text:
# On marginally resolved objects in optical interferometry

## 1 Introduction

Optical systems are fundamentally limited in angular resolution by their spatial extent because of diffraction. Very soon, the idea of combining light coming from two “distant” telescopes was investigated in order to overcome the limitation in size of single pupils. Michelson (1891, 1920); Michelson & Pease (1921) derived the angular diameters of some solar-system bodies and stars by measuring the contrast of the fringes (called visibility amplitude) obtained when interfering light comes from two apertures: this contrast is maximum when these apertures are closest and decreases with the distance between telescopes (called the baseline). The baseline at which the fringes disappear holds information on the angular extent of the source. After some time, the mid-seventies saw the come-back of optical interferometry with Hanbury Brown et al. (1974); Labeyrie (1975), but it long stayed confined to bright and simple objects, mostly stellar diameters and multiple systems. It is all the more frustrating as the theory of interferometry allows image reconstruction and as radio arrays achieved this goal within a few decades of existence: the atmospheric turbulence and the nature of light both lead to complex optical designs and have slowed the development of optical interferometry. Moreover, the shift of the fringes (called phase) is completely blurred by the atmosphere, so techniques to retrieve phase information —necessary for imaging capacities— needed additional investigation.

Recently, the Palomar Testbed Interferometer (PTI, Colavita et al. 1999) and the Infrared Optical Telescope Array (IOTA, Carleton et al. 1994) allowed us to probe circumstellar matter in star-forming regions (Malbet et al. 1998; Akeson et al. 2000; Malbet & Berger 2002b; Akeson et al. 2002), giving some constraints on the geometry of these objects. With the advent of the Very Large Telescope Interferometre (VLTI, Glindemann et al. 2000) and the (KI, Colavita 2001) we are expecting a much higher accuracy with their large pupils (8–10 m), and good constraints on objects thanks to the number of baselines available and partial phase information; yet they will not allow direct image reconstruction very soon because recombination will be first performed with two or three telescopes. The Navy Prototype Optical Interferometre (NPOI, Armstrong et al. 1998), the CHARA array (ten Brummelaar et al. 2000), and the Cambridge Optical Aperture Synthesis Interferometer (COAST, Haniff et al. 2000) provide imaging capacities with a multi-telescope recombination, but with a lower sensitivity that renders faint object science difficult.

We are clearly entering a phase in which more than an apparent diameter is measured but no imaging is performed; in this context, observers and modellers use interferometric observations as a constraint on models (Malbet & Berger 2002b; Akeson et al. 2002; Lachaume et al. 2001, e.g.), but their link with the geometry of the object remains unclear; it is still quite common to think in terms of diameter. For instance, Monnier & Millan-Gabet (2002) link the uniform disc equivalent diameter derived from the IR interferometric observations of young stellar objects with the physical radius of their supposed inner hole. The phase also raises problems of geometrical interpretation. Since it is blurred by the atmosphere, one uses the closure phase to retrieve partial information on it111Other techniques are also the use of a close object as a phase reference or the differential phase with spectroscopy, but we shall not discuss them in this paper.: the principle is to add the phases over a triplet of baselines provided by three telescopes, which allows one to cancel atmospheric terms. It is generally used either in image reconstruction, at NPOI for instance, or as a model constraint. Geometrically speaking, it is a diagnosis of asymmetry, but its accurate meaning is seldom made clear enough.

In this paper, we connect the visibility amplitude and phase with the geometry of the object, which allows us to retrieve information in a model-independent fashion. In Sect. 2, we establish a series development of these quantities involving the moments of the flux distribution, the first ones being the location of the photocentre, the spatial extent (diameter), and the asymmetry coefficient (skewness). It appears as a generalisation of the widespread diameter measurement. We then draw the consequences of the formalism in terms of observation and modelling. In Sect. 3 we apply this development to circumstellar discs with two examples: the case of an object characterised by more than one diameter (star, thermal flux and scattered light) and the measurement of the radial temperature law in these discs.

## 2 Visibility and object geometry

The Zernicke-van Cittert theorem links the complex visibility $`V`$ to the normalised flux distribution $`I`$ of the object:

$$V(𝒖)=I(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝒖𝜶\right)\mathrm{d}^2𝜶,$$
(1)
where $`𝒖`$ is linked to the projected baseline $`𝑩`$ and the wavelength $`\lambda `$ by $`𝒖=\lambda ^1𝑩`$, and $`𝜶`$ the angular location on the sky. Optical interferometry usually deals with the square amplitude $`|V|^2`$ and the phase $`\varphi `$, given by

$`|V|^2`$ $`=(\mathrm{Re}V)^2+(\mathrm{Im}V)^2,`$ (2a)
$`\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ $`=(\mathrm{Im}V)/(\mathrm{Re}V).`$ (2b)
In interferometry two extreme cases are usually dealt with: on the one hand, an object is fully resolved if its angular size is of the order of $`B/\lambda `$ as it would be with a single dish telescope of size $`B`$. In that case, the visibility is arbitrary and highly depends on the shape of the target. On the other hand, a point-like source is not resolved and its visibility is $`V=1`$. Between these two cases, the object is said to be marginally resolved and $`V`$ is close to unity; its size is a fraction of $`B/\lambda `$. In such a case, most of the flux is located in a zone where $`|𝒖𝜶|1`$, so we carry out a series development to derive the real and imaginary parts of $`V`$:

$`\mathrm{Re}V(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle I(𝜶)\left(12\pi ^2(𝒖𝜶)^2\right)\mathrm{d}^2𝜶},`$ (3a)
$`\mathrm{Im}V(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle I(𝜶)\left(2\pi (𝒖𝜶)\frac{4}{3}\pi ^3(𝒖𝜶)^3\right)\mathrm{d}^2𝜶}.`$ (3b)
These expressions drive us to define the $`n`$-th moment of the flux distribution as a symmetric tensor unambiguously defined by

$$𝑴_n𝒖_1\mathrm{}𝒖_n=I(𝜶)(𝜶𝒖_1)\mathrm{}(𝜶𝒖_n)\mathrm{d}^2𝜶$$
(4)
for any set of vectors $`𝒖_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`𝒖_n`$. (The expressions for the first two moments are given in a Cartesian frame in Appendix A). With such a definition, the real and imaginary parts of $`V`$ become

$`\mathrm{Re}V(u)`$ $`=12\pi ^2𝑴_2𝒖𝒖,`$ (5a)
$`\mathrm{Im}V(u)`$ $`=2\pi 𝑴_1𝒖{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^3𝑴_3𝒖𝒖𝒖,`$ (5b)
which, after a few calculations, give

$$|V|^2=14\pi ^2\left[𝑴_2𝒖𝒖(𝑴_1𝒖)^2\right],$$
(6a)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi & =2\pi (𝑴_1𝒖)+\frac{4}{3}\pi ^3[𝑴_3𝒖𝒖𝒖\hfill \\ & 3(𝑴_1𝒖)(𝑴_2𝒖𝒖)+2(𝑴_1𝒖)^3].\hfill \end{array}$$
(6b)
These formulae are quite annoying because the visibility amplitude apparently depends on the location of the photocentre of the object, given by the first moment $`𝑴_1`$ (see Appendix A), and therefore on the pointing accuracy of the instrument. In order to cancel this apparent dependence, we define the moments in respect to the photocentre of angular location $`𝜶_0`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{n}{}^{}𝒖_1\mathrm{}𝒖_n=& I(𝜶)(𝜶𝜶_0)𝒖_1\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}(𝜶𝜶_0)𝒖_n\mathrm{d}^2𝜶\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and perform a frame change on Eqs. (6a,6b) to obtain

$`|V|^2`$ $`=14\pi ^2\left(𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}𝒖𝒖\right)+𝒪(u^4),`$ (8a)
$`\varphi `$ $`=2\pi \left(𝑴_1𝒖\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^3\left(𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{3}{}^{}𝒖𝒖𝒖\right)+𝒪(u^5).`$ (8b)
In some applications, a higher-order development is needed; it is given in Appendix B.

