text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The mass of the Higgs boson of the Standard Model(SM) is still undertemined, although there are recent reports indicating the observation of signals at LEP \[1-3\]. The requirement that the vacuum is stable and the perturbation is valid up to a large scale(for example, grand unification scale) can bound the mass(es) of Higgs boson(s) . Extra Higgs bosons and gauge bosons will appear naturally in many extensions of the SM. Generally the masses of extra gauge bosons remain unpredicted and may or may not be of the order of the electroweak scale. The closeness of the observed W and Z boson properties with the predictions of the SM do not yield any direct information about the masses of extra gauge bosons, but seems to imply that the mixings of W or Z with extra gauge bosons should be very small.

$`E_6`$ models have been studied widely . The maximal subgroup decomposition of $`E_6`$ containing QCD as an explicit factor is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$, from which an effective low energy model $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ can arise . $`SU(2)_I`$ commutes with the electric charge operator and the corresponding gauge bosons are neutral. The most extensive works on the phenomenology of this model focused on the production of the $`W_I`$’s in hadron-hadron, $`e^+e^{}`$, and $`ep`$ colliders . The t-channel production of exotic fermions in the model has recently been considered in Ref. . In this paper we will study the gauge boson and Higgs boson sectors of the model, and bounds on the masses and mixings of extra neutral gauge bosons and Higgs bosons will be found.

In Ref. , a direct search for extra gauge bosons was reported and lower mass limits of approximately $`500700`$ GeV were set, depending on the $`Z^{}`$ couplings. The discovery potential and diagnostic abilities of proposed future colliders for new neutral or charged gauge bosons were summarized in Ref. . Even though there is as yet no direct experimental evidence of extra gauge bosons, stringent indirect constraints can be put on the mixings and the masses of extra gauge bosons by electroweak precision data. In Ref. \[12-14\], such constraints were derived in the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ model. The lower mass limits were generally several hundreds of GeV and were competitive with experimental bounds from direct searches. A good summary of $`Z^{}`$ searches can be found in Ref.  and references therein.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the model will be described briefly, and a specific Higgs field assignment to break $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ into $`U(1)_{em}`$ will be introduced. Sec. 3 deals with the extra neutral gauge bosons. The mixing among neutral gauge bosons will be discussed. In Sec. 4, electroweak precision experiments, including Z-pole experiments, $`m_W`$ measurements and low-energy neutral current(LENC) experiments will be presented, with special attention being paid to a proposed measurement of the weak charge of the proton at Jefferson Lab. In Sec. 5, constraints on the masses of extra neutral gauge bosons and mixings will be found. In Sec. 6, bounds on and relationships of masses of Higgs bosons appearing in the supersymmetric version of the model will be derived. Sec. 7 contains our conclusions. Mass-squared matrices of neutral gauge bosons and Higgs bosons in the model are given in the Appendices.

## 2 The Model

There are many phenomenologically acceptable low energy models which can arise from $`E_6`$:

$`(a)`$ $`E_6`$ $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_\eta ,`$
$`(b)`$ $`E_6`$ $`SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi \times U(1)_\psi ,`$
$`(c)`$ $`E_6`$ $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_L\times U(1)_R,`$
$`(c^{})`$ $`E_6`$ $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{},`$ (1)
where there is only one extra Z, generally called $`Z_\eta `$, in model (a). $`U(1)_\psi `$ and $`U(1)_\chi `$ can be combined into $`U(1)_\theta `$ as $`Z^{}(\theta )=Z_\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta Z_\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ in model (b), reducing it to the effective rank-5 model $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_\theta `$, which is most often considered in the literature. In particular, $`U(1)_\eta `$ corresponds to $`\theta =\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{3/8}`$. Model (c) and $`(c^{})`$ come from the subgroup $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$. The 27-dimensional fundamental representation of $`E_6`$ has the branching rule

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}=\underset{q}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟑}^c,\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}}+\underset{\overline{q}}{\underset{}{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^c,\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})}}+\underset{l}{\underset{}{(\mathrm{𝟏}^c,\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟑})}},$$
(2)
and the particles of the first family are assigned as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\\ h\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u^c\hfill & d^c& \hfill h^c\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E^c& \nu & N\\ N^c& e& E\\ e^c& \nu ^c& S^c\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`SU(3)_L`$ operates vertically and $`SU(3)_R`$ operates horizontally. (Different symbols for these particles may be used in the literature.)

The most common pattern of breaking the $`SU(3)_R`$ factor is to break the 3 of $`SU(3)_R`$ into 2+1, so that $`(u^c,d^c)`$ forms an $`SU(2)_R`$ doublet with $`h^c`$ as a $`SU(2)_R`$ singlet. This gives model (c), the familiar left-right symmetric model . Model (c) can be reduced further to an effective rank-5 model with $`U(1)_{V=L+R}`$. Another possibility, resulting in model $`(c^{})`$, is to break the 3 of the $`SU(3)_R`$ into $`\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐}`$ so that $`(d^c,h^c)`$ forms an $`SU(2)`$ doublet with $`u^c`$ as a singlet. In this option, the $`SU(2)`$ doesn’t contribute to the electromagnetic charge operator and it is called $`SU(2)_I`$ (I stands for Inert). Then the vector gauge bosons corresponding to $`SU(2)_I`$ are neutral.

At the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ level, a single generation of fermions can be represented as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu & N\\ e^{}& E^{}\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{cc}d^c\hfill & \hfill h^c\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{c}E^c\\ N^c\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu ^c\hfill & \hfill S^c\end{array}\right)_L,h_L,e_L^c,u_L^c,`$ (19)
Table 1 The quantum numbers of fermions in 27 of $`E_6`$

at the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ level.

| State | $`T_{3L}`$ | $`T_{3I}`$ | $`Y`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`Q_{em}=T_{3L}+Y/2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`u`$ | 1/2 | 0 | 1/3 | 2/3 | 2/3 |
| $`d`$ | -1/2 | 0 | 1/3 | 2/3 | -1/3 |
| $`u^c`$ | 0 | 0 | -4/3 | 2/3 | -2/3 |
| $`d^c`$ | 0 | 1/2 | 2/3 | -1/3 | 1/3 |
| $`h`$ | 0 | 0 | -2/3 | -4/3 | -1/3 |
| $`h^c`$ | 0 | -1/2 | 2/3 | -1/3 | 1/3 |
| $`e^{}`$ | -1/2 | 1/2 | -1 | -1/3 | -1 |
| $`e^c`$ | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2/3 | 1 |
| $`E^{}`$ | -1/2 | -1/2 | -1 | -1/3 | -1 |
| $`E^c`$ | 1/2 | 0 | 1 | -4/3 | 1 |
| $`\nu `$ | 1/2 | 1/2 | -1 | -1/3 | 0 |
| $`\nu ^c`$ | 0 | 1/2 | 0 | 5/3 | 0 |
| $`N`$ | 1/2 | -1/2 | -1 | -1/3 | 0 |
| $`N^c`$ | -1/2 | 0 | 1 | -4/3 | 0 |
| $`S^c`$ | 0 | -1/2 | 0 | 5/3 | 0 |

where $`SU(2)_{L(I)}`$ acts vertically (horizontally). The quantum numbers of particles are listed in Table 1.

In Ref.  the Higgs structure necessary to break $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ down to $`U(1)_{em}`$ was discussed. The Higgs multiplets are

$`H_\mathit{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}H_2^+\\ H_2^0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_1^0\stackrel{~}{\nu }& \\ H_1^{}\stackrel{~}{e^{}}& \end{array}\right),N\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_2N_1\hfill & \end{array}\right),N^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_2^{}N_1^{}\hfill & \end{array}\right),`$ (26)
with $`SU(2)_L`$ acting in the vertical direction and $`SU(2)_I`$ acting in the horizational direction. The U(1) quantum numbers are: $`Y(H_\mathit{2})=1,Y()=1,Y(N)=Y(N^{})=0`$, and $`Y^{}(H_\mathit{2})=4/3,Y^{}()=1/3,Y^{}(N)=Y^{}(N^{})=5/3`$. The doublets N and $`N^{}`$ are also neutral. Note that two N doublets are needed. The reason can be seen in the limit where the model is broken down to the SM at a scale much greater than the electroweak scale. A single N doublet can only break $`SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ down to U(1), leaving an extra unbroken U(1) symmetry.

The multiplets can get vacuum expectation values in the following way,

$$H_\mathit{2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_2\end{array}\right),=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_1v_3& \\ 00& \end{array}\right),N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}n_2n_1\hfill & \end{array}\right),N^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}n_2^{}n_1^{}\hfill & \end{array}\right).$$
(27)
Since we are not considering the spontaneous CP violation, the phase of the Higgs fields can be chosen such that all of vacuum expectation values are real and positive. There appear to be seven vacuum expectation values in the model, but one of them can be set to zero by performing an $`SU(2)_I`$ rotation. So there are only six physically relevant vacuum expectation values.

## 3 Extra neutral gauge bosons and mixings

In the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ model, the neutral gauge fields include the ordinary Z coming from $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$; $`W_I^1`$, $`W_I^2`$ and $`W_I^3`$ for the $`SU(2)_I`$ group and B for $`U(1)_Y^{}`$. (We will use linear combinations $`W_I^\pm =(W_I^1iW_I^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ instead of $`W_I^1`$ and $`W_I^2`$, here $`\pm `$ is just a convention as they are neutral.) After the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism described in the previous section, the mass-squared matrix for the neutral gauge bosons is a symmetric $`5\times 5`$ matrix, whose elements are listed in the appendices.

It is apparent that there are mixings among the neutral gauge bosons. It is impossible to diagonalize the matrix analytically. Numerical calculations must be needed to get the eigenstates and corresponding eigenvalues.

It is noted that the elements in the first row(column) are independent of the vacuum expectation values $`n_i`$ and $`n_i^{}`$(i=1,2). Therefore when they are very large, the mixing should be small. In this decoupling limit, the only observable neutral gauge boson is the ordinary Z and its mass should be the exact value measured experimentally. The extra neutral gauge bosons are not yet accessible experimentally, but their existence will have effects in electroweak radiative corrections.

In order to find mass eigenstates and mixing angles, the mass-squared matrix $`^2`$ can be split into two parts

$`^2`$ $`=`$ $`_1^2+_2^2`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}m_Z^2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& m_{W_I^3}^2& m_{23}& m_{24}& m_{25}\\ 0& m_{23}& m_B^2& m_{34}& m_{35}\\ 0& m_{24}& m_{34}& 0& m_{W_I^\pm }^2\\ 0& m_{25}& m_{35}& m_{W_I^\pm }^2& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& m_{12}& m_{13}& m_{14}& m_{15}\\ m_{12}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ m_{13}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ m_{14}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ m_{15}& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)_.`$
First we can use a $`5\times 5`$ unitary matrix $`𝐔_1`$ to diagonalize $`_1^2`$, and $`𝐔_1`$ can have the form

$$𝐔_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 𝐮_1\end{array}\right)_,$$
(39)
where $`𝐮_1`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ unitary matrix. This is to find mass eigenstates of extra neutral gauge bosons. There is no mixing of ordinary Z boson with extra neutral gauge bosons at this stage. Then the total mass-squared matrix for the neutral gauge bosons under the new basis has the form

$`^2`$ $`=`$ $`_1^2+_2^2`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}m_Z^2& m_{12}^{}& m_{13}^{}& m_{14}^{}& m_{15}^{}\\ m_{12}^{}& m_{Z_2}^2& & & \\ m_{13}^{}& & m_{Z_3}^2& & \\ m_{14}^{}& & & m_{Z_4}^2& \\ m_{15}^{}& & & & m_{Z_5}^2\end{array}\right)_.`$
$`^2`$ can be principally diagonalized by another unitary matrix $`𝐔_2`$, then we can get a unitary matrix $`𝐔=𝐔_2\times 𝐔_1`$ which can be used to diagonalize the original matrix $`^2`$. The mixings of ordinary Z boson with extra neutral gauge bosons occur in this transformation. For small mixings, the elements of $`𝐔_2`$ will have the following properties

$`(𝐔_2)_{11}`$ $``$ $`1.0,`$
$`(𝐔_2)_{j1}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2m_{Z_1}^2}{m_{Z_j^{}}^2m_Z^2}}\right)^{1/2},`$
$`(𝐔_2)_{jk}`$ $``$ $`0,jk.`$ (46)
Therefore $`(𝐔_2)_{j1}`$ can be treated as effective mixing angles.

