)`$. The analysis of radiative decays $`\varphi (1020)\gamma f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$  shows also that the $`s\overline{s}`$ component in $`f_0(980)`$ is large: with the $`f_0(980)`$ flavour wave function written as $`n\overline{n}\mathrm{cos}\phi +s\overline{s}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$, the radiative decay widths give either $`\phi 48^{}`$ or $`\phi 86^{}`$ (solution with negative $`\phi `$ is more preferable). When the decay processes are switched off, $`f_0(980)`$ transforms into $`f_0^{bare}(720\pm 100)`$, with $`\phi _{bare}70^{}`$ (corresponding pole trajectory in the complex-$`M`$ plane is shown in Fig. 10 of ). We see that the decay processes and related change of the state do not diminish the $`s\overline{s}`$ component strongly.

An opposite situation takes place with $`f_0(1750)`$. After switching off the decay channels, this resonance transforms into $`f_0^{bare}(1810\pm 30)`$ which is dominantly $`s\overline{s}`$: $`\phi _{bare}90^{}`$ for Solution I and $`\phi _{bare}60^{}`$ for Solution II. However, partial decay widths of $`f_0(1750)`$ (or decay coupling constants given in Table 2) unambiguously prove that $`s\overline{s}`$ component in $`f_0(1750)`$ decreased strongly due to a mixing with other states after the onset of the decay processes. It is possible to guess that this $`s\overline{s}`$ component has flown into the broad state $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$: the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\overline{K}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }`$ for $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$ does not contradict such an assumption. Such a scenario looks rather intriguing, in particular when taking account of the fact that the broad state $`f_0(1530_{250}^{+90})`$, according to , is a descendant of a pure glueball (see also ). However, the study of the mixing of $`q\overline{q}`$-state with the glueball is beyond the frame of this article; it will be investigated elsewhere.

For $`f_0(980)`$, the obtained magnitudes for the complex mass and decay couplings $`g_\pi ^2`$ and $`g_K^2`$, demonstrate a failure of the Flatté formula. We suggest an alternative description of $`f_0(980)`$ which explores, as an addition to the pole term, the amplitude for the prompt transition $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$.

## Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to D.V. Bugg, L.G. Dakhno and L. Montanet for illuminative discussions of problems related to scalar-isoscalar resonances. The work was supported by the RFBR grant 01-02-17861.


text:
# Staggered currents in the mixed state

## Abstract

The current pattern in the mixed state of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors is studied in the U(1) mean field theory of the t-J model. Our findings are the following. 1) In the absence of antiferromagnetism a robust staggered current pattern exists in the core of vortices if the doping is not too high. 2) At a fixed doping and with increasing magnetic field, the size of the staggered current core expands, and eventually percolates. 3) The polarity of the staggered current is pinned by the direction of the magnetic field. 4) Vortex cores locally modify the hole density - in a staggered (non-staggered) core, the excess charge is slightly negative (positive). 5) Gutzwiller projection does not wash out the staggered current. Finally we present two experimental predictions concerning neutron scattering and STM spectra that capture the signature of the staggered current induced by the vortices.

Recently, there has been a renewal of interest in the so-called staggered flux phase of the t-J model where a circulating current produces a staggered orbital magnetic moment. According to the mean-field theory, the staggered flux phase, although never stable, is a close competitor of d-wave superconductivity when antiferromagnetism is absent. This situation can be aptly described by a Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory with two competing order parameters. A serious concern is whether the staggered flux phase actually exists in the high-$`T_c`$ phase diagram.

Even if the staggered flux phase does not exist, GL theory would predict that in the core of a vortex, where the superconducting order is suppressed, the staggered flux order has a chance to appear. This is first pointed out forcefully in a recent paper by Lee and Wen from the viewpoint of their SU(2) mean field theory of the t-J model. Recently we have shown that the staggered current core also exists in the U(1) mean-field solution of the same model. Moreover we demonstrated that such current pattern survives the Gutzwiller projection which removes any double occupation in the mean field results.