Since the phase is not directly measured because of atmospheric turbulence, the closure phase is used instead. With three telescopes labelled 1, 2, and 3 simultaneously providing the baselines $`𝒖_{12}`$, $`𝒖_{23}`$, and $`𝒖_{31}`$, the closure phase reads

$$\overline{\varphi }=\varphi (𝒖_{12})+\varphi (𝒖_{23})+\varphi (𝒖_{31}).$$
(9)
Applying Eq. 8b, we derive a concise expression:

$$\overline{\varphi }=\frac{4}{3}\pi ^3\left(𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{3}{}^{}𝒖_{12}𝒖_{23}𝒖_{31}\right)+𝒪(u^5).$$
(10)
### 2.1 Resolving an object: size, asymmetry and curtosis

We consider three aligned telescopes labelled from 1 to 3, providing the baselines $`𝒖_{12}`$, $`𝒖_{23}`$, and $`𝒖_{31}`$ in a direction given by a normal vector $`𝒊`$, as represented in Fig. 2. The main characteristics of an object we shall consider are its mean diameter, its asymmetry and its curtosis defined along $`𝒊`$; they respectively are

$`D`$ $`=\sqrt{𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}𝒊𝒊},`$ (11)
$`S`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{3}{}^{}𝒊𝒊𝒊}{\left(𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}𝒊𝒊\right)^{3/2}}},`$ (12)
$`K`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{4}{}^{}𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊}{\left(𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}𝒊𝒊\right)^2}}3.`$ (13)
They are of common use in statistics. Figure 1 displays their link with the shape of a one dimensional distribution: the diameter $`D`$ is the square root of the variance, giving the mean spatial extent; the skewness $`S`$ increases with the asymmetry of the distribution and is zero for a symmetrical one; $`K`$ indicates whether the flux is concentrated in the peak of the distribution or in its wings and is zero for a normal distribution. With these notations,

$`|V(u)|^2`$ $`=14\pi ^2(Du)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^4\left[(K+6)(Du)^4\right],`$ (14)
$`\overline{\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^3S(D\overline{u})^3,`$ (15)
where the mean baseline $`\overline{u}`$ is given by the geometrical mean of the three baselines:

$$\overline{u}=\sqrt[3]{(𝒖_{12}𝒊)(𝒖_{23}𝒊)(𝒖_{31}𝒊)}.$$
(16)
A summary of these results, in a less formal way, is given in Fig. 2.

The main implication of these results is that the visibility amplitude drop is a second-order phenomenon ($`D^2u^2`$) while the closure phase is a third-order one ($`SD^3u^3`$). As a consequence, closure phase is much harder to detect than the visibility amplitude in a marginally resolved object. Figure 3 displays the profile of the visibility amplitude and closure phase as a function of the baseline for a marginally resolved object with a high asymmetry $`S=0.5`$, as well as the minima of detection for these quantities as a function of the measurement accuracy. It appears that the asymmetry is detected for angular sizes 3 to 6 times larger than the spatial extent or —which is equivalent— for 3 to 6 times larger baselines.

### 2.2 Validity of the approximation

The above development presents two limitations: on the one hand, it assumes that all moments are defined and, on the other hand, the first few terms of the series are no longer a good approximation when the object is resolved enough.

In the case of a power law distribution $`I(\alpha )\alpha ^q`$, often encountered when scattered light dominates, the high-order moments are not defined. Therefore the above development is no longer valid. For instance, Lachaume et al. (2001) have shown that a disc with scattering presents a quick drop of the visibility amplitude near the origin $`u=0`$, that definitely does not present the smooth profile $`|V|^2=14(\pi Du)^2`$. In Sect. 3.1, we shall see how to treat scattering at a large scale, while using the above formalism for other flux contributions.

Another important point is the range of validity. The left panel of Fig. 4 compares the exact visibility of different types of objects with the second-order estimate (first terms of Eq. 14) as a function of the baseline: as expected, the approximation is correct for under resolved objects with $`V1`$ but gets poorer with larger baselines. The validity of the approximation depends on whether a difference can be made between the estimate and the exact value, in other terms whether the accuracy of the measurement is better than the precision of the estimate. The right panel of the same figure displays the visibility at which the instrument accuracy allows us to measure the deviation from the estimate; it appears not to be much dependent on the geometry of the object. With a typical 2% accuracy on $`|V|^2`$, the estimate is valid for $`|V|^20.8`$.

Figure 5 is similar to Fig. 4 but for the closure phase. For a typical binary with $`\mathrm{\Delta }.2`$, it displays the exact closure phase and the third order estimate given in Eq. (15) as a function of the baseline. The right panel indicates the visibility at which a differentiation between them can be made as a function of the instrumental accuracy. With the typical 2% precision on $`|V|^2`$, the estimate of the phase is valid for $`|V|^20.45`$.

When the accuracy allows us to see the deviation from the third-order estimates, some following orders can be measured and the subsequent moments of the distribution can be accessed. This can be a means to retrieve model-independent spatial information.

### 2.3 Model-fitting of observations

Theoretically speaking, the knowledge of visibility and closure phase at all baselines smaller than $`B`$ would allow image reconstruction with an infinite resolution (by using the analycity of the visibility); so, marginal resolution should not be a problem. This point presents a small but irretrievable flaw: it assumes that there is no noise in the data. When the finite precision of measurements is taken into account, the accuracy on the reconstructed image or model is impaired and also, the number of parameters constrained in a marginally resolved object. If the visibility amplitude alone is available, only the quadratic form $`V^2=14\pi ^2𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}𝒖𝒖`$ can be accessed, because the deviation from this law cannot be measured, as shown in Sect. 2.2.

We first consider an observation carried out at a single wavelength and use the coordinates $`(u,v)`$ of $`𝒖`$ in a Cartesian frame. The visibility amplitude and phase then are

$`V`$ $`=14\pi ^2(M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}u^2+2M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{1}uv+M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}v^2),`$ (17)
$`\varphi `$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^3(M_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{0}u^3+3M_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{1}u^2v+3M_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{2}uv^2+M_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{3}v^3),`$ (18)
where $`M_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{k}`$ is a component of the $`n`$-th moment $`𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{n}{}^{}`$. Its expression in the Cartesian frame can be found in Appendix A. If visibility amplitude alone is considered, the system can be described with three parameters (the $`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{k}`$); a model able to fit any second-order moment will fit any data. As a consequence, a marginally resolved object observed in visibility amplitude, whatever the baseline coverage is, can be modelled by

* a ternary system of unresolved stars,
* a Gaussian elliptic disc,
* a uniform stellar photosphere and an unresolved star.

If closure phase information is available, then four additional parameters describe the object (the $`M_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{k}`$). A marginally resolved object observed in both visibility and closure phase can be modelled by a system able to reproduce the second- and third-order moments, that is

* a system of four unresolved stars,
* a Gaussian elliptic disc and an unresolved star,
* a uniform stellar photosphere and two unresolved stars.

It appears that interferometry does not allow us to disentangle quite different scenarios when the object is marginally resolved. This fact is well-known by observers: under resolved observations cannot distinguish between a uniform and a limb-darkened stellar disc; neither could the first observations of FU Ori by Malbet et al. (1998) exclude either the disc or the binary scenario. As a remedy, one can use the technique in combination with other types of observations, as another model constraint.

Nevertheless, a multi-wavelength interferometric approach can bring more constraints. We consider a $`N_\mathrm{p}`$ point-like source model to be fitted to visibility amplitudes at $`N_\lambda `$ wavelengths. The fluxes and locations of the $`N_\mathrm{p}1`$ first sources constrain the last one, because the flux distribution is normalised and centered; therefore there are $`(N_\mathrm{p}1)`$ locations and $`N_\lambda (N_\mathrm{p}1)`$ fluxes, that is $`(N_\lambda +2)(N_\mathrm{p}1)`$ free parameters. Observations provide $`3N_\lambda `$ moments of the flux distribution. The characteristic number of point-like sources constrained by the measurements is given by the equality between the number of free parameters and that of moments, so that

$$N_\mathrm{p}=\frac{3N_\lambda }{N_\lambda +2}+1.$$
(19)
The left panel of Fig. 6 displays the number of sources constrained as a function of the number of wavelengths accessed, either observing visibility amplitudes only or both amplitudes and closure phases. It appears that amplitudes and phases can constrain up to 6 point-like sources with $`N_\lambda 10`$. If we now consider that the sources emit a black-body spectrum —or whatever spectrum determined by a temperature and a bolometric flux— there are only $`2(N_\mathrm{p}1)`$ fluxes. The number of point-like sources constrained then becomes

$$N_\mathrm{p}=\frac{3N_\lambda }{4}+1.$$
(20)
The right panel of Fig. 6 shows that the assumption of a black-body spectrum allows us to constrain as many point-like sources as wanted, provided that the number of wavelengths is large enough. For instance, $`N_\lambda =10`$ allows us to constrain 9 sources with the visibility amplitudes and 14 if phases are also available.

In conclusion, a multi-wavelength approach allows us to fit more parameters and therefore to distinguish between different scenarios (disc, multiple system, etc.)

## 3 Application to circumstellar discs

Circumstellar discs are a good target for interferometers because they scale from a few tens of AU (where they mostly emit thermal light in the infrared) to a few hundreds of AU (where they present scattered light in the infrared) at a typical distance of 150 pc or more. Two issues of interest are: observing their thermal light, because it comes from the first AUs from the star where planets are supposed to form, and deriving their radial temperature law, because it appears as a good diagnosis of the phenomena involved (irradiation, flaring, viscous dissipation, etc.). In Sect. 3.1 we show how to take into account both the thermal and scattered light, which happen to present different interferometric signatures. In Sect. 3.2, we establish a connection between the temperature law and the wavelength dependence of the visibility.

