text:
# A walk in the parameter space of L–H transitions without stepping on or through the cracks

## I Introduction

A unified, low-dimensional description of the dynamics of L–H transitions  would be a valuable aid for the predictive design and control of confinement states in fusion plasmas. In this work we report significant progress made toward this goal by developing the singularity theory approach to modeling L–H transitions that was introduced in . The results give new insights into the role of energy exchange and dissipation in the onset, evanescence, and extinction of discontinuous and oscillatory action in confined plasmas.

The title of this paper refers to the philosophy of singularity theory  as applied to dynamical models: that paths through parameter space should be smooth and continuous, and that parameters should be independent and not fewer than the codimension of the system.

Since 1988  many efforts have been made to derive unified low-dimensional dynamical models that mimic L–H transitions and/or associated oscillatory behavior . All of these models have contributed to the current view in which the coupled evolution of poloidal shear flow and turbulence establishes a transport barrier. However, as was shown in , the models often founder at singularities. Consequently, much of the discussion in the literature concerning the bifurcation properties of L–H transition models is qualitatively wrong.

We examine the bifurcation structure of a semi-empirical dynamical model for L–H transitions , and find it needs two major operations to give it mathematical consistency: (1) a degenerate singularity is identified and unfolded, (2) the dynamical state space is expanded to three dimensions.

We then analyse the bifurcation structure of the enhanced model obtained from these operations, the BD model, and find it consistent with many known features of L–H transitions. In particular, this is the first model that can emulate the onset and abatement of oscillations in H-mode, and direct jumps to oscillatory H-mode .

## II Bifurcation structure of the DLCT model

This paradigmatic 2-dimensional model  comprises an evolution equation for the turbulence coupled with an equation for the flow shear dynamics derived from the poloidal momentum balance:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma N\alpha FN\beta N^2`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha FN\mu F.`$ (2)
$`N`$ is the normalized level of density fluctuations, $`F`$ is the square of the averaged E$`\times `$B poloidal flow shear. The fluctuations grow linearly with coefficient $`\gamma `$ and are damped quadratically with coefficient $`\beta `$. The exchange coefficient $`\alpha `$ is related to the Reynolds stress, and the damping rate $`\mu F`$ is due to viscosity.

Following the procedure outlined in  we form the bifurcation function $`g=X(F,\gamma )`$, and identify the singular points where $`g=g_F=0`$. We find the unique physical singularity $`(F,\gamma )_T=(0,\beta \mu /\alpha )`$, which satisfies the additional defining conditions for a transcritical bifurcation:

$$g_\gamma =0,g_{FF}0,detd^2g<0,$$
(3)
where $`detd^2g`$ is the Hessian matrix of second partial derivatives with respect to $`F`$ and $`\gamma `$. Evaluating (3) at $`T`$ gives $`g_\gamma =0`$, $`g_{FF}=2\alpha ^2/\beta `$, $`detd^2g=\alpha ^2/\beta ^2`$. The bifurcation diagram showing the transcritical point $`T`$ is plotted in Fig. 1a. (In this and subsequent diagrams stable solutions are indicated by continuous lines and unstable solutions by dashed lines.)

However, Fig. 1a does not represent the complete bifurcation structure of the DLCT model because of the following generic property of the transcritical bifurcation: it is non-persistent to an arbitrarily small perturbation. Since the poloidal shear flow $`v^{}`$ is symmetric under the transformation $`v^{}v^{}`$ it is appropriate to introduce the perturbation term $`\phi F^{1/2}`$. (Note that $`Fv^{}^2`$.) Thus, the modified DLCT model is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma N\alpha FN\beta N^2`$ ()
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha FN\mu F+\phi F^{1/2}.`$ (4)
The perturbation term in Eq. 4 represents a physically inevitable source of shear flow that breaks the symmetry of the internal shear flow generation and loss rates. The physics comes from non-ambipolar ion orbit losses that produce a driving torque for the shear flow. This contribution to the total shear flow evolution can be quite large , and in fact the early models for L–H transitions relied exclusively on a large, nonlinear ion orbit loss rate . However, ion orbit loss alone cannot explain turbulence suppression. Here we treat this term as part of a more complete picture of L–H transition dynamics, and emphasize its symmetry-breaking nature by assigning the simplest consistent form to it while recognizing that $`\phi `$ may be a nonlinear function $`\phi (\zeta )`$, where $`\zeta `$ may include dynamical variables and parameters.

Some bifurcation diagrams for increasing values of $`\phi `$ are plotted in Fig. 1b–d. We see immediately that solution of one problem causes another: a nonzero perturbation term does indeed unfold the degenerate singularity $`T`$, but it releases another degenerate singularity $`T^s`$.

Before proceeding with a treatment of the new bifurcation $`T^s`$ we highlight three important issues:

1. Since $`\phi `$ is inevitably nonzero in experiments, no transition can occur at all in the vicinity of $`T`$, neither first-order or second-order, contrary to what is stated in .

2. Both $`N`$ and $`F`$ change continuously with $`\gamma `$ in the same direction. The fact that $`T`$ is a transcritical bifurcation tells us that only two parameters — $`\phi `$ and any one of the other parameters — are required to define the qualitative structure of the problem. The bifurcation diagram with $`N`$ as state variable is plotted in Fig. 2, which should be compared with Fig. 1c. As it stands, the model therefore cannot emulate turbulence stabilization by the shear flow, contrary to what is stated in .

3. To ascertain whether the model can exhibit periodic dynamics as stated in  we look for a pair of purely complex conjugate eigenvalues. For Eqs 1 and 4 the defining conditions for Hopf bifurcations may be expressed as

$$g=\text{tr}J=0,detJ>0,\frac{d}{d\gamma }\text{tr}J0,$$
(5)
where $`J`$ is the Jacobian matrix. We find that $`detJ<0`$ where the equalities in Eq. 5 are fulfilled, therefore oscillatory dynamics arising from Hopf bifurcations cannot occur.

This does not rule out the possible existence of periodic behavior arising from rare and pathological causes. According to Dulac’s criterion  Eqs 1 and 4 possess no periodic solutions arising from any cause if there exists $`𝔇`$ such that the quantity

$$S=\frac{}{N}\left(𝔇W\right)+\frac{}{F}\left(𝔇Y\right)$$
(6)
never changes sign. Here $`W=W(N,F)dN/dt`$, $`Y=Y(N,F)dF/dt`$, and the Dulac function $`𝔇=𝔇(N,F)`$ is a real positive function. Choosing $`𝔇=1`$ we find that

$$S=\alpha \left(NF\right)2N\beta +\gamma \mu +\phi F^{1/2}/2,$$
(7)
which clearly can switch sign. However, there may exist a more exotic Dulac function that forbids a change of the sign of $`S`$. We have not found oscillatory solutions numerically in this system.

Returning to the new singularity $`T^s`$ we find that it is also a transcritical bifurcation: the conditions (3) evaluated at $`(F,\gamma )_{T^s}=(\phi ^2/\mu ^2,\alpha \phi ^2/\mu ^2)`$ yield $`g_\gamma =0`$, $`g_{FF}=\beta \mu ^6/(2\alpha ^2\phi ^4)\mu ^3/\phi ^2`$, $`detd^2g=\mu ^6/(4\alpha ^2\phi ^4)`$. Does the DLCT model therefore require a second perturbation term, this time to Eq. 1, to unfold $`T^s`$?

We remark here that often there is more than one universal unfolding for a given bifurcation problem, and we turn to the physics to decide which is physically consistent. For the perturbation in Eq. 4 that unfolded $`T`$ we chose the form $`\phi F^{1/2}`$ because it is physically inevitable that the symmetry $`v^{}v^{}`$ be broken. However, there is no matching physics for a similar term in Eq. 1. Another possibility is that $`T^s`$ is spurious, created by an unwarranted collapse of a larger state space. This idea leads to a suggestion that is supported by the physics, that another dynamical variable is intrinsic to a low-dimensional description of L–H transition dynamics.

## III Intrinsic 3-dimensional dynamics of L–H transitions

We introduce the the third dynamical variable by assuming that $`\gamma =\gamma (P)`$, where $`P`$ is the pressure gradient, as have a number of other authors . Assuming the simplest evolution of $`P`$ and that $`\gamma (P)=\gamma P`$, we arrive at the following augmented model, obtained purely from dynamical and physical considerations:

$`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`q\gamma PN`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma PN\alpha FN\beta N^2`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha FN\mu F+\phi F^{1/2}.`$ ()
In Eq. 8 $`q`$ is the power input and $`\epsilon `$ is a dimensionless parameter that regulates the contribution of the pressure gradient dynamics to the overall evolution. The dynamics is essentially 3-dimensional with $`\epsilon O(1)`$, but for $`\epsilon 1`$ or $`\epsilon 1`$ the system can evolve in two timescales:

1. The original “slow” time $`t`$. For $`\epsilon 0`$, $`\epsilon dP/dt0`$ and $`Pq/(\gamma N)`$. The system collapses smoothly to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`q\alpha FN\beta N^2`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha FN\mu F+\phi F^{1/2}.`$ ()
The organizing center is the unique transcritical bifurcation $`(F,q,\phi )_T=(0,\beta \mu ^2/\alpha ^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0})`$, the spurious $`T^s`$ is non-existent, and there are no Hopf bifurcations. For $`\epsilon 1`$ we define $`\delta 1/\epsilon `$ and multiply Eq. 8 through by $`\delta `$; taking the limit as $`\delta 0`$ gives $`dP/dt0`$, from which $`P=P_0`$. We recover the same form as Eqs 1 and 4,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma P_0N\alpha FN\beta N^2`$ ()
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha FN\mu F+\phi F^{1/2},`$ ()
along with the “good” bifurcation $`T`$ and the “bad” bifurcation $`T^s`$ — therefore we suggest that this is a non-physical limit for $`\epsilon `$.

2. In “fast” time $`\tau \epsilon /t`$ and, recasting the system accordingly, it can be seen that on this timescale the dynamics becomes 1-dimensional in $`P`$ in both limits.