The purpose of this paper is to address several important issues concerning the staggered current in the mixed state of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. One of our main results is the prediction for two experiments which are relevant to the existence of staggered current in vortex cores. Our conclusion is based on the U(1) mean-field solution and its Gutzwiller projection.

Our starting point is the t-J model with Coulomb interaction,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}(C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{j\sigma }e^{iA_{ij}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(𝐒_i𝐒_j{\displaystyle \frac{n_in_j}{4}})`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{ij}}}n_in_j\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i.`$
In the above $`A_{ij}=(2\pi e/hc)_{𝐑_i}^{𝐑_j}𝐀𝑑𝐥`$ is the link phase produced by the physical vector potential $`𝐀`$. All other notations are standard. In the rest of the paper we use the parameter set $`t=V=3J`$.

In the U(1) slave-boson approach the following replacements are made in Eq. (2): 1) $`C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{j\sigma }f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }b_j^{}b_i`$, 2) $`𝐒_i(1/2)f_{i\alpha }^{}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }f_{j\beta }`$, , 3) $`n_i1b_i^{}b_i`$, and 4) the occupation constraint $`b_i^{}b_i+_\sigma f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }=1`$. In the above $`b_i`$ is the boson and $`f_{i\sigma }`$ is the fermion annihilation operator respectively. Our calculation is performed at zero temperature where the bosons are assumed to have condensed. The spin-exchange term is replaced by the following mean-field decoupling

$`𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}[K_{ij}^{}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}(f_if_jf_if_j)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(|K_{ij}|^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|^2),`$
where $`K_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$, the mean-field hopping and pairing amplitudes, are determined self-consistently, together with the condensate boson order parameter $`b_i`$ and the Lagrange multiplier that enforces the occupancy constraint. Due to the internal U(1) symmetry we can always choose the gauge so that $`b_i`$ is real and positive. It is important to stress that the above decoupling excludes the spin magnetic moment $`𝐒_i`$ as an order parameter, and hence will not be able to describe low doping regime in which commensurate/incommensurate spin magnetic order exists. Aside from the above restriction, no other constraint is placed on the mean-field parameters. The actual calculation is performed numerically on a $`N_x\times N_y`$ lattice under twisted boundary condition. Much of our treatment of the vortex lattice is the same as that in Ref.. The average magnetic flux density is $`f=\frac{1}{N_xN_y}`$ flux quanta, in units of $`hc/e`$, per plaquette.

The flux density $`f`$ causes the pairing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ to wind by $`4\pi `$ around each $`N_x\times N_y`$ unit cell. The question concerning whether it is energetically more favorable to nucleate two $`hc/2e`$ vortices or a single $`hc/e`$ vortex in the unit cell has been raised in the literature.  Our result shows unambiguously that it is the $`hc/2e`$ vortex that is favored. More specifically we have checked that even when the initial condition corresponds to a single $`hc/e`$ vortex, i.e. two $`hc/2e`$ vortices on top of each other, the final self-consistent solution always exhibits two separated $`hc/2e`$ vortices. We emphasize, however, that such conclusion will be subject to change if the strength of the Coulomb potential is modified. The reason for that is because the vortex core is charged!

In Figs.1(a) and (b) we show two dimensional map of the hole density in the unit cell (with two vortices) at doping levels $`x=10\%`$(a), and $`15\%`$(b). The blue region marks lower and the red region marks higher hole density respectively. Thus the vortex core is negatively charged in (a) and positively charged for (b). The charge difference between the $`x=10\%`$ and the $`x=15\%`$ vortices turns out to be related to the presence/absence of staggered currents within the vortex core as we will discuss below.

In Fig.1(c) we present the current pattern near the core of the lower-left vortex in Fig. 1(a). The variable-length arrows represent the direction and magnitude of the bond current given by

$$J_{ij}=ib_ib_jf_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma }\mathrm{e}^{iA_{ij}}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(6)
(Recall that in our gauge the boson condensate amplitude $`b_i`$ is real and positive.) The pattern clearly indicates the existence of a staggered current core. In Fig.1(d) we present the current pattern near the core of the lower-left vortex in Fig.1(b), where the staggered current has disappeared.

