text:
# Unified Theory of Fundamental Interactions

## 1 Introduction

It is known that there are four kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature, which are strong interactions, electromagnetic interactions, weak interactions and gravitational interactions. All these fundamental interactions can be described by gauge field theories, which can be regarded as the common nature of all these fundamental interactions. And we can unify different kinds of fundamental interactions in the framework of gauge theory. The first unification of fundamental interactions in human history is the unification of electric interactions and magnetic interactions, which is made by Maxwell in 1864. Now, we know that electromagnetic theory is a $`U(1)`$ abelian gauge theory. In 1921, H.Weyl tried to unify electromagnetic interactions and gravitational interactions in a theory which has local scale invariance. Weyl’s original attempt is not successful, however in his great attempt, he introduced one of the most important concept in modern physics: gauge transformation and gauge symmetry. After the foundation of quantum mechanics, V.Fock, H.Weyl and W.Pauli found that quantum electrodynamics is a $`U(1)`$ gauge invariant theory.

In 1954, Yang and Mills proposed non-abelian gauge field theory. Soon after, non-abelian gauge field theory is applied to elementary particle theory. In about 1967 and 1968, using the spontaneously symmetry breaking and Higgs mechanism, S.Weinberg and A.Salam proposed the unified electroweak theory, which is a $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge theory. The unified electroweak theory is now widely called the standard model. The predictions of unified electroweak theory have been confirmed in a large number of experiments, and the intermediate gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ which are predicted by unified electroweak model are also found in experiments. However, in the traditional standard model, the gravitational interactions are not considered. From nineteen seventies, physicist begin studying Grand Unified theories which try to unify strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions in a simple group. At that time, $`SU(5)`$ model, $`SO(10)`$ model, $`E_6`$ model and other models are proposed. In all these attempts, gravitational interactions are not considred.

Gauge treatment of gravity was suggested immediately after the gauge theory birth itself. In the traditional gauge treatment of gravity, Lorentz group is localized, and the gravitational field is not represented by gauge potential. It is represented by metric field. The theory has beautiful mathematical forms, but up to now, its renormalizability is not proved. In other words, it is conventionally considered to be non-renormalizable. Recently, Wu proposed a new quantum gauge theory of gravity which is a renormalizable quantum gravity. Based on gauge principle, space-time translation group is selected to be the symmetry of gravitational interactions, which appears in a new form and is called gravitational gauge group. After localization of gravitational gauge group, the gravitational field appears as the corresponding gauge potential. After that work, the unified theory of electromagnetic interactions and gravitational interactions is discussed. Then this unified theory is generalized to $`SU(N)`$ non-abelian case and the the unification of $`SU(N)`$ non-abelian gauge interactions and gravitational interactions, which will be called $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory, is discussed. $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory is also a renormalizable quantum model. Now, using the method propsed in leteratures  and , we will try to unify four different kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature in one theory. This unification is based on the symmetry of direct or semi-direct product group, which is the direct extension of the standard model to gravitational interactions. This unification theory is also perturbatively renormalzable.

## 2 Gravitational Gauge Field

First, for the sake of integrity, we give a simple introduction to gravitational gauge theory and introduce some notations which is used in this paper. Details on quantum gauge theory of gravity can be found in leteratures  and .

In gauge theory of gravity, the most fundamental quantity is gravitaional gauge field $`C_\mu (x)`$. which is the gauge potential corresponding to gravitational gauge symmetry. Gauge field $`C_\mu (x)`$ is a vector in the corresponding Lie algebra, which, for the sake of convenience, will be called gravitational Lie algrbra in this paper. So it can expanded as

$$C_\mu (x)=C_\mu ^\alpha (x)\widehat{P}_\alpha ,$$
(2.1)
where $`C_\mu ^\alpha (x)`$ is the component field and $`\widehat{P}_\alpha `$ is the generator of gravitational gauge group. The gravitational gauge covariant derivative is given by

$$D_\mu =_\mu igC_\mu (x),$$
(2.2)
where $`g`$ is the gravitational coupling constant.

Matrix $`G`$ is an important quantity in gauge theory of gravity, whose definition is

$$G=(G_\mu ^\alpha )=(\delta _\mu ^\alpha gC_\mu ^\alpha ).$$
(2.3)
Its inverse matrix is denoted as $`G^1`$,

$$G^1=\frac{1}{IgC}=(G_\alpha ^{1\mu }).$$
(2.4)
They satisfy the following relations,

$$G_\mu ^\alpha G_\alpha ^{1\nu }=\delta _\mu ^\nu ,$$
(2.5)
$$G_\beta ^{1\mu }G_\mu ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha .$$
(2.6)
It can be proved that

$$D_\mu =G_\mu ^\alpha _\alpha .$$
(2.7)
The field strength of gravitational gauge field is defined by

$$F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{1}{ig}[D_\mu ,D_\nu ].$$
(2.8)
Its explicit expression is

$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)=_\mu C_\nu (x)_\nu C_\mu (x)igC_\mu (x)C_\nu (x)+igC_\nu (x)C_\mu (x).$$
(2.9)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is also a vector in gravitational Lie algebra,

$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)=F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (x)\widehat{P}_\alpha ,$$
(2.10)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =_\mu C_\nu ^\alpha _\nu C_\mu ^\alpha gC_\mu ^\beta _\beta C_\nu ^\alpha +gC_\nu ^\beta _\beta C_\mu ^\alpha .$$
(2.11)
In order to construct a gravitational gauge invariant lagrangian, $`J(C)`$ is an important factor. In this paper, it will select to be

$$J(C)=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{\alpha \beta })},$$
(2.12)
where

$$g_{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\mu \nu }(G^1)_\alpha ^\mu (G^1)_\beta ^\nu .$$
(2.13)
## 3 Lagrangian and Action

Now, we know that there are four kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature, which are strong interactions, electromagnetic interactions, weak interactions and gravitational interactions. In the traditional standard model, the first three fundamental interactions are considered. In this chapter, we will generalize the standard model to gravitational interactions. In other words, the new standard model is a theory that can describe any fundamental physical process which human kind has already known in Nature.

We know that the fundamental particles that we know are fundamental fermions (such as leptons and quarks), gauge bosons(such as photon, gluons, gravitons and intermediate gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$), and possible Higgs bosons. Our goal is to construct a theory which can describe all possible fundamental interactions among all these elementary particles. We know that the symmetry of the traditional standard model is $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. $`SU(3)_c`$ is the gauge symmetry for strong interactions, $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is the symmetry for electroweak interactions. The gauge symmetry for gravitational interactions is gravitational gauge group. If we generalize the standard model to gravitational interactions, the symmetry group is

$$(SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup.$$
(3.1)
This is the symmetry of generalized standard model.

