text:
# Spin Diffusion in the 𝑆=1/2 Quasi One-Dimensional Antiferromagnet 𝛼-VO(PO3)2 via 31P NMR

## 1 Introduction

There has been a continued interest in the dynamics of low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets at finite temperatures. One of the issues which has attracted renewed attention is a problem of spin diffusion in the one-dimensional (1D) Heisenberg spin chain. It is argued from phenomenology that at high enough temperatures and at long times, the spin autocorrelation function of the 1D Heisenberg spin chain has a diffusive form

$$S_i(t)S_i(0)t^{1/2},$$
(1.1)
leading to divergence of the spectral density at low frequencies as $`\omega ^{1/2}`$. However, because the diffusive form (1.1) is not derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian but is a consequence of the hydrodynamical assumption for the spin-spin correlation,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ the question on the existence of spin diffusion in 1D spin chains has been studied intensively from both theoretical and experimental viewpoints. One of the best studied theoretical models is the $`S=1/2`$ XXZ chain represented by the Hamiltonian $`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$

$$=J\underset{i}{}(S_i^xS_{i+1}^x+S_i^yS_{i+1}^y+\mathrm{\Delta }S_i^zS_{i+1}^z).$$
(1.2)
At the isotropic point ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$) and at low enough temperatures ($`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$), analytical expressions for the dynamical susceptibility $`\chi (q,\omega )`$ have been derived for $`q0`$ and $`\pi `$, and are shown to have no diffusive pole at low frequencies.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ At modestly high, or much higher temperatures compared with the intrachain coupling strength $`J`$, the problem is still controversial. Although the absence of diffusive excitations seems to be settled for the XXZ chain with planar anisotropy ($`0\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$), a definite answer for the absence (or presence) of spin diffusion at the isotropic point has not yet been given.

Diffusive behavior of the spin-spin correlation has been observed experimentally in several 1D spin chains via the $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ resonance-frequency dependence of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`1/T_1`$ at elevated temperatures.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ As to the $`S=1/2`$ chain, an analysis of the $`\omega `$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ at the Cu site in Sr2CuO3 based on the classical spin-diffusion theory gives an unusually high value of the spin diffusion constant compared with the classical value.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ This suggests the absence of spin diffusion in the low-temperature limit in consistency with the field-theoretical$`^{\text{?)}}`$ and perturbative$`^{\text{?)}}`$ approaches. On the other hand, an evidence for diffusive spin transport is found from the proton NMR measurements in CuCl2$``$2NC5H5 and Cu(C6H5COO)2$``$3H2O at temperatures well above the intrachain exchange interactions.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ Therefore, there seems to be a gap between the high- and low-temperature behavior of the spin transport in the $`S=1/2`$ chains, necessitating further experiments on the dynamics, especially on the temperature-dependent properties.

Linear chains of a V4+ ion in the compound $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 may be a model system of an $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg spin chain. $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 belongs to the monoclinic space group $`C2/c`$ and has the room-temperature lattice parameters; $`a=15.140`$ Å, $`b=4.195`$ Å, $`c=9.573`$ Å and $`\beta =120.54^{}`$.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In the $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 structure (Fig. 1), VO5 pyramids are stacked along the $`b`$ axis to make up a linear chain of V atoms with the nearest-neighbor V-V distance of 4.915 Å. The linear chains are well separated by distorted PO4 tetrahedra in the $`a`$ and $`c`$ directions, so that good one dimensionality in the $`b`$ direction is expected. In this paper, we report on the experimental study of the low-frequency spin dynamics in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 via 31P NMR. The relatively small intrachain coupling ($`J/k_\mathrm{B}=3.50`$ K estimated from the present susceptibility measurement) in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 enables us an experimental access to a wide range of temperatures not only $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$ where short-range antiferromagnetic correlations are important, but also $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$ where electronic spins behave almost paramagnetically. Crossover of the dynamics between the two temperature regimes can also be elucidated by examining the temperature-dependent behavior of, for example, the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate. This type of the experiment cannot be done in the canonical $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnetic spin-chain compound Sr2CuO3 which has a huge intrachain exchange ($`J/k_\mathrm{B}=2200`$ K)$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ being suitable for the study of low-temperature dynamics, and will give complemental information for thorough understanding of low-energy spin excitations in the $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg spin chain.

## 2 Experiments

Polycrystalline samples of $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 were prepared by a solid-state reaction method. Equimolar mixture of (VO)2P2O7 and P2O5 was fired in an evacuated silica tube at 750 C for 2 days and at 900 C for 2 days with the intermediate grinding. (VO)2P2O7 was prepared as described in ref. ?. The obtained samples were examined by the X-ray diffraction measurement and were confirmed to be a single phase. Magnetic susceptibility was measured using a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design MPMS-5s) at 0.1 T. NMR measurements were performed with a standard phase-coherent pulsed spectrometer. 31P NMR spectrum was taken by recording the spin-echo signal with a Box-car averager at a fixed frequency while sweeping the external magnetic field. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate of 31P was measured by a saturation recovery method with a single saturation rf pulse. The measured nuclear-magnetization recoveries were single exponential as expected for nuclei with spin 1/2, so that the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation time $`T_1`$ can uniquely be determined as the time constant of the recovery curve.

## 3 Results and Analysis

### 3.1 Magnetic Susceptibility

Figure 2 shows the temperature ($`T`$) dependence of the bulk magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) of $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2. While showing Curie-Weiss-like behavior at high temperatures, the susceptibility takes a rounded maximum around $`T_{\mathrm{max}}4.4`$ K as a sign of low-dimensional nature of the exchange coupling. The susceptibility can nicely be fitted to the Bonner-Fisher curve for the $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnetic spin chain (HAFC).$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ We estimated the intrachain coupling $`J`$ between V4+ spins by fitting the $`T`$ dependence of the bulk $`\chi `$ to the formula;$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

$`\chi =`$ $`\chi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{N_\mathrm{A}g^2\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}`$ (3.1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{0.25+0.14995x+0.30094x^2}{1+1.9862x+0.68854x^2+6.0626x^3}}.`$
Here $`\chi _0`$ is a $`T`$-independent part of $`\chi `$, $`N_\mathrm{A}`$ is Avogadro’s number, $`g`$ is Landé’s $`g`$ factor, $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`x=J/k_\mathrm{B}T`$. From the least-squares fit of all the available data points (1.8 to 300 K), we obtained $`\chi _0=1.05(8)\times 10^5`$ emu/mol, $`g`$ = 1.978(1) and $`J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ = 3.50(1) K. The result of the fit is shown in the inset of Fig. 2. $`\chi _0`$ may be interpreted as the Van-Vleck orbital paramagnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{\mathrm{VV}}`$, and the obtained value of $`\chi _0`$ is in a reasonable range for $`\chi _{\mathrm{VV}}`$ of a V4+ ion. The bulk $`\chi `$ deviates slightly from the Bonner-Fisher curve below about 2.2 K which may be attributed to the effect of the interchain coupling. As expected, a transition to the long-range ordered state is found to occur at 1.93 K.

### 3.2 NMR spectrum and the Knight shift

Typical examples of the field-swept 31P NMR spectrum are shown in Fig. 3. Above 2.0 K the spectrum exhibits an asymmetric pattern resulting from an axially-symmetric Knight-shift tensor. The spectrum at 2.0 K has some broadening as manifested by smearing of the fine structure which appears at higher temperatures. As the temperature is decreased further, the line becomes broader and exhibits again a characteristic shape with two shoulders on both sides of the peak (except the small one near the zero shift which probably comes from a trace of nonmagnetic impurity phases). The broadening of the spectrum signals the onset of long-range magnetic ordering of V4+ spins giving rise to a finite internal magnetic field at the P site. The ordering is considered to be antiferromagnetic because the spectrum is broadened almost symmetrically about its center-of-gravity position in the paramagnetic state. As shown in the inset of Fig. 3, the FWHM of the spectrum exhibits a sudden increase around 2.0 K which gives a rough estimate of the Néel temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$. Indeed, we determined $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ more precisely from the $`T`$ dependence of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`1/T_1`$ at the P site to be 1.93(1) K where $`1/T_1`$ is strongly peaked due to critical slowing down of the electronic spins (see Fig. 5).

The NMR spectrum below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ does not have a rectangular shape which we usually observe for nonmagnetic nuclei in collinear antiferromagnets. The observed line shape, however, can be explained as the one in the two-sublattice antiferromagnet by taking account of 1) the anisotropy of the hyperfine coupling resulting in the anisotropic Knight-shift tensor in the paramagnetic state, 2) incomplete cancellation of the transferred hyperfine fields from neighboring V4+ spins belonging to different sublattices due to the difference of the interatomic distances between V and P atoms, and 3) small tipping in the moment direction from the easy axis under the applied field of which effect is expressed by the parallel and perpendicular susceptibilities. Details of the calculation and the simulation of the spectrum will be given in the appendix, and we only mention here that as shown in Fig. 11 the observed spectrum is well reproduced using physically-reasonable parameters.

From the values of the intrachain coupling $`J`$ and the Néel temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, we can estimate the interchain coupling. The interchain coupling $`J^{}`$ may be evaluated using the expression$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

$$\frac{T_\mathrm{N}}{J}=\sqrt{\frac{z|J^{}|}{2J}}.$$
(3.2)
Substituting $`T_\mathrm{N}=1.93`$ K and $`J/k_\mathrm{B}=3.50`$ K into eq. (3.2), we obtain $`z|J^{}|/k_\mathrm{B}=2.13`$ K. If we disregard for simplicity the difference between the second and third nearest neighbor V-V distances,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ $`z=4`$ and we get the “average” interchain coupling $`|J^{}|/k_\mathrm{B}=0.53`$ K (the sign cannot be specified). The ratio $`|J^{}|/J=0.15`$ between the intra- and interchain exchange couplings is much larger than those of the other well-known examples of a 1D magnet having $`J^{}/J`$ of order $`10^2`$ or less.