The couplings between neutral gauge bosons and fermions, which will give neutral current processes, are

$`_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f,\alpha }{}}\{g_Z\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu (T_{3L}^{f_\alpha }Q_{f_\alpha }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)f_\alpha Z_\mu +g_Y^{}Y_{f_\alpha }^{}/2\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha B_\mu `$ (47)
$`+g_IT_{3I}^{f_\alpha }\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha W_{I\mu }^3\},`$
where the first term in the brackets represents the SM neutral currents, the second and third terms represent additional neutral currents introduced by extra neutral gauge bosons, and $`g_Z=g_L/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W=g_Y/\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$. The symbol $`f_\alpha `$ denotes the leptons or quarks with the chirality $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =L`$ or $`R`$). The quantum numbers $`T_{3L}^{f_\alpha }`$, $`Q_{f_\alpha }`$, $`Y_{f_\alpha }^{}`$ and $`T_{3I}^{f_\alpha }`$ can be read from Table 1. The flavor-changing neutral currents caused by $`W_I^\pm `$ involve heavy fermions and will not be included here.

After the $`𝐔_1`$-transformation, the interaction Lagrangian changes as

$`_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f,\alpha }{}}\{g_Z\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu (T_{3L}^{f_\alpha }Q_{f_\alpha }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)f_\alpha Z_\mu `$ (48)
$`+g_Y^{}Y_{f_\alpha }^{}/2\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(𝐔_1)_{3j}Z_{j\mu }`$
$`+g_IT_{3I}^{f_\alpha }\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(𝐔_1)_{2j}Z_{j\mu }\}.`$
where the first term is unchanged because there is no mixing of ordinary Z boson with extra neutral gauge bosons. Considering the $`𝐔_2`$-transformation, the final interaction Lagrangian is given as

$`_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f,\alpha }{}}\{g_Z\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu (T_{3L}^{f_\alpha }Q_{f_\alpha }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)f_\alpha [(𝐔_2)_{11}Z_{1\mu }+{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(𝐔_2)_{1j}Z_{j\mu }^{}]`$ (49)
$`+g_Y^{}Y_{f_\alpha }^{}/2\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(𝐔_1)_{3j}[(𝐔_2)_{j1}Z_{1\mu }+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}(𝐔_2)_{jk}Z_{k\mu }^{}]`$
$`+g_IT_{3I}^{f_\alpha }\overline{f}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu f_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(𝐔_1)_{2j}[(𝐔_2)_{j1}Z_{1\mu }+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}(𝐔_2)_{jk}Z_{k\mu }^{}]\},`$
The contributions from the term $`(𝐔_2)_{1j}Z_{j\mu }^{}`$ can be omitted in our analysis because they are combinations of mixings and exchanges of extra neutral gauge bosons and should be very small.

Due to the mixings, the mass, $`m_{Z_1}`$ of the observed Z boson is shifted from the SM prediction $`m_Z`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_{Z_1}^2m_Z^20.$$
(50)
The presence of this mass shift will affect the T-parameter  at tree level. From Ref. , the T-parameter is expressed in terms of the effective form factors $`\overline{g}_Z^2(0)`$, $`\overline{g}_W^2(0)`$ and the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ as

$`\alpha T`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_W^2(0)}{m_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Z_1}^2}{\overline{g}_Z^2(0)}}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`\alpha (T_{SM}+T_{new}),`$
where $`T_{SM}`$ and the new physics contribution $`T_{new}`$ are given by

$`\alpha T_{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_W^2(0)}{m_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{\overline{g}_Z^2(0)}},`$ (52)
$`\alpha T_{new}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m_{Z_1}^2}}0.`$ (53)
It is noted that the positiveness of $`T_{new}`$ is attributed to the mixings which always lower the mass of the ordinary Z boson. The effects of Z-$`Z^{}`$ mixings can be described by the effective mixing angles and the positive $`T_{new}`$.

## 4 Electroweak observables

The experimental data used to put indirect constraints on extra neutral gauge bosons are summarized in Table 2. The data includes the Z-pole experiments, the W boson mass measurement and LENC experiments. They are updated from Ref. . The family universality is assumed in our analysis.

Table 2 Summary of precision electroweak measurements used in our analysis.

| Z-pole experiments | |
| --- | --- |
| $`m_Z`$ (GeV) | 91.1872 $`\pm `$ 0.0021 |
| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ (GeV) | 2.4944 $`\pm `$ 0.0024 |
| $`\sigma _h^0`$ (nb) | 41.544 $`\pm `$ 0.037 |
| $`R_l`$ | 20.784 $`\pm `$ 0.023 |
| $`A_{FB}^{0,l}`$ | 0.0170 $`\pm `$ 0.0009 |
| $`A_\tau `$ | 0.1425 $`\pm `$ 0.0043 |
| $`A_e`$ | 0.1511 $`\pm `$ 0.0019 |
| $`R_b`$ | 0.21642 $`\pm `$ 0.00073 |
| $`R_c`$ | 0.1674 $`\pm `$ 0.0038 |
| $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ | 0.0988 $`\pm `$ 0.0020 |
| $`A_{FB}^{0,c}`$ | 0.0692 $`\pm `$ 0.0037 |
| $`A_{LR}^0`$ | 0.1495 $`\pm `$ 0.0017 |
| $`A_b`$ | 0.911 $`\pm `$ 0.025 |
| $`A_c`$ | 0.630 $`\pm `$ 0.026 |
| W-mass measurement | |
| $`m_W`$ (GeV) | 80.394 $`\pm `$ 0.042 |
| LENC experiments | |
| $`A_{SLAC}`$ | 0.80 $`\pm `$ 0.058 |
| $`A_{CERN}`$ | -1.57 $`\pm `$ 0.38 |
| $`A_{Bates}`$ | -0.137 $`\pm `$ 0.033 |
| $`A_{Mainz}`$ | -0.94 $`\pm `$ 0.19 |
| $`Q_W(_{55}^{133}\mathrm{Cs})`$ | -72.06 $`\pm `$ 0.44 |
| $`K_{FH}`$ | 0.3247 $`\pm `$ 0.0040 |
| $`K_{CCFR}`$ | 0.5820 $`\pm `$ 0.0049 |
| $`g_{LL}^{\nu _\mu e}`$ | -0.269 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |
| $`g_{LR}^{\nu _\mu e}`$ | 0.234 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |

In addition to the electroweak observables generally used in the literature, we also consider the possible constraint arising from the weak charge of the proton, which is proposed to be measured at Jefferson Lab. In contrast to the weak charge of a heavy atom, the weak charge of the proton is fortuitously suppressed in the SM. Therefore it is very sensitive to the contributions from new physics. Additionally it is twice as sensitive to new u-quark interactions as it is to new d-quark physics. In the model considered here the right-handed u-quark and d-quark have different isospin contents under $`SU(2)_I`$, so it is advantageous to consider the constraints arising from the anticipated measurement. The theoretical prediction  for the weak charge of the proton can be derived

$`Q_W^P`$ $`=`$ $`0.072020.01362\mathrm{\Delta }S+0.00954\mathrm{\Delta }T+2(2\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1u}+\mathrm{\Delta }C_{1d}).`$ (54)
## 5 Constraints on extra neutral gauge bosons

Using the electroweak precision data, constraints on mixing angles and masses of extra neutral gauge bosons can be obtained from the standard $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. For simplicity, $`S_{new}`$ and $`U_{new}`$ will be set zero because they are very small. Through our analysis, we will use precisely determined parameters $`m_{Z_1}`$, $`G_f`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }(m_{Z_1}^2)`$ as inputs. The Higgs mass dependence of the results are ignored for simplicity. We set the top quark mass $`m_t=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and Higgs boson mass $`m_H=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ in our analysis. We first obtain the constraints from Z-pole experiments and $`m_W`$ measurement only, and then we combine the LENC experiments with them to get further constraints. Finally we will study the possible constraints which would arise from measuring the weak charge of the proton.

### 5.1 Constraints from Z-pole and $`m_W`$ data

From the previous analysis, it is found that the Z-pole experiments are related to mixings and the T-parameter, while $`m_W`$ is only relevant for the T-parameter. If we set all mixing angles and $`T_{new}`$ equal to zero, it will give the fit for the SM. It serves as a reference because the SM fits the experiments very well. Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\chi ^2\chi _{SM}^2`$, by requiring acceptable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ we can get constraints on the mixings and the masses of extra neutral gauge bosons. The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1.0`$ is illustrated in Fig. 1. The lower mass limit for the lightest extra gauge boson is about $`400`$ GeV. It seems that the model allows for the existence of a comparatively light extra neutral gauge boson. But we will find in the following that this is not true when LENC experiments are included. The mixing angles are found to be very small, namely $`|\theta |0.003`$.

The sequential $`Z_{SM}`$ boson  is defined to have the same couplings to fermions as the SM Z boson. Such a boson is not expected in the context of gauge theories unless it has different couplings to exotic fermions than the ordinary Z. However, it serves as a useful reference case when comparing constraints from various sources. The direct production limit for the sequential $`Z_{SM}`$ boson from Ref.  is about $`690`$ GeV. It is assumed that all exotic decay channels are forbidden, and the bound has to be relaxed by about $`100`$ to $`150`$ GeV when all exotic decays(including channels involving superparticles) are kinetically allowed. It is found that, at this time, the lower mass limit for the lightest extra neutral gauge boson is much lower than the direct production limit for the sequential $`Z_{SM}`$ boson.

### 5.2 Constrains from Z-pole + $`m_W`$ \+ LENC data

The LENC experiments can get contributions from the exchanges of extra neutral gauge bosons, which can be approximated by contact interactions. The contact interactions are inversely-proportional to the masses of the extra gauge bosons exchanged in the processes. So the LENC experiments can put stringent constraints on the masses of extra neutral gauge bosons. The results of fitting Z-pole experiments, $`m_W`$ measurement and LENC experiments are shown in Fig. 2. The lower mass limits for the extra neutral gauge bosons are raised much higher than those without LENC experiments. The lower mass bound for the lightest extra gauge boson is about $`900`$ GeV. It is higher than the direct production limit for the sequential $`Z_{SM}`$ boson.

In Ref. , similar constraints on various possible extra $`Z^{}`$ bosons were studied. In all cases the mixing angles are severely constrained($`\mathrm{sin}\theta <0.01`$), and the lower mass limit are generally of the order of several hundred GeV, depending on the specific models considered.