Before we construct the lagrangian of the system, let’s first define wave functions of various elementary particles. According to the Standard Model, leptons form left-hand doublets and right-hand singlets. Let’s denote

$$\psi _L^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e\end{array}\right)_L,\psi _L^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\mu \\ \mu \end{array}\right)_L,\psi _L^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\tau \\ \tau \end{array}\right)_L,$$
(3.2)
$$\psi _R^{(1)}=e_R,\psi _R^{(2)}=\mu _R,\psi _R^{(3)}=\tau _R.$$
(3.3)
Neutrinos have no right-hand singlets. The weak hypercharge for left-hand doublets $`\psi _L^{(i)}`$ is $`1`$ and for right-hand singlet $`\psi _R^{(i)}`$ is $`2`$. All leptons are $`SU(3)_c`$ singlet, so they carry no color charge. The charges of leptons are given by Gell-Mann-Nishijima rule,

$$Q=T_3^L+\frac{Y}{2},$$
(3.4)
where $`Y`$ is the hypercharge and $`T_3^L`$ is the weak isospin. In order to define the wave function for quarks, we have to introduce Kabayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix first, whose general form is,

$$K=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1c_3& s_1s_3\\ s_1c_2& c_1c_2c_3s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_3+s_2c_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1s_2& c_1s_2c_3c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_3+c_2c_3e^{i\delta }\end{array}\right)$$
(3.5)
where

$$c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i(i=1,2,3)$$
(3.6)
and $`\theta _i`$ are generalized Cabibbo angles. The mixing between three different quarks $`d,s`$ and $`b`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d_\theta \\ s_\theta \\ b_\theta \end{array}\right)=K\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right).$$
(3.7)
Quarks also form left-hand doublets and right-hand singlets,

$$q_L^{(1)a}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_L^a\\ d_{\theta L}^a\end{array}\right),q_L^{(2)a}=\left(\begin{array}{c}c_L^a\\ s_{\theta L}^a\end{array}\right),q_L^{(3)a}=\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L^a\\ b_{\theta L}^a\end{array}\right),$$
(3.8)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}q_u^{(1)a}=u_R^a& q_u^{(2)a}=c_R^a& q_u^{(3)a}=t_R^a\\ q_{\theta d}^{(1)a}=d_{\theta R}^a& q_{\theta d}^{(2)a}=s_{\theta R}^a& q_{\theta d}^{(3)a}=b_{\theta R}^a,\end{array}$$
(3.9)
where index $`a`$ is color index. It is known that left-hand doublets have weak isospin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and weak hypercharge $`\frac{1}{3}`$, right-hand singlets have no weak isospin, $`q_u^{(j)a}`$s have weak hypercharge $`\frac{4}{3}`$ and $`q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}`$s have weak hypercharge $`\frac{2}{3}`$. Charges of quarks are also given by Gell-Mann-Nishijima rule.

The symmetry of system is given by eq.(3.1). We can see that there are four different symmetry group. For every kinds of symmetry group, there are corresponding gauge fields which transmit corresponding gauge interactions. For gauge bosons, gravitational gauge field is also denoted by $`C_\mu ^\alpha `$. The coupling constant of gravitational interactions is still denoted by $`g`$. The gluon field is denoted by $`A_\mu `$,

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^i\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}.$$
(3.10)
where $`\lambda ^i`$ are Gell-Mann matrix. Color index is denoted by indexes $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$, so

$$\lambda ^i=(\lambda _{ab}^i).$$
(3.11)
The field strength of gluon field is $`A_{\mu \nu }`$

$$A_{\mu \nu }=(D_\mu A_\nu )(D_\nu A_\mu )ig_c[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]=A_{\mu \nu }^i\frac{\lambda ^i}{2},$$
(3.12)
where $`g_c`$ is the coupling constant for strong interactions. $`A_{\mu \nu }^i`$ is the component field strength of gluon field, whose explicit expression is

$$A_{\mu \nu }^i=(D_\mu A_\nu ^i)(D_\nu A_\mu ^i)+g_cf_{ijk}A_\mu ^jA_\nu ^k,$$
(3.13)
where $`f_{ijk}`$ is the structure constant of $`SU(3)`$ group. $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ is not $`SU(3)`$ gauge covariant field strength. $`SU(3)`$ gauge covariant field strength is defined by

$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }=A_{\mu \nu }+gG_\sigma ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda F_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=𝔸_{\mu \nu }^i\frac{\lambda ^i}{2},$$
(3.14)
where

$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }^i=A_{\mu \nu }^i+gG_\sigma ^{1\lambda }A_\lambda ^iF_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3.15)
The $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge field is denoted by $`B_\mu `$ and the coupling constant for $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge interactions is $`g_w^{}`$. The $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge field strength tensor is $`B_{\mu \nu }`$

$$B_{\mu \nu }=(D_\mu B_\nu )(D_\nu B_\mu ).$$
(3.16)
The gauge covariant field strength tensor is

$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }+gG_\alpha ^{1\lambda }B_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha ,$$
(3.17)
The $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge field is denoted by $`W_\mu `$

$$W_\mu =W_\mu ^n\frac{\sigma _n}{2},$$
(3.18)
where $`\sigma _n`$ is the Pauli matrix. The $`SU(2)_L`$ field strength tensor is $`W_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$W_{\mu \nu }=(D_\mu W_\nu )(D_\nu W_\mu )ig_w[W_\mu ,W_\nu ]=W_{\mu \nu }^n\frac{\sigma _n}{2},$$
(3.19)
where $`g_w`$ is the weak coupling constant for $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge interactions. $`W_{\mu \nu }^n`$ is component field strength tensor,

$$W_{\mu \nu }^n=D_\mu W_\nu ^nD_\nu W_\mu ^n+g_wϵ_{lmn}W_\mu ^lW_\nu ^m,$$
(3.20)
where $`ϵ_{lmn}`$ is the structure constant of $`SU(2)`$ group. The $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge covariant field strength tensor is $`𝕎_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }=W_{\mu \nu }+gG_\alpha ^{1\lambda }W_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =𝕎_{\mu \nu }^n\frac{\sigma _n}{2},$$
(3.21)
where

$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }^n=W_{\mu \nu }^n+gG_\alpha ^{1\lambda }W_\lambda ^nF_{\mu \nu }^\alpha .$$
(3.22)
If there exist Higgs particle in Nature, the Higgs field is represented by a complex scalar $`SU(2)`$ doublet,

$$\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{}\\ \varphi ^0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.23)
The hypercharge of Higgs field $`\varphi `$ is $`1`$. Higgs field carries no color charge.

The Lagrangian $`_0`$ that describes four kinds of fundamental interactions is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _0& =& _{j=1}^3\overline{\psi }_L^{(j)}\gamma ^\mu (D_\mu +\frac{i}{2}g_w^{}B_\mu ig_wW_\mu )\psi _L^{(j)}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3\overline{e}_R^{(j)}\gamma ^\mu (D_\mu +ig_w^{}B_\mu )e_R^{(j)}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3\overline{q}_L^{(j)a}\gamma ^\mu \left((D_\mu ig_wW_\mu \frac{i}{6}g_w^{}B_\mu )\delta _{ab}ig_cA_\mu ^k(\frac{\lambda ^k}{2})_{ab}\right)q_L^{(j)b}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3\overline{q}_u^{(j)a}\gamma ^\mu \left((D_\mu i\frac{2}{3}g_w^{}B_\mu )\delta _{ab}ig_cA_\mu ^k(\frac{\lambda ^k}{2})_{ab}\right)q_u^{(j)b}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3\overline{q}_{\theta d}^{(j)a}\gamma ^\mu \left((D_\mu +i\frac{1}{3}g_w^{}B_\mu )\delta _{ab}ig_cA_\mu ^k(\frac{\lambda ^k}{2})_{ab}\right)q_{\theta d}^{(j)b}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^n𝕎_{\rho \sigma }^n\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\rho \sigma }\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^i𝔸_{\rho \sigma }^i\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }g_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \eta ^{\mu \nu }\left[(D_\mu \frac{i}{2}g_w^{}B_\mu ig_wW_\mu )\varphi \right]^{}\left[(D_\nu \frac{i}{2}g_w^{}B_\nu ig_wW_\nu )\varphi \right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3f^{(j)}\left(\overline{e}_R^{(j)}\varphi ^{}\psi _L^{(j)}+\overline{\psi }_L^{(j)}\varphi e_R^{(j)}\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j=1}^3\left(f_u^{(j)}\overline{q}_L^{(j)a}\overline{\varphi }q_u^{(j)a}+f_u^{(j)}\overline{q}_u^{(j)a}\overline{\varphi }^{}q_L^{(j)a}\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{j,k=1}^3\left(f_d^{(jk)}\overline{q}_L^{(j)a}\varphi q_{\theta d}^{(k)a}+f_d^{(jk)}\overline{q}_{\theta d}^{(k)a}\varphi ^{}q_L^{(j)a}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.24)
where

