text:
# 1 The flavor violation parameters defined in Eq. (); |Δ^(𝑅)₂₃| in the large angle MSW case (solid), |Δ^(𝑅)₁₂| in the large angle MSW case (dotted), and |Δ^(𝑅)₁₂| in the small angle MSW case (dashed). We take 𝑎₀=0, tan𝛽=3, and 𝑚_{𝐺5} and 𝑚₀ are chosen so that 𝑚_𝑞̃=1TeV and 𝑚_𝑊̃=150GeV.

In particle physics, one of the greatest excitement in the last decade is the discovery of the evidence for the neutrino oscillations . In particular, the anomalies in the atmospheric and solar neutrino fluxes suggest neutrino masses much smaller than those of the quarks and charged leptons.

Such small neutrino masses are beautifully explained by the see-saw mechanism with the right-handed neutrinos . The see-saw mechanism gives the (left-handed) neutrino masses of the form $`m_{\nu _L}m_{\nu _\mathrm{D}}^2/M_{\nu _R}`$, where $`m_{\nu _\mathrm{D}}`$ and $`M_{\nu _R}`$ are Dirac and Majorana masses for neutrinos, respectively. The Dirac mass $`m_{\nu _\mathrm{D}}`$ is from the Yukawa interaction with the electroweak Higgs boson, and is of order the electroweak scale $`M_{\mathrm{weak}}`$ (or smaller). The Majorana mass $`M_{\nu _R}`$ is, however, not related to the electroweak symmetry breaking and can be much larger than $`M_{\mathrm{weak}}`$. Adopting $`M_{\nu _R}M_{\mathrm{weak}}`$, $`m_{\nu _L}M_{\mathrm{weak}}`$ is realized. For example, assuming $`m_{\nu _\mathrm{D}}M_{\mathrm{weak}}`$, the atmospheric neutrino anomaly predicts $`M_{\nu _R}10^{14}10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$ with relevant mixing parameters.

This fact suggests the validity of the field theoretical description up to a scale much higher than the electroweak scale. If so, the quadratic divergence in the Higgs boson mass parameter badly destabilize the electroweak scale unless some mechanism protects the stability. A natural solution to this problem is to introduce supersymmetry (SUSY); in SUSY models, quadratic divergences are cancelled between bosonic and fermionic loops and hence the electroweak scale becomes stable against radiative corrections. SUSY standard model also suggests an interesting new physics at a high scale, i.e., the grand unified theory (GUT). With the renormalization group (RG) equation based on the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM), all the gauge coupling constants meet at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, while the gauge coupling unification is not realized in the (non-supersymmetric) standard model .

Therefore, SUSY GUT with the right-handed neutrinos is a well-motivated extension of the standard model. In this paper, we consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes in the SU(5) GUT with the right-handed neutrinos. Before the Super-Kamiokande experiment , similar effects were considered without taking into account the large mixing in the neutrino sector . Now, we have better insights into the neutrino mass and mixing parameters. In particular, the atmospheric neutrino flux measured by the Super-Kamiokande experiment strongly favors a large 2-3 mixing in the neutrino sector . Furthermore, with the on-going $`B`$ factories, the mixings in the quark sector, in particular, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements, will be well constrained. In such a circumstance, it is appropriate to study implications of the right-handed neutrinos to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes within the current experimental situation.

In grand unified models, the right-handed down type squarks $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ couple to the right-handed neutrinos above the GUT scale, and sizable flavor violations are possible in the $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ sector. In particular, the RG effect may generate off-diagonal elements in the soft SUSY breaking mass matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$. (Notice that the flavor violation in the $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ sector is highly suppressed in the minimal supergravity model without the right-handed neutrinos.) Furthermore, in grand unified models, there are new physical CP violating phases in the colored Higgs vertices, which do not affect the low energy Yukawa interactions. These may affect CP and flavor violating processes in $`K`$ and $`B`$ system. Indeed, as we will see, SUSY contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter can be as large as the experimental value even with a relatively heavy squark mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$, and it might cause an anomaly in the on-going test of the CKM triangle.

We start by introducing the Lagrangian for the SUSY SU(5) model with the right-handed neutrinos. Denoting $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$, and singlet fields of SU(5) as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and $`N_i`$, respectively, the superpotential is given by#1#1#1We assume that other Yukawa couplings (in particular, those of the SU(5) symmetry breaking fields) are small. We neglect their effects in this paper.

$`W_{\mathrm{GUT}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left[Y_U\right]_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_jH+\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left[Y_D\right]_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_j\overline{H}+N_i\left[Y_N\right]_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_jH+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_i\left[M_N\right]_{ij}N_j,`$ (1)
where $`\overline{H}`$ and $`H`$ are Higgs fields which are in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ representations, respectively, and $`i`$ and $`j`$ are generation indices which run from 1 to 3. (We omit the SU(5) indices for the simplicity of the notation.) Here, $`M_N`$ is the Majorana mass matrix of the right-handed neutrinos. In order to make our points clearer, we adopt the simplest Majorana mass matrix, that is, the universal structure of $`M_N`$:

$`\left[M_N\right]_{ij}=M_{\nu _R}\delta _{ij}.`$ (2)
The following discussions are qualitatively unaffected by this assumption, although numerical results depend on the structure of $`M_N`$. In Eq. (1), $`Y`$’s are $`3\times 3`$ Yukawa matrices; in general, $`Y_U`$ is a general complex symmetric matrix, while $`Y_D`$ and $`Y_N`$ are general complex matrices. By choosing a particular basis, we can eliminate unphysical phases and angles. In this paper, we choose the basis of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and $`N_i`$ such that the Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale become

$`Y_U(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=V_Q^T\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Q\widehat{Y}_UV_Q,Y_D(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=\widehat{Y}_D,Y_N(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=\widehat{Y}_NV_L\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{Y}`$’s are real diagonal matrices:

$`\widehat{Y}_U=\mathrm{diag}(y_{u_1},y_{u_2},y_{u_3}),\widehat{Y}_D=\mathrm{diag}(y_{d_1},y_{d_2},y_{d_3}),\widehat{Y}_N=\mathrm{diag}(y_{\nu _1},y_{\nu _2},y_{\nu _3}),`$ (4)
while $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$’s are diagonal phase matrices:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Q=\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\varphi _1^{(Q)}},e^{i\varphi _2^{(Q)}},e^{i\varphi _3^{(Q)}}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\varphi _1^{(L)}},e^{i\varphi _2^{(L)}},e^{i\varphi _3^{(L)}}),`$ (5)
where phases obey the constraints $`\varphi _1^{(Q)}+\varphi _2^{(Q)}+\varphi _3^{(Q)}=0`$ and $`\varphi _1^{(L)}+\varphi _2^{(L)}+\varphi _3^{(L)}=0`$. Furthermore, $`V_Q`$ and $`V_L`$ are unitary mixing matrices and are parameterized as