In the model considered here, from the appendices, $`m_{W_I^3}^2m_B^2`$ assuming that $`g_I=g_L`$ and $`g_Y^{}=g_Y`$. It is apparent that $`m_{W_I^\pm }`$ is degenerate with $`m_{W_I^3}`$ without mixing. Generally the lightest extra neutral gauge boson mainly consists of $`W_I^3`$, or $`Z_I`$. It is noted that $`Z_I`$ corresponds to $`Z^{}(\theta =\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{5/8})`$ and is orthogonal to $`Z_\eta `$. There is no mass limit on $`Z_I`$ from electroweak precision data available in the literature. From constraints on $`Z_\psi `$, $`Z_\chi `$ and $`Z_\eta `$ , it could be inferred that the mass limit on $`Z_I`$ would be about $`430`$ GeV at $`95\%`$ CL. In Ref.  the lower mass limit of $`565`$ GeV for $`Z_I`$ was set by direct search for heavy neutral gauge bosons with the Collider Detector at Fermilab. Our mass limit on the lightest extra neutral gauge boson is much higher mainly due to more updateded data used in our analysis.

It should be pointed out that an updated value for $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})=72.06(28)_{expt}(34)_{theor}`$ has been reported . The experimental precision was improved and indicated a 2.5$`\sigma `$ deviation from the prediction of the SM. The possibility that the discrepancy is due to contributions from new physics has been suggested. In Ref.  it was shown that the contribution from the exchange of an extra U(1) boson could explain the data without $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. Some models which would give negative contibutions to $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, such as $`Z_{SM}`$ and $`Z_\eta `$, were excluded at $`99\%`$ CL. The existance of $`Z_I`$ with a central value of about $`760\mathrm{GeV}`$ could explain the deviation.

Of cousre, a 2.5$`\sigma `$ discrepance is insufficient to claim a discovery, so we have used the data to determine lower mass bounds and mixings of additional neutral gauge bosons. It put much stronger constraints on the mass and mixing of the lightest extra neutral gauge boson than the old data.

From Ref.  the typical bounds achievable on extra neutral or charged gauge bosons $`m_{Z^{}(W^{})}`$ at the coming colliders such as Tevatron, LHC, 500 GeV NLC and 1 TeV NLC are approximately 1 TeV, 4 TeV, 1-3 TeV and 2-6 TeV correspondingly. Therefore the extra neutral gauge bosons in the model could be studied well in the coming colliding experiments.

### 5.3 Constrains from Z-pole + $`m_W`$ \+ LENC data + $`Q_W^P`$

In Ref. , it is proposed to measure the weak charge of the proton, $`Q_W^P`$, with parity-violating ep scattering at $`Q^2=0.03(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$ at Jefferson Lab. A high statistical accuracy is expected to be achieved with the current facility. Specifically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W^P/Q_W^{0P}4\%`$ or better is possible. Fig. 3 illustrates the constraints on the lightest extra neutral gauge boson including the $`Q_W^P`$ assuming that the precision level is $`3\%`$. It is found that the lower mass bound of the the lightest extra neutral gauge boson is almost same as the constraint with the data of Z-pole expreiments, $`m_W`$ and LENC experiments. Should the weak charge of the proton be measured with a high precision level, it would yield competitive constraints on the model.

In Ref. , the new physics sensitivity of a variety of low energy parity-violating observables was analyzed. Taken as an example, present and prospective mass limits on an additional gauge boson, $`Z_\chi `$, were given. Were the precison of measuring the weak charge of the proton $`10\%`$($`3\%`$), the lower bound would be $`585`$($`1100`$) GeV. This is compatible with our result.

## 6 Bounds on Higgs bosons

There are a large number of Higgs bosons in the model: 6 scalar, 3 pseudoscalar and 4 charged Higgs bosons. In general, the scalar potential will have too many parameters to make any meaningful statement about masses of Higgs bosons. However, in the supersymmetric version of the model, the scalar potential is highly constrained.

The most general superpotential satisfying gauge invariance can be written as

$$W=\lambda H_\mathit{2}N+\lambda ^{}H_\mathit{2}N^{}.$$
(55)
Here $`H_\mathit{2}N`$ means $`\epsilon _{ij}H_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}^{\alpha j}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }N^\beta `$, i, j are $`SU(2)_L`$ indices and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are $`SU(2)_I`$ indices. The scalar potential is given by

$$V=V_F+V_D+V_{soft},$$
(56)
where

$$V_F=\underset{i}{}W/\varphi _i|^2$$
(57)
is the F-term, the sum runs over all complex scalar $`\varphi _i`$’s appearing in the theory.

$$V_D=1/2\underset{a}{}|\underset{i}{}(g_a\varphi _i^{}T^a\varphi _i)+\xi _a|^2$$
(58)
is the D-term, $`T^a`$ represent generators of corresponding gauge groups and $`g_a`$ coupling constants. The $`\xi `$ terms only exist if $`a`$ labels a U(1) generator, and in our consideration they are set to zero for simplicity.

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{}^2Tr(^{})+m_{H_\mathit{2}}^2H_\mathit{2}^{}H_\mathit{2}+m_N^2N^{}N+m_N^{}^2N^{}N^{}`$ (59)
$`\lambda A(H_\mathit{2}N+h.c.)\lambda ^{}A^{}(H_\mathit{2}N^{}+h.c.)m_3^2(N^{}N^{}+h.c.)`$
are soft supersymmetry breaking terms. The soft supersymmetry breaking parameters will be considered completely arbitrary, therefore we only study the tree-level potential. The radiative corrections to the potential will not significantly affect the results because the primary effects of the radiative corrections are to change the effective soft supersymmetry breaking terms. The exception is due to top quark contribution, proportional to $`m_{top}^4`$, and it will increase some mass limits by up to $`20`$ GeV.

The complete potential has nine parameters: $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, the coefficients of the two trilinear terms $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, the four mass-squared parameters $`m_{}^2`$, $`m_{H_\mathit{2}}^2`$, $`m_N^2`$ and $`m_N^{}^2`$, and $`m_3^2`$. Six of them can be transferred to vacuum expectation values, thus three undetermined parameters remain, which we take to be $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`m_3^2`$. All the parameters are chosen to be real, therefore the scalar potential is CP invariant.

It is straightforward but tedious to work out the mass-squared matrices for various Higgs bosons, which are given in the appendices. The mass-squared matrices for the neutral scalars and pseudoscalars are $`7\times 7`$ matrices. The two matrices are decoupled from each other because the scalar potential is CP invariant. The former must have one zero eigenvalue and the latter must have four zero eigenvalues, corresponding to the five Goldstone bosons eaten by the five massive neutral vector gauge bosons\[the zero eigenvalue of the scalar mass-squared matrix corresponds to the freedom to perform an $`SU(2)_I`$ rotation in order to set one of neutral vacuum expectation values to zero\]. The mass-squared matrices for charged Higgs scalars are $`3\times 3`$ matrices. The positive states and negative states decouple, and they share the same mass-squared matrix. There is one zero eigenvalue for each of them in order to produce masses for two charged vector bosons of $`SU(2)_L`$. As we must resort to numerical techniques to find the eigenvalues of the Higgs bosons, the presence of the required number of zero eigenvalues provides an excellent check on our numerical calculation. As another check, we found that there exists a relationship

$$TrM_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=TrM_{Z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+TrM_{H_\mathit{3}^\mathit{0}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(60)
where $`M_Z^2`$ is the neutral-vector mass-squared matrix, $`M_\varphi ^2`$ is the neutral-scalar mass-squared matrix, and $`M_{H_3^0}^2`$ represents the pseudoscalar mass-squared matrix. This is a very general relation. It holds in any supersymmetric model based on an extended gauge group in which there are no gauge-singlet fields. Interestingly, in this model, the trace of the neutral-vector mass-squared matrix must include the $`W_I`$ fields, which are the neutral nondiagonal bosons of the $`SU(2)_I`$ group.

For every set of values of $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`m_3^2`$, we searched numerically for the minimum of the scalar potential. We choose $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ to be as large as $`1`$ and $`m_3`$ to be as large as $`1000`$ GeV. If the value of $`\lambda `$ or $`\lambda ^{}`$ is too large, it will blow up at the unification scale by the renormalization group analysis as in the SM. Adjusting the various vacuum expectation values until the eigenvalues of the Higgs-boson mass matrices are positive or zero, we read off the value of the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the neutral scalar mass-squared matrix. Then we vary the values of $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`m_3^2`$ to find the largest possible value of this smallest nonzero eigenvalue. We find that its value is about $`150`$ GeV.

## 7 Conclusions

We have considered the effective low-energy $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y^{}`$ model, which can arise from the $`E_6`$ unification model. The $`SU(2)_I`$ is a subgroup of $`SU(3)_R`$ and commutes with the electric charge operator, so the three corresponding gauge bosons are neutral. The gauge boson and Higgs boson sectors of the model are studied.

The extra neutral gauge bosons generally mix with each other and also with the ordinary Z boson. The electroweak precision data including Z-pole experiments, $`m_W`$ measurement and LENC experiments are used to put constraints on masses of extra gauge bosons and the mixings with ordinary Z bosons. The possible constraint from the weak charge of the proton, which is proposed to be measured at Jefferson Lab, is also considered. It is found that the mixings are very small, namely $`|\theta |0.003`$. The lower mass limit for the lightest extra neutral gauge boson is found to be about $`900`$ GeV, which is somewhat higher than bounds in the literature mainly due to more updated data used in our analysis.

The scalar potential is highly constrained in the supersymmetric version of the model. An upper bound of about $`150`$ GeV to the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs scalar is found.

We thank John M. Finn for informing us of the proposal of the measurement of the weak charge of the proton at Jefferson Lab. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant NSF-PHY-9900657.

Appendix

## Appendix A Mass-squared matrix for neutral gauge bosons

The mass-squared matrix for neutral gauge bosons is a symmetric $`5\times 5`$ matrix.