$$\overline{\varphi }=i\sigma _2\varphi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^0\\ \varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(3.25)
The full Lagrangian is given by

$$=J(C)_0,$$
(3.26)
and the action of the system is

$$S=\mathrm{d}^4x.$$
(3.27)
## 4 Symmetry of the Model

Now, let’s discuss symmetry of the system. First, let’s study $`SU(3)_c`$ symmetry. Denote the $`SU(3)_c`$ transformation matrix as $`U_3`$. Under $`SU(3)_c`$ transformation, transformations of various fields and operators are:

$$\psi _L^{(j)}\psi _L^{(j)}=\psi _L^{(j)},$$
(4.1)
$$e_R^{(j)}e_R^{(j)}=e_R^{(j)},$$
(4.2)
$$q_L^{(j)a}q_L^{(j)a}=U_{3ab}q_L^{(j)b},$$
(4.3)
$$q_u^{(j)a}q_u^{(j)a}=U_{3ab}q_u^{(j)b},$$
(4.4)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=U_{3ab}q_{\theta d}^{(j)b},$$
(4.5)
$$C_\mu ^\alpha C_\mu ^\alpha =C_\mu ^\alpha $$
(4.6)
$$D_\mu D_\mu ^{}=D_\mu ,$$
(4.7)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=U_3A_\mu U_3^1\frac{1}{ig_c}U_3(D_\mu U_3^1),$$
(4.8)
$$B_\mu B_\mu ^{}=B_\mu ,$$
(4.9)
$$W_\mu W_\mu ^{}=W_\mu ,$$
(4.10)
$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=\varphi ,$$
(4.11)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J(C).$$
(4.12)
According to above transformation rules, gauge field strength tensors transform as

$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝕎_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.13)
$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝔹_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.14)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ,$$
(4.15)
$$A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_3A_{\mu \nu }U_3^1\frac{ig}{g_c}F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma U_3(_\sigma U_3^1),$$
(4.16)
$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_3𝔸_{\mu \nu }U_3^1.$$
(4.17)
Using all these transformation rules, we can prove that the lagrangian density $``$ is invariant. Therefore, the system has strict local $`SU(3)_c`$ symmetry.

Denote the transformations matrix of $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge transformation as $`U_2`$.Under $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation, transformations of various fields are:

$$\psi _L^{(j)}\psi _L^{(j)}=U_2\psi _L^{(j)},$$
(4.18)
$$e_R^{(j)}e_R^{(j)}=e_R^{(j)},$$
(4.19)
$$q_L^{(j)a}q_L^{(j)a}=U_2q_L^{(j)a},$$
(4.20)
$$q_u^{(j)a}q_u^{(j)a}=q_u^{(j)a},$$
(4.21)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=q_{\theta d}^{(j)a},$$
(4.22)
$$C_\mu ^\alpha C_\mu ^\alpha =C_\mu ^\alpha $$
(4.23)
$$D_\mu D_\mu ^{}=D_\mu ,$$
(4.24)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu ,$$
(4.25)
$$B_\mu B_\mu ^{}=B_\mu ,$$
(4.26)
$$W_\mu W_\mu ^{}=U_2W_\mu U_2^1\frac{1}{ig_W}U_2(D_\mu U_2^1),$$
(4.27)
$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=U_2\varphi ,$$
(4.28)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J(C).$$
(4.29)
According to above transformation rules, gauge field strength tensors transform as

$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝔸_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.30)
$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝔹_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.31)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ,$$
(4.32)
$$W_{\mu \nu }W_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_2W_{\mu \nu }U_2^1\frac{ig}{g_W}F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma U_2(_\sigma U_2^1),$$
(4.33)
$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_2𝕎_{\mu \nu }U_2^1.$$
(4.34)
We can prove that the action of the system is invariant under the above $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge transformations.

Under $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge transformation, transformations of various fields are:

$$\psi _L^{(j)}\psi _L^{(j)}=e^{i\alpha (x)/2}\psi _L^{(j)},$$
(4.35)
$$e_R^{(j)}e_R^{(j)}=e^{i\alpha (x)}e_R^{(j)},$$
(4.36)
$$q_L^{(j)a}q_L^{(j)a}=e^{i\alpha (x)/6}q_L^{(j)a},$$
(4.37)
$$q_u^{(j)a}q_u^{(j)a}=e^{2i\alpha (x)/3}q_u^{(j)a},$$
(4.38)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=e^{i\alpha (x)/3}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a},$$
(4.39)
$$C_\mu ^\alpha C_\mu ^\alpha =C_\mu ^\alpha $$
(4.40)
$$D_\mu D_\mu ^{}=D_\mu ,$$
(4.41)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu ,$$
(4.42)
$$B_\mu B_\mu ^{}=B_\mu \frac{1}{g_W^{}}(D_\mu \alpha (x)),$$
(4.43)
$$W_\mu W_\mu ^{}=W_\mu ,$$
(4.44)
$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=e^{i\alpha (x)/2}\varphi ,$$
(4.45)
$$\overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }^{}=e^{i\alpha (x)/2}\overline{\varphi },$$
(4.46)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J(C).$$
(4.47)
According to above transformation rules, gauge field strength tensors transform as

$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝔸_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.48)
$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝕎_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.49)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ,$$
(4.50)
$$B_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }^{}=B_{\mu \nu }+\frac{g}{g_W^{}}F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma (_\sigma \alpha (x)),$$
(4.51)
$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\mu \nu }^{}=𝔹_{\mu \nu }.$$
(4.52)
We can also prove that the action of the system is invariant under the above $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge transformations.

Gravitational gauge transformations of various fields are

$$\psi _L^{(j)}\psi _L^{(j)}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ\psi _L^{(j)}),$$
(4.53)
$$e_R^{(j)}e_R^{(j)}=(\widehat{U}_ϵe_R^{(j)}),$$
(4.54)
$$q_L^{(j)a}q_L^{(j)a}=(\widehat{U}_ϵq_L^{(j)a}),$$
(4.55)
$$q_u^{(j)a}q_u^{(j)a}=(\widehat{U}_ϵq_u^{(j)a}),$$
(4.56)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=(\widehat{U}_ϵq_{\theta d}^{(j)a}),$$
(4.57)
$$C_\mu C_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵC_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1\frac{1}{ig}\widehat{U}_ϵ(_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1),$$
(4.58)
$$D_\mu D_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵD_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(4.59)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵA_\mu ),$$
(4.60)
$$B_\mu B_\mu ^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵB_\mu ),$$
(4.61)
$$W_\mu W_\mu ^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵW_\mu ),$$
(4.62)
$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ\varphi ),$$
(4.63)
$$\overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ\overline{\varphi }),$$
(4.64)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J(\widehat{U}_ϵJ(C)),$$
(4.65)
$$\eta _{1\alpha }^\mu \eta _{1\alpha }^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}(\widehat{U}_ϵ\eta _{1\alpha _1}^\mu ),$$
(4.66)
$$\eta _{2\alpha \beta }\eta _{2\alpha \beta }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^{\beta _1}(\widehat{U}_ϵ\eta _{2\alpha _1\beta _1}).$$
(4.67)
According to above transformation rules, gauge field strength tensors transform as

$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ𝔸_{\mu \nu }),$$
(4.68)
$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ𝕎_{\mu \nu }),$$
(4.69)
$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\mu \nu }^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ𝔹_{\mu \nu }).$$
(4.70)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (\widehat{U}_ϵF_{\mu \nu }^\beta ),$$
(4.71)
According to these transformations, the lagrangian density $`_0`$ transforms covariantly,

$$_0_0^{}=(\widehat{U}_ϵ_\mathcal{0}).$$
(4.72)
So,

$$^{}=J(\widehat{U}_ϵ).$$
(4.73)
Using eq.(2.54), we can prove that action $`S`$ is invariant under gravitational gauge transformations,

$$SS^{}=S.$$
(4.74)
Therefore, the system has gravitational gauge symmetry.