A careful analysis of the line shape in the paramagnetic state enables us an independent determination of the principal values of the Knight-shift tensor.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ We plotted in Fig. 4 the $`T`$ dependence of the two independent principal components of the Knight-shift tensor, $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$, which correspond to the shift for the magnetic-field direction parallel and perpendicular to the symmetry axis at the P site, respectively. The Knight-shift tensor depends strongly on temperature and takes a maximum at 4.2 K as the bulk $`\chi `$. As shown in the inset of Fig. 4, both $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ scale with the bulk $`\chi `$ above and below the susceptibility maximum. From the linear slopes of the $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ versus $`\chi `$ plots, we determined the principal components of the hyperfine tensor at the P site to be $`A_{}=5.5(1)`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`A_{}=3.3(1)`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$. These values yield the isotropic and uniaxial components of the hyperfine coupling, $`A_{\mathrm{iso}}=(A_{}+2A_{})/3=4.1(1)`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{ax}}=(A_{}A_{})/3=1.1(1)`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, respectively. The hyperfine coupling at the P site is dominated by an isotropic transferred hyperfine field from the neighboring V4+ spins and has a small anisotropic component. $`A_{\mathrm{ax}}`$ is much larger than is expected from the classical dipolar field of the surrounding V4+ spins ($`0.18`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$) and may be attributed to polarization of anisotropic $`p`$ orbitals on the P atom.

### 3.3 Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation

Figure 5 shows the $`T`$ dependence of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`1/T_1`$ at the P site under various magnetic fields. The relaxation rate is strongly field dependent and is larger at lower fields. The field dependence becomes weaker as the temperature decreases, and $`1/T_1`$ becomes almost field-independent at 4.2 K. As to the $`T`$ dependence, $`1/T_1`$ measured at different fields have some common characteristics. At high temperatures above about 50 K, $`1/T_1`$ is only weakly $`T`$ dependent and decreases gradually on increasing temperature. On the other hand, the relaxation rate decreases rapidly below about 50 K except the rate at the field $`H=4.34`$ T showing a modest upturn in that temperature region. Note that the decrease of $`1/T_1`$ at low temperatures is more pronounced at lower fields. Below about 2.5 K, $`1/T_1`$ exhibits a critical increase toward the long-range magnetic-ordering temperature as shown in the inset of Fig. 5. The maximum of $`1/T_1`$ is observed at 1.93 K which we determined as the Néel temperature of this compound.

The strong magnetic-field ($`H`$) dependence of $`1/T_1`$ is likely to come from spin diffusion characteristic of a low-dimensional Heisenberg spin system. In one dimension the spectral density of the spin-spin correlations diverges as $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ toward $`\omega 0`$ which can be probed as $`H^{1/2}`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$. Figure 6 shows examples of the $`H`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ at the P site plotted as a function of $`H^{1/2}`$. It is clear that $`1/T_1`$ at high temperatures obeys an $`H^{1/2}`$ law indicating diffusive behavior of the spin-spin correlations. The field dependence can be fitted to the form

$$1/T_1=P+QH^{1/2}$$
(3.3)
where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are fitting constants. While the second term represents the contribution of spin diffusion near $`q=0`$, the first term includes all possible field-independent contributions to $`1/T_1`$. We analyzed the measured $`1/T_1`$ based on eq. (3.3) down to 4.2 K to parametrize the $`T`$ and $`H`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$, although the phenomenological theory of spin diffusion is justified in the limit $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$. Physical meanings of the obtained parameters will be examined in the next section. Returning to Fig. 6, the diffusive contribution proportional to $`H^{1/2}`$ dominates the nuclear-spin relaxation at 260 K. The slope in $`H^{1/2}`$ decreases monotonically with decreasing temperature while the field-independent part of $`1/T_1`$ grows up. The $`H^{1/2}`$ contribution vanishes almost entirely at 4.2 K, so that $`1/T_1`$ is governed by field-independent relaxation processes. Takigawa et al. reported a weak $`H`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in Sr2CuO3 with a decreasing slope in the $`1/T_1`$ vs $`H^{1/2}`$ plot on cooling, $`^{\text{?)}}`$ similar to the behavior of $`1/T_1`$ at the P site in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 at low temperatures.

The $`T`$ dependence of the field-independent relaxation rate $`(1/T_1)_0P`$ is shown in Fig. 7. $`(1/T_1)_0`$ is almost $`T`$ independent with the value of about $`1.0\times 10^3`$ s-1 above 50 K. Below about 50 K, on the other hand, a substantial increase of $`(1/T_1)_0`$ was observed. This is contrasted with the behavior of $`1/T_1`$ in that temperature region where $`1/T_1`$ decreases rapidly on cooling. The low-$`T`$ decrease of $`1/T_1`$ therefore results from the decrease of diffusive contribution which overrides the increasing contribution of $`(1/T_1)_0`$. It is likely that the increase of $`(1/T_1)_0`$ from the high-$`T`$ asymptotic value is caused by an enhancement of short-range AF correlations within the chain, because geometry at the P site allows intrachain AF spin fluctuations to contribute to the 31P nuclear-spin relaxation.

In Fig. 7 we also show for comparison the $`T`$ dependence of diffusive contribution $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{diff}}=1/T_1(1/T_1)_0`$ at 1.71 T. It is clear that, while govering $`1/T_1`$ at higher temperatures, $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ decreases rapidly below about 50 K. The decrease of $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ synchronizes with the increase of $`(1/T_1)_0`$, which strongly suggests some common origin for them. As mentioned above, the intrachain short-range AF correlation is a likely source for such $`T`$-dependent behavior of the nuclear-spin relaxation.

From the slope $`Q`$ of the $`1/T_1`$ versus $`H^{1/2}`$ plot, we can estimate the spin-diffusion constant $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ which determines the decay of the spin-spin correlation functions for small $`q`$ as $`S_q^x(t)S_q^x(0)\mathrm{exp}(D_\mathrm{s}q^2t)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{e}t)`$ where $`\omega _\mathrm{e}=g\mu _\mathrm{B}H/\mathrm{}`$ is the electron Larmor frequency.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ If the hyperfine coupling is predominantly isotropic which is the case for the P site in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2, the transverse component of the spectral density $`S_{xx}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_q_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\{S_q^x(t),S_q^x(0)\}`$ dominates the $`H`$-dependent part of $`1/T_1`$. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ due to spin diffusion is then given as

$$\left(\frac{1}{T_1}\right)_{\mathrm{diff}}=\frac{A^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{g^2\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}\frac{\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}}{\sqrt{2D_\mathrm{s}\omega _\mathrm{e}}}$$
(3.4)
in one dimension. Here $`A`$ is the hyperfine coupling constant in units of energy and $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ is the spin susceptibility per magnetic atom. We determined $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ using the values $`A_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ for $`A`$, $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}=(\chi \chi _0)/N_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`g`$ determined from the analysis of the susceptibility and the Knight shift. The result is shown in Fig. 8 where $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ is plotted as a function of temperature. $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ is nearly $`T`$ independent with the value of $`(68)\times 10^{11}`$ s-1 above 20 K. It agrees well with the classical limit$`^{\text{?)}}`$ $`(J/\mathrm{})\sqrt{2\pi S(S+1)/3}=5.7\times 10^{11}`$ s-1, which suggests that the spin dynamics is governed by the classical spin diffusion. On the other hand, $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ becomes unusually large below about 10 K compared with the classical value. Such an anomalously large $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ may be a signature that spin diffusion no longer describes the intrinsic dynamics of the $`S=1/2`$ HAFC at low temperatures.

## 4 Discussion

Although $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 undergoes a long-range AF transition at $`T_\mathrm{N}=1.93`$ K, the spin dynamics still possesses a one-dimensional (1D) diffusive character at high temperatures as manifested by the strong $`H^{1/2}`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$. On the one hand, a weaker field dependence of $`1/T_1`$ below about 50 K implies low-energy spin excitations being governed by different physics at lower temperatures. The change of the $`H`$-dependent behavior of $`1/T_1`$ around 50 K is nothing but an evidence for crossover between the two distinct temperature regimes of interest we mentioned in the Introduction, the paramagnetic regime $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$ at temperatures well above the intrachain exchange and the short-range-ordered (SRO) regime $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$ with strong intrachain AF correlations.

In the paramagnetic regime above about 50 K, physical quantities characterizing the dynamics such as $`1/T_1`$, $`(1/T_1)_0`$ and $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ are nearly $`T`$ independent. $`1/T_1`$ is governed by 1D diffusive spin excitation near $`q=0`$ giving rise to the $`H^{1/2}`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ at the P site. On the other hand, the field-independent relaxation rate $`(1/T_1)_0`$ remains small. The spin-diffusion constant $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ in this temperature regime is in good agreement with the value expected in the classical limit, which suggests that the observed diffusive behavior is an intrinsic property of the spin system but not an effect of the coupling with the other degrees of freedom such as phonons.$`^{\text{?)}}`$

It has been argued that the field-independent relaxation rate in the paramagnetic diffusion regime comes from the longitudinal component of the spectral density $`S_{zz}(\omega )`$, of which divergence toward $`\omega 0`$ is cutoff by interactions that break the conservation of the intrachain uniform magnetization..$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ Here we estimate such a contribution to $`(1/T_1)_0`$. The cutoff effect is taken into account phenomenologically by multiplying the exponential decay to the longitudinal diffusive spin correlation function as $`S_q^z(t)S_q^z(0)\mathrm{exp}(D_\mathrm{s}q^2t)\mathrm{exp}(\omega _\mathrm{c}t)`$ where $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ is the cutoff frequency.$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ On the assumption that the nuclear Larmor frequency is much smaller than $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$, the relaxation rate $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}`$ due to the longitudinal component with cutoff is given as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_1}}\right)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{g^2\mu _\mathrm{B}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}}{\sqrt{D_\mathrm{s}\omega _\mathrm{c}}}}`$ (4.1a)
which in the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$ can be written as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_1}}\right)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{S(S+1)}{3\sqrt{D_\mathrm{s}\omega _\mathrm{c}}}}.`$ (4.1b)
Here $`A^{}`$ is the relevant coupling constant which in the present case is of dipolar origin. An important cutoff mechanism in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 is the interchain coupling much larger than the dipolar coupling between electronic spins. Taking $`\omega _\mathrm{c}=k_\mathrm{B}J^{}/\mathrm{}7\times 10^{10}`$ s-1 and $`D_\mathrm{s}7\times 10^{11}`$ s-1, and using the dipolar coupling constant ($`0.18`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$) for $`A^{}`$, we obtain $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}=17`$ s-1 from eq. (4.1b). This is nearly two orders-of-magnitude smaller than the observed $`(1/T_1)_0`$. Even if we take smaller $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ due to the electron dipolar coupling ($``$ 0.05 K), $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}`$ is at most 54 s-1 and cannot explain the observed $`(1/T_1)_0`$. The above estimate of $`(1/T_1)_{\mathrm{cutoff}}`$ leads us to conclude that the field-independent relaxation rate $`(1/T_1)_0`$ in the paramagentic regime is determined by the mechanism other than spin diffusion, although the origin is not clear at present. It is noted that the exchange-narrowing limit of $`1/T_1`$$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ calculated using parameters for $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 as $`1/T_1\mathrm{}=2.6\times 10^3`$ s-1 cannot explain as well the value of $`(1/T_1)_0`$ at high temperatures.