The organizing center of the bifurcation problem obtained from Eqs 8, 9, and 4 is the unique transcritical bifurcation $`(F,q,\phi )_T=(0,\beta \mu ^2/\alpha ^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0})`$, $`g_{FF}=\alpha ^2/\beta `$, $`detd^2g=\alpha ^4/(4\beta ^2\mu ^2)`$, and the spurious singularity $`T^s`$ is non-existent. We now have the bones of an improved dynamical model for L–H transitions, but it still does not emulate the following characteristics of L–H transitions: (a) Hysteresis: Since there is no non-trivial point where $`g_{FF}=0`$ it cannot model discontinuous transitions or classical hysteretic behavior. (b) Oscillations in H-mode: These have not been found numerically. In a 3 - dimensional dynamical system it is, of course, very difficult to prove that oscillatory solutions do not exist.

Evidently we need more nonlinearity or higher order nonlinearity to produce enough competitive interaction. To obtain multiple solutions, at least, the bifurcation equation $`g`$ should map to the normal form for the pitchfork bifurcation $`h=\pm x^3\pm \lambda x`$.

Several authors have taken the viscosity coefficient as a function of the pressure gradient, but usually it is treated as a constant. In  the viscosity was considered to be the sum of neoclassical and anomalous or turbulent contributions, both with separate power-law dependences on the pressure gradient. We shall adopt this bipartite form and in Eq. 4 take

$$\mu =\mu (P)=\mu _{\text{neo}}P^n+\mu _{\text{an}}P^m.$$
(11)
Equations 8, 9 and 4 with (11) comprise the BD model.

The values of the exponents $`n`$ and $`m`$ are not precisely known empirically or from theory. In  $`\mu _{\text{an}}`$ is given as having a $`P^{3/2}`$ dependence, but is also subject to the additional influence of a $`P`$-dependent curvature factor. In this work we take $`n=3/2`$ as in  and $`m=5/2`$.

## IV Bifurcation structure of the BD model

The bifurcation problem obtained from the BD model contains two codimension 2 organizing centers:

1. The defining conditions for the pitchfork,

$$g=g_F=g_{FF}=g_q=0,g_{FFF}0,g_{Fq}0,$$
(12)
find this singularity occurring at $`(F,q,\beta ,\phi )_{\mathrm{}}=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}\mu _{\text{an}}^{1/8}\mu _{\text{neo}}^{7/8}\gamma /(7^{7/8}\alpha ),(7^{3/8}\alpha \gamma )/(8\mu _{\text{an}}^{5/8}\mu _{\text{neo}}^{3/8}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0})`$, $`g_{FFF}=12(7^{7/8})\mu _{\text{an}}^{7/8}\mu _{\text{neo}}^{1/8}\gamma /\alpha `$, $`g_{Fq}=2(7\mu _{\text{an}}/\mu _{\text{neo}})^{1/4}`$. The pitchfork $`\mathrm{}`$ becomes a transcritical bifurcation $`T^l`$ away from the critical value of $`\beta `$.

2. Another transcritical bifurcation $`T^u`$ occurs at $`(F,q,\phi )_{T^u}=(0,P^2\gamma /\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, $`g_{FF}=2P\gamma ^3(7P^{5/2}\alpha \gamma 8\mu _{\text{neo}}\beta )/(P^{7/2}\alpha \beta \gamma ^2)`$, $`detd^2g=(3P^{5/2}\alpha \gamma +8\mu _{\text{neo}}\beta )^2/(4P^7\alpha ^2\gamma ^2)`$.

$`T^l`$ and $`T^u`$ are annihilated at a second codimension 2 bifurcation. The defining conditions for this point are

$$g=g_F=g_q=detd^2g=0,g_{FF}0,g_{Fq}0$$
(13)
At this point we find$`(F,q,\beta ,\phi )=(0,(8(7^{1/8})\mu _{\text{neo}}\gamma )/(3\alpha (\mu _{\text{neo}}/\mu _{\text{an}})^{1/8}),`$$`3(\mu _{\text{neo}}/\mu _{\text{an}})^{5/8}\alpha \gamma /(8(7^{5/8}\mu _{\text{neo}})),0),`$$`g_{FF}=64(7\mu _{\text{an}})^{5/8}\mu _{\text{neo}}^{3/8}\gamma /(3\alpha )`$, $`g_{Fq}=4(7\mu _{\text{an}}/\mu _{\text{neo}})^{1/4}`$.

In Fig 3a the partially perturbed bifurcation diagram is plotted, showing the lower and upper transcritical bifurcations $`T^l`$ and $`T^u`$. In Fig. 3b the fully perturbed, physical bifurcation diagram is plotted, where $`\phi >0`$. There are also two Hopf bifurcations on the upper H-mode branch in Fig. 3 linked by a branch of stable limit cycles. The dotted lines mark the maximum and minimum amplitude trace of the limit-cycle branch. This reflects the passage through an oscillatory régime that is often observed in experiments.

Since it is a codimension 2 bifurcation problem, the qualitative structure is fully defined by $`q`$ and two auxiliary parameters. One of these is obviously $`\phi `$, the other may be any one of the other parameters. We choose $`\beta `$ because we are interested in the effects of poor turbulence dissipation (i.e. low $`\beta `$). Figure 4 illustrates how a jump can occur directly to oscillatory states, a phenomenon which is frequently observed.

Figure 5, to be compared with Fig. 3b, shows that the BD model does indeed reflect shear flow suppression of turbulence.

## V Discussion and conclusions

A dynamical model that emulates much of the typical behavior around L–H transitions has been elicited from an earlier fragile model that had serious flaws by considering the relationship between bifurcation structure and the physics of the process. Built in to this model are the following major dynamical features of L–H transitions:

1. Discontinuous, hysteretic transitions, or smooth changes with power input, depending on the degree of turbulence dissipation $`\beta `$, or equivalently, the viscosity.

2. Two Hopf bifurcations in H-mode. It is the first model that can emulate the onset and abatement of oscillatory behavior, and a transition directly into oscillatory H-mode.

3. Turbulence suppression by the shear flow.

4. A maximum in the shear flow generated by the turbulence, followed by a decrease as the power input flowing to the turbulence is raised.

5. Turbulence generation from non-ambipolar losses.

Finally, we note that the existence of two codimension 2 bifurcations is suggestive: Should there be an expansion of the system, perhaps expressing fluctuations of the magnetic field, that creates (or annihilates) the two bifurcations at a codimension 3 singularity? In other words, does a more complete model contain an organizing center of higher order? In singularity theory we persevere in seeking higher order behavior: that is how the relationship between a model and the process it represents is tracked. This question is currently under investigation.

Acknowledgment: This work is supported by an Australian Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# A microscopic mechanism for rejuvenation and memory effects in spin glasses

## 1 Introduction

The phenomena of slow dynamics in spin glasses, well known from the experiments in which the out-of-equilibrium effects are prominent Sitges ; Nordblad , have been these last years the subject of significant developments in theory Review , numerical simulations numerics , and also experiments on other glassy systems like e.g. polymers PMMA , supercooled liquids Nagel , dielectrics Levelut  or gels gel . In the spin-glass phase, dynamical response functions evolve with time: this is the aging phenomenon, comparable with physical aging which has been widely studied in the rheology of glassy polymers Struik . Aging in spin glasses is evidenced in two general classes of ac and dc experiments. The starting point of aging is when the spin glass is cooled from above $`T_g`$ down to some temperature $`T_1`$ (usually $`0.50.9T_g`$).

In $`dc`$ experiments, e.g. zero-field cooled (‘ZFC’) procedure, the sample is cooled in zero field and kept at $`T_1`$ during a waiting time $`t_w`$. After $`t_w`$, a weak magnetic field is applied, and the slow increase of the magnetization is recorded as a function of time $`t`$. The response curves obtained depend on both independent time variables $`t`$ and $`t_w`$: they become slower and slower for increasing $`t_w`$. Similar results are obtained in the inverse procedure of cooling in a weak field and removing the field after $`t_w`$ (‘TRM’ procedure). In $`ac`$ experiments, equivalently, the response to a small oscillating field at frequency $`\omega `$ is found to relax slowly as the time $`t`$ from the quench elapses: here again two separate time scales ($`\omega ^1,t`$) are involved Sitges . Such aging effects have now been clearly identified in numerical simulations of the three-dimensional Edward-Anderson model, and are also found in the analytical treatment of some mean-field models Review ; CuKu . They appear as a characteristic feature for the dynamics of randomly interacting objects.

The effect on aging of temperature changes has led to some non-trivial experimental results hierarki ; DTupps , recently emphasized as ‘memory and chaos’ or ‘memory and rejuvenation’ effects memchaos . Figure 1 (from Ref.VD ) shows the characteristic example of a negative temperature cycling experiment in ac mode. After a long aging stage at $`T_1=0.72T_g`$ (characterized by a downwards relaxation of $`\chi \mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ by about 30%), a further cooling to $`T_2=0.54T_g`$ results in an apparent reinitialization of aging (‘rejuvenation’): $`\chi \mathrm{"}`$ rises up to about the value that would be obtained after a direct quench, and a strong relaxation restarts. This observation contradicts the expectation from simple thermal slowing down, and suggests a possible indication of ‘chaos in temperature’ as proposed in Refs.bray ; domains . Following this ‘rejuvenation’ effect upon cooling, a completely different phenomenon is observed when re-heating from $`T_2`$ to $`T_1`$. The memory of aging at $`T_1`$ is retrieved, in the sense that $`\chi \mathrm{"}`$ goes back to the value attained at $`T_1`$ before the temperature cycle, and relaxes in continuity with the previous part hierarki .

In the same way, a measurement of $`\chi \mathrm{"}(T)`$ during continuous re-heating from low temperatures shows a ‘dip’ centered around $`T_1`$ memchaos . Astonishingly, it is even possible to ‘imprint’ and ‘read’ several memories at different temperatures, like in the example presented in Fig.2 VD . However, we shall mainly address here the question of the basic mechanisms underlying the observations of Fig.1. The multiple memories of Fig.2 will only be discussed as a possible extrapolation of our approach in Section 4.

