format: text

text:
# Physics Implications of Precision Electroweak Experiments

## 1 Historical Perspective

The weak neutral current (WNC) and the closely related $`W`$ and $`Z`$ properties have always been the primary prediction and test of electroweak unification . Following the original discovery of the WNC in 1973, there were successive generations of more and more precise experiments, culminating in the high precision $`Z`$ pole experiments at LEP and SLC in the 1990s and the high energy LEP 2. The overall result is that:

* The standard model (SM) is correct and unique to first approximation, establishing the gauge principle as well as the SM gauge group and representations.
* The SM is correct at loop level. This confirms the basic principles of renormalizable gauge theory, allowed the successful prediction of $`m_t`$ and $`\alpha _s`$, and strongly constrains $`M_H`$.
* New physics at the TeV scale is severely constrained, with the ideas of unification strongly favored over TeV-scale compositeness.
* The precisely measured gauge couplings are consistent with (supersymmetric) gauge unification.

The verification of electroweak unification went through a number of phases. The first was the discovery of WNC processes in the Gargamelle bubble chamber at CERN and the HPW experiment at Fermilab in 1973. The WNC was a critical prediction of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$unification, which had been proposed independently by Weinberg and Salam a few years before, and recently shown to be renormalizable. Charged current (WCC) processes, as described by the Fermi theory, and QED were incorporated into the theory but not predicted. However, they were improved and justified, in that it became possible to calculate meaningful radiative corrections to $`\mu `$ decay and other processes. The original $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$theory of leptons was successfully extended to hadronic processes with the introduction of the charm quark (the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) mechanism), which was observed in 1974. The period saw the simultaneous parallel development of quarks and QCD.

The next generation of experiments, during the late 1970’s, were typically of 10% precision . They included purely WNC processes, such as $`\stackrel{()}{\nu }N\stackrel{()}{\nu }N`$ (elastic), $`\stackrel{()}{\nu }N\stackrel{()}{\nu }X`$ (inelastic), and $`\underset{\mu }{\overset{()}{\nu }}e\stackrel{()}{\nu }_\mu e`$, as well as reactor $`\overline{\nu }_ee\overline{\nu }_ee`$, for which there are both WNC and WCC contributions. In addition, the interference of WNC and photon exchange effects was observed in the polarization asymmetry in $`eDeX`$ at SLAC. This was crucial because it excluded pure $`S`$, $`P`$, and $`T`$ neutral current amplitudes (there was a confusion theorem that, in the absence of interference, any pure $`V`$ and $`A`$ amplitude could be mimicked by a combination of $`S`$, $`P`$, and $`T`$), as well as some versions of left-right symmetric $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ models. The latter had been devised to explain early searches for WNC parity violation in heavy atoms, which (erroneously) did not observe any effects.

A number of issues had become important for the interpretation of the experiments. For example, they were sufficiently precise to require QCD corrections for the analysis of the deep inelastic neutrino scattering. Furthermore, the complementarity of experiments became increasingly evident: there were many types of experiments, probing different WNC couplings in different kinematic ranges. No one experiment was sensitive to all types of new physics, and in most cases the new physics effects in a given experiment could be hidden by a shift in the apparent value of the weak angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$measured in that process. This led to the need for a global analysis: the experiments together provided much more information than individually. By examining their consistency and whether they implied a common value for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$one could test the SM and could separately determine the various WNC couplings in a more general analysis that did not assume the validity of the SM. Furthermore, a global analysis permitted the uniform and consistent application of the best possible theoretical treatments of all similar experiments, and allowed the proper treatment of common experimental and theoretical uncertainties and their correlations. On the other hand, combining experimental results in a global analysis requires a careful evaluation of systematic uncertainties, since either underestimations or overestimations can affect the results.

The global analyses made possible the model independent fits to WNC data. These allowed almost arbitrary ($`VA`$ neutrino couplings and family-independent couplings were generally assumed) vector and axial vector effective four-fermion $`\nu e`$, $`\nu q`$, and $`eq`$ WNC interactions, and therefore parametrized the most general family-universal gauge theories involving left-handed neutrinos. The result was that the four-fermi interactions predicted by the standard model are correct to first approximation, eliminating a number of competing gauge models which predicted completely different interactions. Of course, perturbations around these results, due to new physics, were still allowed. Furthermore, the new tree-level parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$of the SM was determined to be $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$= 0.229 $`\pm 0.010`$. There were also limits on $`\rho 1`$, which parametrizes sources of $`SU(2)`$ breaking such as non-standard Higgs fields or fermion-doublet splittings. In modern language, this corresponded to a limit $`m_t<290`$ GeV.

The third generation of experiments  began in the 1980’s, and continues with WNC experiments even to the present. They were typically of order 1–5% precision. They included pure weak $`\nu N`$ and $`\nu e`$ scattering processes, as well as weak-electromagnetic interference processes such as polarized $`e^{}D`$ or $`\mu N`$, $`e^+e^{}`$$``$ (hadron or charged lepton) cross sections and asymmetries below the $`Z`$ pole, and parity-violating effects in heavy atoms (APV). The APV experiments had resolved the experimental difficulties in the earlier generation, and the most precise involved the hydrogen-like $`Cs`$ atom, for which one could cleanly calculate the atomic matrix elements needed to interpret the results. This generation also included the direct observation and mass measurements of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$, which were discovered by UA1 and UA2 at CERN in 1983. The $`Z`$ mass in particular allowed the exclusion of contrived imitator models which had the same four-fermi operators as the SM, but very different $`Z`$ spectra.

The increased precision required refined theoretical inputs. Electroweak radiative corrections had to be included in the theoretical expressions, and with them one had to worry about alternative definitions of the renormalized $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. The most precise results (prior to the $`Z`$-pole era) involved deep inelastic scattering. This required careful consideration of the nucleon structure functions and their QCD evolution, including a reanalysis of all of the deep-inelastic neutrino experiments using common structure functions . The most precise data involved the ratio of WNC/WCC scattering on heavy targets that were close to isoscalar, for which most of the strong interaction uncertainties canceled. The largest residual uncertainty was $`c`$ quark production in the WCC denominator. Fortunately, this could be measured and parametrized independently in dimuon production. Finally, considerable effort was needed in finding useful parametrizations of such classes of new physics and their effects as heavy $`Z^{}`$ bosons, or new fermions with exotic weak interactions (e.g., involving right-handed fields in weak doublets, or left-handed singlets). It was important that the parametrizations apply to broad classes of models, but nevertheless that they be simple enough that they could be easily handled in fits.

The implications of these experimental and theoretical efforts were:

* The SM is correct to first approximation. That is, the four-fermion operators for $`\nu q`$, $`\nu e`$, and $`eq`$ were uniquely determined, in agreement with the standard model, and the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ masses agreed with the expectations of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$gauge group and canonical Higgs mechanism, eliminating contrived imitators.
* Electroweak radiative corrections were necessary for the agreement of theory and experiment.
* The weak mixing angle (in the on-shell renormalization scheme) was determined to be $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$= 0.229 $`\pm 0.0064`$, while consistency of the various observations, including radiative corrections, required $`m_t<200`$ GeV.
* Theoretical uncertainties, especially in the $`c`$ threshold in deep inelastic WCC scattering, dominated.
* The combination of WNC and WCC data uniquely determined the $`SU(2)`$ representations of all of the known fermions, i.e., of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, as well as the $`L`$ and $`R`$ components of the $`e,\mu ,\tau ,d,s,b,u,`$ and $`c`$ . In particular, the left-handed $`b`$ was the lower component of an $`SU(2)`$ doublet, implying unambiguously that the $`t`$ quark had to exist. This was independent of theoretical arguments based on anomaly cancellation (which could have been evaded in alternative models involving a vector-like third family), and of constraints on the $`t`$ mass from electroweak loops.
* The electroweak gauge couplings were well-determined, allowing a detailed comparison with the gauge unification predictions of the simplest grand unified theories (GUT). It was found that ordinary $`SU(5)`$was excluded (consistent with the non-observation of proton decay), but that the supersymmetric extension was allowed, i.e., that the data was “consistent with SUSY GUTS and perhaps even the first harbinger of supersymmetry” .
* There were stringent limits on new physics at the TeV scale, including additional $`Z^{}`$ bosons, exotic fermions (for which both WNC and WCC constraints were crucial), exotic Higgs representations, leptoquarks, and new four-fermion operators.

In parallel with the WNC–$`W`$$`Z`$, program, there were detailed studies of $`\mu `$ decay, which uniquely established its $`VA`$ character, and of the rates and other observables in superallowed and neutron $`\beta `$ decay . These constrained such new physics as $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ models, exotic fermions, and models involving scalar exchange. They also allowed precise determination of elements of the quark mixing (CKM) matrix and of its unitarity, thus constraining such effects as a fourth family with significant mixings. The same period witnessed new experimental confirmations of QCD, as well as experimental and theoretical developments (in the SM and extensions) in loop-induced processes such as $`bs\gamma `$ and, recently, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon .

## 2 The LEP/SLC Era

The LEP/SLC era greatly improved the precision of the electroweak program. It allowed the differentiation between non-decoupling extensions to the SM (such as most forms of dynamical symmetry breaking and other types of TeV-scale compositeness), which typically predicted several % deviations, and decoupling extensions (such as most of the parameter space for supersymmetry), for which the deviations are typically 0.1%.

The first phase of the LEP/SLC program involved running at the $`Z`$ pole, $`e^+e^{}Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},q\overline{q},`$ and $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$. During the period 1989-1995 the four LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL at CERN observed $`2\times 10^7Z^{}s`$. The SLD experiment at the SLC at SLAC observed some $`5\times 10^5`$ events. Despite the much lower statistics, the SLC had the considerable advantage of a highly polarized $`e^{}`$ beam, with $`P_e^{}`$ 75%. There were quite a few $`Z`$ pole observables, including:

* The lineshape: $`M_Z,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z,`$ and the peak cross section $`\sigma `$
* The branching ratios for $`e^+e^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{},\tau ^+\tau ^{},q\overline{q},c\overline{c},b\overline{b},`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$. One could also determine the invisible width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{inv})`$, from which one can derive the number $`N_\nu =2.985\pm 0.008`$ of active (weak doublet) neutrinos with $`m_\nu <M_Z/2`$, i.e., there are only 3 conventional families with light neutrinos. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{inv})`$ also constrains other invisible particles, such as light sneutrinos and the light majorons associated with some models of neutrino mass.
* A number of asymmetries, including forward-backward (FB) asymmetries; the $`\tau `$ polarization, $`P_\tau `$; the polarization asymmetry $`A_{LR}`$ associated with $`P_e^{}`$; and mixed polarization-FB asymmetries.