Next we discuss the dynamics at low temperatures below about 50 K. An important observation in this SRO regime is a decreasing contribution of spin diffusion to $`1/T_1`$. Concurrently with a growth of intrachain AF correlations, diffusive excitations become less important as a possible channel for nuclear-spin relaxation, and at temperatures $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$ where the AF alignment of the spins along the chain is almost established, the diffusive contribution becomes essentially absent. This accompanies an increase of $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ as a fitting variable from the $`T`$-independent asymptotic value in the paramagnetic regime. The apparent increase of $`D_\mathrm{s}`$, however, seems to make no quantitative sense because $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ is estimated using eq. (3.4) which is justified in the limit $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$. It may rather suggests the classical spin-diffusion theory becoming inapplicable in the SRO regime: $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ cannot be defined as a physical-meaningful spin-diffusion constant. This may result from a qualitative change of the intrinsic dynamics of the $`S=1/2`$ HAFC from diffusive to nondiffusive, possibly propagating ones as approaching $`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$.

It should be noted that the breakdown of the classical spin-diffusion theory due to SRO does not affect the qualitative behavior of $`(1/T_1)_0`$. Since $`1/T_1`$ tends to be $`H`$-independent as the temperature decreases, it is expected that the result for $`(1/T_1)_0`$ does not depend on the precise form of $`1/T_1`$ as a function of $`H`$. We may therefore conclude that the low-$`T`$ increase of $`(1/T_1)_0`$ is not an artifact but an intrinsic property of the system. Although we cannot exclude a possibility that the unidentified $`H`$-independent contribution in the paramagnetic regime dominates $`(1/T_1)_0`$ in the SRO regime as well, it seems reasonable to consider that the increase of $`(1/T_1)_0`$ comes from a growing contribution of the AF excitation mode because $`1/T_1`$ exhibits a divergent behavior toward $`T_\mathrm{N}`$.

In summary, the low-frequency spin dynamics in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 is characterized by the two distinct temperature regimes and the crossover behavior between them. In the high-$`T`$ regime ($`TJ/k_\mathrm{B}`$) $`1/T_1`$ is dominated by the $`H`$-dependent diffusive contribution which is described quantitatively by the 1D classical spin-diffusion theory. As the temperature approaches the intrachain coupling strength $`J/k_\mathrm{B}`$, the system goes into a different regime with an almost $`H`$-independent $`1/T_1`$. If we continue to analyze $`1/T_1`$ in terms of the classical spin-diffusion theory, we observe an apparent increase of the spin-diffusion constant from the classical limit. It represents parametrically the decrease of diffusive contribution to $`1/T_1`$, and may be interpreted as a sign of crossover to the low-$`T`$ regime with nondiffusive, propagating spin excitations.

## 5 Analysis of the NMR Line Shape in the Antiferromagnetic State

The NMR line shape observed in the antiferromagnetic (AF) state is unusual and is to be examined further. We present in this appendix the derivation of the resonance condition appropriate for this specific example and may be applicable if the hyperfine coupling at the nuclear site under consideration has uniaxial symmetry. We also give the calculation of the line shape using the derived resonance condition. From comparison of the calculated spectrum with the observed one, it is shown that the observed line shape below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ is in consistency with collinear antiferromagnetic structure having two sublattices. The point of derivation is to take account of an anisotropy of the hyperfine coupling, incomplete cancellation of the transferred hyperfine fields from neighboring magnetic ions, and field-induced canting of sublattice magnetizations.

The resonance frequency $`\omega `$ for nuclei with the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio $`\gamma `$ is generally given as

$$\omega /\gamma =|𝑯_0+𝑯_\mathrm{n}|.$$
(5.1)
Here $`𝑯_0`$ and $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ are external and internal magnetic fields, respectively. Neglecting the classical dipolar field for the time being, $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ is due to the hyperfine field and is given as

$$𝑯_\mathrm{n}=\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_{ij}𝑺_j$$
(5.2)
where $`𝑺_j`$ is the electronic spin at the $`j`$-th site and $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_{ij}`$ is the hyperfine tensor between the sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. $`𝑺_j`$ fluctuates in time and hence $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ in eq. (5.1) should be the time average because we are dealing with the resonance frequency. For simplicity of notation we omit the brackets $``$ to show explicitly the time-averaging procedure and use $`𝑺_j`$ and $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ as the time-averaged quantities in the following.

In $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2, there are two neighboring V atoms in the distances 3.292 Å and 3.392 Å around the P site and the others are relatively far apart ($`4.613`$ Å). Because a transferred hyperfine coupling is generally short-ranged, we may consider a contribution of these two V atoms to $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ at the P site. Labelling these V sites as V(1) and V(2), and similarly the electronic spins as $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$, we can rewrite eq. (5.2) as

$$𝑯_\mathrm{n}=\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1𝑺_1+\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2𝑺_2$$
(5.3)
for the P site in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2. Here $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2`$ are the hyperfine tensors from V(1) and V(2) sites, respectively. Since V(1) and V(2) belong to the different AF chains, $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$ can in principle be either parallel or antiparallel in zero external field.

If $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$ are parallel, i.e., V(1) and V(2) belong to the same sublattice, $`𝑺_1=𝑺_2`$ and hence $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}=(\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2)𝑺_1`$. Because the sum $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2`$ corresponds to the hyperfine tensor in the paramagnetic state, there should be a transferred field of significant magnitude (a few kOe) at the P site. We expect in that case a usual rectangular shape of the spectrum which contradicts with the observation. We therefore assume antiparallel alignment of $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$ under zero external field which means that V(1) and V(2) belong to different sublattices.

Under nonzero external field, the sublattice moment changes its direction and magnitude slightly from the zero-field values. If the external field is smaller than the spin-flop field, the effect may be expressed by the parallel and perpendicular susceptibilities, $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$, in the AF state. It is then convenient to decompose $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$ into components parallel and perpendicular to the easy axis for the sublattice moment as $`𝑺_j=𝑺_j+𝑺_j(j=1,2)`$ and similarly the external field as $`𝑯_0=𝑯_0+𝑯_0`$ (Fig. 9). The following relations hold between the susceptibilities and the parallel and perpendicular components of $`𝑺_1`$, $`𝑺_2`$ and $`𝑯_0`$;

$$𝑺_1+𝑺_2=2\chi _{}𝑯_0,$$
(5.4a)
$$𝑺_1+𝑺_2=2\chi _{}𝑯_0.$$
(5.4b)
Here $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ are defined as the susceptibilities per magnetic atom. Defining $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}=\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒂}=\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2`$, eq. (5.3) can be written as

$`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0+\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0`$ (5.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{𝒂}(𝑺_1𝑺_2)+\stackrel{~}{𝒂}(𝑺_1𝑺_2)]`$
$``$ $`\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0+\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0+\stackrel{~}{𝒂}𝑺_1.`$ (5.6)
On going from (5.5) to (5.6) we used the approximations $`𝑺_1𝑺_2`$ and $`𝑺_1𝑺_2`$. The first and second terms in eq. (5.6) correspond to the hyperfine field resulting from canting of $`𝑺_1`$ and $`𝑺_2`$ from the easy axis under nonzero external field. The third term represents the hyperfine field due to the difference between $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}_2`$. Putting $`\stackrel{~}{𝒂}𝑺_1=𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ in eq. (5.6) gives a more convenient form for $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$;

$$𝑯_\mathrm{n}=\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0+\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝑨}𝑯_0+𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}.$$
(5.7)
As has been pointed out, $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ comes from uncancellation of the hyperfine fields from the two neighboring V atoms.

In deriving the expression of the resonance condition from which the line shape is calculated, we have to take some orthogonal frame and specify the directions of $`𝑯_0`$ and $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$. It is reasonable to take the principal frame of the hyperfine tensor $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ at the P site in which $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ is diagonalized and the principal values are known from the experiment. Taking the $`z`$ axis as the unique axis of the tensor $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ having axial symmetry, we denote the directions of the easy axis and the external field $`𝑯_0`$ by the polar and azimuth angles as shown in Fig. 10. The easy axis can be taken to lie in the $`zx`$ plane so that $`\phi _\mathrm{n}=0`$ without loss of generality because of the axial symmetry of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$. For the field $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ we assume that it is in the direction of the easy axis for simplicity. This is equivalent to neglect the anisotropy of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒂}`$. It is noted that with this assumption, the classical dipolar field may be included in $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ so that $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ is regarded as the sum of classical dipolar and hyperfine fields, because the dipolar field is a likely source for the anisotropy field in the $`S=1/2`$ system and may be taken to be parallel to the easy axis.