### 3.1 Stellar, thermal and scattered light

Describing an accretion disc as a marginally resolved object is inaccurate because thermal light occurs at a large scale and accounts for up to 10% of the total flux. In order to keep the above formalism, we split the image into three components: stellar contribution, thermal emission of the disc, and scattered light. To each contribution, one can associate a corresponding visibility:

$`V_{}`$ $`=12\pi ^2D_{}^2u^2,`$ (21)
$`V_{\mathrm{th}}`$ $`=(12\pi ^2D_{\mathrm{th}}^2u^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}S_{\mathrm{th}}D_{\mathrm{th}}^3u^3\right),`$ (22)
$`V_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }u=0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (23)
where $`D_{}`$ is the mean diameter of the star, $`D_{\mathrm{th}}`$ that of the thermal emission of the disc, and $`S_{\mathrm{th}}`$ the skewness of distribution of the thermal emission.

We assumed that both the star and the thermal emission of the disc are marginally resolved, that the scattering emission is fully resolved as soon as the baseline is non-zero, and that the star is too small and symmetric to present a phase. Within the approximation that all components have the same photocentre, we derive the total visibility

$$V_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{F_{}V_{}+F_{\mathrm{th}}V_{\mathrm{th}}+F_\mathrm{s}V_\mathrm{s}}{F_{\mathrm{tot}}},$$
(24)
where $`F_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total flux, $`F_{}`$ that of the star, $`F_{\mathrm{th}}`$ that of the thermal emission, and $`F_\mathrm{s}`$ that of scattered light. Fig. 7 presents a schematic view of the visibility curve for an accretion disc and compares it to that of the thermal light alone. It appears that one point of visibility is not enough to derive the diameter of the disc, as authors usually do, when either the star or scattered flux are present.

### 3.2 Temperature profile

From visibilities at different wavelengths, Malbet & Berger (2002a) showed that the temperature profile of an accretion disc can be derived. In the context of a massive disc, the flux is dominated by thermal light so that

$$1|V(\lambda )|^2=\left(2\pi D(\lambda )B/\lambda \right)^2.$$
(25)
To solve this problem, we need a link between the disc extent $`D(\lambda )`$ and the temperature profile. The disc extent is given by the second-order moment $`𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ determined from the radial flux distribution of the disc

$$F(r)=B_\lambda \left(T(r)\right).$$
(26)
We chose a self-similar solution for the sake of simplicity

$$T(r)r^q.$$
(27)
For a disc presenting an inclination $`i`$, the components of the moments then write (see Appendix C for a demonstration):

$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}`$ $`=M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}\mathrm{cos}^2i,`$ (28a)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{1}`$ $`=0,`$ (28b)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}`$ $`\lambda ^{2/q},`$ (28c)
so that

$`D(\lambda )`$ $`\lambda ^{2/q},`$ (29)
$`1|V|^2`$ $`\lambda ^{2/q2}.`$ (30)
Using two close enough wavelengths $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, we deduce an estimate of $`q`$:

$$q=\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}[(1|V_1|^2)/(1|V_2|^2)]}{\mathrm{log}[\lambda _2/\lambda _1]}}}.$$
(31)
This result appears as a particular case of the multi-wavelength approach (see Sect. 2.3), that allows us to fit more parameters than one visibility at a single wavelength does. Malbet & Berger (2002a) obtained a similar result by a more empirical argument: they state that the apparent diameter of a disc is proportional to the radius at which $`B_\lambda (T(r))`$ is maximal. It actually conceals the self-similarity.

Note that the result no longer holds when the disc presents an inner hole. Figure 8 displays the value $`q_{\mathrm{app}}`$ deduced from Eq. (31) with the H and K bands for a typical FU Ori disc. The parameters of the disc model are given in Appendix D. When the inner gap becomes larger than a few stellar radii, the error on $`q`$, $`|q_{\mathrm{app}}q|`$ can be larger than $`0.1`$. Malbet & Berger (2002a) find $`q_{\mathrm{app}}0.64`$ for FU Ori; with a typical value $`R_{}=6R_{}`$ (Lachaume et al. 2001), we can estimate $`q0.5`$ from the curves.

The stellar radius has also an influence because of the unresolved stellar flux, yet, it remains small for FU Ori discs (see Fig. 8). In the case of a T Tauri star, the error could be much larger, because the contribution of the star to the total flux becomes important.

## 4 Conclusion

We have developed a formalism that connects the visibility amplitude and phase of a marginally resolved object with its geometry, namely the moments of the flux distribution. It can prove particularly useful when constraining models that present analytical moments and allows us to retrieve model-independent spatial information in all cases. It also establishes that the closure phase of a marginally resolved source is a third-order term and the visibility a second-order one; therefore, the phase is much harder to detect than the drop in visibility amplitude.

From the formalism, we were also able to estimate the number of parameters relevantly fitted to interferometric measurements. Unless observations are carried out at several wavelengths and the model assumes a black-body-like emission, only a few parameters can be fitted to marginally resolved objects, whatever the number of visibility points taken: three point-like source with visibility amplitudes only, and a fourth one if closure phase is also measured. This limitation is removed when the object is more resolved, that is, if the baselines are longer or if the instrumental accuracy is increased, which allows us to measure the deviation of the visibility and phase from their low-order estimates. This work can therefore be seen as a plea for larger baselines than the CHARA array provides, or high accuracy with IOTA/IONIC or the forthcoming VLTI and Keck.

We then applied this theoretical work to circumstellar discs, by separating the star, the thermal emission of the disc, and the scattered light, the two first ones being well described by their moments. It also allows us to derive, with some hypotheses, information on the radial temperature law in these objects, even if they are underresolved, but requires that measurements should be taken at two or more wavelengths. This can be applied to other field. For instance, limb-darkened stellar photospheres can be probed even with underresolved targets: the equivalent diameter is dependent on the wavelength and one could, with an appropriate model, measure this darkening.

With high precision measurements and/or multiple wavelengths one can access a large number of moments of the flux distribution, which theoretically allows image reconstruction. This is clearly a path that one should investigate in the near future. As a particular case, we believe it is possible to retrieve the radial temperature profile of supposedly symmetrical objects, as as been initiated with FU Ori. The method could also prove useful to constrain the location of stellar spots with high accuracy measurements: the link between the location of these spots and the first order moments of the flux is much clearer than the information given by image reconstruction techniques.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Fabien Malbet, Jean-Philippe Berger, and Jean-Baptiste Lebouquin for helpful discussions; without their interest, this work would have stayed hidden under a heavy stack on my desk. Computations and graphics have mostly been carried out with the free software Yorick by D. Munro. Useful comments from Theo ten Brummelaar led to an improved presentation of these results.

## Appendix A Moments in Cartesian coordinates

We use a Cartesian frame in which $`𝜶`$ has coordinates $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ throughout this appendix.

The first moment is a vector

$$𝑴_1=(M_1^0,M_1^1)$$
(32)
giving the location of the photocentre in respect to the origin of the frame.

$`M_1^0`$ $`={\displaystyle I(\alpha ,\beta )\alpha d\alpha d\beta },`$ (33a)
$`M_1^1`$ $`={\displaystyle I(\alpha ,\beta )\beta d\alpha d\beta }.`$ (33b)
The second-order moment is a matrix

$$𝑴_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2^0& M_2^1\\ M_2^1& M_2^2\end{array}\right)$$
(34)
yielding information on the spatial extent of the object. Its components are

$`M_2^0`$ $`={\displaystyle I(\alpha ,\beta )\alpha ^2d\alpha d\beta },`$ (35a)
$`M_2^1`$ $`={\displaystyle I(\alpha ,\beta )\alpha \beta d\alpha d\beta },`$ (35b)
$`M_2^2`$ $`={\displaystyle I(\alpha ,\beta )\beta ^2d\alpha d\beta }.`$ (35c)
The $`n`$-th order moment is a tensor of order $`n`$ containing $`2^n`$ elements. Since it is symmetrical it is given by only $`n+1`$ terms, that we note $`M_n^k`$ for $`0kn`$:

$$M_n^k=I(\alpha ,\beta )\alpha ^{nk}\beta ^kd\alpha d\beta .$$
(36)
## Appendix B $`V`$ and $`\varphi `$ series development

We define

$`J_1`$ $`=𝑴_n𝒖,`$ (37)
$`J_n`$ $`=𝑴_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{n}{}^{}\underset{n\text{ times}}{\underset{}{𝒖\mathrm{}𝒖}},\text{for }n2.`$ (38)
The visibility amplitude and phase are then expressed as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V& =14\pi ^2J_2+\frac{4\pi ^4}{3}\left(J_4+3J_2^2\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{8\pi ^6}{45}\left(J_610J_3^2+15J_4J_2\right)\hfill \\ & +\frac{4\pi ^8}{315}\left(J_8+35J_4^256J_3J_5+28J_6J_2\right)\hfill \\ & +𝒪(u^{10}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \phi & =2\pi J_1\frac{4\pi ^3}{3}J_3+\frac{4\pi ^5}{15}\left(J_510J_3J_2\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{8\pi ^7}{315}\left(J_7+219J_3J_2^221J_2J_535J_3J_5\right)\hfill \\ & +\frac{4\pi ^9}{2835}(J_9+2520J_3J_2J_4+560J_3^336J_7J_2\hfill \\ & 84J_3J_6126J_5J_4+756J_5J_2^27560J_3J_2^3)\hfill \\ & +𝒪(u^{11}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
## Appendix C Moments of a self-similar disc