Let us return to Fig.1(c), and ask what is the correlation, if any, between the vorticity of the current pattern and the direction of the magnetic field. The answer is that the circulation around the central plaquette where the vortex center reside is always opposite to that of the magnetic field. (This is in contrast to the case in Fig.1(d).) Moreover, we intentionally start with an initial condition where the circulation of the central plaquette is the same as that of the magnetic field, and find in the final self-consistent solution that the vortex center moves by one lattice spacing, so as to make the circulation of the central plaquette and the magnetic field opposite. Thus the magnetic field pins the polarity of the staggered current.

In Figs.2(a)-(d) we illustrate the evolution of the staggered current pattern found at $`10\%`$ doping over a wide range of magnetic field. The field strength is (a) $`f=1/576`$, (b) $`f=1/144`$, (c) $`f=1/64`$, and (d) $`f=1/36`$, respectively. In physical units the fields considered here are very large ($`f=1/1600`$ roughly corresponds to a magnetic field of $`10`$ Tesla). It is clear that as the vortices get closer their staggered current cores overlap and permeate the entire lattice, as shown in Figs.2(c) and (d). The end result is a state with uniform staggered current. This is a magnetic field induced co-existing d-wave superconducting and staggered flux state.

Although the lowest field considered in this paper (roughly 30 Tesla) is still very high from the experimental standpoint, none of our experimental predictions (as will be discussed later) will change qualitatively at a lower field.

Just as in our earlier findings, the staggered current in the mixed state also survives Gutzwiller projection. As an example, Fig.3 shows the staggered current pattern at $`x=6.25\%`$ and $`f=1/64`$, before (a) and after (b) the Gutzwiller projection. Although the staggered current is weakened by the projection, it certainly does not disappear.

What are the experimental consequences of the staggered-current cores? Figures 1(c) and 2 suggest that in a neutron scattering experiment there will be a magnetic field induced Bragg peak near or even at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. (Whether there is a peak precisely at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ depends on whether the vortex lattice is entirely contained in one of the bi-partite sublattices of the underlying $`CuO_2`$ plane. The peaks around $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ should be more robust.) To make sure that the scattering near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ is induced by the vortex core, one can 1) study the dependence of the intensity and position of the Bragg peaks on the magnetic field and 2) correlate the peak position near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ with that near $`(0,0),`$ which determines the structure of the vortex lattice. In Fig.4 we present $`|m_𝐤|^2`$ ,where $`m_𝐤`$ is the Fourier transform of the lattice curl of the current (i.e., the directed sum of the bond current around a plaquette). In this case the vortex lattice is commensurate with one of the bi-partite sublattice of the underlying crystal structure. We expect elastic neutron scattering will show a similar pattern.

Seeing the magnetic field induced Bragg peaks near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ might be also consistent with vortex cores being spin-antiferromagnetic. Although it would be difficult to distinguish between the staggered orbital moments and staggered spin moments from the standpoint of neutron scattering, the latter is much less likely from theoretical considerations. Due to the presence of the external magnetic field and the vortex lattice, all symmetries that ensure the degeneracy between the two polarity of the staggered flux order parameter are broken. Thus the staggered flux in the vortex core is an induced, rather than spontaneous, order. This is not true for the spin antiferromagnetic order. Indeed, under the experimental condition, rotation of spins around the magnetic field direction remains an unbroken symmetry. As a result spin antiferromagnetic alignment in the vortex core requires a spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is not possible for a finite (small) system such as the core of a vortex.

In addition to the scattering experiment staggered vortex core might also cause detectable difference in the local tunneling spectra. In Fig.5 we present the local tunneling density of state as a function of location. The arrows in (a) indicate the path (crosses mark the location of vortices) along which the local density of states is computed. Figure 5(b) is the result for $`x=10\%`$ where there is staggered current in the vortex core. Figure 5(c) is the result for $`x=15\%`$, where staggered current does not exist. The most significant difference occur at low energies. While there is a zero-bias peak in the core of the $`15\%`$ vortex, there is no such peak in the core of the $`10\%`$ vortex. Since the staggered current is known to open up a pseudogap the result is not surprising.