A comprehensive description of this class of experiments in terms of a hierarchical organization of the metastable states as a function of temperature has been developed, and gives a satisfactory account of all results hierarki . This phenomenological picture has been made quantitative in models of random walk in a hierarchical set of traps BD ; Nemoto . However, the interpretation of the rejuvenation and memory effects in the real space of spins remains puzzling. From a comparison with aging in disordered ferromagnets, a scenario of pinned wall reconformations DWhierarchy  has been proposed, in which the hierarchy of reconformation length scales is a real space transcription of the hierarchy of states ferro . But the exact nature of such walls in a spin glass remains mysterious martin . It is the purpose of the present paper to take a different point of view, and to consider microscopic and explicit mechanisms, at the scale of spin-spin interactions, which are possible candidates for being at the origin of these memory and rejuvenation effects.

On the basis of previous works on the reentrant phenomena in frustrated systemsREENT , we study example situations in which a slow evolution towards equilibrium at a certain temperature can be irrelevant to equilibration at another temperature (rejuvenation). On the other hand, the memory effect implies that spin rearrangements at one temperature do not irreversibly affect the structure grown at another temperature. This is the case for the mechanisms which will be considered here. Due to the inhomogeneity of the interactions, intricate developments of the spin-spin correlation take place, which should play an important role in the peculiar properties of spin glasses. Let us note that this intricate structure of the domains growing at different temperatures does not necessarily imply a fractal geometry.

In this paper, we limit ourselves to the study of examples of frustrated magnetic structures which, on the basis of phenomenological arguments, can be shown to reproduce the ‘single memory’ situation. The question of the extension of this basic mechanism to a double or multiple memory case, although conceivable (as discussed in Section 4), remains beyond the scope of the present paper.

## 2 Temperature dependent effective interactions and memory spots

In spin glasses, the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic bonds are randomly distributed. For statistical reasons, some regions of the lattice are highly frustrated, while others are less frustrated. The distribution of such regions is at the origin of complicated ordering processes, which are not as intuitively understandable as in the case of ferromagnets.

It has been early recognized Seiji  that, in very simple frustrated systems of a few spins which can be analyzed exactly, the effective coupling constant between spins may behave strangely, such as changing of sign with temperature. This property, due to frustrated spin coupling, has been shown to generate reentrant phenomenaREENT . A similar idea has been more recently developed in the case of the Edwards-Anderson model Huse .

As an example, let us consider the simple 3-spin system pictured in Fig.3(a). If we consider the case where $`J_1<0`$ (antiferromagnetic) and $`J_2>0`$ (ferromagnetic), the spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ interact by frustrated bond structures. An effective coupling $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)`$ between $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ can be defined by

$$e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)\sigma _1\sigma _2}\underset{\sigma _0=\pm 1}{}e^{\beta J_1\sigma _1\sigma _2+\beta J_2(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)\sigma _0}$$
(1)
where $`\beta =1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$, and $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)`$ is explicitly given by

$$J_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)=J_1+\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}(2\frac{J_2}{k_\mathrm{B}T})].$$
(2)
In the case $`|J_1|<J_2`$, $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ changes sign as a function of temperature, as displayed in Fig. 3(b).

From this simple example, it is clear that, due to frustration, ordering processes can change qualitatively with the temperature. We have listed in Appendix some realizations of the effective coupling in various frustrated situations. In the quoted examples, we see that the effective interactions may change with temperature in very different ways, even non-monotonically in some cases. If such bond configurations are randomly distributed in the lattice, it is clear that the equilibrium correlations at a given temperature do not coincide with those at other temperatures, a natural mechanism for rejuvenation effects. In a recent study of domain growth processes in a Mattis model YOSHINO , the consequences of bond changes on rejuvenation effects have been investigated (see a more detailed discussion in our last section). The microscopic mechanisms studied in our present paper can be considered as a possible explanation for the bond changes that have explicitly been assumed in YOSHINO .

Let us note that the effective couplings which are considered here correspond to a coarse-grained picture of the original lattice. Thus, the spins which are interacting via the effective bonds do in fact represent block spins, i.e. clusters of spins with less frustrated bond structures, as proposed in REENT . They are entities which already possess a significant entropy.

We expect the memory effect to be related to another characteristic of spin-glasses, which is that the relaxation times of spins distribute widely from spin to spin due to inhomogeneous interactionsTAKANO . As an example, let us consider the case depicted in Fig. 4, in which all couplings are ferromagnetic, one of them ($`|J_1|`$) being much larger than those of the surrounding bonds $`J_0`$ $`(J_1J_0)`$.

In Fig. 4(a), the ground state configuration with energy $`E_0`$ is shown; if all the external spins change sign, the two strongly coupled spins become metastable with energy $`E_0+12J_0`$, Fig. 4(b). In order to relax the two spins to the ground state, the system has to pass an intermediate state of higher energy $`E_0+2J_1+6J_0`$, Fig. 2(c). This corresponds to an energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2J_16J_0`$. Thus, if $`T\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, it is difficult to flip the two spins, even if the surrounding spins are changed. The relaxation time is

$$\tau _{\mathrm{mem}}=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{T}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\tau _0`$ is a microscopic time; $`\tau _{\mathrm{mem}}`$ becomes suddenly long below a certain temperature. We expect that this kind of strongly coupled clusters are effectively realized in the less frustrated regions of a spin glass. Such clusters are distributed in the system, and can memorize a grown pattern of ordered configuration at a given temperature. We call them ‘memory spot’. When the temperature is lowered, the magnetizations of the stronger memory spots, which memorize the configurations at higher temperatures, are stable. In turn, when the temperature is raised, the memories for the lower temperatures are erased.

## 3 Rejuvenation and memory effects from basic mechanisms

Let us now summarize how a ‘rejuvenation and memory’ scenario can be built up with temperature dependent effective interactions and memory spots. Our qualitative discussion will be followed by the Monte-Carlo simulation of an example lattice.

If we quench the system from a high temperature to a certain value, say $`T_1`$, order corresponding to the minimization of the effective interaction energies at this temperature begins to grow. Let us consider the example sketched in Fig. 5(a). The fuzzy lines correspond to regions of high frustration, where the effective bonds at $`T_1`$ are weaker than in other parts and where in consequence domain walls are easily trapped. The ‘configurational domains’ delimited by these lines represent less frustrated regions.

Here we suppose that each domain has two degenerate minimum energy states, which are denoted by up and down arrows. We assume that the minimum energy state of the whole system with respect to the effective interactions at $`T_1`$ corresponds to all domain arrows pointing in the same direction. As we discuss later, the memory spots follow the direction of the domains in the time evolution at $`T_1`$, and record their direction at lower temperatures. In Fig. 5(a), the magnetization direction of the memory spots is shown by arrows for the equilibrium state.

In a short time $`\tau _{\mathrm{iD}}`$ after quenching, local order has been realized within each domain (low frustration). But no order between the domains has yet been established. That is, at this stage, the arrows of the domains are independently oriented. Then, waiting during $`t_w`$, correlations among the domains develop, with a flipping time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{DD}}`$; meanwhile, $`\chi \mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ decreases. The increase of the correlation length is very slow because as mentioned above the domain walls are naturally pinned at the boundaries slowDG .

We assume that the flipping time $`\tau _{\mathrm{mem}}`$ of the memory spot is less than the flipping time $`\tau _{\mathrm{DD}}`$ of the $`T_1`$ configurational domains. Hence the memory spots follow the direction of the domains, and record their direction as order among the domains develops. At lower temperatures, the magnetization of these memory spots will be frozen.

Then we change the temperature to $`T_2<T_1`$. Fig. 5(b) is a sketch of the configurational domains at $`T_2`$. Since the values of the effective bonds have changed, the grown domain structure grown at $`T_1`$ is just a random configuration for $`T_2`$ (rejuvenation). Thus new domains relevant to $`T_2`$ start growing, and $`\chi \mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ rises back to a higher value.

Although the most part of the lattice has been rejuvenated, the memory spots remain stable because they consist of unfrustrated structures and $`\tau _{\mathrm{mem}}`$ increases rapidly as the temperature goes down. The structure at $`T_2`$ will be also recorded in smaller memory spots. In this way, the structure of order at each temperature can be recorded by memory spots of proper size, whose magnetization remains frozen at lower temperatures.

When re-heating to $`T_1`$, the order developed at $`T_2`$ in most of the lattice is now random with respect to order at $`T_1`$. However, in each $`T_1`$ configurational domain, the memory spot has memorized the previous direction of order. Therefore the domains tend to re-order according to their memorized direction, which rapidly reconstructs the configuration obtained at $`T_1`$ before the temperature cycle. Thus, in a very short time, $`\chi \mathrm{"}(\omega )`$ decreases back to the value previously obtained (memory).

Let us now illustrate the above scenario by the numerical simulation of a simple model. We consider a lattice made of 5x5 times the unit clusters ($`10\times 10`$) shown in Fig. 6. The bonds $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ will mark the boundaries of the configurational domains at respectively $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. The memory spots are given by $`J_3`$. All other bonds are $`J_0`$. Table 1 displays the bond values at $`T_1=2.0`$ and $`T_2=1.0`$, the temperature variation being assumed to be due to the mechanisms described above.

Obviously, from Table 1, the order is ferromagnetic at $`T_1`$ and (mostly) antiferromagnetic at $`T_2`$. We have chosen these two equilibrium configurations at $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ as simple examples; they might as well be any ground state choice of a Mattis model, as has been used in YOSHINO , as far as they are sufficiently different from each other.

The initial configuration is completely random. In a short time $`\tau _{\mathrm{iD}}`$, order inside the domain develops, and the correlation length increases up to the size of the unit cluster ($``$ 10), as shown in Fig.7(a) for $`t=10`$MCS. In a second stage, order among the domains develops at the time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{DD}}\tau _{\mathrm{iD}}`$ (Fig.7(b) at $`t=5000`$MCS).