$`m_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2),`$
$`m_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{g_L^2+g_Y^2}g_I(v_1^2v_3^2),`$
$`m_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\sqrt{g_L^2+g_Y^2}g_Y^{}(v_1^2+4v_2^2v_3^2),`$
$`m_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{g_L^2+g_Y^2}g_Iv_1v_3,`$
$`m_{W_I^3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$
$`m_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_Ig_Y^{}[v_1^2+v_3^25(n_1^2n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})],`$
$`m_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{25}=0,`$
$`m_B^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2[v_1^2+16v_2^2+v_3^2+25(n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})],`$
$`m_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{35}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\sqrt{2}}}g_Ig_Y^{}[v_1v_3+5(n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{})],`$
$`m_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{55}=0,`$
$`m_{W_I^\pm }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).`$ (61)
## Appendix B Various Higgs boson mass-squared matrices

The Higgs boson mass-squared matrix is obtained from

$$M_{ij}^2=\frac{^2V}{\varphi _i\varphi _j}|_{minimum}.$$
(62)
### B.1 Scalar Higgs boson mass-squared matrix

The mass-squared matrix for scalar Higgs bosons is a $`7\times 7`$ symmetric matrix, $`S`$. Let

$$V^2v_1^2+4v_2^2+v_3^25(n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(63)
$`S_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2+g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_2^2n_1^2+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2,`$
$`S_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_1v_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_1v_2+\lambda An_1+\lambda ^{}A^{}n_1^{},`$
$`S_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2+g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{}),`$
$`S_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_2+v_3n_1){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_1n_2,`$
$`S_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda v_1(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})\lambda v_3(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_3n_2v_1n_1){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_1n_1+\lambda Av_2,`$
$`S_{16}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_2^{}+v_3n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_1n_2^{},`$
$`S_{17}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}v_1(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})+\lambda ^{}[(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})v_1(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})v_3],`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_3n_2^{}v_1n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_1n_1^{}+\lambda ^{}A^{}v_2,`$
$`S_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(v_1^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_2^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{H_\mathit{2}}^2,`$
$`S_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2v_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_2v_3\lambda An_2\lambda ^{}A^{}n_2^{},`$
$`S_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda v_2(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}g_Y^{}^2v_2n_2\lambda Av_3,`$
$`S_{25}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda v_2(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}g_Y^{}^2v_2n_1+\lambda Av_1,`$
$`S_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^{}v_2(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}g_Y^{}^2v_2n_2^{}\lambda ^{}A^{}v_3,`$
$`S_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^{}v_2(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}g_Y^{}^2v_2n_1^{}+\lambda ^{}A^{}v_1,`$
$`S_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_L^2+g_Y^2+g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)v_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_1^2n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2,`$
$`S_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})\lambda v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_1v_3n_2){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_3n_2\lambda Av_2,`$
$`S_{35}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_2+v_3n_1){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_3n_1,`$
$`S_{36}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda ^{}v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})\lambda ^{}v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_1^{}v_3n_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_3n_2^{}\lambda ^{}A^{}v_2,`$
$`S_{37}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda ^{}v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1n_2^{}+v_3n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}g_Y^{}^2v_3n_1^{},`$
$`S_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)n_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2v_3^2+n_1^2+n_2^2n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^2,`$
$`S_{45}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1v_3+n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_1n_2,`$
$`S_{46}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_1n_1^{}+n_2n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_2n_2^{}m_3^2,`$
$`S_{47}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_1n_2^{}n_2n_1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_2n_1^{},`$
$`S_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)n_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_3^2v_1^2+n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^2,`$
$`S_{56}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_2n_1^{}n_1n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_1n_2^{},`$
$`S_{57}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_1n_1^{}+n_2n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_1n_1^{}m_3^2,`$
$`S_{66}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2v_3^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_1^2+n_2^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^{}^2,`$
$`S_{67}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1v_3+n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}g_Y^{}^2n_1^{}n_2^{},`$
$`S_{77}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_I^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{9}}g_Y^{}^2)n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_3^2v_1^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_1^2n_2^2)`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^{}^2.`$
### B.2 Pseudocalar Higgs boson mass-squared matrix

The mass-squared matrix for pseudoscalar Higgs bosons is also a $`7\times 7`$ symmetric matrix, $`P`$.

$`P_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_2^2n_1^2+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2,`$
$`P_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda An_1+\lambda ^{}A^{}n_1^{},`$
$`P_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{}),`$
$`P_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_3n_1,`$
$`P_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda v_3(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_3n_2+\lambda Av_2,`$
$`P_{16}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}v_3(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_3n_1^{},`$
$`P_{17}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}v_3(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_3n_2^{}+\lambda ^{}A^{}v_2,`$
$`P_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(v_1^2+v_3^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{H_\mathit{2}}^2,`$
$`P_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda An_2\lambda ^{}A^{}n_2^{},`$
$`P_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda Av_3,`$
$`P_{25}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda Av_1,`$
$`P_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}A^{}v_3,`$
$`P_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}A^{}v_1,`$
$`P_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_1^2n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2,`$
$`P_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})\lambda v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_1n_1\lambda Av_2,`$
$`P_{35}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_1n_2,`$
$`P_{36}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})\lambda ^{}v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_1n_1^{}\lambda ^{}A^{}v_2,`$
$`P_{37}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})\lambda ^{}v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2v_1n_2^{},`$
$`P_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2v_3^2+n_1^2+n_2^2n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^2,`$
$`P_{45}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1v_3+n_1^{}n_2^{}),`$
$`P_{46}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2n_1n_1^{}m_3^2,`$
$`P_{47}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}v_1v_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2n_1n_2^{},`$
$`P_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_3^2v_1^2+n_1^2+n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^2,`$
$`P_{56}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2v_1v_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2n_2n_1^{},`$
$`P_{57}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \lambda ^{}(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2n_2n_2^{}m_3^2,`$
$`P_{66}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2v_3^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_1^2+n_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^{}^2,`$
$`P_{67}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1v_3+n_1n_2),`$
$`P_{77}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(v_1^2+v_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_3^2v_1^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+n_1^2n_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{5}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_N^{}^2.`$ (65)
### B.3 Charged Higgs boson mass-squared matrix

The mass-squared matrix for charged Higgs bosons is a $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrix, $`C`$.

$`C_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_2^2n_1^2+n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2,`$
$`C_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_1v_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L^2v_1v_2+\lambda An_1+\lambda ^{}A^{}n_1^{},`$
$`C_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L^2v_1v_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_I^2(v_1v_3n_1n_2+n_1^{}n_2^{}),`$
$`C_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_1+\lambda ^{}n_1^{})^2+(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{H_\mathit{2}}^2,`$
$`C_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})v_2v_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L^2v_2v_3\lambda An_2\lambda ^{}A^{}n_2^{},`$
$`C_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda n_2+\lambda ^{}n_2^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2(v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_I^2(v_1^2+v_3^2+n_1^2n_2^2+n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Y^2(v_1^2v_2^2+v_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_Y^{}^2V^2+m_{}^2.`$


format: text

text:
# True energy-momentum tensors are unique. Electrodynamics spin tensor is not zero

## 1 An outlook on the standard electrodynamics

The main points in the electrodynamics are an electric current four-vector density $`j^\alpha `$ and electromagnetic field which is described by a covariant skew-symmetric electromagnetic field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, or by a contravariant tensor $`F^{\alpha \beta }=F_{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }`$ ($`\alpha ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}`$, or $`=t,x,y,z`$). The four-vector density $`j^\alpha `$ comprises a charge density and an electric current three-vector density: $`j^\alpha =\{j^0=\rho ,j^i\}`$ ($`i,k,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}`$, or $`=x,y,z`$). $`g^{\alpha \mu }=\{g^{00}=1,g^{ij}=\delta ^{ij}\}`$.

We say that $`j^0`$ and $`j^i`$ are coordinates of the vector $`j^\alpha `$. We write coordinates in braces.

Instead of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ we use

$$B_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{def}{=}F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{and}H^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{def}{=}F^{\alpha \beta }.$$

$`B_{\mu \nu }`$ comprises electric strength and magnetic induction; $`H^{\alpha \beta }`$ comprises electric induction and magnetic strength

$$B_{\mu \nu }=\{B_{i0}=E_i,B_{ij}\};H^{\alpha \beta }=\{H^{0i}=D^i,H^{ij}\}$$

An interaction of the electric current and the electromagnetic field results in a four-force density $`f_\mu =j^\nu B_{\mu \nu }`$ comprising a power density and a Lorentz force density,

$$f_\mu =j^\nu B_{\mu \nu }=\{p=j^kE_k,f_i=\rho E_i+j^kB_{ik}\}$$

This force acts on the field. $`j^\nu B_{\mu \nu }`$ acts on the current.

The second pair of Maxwell equations relates the contravariant electromagnetic tensor to the electric current,

$$j^\alpha =_\beta H^{\alpha \beta },$$

while covariant electromagnetic tensor, which is a differential form, is closed,

$$_{[\sigma }B_{\mu \nu ]}=0.$$

It is the first pair of Maxwell equations. The first pair is a consequence of an absence of a magnetic current $`\xi _{\sigma \mu \nu }`$,

$$3_{[\sigma }B_{\mu \nu ]}=\xi _{\sigma \mu \nu }=0.$$

If the magnetic current is absent, the covariant electromagnetic tensor can be written as an exterior derivative of a covariant four-vector magnetic potential $`𝒜_\nu `$,

$$B_{\mu \nu }=2_{[\mu }𝒜_{\nu ]}.$$

The four-vector $`𝒜_\nu `$ comprises a scalar potential and a covariant three-vector magnetic potential,:

$$𝒜_\nu =\{𝒜_0=\varphi ,𝒜_j=A_j\}$$

So, $`𝒜^i=A^i`$.

## 2 Energy-momentum tensor

The four-force density $`f_\mu =j^\nu B_{\mu \nu }`$ can be written as a divergence of a tensor $`T_\mu ^\alpha `$ (more precisely, tensor density),

$$f_\mu =j^\nu B_{\mu \nu }=_\alpha T_\mu ^\alpha .$$

The tensor $`T_\mu ^\alpha `$ is known as an energy-momentum tensor. Maxwell and Minkowski found this tensor from experimental data:

$$T_\mu ^\alpha =B_{\mu \nu }H^{\alpha \nu }+\delta _\mu ^\alpha B_{\sigma \nu }H^{\sigma \nu }/4.$$

The contravariant Maxwell-Minkowski tensor is symmetric,

$$T_\mu ^\alpha g^{\mu \beta }=T^{\beta \alpha }=T^{(\beta \alpha )},T^{[\beta \alpha ]}=0.$$

Now let us calculate a four-momentum which a field gets within a four-volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$P_\mu =_\mathrm{\Omega }f_\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha T_\mu ^\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

By the Stokes theorem, we can write this integral as a surface integral over the supersurface of the four-volume,

$$P_\mu =_\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha T_\mu ^\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Omega }T_\mu ^\alpha 𝑑V_\alpha ,$$

where $`dV_\alpha `$ is a three-element of the supersurface. So, if a field is bounded locally by an infinitesimal element $`dV_\alpha `$, the element gets the infinitesimal four-momentum

$$dP_\mu =T_\mu ^\alpha dV_\alpha .$$

This equation may be interpreted as a definition of an energy-momentum tensor.

Let $`dV_\alpha `$ is timelike, i.e. it contains the time axis. Let, for example, $`dV_\alpha =\{dV_0=0,dV_i=da_idt\}`$, where $`da_i`$ is a two-element of a surface. Then a four-force

$$dF_\mu =dP_\mu /dt=T_\mu ^ida_i=\{d𝒫=T_0^ida_i,dF_j=T_j^ida_i\}$$

comprises a power $`dP`$ and a force $`dF_j`$ which are associated with the element $`da_i`$. So,

$$T_0^i=𝒮^i=B_{0j}H^{ij}=E_jϵ^{ijk}H_k=\text{E}\times \text{H}$$

is the Poynting’s vector, and $`T_j^i`$ is the Maxwell stress tensor.

If $`dV_\alpha `$ is spacelike, $`dV_\alpha =\{dV_0=dV,dV_i=0\}`$, then a four-momentum

$$dP^\mu =T^{\mu 0}dV_0=\{d=T^{00}dV,dP^j=T^{j0}dV\}$$

is associated with the volume element dV. So,

$$T^{j0}=g^{ji}B_{ik}H^{0k}=\delta ^{ji}ϵ_{ikn}B^nD^k=\text{D}\times \text{B}$$

is the momentum density.