$`V_Q=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}^{(Q)}c_{13}^{(Q)}& s_{12}^{(Q)}c_{13}^{(Q)}& s_{13}^{(Q)}e^{i\delta _{13}^{(Q)}}\\ s_{12}^{(Q)}c_{23}^{(Q)}c_{12}^{(Q)}s_{23}^{(Q)}s_{13}^{(Q)}e^{i\delta _{13}^{(Q)}}& c_{12}^{(Q)}c_{23}^{(Q)}s_{12}^{(Q)}s_{23}^{(Q)}s_{13}^{(Q)}e^{i\delta _{13}^{(Q)}}& s_{23}^{(Q)}c_{13}^{(Q)}\\ s_{12}^{(Q)}s_{23}^{(Q)}c_{12}^{(Q)}c_{23}^{(Q)}s_{13}^{(Q)}e^{i\delta _{13}^{(Q)}}& c_{12}^{(Q)}s_{23}^{(Q)}s_{12}^{(Q)}c_{23}^{(Q)}s_{13}^{(Q)}e^{i\delta _{13}^{(Q)}}& c_{23}^{(Q)}c_{13}^{(Q)}\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`c_{ij}^{(Q)}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}^{(Q)}`$ and $`s_{ij}^{(Q)}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}^{(Q)}`$, and $`V_L=V_Q|_{QL}`$.

$`W_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ can be also expressed by using the standard model fields. By properly relating the GUT fields with the standard model fields, the phases $`\varphi ^{(Q)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$ are eliminated from the interactions among the light fields. Indeed, let us embed the standard model fields into the GUT fields as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i\{Q,V_Q^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Q^{}\overline{U},\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\overline{E}\}_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i\{\overline{D},\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L^{}L\}_i,`$ (10)
where $`Q_i(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$, $`\overline{U}_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}`$, $`\overline{D}_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}`$, $`L_i(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$, and $`\overline{E}_i(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1`$ are quarks and leptons in $`i`$-th generation with the SU(3)C $`\times `$ SU(2)L $`\times `$ U(1)Y gauge quantum numbers as indicated. With this embedding, $`W_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ at the GUT scale becomes

$`W_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_i\left[V_Q^T\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Q\widehat{Y}_UV_Q\right]_{ij}Q_jH_C+\overline{E}_i\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\widehat{Y}_U\right]_{ij}\overline{U}_jH_C`$
$`+\overline{U}_i\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Q^{}V_Q^{}\widehat{Y}_D\right]_{ij}\overline{D}_j\overline{H}_CQ_i\left[\widehat{Y}_D\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L^{}\right]_{ij}L_j\overline{H}_C`$
$`+N_i\left[\widehat{Y}_NV_L\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\right]_{ij}\overline{D}_jH_C,`$
where $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ are colored Higgses, and the low energy Lagrangian is given by

$`W_{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_i\left[V_Q^T\widehat{Y}_U\right]_{ij}\overline{U}_jH_u+Q_i\left[\widehat{Y}_D\right]_{ij}\overline{D}_jH_d+\overline{E}_i\left[\widehat{Y}_E\right]_{ij}L_jH_d+N_i\left[\widehat{Y}_NV_L\right]_{ij}L_jH_u`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_{\nu _R}N_iN_i.`$
with $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ being the up- and down-type Higgses, respectively. Simple SU(5) GUT predicts $`\widehat{Y}_D=\widehat{Y}_E`$, but this relation breaks down for the first and second generations. Some non-trivial flavor physics is necessary to have a realistic down-type quark and charged lepton Yukawa matrices. Such a new physics may provide a new source of flavor and CP violations , but we do not consider such an effect in this paper.

In the basis given in Eq. (12), Yukawa matrices for the down-type quarks and charged leptons are diagonal. Strictly speaking, the RG effect mixes the flavors and their diagonalities are not preserved at lower scale. Such a flavor mixing is, however, rather a minor effect for the Yukawa matrices and the down-type quarks and charged leptons in Eq. (12) correspond to the mass eigenstates quite accurately. Therefore, this basis is useful to understand the qualitative features of the $`K`$ and $`B`$ physics. So, we first discuss the flavor violation of the model using Eq. (12) neglecting the RG effect for the Yukawa matrices below the GUT scale.#2#2#2Notice that, in our numerical discussion later, all the flavor mixing effects are included. In particular, mass eigenstates of the quarks and charged leptons will be defined using the Yukawa matrices given at the electroweak scale.

With the superpotential (12), the left-handed neutrino mass matrix is given by

$`[m_{\nu _L}]_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{H_u^2}{M_{\nu _R}}}\left[V_L^T\widehat{Y}_N^2V_L\right]_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }{2M_{\nu _R}}}\left[V_L^T\widehat{Y}_N^2V_L\right]_{ij},`$ (13)
where $`v246\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`\beta `$ parameterizes the relative size of two Higgs vacuum expectation values: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta H_u/H_d`$. Then, $`V_L`$ provides the mixing matrix of the lepton sector. On the contrary, as seen in Eq. (12), $`V_Q`$ is the CKM matrix: $`V_QV_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$.

At the tree level, effects of the heavy particles, like the colored Higgses and right-handed neutrinos, are suppressed by inverse powers of their masses. As a result, we can mostly completely neglect the interaction with such heavy particles, although there are a few important processes like the neutrino oscillation and the proton decay. The phases $`\varphi ^{(Q)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$ do not affect the Yukawa interactions among the standard model fields and only appear in the colored Higgs vertices. Therefore, their effects on low energy physics are rather indirect, and those phases are not determined from the Yukawa interactions of the quarks and leptons with the electroweak Higgses.

At the loop level, however, heavy particles may affect the low energy quantities through the RG effect . In particular, flavor changing operators may be significantly affected. For example, the neutrino Yukawa interactions may induce off-diagonal elements in the soft SUSY breaking mass matrix of left-handed sleptons. In addition, even if there is no neutrino Yukawa interactions, lepton flavor numbers are violated in the grand unified models by the up-type Yukawa interaction, and hence we may expect non-vanishing off-diagonal elements in the mass matrix of the right-handed sleptons. Since the lepton flavor numbers are preserved in the standard model, these effects result in very drastic signals like $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ in SU(5)  and SO(10)  models as well as in models with the right-handed neutrinos . Furthermore, hadronic flavor and CP violations in grand unified models were considered in Ref.  without taking into account the large mixing in the neutrino sector. The flavor mixing below the GUT scale through the CKM matrix also affects the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes . Here, we consider CP violation and flavor mixing in the down sector induced by the neutrino Yukawa matrix. As seen in Eq. (11), $`\overline{D}`$ interacts with the right-handed neutrinos above the GUT scale, and its soft SUSY breaking scalar mass matrix is affected by the neutrino Yukawa interactions. Because of possible flavor and CP violating parameters in $`V_L`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L`$, this can be important. Similar effect was also considered in Ref.  for the $`bs\gamma `$ process, for which the effect was insignificant. Here, we will show that a large effect is possible in particular in the CP violation in the $`K`$ decay. Furthermore, Ref.  did not take into account the physical phases $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$ which play a very important role in calculating the SUSY contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter.