The expressions for the observables are summarized in Appendix A, and the experimental values and SM predictions in Table 1. These combinations of observables could be used to isolate many $`Z`$-fermion couplings, verify lepton family universality, determine $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$in numerous ways, and determine or constrain $`m_t`$, $`\alpha _s`$, and $`M_H`$. LEP and SLC simultaneously carried out other programs, most notably studies and tests of QCD, and heavy quark physics.

LEP 2 ran from 1995-2000, with energies gradually increasing from $`140`$ to $`208`$ GeV. The principal electroweak results were precise measurements of the $`W`$ mass, as well as its width and branching ratios (these were measured independently at the Tevatron); a measurement of $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$ as a function of center of mass (CM) energy, which tests the cancellations between diagrams that is characteristic of a renormalizable gauge field theory, or, equivalently, probes the triple gauge vertices; stringent lower limits on the Higgs mass, and even hints of an observation at $``$ 115 GeV; limits on anomalous quartic gauge vertices; and searches for supersymmetric or other exotic particles.

In parallel with the LEP/SLC program, there were much more precise ($`<`$ 1%) measurements of atomic parity violation (APV) in cesium at Boulder, along with the atomic calculations and related measurements needed for the interpretation; precise new measurements of deep inelastic scattering by the NuTeV collaboration at Fermilab, with a sign-selected beam which allowed them to minimize the effects of the $`c`$ threshold and reduce uncertainties to around 1%; and few % measurements of $`\underset{\mu }{\overset{()}{\nu }}e`$ by CHARM II at CERN. Although the precision of these WNC processes was lower than the $`Z`$ pole measurements, they are still of considerable importance: the $`Z`$ pole experiments are blind to types of new physics that do not directly affect the $`Z`$, such as a heavy $`Z^{}`$ if there is no $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, while the WNC experiments are often very sensitive. During the same period there were important electroweak results from CDF and D$`\overline{)}0`$ at the Tevatron, most notably a precise value for $`M_W`$, competitive with and complementary to the LEP 2 value; a direct measure of $`m_t`$, and direct searches for $`Z^{}`$, $`W^{}`$, exotic fermions, and supersymmetric particles. Many of these non-$`Z`$ pole results are summarized in Table 2.

The LEP and (after initial difficulties) SLC programs were remarkably successful, achieving greater precision than had been anticipated in the planning stages, e.g., due to better than expected measurements of the beam energy (using a clever resonant depolarization technique) and luminosity. Credit goes to the individuals who built and operated the machines and computing systems, and to the experimenters who built, ran, and analyzed the results from the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL (LEP) and SLD (SLC) detectors. The measurement of the $`Z`$ mass and width at LEP were so precise that the tidal effects of the moon, the levels of the water table and Lake Geneva, and electromagnetic effects from trains had to be taken into account. SLAC had an advantage of a high and well-measured $`e^{}`$ polarization. (One regret is that LEP never implemented longitudinal polarization. The Blondel scheme would have permitted a high, self-calibrated polarization with its significant advantages.) The program was greatly enhanced by the efforts of the LEP Electroweak Working Group (LEPEWWG) , which combined the results of the four LEP experiments, and also those of SLD and some WNC and Tevatron results, taking proper account of common systematic and theoretical uncertainties, so that the maximum and most reliable information could be extracted.

A great deal of supporting theoretical effort was also essential. This included the calculation of the needed electromagnetic, electroweak, QCD, and mixed radiative corrections to the predictions of the SM . Careful consideration of the competing definitions of the renormalized $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$was needed. The principal theoretical uncertainty is the hadronic contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ to the running of $`\alpha `$ from its precisely known value at low energies  to the $`Z`$-pole , where it is needed to compare the $`Z`$ mass with the asymmetries and other observables. The radiative corrections, renormalization schemes, and running of $`\alpha `$ are further discussed in Appendix B. Tremendous theoretical effort went into the development, testing, and comparison of radiative corrections packages such as ZFITTER, TOPAZ0, ALIBABA, BHLUMI, and GAPP, as well as other packages needed for the LEP 2 program. Finally, much effort went into the study of how various classes of new physics would modify the observables, and how they could most efficiently be parametrized.

Global analyses of the $`Z`$-pole and other data were carried out, e.g., by the LEPEWWG  and by Erler and myself for the Particle Data Group (PDG) , to test the consistency of the SM, determine its parameters, and search for or constrain new TeV-scale physics.

Although the $`Z`$-pole program has ended for the time being, there are prospects for future programs using the Giga-$`Z`$ option at TESLA or possible other linear colliders, which might yield a factor $`10^2`$ more events. This would enormously improve the sensitivity , but would also require a large theoretical effort to improve the radiative correction calculations .

During the LEP/SLC era, the $`Z`$-pole, LEP 2, WNC, and Tevatron experiments successfully tested the SM at 0.1% level, including electroweak loops, thus confirming the gauge principle, SM group, representations, and the basic structure of renormalizable field theory. The standard model parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`m_t`$, and $`\alpha _s`$ were precisely determined. In fact, $`m_t`$ was successfully predicted from its indirect loop effects prior to the direct discovery at the Tevatron, while the indirect value of $`\alpha _s`$, mainly from the $`Z`$-lineshape, agreed with direct determinations. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ and $`M_H`$ were constrained. The indirect (loop) effects implied $`M_H\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}194`$ GeV, while direct searches at LEP 2 yielded $`M_H>112`$ GeV, with a hint of a signal at 115 GeV. This range is consistent with, but does not prove, the expectations of the supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM), which predicts a light SM-like Higgs for much of its parameter space. The agreement of the data with the SM imposes a severe constraint on possible new physics at the TeV scale, and points towards decoupling theories (such as most versions of supersymmetry and unification), which typically lead to 0.1% effects, rather than TeV-scale compositeness (e.g., dynamical symmetry breaking or composite fermions), which usually imply deviations of several % (and often large flavor changing neutral currents). Finally, the precisely measured gauge couplings were consistent with the simplest form of grand unification if the SM is extended to the MSSM.

## 3 Global Electroweak Fits

Global fits allow uniform theoretical treatment and exploit the fact that the data collectively contain much more information than individual experiments. However, they require a careful consideration of experimental and theoretical systematics and their correlations. The results here are from work with Jens Erler, updated from the electroweak review in the 2000 Review of Particle Properties . They incorporate the full $`Z`$-pole, WNC (especially important for constraining some types of new physics), and relevant hadron collider and LEP 2 results. The radiative corrections were calculated with Erler’s new GAPP (Global Analysis of Particle Properties) program . GAPP is fully $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, which minimizes the mixed QCD-EW corrections and their uncertainties and is a complement to ZFITTER, which is on-shell. We use a new $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ which is properly correlated with $`\alpha _s`$ . Our results are in good agreement with the LEPEWWG  up to well-understood effects, such as more extensive WNC inputs and small differences in higher order terms and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$, despite the different renormalization schemes used.

The data are in excellent agreement with the SM predictions. The best fit values for the SM parameters (as of 10/00) are,

$`M_H`$ $`=`$ $`86_{32}^{+48}\text{ GeV},`$
$`m_t`$ $`=`$ $`174.2\pm 4.4\text{ GeV},`$
$`\alpha _s`$ $`=`$ $`0.1195\pm 0.0028,`$ (1)
$`\widehat{s}_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.23107\pm 0.00016,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.02778\pm 0.00020`$
* This fit included the direct (Tevatron) measurements of $`m_t`$ and the theoretical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ as constraints, but did not include other determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ or the LEP 2 direct limits on $`M_H`$.
* The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$($`\widehat{s}_Z^2`$) can be translated into other definitions. The effective angle $`\overline{s}_{\mathrm{}}^2=0.23136\pm 0.00015`$ is closely related to $`\widehat{s}_Z^2`$. The larger uncertainty in the on-shell $`s_W^2=0.22272\pm 0.00038`$ is due to its (somewhat artificial) dependence on $`M_H`$ and $`m_t`$. On the other hand, the $`Z`$-mass definition $`s_{M_Z}^2=0.23105\pm 0.00008`$ has no $`M_H`$ or $`m_t`$ dependence, but the uncertainties reemerge when comparing with other observables.
* The best fit value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02778\pm 0.00020`$ is dominated by the theoretical input constraint $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02779\pm 0.00020`$. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ can be determined from the indirect data alone, i.e., from the relation of $`M_Z`$ and $`M_W`$ to the other observables. The result, $`0.02765\pm 0.00040`$, is in impressive agreement with the theoretical value.
* Similarly, the value $`m_t=174.2\pm 4.4`$ GeV includes the direct Tevatron constraint $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$. However, one can determine $`m_t=174.1_{7.6}^{+9.7}`$ GeV from indirect data (loops) only, in excellent agreement.
* The value $`\alpha _s`$$`=0.1195\pm 0.0028`$ is consistent with other determinations, e.g., from deep inelastic scattering, hadronic $`\tau `$ decays, the charmonium and upsilon spectra, and jet properties. The current PDG average (excluding the $`Z`$ lineshape) is 0.1182 $`\pm `$ 0.0013.
* The central value of the Higgs mass prediction from the fit, $`M_H`$$`=86_{32}^{+48}`$ GeV, is below the direct lower limit from LEP 2 of $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}112`$ GeV, or their candidate events at 115 GeV, but consistent at the $`1\sigma `$ level. Including the direct LEP 2 likelihood function  along with the indirect data, one obtains $`M_H<194`$ GeV at 95%. Even though $`M_H`$ only enters the precision data logarithmically (as opposed to the quadratic $`m_t`$ dependence), the constraints are significant. They are also fairly robust to most, but not all, types of new physics. (The limit on $`M_H`$ disappears if one allows an arbitrarily large negative $`S`$ parameter (section 4), but most extensions of the SM yield $`S>0`$.) The predicted range should be compared with the theoretically expected range in the standard model: 115 GeV $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M_H\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ 750 GeV, where the lower (upper) limit is from vacuum stability (triviality). On the other hand, the MSSM predicts $`M_H\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}130`$ GeV, while the limit increases to around 150 GeV in extensions of the MSSM.
* The results in (1) are consistent with those of the LEPEWWG. For example, at Osaka Gurtu presented : $`\overline{s}_{\mathrm{}}^2=0.23140\pm 0.00016`$; $`\alpha _s=0.1183\pm 0.0027`$; $`m_t=174.3_{4.1}^{+4.4}`$ GeV; and $`M_H=60_{29}^{+52}`$ GeV. These are in excellent agreement, except for the somewhat lower $`M_H`$. The difference is mainly due to their use of an earlier estimate  $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02803\pm 0.00065`$. Gurtu reported that their $`M_H`$ increased to the consistent $`88_{37}^{+60}`$ GeV when they used a newer $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02755\pm 0.00046`$  based on the new BES-II $`e^+e^{}`$ data.