We consider a face-on disc with a radial temperature law $`T(r)r^q`$, where $`r`$ is the angular distance from the centre. The flux distribution then reads

$$F(r)=\frac{C_1}{\lambda ^5\left(\mathrm{exp}\frac{C_2}{\lambda r^q}1\right)},$$
(41)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants. The reduced moments are

$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}{\displaystyle F(x,y)x^2dxdy},`$ (42)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}{\displaystyle F(x,y)xydxdy},`$ (43)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}{\displaystyle F(x,y)y^2dxdy},`$ (44)
where $`F`$ is the total flux given by

$$F=F(r)2\pi rdr.$$
(45)
For the sake of simplicity, we introduce the integral

$$I_s=F(r)2\pi r^sdr.$$
(46)
By switching to polar coordinates in Eq. (42) + Eq. (44) and with the help of symmetry, we derive

$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}`$ $`=I_3/(2I_1),`$ (47)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{1}`$ $`=0,`$ (48)
$`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}`$ $`=I_3/(2I_1).`$ (49)
We perform the change of variables $`u=C_2/(\lambda r^q)`$ in Eq. (46) to find

$$I_s\lambda ^{s/q4}.$$
(50)
So,

$$M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}=M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}\lambda ^{2/q}.$$
(51)
Since $`M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{1}=0`$,

$$1|V|^2=\frac{M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{0}B_u^2+M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}B_v^2}{\lambda ^2},$$
(52)
where $`(B_u,B_v)=\lambda 𝒖`$ is the projected baseline. Therefore

$$1|V|^2\lambda ^{2/q2}.$$
(53)
If the disc is not face-on, the second-order moment along the minor axis is shrinked by a factor $`\mathrm{cos}^2i`$, where $`i`$ is the inclination; but the above demonstration still holds.

## Appendix D Power-law accretion disc model

The FU Ori disc model has been determined with an effective temperature $`T(r)=Kr^q`$. The influence of the central gap or of the star highly depends on the constant $`K`$. In the standard viscous disc model ($`q=3/4`$) by Shakura & Sunyaev (1973),

$$K=\sqrt[4]{\frac{3𝒢M_{}\dot{M}}{8\sigma \pi }},$$
(54)
where $`M_{}`$ stands for the mass of the star and $`\dot{M}`$ for the accretion rate. If a deviation from $`q=3/4`$ is observed, we should carry out a proper modelling of the involved phenomena. For the sake of simplicity, we assumed that $`K`$ is always determined by the viscous temperature at $`1\mathrm{AU}`$, so that

$$T(r)=\frac{K}{(1\mathrm{AU})^q}\left(\frac{r}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^q.$$
(55)
We took

$`M_{}`$ $`=1M_{},`$ (56a)
$`\dot{M}`$ $`=3\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5M_{}/\mathrm{yr}.`$ (56b)


format: text

text:
# Gauge Invariance in 2PI Effective Actions

## Abstract

The problem of maintaining gauge invariance in the 2PI formulation of QED is discussed. A modified form of the 2PI effective action is suggested in which Ward identities for external (background field) and internal (quantum field) gauge transformations are both satisfied, but in different manners. The residual gauge-fixing dependence in this modified 2PI formulation vanishes in a certain low momentum limit, which allows it to be used reliably for calculating quantities such as transport coeffcients and soft field relaxation in hot gauge theories.

The 1PI (one particle irreducible) effective action is the standard form of the effective action, which is a functional of classical field variables whose values may be regarded as expectation values of the underlying quantum fields. The first variation of the 1PI effective action produces equations of motion for these expectation values. Although sufficient in principle for most purposes, in practice the 1PI effective action is easily evaluated only in some approximation scheme, such as a loop expansion, Hartree or large $`N`$ expansion, which limits its range of applicability. In particular, these simplest loop or mean field approximations are incapable of describing collisional relaxation processes in hot or dense non-equilibrium plasmas. A consistent treatment of the effects of the hard quasi-particle degrees of freedom in gauge theories on the more slowly varying mean fields, even to leading order in the gauge coupling, is an outstanding challenge for non-equilibrium field theory. Yet a consistent formulation with gauge fields is just what is required in many applications, such as in formation and expansion of the quark-gluon plasma produced in an ultra-relativistic heavy ion collision, or in baryogenesis in a first order electroweak phase transition. Systematic improvements of the QCD equation of state beyond perturbation theory will also require such a consistent resummation scheme.

The 2PI (two particle irreducible) effective action is a general field theoretic tool for addressing this problem. In constructing it one introduces sources for both the fields and their two-point bilinears. The Legendre transform with respect to this extended set of sources results in an effective action that is a functional of both mean fields and their two-point correlation functions, treated on the same footing. The 2PI formulation, sometimes known also as the ‘$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-derivable’ effective action has the advantage of being thermodynamically consistent, in the sense that any extremum of the 2PI free energy is automatically a minimum if the underlying quantum Hamiltonian is bounded from below. An arbitrary truncation scheme of $`n`$-point functions need not preserve this property in general. Although the 2PI effective action becomes equal to the 1PI effective action when evaluated at its exact extremum, somewhat different and more efficient expansion methods suggest themselves in the 2PI formulation. For example the proper self-energy, needed for evaluating collisional and damping effects, and which connects the Boltzmann description with the field theoretic one may be derived from the 2PI effective action from only the first few non-vanishing two-loop skeleton diagrams. This corresponds to a quite non-trivial resummation of an infinite class of perturbative diagrams beyond the leading order large $`N`$ or Hartree approximations.

When the mean fields are gauge fields we face an additional problem. The 2PI effective action runs into trouble in its simplest form, since it concentrates on resumming two-point correlation functions but ignores vertex corrections, which must accompany those two-point functions in a gauge theory, in order for Ward identities to be satisfied. In this contribution I show that the simplest two-loop approximation to the 2PI effective action in the simplest gauge theory, i.e. electromagnetism suffers from this problem, but that the gauge non-invariance of a slightly modified 2PI formulation vanishes in a certain kinematic limit relevant for relaxational processes.

If we apply the usual 2PI recipe to ordinary QED, treating the electron propagator $`𝒢`$ and photon propagator $`𝒟_{\mu \nu }`$ on exactly the same footing then we arrive at

$`𝒮_{2PI}[A;𝒢,𝒟]=S_{cl}[A]i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}𝒢^1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}𝒟^1`$
$`i\mathrm{Tr}\left(G^1[A]𝒢1\right)+i\mathrm{Tr}\left(d^1𝒟1\right)+\mathrm{\Phi }_2[𝒢,𝒟].`$ (1)
The classical action $`S_{cl}[A]`$ is the Maxwell action and the lowest order inverse propagators for the electron and photon are defined by

$$G^1[A]i\left(\gamma ^\mu _\mu i\gamma ^\mu A_\mu +m\right)$$
(2)
$$d_{\mu \nu }^1\frac{\delta ^2S_{cl}}{\delta A^\mu \delta A^\nu }=\frac{1}{e^2}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\mu _\nu \right).$$
(3)
The functional (1) is perfectly gauge invariant under background field gauge transformations,

$$A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \theta ,$$
(4)
provided that the both the lowest order and exact electron inverse Green’s functions transform as

$$𝒢^1e^{i\theta }𝒢^1e^{i\theta }$$
(5)
and the functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ involves only traces. For example if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is given by the lowest order non-trivial 2PI two-loop expression,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2[𝒢,𝒟]=\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4x^{}𝒟_{\mu \nu }(x,x^{})\mathrm{tr}\left\{𝒢(x,x^{})\gamma ^\mu 𝒢(x^{},x)\gamma ^\nu \right\},$$
(6)
then invariance under (5) is assured by the cyclic property of the trace.

Despite this invariance under background field gauge transformations it is easy to see that the 2PI effective action with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ given by (6) cannot be a fully satisfactory approximation to QED. The reason is that the photon self-energy derived from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, namely,

$$i\mathrm{tr}\left\{𝒢(x,x^{})\gamma _\mu 𝒢(x^{},x)\gamma _\nu \right\}$$
(7)
is not transverse, in general, if $`𝒢G[A]`$. Transversality of the photon self-energy depends upon the Ward-Takahashi identity,

$$(p_1p_2)_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p_1,p_2)=𝒢^1(p_1)𝒢^1(p_2)$$
(8)
between the photon-fermion vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ and the inverse fermion propagators in the exact theory. Since we have a resummed Green’s function in the 2PI effective action but only the bare vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p_1,p_2)=\gamma ^\mu `$, the identity (8) is not satisfied, and the polarization (7) is not transverse.

