text:
# Supergravity Unification

## 1 Introduction

The main advantage of supersymmetry  in the context of building models of particle interactions is that it offers a technical solution to the hierarchy problem of masses. Thus, for example, the Higgs field is not protected from acquiring large masses though loop corrections and in a grand unified theory the radiative corrections would give it a GUT size mass of O($`10^{14})`$ GeV. However, if the scalar fields appear in a supermultiplet then supersymmetry would require a cancellation of the loop corrections in the supersymmetric limit. When supersymmetry is broken the loop corrections to the Higgs mass and to other masses will then have a dependence on the SUSY breaking scale. So one finds that the breaking of supersymmetry is central to getting a meaningful result out of supersymmetric theories. Up to 1982 models in particle physics were in the framework of global supersymmetry. However, this effort faced an important hurdle, i.e., it is difficult to break global supersymmetry in a phenomenologically acceptable fashion. Thus efforts to break global supersymmetry spontaneously lead to some unpleasant features as discussed below and consequently such efforts were abondoned. An alternative suggestion, advanced however, was to introduce in an ad hoc fashion soft breaking terms consisting of dimension 2 and dimension 3 operators in the theory which break supersymmetry but nonetheless respect the ultraviolet behavior of the theory and respect the gauge hierarchy since such terms are super renormalizable. The list of such soft terms consists of scalar mass terms such as for squarks and sleptons and for the Higgs, bilinear scalar terms, Majorana mass terms for the gauginos, as well as cubic bosonic terms involving products of scalar fields. However, such a procedure introduces generally an enormous number of free parameters in the theory. For the so called Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model this number is around 104. A theory such as this is not predictive.

To understand the origin of soft breaking terms and to derive them from the basic model one needs to break supersymmetry spontaneously. However, the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry leads to a Goldstone fermion, or a Goldstino and it is important to absorb this Goldstino to achieve a meaningful theory which is not in contradiction with experiment. To absorb the Goldstino one needs a vector-spinor, i.e., a massless spin 3/2 field or a gravitino. The necessity to get rid of the undesirable Goldstino requires that we consider an extension of supersymmetry to include gravity. In this extension the gravitino is the superparter of the graviton and thus one is led to consider supergravity as the starting point for a phenomenologically viable breaking of supersymmetry. However, to build models within supergravity one needs to couple N=1 supergravity with chiral multiplets and a vector multiplet leading to the so called applied supergravity. Remarkably the framework of applied supergravity allows one to break supersymmetry in a spontaneous fashion and also to build realistic models. One of the basic ingredients in the analysis is that the scalar potential of the theory is not positive definite which was one of the main hurdles in finding a global vacuum with broken supersymmetry in the framework of global supersymmetry. For the case of supergravity grand unification proposed in 1982 it is possible to break supersymmetry spontaneously in a so called hidden sector and arrange the vacuum energy to vanish. The information of supersymmetry breaking from the hidden sector to the physical sector is communicated by gravity resulting in the growth of soft breaking terms in the physical sector. For definiteness the GUT group chosen in the 1982 work was SU(5) although the main results of the effective theory are not tied to any specific GUT group.

Supergravity grand unification model proposed in 1982 also resolves another problem, i.e., the puzzle of the breaking of the electro-weak $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry. There is no natural mechanism for the breaking of the electro-weak symmetry in the Standard Model, and one arranges for the breaking by the introduction of a tachyonic mass term. However, the introduction of such a tachyonic mass term is rather ad hoc. Supergravity grand unification provides a natural mechanisms for the generation of the tachyonic mass term. In SUGRA unification one starts at the GUT scale with prescribed boundary conditions on the gauge coupling constants, Yukawa couplings and on the soft parameters. The evolution of these parameters from the GUT scale down to the electro-weak scale turns the determinant of the Higgs mass square matrix negative which triggers the breaking of the electro-weak symmetry. In the framework of MSSM there are two Higgs doublets in the theory, one which gives mass to the up quark and the other which gives mass to the down quark. These two doublets provide a bilinear term with a mixing parameter $`\mu `$ in the superpotential. Although this term is supersymmetric the $`\mu `$ parameter is of the size of the soft breaking terms. An important aspect of the radiative breaking of the electro-weak symmetry is that the spontaneous symmetry breaking conditions allow one to determine the $`\mu `$ parameter and this eliminates one of the arbitrary parameters in the theory.

The radiative breaking of the electro-weak symmetry which arises in SUGRA model relates the weak scale $`M_W`$ with the soft SUSY breaking scale which in turn depends on the Planck constant. The SUGRA model in this fashion connects two fundamental scales of physics, i.e., the Fermi scale and the Planck scale. Further, the fact that $`M_W`$ is determined in terms of soft parameters up to gauge and Yukawa coupling constant factors means that the soft parameters must lie in the TeV range, or else, one is faced with a new kind of a fine tuning problem. This result leads to the remarkable prediction in SUGRA GUTS that one must have sparticles lying in the TeV mass range.

## 2 SUGRA Unification

We discuss now the main features of the work of Ref.. To build models containing gravity one needs to couple supergravity with an arbitrary number of chiral multiples $`\{\chi _i(x),z_i(x)\}`$ (where $`\chi _i(x)`$ are left (L) Weyl spinors and $`z_i(x)`$ are scalar fields) and a vector multiplet which belongs to the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Such a coupling scheme depends on three arbitrary functions: : the superpotential $`g(z_i)`$, the gauge kinetic function $`f_{\alpha \beta }(z_i`$) (which enters in the Lagrangian as $`f_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F^{\mu \nu \beta }`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ = gauge indices) and the Kahler potential $`d(z_i,z_i^{}`$). The bosonic part of the Lagrangian is given by

$`L_B={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\kappa ^2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\kappa ^2}}G,_b^aD_\alpha z_aD^\alpha z^b`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}f_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F^{\mu \nu \beta }eV`$ (1)
Here $`\kappa 1/M_P\mathrm{}`$ where $`M_{Planck}=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, G depends on the superpotential g(z), and on the Kahler potential $`d(z,z^{})`$ so that

$$G=\frac{\kappa ^2}{2}d(z,z^{})ln(\frac{\kappa ^6}{4}|g|^2)$$
(2)
and V is the effective potential for the scalar components of the chiral multiplets in the theory and is given by

$$V=\frac{1}{\kappa ^4}e^G(3+G_b^{1a}G_{,a}G,^b)+\frac{1}{8\kappa ^4}(G,aT^\alpha z^a)^2$$
(3)
As noted in the introduction the potential is no longer positive definite because of the Planck scale corrections from supergravity. Of course, in the limit $`M_{Planck}\mathrm{}`$ one recovers the result of global supersymmetry. However, the terms proportional to $`1/M_{PLanck}`$ are essential in generating an acceptable spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. The simplest way of breaking supersymmetry spontaneously is to introduce a term which is a chiral gauge singlet and enters linearly in the superpotential, i.e.,

$$g_{SB}=m^2(z+B)$$
(4)
where the constant B is chosen to absorb the vanishing of the cosmological constant. This term generates a spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry and gives a gravitino mass of size $`m^2/M_{Planck}`$. However, it was later realized that the precise form of the superpotential that breaks supersymmetry is not important, and essentially what one needs is any form that breaks supersymmetry and has the property that $`g_{SB}=g_2(z)`$ where

$$g_2=\frac{m^2}{\kappa }f(\kappa z)$$
(5)
so that at the minimum

$$<z>\frac{1}{\kappa },<\kappa z>O(1),<g_2>\frac{m^2}{\kappa }$$
(6)
and one has in this case that the gravitino mass is

$$m_{\frac{3}{2}}=\kappa ^2<g_2>=\kappa m^2$$
(7)
In addition to the bosonic interactions one also has interaction structures in the theory which involve gauge couplings of the gauginos to the chiral multiplets and these take the form

$$L_\lambda =ig_\alpha \overline{\lambda }^\alpha z_i(\frac{T^\alpha }{2})_{ij}\chi ^j+h.c.$$
(8)
Further, the superpotential contributes to both the fermi and the bose interactions. Thus the Fermi interactions for the Weyl spinors $`\chi ^i`$ are given by

$$L_g=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\chi }^{iC}g_{ij}\chi ^j+h.c.)$$
(9)
We now elaborate on some of the further details in the construction of SUGRA GUT models. One of the immediate problems one faces in constructing such models is that of protecting the gauge hierarchy. Since $`<z>O(M_{Planck})`$ one finds that terms involving $`z_iz_jz`$ would develop masses which are size $`O(M_{Planck})`$ and one has to suppress them. A very convenient way to overcome this problem is to use the separation of the hidden and the physical sectors, i.e., place the chiral multiplets of the physical sector in one part of the superpotential ($`g_1`$) and place the chiral fields that break supersymmetry in another part of the superpotential in the hidden sector ($`g_2`$) with no direct interaction between the two sectors, i.e., one writes

$$g(z_i)=g_1(z_a)+g_2(z)$$
(10)
where $`\{z_i\}=\{z_a,z\}`$ where $`z_a`$ are physical sector fields (squarks, sleptons, higgs) and z are the hidden sector fields whose VEVs $`z=𝒪(M_P\mathrm{})`$ break supersymmetry. In this arrangement of separating the superpotential into a physical sector and a hidden sector one finds that the gauge hierarchy is maintained by the additive nature of the physical and the hidden sector terms in the superpotential. The actual proof of this remarkable theorem that the low energy theory is protected from corrections proportional to the GUT scale and the Planck scale is rather subtle and we shall discuss this shortly. For the physical sector of the theory which involves the quarks, the leptons and the higgs we take the following potential