## 4 Beyond the standard model

The standard model ($`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$plus general relativity), extended to include neutrino mass, is the correct description of nature to first approximation down to $`10^{16}`$ cm. However, nobody thinks that the SM is the ultimate description of nature. It has some 28 free parameters; has a complicated gauge group and representations; does not explain charge quantization, the fermion families, or their masses and mixings; has several notorious fine tunings associated with the Higgs mass, the strong CP parameter, and the cosmological constant; and does not incorporate quantum gravity.

Many types of possible TeV scale physics are constrained by the precision data. For example,

* $`S,T,`$ and $`U`$ parametrize new physics sources which only affect the gauge propagators, as well as Higgs triplets, etc. One expects $`T0`$, usually positive and often of order unity, from nondegenerate heavy fermion or scalar doublets, while new chiral fermions (e.g., in extended technicolor (ETC)), lead to $`S0`$, again usually positive and often of order unity. The current global fit result is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.05\pm 0.11(0.09)`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`0.03\pm 0.13(+0.10)`$ (2)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`0.18\pm 0.14(+0.01)`$
for $`M_H=115(340)`$ GeV. (We use a definition in which $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`U`$ are exactly zero in the SM.) The value of $`S`$ would be $`2/3\pi `$ for a heavy degenerate ordinary or mirror family, which is therefore excluded at 99.92%. Equivalently, the number of families is $`N_{\mathrm{fam}}=2.84\pm 0.30`$. This is complementary to the lineshape result $`N_\nu =2.985\pm 0.008`$, which only applies for $`\nu `$’s lighter than $`M_Z/2`$. $`S`$ also eliminates many QCD-like ETC models. $`T`$ is equivalent to the $`\rho _0`$ parameter , which is defined to be exactly unity in the SM. For $`S=U=0`$, one obtains $`\rho _01+\alpha T=1.0004_{0.0011}^{+0.0018}`$, with the SM fit value for $`M_H`$ increasing to $`M_H=113_{64}^{+310}`$ GeV.
* Supersymmetry: in the decoupling limit, in which the sparticles are heavier than $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}200300`$ GeV, there is little effect on the precision observables, other than that there is necessarily a light SM-like Higgs, consistent with the data. There is little improvement on the SM fit, and in fact one can somewhat constrain the supersymmetry breaking parameters .
* Heavy $`Z^{}`$ bosons are predicted by many grand unified and string theories. Limits on the $`Z^{}`$ mass are model dependent, but are typically around $`M_Z^{}>500800`$ GeV from indirect constraints from WNC and LEP 2 data, with comparable limits from direct searches at the Tevatron. $`Z`$-pole data severely constrains the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, typically $`|\theta _{ZZ^{}}|<\mathrm{few}\times 10^3`$.
* Gauge unification is predicted in GUTs and string theories. The simplest non-supersymmetric unification is excluded by the precision data. For the MSSM, and assuming no new thresholds between 1 TeV and the unification scale, one can use the precisely known $`\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{s}_Z^2`$ to predict $`\alpha _s=0.130\pm 0.010`$ and a unification scale $`M_G3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV . The $`\alpha _s`$ uncertainties are mainly theoretical, from the TeV and GUT thresholds, etc. $`\alpha _s`$ is high compared to the experimental value, but barely consistent given the uncertainties. $`M_G`$ is reasonable for a GUT (and is consistent with simple seesaw models of neutrino mass), but is somewhat below the expectations $`5\times 10^{17}`$ GeV of the simplest perturbative heterotic string models. However, this is only a 10% effect in the appropriate variable $`\mathrm{ln}M_G`$. The new exotic particles often present in such models (or higher Kač-Moody levels) can easily shift the $`\mathrm{ln}M_G`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ predictions significantly, so the problem is really why the gauge unification works so well. It is always possible that the apparent success is accidental (cf., the discovery of Pluto).

## 5 Conclusions

* The WNC, $`Z`$, and $`W`$ are the primary predictions and tests of electroweak unification.
* The standard model (SM) is correct and unique to first approximation, establishing the gauge principle, group, and representations.
* The SM is correct at the loop level, confirming renormalizable gauge theory, and successfully predicting or constraining $`m_t`$, $`\alpha _s`$, and $`M_H`$.
* TeV physics is severely constrained, with the ideas of unification favored over TeV-scale compositeness.
* The precisely measured gauge couplings are consistent with gauge unification.

Alberto Sirlin and his collaborators have pioneered the calculation of electromagnetic and electroweak radiative corrections to weak observables, and their importance for testing first the Fermi theory and then the SM, as well as constraining new physics. This has included seminal contributions to the radiative corrections to $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$ decay; the electroweak corrections to WNC and WCC processes; tests of the unitarity of the CKM quark mixing matrix; the on-shell and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$renormalization schemes and definitions of the renormalized $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$; the precise relations of $`Z`$ and $`W`$ pole observables such as $`M_Z`$, $`M_W`$, and $`Z`$-pole asymmetries; and the dependence of all of the above on the $`t`$ and Higgs masses. Alberto has played a unique and indispensable role in the development and testing of the standard model and of renormalizable gauge field theories. My one major collaboration with Alberto  was one of the most pleasant of my career. Happy birthday Alberto!

## Appendix A The $`Z`$ Lineshape and Asymmetries

The $`Z`$ lineshape measurements determine the cross section $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ for $`f=e,\mu ,\tau ,s,b,c,`$ or hadrons as a function of $`s=E_{CM}^2`$. To lowest order,

$$\sigma _f(s)\sigma _f\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}{\left(sM_Z^2\right)^2+\frac{s^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}{M_Z^2}},$$
(3)
where significant initial state radiative corrections are not displayed.

The peak cross section $`\sigma _f`$ is related to the $`Z`$ mass and partial widths by

$$\sigma _f=\frac{12\pi }{M_Z^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(e^+e^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(f\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}.$$
(4)
The widths are expressed in terms of the effective $`Zf\overline{f}`$ vector and axial couplings $`\overline{g}_{V,Af}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f\overline{f})\frac{C_fG_FM_Z^3}{6\sqrt{2}\pi }\left[|\overline{g}_{Vf}|^2+|\overline{g}_{Af}|^2\right],$$
(5)
where $`C_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ and $`C_q=3`$. Electroweak radiative corrections are absorbed into the $`\overline{g}_{V,Af}`$. There are fermion mass, QED, and QCD corrections to (5).

The effective couplings in (5) are defined in the SM by

$$\overline{g}_{Af}=\sqrt{\rho _f}t_{3f},\overline{g}_{Vf}=\sqrt{\rho _f}\left[t_{3f}2\overline{s}_f^2q_f\right]$$
(6)
where $`q_f`$ is the electric charge and $`t_{3f}`$ is the weak isospin of fermion $`f`$, and $`\overline{s}_f^2`$ is the effective weak angle. It is related by ($`f`$-dependent) vertex corrections to the on-shell or $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ definitions of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$by

$$\overline{s}_f^2=\kappa _fs_W^2(\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell})=\widehat{\kappa }_f\widehat{s}_Z^2(\overline{\mathrm{MS}}).$$
(7)
$`\rho _f1,\kappa _f1,`$ and $`\widehat{\kappa }_f1`$ are electroweak corrections. For $`f=e`$ and the known ranges for $`m_t`$ and $`M_H`$, $`\overline{s}_e^2\widehat{s}_Z^2+0.00029`$.

It is convenient to define the ratios

$$R_{q_i}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(q_i\overline{q}_i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{had})},R_\mathrm{}_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{had})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}_i\overline{\mathrm{}}_i)},$$
(8)
which isolate the weak vertices (including the effects of $`\alpha _s`$ for $`R_\mathrm{}_i`$). In (8) $`q_i=b,c,s`$; $`\mathrm{}_i=e,\mu ,\tau `$; and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{had})`$ is the width into hadrons. The data are consistent with lepton universality, i.e., with $`R_e=R_\mu =R_\tau R_{\mathrm{}}`$. The partial width into neutrinos or other invisible states is defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{inv})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{had})_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}_i\overline{\mathrm{}}_i),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is obtained from the width of the cross section and the others from the peak heights. This allows the determination of the number of neutrinos by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{inv})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}})N_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \overline{\nu })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is the partial width into a single neutrino flavor. It has become conventional to work with the parameters $`M_Z,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z,\sigma _{\mathrm{had}},R_{\mathrm{}},R_b,R_c`$, for which the correlations are relatively small (but still must be included).