In general spin polarized tunneling experiment can be used to differentiate orbital versus spin antiferromagnetism. In the presence of the latter, the spin-dependent tunneling density of state should show a two-sublattice structure. We do not expect such effect for orbital antiferromagnetism, because a) the Zeeman splitting caused by the orbital moment is extremely small, and b) on a given site the staggered magnetic field originated from four neighboring plaquettes tends to cancel.

If the signatures of the staggered current core discussed above are seen in both the neutron and STM experiments it will constitute an extremely strong evidence for the existence of staggered current in the vortex core.

Finally, what do we learn from the existence/non-existence of the staggered current in the vortex core? From the beginning of high-$`T_c`$ physics, the t-J model has been identified as the model that captures the competing local interactions, i.e. charge hopping and spin antiferromagnetic exchange, of the cuprate materials. During the last fifteen years important progress has been made on numerically simulating this model. Nonetheless questions such as whether the ground state is homogeneous, and whether it is d-wave superconducting still remain controversial. On the other hand the mean-field theory of the t-J model has produced very tantalizing results. For example, it predicts that d-wave pairing is among the most pronounced ordering tendency of the model. Recently, to a limited extent, mean-field theory has also predicted the presence of stripe inhomogeneity.  In our opinion these successes give enough motivation to check whether another robust prediction of the mean-field theory, the close competition of the staggered flux phase with d-wave pairing, is actually correct. The presence of staggered current in the core of a vortex is a direct consequence of this competition. If such an ordered current pattern is observed, it is reasonable to argue that we have understood the rudimentary ordering tendency of the model. On the other hand, in the face of negative experimental results we should seriously worry about the validity of the mean-field theory, or perhaps even about our understanding of the relevant local interactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

QHW is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (NKBSF-G 19990646), and in part by the Berkeley Scholars Program. DHL is supported by NSF grant DMR 99-71503.


text:
# A single mode realaization of SU(1,1)

## I Introduction

The Lie algebra of SU(1,1) group is used in many branches of physics (see, e.g.,  ). These algebra consists of the three hyperbolic operators $`K_0`$, $`K_+`$, $`K_{}`$ which satisfy the following commutation relations:

$$[K_0,K_\pm ]=\pm K_\pm ,[K_+,K_{}]=2K_0.$$
(1)
The Casimir invariant for this algebra is

$$C=K_0^2\frac{1}{2}(K_+K_{}+K_{}K_+).$$
(2)
The relations (1) and (2) resemble, respectively, the spin operator commutations

$$[S_z,S_\pm ]=\pm S_\pm ,[S_+,S_{}]=2S_z,$$
(3)
where $`S_\pm =S_x\pm iS_y`$, and the following invariant

$$S(S+1)=S_z^2+\frac{1}{2}(S_+S_{}+S_{}S_+).$$
(4)
This similarity can be continued. The SU(1,1) algebra has a single-bosonic realization

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2k+a^+a)^{1/2}a,`$ (5)
$`K_+`$ $`=`$ $`a^+(2k+a^+a)^{1/2},`$ (6)
$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`k+a^+a,`$ (7)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`k(k1).`$ (8)
Here $`a^+`$ and $`a`$ are the creation and annihilation bose operators, respectively, with the commutation rule $`[a,a^+]=1`$. This representation was considered first by Mlodinov and Papanicolaou , and it is an analog of the Holstein-Primakoff  representation for spin operators:

$`S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2Sa^+a)^{1/2}a,`$ (9)
$`S_+`$ $`=`$ $`a^+(2S+a^+a)^{1/2},`$ (10)
$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`S+a^+a.`$ (11)
There is another important single-mode representation for spin proposed by Villain . In this Letter we shall find an analog of this single mode representation for the hyperbolic operators and consider its application.