$`g_1=\lambda _1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Mtr\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)+\lambda _2H^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+3M^{})H`$
$`+\lambda _3UH^{}H+ϵ_{xyzvw}H^xM^{yz}f_1M^{vw}`$
$`+H_x^{}M^{xy}f_2M_y^{}`$ (11)
Here $`M^{xy}`$ and $`M_x^{}`$ are the 10 and $`\overline{5}`$ of quarks and leptons, $`H^{}`$ and $`H`$ are the $`\overline{5}`$ and 5 of Higgs, U is a singlet and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a 24 plet of SU(5). Minimization of the scalar potential in this case gives the result

$`<\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^x>=MDiag(2,2,2,3+ϵ_2,3ϵ_2)`$ (12)
and $`<H^x>=<H_x^{}>O(\kappa m^2)\delta _5^x`$, where $`ϵ_2`$ depends on the soft SUSY parameters. Here one finds quite remarkably that supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector induces the breaking of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ so that $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YU(1)_{em}`$. One notes that the breaking of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is semi-gravitational with $`\kappa m^2300`$ GeV and can account for the W and Z mass.

As noted earlier the miraculous thing in this model is that the integration of the heavy fields do not mix with the low energy sector of the theory. In general the presence of the large scale $`MM_G`$ and $`M_{Planck}`$ introduces a new hierarchy problem as one can expect gravitaional corrections of sizes

$$(\kappa M)M,(\kappa M)^2M,..,(\kappa M)^6M,..$$
(13)
However, the detailed analyses show that all such corrections vanish, and the low energy theory contains only terms of $`O(\kappa m^2)`$. An analysis under the assumption of a flat Kahler potential and on integration over the heavy fields shows that the low energy theory can be parametrized by

$$V_{soft}=m_0^2z_az_a^{}+[\frac{1}{3}A^0W^{(3)}+\frac{1}{2}B^0W^{(2)}+h.c.]$$
(14)
where $`W^{(3)}`$ is the cubic part and $`W^{(2)}`$ is the quadratic part of the superpotential. Thus one finds that the soft SUSY breaking with the assumption of the flat Kahler potential generates a universal mass for the scalar fields, and also universal bilinear and trilinear couplings arise in the theory. While in the simple model with a flat gauge kinetic energy function the gauginos are massless at the tree level they do develop masses through loop corrections where the GUT fields circulate in the loops with masses

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_i=\frac{\alpha _i}{4\pi }m_{\frac{3}{2}}C\frac{D(R)}{D(A)}$$
(15)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is the gauge coupling constant associated with the sub groups $`SU(3)`$, $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$, and $`C`$ is the Casimir, D(R) is the dimensionality of the representation exchanged, and D(A) is the dimensionality of the adjoint representation. One can also generate tree level masses by assuming a field dependence in the gauge kinetic energy function $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$. In this case one finds that the gauginos gain a mass at $`M_G`$ of ($`m_{1/2})_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^\alpha \gamma ^0\lambda ^\beta `$ ($`\lambda ^\alpha `$ = gaugino Majorana field) where

$$(m_{1/2})_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}\kappa ^1G^i(d^1)_j^if_{\alpha \beta j}^{}m_{3/2}$$
(16)
Here $`G^iG/z_i^{}`$, ($`d^1)^i_j`$ is the matrix universe of $`d_j^i`$ and $`f_{\alpha \beta j}=f_{\alpha \beta }/z_j`$. For the case of the flat Kahler potential where $`d_j^i=\delta _j^i`$ one finds that the gaugino masses are universal at the GUT scale. Further, more generally one can write the gravitino mass so that

$$m_{\frac{3}{2}}=\kappa ^1exp[G/2]$$
(17)
In the above we discussed how spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector induces soft breaking terms in the physical sector of the theory which in turn induce breaking of the electro-weak symmetry. The fact that the spontaneous breaking of the supersymmetry triggers the breaking of the electro-weak symmetry establishes for the first time a direct connection between physics at the Planck scale and the physics at the electro-weak scale. The electro-weak symmetry breaking in the model of Eq.(1) was induced at the tree level through an effective cubic interaction. Now it turns out that one can in fact do away with the cubic term and induce spontaneous breaking of the electro-weak symmetry via renormalization group effects. The basic idea here is that the one uses the GUT boundary conditions on the gauge coupling constants and the Yukawa couplings, and the boundary conditions on the soft parameters at the GUT scale and uses the renormalization group equations to evolve them down from the GUT scale to the electro-weak scale. The running of the renormalization group equations with at least one soft SUSY breaking parameter non-zero and the top quark Yukawa coupling turn the determinant of the Higgs mass matrix (and specifically the $`H_2`$ running $`(mass)^2`$) negative which triggers the breaking of the electro-weak symmetry. The minimization conditions for the scalar potential with respect to the Higgs VEVs $`v_{1,2}=H_{1,2}`$ at the electro-weak scale provides the following two relations $`\mu ^2=(\mu _1^2\mu _2^2tan^2\beta )/(tan^2\beta 1)M_Z^2/2`$; and $`sin^2\beta `$ =$`(2B\mu )(2\mu ^2+\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2)`$. Here $`tan\beta =v_2/v_1`$, B is the quadratic soft breaking parameter ($`V_{soft}^B=B\mu H_1H_2`$), $`\mu _i=m_{H_i}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ are loop corrections. In the above all parameters are running parameters at the electroweak scale $`Q`$ which can be taken to be $`Q=M_Z`$. The first relation above determines $`\mu `$ while the second allows one to eliminate B in favor of $`tan\beta `$. This determination increases the predictivity of the model. With inclusion of the constraints of the electro-weak symmetry breaking the minimal SUGRA model (mSUGRA) depends on four soft breaking parameters and one sign

$$m_0,m_{1/2},A_o,B_0,sign(\mu )$$
(18)
Alternately one may choose $`m_0`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`A_t`$, $`tan\beta `$, and sign($`\mu `$) as the independent parameters. If one allows for complex soft parameters then after field redefinitions there are two additional parameters which can be chosen to be the phase of $`A_0`$ and the phase of $`\mu `$. The appearance of the phases brings into the theory in a natural way new sources of CP violation over and above the CP violation in the CKM mass matrix. Further, the nature of physics at the Planck scale is not fully understood and it is likely that the assumption of a flat Kahler potential should be relaxed by the introduction of curvature terms. Such curvature terms sometimes appear in string models. The appearance of non-flatness in the Kahler potential generates non-universalities in the soft parameters enlarging the number of parameters in the theory. Further, the picture of supersymmetry breaking via chiral scalar terms in the hidden sector of the theory is an effective treatment of some more basic phenomenon in the underlying fundamental theory which is still unknown. Several possibilities for the nature of such a phenomena including the possibility of condensates breaking supersymmetry have been discussed in the literature. In addition, most string models that accomodate grand unification at the GUT scale reduce to a SUGRA model below $`M_{GUT}`$, and thus mSUGRA remains a bench mark for testing experimental data with theory. Next we discuss the sparticle spectrum that emerges in such a theory at low energy.

The minimal SUGRA model with the soft SUSY parameters defined by Eq.(18) generates a low energy mass spectrum for the Higgs and for the sparticles which possesses identifiable properties. The Higgs sector of the theory gives three neutral fields, one of which is a pseudo-scalar (A) and the other two are scalars (h,H). The masses of the scalars are related to the masses of the pseudo-scalars by the relation

$`m_{h,H}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[M_Z^2+M_A^2\pm ((M_Z^2+M_A^2)^2`$
$`4(\mathrm{cos}2\beta )^2m_Z^2M_A^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}]`$ (19)
In addition there is a charged Higgs boson whose mass is given by

$$M_\pm ^2=M_W^2+M_A^2$$
(20)
The mass relations for the scalar Higgs lead to the result

$$m_hM_Z$$
(21)
Of course, this is a relation at the tree level and there are important loop corrections to this formula.