The problem is that although the 2PI representation (1) is exact, any truncation scheme for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ in terms of skeleton diagrams involving $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒟`$ leads to equations for these propagators that sum only a certain subset of higher loop diagrams with a fixed topology, determined by the choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. However, the exact identity (8) requires cancellations at a given loop order between diagrams of different topology, not included in the same subset. This non-invariance with respect to gauge transformations on internal lines remains in any 2PI truncation scheme, nothwithstanding full invariance with respect to external gauge fields $`A_\mu `$, which is guaranteed by the general background field method. The difference between the Ward identities satisfied by the expectation values and those typically not satisfied by the internal propagators and vertices can be seen even in a non-gauge $`O(N)`$ scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, where the failure of Goldstone’s theorem for the internal propagators was noted some time ago.

This problem may not be as severe as it appears at first sight. After all, we are hoping to use any truncation scheme in the 2PI formalism to calculate some quantities only to a given order in weak coupling parameter. If we can show that the errors we make by not having a strictly gauge invariant formulation are higher order in the coupling for the quantities of interest, the truncation scheme based on the 2PI effective action would still be useful and reliable to this order. Adopting such a strategy also might make possible modifications of the original 2PI formalism by neglecting some higher order contributions from the very beginning.

One such modification, suggested to restore the transversality of the photon self-energy, is to replace the resummed polarization (7) by the lower order form,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(x,x^{})=i\mathrm{tr}\left\{G(x,x^{})\gamma _\mu G(x^{},x)\gamma _\nu \right\},$$
(9)
so that the photon inverse propagator becomes

$$𝒟_{\mu \nu }^1D_{\mu \nu }^1d_{\mu \nu }^1+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }.$$
(10)
Since this is nothing but the photon inverse propagator in the leading order of the large $`N_f`$ expansion, it is certainly transverse. Using the corresponding propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ instead of $`𝒟_{\mu \nu }`$ everywhere in (1) and (6) results in the following form for the fermion inverse propagator and self-energy,

$$𝒢^1=G^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }=G^1i\gamma ^\mu 𝒢\gamma ^\nu D_{\mu \nu },$$
(11)
which is still a non-trivial Schwinger-Dyson resummation for $`𝒢`$ beyond leading order. Varying this formula with respect to the background gauge field $`A_\mu `$, one obtains a non-trivial Schwinger-Dyson equation for the vertex,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \frac{\delta 𝒢^1}{\delta A_\mu }=\gamma ^\mu +i(\gamma ^\alpha 𝒢\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu 𝒢\gamma ^\beta )D_{\alpha \beta },$$
(12)
which generates a sum over ladder diagrams. Because this vertex function is defined by varying $`𝒢^1`$ with respect to the background field, it obeys the Ward identity (8). In this way we may modify the original 2PI effective action to satisfy the Ward identities for both the internal vertex $`\gamma ^\mu `$, and the external resummed vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$, albeit in different ways.

It might seem that we have avoided the gauge non-invariance problem entirely by this method. This is not the case, however, because gauge invariance also requires that in inverting the transverse $`D_{\mu \nu }^1`$ of (10) to find the photon propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ to appear in (11), we should be allowed to add an arbitrary longitudinal part to $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ without affecting the results. Because the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (11) involves a resummed fermion propagator $`𝒢`$ but only the bare vertex $`\gamma ^\mu `$, one can see fairly easily that the usual proof that these longitudinal gauge dependent pieces of $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ drop out will not go through. In other words, the fermion self-energy is still gauge-fixing dependent. It is again higher loop diagrams with a different topology (crossed rainbows) that are required, but which are not included in the resummation of rainbow diagrams given by (11).

If one does go through the usual proof of gauge fixing independence, one finds that the non-cancellation within the rainbow approximation generated by (11) vanishes in the limit that the fermion momentum $`p`$ is much larger than the photon momentum $`k`$. Indeed the non-cancellation is of order $`|\frac{k^2}{p^2}|`$. Hence observables sensitive only to the kinematic range of momenta $`|k^2||p^2|`$ may be reliably computed by the modified 2PI scheme,and are gauge invariant up to corrections of this order. This kinematic regime of soft photon exchange is precisely that which determines the zero frequency electrical conductivity of the high temperature QED plasma. It is also the kinematic region of interest in the gap equation for the fermions in high density QCD.  Further, by including higher order skeleton diagrams in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ in this modified 2PI formulation one may systematically suppress the residual gauge dependence to higher orders in $`|\frac{k^2}{p^2}|`$. A proof of these bounds and application to relaxational problems in non-equilibrium gauge theories will be presented elsewhere.

This research is supported by the Department of Energy, under contract W-7405-ENG-36 and is LANL Technical Report, LA-UR-03-2804.


text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by KOSEF, Project Number R02-2002-000-00028-0.


text:
# Unconventional spin fluctuations in the hexagonal antiferromagnet YMnO3

## Abstract

We used inelastic neutron scattering to show that well below its Néel temperature, $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, the two-dimensional (2D) XY nearly-triangular antiferromagnet YMnO3 has a prominent central peak associated with 2D antiferromagnetic fluctuations with a characteristic life time of 0.55(5) ps, coexisting with the conventional long-lived spin-waves. Existence of the two time scales suggests competition between the Néel phase favored by weak interplane interactions, and the Kosterlitz-Thouless phase intrinsic to the 2D $`XY`$ spin system.

Geometrical frustration and low dimensionality are the two key concepts in the statistical physics that provide unusual spin dynamics as well as phase transitions Ramirez (2001); Lee et al. (2002); L. J. de Jongh and Willet (1987). The simplest realization of the two concepts is two-dimensional triangular lattice antiferromagnets (2DTLAFM). A particular interest is placed on the $`XY`$ spin system (2D$`XY`$TLAFM), where its ground-state manifold has the continuous degeneracy associated with $`U(1)`$ global spin rotations, as well as the discrete Ising-like degeneracy due to $`Z_2`$ chirality configurations Kawamura (1998). Because of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry, the well-known Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) phase involving vortex binding Kosterlitz and Thouless (1973) is expected at low temperatures. Experimentally, little evidence can be found in the literature due to the lack of good model systems Collins and Petrenko (1997).

Hexagonal rare-earth manganites $`R`$MnO3 ($`R=`$Y, Lu, and Sc; space group $`P6_3cm`$) can be good candidates for the 2DTLAFMs. The Mn3+ ($`S=2`$) ions form nearly triangular networks in $`z=0`$ and $`1/2`$ layers, stacking with the ABAB sequence (see Fig. 1) et al. (2000); Katsufuji et al. (2001); T. Katsufuji et al. (2002). The layers are well separated by $`R`$ and O ions, suggesting good 2D character in the $`ab`$ plane. Their bulk susceptibility data show that despite strong antiferromagnetic interactions the magnetic ions order long-range at much lower temperatures $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ than the magnetic energy scale inferred by the Curie-Weiss temperatures $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{CW}}`$ (for instance, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{CW}}=705`$ K and $`T_\mathrm{N}=70`$ K for YMnO3et al. (2000); Katsufuji et al. (2001); T. Katsufuji et al. (2002). Previous powder neutron diffraction studies showed that the spins at the lowest temperature formed the so-called 120 structure in the $`ab`$-plane coinciding with the ground state for 2DTLAFMs, and the frozen moments, $`M`$, were reduced from the expected value for the fully polarized Mn3+ (e.g., $`M=2.90(2)\mu _\mathrm{B}<gS\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ for YMnO3 ($`S=2`$)) et al. (2000); T. Katsufuji et al. (2002); Bieringer and Greedan (1999). The reduction in $`T_N`$ and $`M`$ is a signature of strong spin fluctuations due to geometrical frustration and/or low dimensionality in the systems. A broad peak was additionally observed at finite $`Q`$ around $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, indicative of strong short-range spin correlations Bieringer and Greedan (1999); T. Katsufuji et al. (2002). However, due to intrinsic limitations of the powder diffraction technique, further experimental studies, especially inelastic single crystal neutron scattering measurements are necessary to understand the nature of the spin excitations.

In this paper, we report for the first time inelastic neutron scattering measurements on powder and single-crystal samples of the hexagonal rare-earth manganite YMnO3. We have found that YMnO3 is a good model system for the 2D$`XY`$TLAFM with weak trimerization. Our most important finding is that in the Néel phase there are fast 2D spin fluctuations with a characteristic time scale of 0.55(5) ps in addition to the conventional long-lived spin wave excitations. The inverse of dynamic correlation length associated with the fast 2D spin fluctuations has similar $`T`$-dependence as that expected for the KT phase in a 2D $`XY`$ spin system, suggesting that the spin fluctuations are reminiscence of the KT phase. The coexistence of the long-lived magnons and the fast 2D spin fluctuations also suggests competition between the Néel phase and the KT phase in this quasi-2D $`XY`$ spin system.