## II A single mode representation

If $`X`$ is a coordinate and $`P=id/dX`$ is the momentum operator, the Villain representation can be written as

$`S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(S+1/2)^2(P1/2)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(iX\right),`$ (12)
$`S_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(iX\right)\sqrt{(S+1/2)^2(P1/2)^2},`$ (13)
$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`P.`$ (14)
Due to the similarity between spin and hyperbolic operators mentioned above, one can construct the following single mode representation:

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(P+P_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(iX\right),`$ (15)
$`K_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(iX\right)(P+P_0^{}),`$ (16)
$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`P+(P_0+P_0^{})/21/2`$ (17)
with

$$C=1/4+(P_0P_0^{})^2/4.$$
(18)
Here $`P_0`$ is a complex number. Taking into account that $`[X,P]=i`$ and

$$\mathrm{exp}(i\beta X)P^n\mathrm{exp}(i\beta X)=(P\beta )^n,$$
(19)
where $`\beta `$ is a formal parameter and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ , it is simple to check out the validity of commutations (1) for (17).

Another form of representaion (17) may be obtained if we change $`XP`$ and $`PX`$.

It should be noted that Perelomov  mentioned a single mode realization of SU(1,1) in the form:

$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`id/d\theta ,`$ (20)
$`K_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm i\theta \right)d/d\theta (1/2+i\lambda )\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\theta )`$ (21)
with

$$C=1/4\lambda ^2/4.\lambda >0.$$
(22)
After simple algebra, one can find that (20) can be transformed to the form (17) with $`\theta =X`$ and $`P_0=1/2+i\lambda `$.

Substituting

$$Q=\frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}},P=\frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{i\sqrt{2}},$$
(23)
we obtain the following representations of the hyperbolic operators in terms of bose operators $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^+`$:

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{i\sqrt{2}}}+P_0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}\right),`$ (24)
$`K_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{i\sqrt{2}}}+P_0^{}\right),`$ (25)
$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{i\sqrt{2}}}+(P_0+P_0^{})/21/2,`$ (26)
or,

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+P_0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}\right),`$ (27)
$`K_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+P_0^{}\right),`$ (28)
$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+(P_0+P_0^{})/21/2.`$ (29)
Note that a classical analog of the representation (29) has been derived in .

## III Example

Let us consider now the following Hamiltonian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (a^+a+b^+b)+\mathrm{\Phi }_2a^+b^+ba`$ (31)
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }_1(a^+a^+aa+b^+b^+bb).`$
It describes a system of two nonlinear interacting oscillators with the Bose operators $`a^+`$, $`a`$ and $`b^+`$, $`b`$. The two mode representation of SU(1,1) is defined by

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`ab,K_+=a^+b^+,`$ (32)
$`K_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^+a+b^+b+1\right)`$ (33)
with

$$C=1/4+(a^+ab^+b)^2/4.$$
(34)
The Hamiltonian (31) in terms of (33) has the form:

$``$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_1\epsilon +(2\epsilon 6\mathrm{\Phi }_1)K_0`$ (36)
$`+4\mathrm{\Phi }_1K_0^2+(\mathrm{\Phi }_22\mathrm{\Phi }_1)K_+K_{}.`$
Let us consider the pair states when the numbers of ‘$`a`$’ and ‘$`b`$’ bosons are equal (formally, $`a^+a=b^+b`$). In this case the Casimir invariants (18) and (34) are equal to $`1/4`$. Substituting (17) with

$$P_0=(3\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\epsilon )/(2\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)$$
(37)
into the (36), we obtain the Hamiltonian

$$=_0+P^2/2m.$$
(38)
Here $`_0=(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\epsilon )^2/(2\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$ and $`m=1/(4\mathrm{\Phi }_1+2\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$. If $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2>0`$, we have a ground state (condensate) with the energy $`_0`$ and an excitation with a quadratic spectrum of a particle of the mass $`m`$ and momentum $`P`$. Thus, with the help of representation (17), we can reduce the nonlinear Hamiltonian of two interacting oscillators (31) to the Hamiltonian (38) of free moving particle.