text:
# Introduction and Results

## Introduction and Results

Vortices are enigmatic objects. Despite the apparent simplicity of the first order equations, no analytic expression for the solution has been found. Moreover, the metric on the moduli space, encoding the interactions of two or more vortices, remains unknown. This is in stark contrast to higher co-dimension solitons, such as monopoles and instantons, where seemingly more complicated equations readily yield results.

Progress may be made in the limit of far separated vortices. By considering the leading order forces experienced by moving vortices, Manton and Speight determined the asymptotic form of the low-energy dynamics . Their expression contains an unknown coefficient that characterizes the exponential return to vacuum of the Higgs field. Although a direct analytic computation of this coefficient appears difficult, a prediction has been given based on T-duality in string theory , and is in agreement with previous numerical results .

Another approach to understanding the dynamics is to deform the background space on which the vortices live. A cunning choice of deformation may ensure that the Bogomoln’yi equations become tractable. For example, it was discovered long ago that the tricky vortex equation is replaced by Liouville’s equation when the background is taken to be hyperbolic space . Strachan subsequently showed that this simplification is sufficient to allow an explicit calculation of the moduli space metric . More recently, Baptista and Manton considered the case of $`k`$ vortices interacting on a sphere of area $`A4\pi k`$ . An analytic expression for the metric was given in the limit as the area of the sphere shrinks to a critical value, $`A4\pi k`$. Curiously, in this limit, the vortex motion exhibits a symmetry enhancement, from the underlying $`SU(2)`$ symmetry of the sphere to $`SU(k+1)`$. The physics behind this enhancement remains somewhat puzzling.

Here, we shall again deform the background space so that the dynamics of vortices becomes tractable. This time, we take space to be the flat, noncommutative plane. In two spatial dimensions, noncommutivity is rather natural since it breaks only the discrete parity symmetry, leaving the continuous rotational symmetry intact. Solitons in noncommutative geometry have been extensively studied in recent times (see  for reviews). In particular, aspects of vortices in the noncommutative abelian Higgs model have been discussed in . As we shall review, noncommutivity yields a one-parameter family of metrics on the vortex moduli space, depending on $`\gamma `$, a dimensionless combination of the gauge coupling constant $`e^2`$, the Higgs expectation value $`v`$ and the noncommutivity parameter $`\theta `$,

$`\gamma =\theta e^2v^2`$ (1)
It was shown by Bak, Lee and Park  that solutions to the Bogomoln’yi equations exist only for $`1\gamma +\mathrm{}`$. At the critical point $`\gamma =1`$, the vortex solutions coincide with the fluxon solutions discovered in . Here, the moduli space of vortices is endowed with the flat, singular metric on $`𝐂^k/S_k`$, and the moduli space approximation breaks down . For $`\gamma <1`$, there are no further solutions to the first order vortex equations, but the non-BPS fluxon solutions survive as localized solitons carrying magnetic flux. In contrast, for $`1<\gamma <0`$, these non-BPS fluxon solutions are unstable to decay into the BPS vortices which have lower mass. For $`\gamma >0`$, only the BPS vortex solutions exist. This scenario, which was developed in , is summarized in the figure below.

Here we consider only $`\gamma >0`$, and present three, related, results. Firstly, we derive a $`2k`$-parameter formal solution to the vortex equations as an all-orders perturbative expansion in $`\gamma ^1`$. For arbitrary $`\gamma `$, we then show that the metric on the moduli space of $`k`$ vortices is given by the trace of a $`k\times k`$ matrix. This provides the noncommutative extension of Samols’ expression in the ordinary commutative case . Finally, in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, we present an explicit expression for the metric on the moduli space of vortices. For $`k`$ vortices centered at $`z_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},k`$, the Kähler potential for the multi-cover of the moduli space is given by

$`𝒦=\mathrm{log}det\mathrm{exp}(\overline{z}_az_b)`$ (2)
Modding out by the permutation group $`S_k`$, exchanging the $`z_a`$, results in the true moduli space metric. This metric has appeared before in the study of noncommutative scalar solitons , and we explain the similarities and differences with its appearance in the abelian Higgs model.

The limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ is customarily taken to mean large noncommutivity. However, as is clear from (1), it may also be taken to be the strong coupling limit $`e^2\mathrm{}`$, which is commonly used in the context of gauged linear sigma models. Indeed, as we shall see, it is only in this limit that the proper kinetic energy of the noncommutative vortices remains finite. In the ordinary, commutative, abelian Higgs model, vortices become vanishingly small in this limit but, nevertheless, play an important role as singular worldsheet instantons . We shall see that noncommutivity on the worldsheet resolves these singular vortices, in a manner similar to the resolution of singular $`U(1)`$ Yang-Mills instantons.

## The Vortex Equations

The Lagrangian of the abelian Higgs model at critical coupling is,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e^2}}F_{ij}F^{ij}+𝒟_i\varphi 𝒟^i\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)^2`$
The model admits BPS vortices of mass $`2\pi v^2k`$, for any positive integer $`k`$, satisfying the first order equations of motion,

$`F_{12}+e^2(\varphi \varphi ^{}v^2)=0,𝒟_{\overline{z}}\varphi =0,{\displaystyle }F_{12}=2\pi k>0`$ (3)
where we have introduced the complex structure $`z=x_1+ix_2`$ on the background space. Here we wish to consider the abelian Higgs model defined on the noncommutative complex plane, such that

$`[z,\overline{z}]=2\theta `$
It is common practice (see ) to take $`z`$ to be an operator on the Hilbert space $``$, isomorphic to the Hilbert space of a single harmonic oscillator. We define the usual creation and annihilation operators, satisfying $`[a,a^{}]=1`$, whose action on the orthonormal basis $`|n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is given by,

$`a|n=\sqrt{n}|n1,a^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1`$
For $`\theta >0`$, the action of all spatial operators may thus be re-expressed as

$`z=\sqrt{2\theta }a,_z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}[a^{},],{\displaystyle }d^2x=2\pi \theta \mathrm{Tr}`$
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ is the trace over $``$. Complex conjugation of the spacetime coordinate $`z`$ is identified with Hermitian conjugation of operators on $``$. The fields $`A_z`$ and $`\varphi `$ are themselves promoted to operators on $``$. To simplify the equations, we rescale the Higgs field $`\varphi v\varphi `$, and decompose the gauge potential operator as

$`A_z={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}(a^{}+C^{})`$
The advantage of this notation is that the magnetic field $`F_{12}`$ is independent of $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, and the vortex equations (3) become the operator equations,

$`1+[C^{},C]`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\varphi \varphi ^{}1)`$
$`\varphi a+C\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{Tr}(1+[C^{},C])`$ $`=`$ $`k<0`$
As promised, the equations depend only on the dimensionless combination $`\gamma =\theta e^2v^2`$. They are valid only for $`\gamma >0`$. The rest of this paper will be devoted to analyzing these equations. However, for completeness, we firstly mention the extension to $`\theta <0`$. Defining $`z=\sqrt{2\theta }a^{}`$, and $`A_z=i(a+C)/\sqrt{2\theta }`$, we have

$`1+[C^{},C]`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\varphi \varphi ^{}1)`$
$`\varphi a^{}+C^{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{Tr}(1+[C^{},C])`$ $`=`$ $`+k>0`$
As depicted in Figure 1, while the equations (4) are thought to have solutions for all $`\gamma >0`$ , equations (5) have solutions only for $`1\gamma 0`$ .

Note that under a CP transformation, which is a symmetry of the theory, vortices are mapped to anti-vortices, while $`\theta \theta `$. The phase diagram for anti-vortices is therefore given by reflecting Figure 1 in the vertical axis. The theory admits both BPS vortex and BPS anti-vortex solutions only for $`|\gamma |1`$.

## The Solution

We turn now to the solution of the vortex equations (4). Perturbative progress can be made when the dimensionless parameter $`\gamma `$ is large. For coincident vortices, the solution to first order in $`1/\gamma `$, was given in . Here we present an iterative solution, for arbitrary vortex positions, to all orders in $`1/\gamma `$.