A 50 g powder sample and a 2 g ($`\varphi 5`$ mm $`\times `$ 22 mm) single crystal of YMnO3 were used in our neutron scattering measurements. Methods of sample preparation were reported elsewhere Katsufuji et al. (2001). Neutron scattering measurements were performed at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. Powder experiments were performed at the Disk Chopper time-of-flight Spectrometer (DCS) using an incident energy of $`E_\mathrm{i}=15.46`$ meV and single crystal experiments at the cold neutron triple-axis spectrometer SPINS and the thermal neutron triple-axis spectrometer BT9. At SPINS, pyrolytic graphite (PG) 002 reflections were used for monochromator and analyzer, and a cooled Be filter was placed after the sample to eliminate higher-order contamination. We used horizontal collimations of 80-80 and a final energy $`E_\mathrm{f}=5`$ meV for most scans, while $`E_\mathrm{f}=2.6`$ meV and 80-40 were used when better energy resolution was needed. At BT9, the PG monochromator and analyzer were used with $`E_\mathrm{f}=14.7`$ meV, and a PG filter was used to get rid of higher order contamination.

Fig. 2 provides an overview of the inelastic neutron scattering intensity $`\stackrel{~}{I}(Q,\omega )`$ for the powder sample at three temperatures. The powder averaged scattering intensity is related to the dynamic spin correlation function $`𝒮^{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{Q},\omega )`$ as Lovesey (1984),

$$\stackrel{~}{I}(Q,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{Q}}}{4\pi }|\frac{g}{2}F(Q)|^2\underset{\alpha \beta }{}(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{Q}_\alpha \widehat{Q}_\beta )𝒮^{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{Q},\omega ),$$
(1)
where $`F(Q)`$ is the magnetic form factor for Mn3+. For $`T>T_\mathrm{N}`$, there is a cooperative paramagnetic continuum centered at $`Q=1.2`$ Å-1 due to fluctuations of small AFM clusters, as is commonly found in geometrically frustrated AFMs S. -H. Lee et al. (2000). By integrating $`\stackrel{~}{I}(Q,\omega )`$ over $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`Q`$, we obtained the sum rule of $`S(S+1)=5.2(5)`$ at 80 K, which is close to the expected value for dynamic Mn$`{}_{}{}^{3+}(S=2)`$ ions. This and the $`Q`$ dependence pho  tell us that the scattering is magnetic. For $`T<T_\mathrm{N}`$, as the magnetic long range order develops, spectral weight at low energies gradually shifts to higher energies. At $`T=4`$ K there is strong scattering above $`\mathrm{}\omega 5`$ meV and weak scattering below.

Next, to obtain $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$-directional dependence of the magnetic excitations, we have performed single crystal inelastic scattering experiments. Fig. 3 shows the representative constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ scans at the antiferromagnetic zone center $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, namely, $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1,0,0)`$ and equivalent positions. For $`T>T_\mathrm{N}`$, the cooperative paramagnetic continuum appears as a quasielastic peak centered at $`\mathrm{}\omega =0`$ meV. For $`T<T_\mathrm{N}`$, the quasielastic peak intensity decreases and two prominent magnon peaks develop at nonzero energies. The energy values of the magnon peaks increase as $`T`$ decreases, becoming $`\mathrm{}\omega =2.3`$ and 5.3 meV at 7 K. A constant $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1,0,1)`$ scan with a better energy resolution revealed an additional mode at $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.22`$ meV (Fig. 3(e)).

We analyzed the observed spectra using the following scattering function with Lorentzians for the quasielastic and magnon peaks:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}(\stackrel{}{Q},\mathrm{}\omega )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\omega [1+n(\mathrm{}\omega )][I_{\mathrm{qel}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}^2+\mathrm{}\omega ^2}}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}I_{\mathrm{SW}}^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SW}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SW}}^2+(\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{}\omega _k)^2}}],`$
where $`[1+n(\mathrm{}\omega )]=[1\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega /k_\mathrm{B}T)]^1`$. This function was convoluted with the instrumental resolution function to fit the observed spectra.

Let us first discuss the magnon dispersion relations at $`T=7`$ K $`<<T_\mathrm{N}`$. Fig. 4 shows the dispersion relations along a few high symmetry directions, obtained from several constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and constant-$`\mathrm{}\omega `$ scans. To explain the observed dispersion relations, we introduce the following model spin Hamiltonian:

$$=\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_jD_1\underset{i}{}(S_i^z)^2D_2\underset{i}{}(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{n}_i)^2,$$
(3)
which consists of two inplane ($`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$) and two interplane ($`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$) interactions, and the easy-plane ($`D_1`$) and inplane easy-axis ($`D_2`$) anisotropies (see Fig. 1 for the definition of the interactions). The anisotropy $`D_2`$, parallel to the spin directions ($`\stackrel{}{n}_i=\stackrel{}{S}_i/|\stackrel{}{S}_i|`$), is necessary to reproduce the small (0.22 meV) gap at the antiferromagnetic zone center, and is presumably due to the local structural distortion around Mn3+. The conditions $`J_1^{}>0`$ and $`J_1^{}>J_2^{}`$ are necessary for the particular interplane stacking in YMnO3 to be the ground state.

The model Hamiltonian is linearized using the Holstein-Primakoff approximation, and numerically diagonalized to obtain one-magnon dispersion relations using the standard equation-of-motion technique White et al. (1965). Analytic expressions for the gap energies at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point were also derived assuming sufficiently small $`D_2`$, $`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$: $`\mathrm{}\omega _12S\sqrt{D_2\lambda _1},\mathrm{}\omega _22S\sqrt{D_2\lambda _12(J_1^{}J_2^{})\lambda _1},\mathrm{}\omega _3S\sqrt{2(D_1\lambda _2D_2\lambda _32D_1J_1^{})}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _4S\sqrt{2(D_1\lambda _2D_2\lambda _3D_1(J_1^{}4J_2^{})2(J_1^{}J_2^{})\lambda _2)}`$ (from low to high energies), where $`\lambda _1=D_1+(3/2)J_1+3J_2,\lambda _2=(3/2)J_1+3J_2`$ and $`\lambda _3=2D_1+(3/2)J_1+3J_2`$. Fitting the calculations to the data, we obtained $`J_1=3.4(2)`$ meV, $`J_2=2.02(7)`$ meV, $`J_1^{}J_2^{}=0.014(2)`$ meV, $`D_1=0.28(1)`$ meV and $`D_2=0.0007(6)`$ meV. Solid lines in Fig. 4 represent the calculated dispersion relations with $`J_2^{^{}}=0`$. The good agreement confirms the validity of the model Hamiltonian. In the above, we could only determine the difference $`J_1^{}J_2^{}`$ for interplane interactions. From the analytic expressions we see that $`\mathrm{}\omega _3`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _4`$ must be accurately determined in order to obtain $`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$ separately. However, this was impossible since they appear as one peak at $`\mathrm{}\omega =5.3`$ meV in Fig. 3(d) or 3(e) due to the insufficient energy resolution at high energies. Since the splitting between $`\mathrm{}\omega _3`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _4`$ becomes sensitive to $`J_1^{}`$ (or $`J_2^{}`$) at $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1.05,0,0)`$, we performed a constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ scan at this $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and found an almost resolution-limited peak at $`\mathrm{}\omega =5.4`$ meV. This requires the splitting to be less than the energy resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.5`$ meV, and consequently an upper limit of 0.08 meV is obtained for $`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$. Hence, the interplane interactions are at most 2.4 % of the inplane interaction $`J_1`$, evidencing the good two-dimensionality. One may note that $`J_1J_2`$, which makes YMnO3 rather closer to the ideal TLAFM than a system of weakly coupled trimers. Our $`J_13.4`$ meV is one order of magnitude smaller than $`J`$ deduced in a recent Raman scattering study Takahashi et al. (2002). They obtained $`J140`$ cm-1 ($`17`$ meV) by assigning a broad peak appearing at 1800 cm-1 ($`220`$ meV) to two-magnon scattering. However, our results clearly show that the peak cannot be due to the two-magnon process because the band width of the one-magnon branch is only about 16 meV. Their broad peak at 220 meV must be vibrational or electronic in origin rather than magnetic.

Now let us turn to the low energy quasielastic continuum observed below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, clearly seen in Fig. 3(b) and 3(c). For $`T=7`$ K $`<<T_N`$, Fig. 3(e) shows a $`\mathrm{}\omega =0.55`$ meV mode at $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1,0,l)`$ with $`l0`$ which is due to inplane transverse spin fluctuations. The inplane transverse fluctuations cannot, however, appear at $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(1,0,0)`$ because the polarization factor in Eq. (1) vanishes for the ordered spin structure in YMnO3. Note that such a mode does not show in Fig. 3(d). Therefore we rule out the inplane transverse spin fluctuations as the origin of the quasielastic continuum existing in the Néel phase. In order to understand the continuum, we performed constant $`\mathrm{}\omega =1`$ meV around $`(1,0,0)`$ at several temperatures and along different $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$-directions. Shown in Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) are representative scans at $`T=40`$ K. A nearly resolution-limited peak is seen along the inplane $`(1+h,2h,0)`$ direction whereas the intensity is independent of $`l`$ perpendicular to the plane. These indicate that the quasielastic component is purely 2D in nature, well localized at the 2D antiferromagnetic zone center. Fig. 5(c) shows the temperature dependence of the intrinsic peak width along the $`(1+h,2h,0)`$ direction. For $`T>T_\mathrm{N}`$ the width decreases almost linearly, whereas it becomes nearly resolution-limited below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, indicating a large inplane correlation length at low temperatures. The energy width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}`$ of the quasielastic peak is also shown in Fig. 5(d). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}`$ decreases as $`T`$ decreases down to $`T_N`$ and saturates to a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}1.2(1)`$ meV below $`T_N`$. It is surprising that the fast spin fluctuations with the characteristic time scale of $`\tau _{\mathrm{qel}}=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}0.55(5)`$ ps coexist with the long-lived spin-waves in the Néel phase.