Now, as a whole, we discuss

$$(SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup$$

gauge symmetry. In order to do this, we need define generator operators. The generator operators of $`SU(3)_c`$ group are denoted by $`\widehat{T}_{3j}`$. The $`SU(3)_c`$ transformation operator $`\widehat{U}_3`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{U}_3=e^{i\alpha ^j\widehat{T}_{3j}}.$$
(4.75)
Matrix $`U_3`$ is defined by

$$U_3=e^{i\alpha ^j\lambda ^j/2}.$$
(4.76)
When $`\widehat{T}_{3j}`$ acts on fields, it will becomes the corresponding representation matrix of generators. So,

$$\widehat{T}_{3i}\psi _L^{(j)}=0,$$
(4.77)
$$\widehat{T}_{3i}e_R^{(j)}=0,$$
(4.78)
$$\widehat{T}_{3i}q_L^{(j)a}=\left(\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\right)_{ab}q_L^{(j)b},$$
(4.79)
$$\widehat{T}_{3i}q_u^{(j)a}=\left(\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\right)_{ab}q_u^{(j)b},$$
(4.80)
$$\widehat{T}_{3i}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=\left(\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\right)_{ab}q_{\theta d}^{(j)b},$$
(4.81)
$$\widehat{T}_{3i}\varphi =0,$$
(4.82)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},C_\mu ^\alpha ]=0,$$
(4.83)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},A_\mu ]=[\frac{\lambda ^i}{2},A_\mu ],$$
(4.84)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},B_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.85)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},W_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.86)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ]=0,$$
(4.87)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},𝔸_{\mu \nu }]=[\frac{\lambda ^i}{2},𝔸_{\mu \nu }],$$
(4.88)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},𝔹_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$
(4.89)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},𝕎_{\mu \nu }]=0.$$
(4.90)
The generator operators of $`SU(2)_L`$ group are denoted by $`\widehat{T}_{2l}`$. The $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation operator $`\widehat{U}_2`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{U}_2=e^{i\alpha ^l\widehat{T}_{2l}}.$$
(4.91)
Matrix $`U_2`$ is defined by

$$U_2=e^{i\alpha ^l\sigma _l/2}.$$
(4.92)
When $`\widehat{T}_{2l}`$ acts on fields, it will becomes the corresponding representation matrix of generators. So,

$$\widehat{T}_{2l}\psi _L^{(j)}=\frac{\sigma _l}{2}\psi _L^{(j)}$$
(4.93)
$$\widehat{T}_{2l}e_R^{(j)}=0,$$
(4.94)
$$\widehat{T}_{2l}q_L^{(j)a}=\frac{\sigma _l}{2}q_L^{(j)a},$$
(4.95)
$$\widehat{T}_{2l}q_u^{(j)a}=0,$$
(4.96)
$$\widehat{T}_{2l}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=0,$$
(4.97)
$$\widehat{T}_{2l}\varphi =\frac{\sigma _l}{2}\varphi $$
(4.98)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},C_\mu ^\alpha ]=0,$$
(4.99)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},A_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.100)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},B_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.101)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},W_\mu ]=[\frac{\sigma _l}{2},W_\mu ],$$
(4.102)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ]=0,$$
(4.103)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},𝔸_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$
(4.104)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},𝔹_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$
(4.105)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},𝕎_{\mu \nu }]=[\frac{\sigma _l}{2},𝕎_{\mu \nu }].$$
(4.106)
The generator operators of $`U(1)_Y`$ group are denoted by $`\widehat{T}_1`$. $`2\widehat{T}_1`$ is the hypercharge operator. The $`U(1)_Y`$ transformation operator $`\widehat{U}_1`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{U}_1=e^{i\alpha \widehat{T}_1}.$$
(4.107)
Matrix $`U_1`$ is defined by

$$U_1=e^{i\alpha }.$$
(4.108)
When $`2\widehat{T}_1`$ acts on fields, it will becomes the hypercharge of the corresponding fields. So,

$$\widehat{T}_1\psi _L^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2}\psi _L^{(j)}$$
(4.109)
$$\widehat{T}_1e_R^{(j)}=e_R^{(j)}$$
(4.110)
$$\widehat{T}_1q_L^{(j)a}=\frac{1}{6}q_L^{(j)a},$$
(4.111)
$$\widehat{T}_1q_u^{(j)a}=\frac{2}{3}q_u^{(j)a},$$
(4.112)
$$\widehat{T}_1q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}=\frac{1}{3}q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}$$
(4.113)
$$\widehat{T}_1\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\varphi $$
(4.114)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,C_\mu ^\alpha ]=0,$$
(4.115)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,A_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.116)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,B_\mu ]=B_\mu ,$$
(4.117)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,W_\mu ]=0,$$
(4.118)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,F_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ]=0,$$
(4.119)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,𝔸_{\mu \nu }]=0,$$
(4.120)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,𝔹_{\mu \nu }]=𝔹_{\mu \nu },$$
(4.121)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,𝕎_{\mu \nu }]=0.$$
(4.122)
Different generator operators act on different spaces, so they commute each other,

$$[\widehat{T}_1,\widehat{T}_{2l}]=0,$$
(4.123)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,\widehat{T}_{3i}]=0,$$
(4.124)
$$[\widehat{T}_1,\widehat{P}_\alpha ]=0,$$
(4.125)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},\widehat{T}_{3i}]=0,$$
(4.126)
$$[\widehat{T}_{2l},\widehat{P}_\alpha ]=0,$$
(4.127)
$$[\widehat{T}_{3i},\widehat{P}_\alpha ]=0.$$
(4.128)
As we have mention before, what generators commute each other does not means that group elements commute each other.

A general element of semi-direct product group

$$(SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup$$

is denoted by $`g(x)`$. It can be proved that the $`g(x)`$ can be written into the following form

$$g(x)=\widehat{U}_ϵ\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2\widehat{U}_3.$$
(4.129)
Define quark color triplet states,

$$q_L^{(j)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_L^{(j)1}\\ q_L^{(j)2}\\ q_L^{(j)3}\end{array}\right),$$
(4.130)
$$q_u^{(j)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_u^{(j)1}\\ q_u^{(j)2}\\ q_u^{(j)3}\end{array}\right),$$
(4.131)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{\theta d}^{(j)1}\\ q_{\theta d}^{(j)2}\\ q_{\theta d}^{(j)3}\end{array}\right).$$
(4.132)
Then, we have the following relations

$$\widehat{T}_{3j}q_L^{(j)}=\frac{\lambda ^j}{2}q_L^{(j)},$$
(4.133)
$$\widehat{T}_{3j}q_u^{(j)}=\frac{\lambda ^j}{2}q_u^{(j)},$$
(4.134)
$$\widehat{T}_{3j}q_{\theta d}^{(j)}=\frac{\lambda ^j}{2}q_{\theta d}^{(j)}.$$
(4.135)
Under gauge transformations of semi-direct product group, various fields and operators transform as