The experimenters have generally presented the Born asymmetries, $`A^0`$, for which the off-pole, $`\gamma `$ exchange, $`P_e^{}`$, and (small) box effects have been removed from the data. Important asymmetries include:

$`\mathrm{forward}\mathrm{backward}:`$ $`A_{FB}^{0f}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A_eA_f`$
$`\tau \mathrm{polarization}:`$ $`P_\tau ^0={\displaystyle \frac{A_\tau +A_e\frac{2z}{1+z^2}}{1+A_\tau A_e\frac{2z}{1+z^2}}}`$ (9)
$`e^{}\mathrm{polarization}(\mathrm{SLD}):`$ $`A_{LR}^0=A_e`$
$`\mathrm{mixed}(\mathrm{SLD}):`$ $`A_{LR}^{0FB}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A_f`$
The LEP experiments also measure a hadronic forward-backward charge asymmetry $`Q_{FB}`$. In (9), $`A_f`$ is defined as the ratio

$$A_f\frac{2\overline{g}_{Vf}\overline{g}_{Af}}{\overline{g}_{Vf}^2+\overline{g}_{Af}^2}$$
(10)
for fermion $`f`$. The forward-backward asymmetries into leptons allow another (successful) test of lepton family universality, by $`A_{FB}^{0e}=A_{FB}^{0\mu }=A_{FB}^{0\tau }A_{FB}^0\mathrm{}`$. In the $`\tau `$ polarization, $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. The SLD polarization asymmetry $`A_{LR}^0`$ for hadrons (or leptons) projects out the initial electron couplings. It is especially sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$because it is linear in the small $`\overline{g}_{Ve}`$, while the leptonic $`A_{FB}^0\mathrm{}`$ are quadratic. The mixed polarization-FB asymmetry $`A_{LR}^{0FB}`$ projects out the final fermion coupling.

## Appendix B Radiative Corrections

The data are sufficiently precise that one must include high-order radiative corrections, including the dominant two-loop electroweak ($`\alpha ^2m_t^4,\alpha ^2m_t^2`$), dominant 3 loop QCD (and 4 loop estimate), and dominant 3 loop mixed QCD-EW ($`\alpha \alpha _s`$ vertex) corrections.

In including EW corrections, one must choose a definition of the renormalized $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. There are several popular choices, which are equivalent at tree-level, but differ by finite ($`m_t`$ and $`M_H`$ dependent) terms at higher order. These include

* On shell: $`s_W^21\frac{M_W^2}{M_Z^2}`$
* $`Z`$ mass: $`s_{M_Z}^2\left(1s_{M_Z}^2\right)\frac{\pi \alpha (M_Z)}{\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}`$
* $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$: $`\widehat{s}_Z^2\frac{\widehat{g}^2(M_Z)}{\widehat{g}^2(M_Z)+\widehat{g}^2(M_Z)}`$
* Effective ($`Z`$-pole): $`\overline{s}_f^2\frac{1}{4}\left(1\frac{\overline{g}_{Vf}}{\overline{g}_{Af}}\right)`$

The first two are defined in terms of the $`Z`$ and $`W`$ masses; the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ from the renormalized couplings $`\widehat{g}`$, $`\widehat{g}^{}`$; and the effective from the observed vertices. Of course, each can be determined experimentally from any observable, given the appropriate SM expressions. The $`Z`$-pole $`\overline{s}_f^2`$ depends on the fermion $`f`$ in the final state. Some of the advantages and drawbacks of each scheme are summarized in Table 3.

The expressions for $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$ in the on-shell and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ schemes are

$$M_W^2=\frac{\left(\pi \alpha /\sqrt{2}G_F\right)}{s_W^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r)}=\frac{\left(\pi \alpha /\sqrt{2}G_F\right)}{\widehat{s}_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W)}$$
(11)
and

$$M_Z^2=\frac{M_W^2}{c_W^2}=\frac{M_W^2}{\widehat{\rho }\widehat{c}_Z^2},$$
(12)
where the other renormalized parameters are the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ (from QED) and the Fermi constant $`G_F`$, defined in terms of the $`\mu `$ lifetime. $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W`$, and $`\widehat{\rho }1`$ collect the radiative corrections involving $`\mu `$ decay, $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$, and the running of $`\alpha `$ up to the $`Z`$ pole. In $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W`$ has only weak $`m_t`$ and $`M_H`$ dependence, and is dominated by the running of $`\alpha `$, i.e, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha +\mathrm{}0.066+\mathrm{}`$. In contrast, the on-shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ has an additional large (quadratic) $`m_t`$ dependence, which results in a large sensitivity of the observed value of $`s_W^2`$ to $`m_t`$. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme isolates the large effects in the explicit parameter $`\widehat{\rho }1+\frac{3G_F\widehat{m}_t^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}+\mathrm{}`$. The various definitions are related by ($`m_t`$ and $`M_H`$ dependent) form factors $`\kappa `$, e.g., $`\overline{s}_f^2=\kappa _fs_W^2=\widehat{\kappa }_f\widehat{s}_Z^2`$. For $`f=e`$ and the experimental $`m_t`$, $`M_H`$, one obtains $`\overline{s}_e^2\widehat{s}_Z^2+0.00029`$.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ weak angle $`\widehat{s}_Z^2`$ can be obtained cleanly from the weak asymmetries. Comparison with $`M_Z`$ and $`M_W`$ is important for constraining $`M_H`$ and new physics. The largest theory uncertainty in the $`M_Z\widehat{s}_Z^2`$ relation is the hadronic contribution to the running of $`\alpha `$ from its precisely known value $`\alpha ^1137.036`$ at low energies, to the electroweak scale, where one expects $`\alpha ^1(M_Z)\widehat{\alpha }^1(M_Z)+0.99129`$. ($`\widehat{\alpha }`$ refers to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme.) There is a related uncertainty in the hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. More explicitly, one can define $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ by

$$\alpha (M_Z^2)=\frac{\alpha }{1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }.$$
(13)
Then,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _t+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}0.0314970.000070+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}.$$
(14)
The leptonic and $`t`$ loops are reliably calculated in perturbation theory, but not $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ from the lighter quarks. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ can be expressed by a dispersion integral involving $`R_{\mathrm{had}}`$ (the cross section for $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons relative to $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$). Until recently, most calculations were data driven, using experimental values for $`R_{\mathrm{had}}`$ up to CM energies $``$ 40 GeV, with perturbative QCD (PQCD) at higher energies. However, there are significant experimental uncertainties (and some discrepancies) in the low energy data. A number of recent studies have argued that one could reliably use a combination of theoretical estimates using PQCD and such non-perturbative techniques as sum rules and operator product expansions down to $``$ 2 GeV, leading to a different (usually lower) central value, and lower uncertainties. New BES-II data from Beijing have reduced the central value and uncertainty in the data driven approach, leading to a partial convergence of the two techniques. Recent values are listed in Table 4. One can also determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$ directly from the precision fits (Section 3), in agreement with these estimates but with a larger uncertainty.

There have been experimental observations of the running of $`\alpha `$ by TOPAZ ($`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$); VENUS, L3 (Bhabha), and OPAL (high $`Q^2`$). While not sufficiently precise to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}`$, these are interesting confirmations of QED.


text:
# Bohmian trajectories for photons

## I Introduction

It is generally believed that only massive fermions have Bohmian trajectories but bosons do not. This is usually attributed to the impossibility of constructing a relativistic quantum mechanics of bosons with a conserved four-vector probability current density with a positive definite time component. However, it has now been shown  that a consistent relativistic quantum mechanics of spin 0 and spin 1 bosons can be developed using the Kemmer equation

$$(i\mathrm{}\beta _\mu ^\mu +m_0c)\psi =0$$
(1)
where the matrices $`\beta `$ satisfy the algebra

$$\beta _\mu \beta _\nu \beta _\lambda +\beta _\lambda \beta _\nu \beta \mu =\beta _\mu g_{\nu \lambda }+\beta _\lambda g_{\nu \mu }.$$
(2)
The $`5\times 5`$ dimensional representation of these matrices describes spin 0 bosons and the $`10\times 10`$ dimensional representation describes spin 1 bosons. The fact that a conserved four-vector current with a positive definite time component can be defined using this formalism can be seen as follows. Multiplying (1) by $`\beta _0`$, one obtains the Schrödinger form of the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{dt}=[i\mathrm{}c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_im_0c^2\beta _0]\psi $$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\beta _0\beta _i\beta _i\beta _0`$. Multiplying (1) by $`1\beta _0^2`$, one obtains the first class constraint

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi =m_0c(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\beta _0^2)\psi .$$
(4)
It implies the four conditions $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}=0`$ in the spin-$`1`$ case. The reader is referred to Ref.  for further discussions regarding the significance of this constraint.

If one multiplies equation (3) by $`\psi ^{}`$ from the left, its hermitian conjugate by $`\psi `$ from the right and adds the resultant equations, one obtains the continuity equation

$$\frac{(\psi ^{}\psi )}{t}+_i\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi =0.$$
(5)
This can be written in the form

$$^\mu s_\mu =0$$
(6)
where $`s_\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }a^\nu `$ (with $`a^\nu a_\nu =1`$ where $`a^\nu `$ is the unit four-velocity of the observer), $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=m_0c^2\overline{\psi }(\beta _\mu \beta _\nu +\beta _\nu \beta _\mu g_{\mu \nu })\psi `$ is the symmetric energy-momentum tensor so that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}=m_0c^2\psi ^{}\psi <0`$. Notice that $`s_\mu s^\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }0`$, so that $`s_\mu `$ is time-like. Thus, it is possible to define a wave function $`\varphi =\sqrt{m_0c^2/E}\psi `$ (with $`E=\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}𝑑V`$ ) such that $`\varphi ^{}\varphi `$ is non-negative and normalized and can be interpreted as a probability density. The conserved probability current density is $`s_\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu 0}/E=(\varphi ^{}\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\varphi )`$ .

Notice that according to the equation of motion (3), the velocity operator for massive bosons is $`c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i`$, so that the Bohmian 3-velocity can be defined by

$$v_i=\frac{dx_i}{dt}=\gamma ^1u_i=c\frac{u_i}{u_0}=c\frac{s_i}{s_0}=c\frac{\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }.$$
(7)
It follows from equation (3) that $`c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i`$ is the velocity operator whose eigenvalues are $`\pm c`$. Therefore, $`v_\mu v^\mu =0`$, and so the Bohmian velocity is always timelike. Integrating equation (7), one obtains a system of Bohmian trajectories $`x_i(t)`$ corresponding to different initial positions of the particle. In Bohmian mechanics one assumes that the initial distribution of the positions is given by $`|\psi (0)|^2`$. The continuity equation (5) then guarantees that the distribution will agree with quantum mechanics at all future times. The (Gibbs) ensemble averages of all dynamical variables in Bohmian mechanics will therefore always agree with the expectation values of the corresponding hemitian operators in quantum mechanics.