## 3 Canonical energy-momentum tensor

Apparently, the only theoretical way of getting Maxwell-Minkowski tensor is a variation of the canonical Lagrangian

$$\underset{c}{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{4}B_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}$$

with respect to the metric tensor in the Minkowski space \[3, Sec. 94\]. But we do not consider this way here. Within the scope of the standard Lagrange formalism the canonical Lagrangian gives a canonical energy-momentum tensor \[3, Sec. 33\],

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{\mu }{}^{\alpha }=H^{\alpha \nu }_\mu 𝒜_\nu +\delta _\mu ^\alpha B_{\nu \sigma }H^{\nu \sigma }/4.$$

This tensor is “conserved”, i.e.

$$_\alpha \underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{\mu }{}^{\alpha }=0,$$

due to the uniformity of space-time according to the Noether theorem. But this tensor is out of all relation to the physical reality. It contradicts experience . For example, in a constant uniform $`x`$ directed magnetic field, $`B^x=B,B^y=B^z=0,`$

$$B_{yz}=H^{yz}=B,𝒜_y=Bz/2,𝒜_z=By/2,$$

the canonical tensor gives zero value of a field pressure across field lines:

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{y}{}^{y}=\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{z}{}^{z}=0,$$

what is wrong. Besides, the divergence of the canonical tensor is equal to a wrong expression

$$_\alpha \underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{\mu }{}^{\alpha }=j^\nu _\mu 𝒜_\nu .$$

Besides that, the contravariant canonical tensor is nonsymmetric,

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}^{[\alpha \beta ]}=_\mu (𝒜^{[\alpha }^{\beta ]}𝒜^\mu ).$$

To turn the canonical energy-momentum tensor to Maxwell-Minkowski tensor theorists simply add two ad hoc terms \[3, Sec. 33\]:

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{\mu }{}^{\alpha }+_\nu (𝒜_\mu H^{\alpha \nu })𝒜_\mu j^\alpha =T_\mu ^\alpha .$$

The second term repairs the divergence of the tensor, and than the first term symmetrizes the contravariant form of the canonical tensor. Certainly, this addition has no basis and is completely arbitrary. So, we have to realize that Lagrange formalism does not give a true energy-momentum tensor.

## 4 The uniqueness of a true energy-momentum tensor

Theorists simply ignore the second term of the addition, $`𝒜_\mu j^\alpha `$. They do not see it. But they attempt to explain an addition of the first term, $`_\nu (𝒜_\mu H^{\alpha \nu })`$. For example, Landau and Lifshitz wrote \[3, Sec. 32\],

“It is necessary to point out that the definition of the (energy-momentum) tensor $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ is not unique. In fact, if $`\underset{c}{𝑇}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is defined by

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{\mu }{}^{\alpha }=q_{,\mu }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{q_{,\alpha }}\delta _\mu ^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(32.3)`$
then any other tensor of the form

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{}{x^\gamma }\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma },\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\psi ^{\alpha \gamma \beta }$$
$`(32.7)`$
will also satisfy equation

$$T^{\alpha \beta }/x^\beta =0,$$
$`(32.4)`$
since we have identically $`^2\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }/x^\beta x^\gamma =0`$. The total four-momentum of the system does not change, since …we can write

$$\frac{\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }}{x^\gamma }𝑑V_\beta =\frac{1}{2}\left(dV_\beta \frac{\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }}{x^\gamma }dV_\gamma \frac{\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }}{x^\beta }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝑑a_{\beta \gamma },$$

were the integral on the right side of the equation is extended over the (ordinary) surface which ‘bond’ the hypersurface over which the integration on the left is taken. This surface is clearly located at infinity in the three-dimensional space, and since neither field nor particles are present at infinity this integral is zero. Thus the fore-momentum of the system is, as it must be, a uniquely determined uantity.”

Exactly the same explanation was given by L. H. Ryder \[4, Sec. 3.2\].

But it seems to be incorrect .

$$\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝑑a_{\beta \gamma }=0$$

only if $`\psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ decreases on infinity rather quickly. We present here a three-dimensional analogy concerning an electric current $`I`$ and its magnetic field $`H^{ij}`$:

$$\frac{1}{2}H^{ij}𝑑l_{ij}=_jH^{ij}da_i=j^i𝑑a_i=I0.$$

So, the addition of $`_\gamma \psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ can change the total 4-momentum of a system. For example, it is easy to express the energy-momentum tensor of an uniform ball of radius $`R`$ in the form $`_\gamma \psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$:

$$\psi ^{00i}=\psi ^{0i0}=ϵx^i/3(r<R),\psi ^{00i}=\psi ^{0i0}=ϵR^3x^i/3r^3(r>R)$$

$$\text{give }_i\psi ^{00i}=ϵ(r<R),_i\psi ^{00i}=0(r>R).$$

Obviously, an addition of $`_\gamma \psi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ can change the total 4-momentum and changes the medium locally.

## 5 Electrodynamics’ spin tensor

So, the Lagrange formalism does not give a true energy-momentum tensor. But the formalism gives a more important thing. The formalism gives raise an idea of a classical spin. A spin tensor $`\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha },`$ coupled with the energy-momentum tensor, arises due to the isotropy of space-time according to the Noether theorem. Essentially, we have a pair of the canonical tensors

$$\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{}{}^{\mu \alpha }=H^{\alpha \nu }^\mu 𝒜_\nu +g^{\mu \alpha }B_{\nu \sigma }H^{\nu \sigma }/4,\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=2𝒜^{[\mu }H^{\nu ]\alpha }.$$

The existence of the spin tensor imply that electromagnetic field acts on its boundary not only with the Maxwell stress tensor $`T^{ji}`$ but also with a screw tensor $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{jki}`$ (they are rather tensor densities). The stress tensor provides a force acting on a surface element, and the screw tensor provides a torque acting on the surface element,

$$dF^j=T^{ji}da_i,d\tau ^{jk}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{jki}da_i.$$
$`(1)`$
In Minkowski space we have

$$dP^\mu =T^{\mu \alpha }dV_\alpha ,dS^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }dV_\alpha .$$

So, if a field is bounded locally by an infinitesimal element $`dV_\alpha `$, the element gets the infinitesimal spin $`dS^{\mu \nu }`$.

It is natural that the canonical spin tensor is wrong just as the canonical energy-momentum tensor is. Indeed, let us consider, for example, a $`z`$ directed circularly polarized plane wave:

$$\text{E}=\text{D}=(\widehat{\text{x}}i\widehat{\text{y}})e^{i\omega (tz)},\text{H}=\text{B}=\omega \text{A}=i\text{E}.$$

The coordinate

$$\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{zxy}=𝒜^xH^{zy}=A^xH_x$$

of the spin tensor is a current density of spin angular momentum about the $`y`$ axis along the $`y`$ axis. This quantity is not zero, what is not rightly.

Nevertheless a density of the spin about the $`z`$ axis

$$\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{jk0}=2𝒜^{[j}H^{k]0}=2A^{[j}D^{k]}=\text{D}\times \text{A},$$

and a current density of the spin about the $`z`$ axis along the $`z`$ axis

$$\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{jkz}=2𝒜^{[j}H^{k]z}=\text{A}\text{H}$$

correspond to reality for a plane wave (see Sec. 7).

Here a problem arises: what is an electrodynamics’ true spin tensor. What must we add to the canonical spin tensor to get the true spin tensor?

Our answer is as follows: a spin addition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }`$, and the energy-momentum addition,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{}{}^{\mu \alpha }=_\nu (𝒜^\mu H^{\alpha \nu })𝒜^\mu j^\alpha ,$$

must satisfy the equation,

$$_\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha })=2\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{𝑇}{}_{}{}^{[\mu \nu ]}.$$
$`(2)`$
It is easy to find from (2) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=2𝒜^{[\mu }H^{\nu ]\alpha }+2𝒜^{[\mu }^\alpha 𝒜^{\nu ]},$$

and so we obtain

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=2𝒜^{[\mu }^\alpha 𝒜^{\nu ]}.$$

Theorists recognize the equation (2), but they consider only the first term of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{c}{𝑇}^{\mu \alpha }`$, that is $`_\nu (𝒜^\mu H^{\alpha \nu }),`$ as the energy-momentum addition. As a result, the equation (2) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=2𝒜^{[\mu }H^{\nu ]\alpha },\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=0.$$

That is why a classical spin is absent in the modern electrodynamics.That is why they consider that a circularly polarized plane wave has no angular momentum.

So, our true spin tensor

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=2𝒜^{[\mu }^\alpha 𝒜^{\nu ]}.$$

is a function of the vector potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ and is not gauge invariant. We greet this fact. As is shown , $`𝒜^\mu `$ must satisfy the Lorentz condition, $`_\mu 𝒜^\mu =0`$.

## 6 The plane wave problem

The elimination of the electrodynamics’ spin tensor gives rise an opinion that total angular momentum $`J^{ik}`$ is a moment of the linear momentum, i.e. the total angular momentum is an orbital angular momentum

$$dJ^{ik}=dL^{ik}=2r^{[i}dP^{k]},$$
$`(3)`$
where $`dP^k`$ is proportional to Poynting’s vector. This implies that a circularly polarized plane wave has no angular momentum directed along the propagation direction of the wave , that only a quasiplane wave of finite transverse extent, i.e. a beam, carries an angular momentum whose direction is along the propagation direction. In accord with (3) this angular momentum is provided by an outer region of the beam because a falloff in intensity gives rise $`E`$ and $`B`$ fields which are parallel to wave vector, and so the energy flow has components perpendicular to the wave vector . They name this angular momentum spin . Within an inner region of the beam $`E`$ and $`B`$ fields are perpendicular to the wave vector, and the mass-energy flow is parallel to the wave vector . So, there is no angular momentum in the inner region .

To refute this paradigm I proposed a specific experiment in Oct., 1999. I proposed to consider a two-element flat target comprising an inner disc and a closely fitting outer annulus . According to standard electrodynamics, the inner part of the target does not perceive a torque when the target absorbs a circularly polarized wave. But it is clear that really the disc does perceive a torque from the wave. The disc will be twisted in contradiction with the paradigm.

Allen and Padgett  agree with an incorrectness of the opinion that any plane wave has no angular momentum. But they try to endow a circularly polarized plane wave with angular momentum within the scope of the standard electrodynamics. The authors have attempted to explain the torque acting on the disc within the scope of the standard electrodynamics. They wrote, “Any form of aperture introduces an intensity gradient …and a field component is induced in the propagation direction and so the dilemma is potentially resolved.”

Alas! A small clearance between the inner disc and outer annulus does not aperture a wave and does not induce a field component in the propagation direction. The imaginary decomposition of the plane wave into three beams, the inner beam, the annular beam, and the remainder, is not capable to create longitudinal field components and, correspondingly, transverse momentum and a torque acting on the disc. Maxwell stress tensor cannot supply the disc with a torque.

To resolve the dilemma we must use the conception of classical electrodynamics’ spin which is described by the spin tensor $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }`$. So, we must recognize that the standard classical electrodynamics is not complete. Electrodynamics’ spin tensor is not zero , and “ponderomotive forces” acting on a surface element $`da_i`$ consist of both, the force itself, and a torque (1).

So, the annulus of our target perceives the orbital angular momentum $`L=/\omega `$, the disc perceives a spin angular momentum $`S=/\omega `$, and the target as a whole perceives a total angular momentum

$$J=L+S=2/\omega .$$

So, we double the beam’s angular momentum.