Our aim is to express the resonance frequency $`\omega `$ as a function of the angles $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{n}`$, and the field strength $`H_0=|𝑯_0|`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}=|𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}|`$. The angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ distribute randomly in the polycrystalline sample, so that a specific line shape called powder pattern is observed. In the principal frame of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$, $`𝑯_0`$ and $`𝑯_\mathrm{n}`$ are written explicitly as follows;

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑨}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_x& & \\ & A_y& \\ & & A_z\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{}& & \\ & A_{}& \\ & & A_{}\end{array}\right),$$
(5.8a)
$$𝑯_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_xH_0\\ b_yH_0\\ b_zH_0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_0\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ H_0\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ H_0\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(5.8b)
$$𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}c_xH_{\mathrm{n0}}\\ 0\\ c_zH_{\mathrm{n0}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_{\mathrm{n0}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{n}\\ 0\\ H_{\mathrm{n0}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{n}\end{array}\right).$$
(5.8c)
$`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are the principal values of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ which can be determined from the $`K`$-$`\chi `$ plots in the paramagnetic state. $`𝑯_0`$ is just the projection of $`𝑯_0`$ onto $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$, and hence $`𝑯_0`$ and $`𝑯_0`$ can also be written down by components. Substituting eq. (5.7) into eq. (5.1) and writing explicitly the components in the principal frame of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ using eqs. (5.8c), we get after lengthy calculations

$`\omega ^2=\omega _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\omega _{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\omega _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (5.9a)
with

$`\omega _x/\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`[\{1+A_{}(c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})\}b_x`$
$`+A_{}(\chi _{}\chi _{})c_xc_zb_z]H_0+c_xH_{\mathrm{n0}},`$
$`\omega _y/\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`(1+A_{}\chi _{})b_yH_0,`$ (5.9b)
$`\omega _z/\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`[\{1+A_{}(c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})\}b_z`$
$`+A_{}(\chi _{}\chi _{})c_xc_zb_x]H_0+c_zH_{\mathrm{n0}}.`$
Note that $`\chi _{}(\chi _{})`$ is not the susceptibility for the $`z(x,y)`$ direction(s) in the principal frame of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑨}`$ but the one parallel (perpendicular) to the easy axis. Neglecting the terms of $`O(A^2\chi ^2)`$, and using the relations $`b_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+b_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+b_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$ and $`c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$, eq. (5) can be rewritten as

$`\omega ^2/\gamma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+H_{\mathrm{n0}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2(b_xc_x+b_zc_z)H_0H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$
$`+`$ $`2[A_{}(c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{}\chi _{}b_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+A_{}(c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+(A_{}+A_{})(\chi _{}\chi _{})b_xb_zc_xc_z]H_0^2`$
$`+`$ $`2[A_{}(c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_xc_x`$
$`+A_{}(c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_zc_z`$
$`+A_{}(\chi _{}\chi _{})c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_xc_x`$
$`+A_{}(\chi _{}\chi _{})c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_zc_z]H_0H_{\mathrm{n0}}.`$
Equation (5) is valid for arbitrary strength of $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ as far as the conditions $`A\chi 1`$ are satisfied.

If $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ is much larger than $`A\chi `$, eq. (5) may be simplified as

$$\omega ^2/\gamma ^2=H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+H_{\mathrm{n0}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2(b_xc_x+b_zc_z)H_0H_{\mathrm{n0}}$$
(5.11a)
which, by denoting the angle between $`𝑯_0`$ and $`𝑯_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ as $`\beta `$, reduces to

$$\omega ^2/\gamma ^2=H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+H_{\mathrm{n0}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2H_0H_{\mathrm{n0}}\mathrm{cos}\beta .$$
(5.11b)
Random distribution of $`\beta `$ in the polycrystalline sample yields a usual rectangular shape of the spectrum.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

If $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$ is much smaller than $`H_0`$ but is comparable with $`A\chi `$ which is the case here, we may neglect in eq. (5) the terms proportional to $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ or $`A\chi H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$. Hence we arrive at the final expression of the resonance frequency;

$`\omega /\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`H_0+[A_{}(c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{}\chi _{}b_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+A_{}(c_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{}+c_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _{})b_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+(A_{}+A_{})(\chi _{}\chi _{})b_xb_zc_xc_z]H_0`$
$`+(b_xc_x+b_zc_z)H_{\mathrm{n0}},`$
or writing explicitly the dependence on the angles as

$`\omega /\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`H_0+[A_{}(\chi _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{n}+\chi _{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{n})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi `$
$`+A_{}\chi _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\phi `$
$`+A_{}(\chi _{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{n}+\chi _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{n})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(A_{}+A_{})(\chi _{}\chi _{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _\mathrm{n}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ]H_0`$
$`+(\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{n}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{n}\mathrm{cos}\theta )H_{\mathrm{n0}}.`$
For the field-sweep measurement the resonance frequency $`\omega `$ is fixed while the external field $`H_0`$ is varied. It is therefore necessary to solve eq. (5) with respect to $`H_0`$, the result of which is not given here explicitly because it is rather straightforward. Then we calculate the spectrum $`f(H_0)\mathrm{\Delta }N/\mathrm{\Delta }H_0`$ by counting the number of nuclei $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ having the resonance field between $`H_0`$ and $`H_0+\mathrm{\Delta }H_0`$. More than million different $`(\theta ,\phi )`$ points representing the random distribution of $`H_0`$ were taken to calculate the resonance field. The unknowns $`H_{\mathrm{n0}}`$, $`\theta _\mathrm{n}`$, $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ in (5) are treated as parameters to reproduce the observed spectrum. As shown in Fig. 11, an appropriate choice of the parameter values reproduces the observed two-shoulder structure of the spectrum in the AF state. We may therefore conclude that the magnetic ordering in $`\alpha `$-VO(PO3)2 is not unusual but is rather conventional.


format: text

text:
# Possible Supersymmetric Effects on Angular Distributions in 𝐵→𝐾^∗(→𝐾𝜋)ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ Decays

## I Introduction

Rare decays of $`B`$ meson, $`e.g.`$ $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, are the most suitable candidates for study of new physics beyond the standard model (SM). Since their branching fractions are usually very small within the SM predictions, they can sometimes show up new physics with unexpectedly large values of decay rates. The decay $`bs\gamma `$, which has been already measured by the CLEO Collaboration , has shown that there is not much extra parameter space for its branching fraction from new physics . The decay $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ suffers from severe backgrounds of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ resonance contributions in the measurement of branching fraction, and so it may not be easy to uncover new physics cleanly . However, a number of methods have been discussed to detect new physics through the details of the decay process, such as differential distributions or polarization effects .

Recently a new method utilizing the angular distribution of $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ has been proposed . Imagine the decay configuration when $`K^{}`$ is emitted to the direction of $`+z`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ is emitted to the opposite direction in the rest frame of $`B`$ meson. Here $`\gamma ^{}`$ is off-shell photon and it further decays into $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and $`K^{}`$ subsequently decays into $`K\pi `$. If we ignore small mixture of the longitudinal component, the angular momentum of $`K^{}`$ is either $`J_z=+1`$ or $`J_z=1`$, and the corresponding production amplitude is proportional to $`C_{7R}`$ or $`C_{7L}`$, respectively. Suppose the final $`K`$ meson is emitted to the direction of $`(\theta _K,\varphi )`$ in the rest frame of $`K^{}`$, where $`\theta _K`$ is a polar angle and $`\varphi `$ is an azimuthal angle between the decay plane of ($`K\pi `$) and the decay plane of ($`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$). In the low invariant $`m_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ region, electromagnetic operator terms are dominated and the decay amplitude for the whole process is proportional to

$$AC_{7L}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )+BC_{7R}\mathrm{exp}(+i\varphi )+C,$$

where $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are the real functions of the other angles.

In this new method, we can distinguish the new physics contribution from that of the SM even if the branching fraction of the decay is similar to the prediction of the SM: In the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays the probability of $`B`$ meson decaying to left-handed (or right-handed) circular polarized $`K^{}`$ is proportional to $`|C_{7L}|^2`$ (or $`|C_{7R}|^2`$), and therefore the polarization measurement of $`K^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ is useful for extracting the ratio of $`|C_{7L}|/|C_{7R}|`$. Even though the polarization of high energy real photon cannot be measured easily, we can still get some useful information through the azimuthal angle distribution in the low invariant mass region of dileptons for $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay. This is because the decay products of $`K^{}`$ and the virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$ are responsible for this polarization measurements. In the SM, the operator $`O_{7L}`$ is dominant and the operator $`O_{7R}`$ is suppressed by $`𝒪(m_s/m_b)`$. In this case, the angular distribution of the decay products is a flat function of the angle $`\varphi `$ in the small lepton invariant mass region. If there is new physics contribution, the contribution of both operators can be equally important . We can distinguish the new physics signal easily from the angular distribution of the decay $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, while the measured branching fraction for $`BX_s\gamma `$ can still be accommodated.

In this paper, we extend this method to calculate the angular distribution of $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in generalized supersymmetry models (gSUSYs). In addition to the operator $`O_{7R}`$, we also consider the new operators $`O_{9R}`$ and $`O_{10R}`$. In the following section, we derive the general formula for the various angular distributions including the new operators. Section III is devoted to the numerical analysis and discussions in gSUSYs.

## II Angular Distributions of the decay $`BK^{}(K+\pi )+\mathrm{}^++\mathrm{}^{}`$

We start with the general effective Hamiltonian for the corresponding $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay ,

$`_{eff}(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=7}{\overset{10}{}}}(C_{iL}O_{iL}+C_{iR}O_{iR}).`$ (1)
The operators $`O_i`$ relevant for us are

$`O_{7L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{em_b}{4\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }b_R)F^{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
$`O_{7R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{em_b}{4\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}_R\sigma _{\mu \nu }b_L)F^{\mu \nu },`$ (3)
$`O_{8L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{4\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_RG_{\mu \nu }^a`$ (4)
$`O_{8R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{4\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}_R\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_LG_{\mu \nu }^a,`$ (5)
$`O_{9L}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}b)_L(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})_V,`$ (6)
$`O_{9R}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}b)_R(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})_V,`$ (7)
$`O_{10L}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}b)_L(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})_A,`$ (8)
$`O_{10R}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}b)_R(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})_A,`$ (9)
where in addition to the SM operators $`O_{7L}`$, $`O_{8L}`$, $`O_{9L}`$ and $`O_{10L}`$, we include new operators $`O_{7R}`$, $`O_{8R}`$, $`O_{9R}`$ and $`O_{10R}`$. The new physics effects can originate from any of the above operators. The operator $`O_{7R}`$ has already been introduced in Ref. , while the operators $`O_{9R}`$ and $`O_{10R}`$ are newly introduced in this paper. The operator $`O_8`$ is a chromo-magnetic dipole operator.