Let us firstly consider the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. The first equation in (4) now simply becomes $`\varphi _0\varphi _0^{}=1`$, which can be partially inverted to give

$`\varphi _0^{}\varphi _0=(1P)`$
where $`P`$, a projection operator on $``$, determines the kernel of $`\varphi _0`$: $`Ker(\varphi _0)=P`$. In this limit, the gauge potential is given by $`C_0=\varphi _0a\varphi _0^{}`$. After some manipulation, the second and third111In analyzing this final equation, it appears necessary to employ a suitable regularization of the trace over $``$. We choose $`Tr_N_{n=1}^Nn||n`$, subsequently taking the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. vortex equations (4) give further constraints on $`P`$,

$`(1P)aP`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{Tr}P=k`$ (6)
Thus the kernel of $`\varphi _0`$ is constrained to be a $`k`$-dimensional eigenspace of the annihilation operator $`a`$. Eigenvectors of $`a`$ are provided by the coherent states,

$`|z=\mathrm{exp}(za^{})|0={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}|n`$
which satisfy $`a|z=z|z`$ for any $`z`$. Thus, in general, solutions to the vortex equations in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ are parameterized by $`k`$ complex vectors $`|z_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},k`$ spanning $`P`$, with

$`P={\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|z_a>(h^1)^{ab}z_b|`$ (7)
where the overlap matrix $`h`$ is defined by

$`h_{ab}=z_a|z_b=\mathrm{exp}(\overline{z}_az_b)`$ (8)
We therefore find a $`2k`$ (real) parameter family of solutions. Hearteningly, the number of moduli is in agreement with the ordinary, commutative, vortex equations . In the limit of far-separated vortices, we may think of the $`z_a`$ as the positions of $`k`$ unit-flux solitons. Note that this description of $`P`$ becomes singular in the limit as $`|z_a|z_b`$ for $`ab`$. However, as explained nicely in , the underlying eigen-subspace remains smooth in this limit, and is spanned by $`|z_a`$ and $`a^{}|z_a`$.

To extend this analysis away from the $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ limit, we make the expansion,

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma ^m\varphi _m,C={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma ^mC_m`$
The resulting iterative equations do not immediately determine the action of $`\varphi _1`$ on the eigenspace $`P`$. To resolve this, we make the ansatz that the kernel of $`\varphi `$ is independent of $`\gamma `$. In other words,

$`Ker(\varphi )=P`$
I have not been able to derive this explicitly from (4), but have been unable to find solutions in which it is not the case. Proceeding with this assumption, we may express the solution to (4) as

$`C_m=\varphi _0d_m\varphi _0^{},\varphi _m=\varphi _0\psi _m(1P)`$
where the operator coefficients $`\psi _m`$ and $`d_m`$ are determined by induction, starting from $`\psi _0=1`$, and with

$`d_m`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _ma+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}d_l(1P)\psi _{ml}`$
$`\psi _m`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(1P){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}\left(d_l^{}(1P)d_{ml1}d_{ml1}(1P)d_l^{}\right)\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}\psi _l\psi _{ml}^{}`$ (9)
To summarize, this perturbative solution is uniquely determined by a choice of projector (7) from among the $`2k`$ parameter family of suitable projectors. An important, open, problem is to determine the radius of convergence of this expansion.

## The Low-Energy Dynamics

Let us turn now to the low-energy dynamics of the noncommutative vortices. As usual, we consider the moduli space approximation, in which only the collective coordinates $`z_a`$, which determine the projection operator $`P`$, are allowed to vary in time. The linearized Bogomoln’yi equations (4) are,

$`[\dot{C}^{},C]+[C^{},\dot{C}]`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{}+\varphi \dot{\varphi }^{})`$
$`\dot{\varphi }a+\dot{C}\varphi +C\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
and are to be augmented with Gauss’ law, the equation of motion for $`A_0`$. In our operator notation, this reads

$`[\dot{C}^{},C]+[C^{},\dot{C}]`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{}\varphi \dot{\varphi }^{})`$ (11)
which can therefore be combined with the first of the Bogomoln’yi equations to give,

$`[C^{},\dot{C}]=\gamma \dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{}`$
The low-energy dynamics of the solitons is inherited from the kinetic energy terms of the original field theory in the standard Manton manner,

$`T=2\pi \theta v^2\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\dot{C}^{}\dot{C}+\dot{\varphi }^{}\varphi )2\pi \theta v^2g_{ab}(z)\dot{z}^a\dot{\overline{z}}^b`$ (12)
In the second equality above, we have anticipated the Kählerity of the metric. This property is guaranteed by supersymmetry. To see this, a standard trick is to embed the theory in one with maximal supersymmetry, living in the maximal spacetime dimension. The abelian Higgs model may be embedded in a $`d=5+1`$ dimensional theory which is endowed with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry (or 8 supercharges). The vortex solutions under consideration now become BPS 3-branes which preserve half of the supersymmetry. The addition of noncommutivity in two, transverse, spatial directions does not alter this fact, and the low-energy dynamics is thus described by a $`d=3+1`$, $`𝒩=1`$ (4 supercharges) non-linear sigma-model with target space given by the noncommutative vortex moduli space. The metric on the target space is necessarily Kähler.

We start our analysis of the moduli space metric by once again taking the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. As is clear from (12), the low-energy Lagrangian remains finite if we interpret this as $`e^2\mathrm{}`$. Since the kinetic terms for the gauge field become negligible in this limit, we have simply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{2\pi \theta v^2}}=\mathrm{Tr}\dot{\varphi }_0^{}\dot{\varphi }_0`$
From (10) and (11) we find that $`\dot{\varphi }_0=\dot{\varphi }_0P=\varphi _0\dot{P}`$, from which we derive the low-energy dynamics purely in terms of the projection operator $`P`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{2\pi \theta v^2}}=\mathrm{Tr}P\dot{\varphi }_0^{}\dot{\varphi }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\dot{P}\dot{P}`$ (13)
From the definition of the projection operator (7) in terms of the overlap matrix (8) it is simple to derive the explicit form of the metric,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{2\pi \theta v^2}}=\mathrm{tr}(_a\overline{}_b\mathrm{log}h)\dot{z}^a\dot{\overline{z}}^b`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{tr}`$ denotes the trace over the $`k\times k`$ matrix indices of $`h`$. The Kähler potential is therefore given by the expression (2) as promised. The expressions (13) and (14) have appeared before in the context of noncommutative solitons . Let us pause briefly to review that work and explain the differences with the present case. The seminal work  considered pure scalar field theories in noncommutative spacetimes. It was shown that, in the limit $`\theta \mathrm{}`$, any projection operator solves the equation of motion. To proceed to finite theta one may work, as we have above, perturbatively in $`1/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=1/m^2\theta `$ where $`m`$ is some mass scale of the theory. It was shown that, at first order in $`1/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, only some projection operators survive as solutions to the equations of motion . These are precisely those operators satisfying (6) above. At next-to-leading order in $`1/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, these projectors too are lifted, and only isolated solutions remain. This scenario left certain aesthetic puzzles. For example, it was unclear why, a priori, the moduli space need be Kähler since the original field theory could not be embedded in a supersymmetric context and the solitons were not BPS. Moreover, the relevant solitons were not the most general solutions to any equations of motion, but rather the surviving approximate solutions at first order in perturbation theory.

In contrast, the appearance of the moduli space in the current context is more natural. It now appears at zeroth order in perturbation theory, rather than first, and the solitons are therefore solutions to certain equations of motion (namely those derived in the strict $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ limit). Furthermore, as explained above, the Kähler nature of the target space finds an explanation in terms of supersymmetry.

The explicit metric for noncommutative vortices may be easily extracted from (14). For $`k3`$, the algebra becomes somewhat entangled, but for $`k=2`$ it is simple and was given previously in . Factoring off an overall center of mass, we have the relative moduli space described in terms of the separation $`z=z^1z^2`$ with metric,

$`ds^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{coth}(|z|^2/2){\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2}{4\mathrm{sinh}^2(|z|^2/2)}}\right)dzd\overline{z}`$
Since the two vortices are indistinguishable, we should orbifold this space by the $`Z_2`$ action $`zz`$. It is simple to see that this renders the metric non-singular at the origin $`z=0`$.