One can also discuss the masses and the couplings for the sparticles that appear in the theory. The superpartners in the theory consist of gauginos, Higgsinos and sfermions. The gaugino-Higgsino sector involves the trilinear Higgs-Higgsino-gaugino coupling which after spontaneous breaking of the electro-weak symmetry generates a gaugino -Higgsino mixing term. In the charged gaugino-Higgsino sector one finds a mass matrix (in the $`\stackrel{~}{W}^\pm \stackrel{~}{H}^\pm `$ basis) of the form

$$M_\chi ^\pm =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_2& \sqrt{2}M_Wsin\beta \\ & \\ \sqrt{2}M_Wcos\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)$$
(22)
The eigen-vectors of this matrix (Winos) have the mass eigen-values

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_\pm =\frac{1}{2}|[4\nu _+^2+(\mu \stackrel{~}{m}_2)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}\pm [4\nu _{}^2+(\mu +\stackrel{~}{m}_2)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}|$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\pm =|\lambda _\pm |`$ and $`\lambda _\pm `$ are the eigen-values of the M, and $`\nu _\pm `$ are defined by

$$\sqrt{2}\nu _\pm =M_W(sin\beta \pm \mathrm{cos}\beta )$$
(24)
In the neutral gaugino - Higgsino sector one finds (in the ($`\stackrel{~}{W}_3,\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{H}_1,\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$) basis) the mass matrix

$$M_\chi ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_2& o& a& b\\ & & & \\ o& \stackrel{~}{m}_1& c& d\\ & & & \\ a& c& o& \mu \\ & & & \\ b& d& \mu & o\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
where $`a=M_Zcos\theta _Wcos\beta `$, $`c=tan\theta _Wa`$, $`b=M_Zcos\theta _W`$ sin$`\beta `$, d=-tan$`\theta _Wb`$ and $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. The eigen-vectors of this mass matrix (Zinos) have a somewhat complicated analytical form since the eigen value equation here is a quartic one. However, the structure of the matrix reveals that there are regions where some Zinos may be mostly either gauginos or Higgsinos.

For the sfermions it is found that the masses receive contributions from the D terms and from the gaugino loop corrections so that at low energy one has, example for $`\stackrel{~}{u}_L`$,

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_L}^2=m_0^2+m_u^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}f_3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}f_1]m_{\frac{1}{2}}^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}sin^2\theta _W\right)M_Z^2cos2\beta `$ (26)
and for $`\stackrel{~}{u}_R`$ one has

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}^2=m_0+m_u^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}f_3+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}f_1]m_{\frac{1}{2}}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}sin^2\theta _WM_Z^2cos2\beta `$ (27)
Here $`f_i(t)=(11/(1+\beta _it)^2)/\beta _i`$ (i=1,2,3) where $`t=ln(M_G^2/Q^2)`$, $`\beta _i=(b_i/4\pi )\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$, where $`b_i=(33/5,1,3)`$ for U(1), SU(2) and SU(3), and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G=\alpha _G/(4\pi )`$, where $`f_i`$ are the form factors. Similar relations hold for the sleptons. Using the above analysis one can write the low energy effective Lagangian in terms of the diagonalized fields. This effective Lagrangian was given in Ref..

Soon after the invention of SUGRA model there was an intense activity to elucidate its experimental implications. Since the values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ were not fixed by the theory (and remain still to be fixed by experiment) it was natural then to assume the lowest values compatible with experiment at that time. One of the important signals for SUGRA models with R parity invariance that emerged was the missing energy signal. Thus supersymmetric decays of the W and Z were widely discussed such as $`W\stackrel{~}{W}+\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and $`Z\stackrel{~}{W}+\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ as well as decays of the Wino, the neutralino and the sfermions, etc were widely studied

$`\stackrel{~}{W}l+\overline{\nu }_l+\stackrel{~}{Z}_i,,q_1+\overline{q}_2+\stackrel{~}{Z}_i,h+\stackrel{~}{Z}_i,..`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_k^\pm +\stackrel{~}{W}^{},l+\overline{l}+\stackrel{~}{Z}_j,..`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}f+\stackrel{~}{Z},f_1+\stackrel{~}{W},..`$ (28)
In all these decays the identifying signal is large missing energy associated with the disappearance of the lightest neutral particle which is absolutely stable under the assumption of R parity invariance. Missing energy signals at colliders also arise, such as in sparticle ($`\stackrel{~}{s}`$) pair production $`p\overline{p}\stackrel{~}{s}+\stackrel{~}{s}+X`$. Each sparticle is expected to decay producing missing energy. An important implication of the fact that the lightest supersymmetric particle (lsp) would be absolutely stable under R parity conservation is that such a particle is a candidate for non-baryonic cold dark matter. Specifically, the lightest neutralino appears a good candidate for the LSP.

Another important implication of SUGRA model that was analysed was the supersymmetric correction to the muon anomalous moment $`g_\mu 2`$. Thus soon after the formulation of the SUGRA models analyses of $`g_\mu 2`$ were carried out using the SUGRA unification framework. These represented the first realistic and reliable analyses of the effects of supersymmetry on the muon anomaly. Since SUGRA provided the first realistic framework it was now possible to make quantitative predictions. Specifically it was pointed out that the effect of the electro-weak corrections could be as large or larger than the Standard Model electro-weak correction and any experiment which tests the SM electro-weak contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$ would also test the supersymmetric correction. This result played a role in the pursuit to improve the experimental limits on $`g_\mu 2`$ and provided another reason aside from checking the Standard Model result to get a better measurement when the Brookhaven experiment E821 was being proposed around 1984.

We turn now to another aspect of SUGRA models which pertains to baryon and lepton number violation in the model. Here on must distinguish between two aspects to SUGRA unification, the first being a specific mechanism for the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry in the hidden sector and its transmittal to the visible sector and the second being the GUT structure of the theory. The first aspect of the theory, i.e., growth of soft breaking terms protects baryon and lepton number conservation under the constraint of R parity invariance. Further, under the constraint of R parity invariance baryon and lepton number violating dimension four operators are also absent which eliminates rapid proton decay. However, even under the constraint of R parity one can generate dimension five operators which violate baryon and lepton number and lead to nucleon instability. However, the nature of the dimension five operator depends on the nature of the GUT group and there are several possibilities here such as SU(5), SO(10), E(6) etc. Much of the early work in proton stability was in the framework of the minimal SU(5) model since such a group also appears in the breaking of larger GUT groups. However, what is unique about proton decay via dimension five operators is that it depends on both the GUT structure which generates the baryon and lepton number violation in the theory and on the soft breaking sector of the theory which enters in the dressing of the dimension five operators and leads to dimension six operators after dressing with the chiral structure LLLL, LLRR, RRLL and RRRR for the four fermi interaction that governs proton decay. Thus after the formulation of the SUGRA models it was possible to carry out detailed analyses of proton decay amplitudes using the framework of SUGRA unification in the dressing loop diagrams. This analysis was carried out in Refs.. As is evident predictions of the proton lifetime depend on the low energy parameters and on the GUT parameters. If one has sufficient information on the low energy parameters then that would lead to a constraint on the nature of GUT physics.

6. A View from the Present
In the intervening period since 1982-85 -present there has been considerable further activity in the applications of SUGRA models. Further, there is now beginning to accumulate some indirect evidence that generally favors SUGRA unification. Recall that in Sec.2 one discussed a crucial aspect of SUGRA unification which is the connection between the soft breaking scale and the electro-weak scale. Because of this connection one finds that the sparticle masses should be in the TeV range. This result finds an indirect support in the high precision LEP data. Thus the LEP data measures the gauge coupling constants $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ to a great precision. Extrapolation of these coupling constants to high scales shows that they do not meet at a point using the Standard Model spectrum but do meet in MSSM with the supersymmetric particle spectrum with sparticle masses typically in the TeV range. The crucial ingredient in the unification of the gauge couplings is the fact that the SUSY particles with masses in the TeV range give just the right amount of corrections to the beta functions for all the three couplings to meet at a point. Thus one of the predictions of SUGRA GUTs that sparticle masses must lie in the TeV range finds support in the high precision LEP data. The theoretical analyses using SUGRA unification produce a unification of the gauge couplings to within 2 sigma. However, there could be additional contributions due to Planck scale corrections, which induce terms via corrections to the gauge kinetic energy term.