Relegating the details to Ref. , we introduce the helicity amplitudes for the decay

$$BK^{}(K(p_K)+\pi (p_\pi ))+\mathrm{}^+(p_+)+\mathrm{}^{}(p_{}),$$

which can be expressed by

$`H_{+1}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_L+c_L\sqrt{\lambda }\right),`$ (10)
$`H_1^L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_Lc_L\sqrt{\lambda }\right),`$ (11)
$`H_0^L`$ $`=`$ $`a_L{\displaystyle \frac{PL}{pl}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_L\lambda }{pl}},`$ (12)
$`H_{+1}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_R+c_R\sqrt{\lambda }\right),`$ (13)
$`H_1^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_Rc_R\sqrt{\lambda }\right),`$ (14)
$`H_0^R`$ $`=`$ $`a_R{\displaystyle \frac{PL}{pl}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_R\lambda }{pl}},`$ (15)
with $`P=p_K+p_\pi `$, $`L=p_++p_{}`$, $`p=\sqrt{P^2}`$, $`l=\sqrt{L^2}`$, and $`\lambda =(m_B^2p^2l^2)^2/4p^2l^2`$. And $`a_R,b_R,c_R`$ and $`a_L,b_L,c_L`$ are given by

$`a_L`$ $`=`$ $`C_7\left[2(PL)g_++L^2(g_++g_{})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(C_9C_{10})f}{2m_b}}L^2,`$ (16)
$`b_L`$ $`=`$ $`2C_7(g_+L^2h){\displaystyle \frac{(C_9C_{10})a_+}{m_b}}L^2,`$ (17)
$`c_L`$ $`=`$ $`2C_{7+}g_++{\displaystyle \frac{(C_{9+}C_{10+})g}{m_b}}L^2,`$ (18)
$`a_R`$ $`=`$ $`C_7\left[2(PL)g_++L^2(g_++g_{})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(C_9+C_{10})f}{2m_b}}L^2,`$ (19)
$`b_R`$ $`=`$ $`2C_7(g_+L^2h){\displaystyle \frac{(C_9+C_{10})a_+}{m_b}}L^2,`$ (20)
$`c_R`$ $`=`$ $`2C_{7+}g_++{\displaystyle \frac{(C_{9+}+C_{10+})g}{m_b}}L^2,`$ (21)
where the form factors $`g`$, $`g_+`$, $`g_{}`$, $`f`$, $`h`$ and $`a^+`$ of $`BK^{}`$ decay are defined in Refs. . We introduced the Wilson coefficients $`C_{7,7+,9,9+,10,10+}`$ as

$`C_7`$ $`=`$ $`C_{7R}C_{7L},C_{7+}=C_{7R}+C_{7L},`$ (22)
$`C_9`$ $`=`$ $`C_{9R}C_{9L},C_{9+}=C_{9R}+C_{9L},`$ (23)
$`C_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10R}C_{10L},C_{10+}=C_{10R}+C_{10L}.`$ (24)
Using the above helicity amplitudes, the angular distribution of $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is expressed by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^5\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dp^2dl^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _Kd\mathrm{cos}\theta _+d\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_F^2g_{K^{}K\pi }^2\sqrt{\lambda }p^2m_b^2|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}{64\times 8(2\pi )^8m_B^3l^2[(p^2m_K^{}^2)^2+m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}^2]}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+(|H_0^R|^2+|H_0^L|^2)`$ (33)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _+)(|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2)`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)]`$
$`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}2\theta _+[\mathrm{cos}\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_0^R+H_1^RH_0^R+H_{+1}^LH_0^L+H_1^LH_0^L)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_0^RH_1^RH_0^R+H_{+1}^LH_0^LH_1^LH_0^L)]`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K\mathrm{cos}\theta _+(|H_{+1}^R|^2|H_1^R|^2|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2)`$
$`+2\mathrm{sin}\theta _+\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K[\mathrm{cos}\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_0^RH_1^RH_0^RH_{+1}^LH_0^L+H_1^LH_0^L)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_0^R+H_1^RH_0^RH_{+1}^LH_0^LH_1^LH_0^L)]\}.`$
Here we introduced the various angles as: $`\theta _K`$ is the polar angle of the $`K`$ meson momentum in the rest system of the $`K^{}`$ meson with respect to the helicity axis, i.e. the outgoing direction of $`K^{}`$. Similarly $`\theta _+`$ is the polar angle of the positron in the $`\gamma ^{}`$ rest system with respect to the helicity axis of the $`\gamma ^{}`$. And $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the planes of the two decays $`K^{}K\pi `$ and $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$.

If we integrate out the angles $`\theta _K`$ and $`\theta _+`$, we get the $`\varphi `$ distribution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_F^2g_{K^{}K\pi }^2\sqrt{\lambda }p^2m_b^2|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}{9\times 16(2\pi )^8m_B^3l^2[(p^2m_K^{}^2)^2+m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}^2]}}\{|H_0^R|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2`$ (36)
$`|H_0^L|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)\}dp^2dl^2.`$
Similarly, we can get the $`\theta _K`$ and $`\theta _+`$ angular distributions as following:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _K}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )\alpha ^2G_F^2g_{K^{}K\pi }^2\sqrt{\lambda }p^2m_b^2|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}{3\times 64(2\pi )^8m_B^3l^2[(p^2m_K^{}^2)^2+m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}^2]}}\{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K(|H_0^R|^2`$ (38)
$`+|H_0^L|^2)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K(|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2)\}dp^2dl^2,`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )\alpha ^2G_F^2g_{K^{}K\pi }^2\sqrt{\lambda }p^2m_b^2|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}{6\times 64(2\pi )^8m_B^3l^2[(p^2m_K^{}^2)^2+m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}^2]}}\{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+(|H_0^R|^2+|H_0^L|^2)`$ (40)
$`+(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)^2(|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^R|^2)+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)^2(|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^L|^2)\}dp^2dl^2.`$
Taking the narrow resonance limit of $`K^{}`$ meson, i.e. using the equations

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{K^{}K\pi }^2m_K^{}}{48\pi }},`$ (41)
$`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{}}{(p^2m_K^{}^2)^2+m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}^2}}=\pi \delta (p^2m_K^{}^2),`$ (42)
we can perform the integration over $`p^2`$ and obtain the double differential branching fraction with respect to dilepton mass squared $`l^2`$ and angle variables,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2d\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _B{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{384\pi ^5}}\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}l^2}}|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\{|H_0^R|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2`$ (45)
$`+|H_0^L|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _K}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _B{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{384\pi ^5}}\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}l^2}}|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K(|H_0^R|^2+|H_0^L|^2)`$ (47)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K(|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2)\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _+}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _B{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{384\pi ^5}}\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}l^2}}|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _+(|H_0^R|^2+|H_0^L|^2)`$ (49)
$`+(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)^2(|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^R|^2)+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)^2(|H_1^L|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2)\},`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _B{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{384\pi ^5}}\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}l^2}}|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2\{|H_0^R|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2`$ (51)
$`+|H_0^L|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2\},`$
where $`\tau _B`$ is the life time of $`B`$ meson, and we replace all $`p`$ by $`m_K^{}`$ due to the $`\delta `$ function.

Finally, to eliminate the constant factors in Eq. (45), we define the normalized distribution,

$`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2d\varphi }}\right]/\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dBr}{dl^2}}\right]`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\varphi Re(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi Im(H_{+1}^RH_1^R+H_{+1}^LH_1^L)}{|H_0^R|^2+|H_{+1}^R|^2+|H_1^R|^2+|H_0^L|^2+|H_{+1}^L|^2+|H_1^L|^2}}\right\},`$ (53)
where $`\widehat{s}=l^2/m_B^2`$. The distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ is the probability for finding $`K`$ meson per unit radian region in the direction of azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. Therefore, the normalized distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ oscillates around its average value given by $`\frac{1}{2\pi }0.16`$.

## III Gluino Mediated Flavor Changing Neutral Current and its Numerical Analyses

In this section we consider the flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) in generalized supersymmetric models (gSUSYs). In gSUSYs, the soft mass terms for sfermions can lead to potentially large FCNC . In the mass-insertion-approximation (MIA) , one chooses a basis for fermion and sfermion states, in which all the couplings of these particles to neutral gauginos are flavor diagonal. Flavor changes in the squark sector are provided by the non-diagonality of the sfermion propagators, which can be expressed in terms of the dimensionless parameters $`(\delta _{ij}^q)_{MN}`$,

$`(\delta _{ij}^q)_{MN}={\displaystyle \frac{(m_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{q}})_{MN}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}}}(M,N=L,R),`$ (54)
where $`(m_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{q}})_{MN}^2`$ are the off-diagonal elements of the $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ mass squared matrix that mixes flavor $`i,j`$ for both left- and right-handed scalars, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the average squark mass. The expressions for the Wilson coefficients at $`M_W`$ scale due to the FCNC gluino exchange diagrams  are

$`C_{7L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha _s}{9\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left[\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{LL}M_3(x)+\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{LR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}M_1(x)\right],`$ (55)
$`C_{8L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s}{\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left[\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{LL}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}M_3(x)+3M_4(x)\right)+\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{LR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}M_1(x)+3M_2(x)\right)\right],`$ (56)
$`C_{9L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \alpha _s}{9\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{LL}P_1(x),`$ (57)
and

$`C_{7R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha _s}{9\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left[\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{RR}M_3(x)+\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{RL}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}M_1(x)\right],`$ (58)
$`C_{8R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s}{\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left[\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{RR}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}M_3(x)+3M_4(x)\right)+\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{RL}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}M_1(x)+3M_2(x)\right)\right],`$ (59)
$`C_{9R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \alpha _s}{9\sqrt{2}G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2\lambda _t}}\left(\delta _{23}^d\right)_{RR}P_1(x),`$ (60)
with $`\lambda _tV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}`$. The functions $`M_{1,3}(x)`$ and $`P_1(x)`$ are defined as

$`M_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+4x5x^2+(4x+2x^2)\mathrm{ln}x}{2(1x)^4}},`$ (61)
$`M_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2{\displaystyle \frac{54xx^2+(2+4x)\mathrm{ln}x}{2(1x)^4}},`$ (62)
$`M_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+9x+9x^217x^3+(18x^2+6x^3)\mathrm{ln}x}{12(x1)^5}},`$ (63)
$`M_4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{19x+9x^2+x^36(x+x^2)\mathrm{ln}x}{6(x1)^5}},`$ (64)
$`P_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16x+18x^210x^33x^4+12x^3\mathrm{ln}x}{18(x1)^5}},`$ (65)
where $`xm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is gluino mass.