We would like to extend this discussion beyond the $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ limit. One may consider proceeding by calculating the contributions to the low-energy dynamics perturbatively in $`1/\gamma `$. Unlike the case of scalar field theories, where these effects induce a potential on the moduli space , for the case of vortices they merely correct the metric on the moduli space. The leading order contribution is given by $`T=T_0+T_1/\gamma `$ where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{2\pi \theta v^2}}=\mathrm{Tr}P\left(\dot{P}\dot{P}a(1P)a^{}a(1P)\dot{P}\dot{P}a^{}\right)`$
However, this perturbative path appears tedious and illuminates little.

Instead, we finish by deriving the noncommutative extension of Samols’ localization theorem . Recall that Samols analyzed the dynamics of $`k`$ vortices in the ordinary, commutative, abelian-Higgs model. Upon integrating the usual overlap of zero modes over the complex plane, he found that all contributions vanish apart from those arising at the $`k`$ zeroes of the Higgs field.

Examining our expressions for $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$ above, we see that a similar phenomenon has occurred. The trace over the infinite dimensional Hilbert space $``$ has been reduced to a more manageable trace over a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`P`$. Here we show that this property holds for all values of $`\gamma `$. In order to derive this result, I have found it necessary to introduce the operator $`\varphi ^1`$. Since $`Ker(\varphi )0`$, we must define this operator with care. We require,

$`\varphi \varphi ^1=1,\varphi ^1\varphi =1P`$
While the existence of such an operator in not guaranteed for all $`\gamma `$, it is a simple matter to construct it explicitly within the perturbative context of the solution (9),

$`\varphi ^1={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma ^m\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m\varphi _0^{}`$
where the operators $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m`$ are defined iteratively as $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1=\psi _1`$ with the remainder given by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m=_{l=1}^m\psi _l\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{ml}`$. The result below is therefore only strictly valid for $`\gamma `$ within the radius of convergence of the series (9). Wielding this operator allows us to invert the Bogomoln’yi equation to $`C=\varphi a\varphi ^1`$, supplying the leverage necessary to prise open the expression for the kinetic energy (12). A little algebra reveals the final result,

$`T=2\pi \theta v^2\mathrm{Tr}P\left(\dot{\varphi }^{}\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}a\varphi ^1\dot{C}^{}\dot{\varphi }\right)`$
which indeed reduces to the trace over the $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`P`$ as advertised.

## Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jan Troost and Ashwin Vishwanath for stimulating discussions. I’m supported by a Pappalardo fellowship, and thank Neil Pappalardo for the money. This work was also supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Non-closed minimal hypersurfaces of 𝕊⁴(1) with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature

## §1. Introduction

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$ be a hypersurface immersion of a connected and orientable $`3`$-dimensional manifold $`M^3`$ of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ into $`𝕊^4(1)^5`$. Let $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ be the three principal curvature functions. The normalized elementary symmetric curvature functions of the immersion $`x`$ are given by:

$`H`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3\right),`$
$`H_2`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\lambda _1\lambda _2+\lambda _1\lambda _3+\lambda _2\lambda _3\right),`$
$`K`$ $`:=\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3.`$
S. Almeida and F. Brito  suggested to classify closed hypersurface immersions for which two of the three functions $`H`$, $`H_2`$, $`K`$ are constant. The paper  gives a survey of results on closed hypersurfaces in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with two constant curvature functions.

Particularly, the paper  investigated closed minimal hypersurfaces with constant Gauß-Kronecker curvature function, corresponding to $`H0`$ and $`Kconst`$. There it is proved that closed minimal hypersurfaces with constant Gauß-Kronecker curvature $`K0`$ are isoparametric, therefore closed minimal hypersurfaces with constant Gauß-Kronecker curvature $`K0`$ are classified. Brito conjectured that all hypersurfaces in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with $`Kconst0`$ and $`Hconst`$ (or $`H_2const`$) must be isoparametric (personal communication). If $`K0`$ on $`M^3`$, the following is well known: a closed minimal hypersurface immersion in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with nowhere zero second fundamental form is a boundary of a tube which is built over a non-degenerate minimal $`2`$-dimensional surface immersion in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with geodesic radius $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. This nice result proves the existence of non-isoparametric closed minimal hypersurfaces with $`K0`$ in $`𝕊^4(1)`$. But so far no explicit non-isoparametric example has been given. In this paper we investigate local descriptions of minimal hypersurfaces (not necessarily closed) in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature $`K`$, but with nowhere zero second fundamental form. In particular we present the following two explicit non-isoparametric examples:

### Example 1.1

The mapping

$`x_1:^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$
$`x_1(u,v,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z^2}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)C_2+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}v)C_3+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}v)C_4+zC_5\right),`$
where $`C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4,C_5^5`$ are constant orthogonal vectors in $`^5`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2}=<C_1,C_1>=<C_2,C_2>=<C_3,C_3>=<C_4,C_4>\text{and}<C_5,C_5>=1,$$

defines a minimal hypersurface immersion with zero Gauß-Kroneker curvature. The principal curvature functions take the values $`\lambda _1(u,v,z)=\sqrt{z^2+1}`$, $`\lambda _2(z)=\sqrt{z^2+1}`$ and $`\lambda _3(z)=0`$; they depend only on $`z`$.

### Example 1.2

Let $`I`$ be an open interval, $`0<c_1,c_2`$ such that $`c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v}>0`$ for all $`vI`$, and $`g,h:I`$ two differentiable functions on $`I`$ which are linearly independent solutions of the second order differential equation

$$(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{\prime \prime }(v)+(1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{}(v)+2A_5(v)=0,$$

and such that $`g^2(v)+h^2(v)=1\frac{e^{2v}}{c_2}`$, for all $`vI`$. The existence of such functions will be proved below, see Lemma 3.4 and Remark 3.5. Then the mapping

$`x_2:\times I\times 𝕊^4(1)^5,`$
$`x_2(u,v,z)={\displaystyle \frac{e^v}{\sqrt{c_2(z^2+1)}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(u)C_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}}\left(zC_3+g(v)C_4+h(v)C_5\right),`$
where $`C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4,C_5^5`$ are constant orthonormal vectors, defines a minimal hypersurface immersion in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature. The principal curvatures take the values

$$\lambda _1(v,z)=c_1e^{2v}\sqrt{z^2+1},\lambda _2(v,z)=c_1e^{2v}\sqrt{z^2+1}\text{and}\lambda _3(v,z)=0,$$

thus they depend only on $`v`$ and $`z`$.

The principal curvatures of both examples do depend on at most two parameters. We prove the following local classification of such hypersurfaces.

Main result: Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^4`$ be a minimal hypersuface immersion (with nowhere zero second fundamental form) of a connected and orientable $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-manifold $`M^3`$ in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature. If one of the two nowhere zero principal curvature functions is constant along its associated principal curvature line, then there exist local coordinates so that the immersion $`x`$ locally can be described by one of the two non-isoparametric hypersurfaces $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ (see Example 1.1 and Example 1.2) above, or locally by Cartan’s minimal isoparametric hypersurface with principal curvatures $`\sqrt{3}`$, $`\sqrt{3}`$ and $`0`$.

## §2. Notations and integrability conditions

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$ be an immersion of a connected, orientable $`3`$-dimensional $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-manifold $`M^3`$ into the unit $`4`$-sphere $`𝕊^4(1)`$. Denote by $`y`$ a unit normal vector field on $`𝕊^4(1)`$ along the immersion $`x`$, by $`<,>`$ the canonical inner product of the Euclidean structure, and by $`\overline{}`$ the flat connection of $`^5`$. Referring to  for details on geometry of submanifolds, recall that as immersion of codimension $`2`$ in $`^5`$ the structure equations (Gauß and Weingarten equations) for $`x`$ state:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{}_udx(v)& :=dx(_uv)+\text{II}(u,v)y\text{I}(u,v)x,\hfill \\ \hfill dy(u)& :=dx(Su),\hfill \end{array}\text{for all}u,vTM^3$$
$`2.1`$
where I denotes the first fundamental form (induced metric) with Levi-Civita connection $``$, II defines the second fundamental form and $`S`$ denotes the shape operator.