Then, at $`t=5001`$MCS, we change the temperature to $`T_2`$, which means changing the values of the effective couplings (Table 1). Antiferromagnetic order is now favoured. At $`t=5010`$MCS (Fig.8(a)), the new structure appears random (rejuvenation), but the memory spots are visible, clearly keeping track of previous ordering. In order to emphasize the new ordering process at $`T_2`$, we projected the configuration attained at $`t=5010`$MCS (Fig.8(a)) onto an antiferromagnetic ground state (‘transformed’ picture), as represented in Fig.8(a’). The new order among the new clusters has not yet grown. The $`T_1`$ memory spots can also be seen.

A new domain structure starts to develop within the time scale of $`\tau _{\mathrm{DD}}(T_2)`$. Fig. 8(b) (direct) and 8(b’) (transformed) show the development at $`t=7000`$MCS of the new order at $`T_2`$ (the memory spots are still visible).

Then, at $`t=7001`$MCS, the temperature is increased back to its original value $`T_1`$. In a short time, most of the previous ordering is recovered, as can be seen from Fig.8(c) at $`t=7100`$MCS. The comparison of Fig.8(c) with Fig.7(b) shows that the memory of ordering at $`T_1`$ has actually survived to the rejuvenation process at $`T_2`$. The rapid re-ordering processes which occur immediately after re-heating to $`T_1`$ are likely to produce a short $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ ‘transient relaxation’, which has indeed been noted in some experiments hierarki ; DTupps .

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 A plausible scenario for multiple memories ?

Beyond this simple example of rejuvenation and memory phenomena at two temperatures, the possibility of imprinting and reading multiple memories at several temperatures using the above mechanisms is a very incentive issue, even if it remains somewhat speculative. At different temperatures which are separated by a large enough interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, we consider that the ordering patterns are decorrelated from each other, like different ground states in a Mattis model for different sets of bonds (for smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$’s, it is clear that the ordering patterns will have similarities, and that the memory spots cannot fully work).

We suppose that the bond configuration of the memory spots is frozen at lower temperatures, as well as their orientation. Hence they memorize the signs of the local order (which is two-fold at each temperature). They will play the role of nucleation centers when the temperature is raised back.

The important point is that the memorized patterns do not correspond to ordering at other temperatures. At lower temperatures, the memory spots from higher temperatures are like frozen impurities. That is, the memory spots of a given pattern cannot act as nucleation centers for another pattern. This happens effectively in our numerical example (Fig.8): the ferromagnetically ordered spots do not have a significant influence on the antiferromagnetic order.

In the previous section, we chose ferromagnetic (F) and antiferromagnetic (AF) order as examples of two independent ordering patterns at $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. If we now consider a third temperature $`T_3`$ ($`T_3<T_2<T_1`$), the ordering pattern at $`T_3`$ must be independent of both F and AF, as mentioned above, and the memory spots for $`T_1`$ (F-ordered clusters) and for $`T_2`$ (AF-ordered clusters) will just be like frozen impurities. One may think of repeating this process in further and further cooling. How many ordering patterns can be treated as independent ones is an interesting problem, which is related to the question of pattern recognition in random networks, as studied in the Hopfield model network . In real systems, the number of spins is quite large, and it is not difficult to have several independent patterns; the present mechanism may thus work to memorize successive independent patterns at different temperatures. But the memory spots must be large enough to distinguish between different patterns, and also they have to be small compared with the ordering domains. In the simulation of the previous section, the ordering domains were $`10\times 10`$, and the memory spots were $`2\times 3`$. It is clear that the demonstration of multiple memories by simulations of our scenario will strongly be hindered by size limitations.

### 4.2 Rejuvenation effects and chaotic behaviour

The mechanism proposed here to be at the basis of rejuvenation effects is of ‘chaos-type’ bray ; domains , in the sense that it provides a microscopic basis for a ‘chaotic’ temperature dependence of the bonds. Memory is obtained due to the ‘memory spots’ which appear spontaneously in any inhomogeneous system. The question of ‘memory despite rejuvenation’ in domain growth processes has recently been discussed by Yoshino et al YOSHINO  in an analytical and numerical study of the Mattis model. The Mattis model is purely random, but with no frustration, and the doubly degenerate ground state can be arbitrarily chosen by the set of the magnetic interactions. In YOSHINO , the bonds are changed ‘by hand’ from one set to another, and back (this is not far from the numerical example that we have presented here). A first order grows, say of A-type, then some other B-order develops, and coming back to A-bonds one may examine how far A-order has been preserved despite the rejuvenation caused by the growth of B-order. In the Mattis model, domain growth is a fast process because there is no frustration, so the memory of A-domain growth is rapidly erased by the growth of B-type domains. Due to its simplicity, the Mattis model is a useful ‘toy-model’ which even allows some analytic calculations YOSHINO . In a real (fully disordered) system, the growth of the correlation length is naturally much slower.

The study of the Mattis model YOSHINO  shows that the large scale shape of the A-domains is preserved (memory), while the effect of rejuvenation can be seen as small scale ‘holes’ in the big A-domains. The same features can be observed in our numerical example, comparing Fig.7(b) and 8(c), but memory is here more robust thanks to the memory spots.

The fact that memory is preserved in large length scales, while rejuvenation occurs at short length scales, agrees well with the hierarchical sketch corresponding to the experiments hierarki . In contrast, the usual discussion of chaos in spin glasses bray ; domains  is in terms of an overlap length beyond which the equilibrium correlations are re-shuffled by a temperature or bond change. In YOSHINO , and to a certain extent (apart from the memory spots) in the present numerical example, the overlap length between both considered states is zero, and rejuvenation and memory occur at respectively short and large length scales in a ‘hierarchical’ fashion.

The question of ‘chaos’ bray  in the Edwards Anderson spin glass is rather puzzling. The spins in our present simplified picture can perhaps be compared with ‘block spins’ in the Edwards Anderson model, which have been shown in Huse  to interact via effective bonds of temperature-dependent signs (in the same spirit as in REENT ; Seiji . It is intriguing that, in the present numerical simulations of the Edwards Anderson spin glass numerics , no clear rejuvenation and memory effects could be found in the dynamics (as well as no sign of chaos in the statics). In our present scenario, temperature dependent interactions and memory spots are obtained from simple bond arrangements. In a real spin glass, we argue that similar situations should statistically be realized due to the high number of random bonds. It is likely that this is not the case for numerical simulations, in which the number of spins may remain too small to allow the presence of such complicated structures as proposed here. On the other hand, the time scale of the simulations ($`10^5`$) is strongly limited compared to experiments ($`10^{15}`$), which benefit of very short microscopic ($`\tau _010^{12}\mathrm{s}`$) compared to laboratory ($`t10^{05}\mathrm{s}`$) time scales. Experiments Orbach  and simulations numerics  have shown that the spatial growth of the spin-spin correlation length $`\xi `$ is very slow ($`\xi (t/\tau _0)^{0.15T/T_g}`$), reaching hardly 5-10 lattice units in simulations. It is therefore very likely that Edwards Anderson simulations cannot spatially develop neither the kind of mechanisms that we have proposed here, nor the hierarchy of embedded length scales which should correspond to the hierarchical interpretation of the experiments hierarki ; DWhierarchy . In that case, the question of ‘chaos’ in the Edwards Anderson spin glass numerics  might remain open for some time.

Finally, let us emphasize that, by discussing temperature dependent effective interactions as a possible origin of the rejuvenation effects found in experiments, we want to raise the question of a possible ‘classical’ origin of apparently ‘chaos-like’ phenomena. Indeed, an important feature of our present results (as well obtained in YOSHINO ) is that the ‘chaotic’ effect is mainly found at short distances (rejuvenation), while long distance correlations are preserved (memory). This is very similar to the theoretical case of an elastic line in presence of pinning disorder DWhierarchy , in which rejuvenation (and memory) effects can also be expected, due to the selection of smaller and smaller reconformation length scales as the temperature is lowered (see the discussion of experiments on spin glasses and disordered ferromagnets in ferro ). In such a system, when the temperature is decreased, the small length scales are driven out of equilibrium because of the classical thermal variation of the Boltzmann weights of configurations which were equivalent at a higher temperature, therefore new equilibration processes must restart.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we have discussed some basic mechanisms which should be at play in frustrated (conflicting interactions) and inhomogeneous (interactions of various strengths) magnetic systems, and can thus be at the origin of the so-called ‘rejuvenation and memory’ phenomena.

Our first point is that, in the presence of frustration, the effective interaction between two spins (or domains) can take different values with even different sign at different temperatures (this same result explains some reentrance phenomena) REENT ; Seiji . As a second point, we have shown that the inhomogeneity of the interactions can by itself explain the memory effects, since regions with stronger interactions and less frustration will naturally remain frozen for very long times when the temperature is lowered. We have recalled simple examples which can be computed exactly.

Combining these two points, we have shown how rejuvenation and memory can take place in a simple numerical example. In the case of real spin glasses, many complicated bond structures exist, and are likely to correspond to different equilibrium spin structures for reasonably separate temperatures. Hence we expect that in a real spin glass the above scenario takes place ‘spontaneously’ between different temperatures.

In our numerical example, we considered that the system of spins as a whole was subjected to rejuvenation when the temperature is changed. That is, almost all bonds are changed by the temperature change. However, it is likely that only a part of the system rejuvenates. Multiple independent rejuvenation and memory stages, which take place at different temperatures (like in Fig.2), may then correspond to various embedded regions in the sample.

The ordering mechanisms that we have described, in which frustration and inhomogeneity play a major role, should be important ingredients for understanding the spin glass phenomena, at least at the mesoscopic scale, which is the most important for the observable slow dynamics. The extension of the present real space approach to a plain random bond distribution should offer a link with the phase space hierarchical picture, and clarify our understanding of the astonishing properties of spin glasses.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to H. Yoshino, J.-Ph. Bouchaud, A. Lemaître, V. Dupuis, D. Hérisson, E. Bertin and J. Hammann for important discussions on various aspects of this work. We also want to thank the Monbusho grant (Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan), which made possible fruitful contacts and collaborations for several years.

## 6 Appendix: Temperature variations of effective coupling constants

In this appendix we show that the effective coupling between spins which interact by frustrated interactions can show a variety of temperature dependences. This idea has been discussed in previous papers Seiji , and shown to be at the origin of reentrant phase transitions REENT . Here we describe some fundamental mechanisms for various temperature dependences.