Since the early work of 1982-1985 the experimental lower limits on the sparticles have moved up eliminating many of the possible decay channels such as the supersymmetric decays of the W and Z. However, the off shell decay of particles such as the decay $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{W}+\stackrel{~}{Z}_2l_1+l_1+l_2+E_T`$ produces a trileptonic signal which is one of the prime signals for the discovery of Winos in the Tevatron RUNII and at the LHC. Further, there is now a considerable body of work which analyses the signals in the SUGRA models in an array of channels depending on the nature of the sparticles produced (see, eg., SUGRA Working Group Collaboration, hep-ph/0003154). A very encouraging sign for weak scale supersymmetry is the recent precise determination of the muon g-2 at Brookhaven (H.N. Brown et.al., Muon (g-2) Collaboration, hep-ex/0102017). The experiment finds a difference at the 2.6 sigma level between the experimental value of $`a_\mu `$ (where $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$) and its prediction in the Standard Model so that $`a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}`$= $`43(16)\times 10^{10}`$. This result indicates a very significant correction to the Standard Model from new physics. Now the prime candidate for this new physics is supersymmetry and specifically we note at this point that in the well motivated SUGRA model the supersymmetric electro-weak correction was predicted to be of the size of the Standard Model electro-weak correction or larger. Further, analysis of this correction within mSUGRA shows that the Brookhaven result implies the existence of some low lying particles which can be produced at the LHC and possibly in RUNII of the Tevatron. Test of this prediction await experiments at RUNII and at the LHC.

6. Conclusion
Supergravity unification proposed 19 years ago remains one of the leading candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model. The model is consistent with all known data and predicts new physics within reach of accelerators, specifically the LHC and also possibly within reach of RUNII of the Tevatron. Deviations from the Standard Model are determined by the soft breaking sector of the theory which is governed by Planck scale physics. Thus observation of deviations from the Standard model will provide information about the nature of physics at the Planck scale and possibly about the nature of the underlying string model.

Acknowledgemnets: This work was supported in part by NSF grant numbers PHY-0070964 and PHY-9901057.


format: text

text:
# Possible Local Spiral Counterparts to Compact Blue Galaxies at Intermediate Redshift

## 1 Introduction

Blue galaxies are abundant at intermediate redshift. Many are luminous, with distinct irregular or compact morphology (Phillips et al., 1997) and high rates of star formation. Number counts indicate they are the most strongly evolving population at intermediate redshift \[Lilly et al. (1995); Ellis (1997) and references therein\]. Thus, a complete understanding of galaxy evolution from $`z=1`$ to the present requires understanding what stage of evolution the luminous blue galaxies represent.

The most extreme luminous blue galaxies at intermediate redshift are the compact narrow emission-line galaxies (CNELGs hereafter; Koo et al., 1994, 1995; Guzmán et al., 1996, 1997, 1998). With small half-light radii (1 – 3.5 kpc) and narrow emission-line velocity widths ($`35\sigma <126`$ km s-1 from spatially unresolved spectra), CNELGs resemble few nearby objects. Their nature is currently heavily debated. Several authors (e.g., Koo et al., 1994, 1995) argue that the narrow emission-line widths of CNELGs indicate small masses; Koo et al. (1995) suggest CNELGs are the starbursting spheroidals faded by 4 – 7 magnitudes at the current epoch. However, spectroscopic studies of field galaxies at intermediate redshift (Carollo & Lilly, 2000) and of compact objects in particular (Kobulnicky & Zaritsky, 1999; Hammer et al., 2000) find high metallicities for some blue galaxies, suggesting that some, including some CNELGs, may be bulges forming with central bursts of star formation in luminous spirals.

At the heart of the debate is the question of the masses of the luminous compact blue galaxies. Additional kinematic information for the CNELGs, such as H I linewidths or stellar kinematics, would dramatically improve our knowledge of these systems. However, 21cm measurements are nearly impossible at intermediate $`z`$ and any older stellar populations of CNELGs are too faint to measure stellar kinematics. One remaining avenue is study of local counterparts with properties similar to those of the CNELGs (e.g., Pisano et al., 2000).

Recently, Barton et al. (2001) identified a class of possible nearby counterparts to CNELGs and other luminous compact galaxies. The local galaxies are spirals in pairs with blue star-forming centers, small half-light radii, and anomalously narrow emission-line rotation widths. In these cases, concentrated line emission probably results from gas infall after a close galaxy-galaxy interaction, a process similar to central star formation triggered in minor mergers (Mihos & Hernquist, 1994, 1996). Here, we argue that observations of these possible counterparts strongly support the hypothesis that at least some luminous blue compact galaxies at high redshift are disk galaxies with central star formation. In Sec. 2, we detail the evidence that these local objects are counterparts to compact blue galaxies at intermediate redshift. In Sec. 3, we present H I synthesis observations of two of the four galaxies which show that even resolved major axis emission-line rotation curves underrepresent the full kinematic widths of the local galaxies by more than a factor of two, allowing the possibility that in spite of their narrow emission-line widths, CNELGs are the centers of intrinsically massive systems. We conclude in Sec. 4. We use H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and, where applicable, q$`{}_{0}{}^{}=0.1`$.

## 2 Local Disk Galaxies with Blue Centers

If luminous blue compact morphology is a brief transitional stage in massive galaxies, local counterparts may exist among galaxies that are rapidly evolving at the current epoch, such as galaxies in pairs. Many studies of the stellar populations of paired galaxies identify substantial new star formation triggered by interactions (e.g., Larson & Tinsley, 1978; Kennicutt et al., 1987). Recently, Barton, Geller, & Kenyon (2000a) studied a large sample of galaxies in pairs selected from the CfA2 redshift survey based only on separation on the sky ($`50`$ h-1kpc) and in redshift ($`1000`$ km s-1). New spectra of 502 of the galaxies show that indicators of recent star formation, such as H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width, correlate with pair separation on the sky and in redshift, providing unambiguous evidence that close galaxy-galaxy passes trigger central star formation (Barton, Geller, & Kenyon, 2000a). Subsequent $`B`$ and $`R`$ photometry of 190 galaxies in the sample indicates that

flux from the new stars can dominate even the $`R`$-band light in the centers of the galaxies (Barton, Geller, & Kenyon, 2000b). This strong centralized star formation renders many of the paired galaxies good candidates for counterparts to the intermediate-$`z`$ systems. Because the CNELGs and the other luminous compact objects have narrow emission lines, the emission-line kinematics provide the true test.

Barton et al. (2001) study the resolved emission-line rotation curves of 90 galaxies in the pair sample. Most lie on the Tully-Fisher (Tully & Fisher, 1977, T-F hereafter) relation for non-interacting galaxies (e.g., Courteau, 1997). However, they identify seven galaxies which, like the compact objects observed at higher redshifts, appear significantly “overluminous” for their measured emission-line widths.

### 2.1 Optical Observations of the Local Tully-Fisher Outliers

Four of the “overluminous” T-F outliers have properties similar to those of the compact blue objects selected from the Hubble deep field (Phillips et al., 1997). \[The anomalous properties of the remaining three outliers probably result from tidal and gasdynamical distortion (Barton et al., 2001).\] Table 1 lists the optical properties of the four local galaxies measured from $`B`$ and $`R`$ images and moderate-resolution major axis spectra; Barton et al. (2001) describe the data in more detail. Three of the four are clearly disk galaxies; NGC 2719A is somewhat amorphous. Fig. 2 shows the images and rotation curves for UGC 8919N and CGCG 132-062, the two galaxies with H I synthesis observations. We measure total magnitudes and correct them for internal extinction as described in Barton et al. (2001). For direct comparison with the higher redshift objects, we use circular apertures to measure the $`B`$-band half-light radius, Re.

Table 1 includes two different measures of the velocity widths of the galaxies from optical spectroscopy, V2.2 and $`\sigma `$. V2.2 is the spatially resolved emission-line rotation curve velocity width from Courteau (1997). It is the full width of the rotation curve at 2.15 disk scale lengths, from a model fit to the data; V$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{c}}{}_{2.2}{}^{}`$ is corrected for observational effects, such as inclination, as in Barton et al. (2001). The small measured velocity widths reflect the fact that the strongest line emission is not spatially extended (see Fig 1).

The second velocity width measure, $`\sigma `$, is more directly comparable to existing measurements for higher-redshift objects. Because it is difficult to resolve the intermediate-z galaxies from the ground, the existing intermediate-z emission-line measurements of the compact objects include flux from the whole galaxy. In addition, the quoted linewidths are usually velocity dispersion measurements of Gaussian fits to the \[OII\], \[OIII\], or H$`\beta `$ emission lines (Koo et al., 1995; Guzmán et al., 1996, 1997; Phillips et al., 1997). To approximate these measurements, we collapse the H$`\alpha `$ flux along the entire major axis and fit a Gaussian function to the H$`\alpha `$ line to measure $`\sigma `$. We measure the resolution of each observation from Gaussian fits to multiple sky lines in the extracted region. The resolutions range from 1.4 – 1.5 Å FWHM ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{RES}}=2629`$ km s-1 at H$`\alpha `$). We apply the prescription of Guzmán et al. (1997) to account for instrumental resolution.