In addition to the above gSUSYs contributions, the usual SM contributions $`C_{7L}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`C_{8L}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`C_{9L}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, and $`C_{10L}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ are already known for years, which we will not show here. Please look at Refs.  for details of the SM contributions. Including the QCD corrections, we get the Wilson coefficients at $`m_b`$ scale as

$`C_{7L}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`0.31+0.67C_{7L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)+0.09C_{8L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W),`$ (66)
$`C_{7R}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`0.67C_{7R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)+0.09C_{8R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W),`$ (67)
$`C_{9L}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{9L}^{\mathrm{SM}}(m_b)+C_{9L}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W),`$ (68)
$`C_{9R}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{9R}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W).`$ (69)
Here, $`0.31`$ in Eq. (66) is the SM value of $`C_{7L}(m_b)`$. New physics contributions $`C_{iL}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$, $`C_{iR}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}(M_W)`$ come from Eqs. (57,60). For $`C_{10}`$, there is no new physics contribution,

$`C_{10L}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10L}^{\mathrm{SM}}(m_b),`$ (70)
$`C_{10R}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (71)
Then we can get the complete formula for angular distributions of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, Eq. (53).

The operators $`O_{7L}`$ and $`O_{7R}`$ contribute to the rare radiative decay $`bs\gamma `$. Their Wilson coefficients have been constrained by the experimental measurements of the decay. The decay width for inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ decay is given in terms of the operators $`O_{7L}`$ and $`O_{7R}`$. It is convenient to normalize this radiative partial width to the semileptonic decay $`bce\overline{\nu }`$ in terms of the ratio $`R`$,

$$R\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bce\overline{\nu })}=\frac{6}{\pi }\frac{|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2}\frac{\alpha _{em}}{f(m_c/m_b)}\frac{|C_{7L}(m_b)|^2+|C_{7R}(m_b)|^2}{1\frac{2}{3\pi }\alpha _s(m_b)g(m_c/m_b)},$$
(72)
where the functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ are phase space and QCD correction factors , respectively. The $`bs\gamma `$ branching fraction is obtained by

$$(bs\gamma )(BX_cl\nu )_{\mathrm{exp}.}\times R(0.105)\times R.$$
(73)
For $`(bs\gamma )`$, we use the present experimental value  of the branching fraction for the inclusive $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay,

$$(BX_s\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^4.$$
(74)
Constrained by this experiment, we derive from Eq. (72)

$$|C_{7L}(m_b)|^2+|C_{7R}(m_b)|^2=0.081\pm 0.014.$$
(75)
In the numerical calculations, we use the form factors calculated in Ref. . They are listed in Table I for zero momentum transfer. The evolution formula for these form factors is

$$f_i(l^2)=\frac{f_i(0)}{1\sigma _1l^2+\sigma _2l^4},$$
(76)
where $`l^2=(p_\mathrm{}^++p_{\mathrm{}^{}})^2`$. The corresponding values $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ for each form factors are also listed in Table 1.

The decay $`BK^{}+J/\psi (\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ is a possible background for our $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay at the $`J/\psi `$ resonance region, so as the $`\psi ^{}`$, $`etc`$. Therefore, only the low invariant mass region of the lepton pair is good for clean measurements. The helicity amplitudes are dominated by the two coefficients $`C_{7L}`$ and $`C_{7R}`$ in the region of low invariant mass, as given by

$`H_{+1}^{L,R}`$ $``$ $`4g_+C_{7R}\sqrt{\lambda },`$ (77)
$`H_1^{L,R}`$ $``$ $`4g_+C_{7L}\sqrt{\lambda },`$ (78)
$`H_0^{L,R}`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (79)
In the small invariant mass limit $`\widehat{s}1`$, $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$, defined in Eq. (53), is approximately written as,

$`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{1+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{Re(C_{7R}C_{7L}^{})}{|C_{7R}|^2+|C_{7L}|^2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{Im(C_{7R}C_{7L}^{})}{|C_{7R}|^2+|C_{7L}|^2}}\right\}.`$ (80)
In the SM case, $`C_{7R}0`$ and therefore the above approximate formula is reduced to

$`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}0)_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}.`$ (81)
In Fig. 1 we can see that it is almost a constant distribution of $`\varphi `$ in the small $`\widehat{s}`$ region. As $`\widehat{s}`$ increases, the contributions from the operator $`O_9`$ and $`O_{10}`$ makes $`(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ behavior. However, the new physics contributions can give quite different distributions depending on the model, and we can probe new physics efficiently. Here we discuss the gSUSYs contribution to the distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$. For simplicity, we assume that $`|\delta _{LR}|=|\delta _{RL}|`$ and $`|\delta _{LL}|=|\delta _{RR}|`$, and consider two cases: LR mixing dominating case and LL mixing dominating case.

First we consider the LR mixing dominating situation, $`i.e.`$ $`|\delta _{LL}||\delta _{RR}||\delta _{LR}||\delta _{RL}|`$. Fig. 2 shows the distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ for $`\delta _{LR}=\delta _{RL}=|\lambda _t|`$ case with $`x=0.3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=960`$ GeV. This corresponds to $`C_{7L}=0.017`$ and $`C_{7R}=0.333`$. Since $`C_{7L}C_{7R}`$ and both are real, the approximate formula (80) becomes

$$r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}1)\frac{1}{2\pi }\left\{1+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi \left|\frac{C_{7L}}{C_{7R}}\right|\right\}.$$
(82)
This $`(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ behavior is shown in Fig. 2. On the other hand, Fig. 3 shows the distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ for $`\delta _{LR}=\delta _{RL}=|\lambda _t|`$ case with $`x=0.3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=960`$ GeV. This corresponds to $`C_{7L}=0.017`$ and $`C_{7R}=0.333`$. In this case the approximate formula (80) becomes

$$r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}1)\frac{1}{2\pi }\left\{1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi \left|\frac{C_{7L}}{C_{7R}}\right|\right\}.$$
(83)
This $`(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ behavior is shown in Fig. 3 explicitly for the small $`\widehat{s}`$ region. In Figs. 2 and 3, we used the same values of $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$: The branching fractionss of both $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are unchanged for the two situations, and we cannot separate these two situations by using only branching fraction measurements. However, we can see that the angular distributions, shown in Figs. 2 and 3, can easily distinguish the relative sign of $`\delta _{LR}`$ and $`\delta _{RL}`$.

For the LL mixing dominating case, $`i.e.`$ $`|\delta _{LR}||\delta _{RL}||\delta _{LL}||\delta _{RR}|`$, we also show two cases. First we choose $`\delta _{LL}=\delta _{RR}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}`$, with $`x=0.8`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=250`$ GeV. This corresponds to $`C_{7L}=0.16+i0.15`$ and $`C_{7R}=+0.15+i0.15`$, $`i.e.`$ $`C_{7R}/C_{7L}e^{i\frac{3\pi }{2}}`$ case. Using this set of parameters, the formula (80) becomes

$`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \right\}.`$ (84)
Fig. 4 shows this $`(\mathrm{sin}2\varphi )`$ behavior clearly. On the other hand, Fig. 5 shows the distribution $`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s})`$ for $`\delta _{LL}=\delta _{RR}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}`$ case with $`x=0.8`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=250`$ GeV. This corresponds to $`C_{7L}=0.16+i0.15`$ and $`C_{7R}=0.15i0.15`$, i.e, $`C_{7R}/C_{7L}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ case. The approximate formula becomes

$`r(\varphi ,\widehat{s}1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \right\}.`$ (85)
The $`(\mathrm{sin}2\varphi )`$ behavior is shown in Fig. 5. From Figs. 4 and 5, we can see that the angular distribution can distinguish the relative phase between $`\delta _{LL}`$ and $`\delta _{RR}`$ easily, even if we use the same values of parameters, $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$.

The polar angle distribution functions in Eqs. (47,49) depend only on the modular square terms of the helicity amplitudes, which give the decay width of the semileptonic decay. If the branching fraction is fixed by experiments, these two angle distributions cannot distinguish new physics contribution from the SM. On the other hand, they can serve as a double check of whether the branching fraction is different from the SM predictions.

In conclusion, we have calculated the angular distribution of the rare decay, $`BK^{}+(K\pi )+\mathrm{}^++\mathrm{}^{}`$, in general supersymmetric extensions of the standard model. The azimuthal angle ($`\varphi `$) distribution in gSUSYs can be quite different from that of the SM, while the measured branching fraction for $`BX_s\gamma `$ can be accommodated within the standard model prediction. In the standard model it is found to be almost a constant under the variation of the angle $`\varphi `$ in small invariant mass region, while in gSUSYs the distribution can show $`(\pm \mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ or $`(\pm \mathrm{sin}2\varphi )`$ behavior depending on the gSUSYs parameters. We showed that the angular distribution of the decay can tell us the new physics effects clearly from the behavior of the distribution, even if new physics does not change the decay rate substantially: We would be able to tell the relative phase between the mixing parameters $`\delta _{LR}`$ and $`\delta _{RL}`$ (or $`\delta _{LL}`$ and $`\delta _{RR}`$), even though the decay rate of gSUSYs were exactly the same as that of the SM.

## Acknowledgement

We thank G. Cvetic and T. Morozumi for careful reading of the manuscript and their valuable comments. The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by Seo-Am (SBS) Foundation, in part by BK21 Project, SRC Program and Grant No. 2000-1-11100-003-1 of the KOSEF, and in part by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077. The work of Y.G.K. is supported by JSPS.


text:
# Polarization tensors in a strong magnetic field

## I Introduction

The strong magnetic field is attracting attentions of astrophysicists these days. It has been known that the magnetized vacuum shows interesting features as the magnetic field strength exceeds a critical value $`B_c=m_e^2/e4\times 10^{13}`$. Since this value is so large even in the universe compared, for example, with the canonical magnetic field of $`10^{12}`$G for a pulsar, that it was supposed that this was a subject of academic interest only. This has been changing drastically recently.

Some observations  suggest the existence of neutron stars with a magnetic field far greater ($`10^{15}`$G) than the canonical one for the observed pulsars, and they are called a magnetar as dubbed by Duncun and Thompson . As the reality of very large magnetic fields looms, some researchers speculated further that some other peculiar extraterrestrial phenomena might also involve a very strong magnetic fields. Among them are gamma ray bursts and hypernovae . It is supposed for the latter that a jet is somehow produced in these objects and the dipolar magnetic field is playing an essential role for that. On the other hand, some models for the gamma ray bursts are employing the magnetic fields to extract enormous energy of the phenomenon itself . Furthermore, the evidence of generic asymmetry for collapse-driven supernovae has been accumulated , and the strong magnetic field might have some implications for the ordinary supernova if the magnetar as observed is the end product of the supernova explosion and the observed asymmetry is a dynamical consequence involving the strong magnetic field . The fast proper motion of young pulsars might be explained by the combination of the strong magnetic fields and some processes such as neutrino oscillations, for example . The explosion mechanism of the supernova will be changed substantially as well as nucleosynthesis therein.