Let us consider the effective coupling constant between spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ related by a linear chain with $`n`$ bonds like in Fig. 9(a). We assume, for simplicity, that all the bonds are the same and equal to $`J`$. We define the effective coupling $`K_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ by the correlation function of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$:

$$\sigma _1\sigma _2=\mathrm{tanh}K_{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(4)
Tracing out the intermediate spins ($`\mathrm{s}_1`$,$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{s}_{n1}`$), we obtain

$$K_{\mathrm{eff}}(n,T,J)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}^n\beta J}{1\mathrm{tanh}^n\beta J}\right)$$
(5)
where $`\beta =1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$. The effective interaction $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}=K_{\mathrm{eff}}/\beta `$ varies with temperature.

Let us now consider two chains of different lengths $`n`$ and $`m`$, like in Fig. 9(b). The effective coupling between the spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ is the sum of the contributions of the two chains:

$$K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(n,m,T,J,J^{})=K_{\mathrm{eff}}(n,T,J)+K_{\mathrm{eff}}(m,T,J^{}).$$
(6)
If the signs of the two contributions are different, these interactions suffer frustration. In Fig.10(a), we show the temperature dependence of $`K_{\mathrm{eff1}}`$ for $`(n=10,J)`$ and $`(m=11,J^{}=J)`$ as a function of $`T/J`$. We see that the effective coupling stays constant at low temperatures. By the relation (4), the fact that the effective coupling stays constant means that the spin correlation function does not develop up to unity. That is, the spins do not align completely even at low temperatures. Here , we used the same amplitudes for $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ in order to cancel the coupling at low temperatures. But of course we can use different ones. Indeed, the example given in Section 3 corresponds to $`K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(1,2,T,J,2J)`$, where the effective coupling changes sign.

Because of the additive nature of the effective couplings Eq.(6), we can arrange various temperature dependences making use of the step-function like dependence of $`K_{\mathrm{eff1}}`$. For example, we can make an effective bond which is relevant only in a limited temperature range, by combining $`K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(n,n+1,T,J_1,J_1)`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(n,n+1,T,J_2,J_2)`$ as

$`K_{\mathrm{eff2}}(n,T,J1,J2)=K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(n,n+1,T,J_1,J_1)`$
$`+K_{\mathrm{eff1}}(n,n+1,T,J_2,J_2).`$ (7)
Fig. 10(b) shows $`K_{\mathrm{eff2}}`$ in the case $`n=10`$, $`J_1=J`$ and $`J_2=1.2J`$.

An example of a further complicated case is shown in Fig. 10(c), the effective coupling of which is made of two contributions of the type of (7):

$`K_{\mathrm{eff3}}(T)=K_{\mathrm{eff2}}(n,T,J_1,1.2J_1)`$
$`+K_{\mathrm{eff2}}(n,T,2J_1,2.4J_1^{}).`$ (8)
The examples in this appendix show that a remarkably wide variety of temperature dependences can be obtained in this way.


text:
# Higgs’ mass around 115 GeV would testify for composite Higgs

## 1 Introduction

The widely popular Higgs mechanism  of the electroweak symmetry breaking needs initial scalar fields, which look rather less attractive, than the well-known gauge interactions of vector and spinor fields. Experimental facilities now approach the region of possible discovery of the Higgs. There are even serious indications in favour of the Higgs mass $`M_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}115}_{0.9}^{+1.3}GeV`$ . In view of these considerations it may be useful to study once more possibilities, which differ from the standard Higgs mechanism and to look for experimental consequences of these possibilities.

In the present work111The work is supported in part by grant ”Universities of Russia” 990588. we consider a model, which might serve a substitute for the Standard Model in respect to symmetry breaking. We are basing here on the proposal, which was done in work , the main point of which consists in application of N.N. Bogolyubov method of quasi-averages  to a simple model. Let us summarize the essence of the approach  with some necessary corrections. Namely we consider $`U(1)`$ massless gauge field $`A_\mu `$ and also massless spinor field $`\psi `$, which interact in the following way

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\rho _\rho \psi _\rho \overline{\psi }\gamma _\rho \psi \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }+`$
$`+e_L\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _LA_\rho +e_R\overline{\psi }_R\gamma _\rho \psi _RA_\rho ;`$ (1)
$`A_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ;`$
where as usually

$$\psi _L=\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\psi ;\psi _R=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}\psi .$$

We will not discuss here the problem of the triangle axial anomaly, bearing in mind that in a more realistic model one always can arrange cancellation of the anomalies by a suitable choice of fermions’ charges, in the same way as it occurs in the Standard Model.

Now we start to apply Bogolyubov quasi-averages method  222The quasi-averages method was first applied to quantum field theory problems in work .. In view of looking for symmetry breaking we add to (1) additional term

$$ϵ\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L.$$
(2)
Now let us consider the theory with $`ϵ0`$, calculate necessary quantities (averages) and only at this stage take limit $`ϵ0`$. In this limit, according , we come to quasi-averages, which not always coincide with the corresponding averages, which one obtains directly from the initial Lagrangian (1).

Because of additional term (2) the following additional effective terms in Lagrangian (1) inevitably appear

$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_x=x\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _L\overline{\psi }_R\gamma _\rho \psi _R;\mathrm{\Delta }L_y={\displaystyle \frac{y}{2}}\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _L;`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z={\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\overline{\psi }_R\gamma _\rho \psi _R\overline{\psi }_R\gamma _\rho \psi _R.`$ (3)
The corresponding vertices should have form-factors, which define effective cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The origin of the cut-off is connected with self-consistent solution of the corresponding dynamical equations. A realization of this mechanism will be shown below in Appendix A. In the present work we just set upper limit at Euclidean $`p^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ in momentum integrals.

We consider compensation equations  (in other words, gap equations) for $`x,y,z`$ in one-loop approximation (see Fig. 1), neglecting for the moment gauge field $`A_\mu `$ exchange loops, and obtain following set of equations

$`x={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}x^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x(y+z)\right);`$
$`y={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(x^2\right);z={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(x^2\right);`$ (4)
Let $`X,Y,Z`$ be dimensionless variables

$$X=x\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2};Y=y\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2};Z=z\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2};$$
(5)
Let us look for solutions of set (4). At this stage we also set $`ϵ0`$. There is, of course, trivial solution $`x=y=z=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. In addition we have two nontrivial solutions.

$`Z_1=Y_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};X_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};`$ (6)
$`Z_2=Y_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}};X_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$ (7)
As we shall see further, just the second solution (7) will be the most interesting.

Now let us consider scalar bound states $`(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R,\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L)`$. Without $`e^2`$ corrections we have from Bethe-Salpeter equation in one-loop approximation (see Fig. 2)

$`G=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}XF(\xi )G;\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}};\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}};`$ (8)
$`F(\xi )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\xi +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi }{1+\xi }};\mu \xi <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};`$
$`F(\xi )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\xi +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi \mathrm{log}\mu +O(\xi \mu ,\xi ^2);\xi \mu .`$
where $`G=const`$ is just the Bethe-Salpeter wave function. Here $`m`$ means a fermion mass, which will be shown to be nonzero, and $`k^2`$ is the scalar state Euclidean momentum squared, that is $`k^2>0`$ means tachyon mass of the scalar. Function $`F(\xi )`$ decreases from the value $`F(0)=1`$ with $`\xi `$ increasing. We see, that for solution (7) we have bound state with $`k^2=0`$ in full correspondence with Bogolyubov-Goldstone theorem , . As for the first solution (6), there is no solution of Eq. (8) at all. So we have to concentrate our attention on the solution (7). Note, that there is an additional argument in favour of solution (7). Namely, values $`X`$ and especially $`Y,Z`$ are small enough, so we may expect, that many-loop terms will not influence results strongly.

Now let us take into account vector boson corrections. Equation for the bound state (8) is modified due to two sources. The first one corresponds to vector boson exchange loops in set (4). Here corrections appear, for example, of such form

$$\frac{6e_Le_Rx}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2}.$$

Here $`p`$ is the momentum of integration in Eq. (8). In the present note we will restrict ourselves by main logarithmic approximation, in which such terms do not contribute to results. Indeed, due to simple relation

$$_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}x^n\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{x}dx=\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^{n+1}}{(n+1)^2};$$

there is no logarithms in final expressions. So the only important contribution consists in loop $`e^2`$ corrections to Eq. (8). In Landau gauge there is only one such contribution: the triangle diagram. We draw at Fig. 2 only this diagram, but the gauge invariance of the result is checked by direct calculations in an arbitrary gauge. So we now have

$$G=F(\xi )G+\frac{3e_Le_R}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}G.$$
(9)
We see, that for small $`e_L,e_R`$ possible eigenvalues $`\xi `$ are also small. Then we have following condition for an eigenvalue

$$F(\xi )+\frac{3e_Le_R}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};$$
(10)
We see, that there is tachyon bound state in case $`e^2`$ contribution being positive. Really, the eigenvalue condition for small $`e_i^2`$ reads

$$k^2=m_0^2=\frac{3e_Le_R}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(11)
The result corresponds to main logarithmic approximation. Thus provided $`(e_Le_R)>0`$ we have scalar complex tachyon $`\varphi `$ with negative mass squared $`m_0^2`$.

We have the following vertices of interaction of $`\varphi `$ with spinors

$$G\left(\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\varphi +\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\varphi ^{}\right).$$
(12)
Normalization condition of Bethe-Salpeter equation gives

$$G^2=\frac{16\pi ^2}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m^2)}.$$
(13)
Then we calculate box diagram with four scalar legs. This gives us effective constant $`\lambda `$, which enters into additional term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L=\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )(\varphi ^{}\varphi );\lambda =\frac{G^4}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m^2).$$
(14)
Now we come to the usual Higgs model  with $`m_0^2`$ (11), $`\lambda `$ (14) and $`\varphi `$ charge $`e_Le_R`$.