The theory of massless spin 0 and spin 1 bosons cannot be obtained simply by taking the limit $`m_0`$ going to zero. One has to start with the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _\mu ^\mu \psi +m_0c\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi =0$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a matrix that satisfies the following conditions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta _\mu +\beta _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _\mu .`$ (10)
Multiplying (8) from the left by $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one obtains

$$\beta _\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=0.$$
(11)
Multiplying (8) from the left by $`_\lambda \beta ^\lambda \beta ^\nu `$, one also obtains

$$^\lambda \beta _\lambda \beta _\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=_\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ).$$
(12)
It follows from (11) and (12) that

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=0$$
(13)
which shows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi `$ describes massless bosons. The Schrödinger form of the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )}{dt}=i\mathrm{}c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )$$
(14)
and the associated first class constraint

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi +m_0c(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\beta _0^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi =0$$
(15)
follow by multiplying (8) by $`\beta _0`$ and $`1\beta _0^2`$ respectively. Equation (14) implies the Maxwell equations $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{E}=(\mu /c)_t\stackrel{}{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{H}=(ϵ/c)_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ if

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ^T=(1/\sqrt{m_0c^2})(D_x,D_y,D_z,B_x,B_y,B_z,0,0,0,0)$$
(16)
The constraint (15) implies the relations $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{E}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}=\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{A}`$. The symmetrical energy-momentum tensor is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{m_0c^2}{2}\overline{\psi }(\beta _\mu \beta _\nu +\beta _\nu \beta _\mu g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi $$
(17)
and so the energy density

$`=\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{m_0c^2}{2}}\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{}{E}.\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{B}.\stackrel{}{B}]`$ (18)
is positive definite. The rest of the arguments are analogous to the massive case.

The Bohmian 3-velocity $`v_i`$ for massless bosons can be defined by

$$v_i=c\frac{\psi ^T\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi }{\psi ^T\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi }$$
(19)
Using arguments similar to the case of massive bosons, it is easy to see that the Bohmian velocities for massless bosons are also timelike. Integrating equation (19) with different initial positions, one gets a system of Bohmian trajectories for the photon. Neutral massless vector bosons are very special in quantum mechanics. Their wave function is real, and so their charge current $`j_\mu =\varphi ^T\beta _\mu \varphi `$ vanishes. However, their probability current density $`s_\mu `$ does not vanish. Furthermore, $`s_i`$ turns out to be proportional to the Poynting vector, as it should.

In this paper we compute Bohmian trajectories for photons for certain simple but interesting cases. Integral curves of the Poynting vector for localized wave packets in classical electrodynamics were first plotted by Prosser. They are lines of energy flow in classical electrodynamics and cannot be interpreted as particle trajectories. A particle trajectory interpretation of these curves is possible only within the context of a proper relativistic quantum mechanics of indivisible photons. This is what we have done to calculate Bohmian velocities and hence trajectories for photons, carrying the entire interpretational package of Bohmian mechanics. It is only incidental that such trajectories happen to coincide with the integral curves of the Poynting vector for single photons. However, in the case of two photons, the Bohmian trajectories are computed from a two photon symmetrized wave function which has no classical analogue. In this sense, the Bohmian trajectories calculated in the following sections represent the first plots of photon trajectories.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II we study the trajectories in Young’s double-slit experiment. In section III, we compute the trajectories corresponding to two down-converted photons passing through a double-slit. In Section IV we plot the Bohmian trajectories for reflection and refraction through a glass slab. We make some concluding remarks in Section V.

## II Single photon double-slit interference

Let us now consider the specific case of double-slit interference of single photons. If the slits $`A`$ and $`B`$ have a non-zero width $`d`$ significantly larger than the de Broglie wavelength of the particles ($`d>>\lambda `$), the slits will convert plane incident waves into plane diffracted waves sufficiently far from them (the case of Fraunhoffer diffraction). One can see this by carrying out the necessary approximations  on the single-particle spherical wave at a point $`P`$, arriving from a point within a slit at a distance $`x=\pm \xi `$ from the origin, and integrating over the slit. The wave function at a point $`(x,y)`$ at a sufficient distance $`D>>d^2/\lambda `$ to the right of the plane of the slits is given by***Henceforth we shall write $`\psi `$ in place of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi `$ for brevity of notation.

$$\psi (x,y)=_Ag_A\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikr_A)}{r_A}+_Bg_B\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikr_B)}{r_B}$$
(20)
where $`g_A`$ and $`g_B`$ are the diffraction factors given by

$$g_{A,B}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(kyd/2D)}{kyd/2D}$$
(21)
and $`_A`$ and $`_B`$ are the Kemmer-Duffin wave functions given by

$$_A=\left(\begin{array}{c}E_0\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A)\\ E_0\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A)\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ B_0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
and

$$_B=\left(\begin{array}{c}E_0\mathrm{sin}(\theta _B)\\ E_0\mathrm{cos}(\theta _B)\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ B_0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
where $`\theta _A`$ and $`\theta _B`$ are the angles of diffraction from slits $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively.

Using the above wave function the components for Bohmian veloccity are given by

$`v_x={\displaystyle \frac{2E_0B_0}{\psi ^{}\psi }}\left(g_A^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A)+g_B^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _B)+g_Ag_B\mathrm{cos}[k(r_Ar_B)](\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _B))\right)`$ (24)
$`v_y={\displaystyle \frac{2E_0B_0}{\psi ^{}\psi }}\left(g_A^2\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A)+g_B^2\mathrm{sin}(\theta _B)+g_Ag_B\mathrm{cos}[k(r_Ar_B)](\mathrm{sin}(\theta _B)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A))\right)`$ (25)
with $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ given by

$$\psi ^{}\psi =(E_0^2+B_0^2)(g_A^2+g_B^2)+2g_Ag_B\left(E_0^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _B)+B_0^2\right)\mathrm{cos}[k(r_Ar_B)]$$
(26)
The Bohmian trajectories for photons can now be plotted for different initial positions along the slits using the above expressions for the velocity. We have taken a uniform distribution of the initial positions for both the slits. (See Figure 1). The trajectories clearly correspond to the probability density obtained from standard quantum theory at any line parallel to the line joining the slits ($`y`$-axis). The trajectories are similar to the trajectories of massive particles.

## III Bohmian trajectories of a pair of down-converted photons

Before we proceed to compute the Bohmian trajectories for a pair of photons, the following point needs to be clarified. Let us define the rank-2 tensor current

$$s_{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)=c\overline{\psi }(x_1,x_2)\left(\beta _\mu ^{(1)}\beta _\lambda ^{(1)}+\beta _\lambda ^{(1)}\beta _\mu ^{(1)}g_{\mu \lambda }\right)a^\lambda \left(\beta _\nu ^{(2)}\beta _\rho ^{(2)}+\beta _\rho ^{(2)}\beta _\nu ^{(2)}g_{\nu \rho }\right)a^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (x_1,x_2)$$
(27)
for wave functions which satisfy the symmetry $`\psi (x_1,x_2)=\psi (x_2,x_1)`$. Then the i-th component of the Bohmian velocity for the n-th particle ($`n=1,2`$) is

$$v_i^{(n)}(x_1,x_2)=c\frac{s_{i0}(x_1,x_2)}{s_{00}(x_1,x_2)}$$
(28)
Using similar arguments to those presented in section I, it is clear that this Bohmian velocity is also time-like. The expression (27) however appears to be non-covariant because the two sides transform differently. Nevertheless, it is possible to write it in a manifestly covariant form by introducing a foliation of spacetime with spacelike hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with future oriented unit normals $`\eta ^\mu (x)`$ at every point $`x`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\eta ^\mu (x)\eta _\mu (x)=1`$. Then

$`v_i^{(1)}(x_1,x_2)=c{\displaystyle \frac{s_{i\mu }(x_1,x_2)\eta ^\mu (x_2)}{s_{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)\eta ^\mu (x_1)\eta ^\nu (x_2)}}`$ (29)
$`v_i^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)=c{\displaystyle \frac{s_{i\mu }(x_1,x_2)\eta ^\mu (x_1)}{s_{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2)\eta ^\mu (x_1)\eta ^\nu (x_2)}}`$ (30)
The fact that EPR entangled states can be written in a manifestly covariant form using this technique of spacetime foliation was first shown by Ghose and Home. The same technique was used by Durr et al. and Holland in the context of Bohmian velocities for multiparticle entangled states to demonstrate their relativistic covariance. For further details, see .

We now consider an experiment in which a pair of down converted photons is made to pass through two identical slits. We will compute the Bohmian trajectories for this case in the limit of Fraunhoffer diffraction. The two-particle wave function (in the Fraunhoffer limit, i.e., $`x_1=x_2=D>>d^2/\lambda `$) is given by

$$\psi (y_1,y_2)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2ikD)}{D^2}d^2g_1g_2\left(_{A1}_{B2}\mathrm{exp}(ika(y_1y_2)/D)+_{A2}_{B1}\mathrm{exp}(ika(y_1y_2)/D)\right)$$
(31)
After substituting the expressions for the Kemmer-Duffin matrix elements and the diffraction factors, we obtain the following expressions for the Bohmian velocities of the two photons:

$$v_{1x}=\frac{c}{\psi ^{}\psi }\left(2\left(g_1^4\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A)+g_2^4\mathrm{cos}(\theta _B)\right)+g_1^2g_2^2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _B)\right)\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _B)\right)\right)$$
(32)
$$v_{2x}=v_{1x}$$
(33)
$$v_{1y}=\frac{c}{\psi ^{}\psi }\left(2\left(g_1^4\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A)g_2^4\mathrm{sin}(\theta _B)\right)+g_1^2g_2^2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _B)\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta _B)\right)\right)$$
(34)
$$v_{2y}=v_{1y}$$
(35)
where $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ is given by

$$\psi ^{}\psi =\frac{8d^4g_1^2g_2^2E_0^2B_0^2}{D^4}\left[1+\frac{(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _B)+1)^2}{4}\mathrm{cos}\left(2ka(y_1y_2)/D\right)\right]$$
(36)
The second cosine term represents a fourth order interference in the joint detection probability of the two photons.