It is, therefore, not only of academic interest to consider the features of the strongly magnetized vacuum. In particular, the quantum electrodynamical processes are most important, since those objects quoted above are mostly observed by electromagnetic waves, though the weak interactions are no less important . The study of the strongly magnetized vacuum has a long history, though. Adler , for example, gave detailed formulations for the polarization tensor and the photon splitting rate as well as some useful analytic expressions for limit cases (see also  and the references therein for many other contributions). Astrophysicists have used these approximate formulae for their model building .

Those analytic expressions are approximate ones, though, valid for some limit cases such as the strong or weak magnetic field limits and the zero photon energy limit. It appears that we are lacking the complementary numerical evaluations of the polarization tensor for the intermediate values of magnetic field strength and/or photon energy. It is the purpose of the paper to fill this gap and give the interpolation formula based on the fitting to the numerical integrations. Our interest is, however, also directed to the dispersive relation of photon in the strongly magnetized plasma. In the last section we will extend the Schwinger’s formulation and give the expression for the retarded polarization tensor for finite temperature plasmas.

## II Vacuum polarization in a strong magnetic field

Using Schwinger’s proper-time method , we obtain the vacuum polarization tensor (see Fig. 1) in a strong magnetic field  expanded as,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k,B)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2}{}}G_if_i^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`k=(\omega ,k_{},0,k_{})`$ is the energy-momentum 4-vector of photon, $`\omega `$ the photon energy, $`k_{}=\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`k_{}=\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`theta`$ the direction of 3-momentum with respect to the magnetic field, and $`B`$ is the magnetic field. $`G_i`$ is given by the following equations,

$$G_i=\frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^2}L_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _0^1𝑑\beta \gamma _iE(\alpha ,\beta ,k,L),$$
(2)
with

$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`k^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(L\beta \alpha )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(L\alpha )}}\left\{1\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(L\beta \alpha )}{\mathrm{tanh}(L\alpha )}}\right\},`$ (3)
$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(L\beta \alpha )\mathrm{cosh}(L\alpha )}{\mathrm{sinh}^3(L\alpha )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(L\beta \alpha )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(L\alpha )}}\left\{1\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(L\beta \alpha )}{\mathrm{tanh}(L\alpha )}}\right\}\right],`$ (4)
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ^2k_{}^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{2}}\mathrm{coth}(L\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(L\beta \alpha )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(L\alpha )}}\left\{1\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(L\beta \alpha )}{\mathrm{tanh}(L\alpha )}}\right\}\right],`$ (5)
and

$$E(\alpha ,\beta ,k,L)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha +\frac{\alpha (1\beta ^2)}{4}\frac{k^2}{m_e^2}+\left\{\frac{\alpha (1\beta ^2)}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(L\beta \alpha )\mathrm{cosh}(L\alpha )}{2L\mathrm{sinh}(L\alpha )}\right\}\frac{k_{}^2}{m_e^2}\right],$$
(6)
where $`e`$ denotes electron charge in MKS unit ($`e^2`$ 1/137), $`m_e`$ is electron mass, and $`L(B/B_c)`$ is a dimensionless magnetic field normalized by the critical magnetic field ($`B_c=m_e^2/e`$). $`f_i^{\mu \nu }`$ is expressed as

$`f_0^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}},`$ (7)
$`f_l^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_l^\mu b_l^\nu }{b_l^\gamma b_{l\gamma }}},(\mathrm{for}l=1,2),`$ (8)
with

$`b_1^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`F^{\mu \gamma }k_\gamma ,b_2^\mu =F^{\mu \gamma }k_\gamma ,`$ (9)
$`b_3^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`k^2F^{\mu \gamma }F_{\gamma \delta }k^\delta k^\mu k^\gamma F_{\gamma \delta }F^{\delta ϵ}k_ϵ,`$ (10)
$`b_4^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`k^\mu ,`$ (11)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ denotes Maxwell stress 4-tensor and its dual tensor is defined by $`F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \gamma \delta }F_{\gamma \delta }`$.

It is easy for us to check that only $`G_0`$ contributes to the vacuum polarization tensor if the magnetic field is very week $`L1`$. In such a week field limit, we know the form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ in usual QED as,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k,0)=G_0|_{B=0}f_0^{\mu \nu },$$
(12)
where

$$G_0|_{B=0}=\frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^2}k^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _0^1𝑑\beta \frac{1\beta ^2}{2\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha +\frac{\alpha (1\beta ^2)}{4}\frac{k^2}{m_e^2}\right].$$
(13)
In Eq. (13) we should get rid of the divergence at $`\alpha `$ = 0 and regularize it. Then we obtain the regularized form of the vacuum polarization tensor at $`L=0`$,

$$\mathrm{reg}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k,0)=A(k)f_0^{\mu \nu },$$
(14)
with

$$A(k)\mathrm{reg}G_0|_{B=0}=\frac{e^2}{(2\pi )^2}k^2\left[\frac{1}{9}\frac{(1h(k))(4m_e^2+2k^2)}{3k^2}\right],$$
(15)
where

$$h(k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{4m_e^2}{k^2}1}\mathrm{cot}^1\left(\sqrt{\frac{4m_e^2}{k^2}1}\right),(\mathrm{for}0k^24m_e^2),\hfill & \\ \sqrt{1\frac{4m_e^2}{k^2}}\mathrm{coth}^1\left(\sqrt{1\frac{4m_e^2}{k^2}}\right),(\mathrm{for}k^2<0).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(16)
Thus, to obtain the regularized form of the polarization tensor in a strong magnetic field ($`L1`$), we have only to substitute $`G_0`$ with

$$\mathrm{reg}G_0=G_0G_0|_{B=0}+A(k).$$
(17)
## III refractive indices in a strong magnetic field

As we mentioned in the previous sections, the refractive indices of photon would deviate from unity in a strong magnetic field because the vacuum polarization is influenced by the magnetic field and the dispersion relation is changed. The refractive indices is defined from the dispersion relation as,

$$\mu ^2=\frac{|𝒌|^2}{\omega ^2},$$
(18)
where $`𝒌`$ is a spatial 3-vector of $`k`$. To obtain the dispersion relation in a strong magnetic field, we consider the wave equation of photon,

$$\left[k^2g^{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu +4\pi \mathrm{reg}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k)\right]A_\mu (k)=0.$$
(19)
In this equation the prefactor of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k)`$, “4$`\pi `$”, originates in MKS unit. The determinant of the matrix should be zero so that Eq. (19) could have a nontrivial solution. When we choose the radiation gauge $`A_\mu =(0,𝑨)`$, we get a quadratic equation and we obtain two solutions,

$$\mu _1^2=\frac{1+\chi _0}{1+\chi _0\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \chi _1},$$
(20)
$$\mu _2^2=\frac{1+\chi _0+\chi _2}{1+\chi _0+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \chi _2},$$
(21)
where

$`\chi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{reg}G_0}{k^2}},`$ (22)
$`\chi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G_1}{k_{}^2}},`$ (23)
$`\chi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G_2}{k_{}^2}}.`$ (24)
Here $`\mu _1^2`$ corresponds to the eigen vector $`(0,1,0)`$ and $`\mu _2^2`$ to $`((1+\chi _0+\chi _2)\mathrm{cos}\theta ,0,(1+\chi _0)\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$.

Since each $`\chi _i`$ depends on $`\mu ^2`$ through $`k`$ and $`G_i`$, Eqs. (20) and (21) are implicit equations for $`\mu ^2`$. In addition, in the literatures, e.g. , they gave only the integral form and some limit cases. Hence we must solve the equations numerically to obtain values in the entire parameter space. In Fig. 2, we plot $`\chi _0`$ as a function of $`L`$ (=$`B/B_c`$) in a low energy limit ($`\omega ^2=10^6m_e^2`$). From the plot, we find that the magnitude of $`\chi _0`$ increases as $`L`$ increases. Thus the contribution from $`\chi _0`$ to the refractive indices in Eqs. (20) would not be negligible in an extremely strong magnetic field. This behavior agrees with our analytical estimation that $`\chi _0\mathrm{log}(L)`$ in a strong magnetic field limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$) and contradicts with statement by Melrose and Stoneham  that $`\chi _0\mathrm{exp}[L]`$ for this limit. This difference, however, is substantial only for extremely large magnetic fields. Nonetheless, we did not drop this term in estimating the correct refractive indices. In Fig. 2 we also plot $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ as a function of $`L`$. $`\chi _1`$ approaches the limit value ($`7.7\times 10^4`$) for $`L1`$. This feature is consistent with our analytical estimation and again disagrees with Melrose and Stoneham  who claimed that $`\chi _1\mathrm{exp}[L]`$ for this limit. As for $`\chi _2`$, it is found that $`\chi _2`$ is linearly proportional to $`L`$ in the strong magnetic field and the weak energy limit. It agrees exactly with our analytical estimation that $`\chi _2\left(e^2/3\pi \right)L`$ under the condition that $`L1`$, $`\omega ^2k_{}^24m_e^2`$, and $`k_{}^22m_e^2L`$ .

In Fig. 3 we plot the obtained refractive indices as a function of $`L`$. The solid and dashed lines represent $`\mu _1^2`$ and $`\mu _2^2`$, respectively. It is easy for us to understand the behavior of $`\mu ^2`$s in a strong magnetic field. From Eq. (20) and (21), we find that

$`\mu _1^2`$ $``$ $`1+7.7\times 10^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (25)
$`\mu _2^2`$ $``$ $`1/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (26)
for $`L1`$ in the case of the weak energy and as long as $`\chi _0`$ is much smaller than unity. The photon-energy dependence of $`\mu ^2`$ is shown in Fig. 4. In this plot we find that only near the threshold ($`\omega ^24m_e^2`$) the energy dependence of $`\mu _2^2`$ becomes important. $`\mu _1^2`$ is insensitive to the photon energy. In Fig. 5 we plot $`\mu ^2`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ in a strong magnetic field ($`L=10^8`$). It is clear that $`\mu _2^2`$ is proportional to 1/$`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$.