This conclusion, naturally, must not conflict with the Beth’s famous experiment . And it is the case! It was found that Beth’s half-wave plate perceives only spin angular momentum. The orbital angular momentum is eliminated by an interference of the passing and returning light beams in the experiment. Indeed, let us start from the Jackson’s expression for a circularly polarized beam .

$$𝐄(x,y,z,t)=\mathrm{}\left\{[\widehat{𝐱}+i\widehat{𝐲}+\widehat{𝐳}(i_x_y)]E_0(x,y)e^{i(zt)}\right\},$$

$$𝐁(x,y,z,t)=\mathrm{}\left\{[\widehat{i𝐱}+\widehat{𝐲}+\widehat{𝐳}(_x+i_y)]E_0(x,y)e^{i(zt)}\right\}.$$

Here $`E_0(x,y)`$ is the electric field of the beam. $`E_0(x,y)=\mathrm{Const}`$ inside the beam, and $`E_0(x,y)=0`$ outside the beam.

The returning light beam may be got by changing the sign of $`z`$ and $`y`$. Adding up the passing and returning light beams we get interesting expressions,

$$𝐄_{\mathrm{tot}}=2[E_0(\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{cos}z\widehat{𝐲}\mathrm{sin}z)\widehat{𝐳}(\mathrm{sin}z_xE_0+\mathrm{cos}z_yE_0)]\mathrm{cos}t,$$

$$𝐁_{\mathrm{tot}}=2[E_0(\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{cos}z\widehat{𝐲}\mathrm{sin}z)\widehat{𝐳}(\mathrm{sin}z_xE_0+\mathrm{cos}z_yE_0)]\mathrm{sin}t.$$

The $`E`$ and $`B`$ fields are parallel everywhere. So, the Poynting vector is a zero.

## 7 The Humblet transformation

A considerable amount of papers is devoted to a circularly polarized light beam. They try to prove that the angular momentum (3) which is localized at the surface of the beam is distributed over the body of the beam and represents the spin of the beam.

A calculation of the orbital angular momentum (3),

$$L^{ij}=2r^{[i}T^{j]0}𝑑V,$$

for the Jackson’s expression gives

$$L^z=E_0^2𝑑V/\omega ,L^x=L^y=0.$$

The energy of the field,

$$=T^{00}𝑑V=E_0^2𝑑V=\omega L^z,$$

and the ratio $`/L=\omega `$ is the same as the ratio $`/S,`$ i.e. energy/spin, for a photon. So, $`L=S`$ for the beam. But it does not follow that $`L`$ is $`S.`$ Simply, the total angular momentum of the beam, $`J,`$ is twice the orbital angular momentum,

$$J^{ij}=L^{ij}+S^{ij}=2r^{[i}T^{j]0}𝑑V+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{ij0}𝑑V.$$

Another method for the calculation of the orbital angular momentum of the beam was given by Humblet . He transforms angular momentum (3) into an integral of the coordinate $`\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{ij0},`$

$$\text{L}=\text{r}\times (\text{D}\times \text{B})𝑑V(\text{D}\times \text{A})𝑑V.$$

Let us consider this transformation.

$`L^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle r^{[i}T^{j]0}𝑑V}=2{\displaystyle r^{[i}g^{j]k}B_{kl}H^{0l}𝑑V}=4{\displaystyle r^{[i}g^{j]k}_{[k}𝒜_{l]}D^ldV}`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle r^{[i}^{j]}𝒜_lD^ldV}+2{\displaystyle r^{[i}_l(𝒜^{j]}D^l)dV}.`$
Ohanian  writes, “The first term in the Eq. represents the orbital angular momentum, and the second term the spin.” But the derivative $`^j𝒜_l`$ has only $`j=z`$ coordinate inside the beam, and, in any case, the term $`^j𝒜_lD^l`$ is $`z`$ directed. So, the first term is an integral moment of a longitudinal component of the momentum $`T^{j0}dV`$ and is equal to a zero if the origin of $`r^i`$ is at the axis of symmetry. The first term bears no relation to the angular momentum of the beam.

The second term is transformed by an integration by parts,

$$2r^{[i}_l(𝒜^{j]}D^l)dV=2D^{[i}𝒜^{j]}𝑑V=(\text{D}\times \text{A})𝑑V.$$

And again we have $`L=S`$, but not $`L`$ is $`S`$.

Vice versa. Since for any compact tensor field $`I^{ij}`$

$$I^{[ij]}𝑑V=r^{[i}_kI^{j]k}dV,$$

we have if

$$I^{ij}=\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{ij0}=2𝒜^{[i}D^{j]},S^{ij}=\underset{c}{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{ij0}dV=+2r^{[i}_k(𝒜^{j]}D^k)dV=2r^{[i}T^{j]0}dV.$$

Ohanian  pay attention to a mathematical equivalence between the equation and calculating a magnetic moment, $`P_\mathrm{m}^{ij},`$ of a body as a moment of the Amperian magnetization current $`j^i,`$

$$P_\mathrm{m}^{ij}=I^{[ij]}𝑑V=r^{[i}_kI^{j]k}dV=r^{[i}j^{j]}𝑑V,$$

where $`I^{ij}`$ is the magnetization tensor, and $`j^i=_kI^{ik}.`$

I am presenting another similar equation involving a magnetic strength $`H^{ij}`$ and a current $`j^i`$,

$$H^{ij}𝑑V=r^{[i}_kH^{j]k}dV=r^{[i}j^{j]}𝑑V,$$

But I think these relationships do not prove that a moment of a current and a magnetic strength, a moment of a current and a magnetization, a moment of a momentum and a spin have identical natures.

## 8 Circularly polarized standing wave

The electrodynamics is asymmetric. Magnetic induction is closed, but magnetic field strength has electric current as a source:

$$_{[\alpha }B_{\beta \gamma ]}=0,_\nu H^{\mu \nu }=j^\mu .$$

So, a magnetic vector potential exists, but, generally speaking, an electric vector potential does not exist. However, when currents are absent the symmetry is restored, and a possibility to introduce an electric multivector potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \sigma }`$ appears. The electric multivector potential satisfies the equation

$$_\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \sigma }=H^{\mu \nu }.$$

A covariant vector, dual relative to the three-vector potential,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha =ϵ_{\alpha \mu \nu \sigma }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \sigma },$$

is an analog of magnetic vector potential. We name it electric vector potential. In our case it satisfies the relationships:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=0,_0\mathrm{\Pi }_i=H_i,H_i=ϵ_{ijk}H^{jk}.$$

The symmetry of the electrodynamics forces us to offer a symmetric expression for the spin tensor consisting of two parts, electric and magnetic.

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=\underset{e}{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }+\underset{m}{{\rm Y}}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=A^{[\mu }^\alpha A^{\nu ]}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mu }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu ]}.$$

Here the symmetric expression is applied to a circularly polarized standing wave. We consider such a wave which falls upon a superconducting $`x,y`$-plain, and is reflected from it. The energy current density is equal to a zero in the wave, $`T^{tz}=\text{E}\times \text{H}=0`$. But the electrical and magnetic energy densities vary with $`z`$ in anti-phase. So the total energy density is constant. The momentum current density, i.e. the pressure, is constant too:

$$E^2/2=1\mathrm{cos}2kz,H^2/2=1+\mathrm{cos}2kz,T^{tt}=T^{zz}=(E^2+H^2)/2=2.$$

The spin current density must be zero, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{xyz}=0`$, and it is expected that the spin density comprise electrical and magnetic parts which are shifted relative to one another. This result is obtained below.

A circularly polarized plane wave which propagates along $`z`$-direction involves the vectors H, E, A, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ which lay in $`xy`$-plane, and we shall represent them by complex numbers instead of real parts of complex vectors. For example,

$$\text{H}=\{H^x,H^y\}H=H^x+iH^y.$$

Then the product of a complex conjugate number $`\overline{E}`$ and other number $`H`$ is expressed in terms of scalar and vector products of the corresponding vectors. For example,

$$\overline{E}H=(\text{E}\text{H})+i(\text{E}\times \text{H})^z.$$

Since all this vectors do not vary with $`x`$ and $`y`$, then

$$\mathrm{curl}\text{H}=\{_zH^y,_zH^x\}i_zH,\mathrm{curl}^1i𝑑z.$$

The angular velocity of all the vectors is $`\omega `$ and the wave number along $`z`$-axis is $`k=\omega .`$ Therefore

$$\text{H}H_{01}e^{i\omega (tz)}\text{or, for a reflected wave, }H_{02}e^{i\omega (t+z)},$$

$$_ti\omega ,_zi\omega ,\mathrm{curl}\pm \omega ,\mathrm{curl}^1\pm 1/\omega .$$

If $`z=0`$ at the superconducting $`x,y`$-plain, then the falling and reflected waves are recorded as

$$H_1=e^{i\omega (tz)},E_1=ie^{i\omega (tz)},H_2=e^{i\omega (t+z)},E_2=ie^{i\omega (t+z)}.$$

The complex amplitudes are equal here: $`H_{01}=H_{02}=1,E_{01}=i,E_{02}=i.`$

Since $`\text{A}=\mathrm{curl}^1\text{H},\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{curl}^1\text{E},`$ the other complex amplitudes are received by a simple calculation (time derivative is designated by a point):

$$A_{01}=1/\omega ,\dot{A}_{01}=i,\mathrm{\Pi }_{01}=i/\omega ,\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{01}=1,A_{02}=1/\omega ,\dot{A}_{02}=i,\mathrm{\Pi }_{02}=i/\omega ,\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{02}=1.$$

Now we calculate the electric and magnetic parts of the volumetric spin density.

$`\underset{e}{{\rm Y}}^{xyt}`$ $`=`$ $`(\text{A}\times \dot{\text{A}})/2=\mathrm{}(\overline{(A_1+A_2)}(\dot{A}_1+\dot{A}_2))/2`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}((e^{i\omega (tz)}e^{i\omega (t+z)})i(e^{i\omega (tz)}e^{i\omega (t+z)}))/2\omega =(1\mathrm{cos}2\omega z)/\omega ,`$
$$\underset{m}{{\rm Y}}^{xyt}=(\mathrm{\Pi }\times \dot{\mathrm{\Pi }})/2=\mathrm{}(\overline{(\mathrm{\Pi }_1+\mathrm{\Pi }_2)}(\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1+\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2))/2=(1+\mathrm{cos}2\omega z)/\omega ,$$

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{xyt}=\underset{e}{{\rm Y}}^{xyt}+\underset{m}{{\rm Y}}^{xyt}=2/\omega .$$

So, the terms which oscillate along $`z`$-axis are canceled out. It is easy to calculate that the spin current density is equal to a zero (the prime denote the derivative with respect to z):

$$\underset{e}{{\rm Y}}^{xyz}=(\text{A}\times \text{A}^{})/2=0,\underset{m}{{\rm Y}}^{xyz}=(\mathrm{\Pi }\times \mathrm{\Pi }^{})/2=0.$$

## Notes

The material of this paper was rejected or ignored by the journals (dates of the submissions are in brackets): Phys. Rev. D (25 Sep 2001), Foundation of Physics (28 May 2001), American J. of Physics (15 Sep 1999, 10 Sep 2001, 28 Mar 2002), Acta Physica Polonica B (28 Jan 2002, 09 May 2002), Phys. Lett. A (22 July 2002), Experimental & Theor. Phys. Lett. (14 May 1998, 17 June 2002), J. Experimental & Theor. Phys. (27 Jan 1999, 25 Feb 1999, 13 Apr 2000, 25 May 2000, 16 May 2001, 26 Nov 2001), Theor. Math. Phys. (29 Apr 1999, 17 Feb 2000, 29 May 2000, 18 Oct 2000), Physics - Uspekhi (25 Feb 1999, 12 Jan 2000, 31 May 2000), Rus. Phys. J. (18 May 1999, 15 Oct 1999, 1 March 2000, 25 May 2000, 31 May 2001, 24 Nov 2001).