The structure equations imply the following integrability conditions (Gauß formula and Codazzi equation) for any $`u,v,wTM^3`$:

$`R(u,v)w`$ $`=\text{I}(w,v)u\text{I}(w,u)v+\text{II}(w,v)Su\text{II}(w,u)Sv,`$ $`2.2`$$`2.3`$
$`\left(_uS\right)v`$ $`=\left(_vS\right)u,`$
where $`R`$ denotes the Riemannian curvature tensor for the induced metric I.

Let $`(e_1,e_2,e_3)`$ be a I-orthonormal local differentiable frame of principal curvature vector fields on $`M^3`$:

$$Se_1=\lambda _1e_1,Se_2=\lambda _2e_2\text{and}Se_3=\lambda _3e_3.$$

There are $`9`$ functions $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _9`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{e_1}e_1& =\alpha _1e_2+\alpha _2e_3,_{e_1}e_2=\alpha _1e_1+\alpha _3e_3,_{e_1}e_3=\alpha _2e_1\alpha _3e_2;\hfill \\ \hfill _{e_2}e_1& =\alpha _4e_2+\alpha _6e_3,_{e_2}e_2=\alpha _4e_1+\alpha _5e_3,_{e_2}e_3=\alpha _6e_1\alpha _5e_2;\hfill \\ \hfill _{e_3}e_1& =\alpha _9e_2\alpha _7e_3,_{e_3}e_2=\alpha _9e_1\alpha _8e_3,_{e_3}e_3=\alpha _7e_1+\alpha _8e_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.4`$
### Remark 2.1

Consider the situation that the three principal curvature functions $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ are everywhere distinct; the fact that the frame $`(e_1,e_2,e_3)`$ is orthonormal implies that the functions $`\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},9`$ in (2.4) are defined on $`M^3`$ uniquely up to sign.

Applying the Codazzi equation (2.3) to the vector fields $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ and using (2.4), one gets the following equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_1(\lambda _2)& =\alpha _4(\lambda _2\lambda _1),\hfill \\ \hfill e_1(\lambda _3)& =\alpha _7(\lambda _3\lambda _1),\hfill \\ \hfill e_2(\lambda _1)& =\alpha _1(\lambda _1\lambda _2),\hfill \\ \hfill e_2(\lambda _3)& =\alpha _8(\lambda _3\lambda _2),\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\lambda _1)& =\alpha _2(\lambda _1\lambda _3),\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\lambda _2)& =\alpha _5(\lambda _2\lambda _3),\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _9(\lambda _1\lambda _2)& =\alpha _3(\lambda _2\lambda _3)=\alpha _6(\lambda _1\lambda _3).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.5`$
From now we assume that the immersion $`x`$ (with nowhere zero second fundamental form) is minimal and has identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature ($`K0`$). There exists a positive non-zero function $`\lambda `$ such that the principal curvature functions associated to the immersion $`x`$ are $`\lambda _1=\lambda `$, $`\lambda _2=\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _3=0`$. From the equations (2.5), one gets

$`e_1(\lambda )`$ $`=2\alpha _4\lambda ,e_2(\lambda )=2\alpha _1\lambda ,e_3(\lambda )=\alpha _2\lambda ;`$ $`2.6`$$`2.7`$
$`\alpha _5`$ $`=\alpha _2,2\alpha _9=\alpha _3=\alpha _6,\alpha _7=0=\alpha _8.`$
Applying the Gauß formula (2.2) to the vector fields $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ and using the equations (2.4) and (2.7), one gets

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_1(\alpha _4)+e_2(\alpha _1)& =1\lambda ^2+\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2+2\alpha _3^2+\alpha _4^2\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\alpha _1)+\frac{1}{2}e_1(\alpha _3)& =\alpha _1\alpha _2\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3\alpha _4\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\alpha _4)\frac{1}{2}e_2(\alpha _3)& =\alpha _2\alpha _4+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1\alpha _3,\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\alpha _2)& =1+\alpha _2^2\alpha _3^2,\hfill \\ \hfill e_3(\alpha _3)& =2\alpha _2\alpha _3,\hfill \\ \hfill e_1(\alpha _2)& =e_2(\alpha _3),\hfill \\ \hfill e_1(\alpha _3)& =e_2(\alpha _2).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.8`$
Note that the Lie brackets with respect to the vector fields $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$ and $`e_3`$ are given by:

$$[e_1,e_2]=\alpha _1e_1+\alpha _4e_2+2\alpha _3e_3,[e_1,e_3]=\alpha _2e_1\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3e_2,[e_2,e_3]=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3e_1\alpha _2e_2.$$

The fundamental equations (2.1) applied to the vector fields $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ give rise to the following (partial) differential equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{}_{e_1}dx(e_1)& =\alpha _1dx(e_2)+\alpha _2dx(e_3)+\lambda yx\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_1}dx(e_2)& =\alpha _1dx(e_1)+\alpha _3dx(e_3)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_1}dx(e_3)& =\alpha _2dx(e_1)\alpha _3dx(e_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_2}dx(e_1)& =\alpha _4dx(e_2)\alpha _3dx(e_3)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_2}dx(e_2)& =\alpha _4dx(e_1)+\alpha _2dx(e_3)\lambda yx\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_2}dx(e_3)& =\alpha _3dx(e_2)\alpha _2dx(e_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_3}dx(e_1)& =\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3dx(e_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_3}dx(e_2)& =\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3dx(e_1)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}_{e_3}dx(e_3)& =x\hfill \\ \hfill dy(e_1)& =\lambda dx(e_1),\hfill \\ \hfill dy(e_2)& =\lambda dx(e_2),\hfill \\ \hfill dy(e_3)& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.9`$
## §3. Proof of the main result

To describe locally hypersurface immersions in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with $`K0`$, one has to find local coordinates to solve the structure equations (2.9) using the integrability conditions (2.6) and (2.8). It seems to be very difficult to solve this problem in full generality.

In this section, we consider natural additional assumptions on the functions $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, $`\alpha _3`$ and $`\alpha _4`$ to solve the structure equations (fundamental equations) for minimal hypersurface immersions in $`𝕊^4(1)`$ with $`K0`$; namely we assume that the function $`\lambda `$ is constant along the $`e_1`$-direction. This additional assumption is suggested by the Examples 1.1 and 1.2.

### Proposition 3.1

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)`$ be a minimal hypersurface immersion with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature function and nowhere zero second fundamental form. Let $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _9`$ be the the functions as defined in (2.4). If the function $`\alpha _4`$ vanishes identically on an open subset $`U`$ of $`M^3`$, i.e., the function $`\lambda `$ is constant along the curvature line of the vector field $`e_1`$, then also the function $`\alpha _3`$ vanishes identically on $`U`$, or the immersion $`x`$ is a minimal Cartan isoparametric hypersurface on $`U`$.

### Proof

Using the equations (2.6) and

$$e_1e_2(\lambda )e_2e_1(\lambda )[e_1,e_2](\lambda )=0=e_1e_3(\lambda )e_3e_1(\lambda )[e_1,e_3](\lambda ),$$

one gets:

$$e_1(\alpha _1)=\alpha _2\alpha _3\text{and}e_1(\alpha _2)=\alpha _1\alpha _3.$$

Similarly, using (2.8) and

$$e_2e_3(\alpha _3)e_3e_2(\alpha _3)[e_2,e_3](\alpha _3)=0,$$

one has:

$$\alpha _3e_2(\alpha _2)=0.$$

Assume now that $`\alpha _30`$ everywhere. This implies that $`e_2(\alpha _2)`$ vanishes identically. Inserting again the equations (2.6) into

$$e_1e_2(\alpha _3)e_2e_1(\alpha _3)[e_1,e_2](\alpha _3)=0,$$

one gets:

$$\alpha _3^2\alpha _2=0.$$

Therefore $`\alpha _2=0=\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _3=\pm 1`$. Consequently, $`\lambda ^2=3`$. Thus the immersion is isoparametric with principal curvatures $`\lambda _1=\sqrt{3}`$, $`\lambda _2=\sqrt{3}`$ and $`\lambda _3=0`$, i.e. the immersion is a Cartan’s minimal isoparametric hypersurface in $`𝕊^4(1)`$.