What is the origin of the fast 2D fluctuations in the Néel phase? Recently, a similar quasielastic peak, called central peak, has been found in numerical simulation studies on 2DXYTLAFMs Nho and Landau (2002). Theoretically, such a central peak has been commonly seen in 2D $`XY`$ spin systems, triangular or non-triangular, and is related to the vortex dynamics intrinsic to the KT phase Costa and Costa (1996). We, thus, fitted our $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{qel}}`$ to the phenomenological functions: $`\kappa =\kappa _0\mathrm{exp}(b/\sqrt{\tau })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+A\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{})\mathrm{e}^{2b/\sqrt{\tau }}[(\sqrt{2}1)(\mathrm{ln}(k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{KT}}/\mathrm{\Lambda })/2+b/\sqrt{\tau })]^{1/2}`$, where $`\tau =(TT_{\mathrm{KT}})/T_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=JS^2a^2\kappa _0^2/4`$. Here if $`A=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ reduce to the analytical expressions for the 2D $`XY`$ square lattice system Mertens et al. (1989). The best fit (solid lines in Fig. 5(c) and 5(d)) was obtained with $`T_{\mathrm{KT}}=11(10)`$ K, $`b=10(4)`$, $`\kappa _0=4(1)`$ Å-1, $`A=0.07(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1.2(1)`$ meV. The fit reproduces $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ well for the entire temperature range, suggesting that the quasielastic peak is reminiscence of the vortex dynamics. Coexistence of the magnons and quasielastic peak suggests competition between the Néel phase favored by the weak interplane interactions, and the KT phase intrinsic to the 2D $`XY`$ spin system at low temperatures. It remains to be seen whether or not the prefactor $`A`$ being smaller than 1 and the nonzero $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for the relaxation rate are intrinsic to the 2DXYLTAFM or are due to the competition between the two phases Sachdev (2000).

In summary, using inelastic neutron scattering measurements on a single crystal of the hexagonal antiferromagnet YMnO3, we have found in the Néel phase a central peak at the 2D AFM zone center which bears characteristics of the KT phase intrinsic to the 2D XY spin systems. Understanding in detail how the Néel and KT phases compete and change the nature of the dynamic spin correlations would require further theoretical and experimental studies in the 2D XY spin systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank K. Nho for providing us details of their theoretical calculations. Works at SPINS and DCS are partially supported by the NSF under DMR-9986442 and DMR-0086210, respectively. T.J.S. is supported by the Atomic Energy Division, MEXT, Japan.


text:
# Coupling Constant Unification in Extensions of Standard Model

## 1  Evolution of Coupling Constants

In this section we will set up the framework to discuss the unification in the $`SU\left(5\right)`$ type of model. Recall that the evolution of the coupling constants $`g_3,g_2,g_1`$ of the subgroups $`SU\left(3\right)_C,`$ $`SU\left(2\right)_W,U\left(1\right)_Y`$ at one loop are given by

$$\frac{1}{g_i^2\left(\mu \right)}=\frac{1}{g_i^2\left(\mu _0\right)}+2b_i\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{\mu _0}\right),i=1,2,3$$
(1)
where $`b_i`$ are the coefficients in $`\beta `$function of the renomalization group equations,

$$\frac{dg_i}{d\left(\mathrm{ln}\mu \right)}=b_ig_i^3,$$
(2)
Note that the coupling constants $`g_2,g_1`$ are related to the usual coupling constants, $`g,g^{}`$ in $`SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ by

$$g=g_2,g^{}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}g_1$$
(3)
and Weinberg angle is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=\frac{g^2}{g^2+g^2}$$
(4)
At the unification scale $`M_X,`$ we have

$$g_1\left(M_X\right)=g_2\left(M_X\right)=g_3\left(M_X\right)=g_5$$
(5)
where $`g_5`$ is the gauge coupling of the $`SU\left(5\right)`$ group. Using the relation, $`e=g\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,`$ we can write

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _3\left(\mu \right)}=\frac{1}{\alpha _5}+8\pi b_3\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_X}\right)$$
(6)
$$\frac{1}{\alpha \left(\mu \right)}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=\frac{1}{\alpha _5}+8\pi b_2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_X}\right)$$
(7)
$$\frac{3}{5}\frac{1}{\alpha \left(\mu \right)}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W=\frac{1}{\alpha _5}+8\pi b_1\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_X}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }},`$ $`\alpha _3={\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2}{4\pi }},`$ $`\alpha _5={\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{4\pi }}.`$ Eliminating the unification scale $`M_X`$ from Eqs(6,8) we get

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=\frac{1}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\stackrel{\_}{b}\right)}\left[\frac{3}{5}\stackrel{\_}{b}+\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _3}\right)\right]$$
(9)
where

$$\stackrel{\_}{b}=\frac{b_3b_2}{b_2b_1}$$
(10)
and all coupling constants $`\alpha _i`$ are evaluated at $`\mu =M_Z.`$ For convenience, we can solve $`\stackrel{\_}{b}`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$

$$\stackrel{\_}{b}=\frac{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\right)}$$
(11)
Using the experimental values, $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _3}}=.0674`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.231,`$  we get

$$\stackrel{\_}{b}=0.71$$
(12)
which is value needed in the unification to get the right value for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.`$ Note that in the unification of the Standard Model without supersymmetry, we have $`\stackrel{\_}{b}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ which gives $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.204,`$ and is significantly different from the experimental value. The inclusion of Higgs scalars will have a very small effect and will not change this result significantly. Or equivalently, if we use the experimental value for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, coupling constants, when the extrapolated to the unification scales, will not converge to a single coupling constant. Comparing the Standard Model value with Eq (12) we see that we need to increase $`\stackrel{\_}{b}`$ in the Standard Model to satisfy the experimental value.

Recall that various contributions to the $`\beta `$function for the gauge coupling constants are of the form,

$$\beta _i=\frac{g_i^3}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{11}{3}t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(V\right)\frac{2}{3}t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(F\right)\frac{1}{3}t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(S\right)\right]$$
(13)
Here $`t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(V\right),t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(F\right)`$ and $`t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(S\right)`$ are the contributions to $`\beta _i`$ from gauge bosons, Weyl fermions, and complex scalars respectively. For fermions in the representation with representation matrices $`T^a`$, they are given by

$$t_2\left(F\right)\delta ^{ab}=Tr\left\{T^a\left(F\right)T^b\left(F\right)\right\}$$
(14)
where the trace means summing over all members of the multiplets. Similarly, for the gauge bosons and scalar contributions, $`t_2\left(V\right)`$ and $`t_2\left(S\right).`$ For example, for the gauge bosons, $`T^as`$ are the matrices for the adjoint representations and for the gauge group $`SU\left(n\right),`$ $`t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(V\right)`$ is given by,

$`t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(V\right)`$ $`=`$ $`n,\text{for }n>2,`$ (15)
$`t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(V\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{for }n=1`$
Note that $`t_2^{\left(i\right)}\left(R\right),`$ $`R=V,`$ $`S,`$ $`F`$ are pure group theory factors and are independent of the spin of the particles. For the low rank representations in the $`SU\left(n\right)`$ group they are given by,

|  | $`t_2^{\left(n\right)}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| fundamental rep | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ |
| adjoint rep | $`n`$ |
| 2nd rank antisymmetric tensor | $`{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2}}`$ |
| 2nd rank antisymmetric tensor | $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{2}}`$ |

Since $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}`$ is common to all $`\beta `$functions and will be cancelled out in the ratio in $`\stackrel{\_}{b}`$ in Eq (10) we will neglect it in writing out the coefficient $`b_n,`$

$$b_n=\left[\frac{11}{3}t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(V\right)\frac{2}{3}t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(F\right)\frac{1}{3}t_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(S\right)\right]$$

For convenience, we can use the parameter $`\stackrel{\_}{b}`$ given in Eq (12) to discuss the contribution to the Weinberg angle $`\theta _W`$ from models with new particles.