Thus from expressions (11, 14) we have usual vacuum average of $`\sqrt{2}Re\varphi =\eta `$

$$\eta ^2=\frac{m_0^2}{\lambda }=\frac{3e_Le_R}{128\pi ^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}.$$
(15)
The vector boson mass duly arises and it reads as follows

$$M^2=\frac{3(e_Le_R)^2e_Le_R}{128\pi ^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}.$$
(16)
Interaction (12) leads to spinor mass $`m`$

$$m=\frac{G\eta }{\sqrt{2}};m^2=\frac{3e_Le_R}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(17)
Thus, we obtain the result, that initially massless model of interaction of a spinor with a vector becomes after the symmetry breaking just a close analog of the Higgs model. We have now vector boson mass (16), spinor mass (17) and a scalar bound state with mass $`\sqrt{2}m_0`$,

$$m_H^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_0^2=\frac{3e_Le_R}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(18)
We would formulate qualitative result of the simple model study as follows: in the massless model with Lagrangian (1) with $`(e_Le_R)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ there arises fermion-antifermion condensate, which defines masses $`M,m,M_H`$ according to (16, 17, 18).

Note, that variants of dynamical breaking of the electroweak symmetry without elementary scalars were considered in various aspects (see, e.g. paper ). The possibility of scalars being composed of fundamental spinors was considered e.g. in well-known paper .

## 2 Realistic model in the leading order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion

Here we will proceed in the same line, but choose more realistic model, including one coloured left doublet $`\psi _L=(t_L,b_L)`$ and two right singlets $`t_R,b_R`$, which simulate the heaviest quark pair. They interact with $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge bosons in standard way, so that the initial Lagrangian corresponds to the Standard Model with one heavy quark (initially massless) generation without Higgs sector and looks like

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}\left(\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho _\rho \psi _L_\rho \overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _L\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}\left(\overline{t}_R\gamma _\rho _\rho t_R_\rho \overline{t}_R\gamma _\rho t_R\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}\left(\overline{b}_R\gamma _\rho _\rho b_R_\rho \overline{b}_R\gamma _\rho b_R\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }^aW_{\mu \nu }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\overline{\psi }_L\tau ^a\gamma _\rho \psi _LW_\rho ^a`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{6}}\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _LB_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{2g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{3}}\overline{t}_R\gamma _\rho t_RB_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{3}}\overline{b}_R\gamma _\rho b_RB_\rho ;`$ (19)
$`W_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu W_\nu ^a_\nu W_\mu ^a+gϵ^{abc}W_\mu ^bW_\nu ^c;B_{\mu \nu }=_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu ;g={\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}}.`$
Notations here are usual ones and quarks $`t`$ and $`b`$ are colour triplets.

Let us look for spontaneous four-fermion interactions

$`x_1\overline{\psi }_L^\alpha \gamma _\rho \psi _{L\alpha }\overline{t}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho t_{R\beta };x_2\overline{\psi }_L^\alpha \gamma _\rho \psi _{L\alpha }\overline{b}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho b_{R\beta };`$
$`\overline{x}_1\overline{\psi }_L^\alpha \gamma _\rho \psi _{L\beta }\overline{t}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho t_{R\alpha };\overline{x}_2\overline{\psi }_L^\alpha \gamma _\rho \psi _{L\beta }\overline{b}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho b_{R\alpha };`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_L^{\alpha s}\gamma _\rho \psi _{L\alpha s}\overline{\psi }_L^{\beta r}\gamma _\rho \psi _{L\beta r};{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{2}}\overline{\psi }_L^{\alpha s}\gamma _\rho \psi _{L\alpha r}\overline{\psi }_L^{\beta r}\gamma _\rho \psi _{L\beta s};`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{2}}\overline{t}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho t_{R\beta }\overline{t}_R^\alpha \gamma _\rho t_{R\alpha };{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2}}\overline{b}_R^\alpha \gamma _\rho b_{R\alpha }\overline{b}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho b_{R\beta };`$
$`z_{12}\overline{t}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho t_{R\beta }\overline{b}_R^\alpha \gamma _\rho b_{R\alpha };\overline{z}_{12}\overline{t}_R^\beta \gamma _\rho t_{R\alpha }\overline{b}_R^\alpha \gamma _\rho b_{R\beta };`$
$`\overline{y}_1=y_2;\overline{y}_2=y_1;\overline{z}_i=z_i.`$
Here $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are colour indices and $`s,r`$ are weak isotopic indices. Symbol $`\overline{a}`$ means interchange of colour summation just in the way as it is done for $`x_1,x_2`$. In the same way, as earlier (5) we introduce dimensionless variables

$$X_i=\frac{x_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2};Y_i=\frac{y_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2};Z_i=\frac{z_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2}.$$
(21)
From diagram set of equations Fig. 1 we could obtain a complicated set of algebraic equations. Its form is marvelously simplified in the main order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion. So here we consider just this approximation. Thus for the beginning we get equations for $`Y_1,Y_2`$

$`Y_1={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(Y_2^22Y_1^2X_1^2X_2^22Y_1Y_2\right);`$
$`Y_2={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(Y_2^22Y_1^2X_1^2X_2^22Y_1Y_2\right).`$ (22)
This means, that $`Y_1=Y_2=Y`$. For other variables we have

$`X_1=N_c\left(3X_1Y+2X_1Z_1+X_2Z_{12}\right);`$
$`X_2=N_c\left(3X_2Y+2X_2Z_2+X_1Z_{12}\right);`$
$`Y={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(5Y^2+X_1^2+X_2^2\right);\overline{Y}=Y;\overline{Z}_1=Z_1;\overline{Z}_2=Z_2;`$ (23)
$`Z_1={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(4Z_1^2+2X_1^2+Z_{12}^2\right);Z_2={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}\left(4Z_2^2+2X_2^2+Z_{12}^2\right);`$
$`Z_{12}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N_c\left(Z_1Z_2+Z_1Z_{12}+Z_2Z_{12}\right);\overline{Z}_{12}=N_c\overline{Z}_{12}^2.`$
$`\overline{X}_1=4N_c\overline{X}_1^2;\overline{X}_2=4N_c\overline{X}_2^2;`$ (24)
The most important are equations for $`\overline{X}_{1,2}`$, which we mark separately. If we consider Bethe-Salpeter equations for $`\overline{\psi }_Lt_R`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_Lb_R`$ scalar states again in the main order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion, we have respectively

$$G_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}N_c\overline{X}_1F(\xi )G_1;G_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}N_c\overline{X}_2F(\xi )G_2;\xi =\frac{k^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(25)
Here $`F(\xi )`$ is the same function as earlier (8). This means that in case of a non-trivial solution of one of equations (24) we have zero mass Bogolyubov-Goldstone scalar doublet. Interaction with gauge vector fields according to (19) shifts the level to positive or negative values of the mass squared. Because of the bound state consisting of left and right spinors, only interactions of $`B`$-boson enter to diagram Fig. 2. So if $`\overline{X}_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/4N_c`$, we have tachyon state with

$$m_0^2=\frac{g^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(26)
For other possibility, i.e. $`\overline{X}_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/4N_c`$ ($`\overline{\psi }_Lb_R`$ bound state), we have normal sign mass squared

$$m_{Lb}^2=\frac{g^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W}{48\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$

As we already know, the first possibility leads to Higgs-like symmetry breaking, that is to negative minimum of the effective potential. As for the second case, there is no minima, so here we should take trivial solution $`\overline{X}_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. It is very important point. Really, we here obtain the explanation of why the $`t`$-quark is heavy and the $`b`$-quark is light. Only the first possibility corresponds to tachyon and so gives condensate, leading to creation of masses including $`t`$-quark mass. The fact is connected with signs of interaction terms in (19). For us here only $`\overline{X}_1`$ is important. It is easily seen from set (23) that for all other variables we can take trivial solution $`X_1=X_2=\mathrm{}=0`$. One should expect, that the situation might change in the next approximations.

Next step is normalization of the bound state. Again following previous considerations (12, 13) we have the following normalization condition

$$\frac{N_cG_1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};$$
(27)
Now we obtain fourfold scalar interaction constant $`\lambda `$

$$\lambda =\frac{N_cG_1^4}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}.$$
(28)
For the moment we have everything for effective Higgs mechanism in our variant of the Standard Model. We immediately come to classical scalar field density $`\eta `$

$$\eta ^2=\frac{m_0^2}{\lambda };$$
(29)
where parameters are uniquely defined (26, 27, 28). We also easily see, that constants of gauge interactions of the scalar doublet are just $`g`$ for interaction with $`W`$ and $`g^{}=g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W`$ for interaction with $`B`$ as usually. Now we have at once $`W,Z`$ and $`t,b`$-quark masses

$$M_W=\frac{g\eta }{2};M_Z=\frac{M_W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W};m_t=\frac{G_1\eta }{\sqrt{2}};m_b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(30)
Mass of surviving Higgs scalar

$$M_H^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_0^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda \eta ^2=\frac{N_cG_1^2m_t^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_t^2}.$$
(31)
From (26) we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{3\pi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{\alpha }M_H^2;$$

where as usually $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. From here and from (31) we have

$$R=\frac{3G_1^2}{4\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{log}R+\mathrm{log}\frac{3\pi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{\alpha }\right);R=\frac{M_H^2}{m_t^2}.$$
(32)
Now let us discuss phenomenological aspects. We know all masses but that of the Higgs particle. To obtain it let us proceed as follows. From (30) we have

$$G_1=\frac{gm_t}{\sqrt{2}M_W};g=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.648};\alpha (M_Z)=\frac{1}{129}.$$
(33)
Then for values $`m_t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}174}\pm 5GeV`$, $`M_W=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}80.3}GeV`$ we have $`G_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.993}\pm 0.032`$. Substituting this into (32) we have from solution of the equation

$$M_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}117.1}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.4}GeV.$$
(34)
For example, for $`m_t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}173}GeV`$ we obtain $`M_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}115.6}GeV`$. Result (34) support indications of $`115GeV`$ Higgs .