The material of this paper was rejected by the arXiv (21 Jan 2002, 18 Feb 2002, 02 June 2002, 13 June 2002).

The subject matter of this paper had been published on the web site:
http://www.mai.ru/projects/mai\_works

## Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to Professor Robert H. Romer for publishing my question .


text:
# Central Matter Distributions in Rich Clusters of Galaxies from z∼0 to z∼0.5 Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory (La Silla, Chile) and at the CFH observatory (Hawaii), and on the POSS and the Cosmos Survey.

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are key cosmological probes. They are one of the main products of the hierarchical models and the largest virialized structures in the Universe. Recent studies (e.g. Navarro et al. 1997) argue that whatever the cosmological model, a universal profile (NFW profile) with a cusp at the center should describe the cluster dark matter profile, in contrast to the beta-model (King 1962) which has been used from many years (cf Sarazin 1986). The shape of the galaxy number and luminosity density profiles (and their dependence on redshift) relates directly to the physical processes acting at the center of the clusters and we propose to investigate in this way these processes. While the dark matter profile (close to the total mass profile) seems to be very concentrated (Navarro et al. 1997), the galaxy distribution is nearly flat in the center of the nearby clusters (Adami et al. 1998: ENACSVII). Furthermore, the X-ray gas distribution cannot be used to distinguish between a flat and a cusped model except for the nearby clusters (e.g. Durret et al. 1994) due to a lack of resolution with Rosat, Einstein and Asca and due to cooling-flows.

In this paper we contribute to the effort to solve this puzzle by studying the galaxy number density profile and the galaxy luminosity density profile (the sum of the luminosity inside the galaxies; we will consider the diffuse light only at the end of the paper). This approach is clearly not new (e.g. Mazure et al. 1986), but we used here very large, homegeneously analyzed, samples. The use of all the optical wave band galaxy light allows us to take into account merging events. This method enables us to recover ”erased” cusps as it is the light of merged galaxies which is counted, not the number of galaxies. The best way to investigate the mass profile would be to compute this profile via the velocity dispersion profile (e.g. Carlberg et al. 1997a and b, Biviano et al. 2001), the X-ray temperature profile, or gravitational lensing, but these techniques require large amounts of data, and therefore, it is very difficult to obtain large samples of clusters. Moreover, galaxy luminosity density profiles for early type galaxies are claimed (e.g. Kaiser 1999) to be similar to the mass profile in clusters. This is an important question as galaxies would be sufficient to trace the mass profile. We will use in this paper homogeneous samples of thousands of galaxies and tens of clusters to compare the projected galaxy number density and luminosity profiles, and the simulated dark matter profiles (e.g. Navarro et al. 1997).

In Section 2, we describe the samples. In Sections 3 and 4, we describe the methods we used and the profiles we generated. Section 5 discusses the results and Section 6 gives a summary of the results.

To relate values of z to distance and to be in agreement with Adami et al. (1998, ENACSVII), we have taken H0 = 100 km.s-1Mpc-1, q0 = 0 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

## 2 Samples

### 2.1 Low redshift sample

We used the COSMOS composite cluster which is decribed in detail in ENACSVII, but we briefly enumerate the main points here: we compiled photometric COSMOS data (Heydon-Dumbleton et al. 1989) for 77 of the 107 ENACS clusters (z$``$0.1). We have adopted a limiting magnitude of $`b_j`$ = 20.

We have selected the clusters with:

1. a low level of substructure (both visually and with a Dressler-Shectman test) in a 10 core radii on a side square ($``$1200 kpc h-1), with more than 10 known redshifts in the main group (to avoid superposition effects);
2. a redshift lower than 0.1
3. and a converging solution of the fit of analytical density profiles.

These selection criteria lead to a sample of 29 homogeneously selected clusters. With this sample we built a composite cluster with about 5000 galaxies. For each of the 29 clusters, we determined the center by a Maximum Likelihood fit and we confirmed the results with other estimators (X-Ray centers, cD galaxies, see also Ulmer et al. 1992). For each galaxy, the distance from the center has been scaled both with the core radius of the cluster and the r200 (radius where the density is equal to 200 times the critical density) in order to take into account that different clusters have different sizes (see ENACS VII for a discussion of this point). We have taken the elongation of the clusters into account by ’circularizing’ the individual galaxy distributions by increasing all projected distances orthogonal to the major axis, thus ’expanding’ the distribution parallel to the minor axis by a factor deduced from the ellipticities of individual clusters. This correction is important because the superposition of galaxy distributions with randomly distributed orientations will cause outer densities to be underestimated with respect to the inner ones, which is producing an artificial cusp (cf ENACS VII).

### 2.2 High redshift sample

We used a sample of 7 clusters from the COP (Adami et al. 2000a, Holden et al. 2000) and CNOC (e.g. Carlberg et al. 1996) surveys selected with the same conditions as the low redshift sample:

1. low level of substructures in a 10 core radii square ($``$1200 kpc) from visual analysis
2. more than 10 redshifts in the main group
3. converging solutions of the fit of analytical galaxy number and luminosity density profiles (this excludes 2 clusters: MS1008 and MS1224).

This sample is described in Table 1: the redshift range of this sample of distant clusters is \[0.33;0.55\] (mean redshift = 0.42). We have built a composite cluster of 459 galaxies with these 7 clusters, correcting for ellipticity and orientation of each real cluster, in a similar manner as we did for the nearby sample.

We note that MS1358 is regarded in the CNOC papers as a complex cluster. However, we used in this paper only the central regions of this cluster in order to focus on the central cluster shape: we limited this cluster to a region of $``$160” radius. With this restriction, MS1358 can be included in our sample. We stress, however, that using larger areas will induce significant levels of substructures.

## 3 Methods and Results

### 3.1 Low redshift galaxy number density and luminosity profiles

The individual parameters (with individual clusters) of the low redshift sample profiles are described in Adami et al. (1998: ENACSIV). They have been computed with a Maximum Likelihood fit. We can easily generalized the same code to fit a luminosity profile for the composite clusters. We have weighted each galaxy with its luminosity (assuming all the galaxies at the cluster redshift): $`Lum_k`$. Similarly to ENACSVII, the probability that the assumed profile ‘produces’ a galaxy in position (xk,yk) is $`\sigma (x_k,y_k)`$ (with k=1…N). The combined probability that the assumed profile will produce galaxies in the positions (xk,yk) that they actually have is:

L=$`\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}Lum_k\times \sigma (x_k,y_k)`$

The best fit model is found from a maximization of L. We have chosen, instead, to compute -ln(L) with:

ln L = $`\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}ln(Lum_k\times \sigma (x_k,y_k))`$

The best model (which produces the best fit) is found from a minimization of -ln(L). We minimize this value by using the MINUIT package (e.g. ENACSVII for details).

To be able to quantify the degree of cuspiness at the center of the clusters, we fitted in ENACSVII both a projected beta-model:

$`\mu (r)=\mu _0(1/(1+(\frac{r}{r_c})^2)^\beta +\mu _b`$

and a cusped profile:

$`\mu (r)=\mu _0(1/(\frac{r}{r_c}(1+\frac{r}{r_c})^2))^\beta +\mu _b`$

For the luminosity profiles, $`\mu `$ is the surface brightness, which replaces the surface density $`\sigma `$ of the formulae in ENACSVII. These models, fitted to the individual clusters, have 7 free parameters: two parameters for the position of the center (x0,y0), two parameters to describe deviations from symmetry (ellipticity e and position angle $`\varphi `$, included in r), two parameters that specify the profile (rc and $`\beta `$) and the background density $`\mu _b`$ (assumed constant within the aperture of each cluster).

To be able to compare the fit quality of the two models (cusped profile and beta-model), we use the logarithm of the ratio of the Maximum Likelihood values for each fit as explained in ENACSVII. This value has a $`\chi ^2`$ distribution (Meyer 1975) which we then use to determine the statisticial significance level of the best fit of one profile type versus the other.

Moreover, we have checked the consistency between the center of the clusters determined by using the galaxies (see ENACSVII) and the center determined by using the galaxies weightened with their luminosity. We find a shift of only (32 $`\pm `$ 21) kpc. This shift is not large enough to erase a cusp (e.g. ENACSVII Fig. 8) and we have assumed the centers using only the galaxy number density.

### 3.2 High redshift galaxy number density and luminosity profiles

We used a similar approach as for the low redshift sample, but with an additional step to take into account the high background level. This is because it is nearly impossible to measure redshifts for all galaxies of all the clusters in our high redshift sample due to the large amount of observing time needed. Therefore we used the red sequences in the Color Magnitude Relations (CMR hereafter) to reject many of the field galaxies along the lines of sight (e.g. Yee et al. 1999).

The color intervals we used are given in Table 1. We chose these intervals manually in order to match the prominent structures in the CMR of each line of sight. We have confidence that we made good choice of intervals as these intervals are very similar to the theoretical predictions of Kodama $`\&`$ Arimoto (1997).

We give in Table 1 the best fit values of $`r_c`$ and $`\beta `$ for the 7 high redshift clusters, the 2 analytical models (beta-model and cusped profile) and the galaxy number and luminosity density profiles parameters ($`r_c`$ is ranging from 63 to 299 kpc and $`\beta `$ from 0.8 to 1.04 for a beta-model). We give also the fit quality: which analytical model fits best, core or cusp?

We now examine whether that these values could have been affected by the following bias: the CMR rejects not only field galaxies but also the late type galaxies that are cluster members. Since these galaxies are preferentially located in the outskirts of clusters (e.g. Adami et al. 1998a), this could affect the density profiles.

– At low redshift, this is not a serious concern as more than 75$`\%`$ of the cluster galaxies in a 1200 $`h^1`$kpc square are early type objects (Adami et al. 1998a).

– For the higher redshift clusters, however, the spiral fraction increases (e.g. Dressler et al. 1997) and can contribute for up to 60$`\%`$ in the outer parts of the clusters (Ellingson et al. 2000). As we want to focus on the central cluster shape, we limited ourselves to a region of $``$0.5$`r_{200}`$ (5 core radii). In this region, the field-like galaxy contribution is lower: $``$30$`\%`$. We have tested, however, the significance of the effect by removing these galaxies when we fit the density profiles. We used the CNOC cluster MS1358 because redshifts are available for nearly all the galaxies along the line of sight. We can, therefore, select the cluster member galaxies on a firm basis. We see in Table 1 that using the CMR or the redshift selection does not affect in a significant manner the fitted parameters: these parameters are similar at the 1-$`\sigma `$ level: for a beta-model $`r_c`$ is ranging from 117 to 95 kpc and $`\beta `$ from 0.91 to 0.98. This is not a definitive test as we are using a single cluster, but the results are still very suggestive.

Using the CMR seems, therefore, a good way to remove field galaxies in order to discriminate between cusped profiles and profiles with a core. However, as we go to faint magnitudes, the uniform field contribution becomes stronger and stronger. This field contribution is between 50$`\%`$ and 75$`\%`$ for the clusters in our sample (estimated from the redshift catalogs of these cluster lines of sight). This could have the effect that the cluster density profiles will $`appear`$ flatter for faint galaxies.