### Corollary 3.2

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$ be a closed minimal hypersurface immersion of a connected and orientable manifold $`M^3`$ into $`𝕊^4(1)^5`$ with nowhere zero second fundamental form and $`K0`$. Assume that one of the functions $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _4`$ vanish identically on $`M^3`$. Then $`x(M)`$ is a Cartan’s minimal isoparametric hypersurface of $`𝕊^4(1)`$, i.e., the boundary of the tube Tube($`V^2,\frac{\pi }{2}`$) with radius $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ around the Veronese surface $`V^2𝕊^4(1)`$.

### Proof

From the proposition above we have two possibilities:

(i) $`\alpha _3`$ vanishes identically on $`M^3`$;

(ii) or $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha _40`$ and $`\alpha _3^2=1`$.

Assuming that the hypersurface $`M^3`$ is closed, the case (i) above cannot happen because the function $`e_3(\alpha _2)=1+\alpha _2^2\alpha _3^2`$ should be zero at the minimum and maximum points of the function $`\alpha _2`$; but with $`\alpha _30`$, $`e_3(\alpha _2)=1+\alpha _2^2`$ has no zeros. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Proposition 3.3

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$ be a minimal hypersurface immersion of a connected and orientable manifold $`M^3`$ into $`𝕊^4(1)^5`$ with nowhere zero second fundamental form and $`K0`$. Assume that the immersion is non-isoparametric and the functions $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _4`$ vanish identically on $`M^3`$. Then there are local coordinates so that the immersion $`x`$ can be locally described by the parametrization of the hypersurface given in Example 1.1.

### Proof

From Proposition 3.1 we may assume that the function $`\alpha _3`$ vanishes identically on $`M^3`$. Then the following equations hold:

$`e_2(\alpha _2)`$ $`=0=e_1(\alpha _2)=e_1(\lambda )=e_2(\lambda ),`$
$`e_3(\alpha _2)`$ $`=\alpha _2^2+1,`$
$`e_3(\lambda )`$ $`=\lambda \alpha _2,`$
$`\lambda ^2`$ $`=\alpha _2^2+1.`$
The vector fields $`\frac{1}{\lambda }e_1`$, $`\frac{1}{\lambda }e_2`$ and $`\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3`$ satisfy:

$$0=[\frac{1}{\lambda }e_1,\frac{1}{\lambda }e_2]=[\frac{1}{\lambda }e_1,\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3]=[\frac{1}{\lambda }e_2,\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3].$$

Therefore there are local coordinates $`(u,v,z)`$ on $`M^3`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }e_1=\frac{}{u},\frac{1}{\lambda }e_2=\frac{}{v},\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3=\frac{}{z}.$$

The foregoing equations give

$$\alpha _2=z\text{and}\lambda =\sqrt{z^2+1}.$$

With respect to the frame $`(\frac{}{u},\frac{}{v},\frac{}{z})`$ the structure equations (Gauß and Weingarten equations) are given by the following system of second order partial differential equations:

$`\lambda ^2x_{uu}`$ $`=z(z^2+1)x_z+\lambda yx,`$ $`3.10`$$`3.11`$$`3.12`$$`3.13`$$`3.14`$$`3.15`$$`3.16`$$`3.17`$$`3.18`$
$`x_{vu}`$ $`=0=x_{uv},`$
$`x_{zu}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^2+1}}x_u=x_{uz},`$
$`\lambda ^2x_{vv}`$ $`=z(z^2+1)x_z\lambda yx,`$
$`x_{vz}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^2+1}}x_v=x_{vz},`$
$`(z^2+1)^2x_{zz}`$ $`=2z(z^2+1)x_zx,`$
$`y_u`$ $`=\lambda x_u,`$
$`y_v`$ $`=\lambda x_v,`$
$`y_z`$ $`=0.`$
Differentiating (3.10) with respect to $`u`$ and using (3.12) and (3.16), one gets

$$x_{uuu}=2x_u.$$

There are two vector valued functions $`A_1A_1(v,z)`$ and $`A_2A_2(v,z)`$ in $`^5`$ depending only on $`v`$ and $`z`$ such that

$$x_u=\sqrt{2}\left(\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)A_1+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)A_2\right).$$
$`3.19`$
One has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}`$ $`=\text{I}(x_u,x_u)`$
$`=2(<A_1,A_1>\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{2}u)<A_1,A_2>\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{2}u)+<A_2,A_2>\mathrm{cos}^2(\sqrt{2}u))`$
$`=<A_1,A_1>+<A_2,A_2>+(<A_2,A_2><A_1,A_1>)\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}u)`$
$`2<A_1,A_2>\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{2}u).`$
The linear independence of the functions $`1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{2}u)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}u)`$ implies

$$<A_1,A_1>=\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}=<A_2,A_2>\text{and}<A_1,A_2>=0.$$
$`3.20`$
Furthermore there is a vector valued function $`A_3A_3(v,z)`$ depending only on $`v`$ and $`z`$ such that

$$x(u,v,z)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)A_1(v,z)+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)A_2(v,z)+A_3(v,z).$$

One has

$`1`$ $`=<x,x>`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}}+2<A_1,A_3>\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)+2<A_2,A_3>\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)+<A_3,A_3>.`$
From the linear independence of the functions $`1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)`$, one gets

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}}+<A_3,A_3>\text{and}<A_1,A_3>=0=<A_2,A_3>.`$ $`3.21`$
Differentiating (3.19) with respect to $`z`$ (and with respect to $`v`$, resp.) and using the equation (3.12) (the equation (3.11), resp.) and the linear independence of the functions $`1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)`$, one gets the following first order partial differential equations for the vector valued functions $`A_1(v,z)`$ and $`A_2(v,z)`$:

$$(z^2+1)\frac{A_1}{z}=zA_1,(z^2+1)\frac{A_2}{z}=zA_2\text{and}\frac{A_1}{v}=0=\frac{A_2}{v}.$$

There are constant vectors $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ in $`^5`$ such that

$$A_1=\frac{C_1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}\text{and}A_2=\frac{C_2}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}.$$

Because of (3.20), one has

$$<C_1,C_1>=\frac{1}{2}=<C_2,C_2>\text{and}<C_1,C_2>=0.$$

The immersion $`x`$ takes the form

$$x(u,v,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)C_2\right)+A_3(v,z).$$

After inserting the above expression for $`x`$ into the equation (3.15), one gets the following second order partial differential equation for the vector valued function $`A_3(v,z)`$:

$$(z^2+1)^2\frac{^2A_3}{z^2}+2z(z^2+1)\frac{A_3}{z}+A_3=0.$$

There are two vector valued functions $`A_4A_4(v)`$ and $`A_5A_5(v)`$ in $`^5`$ such that

$$A_3(v,z)=\frac{A_4(v)}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}+\frac{zA_5(v)}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}.$$

The equation (3.14) implies that the vector valued function $`A_5(v)`$ is constant:

$$A_5(v)=C_5const.$$

Because of (3.21), one has

$$0=<C_5,A_4(v)>=<C_1,A_4(v)>=<C_2,A_4(v)>=<C_1,C_5>=<C_2,C_5>,$$

$$<A_4(v),A_4(v)>=\frac{1}{2}\text{and}<C_5,C_5>=1.$$

Now eliminating $`y`$ from the equations (3.10) and (3.13), one has that the vector valued function $`A_4(v)`$ is a solution of the following second order differential equation:

$$A_4^{\prime \prime }(v)=2A_4(v).$$

Therefore there are constant vectors $`C_3,C_4^3`$ such that

$$A_4(v)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}v)C_3+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}v)C_4.$$

The constant vectors $`C_3,C_4`$ are orthogonal to $`C_1,C_2,C_5`$ and satisfy

$$<C_3,C_3>=\frac{1}{2}=<C_4,C_4>\text{and}<C_3,C_4>=0.$$

Finally, the local description of the immersion $`x`$ is given by

$$x(u,v,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)C_2+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}v)C_3+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}v)C_4+zC_5\right).$$
$`3.22`$
Note that the vector field $`y`$ defined by

$$y(u,v,z)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}u)C_1\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}u)C_2+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}v)C_3+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}v)C_4$$

is unit and normal to $`x`$. It is then easy to check that the mapping (3.22) defines a minimal hypersurface immersion with $`K0`$ in $`𝕊^4(1)`$. Clearly this hypersurface immersion is non-isoparametric. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we want to characterize Example 1.2. In order to succeed, we need to prove the following lemma:

### Lemma 3.4

Let $`I`$ be an open interval and $`0<c_1,c_2`$ be two constant positive real numbers such that $`c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v}>0`$ for every $`vI`$. Consider the following second order differential equation for some function $`A`$ on $`I`$:

$$(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})A^{\prime \prime }(v)+(1c_1^2e^{4v})A^{}(v)+2A(v)=0.$$
$`3.23`$
Then there exists a function $`\varphi :I`$ such that the general solution $`A(v)`$ for the equation (3.23) takes the form

$$A(v)=a\sqrt{c_2e^{2v}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi (v)\right)+b\sqrt{c_2e^{2v}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi (v)\right),$$

where $`a,b`$ are constants.