Now, we are at the point to discuss the RG effect and to estimate the off-diagonal elements in the down-type squark mass matrix. The RG effect is not calculable unless the boundary condition of the SUSY breaking parameters are given. In order to estimate the importance of this effect, we use the minimal supergravity boundary condition. Then, the SUSY breaking parameters are parameterized by the following three parameters:#3#3#3There are extra important parameters. In particular, in order to have a viable electroweak symmetry breaking, so-called $`\mu `$\- and $`B_\mu `$-parameters are necessary. However, they do not affect the running of other parameters, so they do not have to be specified in our RG analysis. We assume they have correct values required from the radiative electroweak breaking. the universal scalar mass $`m_0`$, the universal $`A`$-parameter $`a_0`$ which is the ratio of SUSY breaking trilinear scalar interactions to corresponding Yukawa couplings, and the SU(5) gaugino mass $`m_{G5}`$. We assume that the boundary condition is given at the reduced Planck scale $`M_{}2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Once the boundary condition is given, the MSSM Lagrangian at the electroweak scale is obtained by running all the parameters down from the reduced Planck scale to the electroweak scale with RG equation. For the RG analysis, relevant effective field theory describing the energy scale $`\mu `$ is MSSM (without the right-handed neutrinos) for $`M_{\mathrm{weak}}\mu M_{\nu _R}`$, SUSY standard model with the right-handed neutrinos for $`M_{\nu _R}\mu M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, and SUSY SU(5) GUT for $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}\mu M_{}`$. We use the minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT where the SU(5) symmetry is broken by 24 representation of SU(5).

Before showing the results of the numerical calculation, let us discuss the behavior of the solution to the RG equation using a simple approximation. With the one-iteration approximation, off-diagonal elements in the soft SUSY breaking mass of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ is given by

$`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left[Y_N^{}Y_N\right]_{ij}(3m_0^2+a_0^2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}}`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}e^{i(\varphi _i^{(L)}\varphi _j^{(L)})}y_{\nu _k}^2\left[V_L^{}\right]_{ki}\left[V_L\right]_{kj}(3m_0^2+a_0^2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}}.`$
This expression suggests two important consequences of the SU(5) model with the right-handed neutrinos. First, if neutrinos have a large Yukawa coupling and mixing, off-diagonal elements in $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}`$ are generated. Since the atmospheric and solar neutrino anomalies require non-vanishing mixing parameters in $`V_L`$, this effect may generate sizable off-diagonal elements in $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]`$. Notice that, below the GUT scale, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ have very weak flavor violating Yukawa interactions. As a result, if the minimal supergravity boundary condition is given at the GUT scale, we see much smaller flavor violation in $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]`$. The second point is on the phase of the RG induced off-diagonal elements. Because the phases $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$ are free parameters, the RG induced off-diagonal elements (14) may have arbitrary phases and large CP violating phases in the mass matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ are possible.

As can be understood in Eq. (14), $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}`$ depends on the structure of the neutrino mixing matrix $`V_L`$. In our analysis, we use the mixing angles and neutrino masses suggested by the atmospheric neutrino data, and also by the large angle or small angle MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem .#4#4#4We can also consider the case of the vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem. The vacuum oscillation solution requires very light second generation neutrino ($`m_{\nu _2}O(10^5\mathrm{eV})`$). With our simple set up, $`y_{\nu _2}`$ cannot be large once the perturbativity of $`y_{\nu _3}`$ is imposed up to $`M_{}`$, since we assume the universal structure of $`M_N`$. Consequently, the RG effect is suppressed except for the 2-3 mixing. If we consider general neutrino mass matrix, however, this may not be true. For example, non-universal $`M_N`$ or non-vanishing $`[V_L]_{31}`$ would easily enhance the RG effect. For the large angle MSW case, we use

$`m_\nu (\begin{array}{ccc}0,& 0.004\mathrm{eV},& 0.03\mathrm{eV}\end{array}),V_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.91& 0.30& 0.30\\ 0.42& 0.64& 0.64\\ 0& 0.71& 0.70\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
and for the small angle case, we use

$`m_\nu (\begin{array}{ccc}0,& 0.003\mathrm{eV},& 0.03\mathrm{eV}\end{array}),V_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.0& 0.028& 0.028\\ 0.040& 0.70& 0.71\\ 0& 0.71& 0.70\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
Here, we assume that the neutrino masses are hierarchical, and that the lightest neutrino mass is negligibly small. The 3-1 element of $`V_L`$ is known to be relatively small: $`|[V_L]_{31}|^20.05`$  from the CHOOZ experiment . We simply assume $`[V_L]_{31}`$ be small enough to be neglected, and we take $`[V_L]_{31}=0`$. We will discuss the implication of $`[V_L]_{31}0`$ later. In calculating the neutrino Yukawa matrix, we take $`M_{\nu _R}`$ as a free parameter, and the neutrino Yukawa matrix is determined as a function of $`M_{\nu _R}`$ using Eq. (13).

In order to discuss the flavor violating effects, it is convenient to define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}`$, which is the off-diagonal elements in $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}`$ normalized by the squark mass:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}{\displaystyle \frac{[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{ij}}{[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2]_{11}}},`$ (25)
where all the quantities are evaluated at the electroweak scale. Notice that, in our case, all the squark masses are almost degenerate except those for the stops. We use the first generation right-handed squark mass as a representative value.

In Fig. 1, we plot several $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}|`$ as a function of $`M_{\nu _R}`$. Here, we take $`a_0=0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, and $`m_{G5}`$ and $`m_0`$ are chosen so that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}}=150\mathrm{GeV}`$ (which gives the gluino mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}520\mathrm{GeV}`$). As one can see, for larger $`M_{\nu _R}`$, off-diagonal elements are more enhanced. This is because the neutrino Yukawa coupling is proportional to $`M_{\nu _R}^{1/2}`$ for fixed neutrino mass. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R)}`$ is dominated by the 2-3 mixing in the neutrino sector, and hence both the large and small mixing cases give almost the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R)}`$. (Therefore, we plot only $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R)}`$ in the large mixing case.) On the contrary, with the choice of $`V_L`$ given in Eqs. (19) and (24), $`[V_L]_{31}=0`$, and hence both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(R)}`$ are from the term proportional to $`y_{\nu _2}^2`$ in Eq. (14). As a result, these quantities are more enhanced for the large angle MSW case because of the larger $`|[V_L]_{21}|`$. Furthermore, since $`|[V_L]_{22}||[V_L]_{23}|`$ in the mixing matrices we use, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}||\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(R)}|`$ is realized both in the large and small mixing cases. If $`[V_L]_{31}O(10^2)`$, however, $`y_{\nu _3}^2`$-term may give comparable contributions. We also found that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}|`$ is almost independent of the phases $`\varphi ^{(Q)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$. As suggested from Eq. (14), however, the phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}`$ is sensitive to $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$; the phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}`$ agrees with $`\varphi _i^{(L)}\varphi _j^{(L)}`$ very accurately. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}`$ may have an arbitrary phase and can be a new source of CP violation.