### 2.2 Comparison with Luminous Blue Compact Galaxies at Intermediate Redshift

The intrinsic masses of intermediate-redshift compact objects are uncertain. Bulk scaling parameters are frequently the only available measures. Fig. 2.2 shows an example of the use of these parameters; following Guzmán et al. (1996), we plot the half-light radii and velocity widths of compact objects (solid points: Koo et al., 1994, 1995; Guzmán et al., 1996, 1997, 1998; Phillips et al., 1997, and references therein). The open points are the local Frei et al. (1996) sample, which consists largely of massive galaxies; half-light radii are from Bershady, Jangren, & Conselice (2000) and $`\sigma `$ comes from approximate values of $`\sigma `$ based on H I measurements ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{RADIO}}=W_{50}/2.35`$) compiled from the RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al., 1991) and NED.111The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  The four asterisks are the targets of this study, with $`\sigma `$ measured from the optical emission-line widths (see $`\sigma `$ in Table 1). This analysis, and similar plots of MB vs. $`\sigma `$ and MB vs. Re, place the local targets of the present study in the same range as many of the compact Hubble deep field objects (Phillips et al., 1997); they are less luminous than typical CNELGs.

The compact objects and CNELGs fall to the lower left of the majority of the Frei sample in Fig. 2.2. Although

these scaling parameters seem to indicate that they are dwarf-like objects, this argument may be entirely flawed. The structural parameters (e.g., Re) and the optical emission-line kinematics (both $`\sigma `$ and V2.2) are heavily influenced by regions of current and recent star formation; Fig. 2.2 shows a simple model for the effects of a bulge-forming central starburst. We model the disk with an exponentially decreasing star formation rate ($`\tau =4`$ Gyr). At 7 Gyr (i.e., at intermediate redshift), a starburst forms an exponential bulge. We use the Bruzual & Charlot (1996, in preparation) star-formation models normalized for a bulge-to-disk ratio of 0.1 at the present day (14 Gyr here). The top panel shows the $`B`$-band half-light radius of the galaxy, adopting a bulge half-light radius R$`{}_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{b}}{}^{}=0.5`$ kpc, typical for exponential bulges (Carollo 1999), and a disk half-light radius of 12.5 Re,b, typical for late-type spirals (Courteau, de Jong, & Broeils 1996). The forming bulge dominates the flux and dramatically reduces the half-light radius. During bulge formation the system looks like the luminous compact, blue galaxies at intermediate redshift. With the additional assumptions of a fixed maximal-disk rotation curve, an inclination of 60, and a linear dependence between star formation rate and H$`\alpha `$ flux, the bottom panel shows the decrease in the measured linewidth during the burst (see also Lehnert & Heckman, 1996; Bershady & Mihos, 2001). In summary, Fig. 2.2 shows that central star formation in the amount required to form a small bulge in a single burst can lower the measured half-light radius of a galaxy by a large amount (0.86 dex in Fig. 2.2) and can simultaneously lower the measured $`\sigma `$, by $`>0.2`$ dex, shifting the object in Fig. 2.2 as shown by the arrow.

## 3 H I Observations: A Better Probe of the Kinematics

Our local counterparts allow us to test the effects of central star formation on $`\sigma `$ by comparing emission-line velocity widths in compact objects with H I observations (see also Kobulnicky & Gebhardt, 2000; Pisano et al., 2000). Spatial separation of the galaxies in the pair required H I synthesis observations. We present Very Large Array222The Very Large Array is a facility of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities Inc. observations of two of the four objects in this study. We reduced archival observations of UGC 8919N originally obtained by J. Chengalur as part of a set of observations of UGC 8919, the larger galaxy in the pair. The archival data include both C and D-configuration observations obtained on 1993 July 23 and 1995 March 9. They totaled 257 minutes on–source in the C configuration and 118.5 minutes on–source in the D configuration, in 4IF mode with a bandwidth of 3.125 MHz. The two pairs of IFs were offset in frequency to provide full velocity coverage of UGC 8919. We observed CGCG 132-062 with the VLA in D configuration on 2000 August 18. The observations were conducted in 2AD mode with a frequency coverage of 1.56 MHz and on–line Hanning smoothing. We spent a total of 191 minutes on–source, with interspersed observations of phase and flux calibrators.

We followed standard data reduction practices, using tasks in the AIPS package to flux and phase calibrate the u–v data (see, e.g., van Zee, Skillman, & Salzer, 1998, for a full description of our standard reduction methods). CLEAN data cubes were created with the AIPS task IMAGR using robustness parameters from 5 (natural weight) to 0.5. Using the GIPSY software package, we constructed moment maps from clipped cubes consisting of regions with signal greater than 2 times the rms noise in at least 2 consecutive channels. The left-hand panels of Fig. 2 show the zeroth moment maps of the two systems; neither small galaxy is well resolved, but the line emission from each galaxy is easily identifiable and separable in the H I data cube. In addition to the known galaxy pair, one additional galaxy was identified in the data cube of CGCG 132-062 at a heliocentric velocity of 2860 km s-1; the coordinates correspond to the NED listing for MAP-NGP 0\_381\_0431360. We generated mock “single dish” H I profiles for each galaxy to derive the kinematic linewidths (Fig. 2). The H I linewidths listed in Table 1 were measured at the 50% of the peak points.

The 21cm lines of UGC 8919N and CGCG 132-062 are much wider than the collapsed major axis H$`\alpha `$ emission lines, with $`\sigma /\sigma _{\mathrm{RADIO}}=0.67`$ and 0.60, respectively. The W50 measurements are 102% and 202% wider, respectively, than the velocity widths (V2.2) of the resolved rotation curves. The H I measurements shift the velocity widths upwards by $``$0.2 dex in Fig. 2.2, similar to the amount predicted by the simple model of Fig. 2.2. The “true” (pre-burst) half-light radii may shift the galaxies into the spiral galaxy regime of Fig. 2.2.

## 4 Tidally-Triggered Gas Infall and the Physics of Blue Compact Morphology

Our study suggests that the central star formation triggered by gas infall after a close galaxy-galaxy pass is capable of causing discrepancies between H I and emission-line kinematics. Gas infall triggered by interactions (Mihos & Hernquist, 1996) or minor mergers (Mihos & Hernquist, 1994) is analogous to secular evolution (Pfenniger & Norman, 1990). Thus, the process may explain the “exponential bulges” observed in some late-type spirals (e.g., Andredakis & Sanders, 1994; Carollo, 1999). If hierarchical scenarios of galaxy formation are correct, triggered gas infall may occur frequently at intermediate and high redshift. The bulge-forming spirals — especially the spirals with face-on inclinations or low surface brightness disks — would appear similar to compact objects already observed at higher redshifts.

For local galaxies, existing studies shed little light on the frequency of these T-F outliers among non-interacting galaxies. Most T-F studies would exclude the targets of this study on the basis of morphology or because of poorly-sampled rotation curves. The existing studies do show that centrally concentrated star formation is not a sufficient condition for narrow emission lines. Several other galaxies in the Barton et al. (2001) study have centrally concentrated emission but are not outliers to the T-F relation. One explanation for the anomalous properties of these outliers is that the systems may have particularly shallow rotation curves. Thus, the observed rotation curve has a smaller total width when the new stars are centrally concentrated. In any case, these local galaxies demonstrate that centrally concentrated emission-line regions can, under some circumstances, lead to anomalously narrow emission lines in disk galaxies.

In summary, we identify a set of four nearby galaxies with blue centers, small half-light radii, and anomalously narrow emission-line widths that are possible counterparts to some of the compact blue galaxies observed at intermediate redshift. H I measurements, available for two of the galaxies, show that the emission-line widths underestimate the kinematic widths of the galaxies by $``$50%. Thus, by analogy, the emission-line widths of the compact objects at intermediate redshift may underrepresent their masses. Because the local galaxies were selected from a sample of pairs, the physical mechanism responsible for their compact star formation is largely understood: a recent close galaxy-galaxy interaction drove gas from the disk into the center of each galaxy, triggering central star formation. This process, and the similar processes of minor mergers and secular evolution, may facilitate bulge formation. Thus, our study supports the hypothesis that at least some of the luminous compact blue galaxies with narrow emission lines observed at higher redshift are actually bulges forming in larger systems.

We thank John Salzer and Janice Lee for obtaining a preliminary H I spectrum of one of the targets for us in advance of the VLA observations. We thank Margaret Geller and David Crampton for useful comments and suggestions.


text:
# Lower bound to the mass of a relativistic three-boson system in the light-cone

## 1 Introduction

Recent applications of concepts of effective field theory to Quantum Chromodynamics, in which the effective degrees of freedom are the constituent quarks, and the baryons are viewed as bound system of three relativistic constituent quarks , make it worthwhile to study the properties of relativistic equations of three-particles interacting through effective attractive forces. The schematic model, represented by a contact interaction, gives one of the phenomenological possibilities; even lacking confinement it can represent the relativistic propagation of the system in a domain inside the confinement region. The relativistic equations can the reduced to the light-front , allowing a definition of a light-front wave-function on the null-plane hypersurface ($`x^+=t+z=0`$). In the three-body case, the lower Fock-state component is given by a three-particle wave-function. The radial wave-function of the baryon, for light-quarks, is simplified by a totally symmetric component. Disregarding spin effects, it can be represented by a three-boson wave-function. To study the general properties of the three-boson Bethe-Salpeter equation, we allow the space-time dimensions to run from two to four ($`n=`$2, 3 and 4), as in each case there are different physical aspects related to the dimensions that are relevant to address.