The Bohmian trajectories are plotted in Figure 2. It can be checked that they agree with the joint detection probability amplitude obtained on a plane parallel to the plane of the slits. Again, they are similar to the trajectories one obtains for the symmetrized wave function of two massive particles. Note that the trajectories are symmetric about the x-axis, and the trajectories in the upper and lower half-planes do not cross.

## IV Reflection and Refraction through a glass slab

Finally, let us consider the example of refraction of light through a glass slab. We consider both the air-glass interfaces separately and combine the solutions. To obtain the solution of the Kemmer-Duffin equation in this case, we must first solve Maxwell’s equations for this case. Let the electric field be polarized along the $`y`$ direction and let the wave propagate along the $`x`$ direction. The air-glass interface is taken at $`x=0`$. Let the amplitude of the electric field be represented by a gaussian wave packetSuch wave packets are nowadays routinely produced in the laboratory in down-conversion experiments. See, for example. centered at $`x_0`$, i.e.,

$`E_x=E_0\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(xctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}}\right)`$ (37)
$`E_y=0`$ (38)
$`E_z=0`$ (39)
Taking into account the boundary conditions at the air-glass interface, one obtains

$$E_x(x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(xctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)+\frac{1n}{1+n}\left(E_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x+ctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\right),x<0\\ \left(\frac{2}{1+n}E_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(nxctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\right),x0\end{array}\right)$$
(40)
where $`n`$ is the refractive index. The corresponding magnetic field is given by

$$B_z(x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\frac{E_0}{c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(xctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\frac{1n}{1+n}\left(\frac{E_0}{c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x+ctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\right),x<0\\ \left(\frac{2}{1+n}\frac{E_0}{c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(nxctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\right),x0\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
The Kemmer-Duffin-Harish Chandra wave function is therefore given by

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}E_x\\ E_y\\ E_z\\ B_x\\ B_y\\ B_z\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(42)
Using these expressions for the electric and magnetic fields, one obtains the Bohmian velocity to be

$$v_x=\left(\begin{array}{c}c\left(\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(xctx_0)^2}{\sigma _0}\right)\frac{(1n)^2}{(1+n)^2}\left(E_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x+ct+x_0)^2}{\sigma _0}\right)\right)}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(xctx_0)^2}{\sigma _0}\right)+\frac{(1n)^2}{(1+n)^2}\left(E_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x+ctx_0)^2}{2\sigma _0}\right)\right)}\right),x<0\\ \left(\frac{c}{n}\right),x0\end{array}\right)$$
(43)
Similarly, the solutions for the electric and magnetic fields, and the corresponding expressions for Bohmian velocity can be obtained for reflection and refraction at the next glass-air interface placed at $`x=0.2`$. These two sets of solutions are combined to obtain the trajectories for photons reflected and transmitted through the glass slab. The trjectories for a particular set of initial positions are plotted in Figure 3.

## V Conclusions

Bohm and his coworkers have all along emphasized a fundamental difference between fermions and bosons in that fermions, in their view, are particles, whereas bosons are fields. This asymmetry in the Bohmian picture of fermions and bosons arose due to the absence, in their view, of a consistent relativistic quantum mechanics of bosons with a conserved four-vector current which is time-like and whose time component is positive. Such a formulation was provided by Ghose et al. and it was shown that Bohmian trajectories for relativistic bosons could be defined. Just as the actual plotting of Bohmian trajectories for nonrelativistic particles was an important advance, it is equally important to demonstrate the actual nature of Bohmian trajectories for relativistic bosons in simple physical situations, particularly because such trajectories were thought not to exist by Bohm himself. This does not in any way detract from the significance of Bohm’s general point of view regarding the causal interpretation. In our view these trajectories constitute a significant support of Bohm’s causal interpretation by removing an unnecessary asymmetry between fermions and bosons from it. In case there is any truth in supersymmetry, such an asymmetry would be fatal for Bohmian mechanics.

Acknowledgements: PG acknowledges financial support from DST, Govt. of India. SG and JS thank the S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences for hospitality and financial support.

Figure Captions:

Figure 1. Bohmian trajectories of photons for self-interference through a pair of identical slits centered at $`y=0.0002`$ and $`y=0.0002`$.

Figure 2. Bohmian trajectories for a pair of photons passing through two identical slits. Note that there is no crossing of trajectories between the upper and lower half planes.

Figure 3. Bohmian trajectories for photons passing through a glass slab placed at $`0x0.2`$. Reflection and refraction are seen at both the air-glass interfaces.


text:
# Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Black Hole Accretion

## Introduction

There is now a consensus that, in well-ionized accretion disks, magnetorotational instabilities (MRI) create turbulence that provides the ‘anomalous viscosity’ required to drive accretion bh91 . This removes a major uncertainty that afflicted previous theoretical models for black hole accretion, and opens the possibility of using numerical simulations to study directly the structure and variability of the accretion flow. Questions that we might hope to address include:

* The magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) of the flow as it crosses $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$, the marginally stable circular orbit. Recent work has suggested that MHD effects interior to $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$ (in the ‘plunging’ region) could invalidate existing models of black hole accretion, with consequences that include an increase in the predicted radiative efficiency of thin disk accretion k99 ; g99 ; ak00 . This suggestion remains controversial p00 .
* The predicted variability in emission from the inner disk.
* The structure of the disk magnetic field and the rate of transport of magnetic flux through $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$, which together determine the efficiency of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism for extracting spin energy of the black hole bz77 ; ga97 ; lop99 .

This article presents results from simplified MHD simulationsarc01 ; ra01  of black hole accretion that focus on the first of these questions. We outline the numerical approach, and discuss our results and how they compare with those of other groups h00 ; hk01 ; h01 . Our conclusion from work to date is that MHD effects in the plunging region can have an important influence on the dynamics of the inner disk flow, provided that the magnetic fields in the disk are already moderately strong.

## Numerical simulations

Ideally, we would like to simulate a large volume of disk (to allow for global effectsa98  and ease worries about treatment of the boundaries), for a long time period (to average out fluctuations), at high resolution (to resolve the most unstable scales of the magnetorotational instability), with the most realistic physics possible. Unfortunately, we can’t, so compromises are needed. Our approach has been to simulate the simplest disk model that we believe includes the essential physical effects, while aiming for the highest resolution near and inside the last stable orbit.

We use the ZEUS MHD code sn92a ; sn92b  to solve the equations of ideal MHD within a restricted ‘wedge’ of disk in cylindrical $`(z,r,\varphi )`$ geometry. The equation of state is isothermal, and a Paczynski-Wiita potential pw80  is used to model the effect of a last stable orbit within the Newtonian hydrocode. To further simplify the problem, we ignore the vertical component of gravity and consider an unstratified disk model. The boundary conditions are set to outflow at the radial boundaries, are periodic in azimuth, and are either periodic or reflecting in $`z`$. The simulations begin with a stable, approximately Gaussian surface density profile outside $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$, which is threaded with a weak magnetic field. This initial seed field has a constant ratio of thermal to magnetic energy $`\beta `$, and is either vertical or azimuthal. We evolve this setup, which is immediately unstable to the MRI, until a significant fraction of the mass has been accreted, and plot results from timeslices towards the end of the runs when the magnetic fields have reached a saturated state.

Table 1 summarizes the parameters of three simulations, which are improved versions of those previously reported arc01 . The simulated disks are ‘thin’ in the sense that pressure gradients are negligibly small in the disk outside $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$. Specifically, the ratio of sound speed to orbital velocity, which in a stratified disk is approximately equal to $`h/r`$, is $`0.1`$ at the last stable orbit. We have not (yet) attempted the more difficult task of simulating very thin disks, which have longer viscous timescales, and caution against extrapolating our conclusions into that regime.

Following a suggestion by Charles Gammie (personal communication), we investigated whether varying the magnetic field strength in the disk (i.e. at $`r>r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$) led to changes in the dynamics of the flow within the plunging region. To vary the field strength in the simulations, we make use of the fact that the saturation level of the MRI can be altered by varying the net flux of seed fields in the initial conditions. Local simulationsg98  show that the resultant Shakura-Sunyaev $`\alpha `$ parameterss73  is approximately,

$$\alpha 10^2+4\frac{v_{Az}}{c_s}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{v_{A\varphi }}{c_s}$$
(1)
where $`v_{Az}`$ and $`v_{A\varphi }`$ are the Alfven speeds for initial conditions with uniform vertical and azimuthal seed fields, and $`c_s`$ is the sound speed. For our simulations, we find that the range of initial conditions (and vertical boundary conditions) shown in Table 1 leads to a variation in $`\alpha `$ between $`10^2`$ and $`10^1`$ in the disk.

Of course, this is a numerical trick. The true value of $`\alpha `$ in the disk immediately outside $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$ will probably depend upon details of the disk physics (for example, the relative importance of gas and radiation pressure), and may vary with time.

## Dynamics of the flow crossing $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$

Figure 1 illustrates the geometry of the simulations. All MHD disk simulations look broadly similar, and these are no exception. We obtain a pattern of surface density fluctuations that are strongly sheared by the differential rotation, and disk magnetic fields that are predominantly azimuthal. A map of the ratio of magnetic to thermal energy, also shown in the Figure, displays clearly the predicted increasek99  in the relative importance of magnetic fields near and interior to the marginally stable orbit. Determining the influence of these fields upon the dynamics of the flow in the inner disk and in the plunging region is the main goal of the calculations.

Figure 2 shows the magnetic torque as a function of radius in the three simulations, expressed as the magnetic contribution to the equivalent Shakura-Sunyaev $`\alpha `$ parameter,

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{mag}}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{B_rB_\varphi }{4\pi \rho c_s^2}.$$
(2)
There are also hydrodynamic (Reynolds) stresses, which are somewhat harder to measureh01 , but which are found to be substantially smaller than the magnetic stresses in local simulations.

The three choices for the initial flux and vertical boundary conditions lead to large variations in the saturation level of the MRI and associated $`\alpha _{\mathrm{mag}}`$. The run with an initially azimuthal field produces an $`\alpha _{\mathrm{mag}}10^2`$, while the run with a relatively strong initial vertical flux leads to a disk $`\alpha _{\mathrm{mag}}`$ that exceeds 0.1. This increase is qualitatively in agreement with local simulationsg98 . For the run with the strongest field, the magnetic field energy density in the disk near $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$ is on average near equipartition with the thermal energy $`(\beta 1)`$. There are large fluctuations with time, however, including brief periods where the magnetic energy substantially exceeds the thermal energy. In all runs, the relative importance of magnetic fields compared to the thermal energy increases within $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$.