The most stringent constraints on the off-diagonal elements in the squark mass matrices are from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes , so we discuss them in this paper. In particular, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}|O(10^4)`$ realized with $`M_{\nu _R}10^{14}10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$ may generate the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter as large as the experimental value . In order to discuss the SUSY contribution to the flavor and CP violations (in particular, to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter), we calculate the effective Hamiltonian contributing to $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes:#5#5#5In Eq. (26), possible operators arising from the left-right squark mixing are omitted, although those are included in our numerical calculation. We checked their contributions are negligible relative to the dominant contributions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}`$ (and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}`$).

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_{LL}\right]_{ij}\left(\overline{d}_i^a\gamma _\mu P_Ld_j^a\right)\left(\overline{d}_i^b\gamma _\mu P_Ld_j^b\right)+\left[C_{RR}\right]_{ij}\left(\overline{d}_i^a\gamma _\mu P_Rd_j^a\right)\left(\overline{d}_i^b\gamma _\mu P_Rd_j^b\right)`$ (26)
$`+\left[C_{LR}^{(1)}\right]_{ij}\left(\overline{d}_i^aP_Ld_j^a\right)\left(\overline{d}_i^bP_Rd_j^b\right)+\left[C_{LR}^{(2)}\right]_{ij}\left(\overline{d}_i^aP_Ld_j^b\right)\left(\overline{d}_i^bP_Rd_j^a\right),`$
where $`P_{R,L}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)`$, $`d_i^a`$ is the down-type quark in $`i`$-th generation with $`a`$ being SU(3)C index. Based on the operator structure, we call the first and second operators $`LL`$ and $`RR`$ operators, respectively, while the third and fourth ones $`LR`$ operators. In our analysis, we only include the dominant contributions from the gluino-squark loops, and use mass-insertion approximation. The SUSY contributions to the coefficients are found in Ref. , and are given by

$`\left[C_{LL}\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{36m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}\right)^2\left[4xf_6(x)+11\stackrel{~}{f}_6(x)\right],`$ (27)
$`\left[C_{RR}\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{36m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}\right)^2\left[4xf_6(x)+11\stackrel{~}{f}_6(x)\right],`$ (28)
$`\left[C_{LR}^{(1)}\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}\left[7xf_6(x)\stackrel{~}{f}_6(x)\right],`$ (29)
$`\left[C_{LR}^{(2)}\right]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{9m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(R)}\left[xf_6(x)+5\stackrel{~}{f}_6(x)\right],`$ (30)
where $`x=m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$, and

$`f_6(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6(1+3x)\mathrm{log}x+x^39x^29x+17}{6(x1)^5}},`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_6(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6x(1+x)\mathrm{log}xx^39x^2+9x+1}{6(x1)^5}}.`$ (32)
Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}`$ parameterizes the flavor violation in the left-handed down-type squarks $`\stackrel{~}{d}_L`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{(L)}{\displaystyle \frac{[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_L}^2]_{ji}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}.`$ (33)
With the minimal supergravity boundary condition, $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_L}^2]_{ij}`$ is generated by the large top Yukawa coupling $`y_t`$ and the CKM matrix. Approximately,

$`[m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_L}^2]_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}y_t^2\left[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{}\right]_{3i}\left[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}\right]_{3j}(3m_0^2+a_0^2)\left(3\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}}+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}{M_{\mathrm{weak}}}}\right),`$ (34)
and numerically, for example, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}|`$ is $`O(10^4)`$.

With the effective Hamiltonian (26), we first calculate the SUSY contribution to $`ϵ_K`$:

$`ϵ_K={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi /4}\mathrm{Im}K|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{K}}{2\sqrt{2}m_K\mathrm{\Delta }m_K}},`$ (35)
where $`m_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ are the $`K`$-meson mass and the $`K_L`$-$`K_S`$ mass difference, respectively. QCD corrections below the electroweak scale are neglected. The matrix element of the effective Hamiltonian is calculated by using the vacuum insertion approximation:

$`K|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{K}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\left[C_{LL}\right]_{12}+\left[C_{RR}\right]_{12}\right)m_K^2f_K^2`$ (36)
$`+\left[C_{LR}^{(1)}\right]_{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{(m_s+m_d)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\right)m_K^2f_K^2`$
$`+\left[C_{LR}^{(2)}\right]_{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{(m_s+m_d)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)m_K^2f_K^2,`$
where $`f_K160\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the $`K`$-meson decay constant, and $`m_s`$ and $`m_d`$ are the strange and down quark masses, respectively.

The new flavor and CP violating effects in the $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ sector have an important implication to the calculation of $`ϵ_K`$, since the matrix element of the $`LR`$-type operators are enhanced by the factor $`(m_K/m_s)^210`$, as seen in Eq. (36). As a result, if all the coefficients of the $`LL`$, $`RR`$, and $`LR`$ operators are comparable, the $`LR`$ ones dominate the contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter. In the SUSY SU(5) model with the right-handed neutrinos, this is the case. However, if there is no right-handed neutrinos, or if the running above the GUT scale is not included, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}`$ is much more suppressed and the $`LL`$ operator gives the dominant effect. Then, the SUSY contribution to $`ϵ_K`$ becomes much smaller .

We solve the RG equation numerically and obtain the electroweak scale values of the MSSM parameters. Then, we calculate $`ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{SUSY})}`$, the SUSY contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter. In Figs. 3 and 3, we show $`|ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{SUSY})}|`$ on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ vs. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ plane. Here, we take $`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}}=150\mathrm{GeV}`$, and consider both the large and small angle MSW cases. The result depends on the phase $`\varphi _2^{(L)}\varphi _1^{(L)}`$; $`ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{SUSY})}`$ is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2^{(L)}\varphi _1^{(L)}+\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(L)}))`$. We choose $`\varphi _2^{(L)}\varphi _1^{(L)}`$ which maximizes $`|ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{SUSY})}|`$. The RG effect also generates off-diagonal elements in the slepton mass matrix, which induce various lepton flavor violations. In particular, in our case, rate for the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process may become significantly large. In Figs. 3 and 3, we shaded the region with $`Br(\mu e\gamma )4.9\times 10^{11}`$, which is already excluded by the negative search for $`\mu e\gamma `$ . The $`\mu e\gamma `$ process is enhanced for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . However, large amount of parameter space is still allowed, in particular, in the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. As one can see, the SUSY contribution to $`ϵ_K`$ can be $`O(10\%)`$ of the experimentally measured value ($`ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{exp})}2.3\times 10^3`$ ) even with relatively heavy squarks ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$), and can be even comparable to $`ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{exp})}`$. Of course, if $`M_{\nu _R}`$ is smaller, or if there is an accidental cancellation among the phases, then the SUSY contribution to $`ϵ_K`$ is more suppressed.