The relativistic light-front representation of the three-body bound-state wave-function are well known to contain at least two convenient and simple characteristics :

* the center-of-mass coordinate (CM) can be easily separated;
* the wave-function is covariant under kinematical boosts.

These features allow one to calculate some observables with the bound state wave-function described only in terms of particle degrees of freedom. Light-front wave-functions have been extensively used to construct relativistic models for the light pseudoscalar mesons , vector mesons  and for the nucleon , in terms of constituents quark bound systems.

The particular aspect that we are concerned in this work is the ground-state mass of the three-boson system in 2, 3 and 4 space-time dimensions. The approach that we have considered consists of a relativistic Bethe-Salpeter equation reduced to the light-front, with renormalized two-body contact interaction, parametrized by the two-boson binding energy. This model has been applied with some success to describe the charge distribution of the nucleon in terms of the constituent quarks . Here, we derive a lower bound to the ground state binding energy of a three-boson system, independent of the dimension, generalizing the findings of reference , and compare with the numerical results from the solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. The approach does not have retardation effects, which simplifies the relativistic dynamical description of the bound state system. The non-relativistic limit of the equation is also studied, since it explains the results for the two-boson binding energies close to zero.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we present the covariant ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation for the Faddeev component of the three-boson vertex in $`n`$dimensions (Faddeev Bethe-Salpeter equation), using a zero-range two-body interaction (a constant in momentum space). In a subsection, we also obtain explicitly the corresponding two-body scattering amplitude, in the ladder approximation, for space-time dimensions from two to four. As we have indicated in this section and, subsequently, in section 3, the generalization of the approach from zero-range to a finite range interaction is not difficult. In section 3, we perform the reduction of the equations to the light-front, and obtain the corresponding non-relativistic limits. To make the formalism more general, allowing the inclusion of finite range effects, we include a single term separable interaction in the light-front form of the equations for the vertex function. We also discuss, in this section, the constraint in the phase-space of the spectator particle momentum, due to the reality of the two-boson mass subsystem. In section 4 we obtain the lower bounds to the masses of the three-boson system (in the three cases we are considering). They are shown to be related to the restricted phase-space of the spectator particle. Finally, in section 5, we present our numerical results and concluding remarks.

## 2 Faddeev Bethe-Salpeter equation

The general features of the relativistic three-body equation projected in the light-front have been discussed in ref. , where it was implicitly suggested a calculation with a specific interaction. Therefore, it is instructive and illustrative to work out a simple dynamical model, like the one we present here, which can be easily compared with the corresponding covariant and non-relativistic approaches. The model can also be considered in its present form to define the dynamics in relativistic systems in two, three and four space-time dimensions.

The Faddeev-like equation for the component of the three-boson vertex is represented diagrammatically in figure 1, where the factor two in the rhs is related to the symmetrization of the total vertex. The vertex $`v`$, in the center-of-mass system, depends only on the energy-momentum vector of the spectator particle, $`qq^\mu `$. The three-boson vertex is the sum of the three components in which one of the bosons is the spectator. The two-boson scattering amplitude, $`\tau (M_2)`$, enters in the kernel of the integral equation for the vertex. From figure 1, we obtain

$$v(q^\mu )=2\tau (M_2)\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\left[\frac{\mathrm{i}}{k^2M^2+i\epsilon }\right]\left[\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(P_3qk)^2M^2+i\epsilon }\right]v(k^\mu ),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the dimension of the space-time, $`P_3^\mu `$ is the three-boson energy-momentum vector in the center-of-mass system ($`P_3^0=M_{3B}`$ and $`P_3^{\mu 0}=0`$) and the mass of the two-boson subsystem is given by $`M_2^2=(P_3q)^2.`$ In the present approach, the space-time dimension $`n`$ can be two, three and four, such that the energy-momentum vector $`qq^\mu `$ is defined as $`(q^0,q^3)`$ for $`n=2`$, $`(q^0,q^3,q_{})`$ for $`n=3`$, and $`(q^0,q^3,\stackrel{}{q}_{})`$ for $`n=4`$. $`\stackrel{}{q_{}}`$ is a $`(n2)`$ dimensional vector, that is zero for $`n=2`$.

In the following subsection, the two-boson scattering amplitude $`\tau (M_2)`$ that appears in eq. (1) is explicitly obtained in the light-front for two, three and four dimensions.

### 2.1 Two-boson scattering amplitude

The diagram in figure 2 shows the amplitude for the two-boson scattering that, for a separable model interaction (as the present zero-range model) can be solved analytically. The solution in the center-of-mass system is given by

$$\tau ^1(M_2)=\mathrm{i}\left\{\lambda ^1+\mathrm{i}B(M_2)\right\},$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is the coupling constant of the interaction and $`M_2`$ the mass of the two boson system. The factor i, in eq. (2), comes from the $`S`$matrix quantum field description of the two-body scattering proccess, which is represented in Fig. 2 by the corresponding Feynman diagram. $`B(M_2)`$ is the kernel of the scattering amplitude integral equation, represented by the bubble diagram of figure 3, that is given by

$$B(M_2)=\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{\left\{\left(k^2M^2+i\epsilon \right)\left((Pk)^2M^2+i\epsilon \right)\right\}},$$
(3)
where $`M`$ is the boson mass, $`P^0=M_2`$ and $`P^{\mu 0}=0`$.

The momentum loop integral in eq. (3) is integrated in the null-plane energy $`k^{}(=k^0k^3)`$, $`k^+(=k^0+k^3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$:

$`B(M_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}dk^+d^{(n2)}k_{}}{k^+(P^+k^+)}\left(k^{}\frac{k_{}^2(1\delta _{n,2})+M^2i\epsilon }{k^+}\right)^1}`$
$`\times \left(P^{}k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(Pk)_{}^2(1\delta _{n,2})+M^2i\epsilon }{P^+k^+}}\right)^1,`$ (4)
where the Kronecker symbol ($`\delta _{i,j}=1,\delta _{i,ji}=0`$) was introduced to take into account the two-dimensional case.

The finite integration over $`k^{}`$ is performed with the use of Cauchy theorem. The position of the poles in the $`k^{}`$ complex-plane depends on the value of $`k^+`$. For $`k^+>P^+`$ and $`k^+<0`$, the poles are located in the same semi-plane, thus they don’t contribute to the integration. Only if $`0<k^+<P^+`$ the integration is non-vanishing. We use the fraction of momentum $`x=k^+/P^+`$, within the interval $`0<x<1.`$ This condition yields the suppression of the antiparticle propagation in the loop integral.

The result for $`B(M_2)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{i}B(M_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^{(n1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1x)}\frac{d^{(n2)}k_{}}{M_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2(1\delta _{n,2})+M^2}{x(1x)}}}}.`$ (5)
In the above equation, one may introduce a form factor to regularize the transverse integration in four space-time dimensions. In order to keep the Lorentz scalar property of the function $`B(M_2)`$, the form-factor can be a function of the free mass of the two-boson intermediate state that, in terms of the center-of-mass momentum, is written as

$$M_{02}^2=4(\stackrel{}{k}^2+M^2)=\frac{k_{}^2(1\delta _{n,2})+M^2}{x(1x)},$$
(6)
and

$`\mathrm{i}B(M_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^{(n1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1x)}d^{(n2)}k_{}\frac{g^2(M_{02})}{M_2^2M_{02}^2}}.`$ (7)
A separable finite-range interaction between the two bosons is characterized by the form-factor $`g(M_{02})`$, which is equal to one in the zero-range limit.

The value of $`\lambda `$ is chosen such that the two-boson system has one bound-state. So, a pole occurs in the scattering amplitude at the bound-state mass, where

$$\lambda ^1=\mathrm{i}B(M_{2B});$$
(8)
and, from eq. (2), we obtain

$$\tau ^1(M_2)=B(M_{2B})B(M_2).$$
(9)
This result allows one to use $`g1`$ in all the cases we are considering ($`n=`$2, 3 and 4), because the function $`B(M_2)`$ is finite for $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$; and, for $`n=4`$, the divergence observed in eq. (5) is canceled. In four-dimensions, with $`g=1`$, the integral has a logarithmic divergence that can be absorbed in the redefinition of $`\lambda `$, as in eq.(8). The physical information introduced in the renormalization of the physical amplitude is the mass of the two bound bosons, $`M_{2B}`$.