Figure 2 also shows how the torques influence the dynamics of the flow. We plot the specific angular momentum of the flow $`l`$ as a function of radius. Hydrodynamic models for thin disk accretion onto black holes obtain $`dl/dr=0`$ within the last stable orbit, corresponding to a zero-torque boundary condition for the diskmp82 . A non-zero $`dl/dr`$ implies transport of angular momentum (and implicitly energy) into the disk from within the plunging region. We find that $`dl/dr`$ in the plunging region correlates with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{mag}}`$ in the disk. Weak disk fields lead to a small (but significant) decline in $`l`$ within the last stable orbit, while strong fields lead to a steeply declining specific angular momentum profile at small radii. The former behavior is similar to that seen in our earlier simulationsarc01  (which also had rather weak fields), while the latter is comparable to the results obtained by Hawleyh00  and Hawley and Krolikhk01 . Their global simulations, which are substantially more ambitious than ours in terms of the included physics and spatial domain, did indeed generate relatively strong magnetic fields.

## Discussion

The limitations of the current simulations are myriad and obvious. We are accutely aware that effects in the disk corona could be importantms00 ; mhr00 , and that there is more to General Relativity than a pseudo-Newtonian potentialkmsk00 ; f00 . Nonetheless, we believe that some conclusions can be drawn from existing work:

* Unstratified global simulations confirm that magnetic torques persist within the last stable orbit, but suggest that if $`\alpha 10^2`$ their influence on the dynamics of the flow is relatively modestarc01 ; h01 . By modest we mean that the gradient of the specific angular momentum, $`dl/dr`$, is non-zero but small at and inside $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$. If these simulations reflect reality, existing models of black hole accretion would be a pretty good approximation for thin disksp00 .
* A gross violation of the zero-torque boundary condition at $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$ is also possibleh00 ; hk01 . This would increase the radiative efficiency of thin disk accretion above the usual $`ϵ0.1`$, and have other consequencesk99 ; g99 ; ak00 . We believe that these strong effects only occur if $`\alpha 0.1`$ in the disk. This would be consistent with existing simulationsarc01 ; h00 , and with the results presented here.

For observations, these results suggest that the radiative efficiency of thin disk accretion may vary, both between systems, and in an individual system if the magnetic field strength in the disk varies with time.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the developers of ZEUS and ZEUS-MP for making these codes available as community resources. P.J.A. thanks JILA for hospitality during the course of part of this work. C.S.R. acknowledges support from Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01113.01-98A. This grant was awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, operated by AURA for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555. C.S.R. also thanks support from the NSF under grants AST 98-76887 and AST 95-29170. J.C. was supported by NASA/ATP grant NAGS 5-7723.


text:
# A New Phenomenology for the Disordered Mixed Phase

## Abstract

A universal phase diagram for type-II superconductors with weak point pinning disorder is proposed. In this phase diagram, two thermodynamic phase transitions generically separate a “Bragg glass” from the disordered liquid. Translational correlations in the intervening “multi-domain glass” phase are argued to exhibit a significant degree of short-range order. This phase diagram differs significantly from the currently accepted one but provides a more accurate description of experimental data on high and low-Tc materials, simulations and current theoretical understanding.

Quenched randomness destabilizes the Abrikosov flux-line lattice in a pure type-II superconductor, yielding novel glassy phases. In the Bragg glass (BrG) phase, translational correlations decay asymptotically as power laws. On increasing disorder or temperature, the BrG phase is unstable to a phase in which such correlations decay exponentially. At large values of the applied field $`H`$, the disordered liquid (DL) evolves smoothly into a glassy state when the temperature $`T`$ is reduced. This glassy state may be a new thermodynamic phase, the “vortex glass”, with spin-glass-type correlations in the superconducting order parameter, separated from the disordered liquid by a line of phase transitions. An alternative picture, attractive in many respects, is that this state resembles a structural glass, topologically disordered at the largest length scales but lacking long-ranged phase correlations.

Fig. 1 summarizes the currently popular view of phase behaviour in the disordered mixed phase of type-II superconductors. The BrG phase is shown to be unstable to the vortex glass on increasing $`H`$; it also melts directly into the DL phase upon increasing $`T`$. The continuous vortex-glass to DL transition line meets the BrG-DL transition line at a multicritical point. Recent studies indicate that the underlying field-driven Bragg glass-vortex glass transition is first-order.

While this phase diagram by construction reflects early experiments on YBCO and BSCCO, many systems, among them the low-Tc superconductors 2H-NbSe2, CeRu2 and Ca3Rh4Sn13, the cuprate NCCO, the bismuthate (K,Ba)BiO3, the borocarbide YNi2B2C and the mercury and thallium based compounds, behave qualitatively differently. Even for the high-Tc systems, more recent experiments suggest features inconsistent with Fig. 1. That these differences imply qualitively different types of phase behaviour is one possibility. Alternatively, such differences might simply reflect different limits of an underlying universal phase diagram; this possibility is both theoretically attractive and economical. It would be sensible, however, to require that Fig. 1 be recovered from such a phase diagram in the appropriate limit.

This Letter proposes Fig. 2 as a universal phase diagram for all weakly disordered type-II superconductors. The term “multi-domain glass” (MG) describes the narrow sliver of glassy phase which we propose always intervenes between BrG and DL phases. This sliver expands into the putative “vortex glass” phase of Fig. 1, as $`H`$ is increased. Experiments indicate that the MG phase melts via a first-order phase transition on $`T`$ scans at intermediate $`H`$; this first-order line is shown to meet a line of continuous transitions at a tricritical point, although more complex topologies are possible. The inset shows the expected phase behaviour at $`HH_{c1}`$. The predicted reentrance of the glassy phase at low fields was established in Ref.. Recent experiments clearly show the disordered phase enveloping a quasi-lattice phase at small $`H`$. Fig. 2 incorporates recent proposals for such phase behaviour in low-Tc superconductors, derived from an analysis of peak effect phenomena in these systems, the anomalous and sharp increase in critical currents jc, seen over a narrow regime below Hc2, the “peak regime”, as $`H`$ or $`T`$ is varied.

The “multi-domain” glass is argued to be an equilibrium phase, distinct from the vortex glass, consistent with recent theoretical, experimental and simulational understanding. Theoretically, screening destroys vortex-glass-type order in three dimensions; recent experiments question earlier reports of vortex-glass scaling. Simulations of classical directed lines interacting with quenched point impurities see topologically disordered glassy phases in equilibrium in a regime which intervenes between relatively ordered (BrG) and disordered (DL) phases. Arguments for the equilibrium nature of this phase and a brief survey of its glassy attributes in the context of low-Tc materials were provided in Ref..

What symmetry might be broken across the MG-DL transition? A recent study of disordered hard-sphere fluids obtains, within mean-field theory, a one-step replica symmetry breaking glass transition for sufficiently strong disorder; these authors stress the resemblance of the features of the mean-field phase diagram they obtain to Fig. 1. Should these ideas be applicable to the disordered mixed phase, a discontinuous freezing of the disordered density configuration characterizing the glassy phase would be expected, as against relatively smooth behaviour of the entropy and internal energy across this transition. An alternative possibility for the MG phase, consistent with some of the proposals here and testable via an analysis of Bitter decoration patterns, is a hexatic glass; the recent discovery of an equilibrium hexatic phase in a dense system of long oriented DNA molecules favours a similar possibility for line vortices.

We argue that translational correlations in the MG phase can be fairly long-ranged (unlike correlations in typical glassy phases), and propose that structure in the MG phase just above the BrG-MG phase boundary is best described as a mosaic of ordered domains, with typical scale R$`{}_{d}{}^{}a`$, the inter-line spacing, for weak pinning. Rd should be largest in the interaction-dominated regime but should decrease rapidly for much larger or smaller $`H`$, reflecting the increased importance of disorder both at high-field and low-field ends. Some diagnostics for the multi-domain character of this phase are the following: The transition between BrG and DL phases can occur via several intermediate stages, as individual domains melt as a consequence of disorder-induced inhomogeneities in the melting temperature. Fluctuations of a domain-like arrangement can yield noise signals of large amplitude associated with relatively few fluctuators, intermediate structure in the ac susceptibility as a function of $`T`$, a stepwise expulsion of vortices on cooling and a host of related features of the experimental data which are hard to rationalize in other pictures.

The MG-DL transition is interpreted as the true remnant of the underlying freezing transition in the pure system. The presence of a critical point on this transition line follows from the observation that signals of melting should cease to be seen once $`R_d`$ is comparable to correlation lengths in the pure liquid at freezing. This phenomenology also rationalizes a large body of data on anomalies associated with the peak effect phenomenon, including “fracturing” of the flux-line array, the association of thermodynamic melting with the transition into the disordered liquid as well as conjectures regarding the dynamic coexistence of ordered and disordered phases in transport measurements in the peak regime.

A simple conjecture for the scale of such domain sizes suggests R$`{}_{d}{}^{}R_a`$, a Larkin length, at least at intermediate $`H`$. This length is computed using the coarse-grained free energy $`F_{el}=𝑑𝐫_{}𝑑z[\frac{c_{11}}{2}(_{}𝐮)^2+\frac{c_{66}}{2}(_{}\times 𝐮)^2+\frac{c_{44}}{2}(_z𝐮)^2]`$, where $`𝐮(𝐫_{},z)`$ is the displacement field at location ($`𝐫_{},z`$) and the integral represents the elastic cost of distortions from the ideal crystalline state with vortex lines centred at $`𝐑_i`$, governed by the values of the elastic constants for shear (c66), bulk (c11) and tilt (c44). Quenched random pinning is incorporated by adding $`F_d=𝑑𝐫_{}𝑑zV_d(𝐫_{},z)\rho (𝐫_{},z)`$, to Fel, where $`\rho (𝐫_{},z)=_i\delta ^{(2)}(𝐫_{}𝐑_i𝐮(𝐑_i,z))`$. This term models the interaction with a quenched Gaussian disorder potential $`V_d`$, assumed to be correlated over $`\xi `$, the coherence length i.e. $`[V_d(x)V_d(x^{})]=K(xx^{})`$, with $`K(xx^{})`$ a function of range $`\xi `$. The notation $`x`$ denotes ($`𝐫_{},z`$).