–This does not affect our results for nearby clusters (we do not sample the clusters at magnitudes fainter than R=19, where the CMR becomes to be less contrasted compared to the field contribution: Adami et al. 2000b).

–This does not affect our results for distant clusters (z$``$0.4) for the brightest bin of Table 3 (magnitudes brighter than R=19).

–This could have an influence for the 3 faintest bins of the distant composite cluster. However, the goal of this paper is to discriminate between density profiles with a cusp or with a core. In order to quantify the probability to have a cusped profile mis-interpreted as a profile with a core due to a high field contribution, we performed simulations. We generated a circular artificial cluster profile with a cusp in the center (as described in Section 3.1 with $`r_c`$=200kpc and $`\beta `$=0.67) and we added to this cluster a uniform field contribution with various galaxy densities. We computed finally the relative fit quality between a profile with a core and with a cusp. For field contributions as high as 80$`\%`$ of the total number of galaxies along the line of sight, a model with a cusp is prefered at the 80$`\%`$ significance level. For contributions equal to 85$`\%`$, a model with a cusp is prefered at the 70$`\%`$ significance level. For higher field contributions, we are not able to discriminate between a profile with a core or with a cusp (a model with a cusp is still prefered but with significance levels lower than 65$`\%`$, which is not significant). The results are plotted in Fig. 1. This means that even with a high field contribution, we are still able to discriminate between profiles with a core or with a cusp because the field contribution along the lines of sight we used is not higher than 80$`\%`$. Our results are, therefore, valid regarding the core/cusp discrimination.

### 3.3 Analysis of the results

–We compare the characteristic parameters $`r_c`$ and $`\beta `$ of the distant clusters with those of the nearby sample (ENACSVII). The results are summarized in Table 2 and we give the description of these results: we used first the individual clusters. We do not see a statistically significant evolution with redshift: the agreement between z$``$0 and z$``$0.4 fits is consistent at the $`2\sigma `$ level (for a beta-model, individual clusters and galaxy number density, $`r_c130kpc`$ and $`\beta 1`$). If we compare now the fitted parameters $`r_c`$ and $`\beta `$ of the galaxy number and luminosity density profiles (regardless of the redshift), they also agree at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level (for a beta-model, composite clusters and luminosity profiles, $`r_c110kpc`$ and $`\beta 1.05`$).

–As for the nearby sample (e.g. ENACSVII), the cluster galaxy distribution of the distant cluster sample is better fitted with beta-models than with cusped profiles. Although the fit is better, it is not significantly better than a 75$`\%`$ significance level.

–To improve the statistical significance of the fits in order to distinguish between cusped profile and beta-profile fits, we used also composite clusters. The method used to build these composite clusters is described in Section 2.1. We found that the behavior of the fits was similar for the distant and nearby samples: the bright galaxies better followed a cusped luminosity profile, while the faint galaxy luminosity and galaxy number density profiles were better fitted with beta-models. This is also illustrated for the nearby sample with Fig. 2. We see that the bright galaxy luminosity density profile seem to be more peaked than for the fainter galaxies.

## 4 Cores or Cusps: Comparison with Literature

We have analyzed in this paper a very large sample of clusters and we have shown that we have a better fit for the galaxy number density if we used a model with a core rather than with a cusp (except for the bright galaxies). This is apparently contrary to the study of Carlberg et al. (1997a) which favored a model with a cusp for the galaxies of the CNOC clusters. We have shown in ENACSVII, however, that the results of Carlberg et al. are probably explained because Carlberg et al. did not correct for ellipticity of the cluster profiles, and more importantly, they only considered bright galaxies.

We have shown that if we limit ourselves to bright galaxies only (see Tab. 3), there is no statistically significant difference between a model with a cusp or with a core for the galaxy number density. This result is in good agreement, for example, with the work of Biviano et al. (1996) on the Coma cluster.

For another comparison we remark that Durret et al. (1994) showed that, using the X-Ray surface brightness profile of 12 clusters (based on ROSAT data), a model with a core does not fit significantly better the observations than a model with a cusp.

If we fit the luminosity density profiles for all galaxies with a beta-model and a cusped model, the core model is still preferred, but the difference is not significant over the redshift range from 0 to 0.5. For a comparison, we have plotted in Fig. 3 the ratio of the galaxy luminosity density to the galaxy number density (for the 4 luminosity bins). We see that the ratio is constant for the faintest bins, while we have an increasing ratio for the brightest bin close to the center, inside $``$50 kpc. As we have noted in previous sections, there seems to be a difference between the distribution of bright and faint galaxies and also between galaxy number density profile and the luminosity density profile.

It seems that two different shapes apply. The faint galaxies exhibit a core. They have a distribution in agreement with a beta-model. The bright galaxies (at least for the luminosity profile) show a cusp. This would be in agreement with the dark matter profiles of the simulations of Navarro et al. (1997). As suggested by Kaiser (1999), the bright galaxies would, therefore, trace the cluster mass.

## 5 Discussion

We have presented different arguments favoring either a core or cusp in the last sections. The galaxy number density profiles do not exhibit a cusp, and the bright galaxies cannot be used to distinguish between core and cusp models. On the contrary, the luminosity profiles can be used to produce a cusp or a core depending on whether just bright or faint galaxies are used to generate the luminosity density profile. This leads to suggest different scenarios for the evolution of the bright and faint objects:

\- the bright galaxies luminosity profile could be cusped at the formation epoch of the clusters. It could also become cusped via evolutionary processes, such as a segregation process (bright galaxies in the center of the clusters).

\- the faint galaxies, which exhibit a core, could originally have been in a cusped distribution, but this distribution erased by environmental effects like tidal disruption or merging events. Galaxies near the cluster center and on radial orbits with low angular momentum would have to pass right through the giant ellipticals and would be eventually swallowed up or disrupted in the process. This can lead to a lower density of faint galaxies near the cluster center.

### 5.1 Segregation effects.

We examine if the luminosity profile cusp for bright galaxies is due to a segregation effect. In Adami et al. (1998a) it was shown that the elliptical galaxies are the brightest objects in a cluster. Moreover, they are more concentrated in the cluster centers than the other morphological types. This explains probably why we are not able to distinguish between a core and a cusp when we examine the galaxy number density profile of the bright galaxies (ENACSVII): bright galaxies are mainly elliptical and elliptical galaxies are mainly in the cluster centers.

To confirm this effect, we have removed the galaxies brighter than b$`{}_{j}{}^{}=21`$ from the brightest bin of the nearby sample (28 galaxies). This removes the cD-like galaxies. When re-doing the fit of a beta-model and a cusped profile for the bright galaxy bin with the cDs removed, we still prefer a model with a cusp, with, however, at a lower significance level of 90 $`\%`$ (instead of 95 $`\%`$). This effect does not appear, however, to be dominant.

We now discuss the difference between the galaxy number density and the luminosity profiles. A cusp in the galaxy number density profile could be erased by merging events, leading to a core. However, the luminosity profile of the bright galaxies has a cusp, but the same profile for the faint galaxies has a core. We discuss a scenario that would explain this result in the next subsection.

### 5.2 Destruction of the faint galaxies in the center of the clusters?

Suppose that the formation mechanism of the clusters does not initially produce a core, but only a cusp for both bright and faint galaxies, as in the simulations (e.g. Navarro et al. 1997). This cusp could be ”erased” in the galaxy number density profile by merging events and ”revealed” in the luminosity profile for the bright galaxies. We must now explain why the luminosity profile for the faint galaxies has no cusp. This could be explained if we consider the other sources of galaxy destruction, beside the merging events: the tidal disruptions. Tidal forces in the cluster center disrupt part of the faint galaxies, turning them into diffuse light, while the bright ones (more massive and more robust) are conserved. This explanation was, for example, proposed by Merrit (1984). By using simulations of the dynamical evolution of the cluster core, he predicted a tidal radius (lowest value for the size of a not tidally disrupted galaxy) of about 15 $`h^1`$ kpc. The bright galaxies, like cD galaxies, are significantly larger. The cusp could be erased in this way only for the faint galaxies which are generally smaller. More recent simulations by Moore et al. (1998) show the same trend for the dwarf galaxies to be disrupted in the center of the clusters. Such a destruction of the faint galaxies has been also proposed on observational bases for example by Secker et al. (1997) or Gregg $`\&`$ West (1998). These last authors, using deep photometry of the Coma cluster, propose the disruption of the faint galaxies as an explanation of the lack of dwarf galaxies in the core of this cluster (e.g. also Adami et al. 2000b).

A way to investigate this possibility is, for example, to search for cusped profile in the diffuse light. Gregg $`\&`$ West (1998) give an approximation of the total luminosity lost for the galaxies by disruption and turned into diffuse light in the center of the Coma cluster. This value is about 20 $`\%`$ of the luminosity of a cD galaxy. This contribution is around 50 $`\%`$ of the luminosity sum of all galaxies fainter than $`18.77`$ in the central bin (where the cusp is significant for the bright galaxies) of our nearby composite cluster. After rescaling to the total luminosity to get units coherent with Fig. 2, we see on this figure that such a contribution is large enough to enhance the three faint luminosity profiles, consistently with a cusped model.

A more quantitative study has been done for this same cluster by Bernstein et al. (1995). Using very deep images of a cluster-central area of 7’$`\times `$7’, they conclude that the faint galaxy luminosity profile is flat or decreasing in the central 40 kpc (see also Adami et al. 2000b for a spectroscopic survey of this area), while the luminosity profile of the brighter galaxies is peaked. Moreover, considering now the diffuse luminosity profile (not associated with visible galaxies), they also found a peaked profile. If we argue that the cusp of the faint galaxy luminosity profile is erased by tidal disruption of part of these galaxies, we should recover at least partially this shape in the diffuse light profile. It is exactly what Bernstein et al. saw in the Coma cluster.

### 5.3 Destruction time scale?

We demonstrated that the cluster profiles have the same central shape from z$``$0 to z$``$0.5. This would imply that the time scale of the destruction processes described above (merging + disruption) would be relatively short. This is because all the faint galaxies accreted between z$``$0 and z$``$0.5 do not contribute to the reconstruction of a cusp. The in-falling galaxies seem to be continuously destroyed, in a time close to the virialization time which is approximately 1.5 Gyear (e.g. Sarazin, 1986) for faint galaxies. This estimate is, for example, in good agreement with the estimates of the time needed to disrupt a low surface brightness galaxy in the simulations of Calcaneo-Roldan et al. (2000). An alternative explanation in agreement with the observations is that the accretion rate could be already very low at z=0.5 (e.g. Ellingson et al. 2000).

## 6 Summary

We have shown in this article that, on one hand, the galaxy luminosity density profile is cusped for the bright galaxies from z$``$0 to z$``$0.5 and exhibits a core for the faint galaxies. On another hand, the galaxy number density profile has a core (not significant for the bright galaxies). This could be understood if we assume a cusped profile for all the galaxies in agreement for example with the simulations of Navarro et al. (1997). The cusp could be erased for the galaxy number density profiles by merging effects and for the luminosity profile of the faint galaxies with the destruction of these galaxies by tidal forces. This seems to be confirmed by two observational studies of the Coma cluster (Gregg $`\&`$ West 1998 and Bernstein et al. 1995).

If this model is confirmed, this would imply that clusters of galaxies mass profiles are well traced by the bright galaxy luminosity density profiles.

###### Acknowledgements.

AC acknowledges the Dearborn Observatory staff for their hospitality during his postdoctoral fellowship and J. Mohr for useful discussions.