The information from $`ϵ_K`$ plays a significant role in constraining the allowed region in the so-called $`\rho `$ vs. $`\eta `$ plane . If the currently measured $`ϵ_K`$ has a significant contamination of the SUSY contribution, however, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ suggested by $`ϵ_K`$ may become inconsistent with those from other constraints. Most importantly, the $`B`$ factories will measure the CP violation in the $`B_d\psi K_S`$ mode, and in the standard model, this process gives the phase $`\mathrm{arg}([V_{\mathrm{CKM}}]_{cd}[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{}]_{cb}/[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}]_{td}[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{}]_{tb})`$. As will be discussed below, the SUSY correction to this process is small at least in the parameter space we are discussing. By comparing $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ suggested by $`ϵ_K`$ and those from $`B_d\psi K_S`$, we may see an anomaly arising from the SUSY loop effect if we fit the data just assuming the standard model.

Other check point is the $`K_L`$-$`K_S`$ mass difference

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K={\displaystyle \frac{|K|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{K}|}{m_K}},`$ (37)
since, in some case, SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ is significantly large. In our case, however, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ is less important than the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter; with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(R)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{(L)}O(10^410^3)`$, the SUSY contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ parameter is $`O(1\%)`$ level of its experimental value.

Finally, we discuss the contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes. Since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(R,L)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R,L)}`$ parameters are non-vanishing, they may change the standard model predictions to the $`B`$ decays. In particular, due to the possible GUT phases $`\varphi ^{(Q)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$, the CP violations in $`B`$ systems as well as the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ may be affected. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(R,L)}`$ affects the $`B_d`$ meson. With $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(R)}{}_{}{}^{<}O(10^3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^{(L)}O(10^4)`$, however, SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ is also small, and is at most $`1\%`$ . This also means that the phase in the $`B_d`$-$`\overline{B}_d`$ mixing matrix is dominated by the standard model contribution.

Because of the large 2-3 mixing in the $`V_L`$ matrix, the SUSY contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ parameter is more enhanced. In the standard model, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ is approximately $`|[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}]_{ts}/[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}]_{td}|^2`$. With this relation, we found that the SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can be as large as $`10\%`$ of the standard model contribution when $`y_{\nu _3}`$ is maximally large. This fact also suggests that a sizable correction may be possible to the phase in the $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing matrix because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R)}`$ has a phase equal to $`e^{i(\varphi _2^{(L)}\varphi _3^{(L)})}`$. Very small CP asymmetry is expected in the decay modes like $`B_s\varphi \eta `$, $`D_s\overline{D}_s`$, and $`\varphi \eta ^{}`$ in the standard model, and the new source of the CP violation may affect the standard model predictions. Notice that, in the model without the right-handed neutrinos, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(L)}`$ is approximately proportional to $`[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{}]_{ts}[V_{\mathrm{CKM}}]_{tb}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^{(R)}`$ is negligibly small. Then, the SUSY contribution to the matrix element $`B_s|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}_s`$ has almost the same phase as the standard model contribution, and hence the phase in the $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing matrix is not significantly affected.

In summary, in the SUSY SU(5) model with the right-handed neutrinos, sizable CP and flavor violations are possible in the $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$ sector, which is not the case in models without the right-handed neutrinos. Importantly, with such effects, the SUSY contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter can be as large as the experimental value ($`ϵ_K^{(\mathrm{exp})}2.3\times 10^3`$) if the right-handed neutrino mass $`M_{\nu _R}`$ is high enough. In this paper, we only considered the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes. In the future, however, other CP violation informations will be available, in particular, in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ processes. Given the fact that there can be extra sources of the CP violation, it would be desirable to measure as much CP violations as possible and to test standard model predictions.

Note added: After the completion of the main part of this work, the author was noticed a paper by S. Baek, T. Goto, Y. Okada and K. Okumura  which discussed implications of the right-handed neutrinos to the $`B`$ physics in the SUSY GUT, in particular, to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ parameter. In their paper, however, effects of the GUT phases $`\varphi ^{(Q)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(L)}`$ are not discussed.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank J. Hisano for useful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-9513835, and also by the Marvin L. Goldberger Membership.


format: text

text:
# The masses of the mesons and baryons Part II. The standing wave model

## 1 Introduction

The masses of the so-called stable elementary particles are the best-known and most characteristic property of the particles, but have not yet been explained. In a preceding article  we have shown that it follows from the well-known decays of the elementary particles that the spectrum of the particles splits into a $`\gamma `$-branch and a neutrino branch. From the masses of the particles follows that the masses of the $`\gamma `$-branch particles are, within 3%, integer multiples of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson and that the masses of the $`\nu `$-branch are integer multiples of the $`\pi ^\pm `$ mesons times a factor $`0.86\pm 0.02`$. For the masses and decays see Table I and II of . The integer multiple rule suggests that the particles are the solution of a wave equation. In a previous article , we have tried to explain the masses of the elementary particles by monochromatic eigenfrequencies of standing waves in an elastic cube. These eigenfrequencies depend on the value of Young’s modulus of the material of the cube. In a subsequent paper , we have explained the value of Young’s modulus of the material of the elementary particles with the help of Born’s classical model of cubic crystals, assuming that the crystal is held together by the weak nuclear force acting between the lattice points. The explanation of the particles by monochromatic eigenfrequencies does not seem to be tenable because a monochromatic frequency does not accommodate the multitude of frequencies created in a high energy collision of $`10^{23}`$ sec duration. We will now study whether the so-called stable elementary particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch cannot be described by the frequency spectrum of standing waves in a lattice, which can accommodate automatically the Fourier frequency spectrum of an extreme short-time collision.

The investigation of the consequences of lattices for particle theory was initiated by Wilson  who studied a fermion lattice. This study has developed over time into lattice QCD. The results of such endeavors have culminated in the paper of Weingarten  and his colleagues which required elaborate year long numerical calculations. They determined the masses of seven particles ($`K^{}`$, $`p`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), with an uncertainty of up to $`\pm 8`$%, agreeing with the observed particles within a few percent, up to 6%. Our theory covers all particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch, namely the $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ particles and agrees with the measured masses within at most 3.3%. The masses of the $`\nu `$-branch can be explained separately by standing waves in a neutrino lattice.

## 2 The frequency spectrum of the
oscillations of a cubic lattice

It will be necessary to outline the most elementary aspects of the theory of lattice oscillations since we will, in the following, investigate whether the masses of the elementary particles can be explained with the help of the frequency spectra of standing waves in a cubic lattice. The classic paper describing lattice oscillations is from Born and v. Karman , henceforth referred to as B&K. They looked at first at the oscillations of a one-dimensional chain of points with mass $`m`$, separated by a constant distance $`a`$. B&K assume that the forces exerted on each point of the chain originate only from the two neighboring points. These forces are opposed to and proportional to the displacements, as with elastic springs. The equation of motion is in this case

$$m\ddot{u}_n=\alpha \left(u_{n+1}u_n\right)\alpha \left(u_nu_{n1}\right).$$
(1)
The displacements of the mass points from their equilibrium position are given by $`u_n`$. The dots signify, as usual, differentiation with respect to time, $`\alpha `$ is a constant characterizing the force between the lattice points, and $`n`$ is an integer number.