### Proof

Let $`B:I`$ be the function defined by

$$A(v)=:\sqrt{c_2e^{2v}}B(v).$$

Inserting this expression of $`A(v)`$ into the equation (3.23), one gets the following second order differential equation in $`B(v)`$:

$$B^{\prime \prime }(v)\frac{(3+c_1^2e^{4v}+c_2c_1^2e^{6v}3c_2e^{2v})B^{}(v)}{(c_2e^{2v}1)(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})}+\frac{c_2c_1^2e^{6v}B(v)}{(c_2e^{2v}1)^2(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})}=0.$$
$`3.24`$
Now take $`\varphi `$ to be the function on $`I`$ such that

$$\varphi ^{}(v)=\sqrt{\frac{c_2c_1^2e^{6v}}{(c_2e^{2v}1)^2(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})}}.$$

It follows that

$$\frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(v)}{\varphi ^{}(v)}=\frac{(3+c_1^2e^{4v}+c_2c_1^2e^{6v}3c_2e^{2v})}{(c_2e^{2v}1)(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})}.$$

Thus the equation (3.24) becomes

$$B^{\prime \prime }(v)\frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(v)}{\varphi ^{}(v)}B^{}(v)+\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(v)B(v)=0.$$

Therefore, there are constants $`a,b`$ such that

$$B(v)=a\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi (v)\right)+b\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi (v)\right).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

### Remark 3.5

The particular solutions $`g(v)`$ and $`h(v)`$ of the equation (3.23) given by

$$g(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_2}}\sqrt{c_2e^{2v}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi (v)\right)\text{and}g(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_2}}\sqrt{c_2e^{2v}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi (v)\right)$$

are linearly independent and satisfy $`g^2(v)+h^2(v)=1\frac{e^{2v}}{c_2}`$.

### Proposition 3.6

Let $`x:M^3𝕊^4(1)^5`$ be a minimal hypersurface immersion of a connected and orientable manifold $`M^3`$ into $`𝕊^4(1)^5`$ with identically zero Gauß-Kronecker curvature, but with nowhere zero second fundamental form. Assume that the function $`\alpha _4`$ vanishes identically and $`\alpha _1`$ is nowhere zero on $`M^3`$. Then there are local coordinates $`(u,v,z)`$ such that the immersion $`x`$ can be locally described by the parametrization of the hypersurface given in Example 1.2.

### Proof

The vector fields $`\frac{1}{\alpha _1}e_2`$ and $`\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3`$ satisfy

$$[\frac{1}{\alpha _1}e_2,\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3]=0.$$

Define the function $`f`$ on $`M^3`$ by

$$f:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2+\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}}.$$
$`3.25`$
The function $`f`$ satisfies the following equations:

$$e_1(f)=0,e_2(f)=\alpha _1f\text{and}e_3(f)=\alpha _2f.$$

Consequently,

$$[fe_1,\frac{1}{\alpha _1}e_2]=0=[fe_1,\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3].$$

Therefore there are local coordinates $`(u,v,z)`$ on $`M^3`$ such that

$$\frac{}{z}=\frac{1}{\alpha _2^2+1}e_3,\frac{}{v}=\frac{1}{\alpha _1}e_2,\frac{}{u}=fe_1.$$

From above we get the following equations for $`\alpha _2`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha _1`$.

Equations for $`\alpha _2`$:

$$\frac{\alpha _2}{u}=fe_1(\alpha _2)=0,\frac{\alpha _2}{v}=\frac{1}{\alpha _1}e_2(\alpha _2)=0,\frac{\alpha _2}{z}=\frac{1}{1+\alpha _2^2}e_3(\alpha _2)=1.$$

So

$$\alpha _2=z.$$
$`3.26`$
Equations for $`\lambda `$:

$$\frac{\lambda }{u}=0,\frac{\lambda }{v}=2\lambda ,\text{and}\frac{\lambda }{z}=\frac{z\lambda }{z^2+1}.$$

Therefore

$$\lambda \lambda (v,z)=c_1e^{2v}\sqrt{z^2+1},$$
$`3.27`$
where $`0<c_1`$.

Equations for $`\alpha _1`$:

$$\frac{\alpha _1}{z}=\frac{z\alpha _1}{z^2+1},\frac{\alpha _1}{v}=\frac{\alpha _1^2+z^2+1\lambda ^2}{\alpha _1},\text{and}\frac{\alpha _1}{u}=0;$$

thus

$$\alpha _1^2\alpha _1^2(v,z)=(z^2+1)(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v}),$$
$`3.28`$
where $`vI`$ an open interval and $`0<c_2`$ is a constant such that $`c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v}>0`$ for all $`vI`$. Inserting the expressions (3.26), (3.27) and (3.28) (of $`\alpha _2`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha _1`$, respectively) into (3.25), we see that the function $`f`$ satisfies

$$(1+z^2)f^2(v)=\frac{e^{2v}}{c_2}.$$

With respect to the frame $`(\frac{}{u},\frac{}{v},\frac{}{z})`$ the structure equations are given by the following system of second order partial differential equations:

$`x_{vz}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _2^2+1}}x_v=x_{zv},`$ $`3.29`$$`3.30`$$`3.31`$$`3.32`$$`3.33`$$`3.34`$$`3.35`$$`3.36`$$`3.37`$
$`x_{zu}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _2^2+1}}x_u=x_{uz},`$
$`x_{vu}`$ $`=x_u=x_{uv},`$
$`x_{uu}`$ $`=f^2\left(\alpha _1^2x_v+\alpha _2(\alpha _2^2+1)x_z+\lambda yx\right),`$
$`x_{zz}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _2}{\alpha _2^2+1}}x_z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha _2^2+1)^2}}x,`$
$`x_{vv}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}\left((\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2+1\lambda ^2)x_v+\alpha _2(\alpha _2^2+1)x_z\lambda yx\right),`$
$`y_u`$ $`=\lambda x_u,`$
$`y_v`$ $`=\lambda x_v,`$
$`y_z`$ $`=0.`$
Differentiating the equation (3.32) with respect to $`u`$, one has:

$$x_{uuu}=f^2(\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2\lambda ^21)x_u=x_u.$$
$`3.38`$
There are vector valued functions $`A_1A_1(v,z)`$ and $`A_2A_2(v,z)`$ in $`^5`$ depending only on $`v`$ and $`z`$ such that

$$x_u=\mathrm{sin}(u)A_1+\mathrm{cos}(u)A_2.$$
$`3.39`$
One has:

$`f^2`$ $`=\text{I}(x_u,x_u)`$
$`=<A_1,A_1>\mathrm{sin}^2(u)<A_1,A_2>\mathrm{sin}(2u)+<A_2,A_2>\mathrm{cos}^2(u)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{<A_2,A_2>+<A_1,A_1>}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{<A_2,A_2><A_1,A_1>}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(2u)`$
$`<A_1,A_2>\mathrm{sin}(2u).`$
Using the linear independence of the functions $`1`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(2u)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(2u)`$, from the equation above we deduce

$$<A_1,A_1>=f^2=<A_2,A_2>\text{and}<A_1,A_2>=0.$$
$`3.40`$
Furthermore, there is a vector valued function $`A_3A_3(v,z)`$ depending only on $`v`$ and $`z`$ such that

$$x(u,v,z)=\mathrm{cos}(u)A_1(v,z)+\mathrm{sin}(u)A_2(v,z)+A_3(v,z).$$
$`3.41`$
One has

$`1`$ $`=<x,x>`$
$`=f^2+<A_3,A_3>+2<A_1,A_3>\mathrm{cos}(u)+2<A_2,A_3>\mathrm{sin}(u).`$
Using the linear independence of the functions $`1`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(u)`$, we get

$$1=f^2+<A_3,A_3>\text{and}<A_1,A_3>=0=<A_2,A_3>.$$
$`3.42`$
We differentiate the equation (3.39) with respect to $`z`$ and $`v`$ and use the equations (3.30) and (3.31); then the linear independence of the functions $`\mathrm{cos}(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(u)`$ implies the following first order partial differential equations for the vector valued functions $`A_1(v,z)`$ and $`A_2(v,z)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{z}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^2+1}}A_1,{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{v}}=A_1,`$ $`3.43`$$`3.44`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{z}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^2+1}}A_2,{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{v}}=A_2.`$
Therefore,

$$A_1(v,z)=f(v,z)C_1\text{and}A_2(v,z)=f(v,z)C_2,$$
$`3.45`$
where $`C_1,C_2^5`$ are constant vectors; they are orthonormal because of (3.40), and from (3.42) they are orthogonal to $`A_3`$.