Here we give the fitting formula of $`\mu _2^2`$,

$$\mu _2^2=C_1\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left[C_2(xC_3)\right]+1\right)+1,$$
(27)
with

$$x=\mathrm{log}_{10}(B/B_c),$$
(28)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}C_1=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2,\hfill & \\ C_2=1.157.07\times 10^3\left(\omega ^2/m_e^2\right)^{1.60}/\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta },\hfill & \\ C_3=3.11\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)1.84\times 10^2\left(\omega ^2/m_e^2\right)/\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(29)
This fitting formula reproduces the numerical results within the error of less than 10 $`\%`$ for a wide parameter range (0.1 $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ 1, $`\omega ^2/m_e^2`$ 4, and $`0B/B_c10^{10}`$). In the large $`L`$ limit especially, Eq. (27) approaches the value of the analytical estimation ($`1/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$). In addition, the low energy limit of the fitting formula ($`\omega ^20`$) agrees with the numerical estimations very well within less than 1 $`\%`$.

## IV retarded polarization tensor in finite temperature plasmas

In the previous sections, we have considered the vacuum polarization tensor. It is also our concern to calculate the polarization tensor for plasmas with finite temperatures. We will extend the previous formulation to the finite density and temperature case. We will rely on the real time formalism of the finite density and temperature field theory and obtain the expression for the retarded polarization tensor. Recently, some authors  gave the expression of the chronological polarization tensor on a similar footing. Although two polarizations are related to each other, the retarded one allows more direct physical interpretation.Moreover, the retarded polarization tensor should be obtained by analytical extension of the imaginary time polarization tensor which has been given by the author .

It is known from the finite density and temperature field theory that the retarded polarization tensor is expressed as

$$i\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }(x,x^{})=e^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma ^\mu G_c(x,x^{})\gamma ^\nu G_r(x^{},x)+\gamma ^\mu G_a(x,x^{})\gamma ^\nu G_c(x^{},x)\right].$$
(30)
In the above equation, the subscripts $`r`$, $`a`$, $`c`$ denote the retarded, advanced and Keldysh components of Green function, respectively.  For the stationary system, we can in general assume that the vector potential is time independent. In this case the polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r(x,x^{})`$ is a function of the time difference $`tt^{}`$ alone. It is possible that it depends on the spatial coordinates $`𝒙`$ and $`𝒙^{\mathbf{}}`$ separately. Fourier transforming the polarization tensor with respect to $`tt^{}`$, we obtain

$$i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r(p_0)=e^2\frac{dq_0}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_c(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_r(q_0)+\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_a(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_c(q_0)\right].$$
(31)
In the above equation, the tilde means the Fourier component and the spatial coordinates are dropped for simplicity. Noting that the retarded and advanced Green functions for the finite density and temperature are identical to the counterparts for vacuum, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{r,a}(p_0)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_F^{vac}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}^{vac}(\omega )}{\omega p_0i\epsilon },$$
(32)
where the upper and lower signs correspond to the retarded and advanced Green functions, respectively. The subscripts $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ stand for the chronological and antichronological Green functions, respectively, for magnetized vacuum, which are calculated by the Schwinger’s proper time method as shown above. It is also known that the Keldysh component of Green function can be obtained from the retarded and advanced Green functions and the distribution function by the following relation:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_c(p_0)=\stackrel{~}{G}_r(p_0)[12f(p_0)][12f(p_0)]\stackrel{~}{G}_a(p_0).$$
(33)
Combining this with Eq. (32), we can obtain the Keldysh component of Green function also from the chronological and anti-chronological Green functions for vacuum.

Putting Eqs. (32), (33) into Eq. (31) and using the relations

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_r(q_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_a(q_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0),`$ (35)
we finally obtain

$`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r(p_0)={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dq_0}{2\pi }}[12f(q_0+p_0)]\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0)`$ (36)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0)`$ (37)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0+p_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)]`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dq_0}{2\pi }}[12f(q_0p_0)]\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0p_0)`$ (40)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0p_0)`$ (41)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_F(q_0p_0)`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q_0)\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0)\gamma ^\nu \stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(q_0p_0)].`$ (43)
One easily recognizes that the structure of the integrand is quite similar to the vacuum polarization tensor apart from the integration over $`q_0`$ and the various combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$. This enables us to simplify the integrand along the same line as for the vacuum case.

Denoting as $`{}_{}{}^{FF}\mathrm{\Pi }_{r}^{}`$ the contribution from the terms containing the product $`G_FG_F`$ and similarly for the other contributions, we calculate separately those terms. The antichronological Green function $`G_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ is obtained by taking the integration region $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$ instead of $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$ in the Schwinger’s proper time formalism :

$$G_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{i}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(m^2(\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu )^2\right)s\right](\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu +m).$$
(44)
Following Stoneham, we can simplify this equation. Assuming that the vector potential is time independent and $`A_0=0`$, we can Fourier transform $`G_F`$ and $`G_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ with respect to $`tt^{}`$. Plugging them into the definition of the polarization tensor, one sees that the gauge dependent terms cancel out just like the vacuum case and the polarization tensor becomes the function of the difference of the spatial coordinates, which then makes it possible for us to take the Fourier transformation with respect to the spatial coordinates. We finally obtain for the contribution from the terms with the product $`G_FG_F`$

$`{}_{}{}^{FF}\mathrm{\Pi }_{r}^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_0}{4\pi m}}FF(k_0,p_0){\displaystyle \frac{e^2m^2}{(2\pi )^2}}(1i)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}}`$ (45)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha }}}{\displaystyle _\alpha ^\alpha }𝑑\beta \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{L}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha L}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]`$ (46)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2L\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2}{m^2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2L}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_0+p_0)^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2L}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0^2}{m^2}}\right\}\right]`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`d^{\mu \nu }.`$ (48)
Here $`FF(k_0,p_0)`$ is an abbreviation for the following function,

$`FF(k_0,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\left[12f(k_0+p_0)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0p_0)\left[12f(k_0)\right],`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0+p_0)\left[12f_e(k_0+p_0)\right]`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0p_0)\left[12f_{e^+}(|k_0|)\right]`$ (51)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0p_0)\left[12f_{e^+}(|k_0+p_0|)+12f_e(k_0)\right],`$ (52)
where $`f_e`$ and $`f_{e^+}`$ are Fermi-Dirac distribution functions for electron and positron, respectively. Except for the integral over the distribution functions, the resemblance of the Eq. (48) to the vacuum counter part is clear. The remaining factor $`d^{\mu \nu }`$, which is symmetric with respective to the superscripts, is given as

$`d^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\{[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}}\right)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}}]`$ (54)
$`+[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}}\right)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}}]\},`$
$`d^{02}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\{[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}}\right)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}]`$ (56)
$`+[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}}\right)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}[\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}]\},`$
$`d^{03}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{k_z}{m}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2k_0}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{m}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\right)\right],`$ (57)
$`d^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}},`$ (58)
$`d^{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\alpha }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z}{m}},`$ (59)
$`d^{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\alpha }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z}{m}},`$ (60)
$`d^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\alpha }}i+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_x^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_y^2}{m^2}}\right),`$
$`d^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\alpha }}i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_x^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_y^2}{m^2}}\right],`$
$`d^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\alpha }}i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_x^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_y^2}{m^2}}\right],`$
$`d^{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_0+p_0}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{m}}+1+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\alpha }}i+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_z^2}{m^2}}\right]`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_x^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_y^2}{m^2}}\right).`$
In the above equation, the integral region for $`\beta `$ can be changed from $`[\alpha ,\alpha ]`$ to $`[0,\alpha ]`$ under the recognition that we take only the even part of the integrand with respect to $`\beta `$.

The other contributions to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ with different combinations of $`G_F`$ and $`G_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ are obtained in the same way. It turns out that the resultant equations are obtained from Eq. (48) with a change of the integral region and a replacement of the distribution functions as shown below:

$`{}_{}{}^{F\stackrel{~}{F}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{r}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:`$ $`FF(k_0,p_0)F\stackrel{~}{F}(k_0,p_0),\text{integral region}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\beta ,`$ (69)
$`{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{F}F}\mathrm{\Pi }_{r}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:`$ $`FF(k_0,p_0)\stackrel{~}{F}F(k_0,p_0),\text{integral region}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\alpha }𝑑\beta ,`$ (70)
$`{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{r}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:`$ $`FF(k_0,p_0)\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}(k_0,p_0),\text{integral region}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _\alpha ^\alpha }𝑑\beta .`$ (71)
In the above equations, the phase should be taken as $`\sqrt{\alpha }=i\sqrt{|\alpha |}`$, and the factors involving distribution functions are given as

$`F\stackrel{~}{F}(k_0,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\left[12f(k_0+p_0)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0p_0)\left[12f(k_0)\right],`$ (72)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}F(k_0,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\left[12f(k_0+p_0)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0+p_0)\left[12f(k_0)\right],`$ (73)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}(k_0,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\left[12f(k_0+p_0)\right]+\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0p_0)\left[12f(k_0)\right].`$ (74)
Thus the polarization tensor is give by the sum of these terms:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }=^{FF}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }+^{F\stackrel{~}{F}}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }+^{\stackrel{~}{F}F}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }+^{\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^{\mu \nu }.$$
(75)
Although the final form is similar to the vacuum counter part, the numerical evaluation is very difficult. This is so for the same reason as for the numerical evaluation of the vacuum polarization tensor above the threshold of the pair creation. This prevents us from performing a Wick rotation for the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ integrations in Eq. (48). These should be the next step.

## V Conclusion

We have numerically calculated the vacuum polarization tensor for various strengths of the background magnetic field and photon energies below the threshold of the pair creation. We also varied the propagation directions of photon. We have obtained the fitting formula which reproduces the numerical results within 10% of error. We have also presented the expression of the retarded polarization tensor for the finite density and temperature, simplifying some integrations.

Our final goal is to calculate not only the polarization tensor but also other physical quantities under strong magnetic fields such as the photon splitting rates and equation of states for a wide range of parameters. This paper is the first step for this project.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is partially supported by the Grants-in-Aid by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (No.12740138).