However value $`G_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ does not fit normalization condition (27). From (27) $`G_1^2`$ is rather about $`8`$ than about $`1`$. So we conclude, that condition (27) contradicts to the observed $`t`$-quark mass. We would emphasize , that the normalization condition is the only flexible point in our approach. The next section will be devoted to discussion of this problem.

## 3 Normalization condition

Scalar bound state in our approach consists of anti-doublet $`(t_L,b_L)`$ and singlet $`t_R`$. It evidently has weak isotopic spin $`1/2`$. Let us denote its field as $`\varphi `$

$$\varphi =\left(\overline{b}_Lt_R\overline{t}_Lt_R\right);\varphi ^+=\left(\overline{t}_Rb_L\overline{t}_Rt_L\right).$$
(35)
From the previous results we have the following terms in the effective Lagrangian

$`N{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^+}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x^\mu }}+m_0^2\varphi ^+\varphi \lambda (\varphi ^+\varphi )^2;`$ (36)
$`N={\displaystyle \frac{N_cG_1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}};`$
where parameters are defined in (26, 28). As for normalization parameter $`N`$, it does not satisfy us. So we may study a possibility of quasi-averages effect for $`\varphi `$ interactions, which can change a coefficient afore the kinetic term. So, let us consider the following possible interactions in addition to (36)

$`L_{int}(W)={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{01}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^+}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x^\nu }}W_{\mu \rho }^aW_{\nu \rho }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{01}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^+}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x^\mu }}W_{\nu \rho }^aW_{\nu \rho }^a;`$ (37)
$`L_{int}(B)={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{00}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^+}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x^\nu }}B_{\mu \rho }^aB_{\nu \rho }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{00}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^+}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x^\mu }}B_{\nu \rho }^aB_{\nu \rho }^a.`$ (38)
In obtaining compensation equations we take into account possibility of triple $`W`$ gauge bosons coupling, which was discussed in various papers (e.g. ) and, in particular, in a variant of dynamical breaking of the electroweak symmetry, which the author considered some time ago . In this variant the Bogolyubov quasi-averages method is applied to possible origin of the triple interaction

$$\frac{g\lambda _V}{M_W^2}ϵ_{abc}W_{\mu \nu }^aW_{\nu \rho }^bW_{\rho \mu }^c;$$
(39)
and corresponding one-loop compensation equation looks like (see Fig. 3)

$$\lambda _V=\lambda _V\left(\frac{g\lambda _V}{M_W^2}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{128\pi ^2};$$
(40)
We have solutions of this equation: trivial one $`\lambda _V=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and two non-trivial ones

$$\lambda _V=\pm \lambda _0;\lambda _0=\frac{8\sqrt{2}M_W^2}{g\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(41)
In the following we assume, that genuine value of $`\lambda _V`$ may differ from value (41) in the range of 15-20%.

Set of equations in one-loop approximation according to diagrams presented at Fig. 4 looks like

$`\xi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\xi _1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\xi _1\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\eta _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta \xi _1;`$
$`\eta _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\xi _1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\xi _1\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\eta _1^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\zeta \left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\xi _1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\eta _1\right);`$ (42)
$`\xi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\xi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\xi _0\eta _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\eta _0^2;`$ (43)
$`\eta _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\xi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\xi _0\eta _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\eta _0^2;`$
$`\xi _1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2}}\xi _{01};\eta _1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2}}\eta _{01};\zeta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _V}{\lambda _0}}\right)^2.`$
$`\xi _0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2}}\xi _{00};\eta _0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{16\pi ^2}}\eta _{00}.`$
For parameters describing interaction of vector singlet $`B`$ there is no contribution of the triple vertex (39), because $`B`$ is an Abelian field.

Parameters $`\xi _i,\eta _i`$ enter into normalization condition according to account of diagram Fig 5. Now this condition takes the form

$$\frac{N_cG_1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}+\frac{9}{4}\left(\xi _1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\eta _1\right)+\frac{3}{4}\left(\xi _0+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\eta _0\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};$$
(44)
From this expression we obtain

$$G_1^2=\frac{(49(\xi _1+2\eta _1)3(\xi _0+2\eta _0))\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi ^2}{3\left(\mathrm{log}(3\pi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _WM_H^2)\mathrm{log}(\alpha m_t^2)\right)}.$$
(45)
We take $`M_H`$ (34) and obtain results, which are presented at Table 1. Table 1 contains results of calculations for the case of trivial solution of set (43), i.e $`\xi _0=\eta _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (all columns but the last); this last column presents results for nontrivial solution of set (43): $`\xi _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.781},\eta _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.215}`$.

What are criteria for choosing a solution? The main criterion is provided by an energy density of a vacuum. We know, that in case of appearance of scalar Higgs condensate $`\eta `$ the vacuum energy density reads

$$E=\frac{m_0^4}{4\lambda };$$
(46)
where parameters are defined in (26), (28). We see, that $`\lambda `$ is proportional to $`G_1^4`$, thus the smaller is $`G_1`$ and consequently $`m_t`$, the deeper becomes the energy density minimum. Therefore we have to choose the solution, which leads to the minimal value of $`m_t`$.

From Table 1 we see, that for calculated value $`\lambda _V=\lambda _0`$ we have minimal $`m_t`$ in comparison with two last lines. The last line but one corresponds to non-trivial solution with $`\lambda _V=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and the last line give results for completely trivial solution ($`\lambda _V=\xi =\eta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$). Both ones give larger values for $`m_t`$ and thus are not suitable. The last column of the table also corresponds to non-minimal values of $`G_1`$ and thus the corresponding solutions are unstable.

However, $`m_t470GeV`$ is too large, so let us look for values of $`\zeta =(\lambda _V/\lambda _0)^2`$, which give realistic values of the $`t`$-quark mass. Namely, values $`\zeta 1.42÷1.43`$, ($`\lambda _V=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0342}`$) give $`G_1`$ to be just in correspondence with relation (33). So, contradiction of the normalization condition with value of the $`t`$-quark mass is removed. Thus we come to the conclusion, that we may not take into account of the normalization condition in considering estimates of composite Higgs mass, as it is done in the previous section.

How we can interpret the situation, when the desirable value for $`\lambda _V`$ is about 20% larger, than the calculated one? We would state, that corrections to the leading approximation, which is used here, might be just of this order of magnitude. To estimate the effect of correction let us consider contribution of usual electroweak triple $`W`$ vertex

$$V_{\mu \nu \rho }(p,q,k)=g\left(g_{\mu \nu }(q_\rho p_\rho )+g_{\nu \rho }(k_\mu q_\mu )+g_{\rho \mu }(p_\nu k_\nu )\right);$$

(where $`p,q,k`$ and $`\mu ,\nu ,\rho `$ are as usually incoming momenta and indices of $`W`$s) to compensation equation (40), which defines $`\lambda _V`$. In addition to diagram Fig. 3 we take three diagrams, in which one of vertices is changed to $`V_{\mu \nu \rho }`$. We have to add also contribution of four-$`W`$ vertex, which is contained in triple vertex (39). This contribution restores the gauge invariance of the result. Thus we obtain a contribution, which is proportional to $`g/\pi `$. Namely, instead of (40) we now have

$$\lambda _V=\lambda _V\left(\left(\frac{g\lambda _V}{M_W^2}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{128\pi ^2}+\frac{3g}{16\pi ^2}\frac{g\lambda _V\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_W^2}\right);$$

That is, if $`\lambda _V\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$

$$1=\left(\frac{\lambda _V}{\lambda _0}\right)^2+\frac{3g}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\frac{\lambda _V}{\lambda _0};$$
(47)
and from (47) we have

$$\lambda _V\lambda _0\left(\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{3g}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }\right).$$
(48)
Value of $`g`$ (33) gives the correction term here to be about 20%, what corresponds to data presented in Table 1. We consider result (48) as qualitative argument for possibility of consistent description of data in the framework of our approach. Full study of this problem needs special efforts. So for the moment one may only state, that value

$$\lambda _V\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.034};$$
(49)
which excellently fits $`t`$-quark mass, is possible in the approach being considered here. Sign of $`\lambda _V`$ is chosen due to experimental limitations $`\lambda _V=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.037}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.030}`$ . We see, that our result (49) fits this restriction quite nicely. We consider this result (49) as a prediction for triple gauge coupling.

We have no proof that the possibility being discussed here is the only one, which can improve situation with the normalization condition. However all other possibilities, which were considered in the course of performing the work, lead to wrong sign of corresponding contributions to this condition. That is $`t`$-quark mass becomes even larger, than $`513GeV`$. So we are inclined to consider this possibility, especially prediction (49) as quite promising. In any case we have an example of a variant, which has no contradiction with all what we know.

## 4 Discussion

Thus as a result of our study of the model we now come to the theory, which describe Standard electroweak interaction of:
1. gauge vector bosons sector with input of constants $`g`$ and $`\theta _W`$;
2. heavy quark doublet $`t,b`$ with the $`t`$-quark mass $`174\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}GeV`$ and the $`b`$ mass zero;
3. necessary composite Higgs sector with mass of surviving neutral scalar particle $`M_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}117}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}GeV`$.

In addition to these standard interactions there are also effective contact interactions, which act in momentum regions limited by effective cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3500}GeV`$. We calculate the last number e.g. from relation (26).

Three parameters ($`g,\theta _W,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) are the only fundamental input of the model. As a technical input we consider triple gauge constant $`\lambda _V`$, which in range of 20% agrees with the calculated value (41), but its precise value is defined by the next approximations. We emphasize, that the presence of such interaction with constant (49) in the framework of the model is necessary. We consider result (49) as very important prediction of the model. Of course, the most important for the model is the prediction, that hints for $`115GeV`$ Higgs  have to be confirmed.

It is worthwhile here to comment the problem of accuracy of the approach. Our approximations are the following.
1. One-loop diagrams. We estimate accuracy to be around $`\overline{X}_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}`$.
2. Corrections being of order of magnitude $`g/\pi `$ give uncertainty around 0.2.
3. The leading order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion. Usually precision of $`1/N_c`$ expansion is estimated to be $`1/N_c^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.11}`$.
4. We keep only logarithmic terms. Uncertainty is estimated to be $`1/\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_t^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.16}`$.