$$\psi _L^{(j)}\psi _L^{(j)}=(g(x)\psi _L^{(j)}),$$
(4.136)
$$e_R^{(j)}e_R^{(j)}=(g(x)e_R^{(j)}),$$
(4.137)
$$q_L^{(j)a}q_L^{(j)}=(g(x)q_L^{(j)}),$$
(4.138)
$$q_u^{(j)a}q_u^{(j)}=(g(x)q_u^{(j)}),$$
(4.139)
$$q_{\theta d}^{(j)a}q_{\theta d}^{(j)}=(g(x)q_{\theta d}^{(j)}),$$
(4.140)
$$C_\mu C_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵC_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1\frac{1}{ig}\widehat{U}_ϵ(_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1),$$
(4.141)
$$D_\mu D_\mu ^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵD_\mu \widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(4.142)
$$F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}=\widehat{U}_ϵF_{\mu \nu }\widehat{U}_ϵ^1,$$
(4.143)
$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=g(x)\left[A_\mu \frac{1}{ig_c}(D_\mu U_3^1)U_3\right]g^1(x),$$
(4.144)
$$W_\mu W_\mu ^{}=g(x)\left[W_\mu \frac{1}{ig_W}(D_\mu U_2^1)U_2\right]g^1(x),$$
(4.145)
$$B_\mu B_\mu ^{}=g(x)\left[B_\mu \frac{1}{ig_W^{}}(D_\mu U_1^1)U_1\right]g^1(x),$$
(4.146)
$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=(g(x)\varphi ),$$
(4.147)
$$J(C)J^{}(C^{})=J(\widehat{U}_ϵJ(C)),$$
(4.148)
$$\eta _{1\alpha }^\mu \eta _{1\alpha }^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}g(x)\eta _{1\alpha _1}^\mu g^1(x),$$
(4.149)
$$\eta _{2\alpha \beta }\eta _{2\alpha \beta }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^{\beta _1}g(x)\eta _{2\alpha _1\beta _1}g^1(x),$$
(4.150)
$$𝔸_{\mu \nu }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^{}=g(x)𝔸_{\mu \nu }g^1(x),$$
(4.151)
$$𝕎_{\mu \nu }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^{}=g(x)𝕎_{\mu \nu }g^1(x),$$
(4.152)
$$𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\mu \nu }^{}=g(x)𝔹_{\mu \nu }g^1(x).$$
(4.153)
It can be proved that the action of the system has strict local gauge symmetry of semi-direct product group.

## 5 Spontaneously Symmetry Breaking

It is known that, $`SU(3)_c`$ color symmetry and gravitational gauge symmetry are strict symmetry. $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry are not strict symmetry, which is broken to $`U(1)_Q`$ symmetry. Now, let’s discuss spontaneously symmetry breaking of the system. The potential of Higgs field is

$$\mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2.$$
(5.1)
If,

$$\mu ^2>0,\lambda >0,$$
(5.2)
the symmetry of vacuum will be spontaneously broken. Suppose that the vacuum expectation value of neutral Higgs field is non-zero, that is

$$\varphi _0=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(5.3)
where,

$$v=\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}.$$
(5.4)
After a local $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge transformation, we can select the Higgs field $`\varphi (x)`$ as,

$$\varphi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v+\phi (x)\end{array}\right).$$
(5.5)
After symmetry breaking, the Higgs potential becomes,

$$V(\phi )=\mu ^2\phi ^2+\lambda v\phi ^3+\frac{\lambda }{4}\phi ^4\frac{\mu ^4}{4\lambda },$$
(5.6)
from which we know that the mass of Higgs field is $`2\mu ^2`$.

Define

$$W_\mu ^\pm \stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(W_\mu ^1iW_\mu ^2,)$$
(5.7)
$$A_\mu ^e\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\mathrm{cos}\theta _WB_\mu +\mathrm{sin}\theta _WW_\mu ^3,$$
(5.8)
$$Z_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\mathrm{sin}\theta _WB_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta _WW_\mu ^3,$$
(5.9)
where

$$\mathrm{tg}\theta _W=\frac{g_W^{}}{g_W}.$$
(5.10)
$`A_\mu ^e`$ in eq.(5.8) is the electromagnetic field. Define two mass parameters,

$$m_W=\frac{1}{2}g_Wv,$$
(5.11)
$$m_Z=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g_W^2+g_W^2}v.$$
(5.12)
It is known that, in the standard model, $`m_W`$ is the mass of $`W^\pm `$ bosons and $`m_Z`$ is the mass of $`Z`$ bosons. The coupling constant of electromagnetic interactions is denoted by e,

$$\mathrm{e}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}g_W^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W=\frac{g_Wg_w^{}}{\sqrt{g_W^2+g_W^2}}.$$
(5.13)
The current of strong interactions are denoted by $`J_{ci}^\mu `$,

$$J_{ci}^\mu =i\left(\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}u+\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}c+\overline{t}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}t+\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}d+\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}s+\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}b\right).$$
(5.14)
The current of electromagnetic interactions is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_{em}^\mu & =& i(\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu e\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu \mu \overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu \tau +\frac{2}{3}\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu u+\frac{2}{3}\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\frac{2}{3}\overline{t}\gamma ^\mu t\frac{1}{3}\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu d\frac{1}{3}\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu s\frac{1}{3}\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu b).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.15)
The currents for weak interactions are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_W^\mu & =& \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}[\overline{\nu }_e\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)e+\overline{\nu }_\mu \gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\mu +\overline{\nu }_\tau \gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\tau \hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)d_\theta +\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)s_\theta +\overline{t}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)b_\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.16)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_W^\mu & =& \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}[\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu _e+\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu _\mu +\overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu _\tau \hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{d}_\theta \gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)u+\overline{s}_\theta \gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)c+\overline{b}_\theta \gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.17)
$$J_z^\mu =J_3^\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WJ_{em}^\mu ,$$
(5.18)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_3^\mu & =& \frac{i}{2}(+\overline{\nu }_{eL}\gamma ^\mu \nu _{eL}+\overline{\nu }_{\mu L}\gamma ^\mu \nu _{\mu L}+\overline{\nu }_{\tau L}\gamma ^\mu \nu _{\tau L}\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu e_L\overline{\mu }_L\gamma ^\mu \mu _L\overline{\tau }_L\gamma ^\mu \tau _L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{u}_L\gamma ^\mu u_L+\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu c_L+\overline{t}_L\gamma ^\mu t_L\overline{d}_L\gamma ^\mu d_L\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu s_L\overline{b}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.19)
The current for gravitational interactions is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J_{g\alpha }^\mu & =& \overline{\nu }_{eL}\gamma ^\mu _\alpha \nu _{eL}+\overline{\nu }_{\mu L}\gamma ^\mu _\alpha \nu _{\mu L}+\overline{\nu }_{\tau L}\gamma ^\mu _\alpha \nu _{\tau L}+\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha e_L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{\mu }_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha \mu _L+\overline{\tau }_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha \tau _L+\overline{u}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha u_L+\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha c_L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{t}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha t_L+\overline{d}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha d_L+\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha s_L+\overline{b}_L\gamma ^\mu _\alpha b_L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.20)
Denote

$$J_\phi =\frac{1}{v}(m_e\overline{e}e+m_\mu \overline{\mu }\mu +m_\tau \overline{\tau }\tau +m_u\overline{u}u+m_c\overline{c}c+m_t\overline{t}t+m_d\overline{d}d+m_s\overline{s}s+m_b\overline{b}b).$$
(5.21)
Then lagrangian density $`_0`$ can be written into the following form,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _0& =& \overline{\nu }_{eL}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _{eL}\overline{\nu }_{\mu L}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _{\mu L}\overline{\nu }_{\tau L}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _{\tau L}\overline{e}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_e)e\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \overline{\mu }(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_\mu )\mu \overline{\tau }(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_\tau )\tau \overline{u}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_u)u\overline{c}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_c)c\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \overline{t}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_t)t\overline{d}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_d)d\overline{s}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_s)s\overline{b}(\gamma ^\mu _\mu +m_b)b\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +g_cJ_{ci}^\mu A_\mu ^i+g_WJ_W^\mu W_\mu ^++g_WJ_W^{\mu +}W_\mu ^{}\frac{g_W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}J_z^\mu Z_\mu +\mathrm{e}J_{em}^\mu A_\mu ^e+gJ_{g\alpha }^\mu C_\mu ^\alpha \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }(D_\mu \phi )(D_\nu \phi )\frac{1}{4}g_W^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}(2v\phi +\phi ^2)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{8}(g_W^2+g_W^2)\eta ^{\mu \nu }Z_\mu Z_\nu (2v\phi +\phi ^2)v(\phi )J_\phi \varphi \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝕎_{\mu \nu }^n𝕎_{\rho \sigma }^nm_W^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }Z_\mu Z_\nu \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝔹_{\mu \nu }𝔹_{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝔸_{\mu \nu }^i𝔸_{\rho \sigma }^i\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }\eta _{2\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F_{\rho \sigma }^\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.22)
According to above discussions, before spontaneously symmetry breaking, the system has

$$(SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup$$

gauge symmetry. After spontaneously symmetry breaking, the system has

$$(SU(3)_c\times U(1)_Q)_sGravitationalGaugeGroup$$

gauge symmetry. Four different kinds of fundamental interactions are unified in the same lagrangian. So, the lagrangian density $``$ which is given by eq.(3.24) and eq.(3.26) can be used to calculate any fundamental interaction process in Nature.