In order to solve (1) B&K set

$$u_n=A\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega t+n\varphi )},$$
(2)
which is obviously a temporally and spatially periodic solution. $`n`$ is an integer, with $`nN`$, where $`N`$ is the number of points in the chain. At $`2n\varphi =\pi `$ there are nodes, where for all times $`t`$ the displacements are zero, as with standing waves. If a displacement is repeated after $`n`$ points we have $`na=\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, and it must be $`n\varphi =2\pi `$ according to (2). It follows that $`\lambda =2\pi a/\varphi `$. Inserting (2) into (1) one obtains a continuous frequency spectrum given by

$$\nu =2\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{m}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2).$$
(3)
B&K point out that there is not only a continuum of frequencies, but also a maximal frequency which is reached when $`\varphi =\pi `$, or at the minimum of the possible wavelengths $`\lambda =2a`$.

B&K then discuss the three-dimensional lattice, with lattice constant $`a`$ and masses $`m`$, the monatomic case, i.e. when all lattice points are of the same mass. They reduce the complexities of the problem by considering only the 18 points nearest to any point. These are 6 points at distance $`a`$, and 12 points at distance $`a\sqrt{2}`$. B&K assume that the forces between the points are linear functions of the small displacements, that the symmetry of the lattice is maintained, and that the equations of motion transform into the equations of motion of continuum mechanics for $`a0`$. We cannot reproduce the lengthy equations of motion of the three-dimensional lattice. In the three-dimensional case we deal with the forces caused by the 6 points at the distance $`a`$ which are characterized by the constant $`\alpha `$ in the case of central forces. There are also the forces which originate from the 12 points at distance $`a\sqrt{2}`$, characterized by the constant $`\gamma `$, which is important later on. We investigate the propagation of plane waves in a three-dimensional monatomic lattice with the ansatz

$$u_{\mathrm{},m}=u_0\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega t+\mathrm{}\varphi _1+m\varphi _2)}$$
(4)
and a similar ansatz for $`v_{\mathrm{},m}`$, with $`\mathrm{},m`$ being integer numbers $`N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of lattice points along a side of the cube. We also consider higher order solutions, with $`i_1\mathrm{}`$ and $`i_2m`$, where $`i_1,i_2`$ are integer numbers. The boundary conditions are periodic. The number of normal modes must be equal to the number of particles in the lattice. B&K arrive, in the case of two-dimensional waves, at a secular equation for the frequencies

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}A(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)m\nu ^2& B(\varphi _2,\varphi _1)\\ B(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)& A(\varphi _2,\varphi _1)m\nu ^2\end{array}\right|=0,$$
(5)
The formulas for $`A(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ and $`B(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ are given in equation (17) of B&K.

The theory of lattice oscillations has been pursued in particular by Blackman , a summary of his and other studies is in . Comprehensive reviews of the results of linear studies of lattice dynamics have been written by Born and Huang , and by Maradudin et al. .

## 3 The masses of the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch

We will now assume, as seems to be quite natural, that the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch consist of the same particles into which they decay, i.e., of photons. We base this assumption on the fact that photons are the principal mode of decay of the $`\gamma `$-branch particles, the characteristic example is $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ (98.8%). The composition of the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch suggested here offers a direct route from the formation of a $`\gamma `$-branch particle, through its lifetime, to its decay products. Particles that are made of photons are necessarily neutral, as the majority of the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch are.

We also base our assumption that the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch are made of photons on the circumstances of the formation of the $`\gamma `$-branch particles. The most simple and straightforward creation of a $`\gamma `$-branch particle is the reaction $`\gamma +p\pi ^0+p+\gamma ^{}`$. A photon impinges on a proton and creates a $`\pi ^0`$ meson. In a timespan of order of $`10^{23}`$ sec the pulse of the incoming electromagnetic wave is, according to Fourier analysis, converted into a continuum of electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from $`10^{23}`$ sec-1 to $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. The wave packet so created decays, according to experience, after $`8.410^{17}`$ sec, into two electromagnetic waves or $`\gamma `$-rays. It seems to be very unlikely that Fourier analysis does not hold for the case of an electromagnetic wave impinging on a proton. The question then arises of what happens to the electromagnetic waves in the timespan of $`10^{16}`$ seconds between the creation of the wave packet and its decay into two $`\gamma `$-rays? We will investigate whether the electromagnetic waves cannot continue to exist for the $`10^{16}`$ seconds until the wave packet decays.

There must be a mechanism which holds the wave packet of the newly created particle together, or else it will disperse. We assume that the very many photons in the new particle are held together in a cubic lattice. If a particle consists of photons, alternate photons must have opposite spin, otherwise the spin of the particle could not be zero. Ordinary cubic lattices, such as the NaCl lattice, are held together by attractive forces between particles of opposite polarity. We assume that the photon lattice is held together by weak attractive forces between photons of opposite polarity. Electrodynamics does not predict the existence of such a force between two photons. However, electroweak theory says that $`e^2g^2`$, and we will now assume that there is a corresponding force in the photon lattice. It is not unprecedended that photons have been considered to be building blocks of the elementary particles. Schwinger  has once studied an exact one-dimensional quantum electrodynamical model in which the photon acquired a mass $`e^2`$.

We will now investigate the standing waves of a cubic photon lattice. We assume that the lattice is held together by a weak force acting from one lattice point to the next. We assume that the range of this force is $`10^{16}`$ cm, because the range of the weak nuclear force is of order of $`10^{16}`$ cm, according to . Likewise, we assume that the sidelength of the lattice is about $`10^{13}`$ cm, which follows from the size of the nucleon as given by . There are then $`10^9`$ lattice points. Because it is the most simple case, we assume that a central force acts between lattice points of different polarity. We cannot consider spin, isospin, strangeness or charm. The frequency equation for the two-dimensional oscillations of an isotropic monatomic cubic lattice with central forces is

$$\nu ^2=\frac{2\alpha }{4\pi ^2M}\left\{2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\right\}.$$
(6)
In the isotropic case, i.e. when $`\gamma /\alpha =0.5`$, Eq. (6) follows directly from the equation of motion for the displacements in a monatomic lattice, which are given e.g. by Blackman . The minus sign in front of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1`$ means that the waves are longitudinal. All frequencies that solve (6) come with either a plus or a minus sign, which is, as we will see, important.

The frequency distribution following from (6) is shown in Fig. 1. There are some easily verifiable frequencies. For example at $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2=0,0`$ it is $`\nu =0`$, at $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2=\pi /2`$, $`\pi /2`$ it is $`\nu =\nu _0\sqrt{6}`$, at $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2=\pi /2,\pi /2`$ we have $`\nu =\nu _0\sqrt{2}`$. Furthermore at $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2=\pi ,0`$ we have $`\nu =\nu _0\sqrt{8}`$, and for all values of $`\varphi _1`$ it is $`\nu =2\nu _0`$ at $`\varphi _2=\pi `$ and $`\varphi _2=\pi `$, with $`\nu _0=\sqrt{\alpha /4\pi ^2M}`$, or as we will see $`\nu _0=c_{}/2\pi a`$.