The integration of $`B(M_2)`$ in two, three and four dimensions are performed analytically. In two dimensions the two-boson scattering amplitude for $`M_2<2M`$ is given by

$$\tau ^1(M_2)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\pi }\left\{\frac{\mathrm{arccot}\left[\beta _{2B}\right]}{M_{2B}^2\beta _{2B}}\frac{\mathrm{arccot}\left[\beta _2\right]}{M_2^2\beta _2}\right\},$$
(10)
where

$$\beta _j\sqrt{\left(\frac{2M}{M_j}\right)^21}(j=2,2B).$$
(11)
In three dimensions ($`n=3`$), we have

$$\tau ^1(M_2)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{8\pi }\left\{\frac{1}{M_{2B}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2M+M_{2B}}{2MM_{2B}}\right)\frac{1}{M_2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2M+M_2}{2MM_2}\right)\right\};$$
(12)
and, in four dimensions ($`n=4`$),

$$\tau ^1(M_2)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{8\pi ^2}\left[\beta _{2B}\mathrm{arccot}\left(\beta _{2B}\right)\beta _2\mathrm{arccot}\left(\beta _2\right)\right].$$
(13)
For the present purpose, the bound-state calculation, it is enough to know $`\tau (M_2)`$ for $`M_2<2M`$. This concludes our discussion of the renormalized zero-range two-boson interaction in the light-front. In case of a general two-boson separable interaction, with $`g(M_{02}^2)1`$ in eq. (7), one has to modify correspondingly the other equations for the three-boson vertex function, with the inclusion of the two-body form-factor, as shown in section 3. We also present in the next section the discussion of the phase-space constraints in the light-front formalism of the equations.

## 3 Light-front reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation

The integral equation for $`v`$ is obtained after the integration of equation (1) over $`k^{}`$. The integration over $`k^{}`$ is performed with the use of Cauchy theorem, assuming that the vertex is analytic in the lower half of the complex $`k^{}`$ plane. The pole, in the $`k^{}`$ plane, comes from the on-mass-shell condition of the momentum of the spectator particle. This allows direct access to the three-particle Fock-state component of the wave-function. In the corresponding truncated Faddeev equation, only intermediate state propagations with three-particles are allowed. Thus, in the vertex function, the spectator boson is on-mass-shell. The momentum variables in the integral equation, $`q^+`$ and $`q_{}`$, are the momentum in the null-plane for an on-mass-shell particle (the transversal momentum is needed in three and four space-time dimensions).

We have started with a contact interaction for the bosons in eq. (1), which leads to a divergence in the transverse momentum integration of the two-boson scattering amplitude in four space-time dimensions. We also suggested the introduction of a separable interaction with form-factor $`g(M_{02})`$, which by consistency should be present in the kernel of the three-boson vertex equation due to the rearrangement of the particles. As the form-factor depends on the free mass of the intermediate interacting pair, it is natural to introduce the form-factors as given below:

$`v(y,\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\tau (M_2)}{(2\pi )^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^{(n2)}k_{}}{x(1yx)}\frac{g(M_{02}^A)g(M_{02}^B)v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{\left(M_{3B}^2M_{03}^2\right)}},`$ (14)
where

$`(M_{02}^A)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2+M^2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(P_3kp)_{}^2+M^2}{1xy}}(P_3p)_{}^2`$
$`(M_{02}^B)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^2+M^2}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(P_3kp)_{}^2+M^2}{1xy}}(P_3k)_{}^2.`$ (15)
From now on, our discussions will be limited to the case of contact interaction, with $`g(M_{02}^2)=1`$.

Let us discuss the corresponding limits for the variables $`yq^+/M_{3B}`$ and $`q_{}`$. Following ref. , the mass of the two-boson subsystem is constrained to be real. In two space-time dimensions, only the momentum fraction is enough to describe the spectator boson, such that

$$M_2^2=(M_{3B}q^+)\left(M_{3B}\frac{M^2}{q^+}\right)>0.$$
(16)
The above relation implies in the inequality

$$1>y>\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2}.$$
(17)
In three and four space-time dimensions, the range of values of the perpendicular momentum allowed by the reality of the mass of the two-boson subsystem, comes from:

$$M_2^2=(M_{3B}q^+)\left(M_{3B}\frac{q_{}^2+M^2}{q^+}\right)q_{}^2>0.$$
(18)
By solving this inequality for $`q_{}^2`$, we obtain

$$q_{}^2<(1y)(M_{3B}^2yM^2).$$
(19)
The limits for $`y`$ are the same the dimensions $`n=`$2 and 3:

$$1>y>\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2},$$
(20)
where the lower bound comes from $`q_{}^2>0`$.

### 3.1 Light-front Faddeev equation in $`1+1`$ space-time dimensions

The equation for the Faddeev component of the vertex in $`1+1`$ space-time dimensions is obtained using eq. (10) and the limits given by eq. (17) together with the result of the $`k^{}`$ integration of eq. (1), as explicited in eq. (14) with $`g=1`$:

$`v(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\left(\beta _{2B}\right)}{M_{2B}^2\beta _{2B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\left(\beta _2\right)}{M_2^2\beta _2}}\right\}^1`$ (21)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2}}^{1y}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1yx)}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(x)}{\left(M_{3B}^2M_{03}^2\right)}},`$
where $`M_2`$ is given by eq. (16), $`\beta _2`$ is defined in eq.(11) and the mass of the virtual three-boson state is:

$$M_{03}^2=M^2\left(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{y}+\frac{1}{1yx}\right).$$
(22)
The dependence of $`v`$ on $`q^{}`$ is not specified considering that the spectator boson is on mass-shell. $`q^+`$ describe the spectator boson propagation.

Let us now study the non-relativistic limit of eq. (21) $`(M\mathrm{}`$). Considering that $`M_2=2ME_2`$ and $`M_{2B}=2ME_{2B}`$, with $`E_{2B}`$ the two-boson binding energy, in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ the two-boson amplitude is given by:

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\tau ^1=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{8M^{3/2}}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{E_2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{E_{2B}}}\right].$$
(23)
The non-relativistic limit of the integrand of eq. (21) involves the change in the variable $`x`$ to $`k_z`$:

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{dx}{dk_z}=\frac{x}{M},$$
(24)
and

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}x=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}y=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(25)
As in eq. (21)

$$M_{03}=\sqrt{q^2+M^2}+\sqrt{k^2+M^2}+\sqrt{(q+k)^2+M^2},$$
(26)
the non-relativistic limit is given by

$`v_{NR}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \sqrt{M}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{E_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{E_{2B}}}}\right\}^1{\displaystyle 𝑑k\frac{v_{NR}(k)}{E_{3B}\frac{q^2}{2M}\frac{k^2}{2M}\frac{(q+k)^2}{2M}}},`$ (27)
where $`E_{3B}=3MM_{3B}`$ is the three-boson binding energy. This equation was obtained in ref. . The nonrelativistic binding energy is obtained analytically:

$$E_{3B}=4E_{2B}.$$
(28)
### 3.2 Light-front Faddeev equation in $`2+1`$ space-time dimensions

The corresponding equation for the Faddeev component of the vertex in 2+1 space-time dimensions is formulated from eq. (12) and the limits given by eqs. (19) and (20) together with the result of the $`k^{}`$ integration of eq. (1), as explicited by eq. (14), which results:

$`v(y,\stackrel{}{q}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{2B}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M+M_{2B}}{2MM_{2B}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M+M_2}{2MM_2}}\right)\right\}^1`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2}}^{1y}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1yx)}}{\displaystyle _{k_{}^{max}}^{k_{}^{max}}}𝑑k_{}{\displaystyle \frac{v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{M_{3B}^2M_{03}^2}},`$
where $`M_2`$ is given by eq. (18),

$$k_{}^{max}=\sqrt{(1x)(M_{3B}^2xM^2)}$$

and the mass of the virtual three-boson state is:

$$M_{03}^2=\frac{k_{}^2+M^2}{x}+\frac{q_{}^2+M^2}{y}+\frac{(q+k)_{}^2+M^2}{1yx}.$$
(30)
In this case, the non-relativistic limit $`(M\mathrm{})`$ of the two-boson amplitude, eq. (12), is given by

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\tau ^1=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{16\pi M}\left[\mathrm{ln}(E_2)\mathrm{ln}(E_{2B})\right],$$
(31)
where $`M_{2B}=2ME_{2B}`$ and $`M_2=2ME_2`$.