## 6 Summary and Discussions

In this paper, we have studied unifications of four kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature, which is unified in the direct or semi-direct product group. This model is the direct extension of the standard model to gravitational interactions.

It is know that the real spirit of the traditional unification is to try to unify different kinds of fundamental interactions in a single simple Lie-group, where only one coupling constant is used in the unification. But now, we find that it is impossible to unify gravitational interactions with other fundamental interactions in a theory which has only one independent parameter for coupling constant. The reason is that, the generators of gravitational gauge group have mass dimension, while the generators of ordinary $`SU(N)`$ group are dimensionless. If we use only one coupling constant in a unified theory, we will need another independent parameters to balance the difference of the dimensions of generators. It means that we really use two independent parameters for coupling constant, which is equivalent to the theory with two independent coupling constants. Therefore, any unification theory of gravity must need at least two independent parameters for coupling constant. In other words, it is impossible to unify four kinds of fundamental interactions in a simple group in which only one independent parameter for coupling constant is used.

Quantization of the unified theory of fundamental interactions can be performed in the path integral method. In order to keep the unitarity of the S-matrix, ghost fields for gravitational gauge symmetry, $`SU(2)_L`$ symmetry and $`SU(3)_c`$ color symmetry are needed. We can obtain Feynmann rules for various interaction vertices and propagaters for matter fields, gauge fields and ghost fields. After obtain Feynmann rules, we can calculate Feynmann dagrams for various interaction processes and determine finite quantum modificaitons in the classical theory of gravity.

It is known that quantum gauge theory of gravity is a perturbatively renormalizable quantum theory. Detailed proof on its renormalizability can be found in literature . The foundations of the unified theory of fundamental interactions which is discussed in this paper is the $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory which is discussed in literature . Because the theory has strict $`GSU(N)`$ symmetry, it is believed that the theory is also renormalizable. Detailed study shows that the strict local $`GSU(N)`$ symmetry gives out two sets of generalized BRST transformations which will give out two sets of generalized Ward-Takahashi identities. Using these two sets of generalized Ward-Takahashi identities, we can determine the general form of the divergent part of the generating functional of regular vertex. After the divergent part of the generating functional is cancelled by counterterm, the renormalized generating functional is just a scale transformation of the non-renormalized generating functional. Comparing the renormalized theory with the non-renormalized theory, we will find that the only effect of the renormalization is to redefine the fields, coupling constants and some other parameters of the original theory. Only a few new parameters are introduced in the renormalization, so the $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory is indeed a renormalizable quantum theory. Detailed proof on its renormalizability is quite complicated mathematically, which will be discussed in a separate paper. Unified theory of fundamental interactions is just an application of the $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory to fundamental interactions in Nature. Because the $`GSU(N)`$ unification theory is renormalizable and from the standard model, we know that the spontaneously symmetry breaking does not affect the renormalizability of the theory, the unified theory of fundamental interactions which is discussed in this paper is a renormalizable quantum theory. Detailed and strict proof on its renormalizability will be found in our future work. This is the first renormalizable quantum model which contains four different kinds of fundamental interactions in Nature. In the future, we will use this model to study quantum effects of gravitational interactions and new effects which are originated from the non-Abelian nature of $`GSU(N)`$ group and lead to direct coupling between gravitational gauge field and ordinary gauge fields(such as electromagnetic field, intermediate gauge field and gluon field).


format: text

text:
# Threshold enhancement in 𝜂 photoproduction from 2H and 4He

## 1 Introduction

The interaction of mesons with nucleons and nuclei is one of the central issues in strong interaction physics. Detailed experimental and theoretical studies of the pion - nucleon and pion - nucleus interaction have largely contributed to this field. However, much less is known in case of the heavier pseudoscalar mesons, the $`\eta `$\- and $`\eta ^{}`$-mesons, which due to their short lifetimes are not available as beams. In particular the $`\eta `$-meson has recently attracted much interest. At small meson - nucleon relative momenta the situation for $`\eta `$-mesons and pions is very different. This is due to the fact that an s-wave nucleon resonance, the S11(1535), which is located very closely to the production threshold for $`\eta `$-mesons, couples strongly to the $`N\eta `$-system. As a consequence reactions like photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons are completely dominated by the excitation of this resonance Krusche95a . This feature of the $`N\eta `$-system has consequences for the interaction of $`\eta `$-mesons with nuclei. It has even been argued Ueda  that due to the $`N\pi `$-$`N\eta `$ interaction in the $`S_{11}`$-state the $`NN\eta `$-system might be bound.

Most information of the $`N\eta `$-interaction, in particular the $`\eta `$-nucleon scattering length, has been extracted from coupled channel analyses of pion and photon induced meson production reactions. Already in 1985 Bhalerao and Liu Bhalerao  found an attractive s-wave $`N\eta `$ interaction with a scattering length of $`a_\eta =(0.27+0.22i)`$ fm from such an analysis. Shortly afterwards, Liu and Haider Liu  pointed out that for nuclei with $`A>10`$ this interaction might lead to the formation of bound $`\eta `$-nucleus states which they termed $`\eta mesic`$ nuclei. Experimental evidence for such ’heavy’ $`\eta `$-mesic nuclei was sought in different reactions Chrien ; Johnson ; Sokol , but so far with non-conclusive results.

Substantial progress has been achieved during the last few years in the experimental study of $`\eta `$-production reactions. Precise experiments using hadron induced reactions (e.g. at CELSIUS, COSY, SATURNE) Mayer96 ; Plouin90 ; Calen96 ; Calen98 ; Willis ; Hibou ; Beligeri ; Smyrski  or photon induced reactions (e.g. at ELSA, GRAAL, JLAB, KEK, MAMI) Krusche95a ; Krusche95b ; Roebig ; Hoffmann97 ; Ajaka98 ; Yorita ; Thompson ; Weiss01 ; Renard  on the free nucleon and on nuclei have vastly improved the available data base. The new results for the elementary reactions on the nucleon, in particular for the photon induced reaction Krusche95a , have prompted several groups to re-analyse the $`\eta N`$ interaction Green99 ; Wilkin93 ; Sauer95 ; Arima92 ; Batinic96 ; Abaev96 . They found $`N\eta `$-scattering lengths with real parts in the range 0.5 -1. fm, considerably larger than the original result from Bhalerao and Liu Bhalerao . Furthermore, strong threshold enhancements were observed in hadron induced $`\eta `$-production reactions. In the following the possible existence of $`\eta `$-nucleus bound states for the light nuclei $`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{H}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\text{H}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}`$ was intensely discussed in the literature Willis ; Wilkin93 ; Rakityanski ; Green96 ; Scoccola ; Shevchenko ; Grishina ; Garcilazo , but there is still some controversy regarding the necessary strength of the $`\eta N`$-interaction.