Differentiating (3.41) with respect to $`z`$ we have:

$`x_z`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{f}{z}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(u)C_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_3}{z}},`$
$`x_{zz}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{^2f}{z^2}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(u)C_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{^2A_3}{z^2}}.`$
Using the equation (3.33), we get the following partial differential equation for $`A_3`$, depending only on $`z`$:

$$\frac{^2A_3}{z^2}=\frac{2z}{z^2+1}\frac{A_3}{z}\frac{1}{(z^2+1)^2}A_3.$$

Therefore there are vector valued functions $`A_4A_4(v)`$ and $`A_5A_5(v)`$ depending only on $`v`$ such that:

$$A_3(v,z)=\frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}A_4(v)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}A_5(v).$$
$`3.46`$
The equation (3.41) becomes

$$x(u,v,z)=f(v,z)\left(\mathrm{cos}(u)C_1+\mathrm{sin}(u)C_2\right)+\frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}A_4(v)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}A_5(v).$$

Differentiating the equation above and using (3.29), we have:

$`0`$ $`=x_{vz}+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^2+1}}x_v`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{z^2+1}}}A_4^{}(v).`$
Therefore the vector valued function $`A_4(v)`$ is constant: $`A_4(v)C_3^5`$.

From the equation (3.42), one has

$$1=f^2+\frac{1}{z^2+1}(z^2<C_3,C_3>+2z<C_3,A_5(v)>+<A_5(v),A_5(v)>)$$

and thus

$$<C_3,C_3>=1,<C_3,A_5(v)>=0,$$

and

$$<A_5(v),A_5(v)>=1(1+z^2)f^2=1\frac{e^{2v}}{c_2}.$$
$`3.47`$
Eliminating $`y`$ from the equations (3.32) and (3.34), we get

$`0`$ $`=\alpha _1^2x_{vv}+f^2x_{uu}+(z^2+1\lambda ^2)x_v2z(z^2+1)x_z+2x`$
$`=\sqrt{z^2+1}\left((c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{\prime \prime }(v)+(1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{}(v)+2A_5(v)\right).`$
Therefore the vector valued function $`A_5(v)`$ satisfies the following linear ordinary differential equation of second order:

$$(c_2e^{2v}1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{\prime \prime }(v)+(1c_1^2e^{4v})A_5^{}(v)+2A_5(v)=0.$$
$`3.48`$
By the Lemma 3.4, one can conclude that the general solution of the equation (3.48) is

$$A_5(v)=g(v)C_4+h(v)C_5,$$

where $`C_4,C_5^5`$ are constant vectors, and $`g`$ and $`h`$ are the functions given in Remark 3.5.

But since from (3.47) the vector valued function $`A_5`$ satisfies

$$<A_5(v),A_5(v)>=1\frac{e^{2v}}{c_2},$$

we have that $`C_4`$ and $`C_5`$ are orthonormal. They constitute together with $`C_1,C_2,C_3`$ an orthonormal basis of $`^5`$. This proves Proposition 3.6. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our classifiaction theorem summarizes the results from Propositions 3.1-3.6.

Acknowledgements The author would like to express his special thanks to Professor An-Min Li and Professor Guosong Zhao for their hospitality during his scientific visit in August 2001 at the Sichuan University in Chengdu (China).

Technische Universität Berlin

Institute für Mathematik

Sekretariat MA 8-3

Straße des 17. Juni 136

D-10623 Berlin, Germany

Email: lusalamath.TU-Berlin.DE


text:
# Searching for a light Higgs in Υ leptonic decays Research under grant FPA2002-00612. See arXiv:hep-ph/0206156 for a longer version.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Although there are well established lower mass bounds for the standard Higgs (e.g. from LEP searches ), the situation may be different in several scenarios and models beyond the standard model (SM) where such constraints would not apply, leaving still room for light Higgs bosons (see  for example). Needless to say, any possible experimental signal or discovery strategy of Higgs-like particles should be examined with great attention. In this regard, let us remind that the search for axions or light Higgs in the decays of heavy resonances has several attractive features. Firstly, the couplings of the former to fermions are proportional to their masses and therefore enhanced with respect to lighter mesons. Second, theoretical predictions are more reliable, especially with the recent development of effective theories like non relativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD) , appropriate to deal with such bound states from first principles.

Indeed, intensive searches for a light Higgs-like boson (to be generically denoted by $`\varphi ^0`$ in this paper) have been performed according to the so-called Wilczek mechanism  in the radiative decay of vector heavy quarkonia like the Upsilon resonance (i.e. $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma \varphi ^0`$). So far, none of all these searches has been successful, but have provided valuable constraints on the mass values of light Higgs bosons .

Nevertheless, in this work I will focus on a possible signal of New Physics based on the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$apparent” breaking of lepton universality in bottomonium decays: stricto sensu, lepton universality implies that the electroweak couplings to gauge fields of all charged lepton species should be the same. According to the interpretation given in this work, the possible dependence on the leptonic mass of the leptonic branching fractions of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances below the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold (if experimentally confirmed by forthcoming measurements) might be viewed as a hint of the existence of a Higgs of mass about 10 GeV.

### 1.1 Searching for a light Higgs in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ leptonic decays

Let us write the well known Van Royen-Weisskopf formula including color, expressing the leptonic decay width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ vector resonance without neglecting leptonic masses:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}=4\alpha ^2Q_b^2\frac{|R_n(0)|^2}{M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}\times K(x)$$
(1)
where $`\alpha 1/137`$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant; $`M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denotes the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ particle and $`Q_b`$ is the charge of the bottom quark ($`1/3`$ in units of $`e`$); $`R_n(0)`$ is the non-relativistic radial wave function of the $`b\overline{b}`$ bound state at the origin; finally $`K(x)=(1+2x)(14x)^{1/2}`$ with $`x=m_{\mathrm{}}^2/M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2`$. Let us note that $`K(x)`$ is a decreasing function of $`x`$: the higher leptonic mass the smaller decay rate. However, such $`x`$-dependence is quite weak for bottomonium.

In this paper, we will consider the sequential decay

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma \varphi ^0(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{});\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau $$
(2)
It is a continuum radiative transition which in principle permits the coupling of the bottom quark-antiquark pair into a particle with $`J^{PC}`$: $`0^{++},0^+,1^{++},2^{++}\mathrm{}`$. In the present investigation, we will confine our attention to the two first possibilities: a scalar or a pseudoscalar boson.

### 1.2 An intermediate spin-singlet $`b\overline{b}`$ state?

In a vector resonance like the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$, the heavy quark pair can be in a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ color-singlet state in the lowest Fock state, but the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system could also exist with other quantum numbers than $`J^P=1^{}`$ since the soft degrees of freedom can carry the remaining quantum numbers, although with a smaller probability. These ideas have been cast into the rigorous formulation of NRQCD  and extensively applied to heavy quarkonia production and decay. Moreover, one can wonder about the possibility of reaching such Fock states by emission of soft photons instead of soft gluons. Let us note however a crucial difference between photons and gluons: the latter carry color and hence, there exists a lower cutoff corresponding to a minimum amount of energy $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$taken away” in the hadronization stage (corresponding to a pion mass for instance). However, this is not the case for photons. Actually, the experimental determination of the leptonic braching fraction (BF) $`_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ actually includes decays accompanied by a large number number of soft photons .