The non-relativistic limit of the integrand of eq. (29) involves the change in the variable $`x`$ to $`k_z`$ in the same steps as we did in 1+1 dimensions. The mass of the virtual three-boson system is substituted in eq. (29) by:

$$M_{03}=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{q}^2+M^2}+\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+M^2}+\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^2+M^2}.$$
(32)
So, the non-relativistic limit is given by

$$v_{NR}(q)=\frac{2}{\pi M}\frac{1}{\left[\mathrm{ln}(E_{2B})\mathrm{ln}(E_2)\right]}d^2k\frac{v_{NR}(k)}{E_{3B}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2M}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{2M}\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^2}{2M}},$$
(33)
This is the non-relativistic equation derived in ref. , with the nonrelativistic binding energy given by:

$$E_{3B}=16.3E_{2B}.$$
(34)
### 3.3 Light-front Faddeev equation in 3+1 space-time dimensions

The integral equation for the Faddeev component of the three boson vertex, $`v(y,\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$, in the center-of-mass system, is given by :

$`v(y,\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\beta _{2B}\mathrm{arccot}\left(\beta _{2B}\right)\beta _2\mathrm{arccot}\left(\beta _2\right)\right]}}`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2}}^{1y}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(1yx)}}{\displaystyle ^{k_{}^{max}}}d^2k_{}{\displaystyle \frac{v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{M_{3B}^2M_{03}^2}}.`$
We assume that $`M_2`$, eq. (19), has only real values and, as a consequence, there is a maximum of $`k_{}^{max}=\sqrt{(1x)(M_{3B}^2xM^2)}`$ .

Let us now study the non-relativistic limit of eq. (35) $`(M\mathrm{}`$). In this limit, from eq. (13) we have:

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\tau ^1=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{16\pi \sqrt{M}}\left[\sqrt{E_{2B}}\sqrt{E_2}\right],$$
(36)
where $`M_{2B}=2ME_{2B}`$ and $`M_2=2ME_2`$.

The non-relativistic limit of the integrand of eq. (35) involves the change in the variable $`x`$ to $`k_z`$ in the same steps as we did in 2+1 dimensions. From eqs. (32) and (35),

$$v_{NR}(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{\sqrt{M}}{\pi ^2(\sqrt{E_{2B}}\sqrt{E_2})}\frac{d^3k}{M^2}\frac{v_{NR}(\stackrel{}{k})}{\left[E_{3B}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2M}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{2M}\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^2}{2M}\right]}.$$
(37)
In eq. (35), the Faddeev component of the ground state vertex is rotationally symmetric in the perpendicular plane, while in eq. (37) it is spherically symmetric.

The Efimov effect  appears in eq. (35). In the Efimov limit, that is reached when the two-body binding energy is zero (infinite scattering length), the nonrelativistic Faddeev equation (37) in the $`s`$wave presents an infinite number of three-body bound-states close to zero. The same limit can be identified with the Thomas collapse <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In 1935, Thomas  has shown that the triton binding energy will collapse in the zero-range limit of the two-body interaction., through a reescaling of the equation (37). In order to solve the eq. (37), we need to use a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the momentum integration to avoid the collapse of the three-boson system. In units such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`M=1`$, this equation can be written as

$$v_{NR}(\stackrel{}{z})=\frac{1}{\pi ^2(\sqrt{\epsilon _{2B}}\sqrt{\epsilon _2})}d^3z^{}\frac{v_{NR}(\stackrel{}{z}^{})\theta (1|\stackrel{}{z}^{}|)}{\left[\epsilon _{3B}\frac{z^2}{2}\frac{z^2}{2}\frac{(\stackrel{}{z}+\stackrel{}{z}^{})^2}{2}\right]},$$
(38)
where $`\epsilon _N=E_N/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ ($`N=2`$, $`2B`$ or $`3B`$). The collapse of the three-boson system occurs for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, when $`E_2`$ is fixed. The Efimov effect is manifested for $`E_{2B}0`$, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed. So, in the nonrelativistic system both effects are related by a scale transformation and correspond to the same limit $`\epsilon 0`$ (see also ref.).

The Efimov effect holds in the relativistic approach considered in this paper, but the short-range behavior is strongly modified: the Thomas collapse  of the system is avoided, due to the lower bound of the ground state mass in eq. (35), as it will be discussed in the next section.

## 4 Lower bounds to the three-boson binding energy

Returning to the relativistic equations in $`1+1`$, $`2+1`$ and $`3+1`$ dimensions, eqs. (21), (29) and (35), respectively, the lower bound for the mass of the three-boson system is obtained from the limits on the $`x`$ integration and the condition $`y>M^2/M_{3B}^2`$, which implies:

$$\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2}<1\frac{M^2}{M_{3B}^2},$$
(39)
giving the bound

$$M_{3B}>\sqrt{2}M.$$
(40)
The same inequality has been already discussed in $`3+1`$ dimensions in reference . The following inequality holds $`M+M_{2B}>M_{3B}>\sqrt{2}M`$; and, by using $`M_{2B}=2ME_{2B}`$ and $`M_{3B}=3ME_{3B}`$, we obtain $`E_{2B}<E_{3B}<(3\sqrt{2})M`$. Defining the binding energy in respect to the elastic scattering threshold of one boson and the two-boson bound state, $`B_{3B}=M+M_{2B}M_{3B}`$, the lower bound for the ratio between $`B_{3B}`$ and the two-boson binding energy is given by

$$0<\frac{B_{3B}}{E_{2B}}<(3\sqrt{2})\frac{M}{E_{2B}}1.$$
(41)
The ratio between the three-boson binding energy and the two-boson binding energy is taken to stress the universal scaling that occurs in the non-relativistic limit, in 1+1 and 2+1 space-time dimensions. However, in the relativistic domain, the boson mass is also an energy scale which is evidenced by the lower bound in eq. (41). The numerical results confirm the boson mass as a physical scale.

In 3+1 space-time dimensions, the non-relativistic limit of the three-boson system, has the collapse of the ground state if no physical cutoff to high momentum intermediate state propagation in eq. (37) exists. The two-boson binding energy in the strict non-relativistic limit is not the only physical scale and the collapse represents the emergence of a three-body scale. However, in the relativistic eq. (35), the boson mass scale matters and the collapse is avoided. As $`E_{2B}`$ goes to zero the Efimov effect is still present in the relativistic eq. (35), as the boson mass becomes irrelevant as a physical momentum scale in the non-relativistic limit . In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics the Efimov and Thomas effects are equivalent phenomena as one can verify by rescaling the two-body scattering length and interaction range , however the relativistic propagation of the bosons breaks the equivalence as the boson mass is a momentum scale that has no effect in the nonrelativistic limit, but avoids the collapse in the relativistic situation .

## 5 Numerical results and conclusion

In figure 4, for $`M=1`$, the numerical solution of the light-front Faddeev equations for the ratio between the binding energies of three-boson to the two-boson systems is shown as a function of the two-boson binding energy for $`E_{2B}<(3\sqrt{2})`$ and compared to the lower bound $`(3\sqrt{2})/E_{2B}1`$ . In (1+1) dimensions, the non-relativistic limit of eq. (21) for $`E_{2B}<<1`$, results in the nonrelativistic equation for the zero-range potential, eq. (27), which has a solution for $`B_{3B}/E_{2B}=3`$ , as is observed in figure 4. In (2+1) dimensions, the non-relativistic limit of eq. (29) is the nonrelativistic equation for the zero-range potential, eq. (33), which has a solution for $`B_{3B}/E_{2B}=15.3`$ , that we can see in figure 4 as $`E_{2B}`$ approaches zero. In (3+1) dimensions, the light-front three-boson eq. (35), even being formally similar to the nonrelativistic eq. (37), still carries the boson mass scale, due to the momentum constraints in eq. (35), and consequently $`B_{3B}`$ goes to a finite value as $`E_{2B}`$ is close to zero. It does not present the Thomas effect. The lower bound of $`B_{3B}`$ is approached by our calculation in (1+1) and (2+1) dimensions for $`E_{2B}`$ above $`0.4`$, while it overestimate the binding in (3+1) dimensions by a factor of about 3.

In conclusion, we show how to reduce the ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation for a three-boson system to the null-plane. The light-front dynamics of the three-boson bound state was performed in $`1+1`$, $`2+1`$ and $`3+1`$ space-time dimensions. The two-boson bound-state mass is used to parametrize the mass of the virtual two-body subsystem, in the renormalized two-body amplitude of the relativistic three-body Faddeev equation. With the mass of the virtual two-body subsystem constrained to real values, the momentum phase-space of the spectator particle is delimited, which implies on a lower bound to the three-body ground state energy. We compared the ground state energy obtained from the numerical solution of the light-front Faddeev equations and found that the lower bound is approached by the system ground state energy in (1+1) and (2+1) space-time dimensions in the relativistic region of the two-boson bound state energy, where it attains values around the boson mass. Since the lower bound derivation involves only phase space considerations, it seems possible to extend the present work to three-fermions systems in the light-front interacting with contact interactions.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico - CNPq and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - FAPESP.

## References