The limitation of the group velocity in the photon lattice has now to be considered. The formula for the group velocity is given by

$$c_g=\frac{d\omega }{dk}=a\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{M}}\frac{df(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)}{d\varphi }.$$
(7)
The group velocity in the photon lattice has to be equal to the velocity of light $`c_{}`$, throughout the entire frequency spectrum, because photons move with the velocity of light. In order to learn how this requirement affects the frequency distribution we have to know the value of $`\sqrt{\alpha /M}`$ in a photon lattice. But we do not have information about what either $`\alpha `$ or $`M`$ might be in this case. We assume in the following that $`a\sqrt{\alpha /M}=c_{}`$, which means, since $`a=10^{16}`$ cm, that $`\sqrt{\alpha /M}=310^{26}`$ sec-1, or that the corresponding period is $`\tau =\frac{1}{3}10^{26}`$ sec, which is the time it takes for a wave to travel with the velocity of light over one lattice distance. With $`a\sqrt{\alpha /M}=c_{}`$, the equation for the group velocity is

$$c_g=c_{}\frac{df}{d\varphi }.$$
(8)
For a photon lattice that means, since $`c_g`$ must then always be equal to $`c_{}`$, that $`df/d\varphi =1`$. This requirement determines the form of the frequency distribution, regardless of the order of the mode of oscillation. The frequencies of the corrected spectrum must increase from the origin $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2=0,0`$ with slope 1 until a maximum is reached, from where the frequency must decrease with slope 1 to $`\nu =0`$. The frequency distribution corrected for (8) is shown in Fig. 2. The corrected frequency distributions of higher modes are of the same type, but for the area they cover. The second mode ($`i_1,i_2=2`$) covers 4 times the area of the basic mode, because $`2\varphi `$ ranges from 0 to $`2\pi `$, (for $`\varphi >0`$), whereas the basic mode ranges from 0 to $`\pi `$. Consequently the energy $`E`$ (Eq. 9) contained in all oscillations of the second mode is four times larger than the energy of the basic mode, because the energy contained in the lattice oscillations must be proportional to the sum of all frequencies. Adding, by superposition, to the second mode different numbers of basic modes or second modes will give exact integer multiples of the energy of the basic mode. Now we understand the integer multiple rule of the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch. There is, in the framework of this theory, on account of Eq. (8), no alternative but integer multiples of the basic mode for the energy contained in the oscillations of the different modes or for superpositions of different modes. In other words, the masses of the different particles are integer multiples of the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson, assuming that there is no spin, isospin, strangeness or charm. We remember that the measured masses in Table I of , which incorporate different spins, isospins, strangeness, and charm spell out the integer multiples rule within 3% accuracy. It is worth noting that there is no free parameter if one takes the ratio of the energies contained in the frequency distributions of the different modes, because the factor $`\sqrt{\alpha /M}`$ in Eq. (6) cancels. This means, in particular, that the ratios of the frequency distributions, or the mass ratios, are independent of the mass of the photons at the lattice points, as well as of the magnitude of the force between the lattice points.

Let us summarize our findings concerning the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch. The $`\pi ^0`$ meson is the basic mode of the photon lattice oscillations. The $`\eta `$ meson corresponds to the first higher mode ($`i_1,i_2=2`$), as is suggested by $`m(\eta )4m(\pi ^0)`$. $`\eta ^{}`$ is a superposition of three basic modes on the first higher mode. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle corresponds to the superposition of two higher modes ($`i_1,i_2=2`$), as is suggested by $`m(\mathrm{\Lambda })2m(\eta )`$. This superposition apparently results in the creation of spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The two modes would then have to be coupled. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ baryons are superpositions of one or two basic modes on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ particle corresponds to the superposition of three coupled higher modes ($`i_1,i_2=2`$) as is suggested by $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})3m(\eta )`$. This procedure apparently causes spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$. The charmed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ particle seems to be the first particle incorporating a (3.3) mode. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ is apparently the superposition of a basic mode on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, as is suggested by the decay of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$. The easiest explanation of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ is that it is the superposition of two coupled (3.3) modes. The superposition of two modes of the same type is, as in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, accompanied by spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ baryon is apparently the superposition of two basic modes on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ particle. All neutral particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch are thus accounted for, the agreement between the measured masses and the theoretical values is $`3`$%, see Table I of . We find it interesting that all $`\gamma `$-branch particles with coupled $`2(2.2)`$ modes, or the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ particle with the coupled $`3(2.2)`$ mode, have strangeness. But this rule does not hold in the presence of a (3.3) mode. All $`\gamma `$-branch particles with a (3.3) mode have charm. We have also found the $`\gamma `$-branch antiparticles, which follow from the negative frequencies which solve Eq. (6). Antiparticles have always been associated with negative energies. Following Dirac’s argument for electrons and positrons, we associate the masses following from the negative frequency distributions with antiparticles. We emphasize that the existence of antiparticles is an automatic consequence of our theory.

## 4 The mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson

So far we have studied the ratios of the masses of the particles. We will now determine the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson in order to validate that the mass ratios connect with the actual masses of the particles. The energy of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson is $`E(m(\pi ^0))=134.976`$ MeV = $`2.162610^4`$ erg. For the energy $`E`$ of all oscillations we use the equation

$$E=\frac{Nh\nu _0}{(2\pi )^2}_0^{2\pi }f(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)𝑑\varphi _1𝑑\varphi _2,$$
(9)
This equation originates from Born and v. Karman. $`N`$ is the number of lattice points. For $`f(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ we use our Eq. (6). Using the frequency distribution shown in Fig. 2 it turns out that the numerical value of the double integral in (9) is 66.896 (radians2) for the corrected (1.1) state. With $`N=10^9`$ and $`\nu _0=310^{26}/2\pi `$ it follows from Eq. (9) that $`E(\mathrm{corr})(1.1)`$ is $`5.3610^8`$ erg, that means $`2.4810^{12}`$ times larger than $`E(m(\pi ^0))`$.

In order to eliminate this discrepancy we use, instead of the simple form $`E=h\nu `$, the complete quantum mechanical energy of a linear oscillator as given by Planck,

$$E=\frac{h\nu }{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{h\nu }{kT}}1}.$$
(10)
This equation was already used by B&K for the determination of the specific heat of cubic crystals or solids. Equation (10) calls into question the value of the temperature $`T`$ in the interior of a particle. We determine $`T`$ empirically with the formula for the internal energy of solids

$$u=\frac{R\mathrm{\Theta }}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Theta }/T}1},$$
(11)
which is from Sommerfeld . In this equation it is now $`R=10^9k`$, where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the characteristic temperature introduced by Debye  for the explanation of the specific heat of solids. It is $`\mathrm{\Theta }=h\nu _m/k`$, where $`\nu _m`$ is a maximal frequency. In the case of the oscillations making up the $`\pi ^0`$ meson the maximal frequency is $`\nu _m=\pi \nu _0`$, see Figs. 1,2, therefore $`\nu _m=1.510^{26}`$ sec-1, and we find that $`\mathrm{\Theta }=7.19910^{15}`$ K.