The investigation of $`\eta `$-production reactions from light nuclei in the threshold region is a very useful tool for the study of eta-nucleus interactions. The idea is, that final state interaction (FSI) of the $`\eta `$-meson with the nucleus, in particular the formation of quasibound states in the vicinity of the production threshold, will give rise to an enhancement of the cross section relative to the expectation for phase space behavior. Such deviations can also arise from FSI effects between the nucleons, which are not related to the $`\eta N`$-interaction, so that the interpretation of the results needs at least reliable model calculations which account for these trivial effects. During the past five years $`\eta `$-production near threshold was intensively investigated in the reactions: $`pppp\eta `$ Calen96 , $`npd\eta `$ Plouin90 ; Calen98 , $`pd\eta ^3\text{He}`$ Mayer96 , $`dd\eta ^4\text{He}`$ Willis , and $`pdpd\eta `$ Hibou . All reactions show more or less pronounced threshold enhancements.

Possible $`\eta `$-nucleus FSI effects should show up independently of the initial state of the reaction. Photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons from light nuclei is a clean tool for the preparation of the $`\eta `$ \- nucleus final state with small relative momenta, but due to the small electromagnetic cross sections no sensitive threshold measurements have been reported until now. Previously, $`\eta `$-photoproduction from the deuteron was studied in two experiments carried out at the MAMI and ELSA accelerators Krusche95b ; Hoffmann97 , which aimed at the extraction of the isospin composition of the electromagnetic excitation of the S11(1535) resonance. Both experiments did not reach the statistical accuracy necessary for a sensitive search for threshold effects. In the present paper we report the results from a new measurement of the $`d(\gamma ,\eta )X`$ reaction with an improvement in counting statistics by one order of magnitude compared to ref. Krusche95b  and the first measurement of the threshold behavior of $`\eta `$-photoproduction from 4He. The data have been measured as part of a systematic investigation of $`\eta `$-photoproduction from light nuclei. The results from the 4He measurement concerning the isospin structure of the S11(1535) excitation have been published in ref. Hejny99 .

The excitation of the S$`{}_{11}{}^{}(1535)`$ resonance, which dominates $`\eta `$-threshold production, involves an electromagnetic spin-flip transition which is predominantly of isovector nature. The isoscalar admixture in the amplitude contributes only at the 10% level Krusche95b ; Hoffmann97 ; Weiss01 ; Hejny99 . Consequently, coherent $`\eta `$-photoproduction, where the nucleus remains in the ground state, is suppressed for the J=1, I=0 deuteron Hoffmann97 ; Weiss01  and almost entirely forbidden for the I=J=0 nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}`$ Hejny99 . As a result inclusive reactions are dominated by incoherent breakup processes. Nevertheless, close to threshold, energy conservation requires that the kinematical conditions must be similar to the coherent process. The relative momentum of the $`np`$-pair in the $`\gamma d\eta np`$ reaction must be small so that nucleon - nucleon FSI will certainly be important.

## 2 Experiment and analysis

Eta photoproduction from the deuteron and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}`$ was measured close to the production thresholds at Eγ=627 MeV and 587 MeV, respectively. The experiments were carried out at the Glasgow tagged photon facility tagger  installed at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) mami  with the electromagnetic calorimeter TAPS taps ; Gabler . A detailed description of the setup and the analysis is given in Hejny99 . Here we summarize only the most relevant aspects of the data analysis. The identification of photons was done with a time-of-flight measurement with typically 500 ps resolution (FWHM), the pulse-shape discrimination capability of the BaF2-scintillators, and the plastic scintillators mounted as charged particle veto detectors in front of the BaF2-crystals. The combination of these methods assures that contaminations from particles are below the 1 % level. The $`\eta `$-mesons were then identified with a standard invariant mass analysis of coincident photon pairs using:

$$m_{\mathrm{inv}}^2=(E_1+E_2)^2(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2)^2=2E_1E_2(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_{12})$$
(1)
where $`E_i`$ denotes the energies, $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ the momenta of the two photons and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ the relative angle between them. Background in the invariant mass spectra originated only from events of multiple $`\pi ^o`$-photoproduction Hejny99  when two photons from different pions were observed and the other photons escaped detection due to the limited solid angle coverage of the detector. However, as shown with Monte Carlo simulations Hejny99 , in the invariant mass spectra this background levels off under the low energy tail of the $`\eta `$-peak and can thus be removed with a cut on the invariant mass. The fact that the excitation functions for $`\eta `$-photoproduction (see fig. 2) are consistent with zero below the respective $`\eta `$-production thresholds is further evidence that this background was completely removed by the invariant mass cut.

The detection efficiency of the TAPS-detector for 2$`\gamma `$-decays of $`\eta `$-mesons was determined with Monte Carlo simulations based on the GEANT-code GEANT . It was previously demonstrated Gabler  that this simulations reproduce the photon response of the detector very precisely. The detection efficiency $`ϵ_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta }_\eta ,T_\eta )`$ depends only on the laboratory polar angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\eta `$ and the laboratory kinetic energy $`T_\eta `$ of the $`\eta `$-mesons, which were both measured in the experiment. The efficiency was not large due to the limited solid angle coverage. However, in the investigated range of incident photon energies it was not zero for any kinematically possible combination of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\eta `$ and $`T_\eta `$, because always some fraction of the decay photon pairs was in the acceptance of the calorimeter. This is demonstrated in fig. 1 where for one range of incident photon energies the detector efficiency and the measured distribution of $`\eta `$-mesons are compared. Therefore no model assumptions were needed for the determination of the efficiency correction. It was obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations as function of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\eta `$ and $`T_\eta `$ and corrected event-by-event. Finite resolution effects were accounted for in an iterative procedure: in a first step $`ϵ_\eta `$ was simulated with an isotropic angular and energy distribution of the $`\eta `$-mesons. This efficiency was then used to correct the data and in the following the distributions extracted from the data were used as input for the simulations.

This procedure converged after 1 - 2 iterations. The efficiency correction for the total cross section determined this way varies smoothly between 6.5 - 5 % for the first 50 MeV of incident photon energies above the production thresholds. The systematic uncertainty of the efficiency is below 5 %. This uncertainty has been investigated in detail for the $`\gamma pp\eta `$ reaction Krusche95c . In this case the 3$`\pi ^o`$-decay of the $`\eta `$-meson was analysed in addition to the 2$`\gamma `$-decay. The two decay channels have very different detection efficiencies both on an absolute scale as well as for the energy dependence. The energy dependence of the excitation functions extracted from the two decay channels agreed within the statistical uncertainties of a few per cent. The absolute value of the cross section ratio was consistent with previous measurements of the ratio of the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta 2\gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta 3\pi ^o}`$ but had even a smaller uncertainty.

The absolute normalization of the cross sections was obtained from the target thicknesses and the intensity of the photon beam. The latter was determined by counting the deflected electrons in the tagging spectrometer and measuring the tagging efficiency (i.e. the fraction of the correlated photons which pass through the photon collimator) by moving a BGO-detector into the photon beam at reduced intensity. The uncertainty of this normalization is estimated as 3 %.

The threshold behavior of $`\eta `$-photoproduction was studied in inclusive experiments where only the $`\eta `$-mesons were detected. Exclusive measurements of quasifree $`\eta `$-photoproduction from the neutron via coincident detection of recoil nucleons at higher incident photon energies Hejny99  and an exclusive measurement of coherent $`\eta `$-photoproduction from the deuteron via coincident detection of the recoil deuterons Weiss01  are reported elsewhere.

## 3 Results and discussion

The measured total cross sections are shown in fig. 2. In the helium case, the data are consistent with zero at incident photon energies below the breakup threshold. This agrees with the expectation that the cross section of the coherent reaction is negligible. A small coherent contribution might be visible for the deuteron between the coherent and breakup thresholds. For deuterium also the older data Krusche95b  with larger statistical errors is shown. The two data sets are in good agreement within their statistical uncertainties. Very close to threshold both data sets might exhibit a structure, which however is not statistically significant.