Thus the combined accuracy, provided items 1 – 4 being independent, is estimated to be around 29%. As a matter of fact, all uncertainties, which we have encountered above fit into this range.

For the moment we have only one quark doublet. Remind, that now we understand why the $`t`$-quark is heavy and the $`b`$-quark is almost massless. We consider heavy $`t,b`$ doublet as the most fundamental one in the sense, that it defines the main part of heavy particles masses. Indeed, composite Higgs scalars are just consisting of these quarks. We may immediately introduce all other quarks and leptons with zero mass completely in the line prescribed by the Standard Model. So at this stage of study of the model we deal with massive $`W,Z,t,H`$ and massless all other particles. We may expect,that masses of quarks and leptons will appear in subsequent approximations. We have to expect their value to be less than 29% of our heavy masses, that is $`m_i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}23}GeV`$. All the masses known satisfy this restriction. We could expect also, that in subsequent approximations Higgs scalars are not composed of only heavy quarks, but have admixture of lighter quarks and leptons.

Additional contact interactions (20) include four-fermion interactions of heavy quarks $`t,b`$. So, there is practically no experimental limitations on the corresponding coupling constant. Limitations exist only for contact interactions of light quarks. Limitations for triple gauge interaction (39) were mentioned above and were shown to agree with predicted value (49). New contact interaction (37) deals with yet undiscovered Higgs scalars and therefore it is not a subject for experimental limitations. As an example we estimate cross-section of process $`e^+e^{}HH`$ in Appendix B.

To conclude the author would state, that the variant being studied presents a possibility to formulate realistic electroweak interaction without elementary scalars, which are substituted by composite effective scalar fields. The dynamics of the variant is defined in the framework of the Bogolyubov quasi-averages method. Definite predictions make checks of the variant to be quite straightforward.

Appendix

## Appendix A Effective cut-off

Let us consider a theory with combination of four-fermion interactions (3). We take the simplest nontrivial term in the Bethe-Salpeter equation for connected four-fermion amplitude, corresponding to Lorentz structure $`\overline{\psi }_L\gamma _\rho \psi _L\overline{\psi }_R\gamma _\rho \psi _R=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L`$, which is presented at Fig. 6. The kernel for this equation corresponds to simple loop, which gives the following expression

$$K(p,q)=ı\frac{3x(y+z)}{16\pi ^2}(pq)^2\mathrm{log}(pq)^2+const+𝒪((pq)^2).$$
(50)
We are interested in momentum dependence, so we consider just the logarithmic term in the kernel, i.e. the first term in Eq. (50), which we denote $`K_{log}(p,q)`$. We shall see below, that terms containing $`const`$ and $`const(pq)^2`$ give zero contribution due to boundary conditions. Equation for four-fermion amplitude F(p), corresponding to Fig. 4, looks like (after applying of Wick rotation)

$`F(p)=ı{\displaystyle \frac{K_{log}(p,q)F(q)}{q^2}d^4q}=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{(pq)^2\mathrm{log}(pq)^2F(q)}{q^2}d^4q};`$ (51)
$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{3x(y+z)}{16\pi ^2}}.`$
Equations of such type can be studied in the same way as more simple equations with kernels being proportional to $`((pq)^2)^1`$. The method to solve the latter ones was known a long time ago . For logarithmic case basic angular integrals are the following

$`{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_4\mathrm{log}(pq)^2=\pi ^2(\theta (xy)({\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}+2\mathrm{log}x)+\theta (yx)({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}+2\mathrm{log}y));`$
$`{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_4(pq)\mathrm{log}(pq)^2={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}(\theta (xy)({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{x}}3y)+\theta (yx)({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{y}}3x));`$ (52)
$`x=p^2,y=q^2.`$
Integrals (52) are sufficient for angular integrations in equation (51). So we have

$`F(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{32\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3x}}{\displaystyle _0^x}y^2F(y)dy+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}{\displaystyle _0^x}yF(y)dy+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{log}x{\displaystyle _0^x}yF(y)dy+`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x\mathrm{log}x{\displaystyle _0^x}F(y)𝑑y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}y\mathrm{log}yF(y)𝑑y+x{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}(3+2\mathrm{log}y)F(y)𝑑y+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{3}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(y)}{y}}dy).`$ (53)
Applying differentiations in proper order, we obtain differential equation

$$\frac{d^3}{dx^3}\left(x^2\frac{d^3}{dx^3}(xF(x))\right)=\frac{\beta }{8\pi ^2}\frac{F(x)}{x}.$$
(54)
Eq. (54) is easily transformed to the canonical form of Meijer equation

$`\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\right)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\right)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}1\right)F(y)+`$
$`+yF(y)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};y={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{512\pi ^2}}x^2.`$ (55)
Equation (54) (or (55)) is equivalent to integral equation (53) provided proper boundary conditions be fulfilled. The first one is connected with convergence of integrals at infinity. The most intricate conditions are connected with behaviour at $`x0`$. From Eq. (55) we see, that at zero there are the following independent asymptotics:

$$\frac{a_1}{x},a_{0l}\mathrm{log}x,a_0,a_{1l}x\mathrm{log}x,a_1x,a_2x^2.$$
(56)
To obtain conditions for $`a_i`$ one has to substitute into Eq. (53)

$$F(y)=\frac{8\pi ^2}{\beta }x\frac{d^3}{dx^3}\left(x^2\frac{d^3}{dx^3}(xF(x))\right);$$

and perform integrations by parts. Thus we come to conditions

$$a_1=a_{0l}=a_{1l}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(57)
These results, in particular, lead to zero values of integrals

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}F(y)𝑑y=_0^{\mathrm{}}yF(y)𝑑y=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};$$

that guarantees the absence of contributions of constant terms in the initial equation, which we have mentioned above.

According to properties of Meijer functions  we have unique solution of Eq. (55) with the boundary conditions (57)

$$F(x)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}G_{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}6}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}0}}\left(y|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{1}{2}\right);y=\frac{\beta }{512\pi ^2}x^2.$$
(58)
This function has all qualities of a form-factor. It is equal to unity at the origin and decreases with oscillations at infinity. Effective cut-off is estimated from (58)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{16\sqrt{2}\pi }{\sqrt{\beta }}.$$
(59)
Thus we demonstrate how the effective cut-off arises. Of course, it is done in the quasi-ladder approximation, but we think, that an account of non-linearities changes numbers, but does not change the situation qualitatively. In the present work we will not go further and will not try to connect these considerations with realistic numbers.

## Appendix B Pair H production

It is of interest to estimate possible effects of interactions (37, 38) in future experiments. We take as an example process $`e^+e^{}HH`$ connected with these interactions. Indeed, due to $`WW`$, $`BB`$ loops, interactions (37), (38) lead to vertex $`\overline{e}eHH`$. Simple calculation gives the differential cross-section of process $`e^+e^{}HH`$ due to this vertex

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\left(\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{s}\right)^2((\xi _1+\frac{1}{3}\xi _0\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W)^2+\left(\frac{4}{3}\xi _0\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\right)^2)\times $$

$$\times \frac{\pi Ek^5\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{16\mathrm{\Lambda }^8};$$

where $`E`$ is the energy of a beam in c.m.r.f., $`s=4E^2`$ and $`k=\sqrt{E^2M_H^2}`$. The total cross-section reads

$$\sigma =\left(\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{s}\right)^2\left(\left(\xi _1+\frac{1}{3}\xi _0\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\right)^2+\left(\frac{4}{3}\xi _0\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\right)^2\right)\frac{\pi Ek^5}{60\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}.$$

Even for $`E=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}500}GeV`$ we have for $`\xi _1=4.54,\xi _0=0`$ (see Table 1) $`\sigma \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}10^{43}cm^2`$, that is far out of experimental possibilities.

Figure captions

Figure 1. Diagrams for Eq. (4). Thick lines represent left spinors $`\psi _L`$ and thin lines represent right ones $`\psi _R`$; (a) corresponds to the first equation of set (4) and (b) corresponds to the second equation of (4). The third equation follows from (b) by mutual exchange thick $``$ thin.
Figure 2. Diagram representation of Bethe-Salpeter equation for scalar bound states. Dotted line represents gauge vector field.
Figure 3. Diagram equation for triple gauge constant $`\lambda _V`$.
Figure 4. Diagrams representing equations for $`\varphi ^+\varphi WW`$ vertices.
Figure 5. Diagram for contribution of $`\varphi ^+\varphi WW`$ vertices to the normalization condition.
Figure 6. Bethe-Salpeter equation in quasi-ladder approximation.

Table caption

Table 1. Yukava coupling $`G_1`$ and the $`t`$-quark mass in dependence on $`\lambda _V`$.

Table 1.

| $`\zeta `$ | $`\xi _1`$ | $`\eta _1`$ | $`G_1`$ | $`\lambda _V`$ | $`m_tGeV`$ | $`G_1(\xi _0,\eta _00)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1.723 | \- 0.820 | 2.67 | \- 0.0286 | 467.8 | 5.31 |
| 1.2 | 3.056 | \- 1.421 | 2.13 | \- 0.0313 | 373.2 | 5.31 |
| 1.4 | 4.371 | \- 1.999 | 1.195 | \- 0.0338 | 209.4 | 4.75 |
| 1.42 | 4.502 | \- 2.056 | 1.047 | \- 0.0341 | 183.4 | 4.71 |
| 1.422 | 4.515 | \- 2.062 | 1.031 | \- 0.0341 | 180.6 | 4.71 |
| 1.424 | 4.528 | \- 2.068 | 1.015 | \- 0.0341 | 177.8 | 4.70 |
| 1.426 | 4.541 | \- 2.073 | 0.998 | \- 0.0342 | 174.8 | 4.70 |
| 1.428 | 4.554 | \- 2.079 | 0.982 | \- 0.0342 | 172.0 | 4.70 |
| 1.43 | 4.567 | \- 2.085 | 0.964 | \- 0.0342 | 168.9 | 4.69 |
| 0 | \- 2.781 | \- 0.215 | 8.392 | 0 | 1470.7 |  |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.927 | 0 | 512.8 |  |