The correlator $`B(𝐫_{},z)=[𝐮(𝐫_{},z)𝐮(\mathrm{𝟎},0)^2]`$ where $``$ and $`[]`$ denote thermal and disorder averages respectively, has the following properties: For $`r_{},zR_c,L_c^b`$ (the transverse and longitudinal Larkin pinning lengths), correlations behave as in the Larkin “random force” model i.e. $`B(x)x^{4d}`$. At length scales between $`R_c`$ and $`R_a`$, the Larkin length scale referred to above at which disorder and thermal fluctuation-induced positional fluctuations become of order $`a`$, $`B(x)x^{2\zeta _{rm}}`$ with $`\zeta _{rm}(4d)/61/6`$. The Larkin length scale can then be estimated via $`R_aR_c(\frac{a}{\xi })^{1/\zeta _{rm}}`$. At still larger length scales, $`B(x)`$ log(x).

We estimate the Larkin pinning lengths Rc and $`L_c^b`$ from $`L_c^b=\frac{2\xi ^2c_{66}c_{44}}{nf^2}`$, $`R_c=\frac{\sqrt{2}\xi ^2c_{66}^{3/2}c_{44}^{1/2}}{nf^2}`$, and V$`{}_{c}{}^{}R_c^2L_c`$. Equating $`BjV_c`$ to the energy gain from random pinning $`f(nV_c)^{1/2}`$ yields the standard weak-pinning expression $`j_c=\frac{1}{B}f\left(\frac{n}{V_c}\right)^{1/2}`$. If $`R_c,L_c^b>\lambda `$, $`j_c\left(\frac{\xi }{R_c}\right)^2j_{dp}`$ and $`L_c^b\frac{\lambda }{a}R_c`$, with jdp the depairing current. For 2H-NbSe2: T$`{}_{c}{}^{}7K`$, $`\lambda 700\AA `$ ($`Hc`$), $`\xi 70\AA `$ and $`a450\AA `$ at $`B1T`$. Using $`j_c/j_{dp}10^4`$, we obtain transverse and longitudinal Larkin pinning lengths $`\frac{R_c}{a}15`$ and $`\frac{L_c^b}{a}24`$.

At fields $`1T`$, $`(\frac{a}{\xi })^{1/\zeta _{rm}}(\frac{450}{70})^67\times 10^4`$ leading to $`R_d/aR_a/a10^6`$. Assuming, conservatively, $`R_d10^4`$a and a longitudinal Larkin length comparable to the size of the sample in the c-axis direction, an estimate for the number of “independent fluctuators” obtained in noise measurements on 2H-NbSe2 can be obtained. For a sample in the shape of a thin platelet of transverse area $`A1mm\times 1mm`$ and with $`A_dR_d^2`$, the number of such fluctuators $`N_f\frac{A}{A_d}10^110^2`$, numbers small enough to yield strong non-Gaussian effects.

Experimentally, behaviour in the mixed phase of low-Tc materials such as 2H-NbSe2, CeRu2, Ca3Rh4Sn13, YNi2B2C and several related compounds exhibit a remarkable commonality. In these relatively pure materials (jc/j$`{}_{dp}{}^{}10^4`$) where thermal fluctuations are substantial (Ginzburg numbers G$`{}_{i}{}^{}10^4`$ here, as against typical values for low-Tc systems of about $`10^8`$), there is now considerable evidence for a two-step transition from a relatively ordered low-$`T`$ phase into a highly disordered fluid phase. This transition occurs via an intermediate and profoundly anomalous regime with glassy properties. These experiments indicate that the two transition lines which separate the BrG from the DL phase can always be separately resolved. The data on NCCO and (K,Ba)BiO3 are consistent with Fig. 2 but not with Fig. 1.

Hall-probe based magnetization measurements on BSCCO favour a single-step transition into the disordered liquid out of the BrG phase. However, recent muon-spin rotation experiments see two transitions. The asymmetry of the field distribution, $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }B^3^{1/3}/\mathrm{\Delta }B^2^{1/2}`$, exhibits a first transition in which $`\alpha `$ jumps from a value of about 1.2 (consistent with a vortex-line crystal) to a value of about 1 (indicating a considerable degree of local translational order) as $`T`$ is increased. Across a second transition boundary, obtained on further increasing $`T`$, $`\alpha `$ drops abruptly to values close to zero, characteristic of the fluid.

Early experiments on YBCO found that melting in relatively clean untwinned crystals was best described as a “complex, two-stage phenomenon”. Recent simultaneous measurements of ac susceptibility and magnetization in this material see a sharp peak effect in which the location of the peak in ac susceptibility correlates exactly to the magnetization jump which signals melting. The regime in which $`\chi ^{}`$ shows non-trivial signatures of the transition is enlarged, compared to the magnetization jump which occurs at a sharply defined temperature, a feature which follows transparently from the discussion here – the width of the transition region is related to the width of the sliver phase, while the most prominent signatures of melting should generically be obtained across a line, the MG-DL transition line.

When does the phase diagram of Fig. 1 approximate that of Fig 2? The sliver of MG phase is exceedingly narrow at intermediate $`H`$ and for weak disorder, a consequence of the reduction of effective disorder in an interaction-dominated regime. Thermal smoothening of disorder should reduce the width of this sliver further; thermal fluctuations smear the disorder potential $`U_p(T)`$ seen by a vortex line, strongly renormalizing the effective disorder if $`[<u^2>]\xi ^2`$. For a single line pinned by quenched disorder $`U_p(T)U_p(0)\mathrm{exp}[c(T/T_{dp})^3]`$ where U$`{}_{p}{}^{}(0)`$ is the pinning potential per unit length at $`T=0`$, $`c`$ is a numerical constant and Tdp is the depinning temperature; $`T_{dp}(U_p^2\xi ^3ϵ_0/\gamma ^2)^{1/3}`$ where $`ϵ_0=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi \lambda )^2`$, and $`\gamma `$ is the mass anisotropy. For YBCO, T$`{}_{dp}{}^{}2030K`$. Such a substantial (exponential in the simple limit above) reduction in effective disorder should render the sliver unobservable in many types of experiments, yielding an apparent single melting transition out of the ordered phase.

The ratio $`R=T_{dp}^{low}T_m^{high}/T_{dp}^{high}T_m^{low}`$ measures the relative importance of thermal fluctuations in low and high Tc materials; Tm is the melting temperature in the pure case and we have approximated T$`{}_{m}{}^{}`$Tc. Using the following values: $`NbSe_2:U_p=10K/\AA ,\xi =70\AA ,\lambda =700\AA ,\gamma =5`$ and $`YBCO:U_p=10K/\AA ,\xi =20\AA ,\lambda =1400\AA ,\gamma =50`$ we obtain $`R10^3`$, suggestive of the relative importance of this effect to the high-Tc materials vis. a vis. its irrelevance in low-Tc systems except very close to Hc2. Experimentally, the nominal irreversibility line for $`H37T`$ in YBCO lies well below the melting line in weakly disordered samples. Thus, thermal melting occurs in a nearly reversible regime. Local Hall probe-based susceptibility measurements on YBCO  find that jc is actually finite below Tm but extremely small ($`0.4A/cm^2`$). These experiments see a peak effect close to and below T$`{}_{m}{}^{}(H)`$, a feature inaccessible in usual SQUID based magnetization experiments. Other experiments at somewhat smaller $`H`$ see a very clear and sharp peak effect, with properties similar to those in the low-Tc materials. These results illustrate that signals of a two-step transition in high-Tc materials may be very hard to access, particularly if discontinuities in $`j_c`$ or magnetization across the first transition are small. In contrast, experiments on the low-Tc materials discussed in Refs. indicate an irreversibility line located in the fluid phase and provide clear evidence of a two-step transition.

Anomalously small values of jc translate to anomalously large values of $`R_d`$. The magnetization discontinuity across the BrG-MG phase boundary should scale roughly as the density of unbound dislocations $`\rho _d`$ in the MG phase for small $`\rho _d1/R_a^2`$, yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{\Delta }M_0(a/R_a)^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_0`$ is the magnetization jump in the pure system at Tm. Even if R$`{}_{a}{}^{}/a30`$, the corresponding induction jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }B\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is of order $`10^3M_0`$ or within noise levels in a typical experiment. Thus, for sufficiently weak disorder, the sample may behave substantially as a single domain in the intervening MG phase, implying the absence of signals of the BrG-MG transition in a magnetization experiment and thus the phenomenology of Fig. 1.

The apparent vanishing of the sliver rationalizes the putative multicritical point of Fig. 1. While the sliver may not be resolvable in some classes of experiments, it may be apparent in others, particularly those which probe local correlations. However, in the thermodynamic limit, provided other, unrelated direct instabilities to the liquid do not intervene, continuity suggests two transitions as in Fig. 2. In essence, the phenomenology of Fig. 1 assumes by fiat such an instability. There appears to be little justification for this assumption; we suggest that it need not hold. For more disordered superconductors, whether high-Tc or low-Tc, a two-step transition should generically be seen.

Many recent simulations, for example Ref., see an intermediate field MG phase with translational correlations comparable to system sizes, although the dynamics changes abruptly across the BrG-MG transition. Interestingly, Ref. concludes that the existence of a sliver of MG phase always preempting a direct BrG-DL transition cannot be ruled out, as in the recent simulations of Sugano et. al. .

In conclusion, it is suggested that the BrG phase in all disordered type-II superconductors generically transforms first into an intermediate glassy state on heating, rather than directly into a liquid; the proposal of a generic two-step transition out of the disordered liquid state should be experimentally testable in thermodynamic measurements. More details will appear elsewhere.

I thank C. Dasgupta for a critical reading of the manuscript. These ideas evolved out of many discussions with S. Bhattacharya; his insights were crucial to this work. D.R. Nelson is thanked for a useful conversation regarding hexatic glasses. Support from a DST (India) Fast Track Fellowship for Young Scientists is gratefully acknowledged.