In a first step the data are compared with a simple participant - spectator model in the impulse approximation. This model assumes that the ratio $`\sigma _n/\sigma _p`$ of the cross sections for $`\eta `$-photoproduction from the proton and the neutron is constant over the investigated energy range. A Breit-Wigner fit to the proton data Krusche95a ; Krusche95b  was folded with the momentum distribution of the bound nucleons and normalized to the nuclear data by a constant factor representing the cross section ratio $`\sigma _n/\sigma _p`$. The momentum distributions of the nucleons were generated from the deuteron dwave  and helium wave functions. The latter was calculated from the measured 4He charge form factor hewave . The proton form factor was unfolded and the proton spatial density was generated via a Fourier transformation. The spatial wave function was taken as square root of the density distribution and the wave function in momentum space was calculated from a second Fourier transformation. This is based on the assumptions that 4He is purely s-wave and protons and neutrons have the same distributions. As already reported in Krusche95b ; Hejny99  good agreement between model and data over a large energy range is obtained in both cases under the assumption that $`\sigma _n/\sigma _p0.66`$. This result also agrees with exclusive experiments where the cross section ratio is determined via coincident detection of the $`\eta `$-meson and the recoil nucleon Hoffmann97 ; Hejny99 . However, in the threshold region the data are significantly underestimated by this model. For both nuclei the measured cross sections rise much faster than the predictions at energies above the breakup threshold. The size of the effects is more visible in fig. 3 where the data are divided by the impulse approximation calculation.

The large enhancement over the impulse approximation at threshold is evidence for substantial FSI effects, which are not included in the model. In the deuteron case model calculations from different groups, which include nucleon - nucleon and nucleon - $`\eta `$ FSI effects, have recently become available and are compared to the data in figs. 2, 3. Sibirtsev et al. Sibirtsev  have studied in detail the influence of $`NN`$ FSI on the cross section. In agreement with our results they reproduce the cross section in impulse approximation at higher incident photon energies but find a significant contribution of $`NN`$ FSI in the threshold region. Interestingly, in contrast to hadron induced $`\eta `$-production, the $`NN`$ FSI effects turn out to be rather insensitive to details of the $`NN`$ potential. However, already a comparison Sibirtsev  to our older low statistics data Krusche95b  suggests that the effects of $`NN`$ FSI are not large enough to explain the threshold enhancement. This result is corroborated by the new data (see figs. 2, 3, dash-dotted curves). This is an indication that $`N\eta `$ FSI must be important. Fix and Arenhövel have calculated FSI effects from $`NN`$ and $`N\eta `$ rescattering Fix97 . They also find a significant contribution from $`NN`$ rescattering but less important effects from $`N\eta `$-rescattering. However, their final result (see figs. 2, 3, dashed curves) still underestimates the threshold data. Very recently the same authors have presented a Faddeev type three-body calculation of the $`NN\eta `$-system with separable two-body interactions Fix01 . In this calculation they find that the $`\eta NN`$ three-body aspects are important in the threshold region. The result of this model (see figs. 2, 3, dotted curves) is close to the data in the threshold region but seems to underestimate it at higher incident photon energies. However, the authors mention that in order to treat explicitly the three-body aspects they have simplified some other model ingredients. In particular, they have neglected the d-wave component of the deuteron wave function and the short range $`NN`$-repulsion. Both effects are expected to reduce the pure s-wave cross section in the threshold region. The agreement with the data therefore must be taken with some care.

Model predictions including FSI effects are not yet available for the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}`$ case. Here, the situation is much more complicated since calculations must account for the various exit channels $`pt`$, $`n^3\text{He}`$, $`dd`$, $`pnd`$, $`2p2n`$ with the corresponding kinematical thresholds. The successive opening of the thresholds could also contribute to the observed threshold enhancement, although the shape of the relative enhancement looks quite similar for the deuteron and helium case.

Further clues to the nature of the threshold enhancement can be expected from the angular and momentum distributions of the $`\eta `$-mesons. In figs. 4,5 they are summarized and compared to the results of the models. The angular distributions (see fig. 4) in the photon - nucleus cm system agree quite well with the impulse approximation at the highest incident photon energies close to the position of the S$`{}_{11}{}^{}(1535)`$ resonance. In the case of deuterium the agreement is reasonable down to photon energies around 650 MeV, but for helium an excess at backward angles develops already at higher energies. As expected, effects beyond the plane wave approximation are larger for the strongly bound helium nucleus. Very close to threshold the measured angular distributions are almost isotropic. The shape change of the angular distributions as a function of the incident photon energy is partly due to the reaction kinematics. As already mentioned, the dominant production processes of the $`\eta `$-mesons are breakup reactions where the meson is produced on an individual nucleon that is subsequently knocked out of the nucleus. The elementary reaction on a nucleon through the S11 excitation is almost pure s-wave. Consequently, as long as Fermi motion is neglected the angular distributions are expected to be isotropic in the cm frame of the photon and a nucleon at rest. This behavior has been demonstrated for the deuteron Krusche95b  and is also largely true for helium, although in this case some enhancement at backward angles is visible at all incident energies Hejny99 . The angular distribution shown here refer to the slower photon - nucleus rest frame so that they appear forward boosted. Since at low incident photon energies, energy conservation enforces an asymmetric selection of Fermi momenta antiparallel to the incident photon momentum, the ’true’ average cm frame has a velocity somewhere in between the two extremes and moves closer to the photon - nucleus frame. But this kinematical effect, which is included in the impulse approximation, does not explain the observed change in shape close to threshold. This is again an indication for significant FSI effects. However, for the photon energy range 630 - 640 MeV also the model results for deuterium with $`NN`$ Sibirtsev  or $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ Fix97  FSI effects predict a rise of the cross section from backward to forward angles by a factor of 3 - 4, which clearly does not agree with the observed isotropy. Only the three-body calculation Fix01  shows a flatter behavior.

The momentum distributions in the photon - nucleus cm frame are compared to model predictions in fig. 5. Again the shape of the distributions is nicely reproduced by the participant - spectator approximation at high incident photon energies but not in the threshold region. The models with final state interaction from Fix97 ; Sibirtsev  (predictions from ref. Fix01  are not available) reproduce the deuterium data much better at lower energies. Here one should note, that Monte Carlo simulations of the detector response indicate that in contrast to the angular distributions the momentum distributions are significantly affected by the finite detector resolution. The plane wave approximation was therefore folded with the detector response. This could not be done for the model predictions so that most of the disagreement between models and data at high momenta is artificial. The size of the effect is shown in fig. 6 where for one energy range folded and unfolded participant - spectator model predictions are compared to the data. The resolution effects somewhat broaden the momentum distributions but do not shift them. The model predictions from Fix97  are not folded with the experimental resolution which explains the sharp cutoff at large momenta.

## 4 Conclusions

It has been shown, that in $`\eta `$ photoproduction from 2H and 4He the total cross section at threshold is strongly enhanced with respect to an impulse approximation calculation. In the case of deuterium, where calculations are available, models which include $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ FSI effects account for only part of this enhancement. Only a recent three-body calculation of the $`NN\eta `$-system is in better agreement with the threshold data but fails at higher incident photon energies. Both the angular and the momentum distributions of the mesons show evidence for significant final state interaction. The enhancement bears some similarities to the threshold behavior of $`\eta `$-production found in hadron induced reactions which has been taken as tentative evidence for the formation of $`\eta `$-nucleus quasibound states. However, no firm conclusion as to FSI being strong enough to give rise to quasi-bound states can be drawn at this stage.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the outstanding support of the accelerator group of MAMI, as well as many other scientists and technicians of the Institut für Kernphysik at the University of Mainz. Illuminating discussions on the theoretical interpretation of the experimental results with H. Arenhövel, A. Fix, A. Sibirtsev and C. Wilkin are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 201), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Contract No. 06 GI 475(3) I) the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council and the Swiss National Science Foundation.