On the other hand, magnetic dipole (M1) transitions can connect spin-triplet and spin-singlet states by emission of soft photons from heavy quark lines (see Fig.1). The probability for this process can be obtained by dividing the corresponding width  by by the total width of the resonance, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=52.5`$ KeV , i.e.

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\gamma _s(b\overline{b})[{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}\frac{4\alpha Q_b^2}{3m_b^2}k^3$$
(3)
where $`k`$ denotes the energy of the soft photon $`\gamma _s`$ varying in the range $`k=1050`$ MeV. Let us also remark that soft photons in this experimental context are those whose energies do not exceed the experimental resolution and hence are actually not observed 111Typical widths of resonance peaks in $`e^+e^{}`$ machines are of the order of few tens of MeV for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ family below open bottom production. Moreover, typical low energy cutoffs for photon detection are of the order of 50 MeV. Notice also that the use of Eq (3) as an estimate for the magnetic dipole transition is justified since the respective wave-lengths of the radiated photons are quite larger than the size of quarkonium (of order $``$ GeV-1)..

### 1.3 Effects of a light $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Higgs” on $`_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$

Let us focus on the bottomonium familly of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)`$ states below open flavor (i.e. $`n<4`$; the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)`$ state is however discarded in the present analysis since only experimental data for the muonic channel  are currently available) decaying into a lepton pair plus a soft photon $`\gamma _s`$:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)\gamma _sb\overline{b}[{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(1)}](\varphi ^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{});\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau $$

where the soft (I stress it once more: unobserved) $`\gamma _s`$ comes from a M1 transition of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonance, as sketched in Fig. 1.b. I will write the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma _s\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to the formation of an intermediate state followed by its annihilation via an scalar or pseudoscalar in the factored form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma _s\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=𝒫_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\gamma _s(b\overline{b})[{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ stands for the annihilation width of the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair in a spin-singlet state into a lepton pair via a Higgs ($`\varphi ^0`$) boson as depicted in Fig.1. Furthermore, fermions are assumed to couple to the $`\varphi ^0`$ field according to a Yukawa interaction term in the effective Lagrangian:

$$_{int}^{\overline{f}f}=\xi _f^\varphi \frac{\varphi ^0}{v}m_f\overline{f}(i\gamma _5)f$$
(5)
where $`v=246`$ GeV stands for the vacuum expectation value of the standard Higgs boson; $`\xi _f^\varphi `$ denotes a factor depending on the type of the Higgs boson, which could enhance the coupling with a fermion (quark or lepton) of type $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$$`f`$”. Lastly, note that the $`i\gamma _5`$ matrix stands only in the case of a pseudoscalar $`\varphi ^0`$ field.

Now, let us tentatively assume that the mass of the light Higgs sought stands close to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1)`$ resonance but below $`B\overline{B}`$ production: $`m_{\varphi ^0}2m_b`$. As will be argued from current experimental data in the next section, I am supposing specifically that $`m_{\varphi ^0}`$ lies somewhere between the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$ masses, i.e.

$$m_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}m_{\varphi ^0}m_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)}$$
(6)
Next, let us define the mass difference: $`\delta m=|m_{\varphi ^0}m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|`$, where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denotes either a $`1S`$ or a $`2S`$ state. Accepting for simplicity that the Higgs stands halfway between the mass values of both resonances, $`\delta m0.25`$ GeV for an order-of-magnitude calculation. Hence the scalar tree-level $`\varphi ^0`$ propagator can be written approximately as

$$\frac{1}{(m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2m_{\varphi ^0}^2)^2}\frac{1}{16m_b^2\delta m^2}$$
(7)
where the width of the Higgs boson has been neglected for it should be very narrow due the smallness of $`m_{\varphi ^0}`$ and, moreover, standing below bottom open production.

Finally, one can compare the relative rates by means of the following dimensionless ratio

$$=\frac{_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma _s\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}}{_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}}=\left[\frac{m_b^2k^3\xi _b^2\xi _{\mathrm{}}^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}v^4}\right]\times \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\delta m^2}$$
(8)
where we are assuming that the main contribution to the leptonic channel comes from the photon exchange graph of Fig. 1.a. Let us point out once again that since $`\gamma _s`$ is undetected, the Higgs contribution of figure 1.b would be experimentally ascribed to the leptonic channel of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonance.

For the sake of a comparison with other Higgs searches, I will identify the $`\xi _f`$ factor with the 2HDM (type II) parameter for the universal down-type fermion coupling to a CP-odd Higgs, i.e. $`\xi _b=\xi _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, defined as the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of two Higgs fields . Inserting numerical values,

$$(3.610^94.510^7)\times \mathrm{tan}{}_{}{}^{4}\beta \times m_{\mathrm{}}^2$$
(9)
where use was made of the approximation $`m_{\varphi ^0}2m_b10`$ GeV, and the range $`1050`$ MeV for the soft photon energy $`k`$; $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ is expressed in GeV.

## 2 HYPOTHESIS TEST ON LEPTON UNIVERSALITY

From inspection of experimental data presented in Table 1, one realizes a slight but steady increase of the decay rate with the lepton mass. In spite of that, current error bars ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$) are still too large (especially in the case of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$) to permit a thorough check of the lepton mass dependence as expressed in Eq.(9). Nevertheless, I will apply below a hypothesis test in order to draw, if possible, a statistically significant conclusion about lepton universality breaking. To this end, I present in Table 2 the differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$ divided by their respective errors $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$, between BF’s of distinct channels obtained from Table 1. Then applying a one-tailed test , I define the region of rejection above a preassigned critical value of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$ variable (i.e. positive values if $`m_{\mathrm{}^{}}>m_{\mathrm{}}`$), assuming a normal distribution.

The mean of the four $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e\mathrm{}^{}/\sigma _e\mathrm{}^{}`$ values ($`\mathrm{}^{}=\mu ,\tau `$ for both $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ resonances) turns out to be $`0.775`$. Next, I define the test statistic: $`T=\mathrm{\Delta }_e\mathrm{}^{}/\sigma _e\mathrm{}^{}\times \sqrt{N}=1.55`$, where $`N=4`$ stands for the number of independent points. (Note also that we are dealing with a Gaussian of unity variance.) Choosing the critical value to be $`1.3`$, the lepton universality hypothesis \[playing the role of the null hypothesis in our test, predicting a mean zero (or slightly less) value\] can be rejected at a significance level of 10$`\%`$ since $`T>1.3`$ Certainly, this result is not statistically significant enough to make any serious claim about the rejection of the lepton universality hypothesis in this particular process, but points out the interest to investigate further the alternative hypothesis stemming from Eq.(9).

In order to explain the observed $`𝒪(10)\%`$ enhancement from the electronic to the tauonic channel (see Table 1), one gets

$$16\mathrm{tan}\beta 54$$
(10)
depending on the value of $`k`$, namely from 50 MeV to 10 MeV in (9). A caveat is in order: the above interval is purely indicative as it only takes into account the probability range on the M1 transition estimated according to Eq.(3), and not other sources of uncertainty. It is also worthwhile to remark that the interval (9) is compatible with the range needed to interpret the $`g2`$ muon anomaly in terms of a light CP-odd Higgs ($`A^0`$) resulting from a two-loop calculation  222However, after correcting a sign mistake in the so-called hadronic light by light contribution in the $`g2`$ calculation the discrepancy with respect to the SM becomes smaller than initially expected ..

## 3 SUMMARY

I have pointed out in this paper a possible breaking of lepton universality in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ leptonic decays, interpreted in terms of a neutral CP-odd Higgs of mass around $`10`$ GeV, introducing a $`m_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ dependent contribution in the partial width.

I end by emphasizing the interest in more accurate data on leptonic BF’s of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances, particularly considering the exciting possibility of a signal of New Physics as pointed out in this work. Hopefully, B factories working below open bottom production will provide in a near future new and likely more precise measurements of the leptonic BF’s for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ family.