$$\stackrel{\_}{b}=\frac{b_3_2}{b_{21}}$$
(16)
where

$$b_{32}b_3b_2,b_{21}b_2b_1$$
(17)
We will separate the contributions into gauge bosons, fermions, and scalars,

$$b_{32}=b_{32}\left(V\right)+b_{32}\left(F\right)+b_{32}\left(S\right)$$
(18)
$$b_{21}=b_{21}\left(V\right)+b_{21}\left(F\right)+b_{21}\left(S\right)$$
(19)
Note that for a complete multiplet of $`SU\left(5\right),`$ their contributions to $`b_{32}`$ and $`b_{21}`$ cancel out in the combination in Eq (16). This can be seen as follows. Let $`T^{\left(a\right)}\left(R\right)`$ be the matrices for some representation $`R`$ of $`SU\left(5\right)`$ group. Then the coefficient $`t_2\left(R\right)`$ of the second Casmir operator given by

$$t_2\left(R\right)\delta ^{ab}=tr\left\{T^{\left(a\right)}\left(R\right)T^{\left(b\right)}\left(R\right)\right\}$$
(20)
will be the same when we take $`T^{\left(a\right)}\left(R\right)`$ $`SU\left(3\right),`$ $`SU\left(2\right)`$ or $`U\left(1\right)`$,

$$t_2^{\left(3\right)}\left(R\right)=t_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(R\right)=t_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(R\right)$$
(21)
Thus their contributions will cancel out in the combination $`b_3b_2`$ or $`b_2b_1.`$ In other words, a complete multiplet of $`SU\left(5\right),`$ e.g. $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},`$ will not effect the prediction of the Weinberg angle, even though they will effect the evolution of each individual coupling constant. Here we assume that all members of the $`SU\left(5\right)`$ multiplets survive to low energies. This is the case for the fermion contributions in the Standard Model. Thus for the studies of the Weinberg angle, we need to consider only the incomplete $`SU\left(5\right)`$ multiplets, i.e. those $`SU\left(3\right)\times SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ multiplets which do not combine into a complete $`SU\left(5\right)`$ multiplets. The reason that we can have the incomplete multiplets in the unification theory has to do with the decoupling of superheavy particles. For example, in the standard $`SU\left(5\right)`$ unification, only gauge bosons in subgroups $`SU\left(3\right)\times SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ survive to low energies, while the other gauge bosons, e.g. leptoquarks, are superheavy and decouple. Similarly, only Higgs bosons in $`SU\left(2\right)`$ doublet will contribute to the $`\beta `$function.

## 2 Contribution to $`\theta _W`$ from Various Multiplets

The contributions of $`SU\left(3\right)\times SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ gauge bosons are given by, using Eq (15)

$$b_3\left(V\right)=11,b_2\left(V\right)=\frac{22}{3},b_1\left(V\right)=0$$
(22)
and they give

$$b_{32}\left(V\right)=\frac{11}{3},b_{21}\left(V\right)=\frac{22}{3}$$
(23)
The contribution from the Higgs scalars are

$$b_{32}\left(S\right)=\frac{1}{6},b_{21}\left(S\right)=\frac{1}{15}$$
(24)
Since these contributions are very small, they are not included in the usual analysis.

We now consider the effects of various low rank multiplets to the Weinberg angle, or the parameter $`\stackrel{\_}{b}`$ in Eq (16). The results for the scalars and fermions are listed separately in the following tables:

(a) Scalars:

| $`SU\left(3\right)`$ | $`SU\left(2\right)`$ | $`b_1\left(s\right)`$ | $`b_2\left(s\right)`$ | $`b_3\left(s\right)`$ | $`b_{32}\left(S\right)`$ | $`b_{21}\left(S\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| color singlet | doublet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^0\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right),`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | triplet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^0\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right),`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ |
| ′′ | triplet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{++}\\ \varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^0\end{array}\right),`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | Singlet $`\varphi ^+`$, | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}`$ |
| ′′ | Singlet $`\varphi ^{++}`$, | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}`$ |
| ′′ | Singlet $`\varphi ^0`$, | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| color triplet | doublet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{ /}u\\ \text{ /}d\end{array}\right)_L`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | singlet  /$`u`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | Singlet  /$`d`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | 1 generation of squarks | $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{30}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ |

(b) Fermions:

| $`SU\left(3\right)`$ | $`SU\left(2\right)`$ | $`b_1\left(f\right)`$ | $`b_2\left(f\right)`$ | $`b_3\left(f\right)`$ | $`b_{32}\left(f\right)`$ | $`b_{21}\left(f\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| color singlet | doublet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ l^{}\end{array}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | triplet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}l^+\\ l^0\\ l^{}\end{array}\right)`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ |
| ′′ | triplet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}l^{++}\\ l^+\\ l^0\end{array}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | singlet $`l^+`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}`$ |
| ′′ | singlet $`l^0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| color triplet | doublet $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}`$ | $`1`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{14}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | singlet $`u_R`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | singlet $`d_R`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ |
| ′′ | 1 generation of quarks | $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{15}}`$ | $`1`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}`$ |
| color octet | glunios | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`0`$ |

Remarks :As it is evident in Eq (13) with same $`SU\left(3\right)\times SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ quantum numbers the contribution from the scalars are $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ of the fermions contributions.

## 3 Supersymmetric extension of standard model and generalization

As we have discussed before, we need to consider only the incomplete multiplets. The particles needed to be included are given below,

1. Scalars:

$$2\text{ Higgs doublets }H=\left(\begin{array}{c}H^+\\ H^0\end{array}\right)b_{32}\left(H\right)=\frac{1}{3},\text{ }b_{21}\left(H\right)=\frac{2}{15}$$
2. Fermions

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{glunios }& \stackrel{~}{g}^a,a=1,\mathrm{}8\text{ }& b_{32}\left(\stackrel{~}{g}^a\right)=2& b_{21}\left(\stackrel{~}{g}^a\right)=0\\ \text{Winos}& \stackrel{~}{W}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{W}^+\\ \stackrel{~}{W}^0\\ \stackrel{~}{W}^{}\end{array}\right)& b_{32}\left(\stackrel{~}{W}\right)=\frac{4}{3}& b_{21}\left(\stackrel{~}{W}\right)=\frac{4}{3}\\ \text{binos}& \stackrel{~}{b}& b_{32}\left(\stackrel{~}{b}\right)=0& b_{21}\left(\stackrel{~}{b}\right)=0\\ 2\text{ Higginos}& \stackrel{~}{h}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{h}^0\\ \stackrel{~}{h}^{}\end{array}\right)& b_{32}\left(\stackrel{~}{h}\right)=\frac{2}{3}& b_{21}\left(\stackrel{~}{h}\right)=\frac{4}{15}\end{array}$$

Thus the total contributions are

$$b_{32}=\frac{1}{3},b_{21}=\frac{26}{15}$$
(25)
and using Eq (16), we get for $`\stackrel{\_}{b},`$

$$\stackrel{\_}{b}=\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}{{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{26}{15}}}=.715$$
(26)
This agrees with the experimental measurement very well and gives a strong support for the supersymmetric extension of Standard Model. Note that the result $`b_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ comes from a cancellation between large glunios contribution and that of winos and Higginos. Thus the mechanism to produce the right value for the Weinberg angle in the supersymmetric extension of Standard Model is quite complicate. This makes the SSM somewhat unique in the sense the extra particles which give all these cancellations are not arbitrary but are required by the principle of supersymmetry.

We will now discuss the other examples which can give satisfactory answer for the Weinberg angle. Since the supersymmetric extension of Standard Model has been so successful in the prediction of Weinberg angle, we will now give the possibilities of other multiplets which give the same contribution. We will use a simpler notation for the multiplet structure, $`(𝐚,𝐛)_Y^f`$ , denote a fermion multiplet transforms as representations $`𝐚,𝐛`$ under $`SU\left(3\right)\times SU\left(2\right)`$ with hypercharge $`Y.`$ Similarly, $`(𝐚,𝐛)_Y^S`$ for the scalar multiplets. To present the result, we group together the multiplets with same contributions for the coefficients functions, $`b_3,b_2,`$ and $`b_1.`$

1. $`b_{32}=2,`$ $`b_{21}=0`$ (glunio-like states)

| $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f(\stackrel{\_}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f\times 6`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s\times 2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s\times 2(\stackrel{\_}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^s(\stackrel{\_}{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^f\times 2`$ |  |
2. $`b_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}},`$ $`b_{21}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ (Wino-like states)

| $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^f`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^s\times 2`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_0^s\times 8`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
3. $`b_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},`$ $`b_{21}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}`$ (Higgio-like states)

| $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_1^f\times 2`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_1^s\times 4`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^s(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_2^f`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_1^f(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_1^s\times 2`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^s(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_2^s\times 2`$ |  |
4. $`b_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ $`b_{21}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}`$ (Higgs-like states)

Note that this last group includes the Standard Model Higgs contribution.

Clearly, if take one set of multiplet from each group, the total contribution will give the same Weinberg angle as the supersymmetry Standard Model. The list given above is constructed by mimicking those multiplets of the supersymmetry Standard Model and are by no means the only possibilities. We just want to demonstrate the existence of other examples. None of these possibilities, except for the supersymmetric one, are realized in any realist phenomenological model. For the case of new fermions multiplets, one might worry about the anomaly cancellation. However, as we have discussed before, only the incomplete multiplets are relevant for the Weinberg angle and it is possible to cancel the anomalies by fermion multiplets which decouple at very high energies.