In order to determine $`T`$ we set the internal energy $`u`$ equal to $`m(\pi ^0)c_{}^2`$. It then follows from (11) that $`\mathrm{\Theta }/T=29.16`$, or $`T=2.4710^{14}`$ K. That means that Planck’s formula (11) introduces a factor $`1/(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Theta }/T}1)1/e^{29.16}=1/4.61310^{12}`$ into Eq. (9). In other words, if we determine the temperature $`T`$ of the particle empirically through equation (11), then we arrive from (9) at a mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson of $`1.1610^4`$ erg. The difference between the exact $`E(m(\pi ^0))=2.1610^4`$ erg and our calculated $`E`$(corr)(1.1), which describes the $`\pi ^0`$ meson, is well within the uncertainty of the number of the lattice points and the lattice distance we have used. If we take the value of the radius of the nucleon given in  verbatim, $`r=0.810^{13}`$ cm, and calculate the number of lattice points in a sphere of that radius, then there should be $`2.1410^9`$ lattice points in the particle. Since $`E`$ is directly proportional to the number of lattice points it follows that then $`E`$(corr)(1.1) = 1.15$`E(m(\pi ^0))`$. The energy in the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson and the energy in the corresponding lattice oscillations agree very well, considering the uncertainties of the parameters involved. It can be shown that the factor exp($`\mathrm{\Theta }/T`$) remains constant for the higher modes.

To summarize. We find that the energy in the $`\pi ^0`$ meson and the other particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch are correctly given by the energy of the standing waves, if the energy of the oscillations is determined by Planck’s formula for the energy of a linear oscillator. The $`\pi ^0`$ meson is like an adiabatic, cubic black body filled with standing electromagnetic waves. We know from Bose’s work  that Planck’s formula applies to a photon gas as well.

## 5 Conclusions

Let us summarize what we have assumed and what we have learned from this study. In short, for each neutral meson and each neutral baryon of the $`\gamma `$-branch we have found a simple mode of standing waves in a cubic lattice, the ratio of the energies of which agree within 3% with the ratio of the energies of the masses of the particles. In order to arrive at this result, we have first assumed that the neutral mesons and baryons consist of the same particles into which they decay, which seems to be a quite natural assumption. For the explanation of the mesons and baryons of the $`\gamma `$-branch we use only photons, nothing else. We assume the existence of a weak force which holds the photon lattice of the $`\gamma `$-branch together. Then we apply the results of the classical study of Born and v. Karman, and subsequent studies, about lattice oscillations to the particle lattice. We determine the frequency distributions and the energy contained in plane standing waves in a cubic lattice. The $`\gamma `$-rays in the photon lattice must move with the velocity of light, and we impose the condition that the group velocity is equal to the velocity of light. From the frequency distributions of the standing waves in the lattice follow the ratios of the masses of the particles.

The masses of the $`\gamma `$-branch, the $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ particles are found to be integer multiples of the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson, in agreement with what the data on the particle masses strongly suggest. The integer multiple rule is a consequence of the standing wave structure of the particles. It is important to note that in our theory the ratios of the masses of the $`\gamma `$-branch particles to the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson do not depend on the sidelength of the lattice, and the distance between the lattice points, neither do they depend on the strength of the force between the lattice points nor on the mass of the lattice points. The mass ratios are determined only by the spectra of the frequencies of the standing waves in the lattice. Since the equation determining the frequency of the standing waves is quadratic it follows automatically that for each positive frequency there is also a negative frequency of the same absolute value, that means that for each particle there exists also an antiparticle.

We have then determined the mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson which follows from our theory. This requires consideration of the number $`N^3`$ of the lattice points and of the value of $`\nu _0=c_{}/2\pi a`$. Assuming that the energy of the oscillations is determined by Planck’s formula for the energy of a linear oscillator, we arrive at a mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson which differs from the experimentally determined $`m(\pi ^0)`$ by 15%, which is well within the uncertainties of $`N^3`$ and $`a`$. The $`\pi ^0`$ meson is like a cubic black body filled with plane, standing electromagnetic waves, whose wavelengths are integer multiples of the lattice constant $`a`$. A rather conservative explanation of the $`\pi ^0`$ meson, and the $`\gamma `$-branch particles. It is worth noting that in the $`\gamma `$-branch of our model there is a continuous line leading from the creation of a particle out of photons or electromagnetic waves through the lifetime of the particle as standing electromagnetic waves to the decay products which are electromagnetic waves as well.

The concept of a nuclear cubic lattice provides more than just the masses of the particles of the $`\gamma `$-branch. The masses of the $`\nu `$-branch follow from the frequencies in a diatomic neutrino lattice made of electron and muon neutrinos, with $`m(\nu _e)5`$ meV/$`c^2`$ and $`m(\nu _\mu )50`$ meV/$`c^2`$. Furthermore, as discussed in , the theory of cubic lattices permits the determination of the potential of the force that holds the lattice together. Born and Landé  have shown that the potential must have an attractive part over longer distances and a repulsive part over shorter distances, otherwise the lattice would not be stable. Following the steps of Born and Landé we have found in equation (11) of  that the attractive and repulsive terms of the potential in a nuclear lattice differ at the lattice distance by only $`10^{12}`$, if we replace the electric interaction constant $`e^2`$ in a crystal by $`g^2`$ from the weak nuclear force. Following a paper of Born and Stern  we have discussed in  also the force which acts, (in vacuum), between two cubic lattices. The attractive forces between two cubic lattices are the sum of all unsaturated weak forces at the sides of the lattices. Since there are about $`10^6`$ lattice points on a side of the nuclear cubic lattice considered here, the attractive force of a side of the lattice for one side of another lattice is $`10^6`$ times as large as the weak force acting between two lattice points. The empirical relation between the strength of the strong and weak forces is given by the ratio of the coupling constants, which is $`\alpha _s/\alpha _w10^6`$.

Our standing wave model does not only account for the masses of the mesons and baryons and the antiparticles of the $`\gamma `$-branch, but also provides access to an explanation of the weak force which holds the nuclear lattice together, and the strong force which emanates from the surface of the particles. The strong and the weak forces are unified in this model.

Acknowledgements. We are, in particular, grateful to Professor I. Prigogine for his support. We thank M. Fink and L. Frommhold for discussions. ELK is grateful to Y. Tassoulas for the calculation of numerous eigenvalues of the elastic oscillations of cubes.

REFERENCES
 L. Koschmieder, preceding article.
 L. Koschmieder, Nuovo Cimento A99, 555 (1988).
 L. Koschmieder, Nuovo Cimento A101, 1017 (1989).
 K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974).
 D. Weingarten, Scient. American 274, 116 (1996).
 M. Born and Th. v. Karman, Phys. Zeitschr. 13, 297 (1912).
 M. Blackman, Proc. Roy. Soc. A148, 365; 384 (1935).
 M. Blackman, in Handbuch der Physik VII/1 (1955) Sec. 12.
 M. Born and K. Huang, Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices, (Oxford) 1954.
 A. Maradudin, E. Montroll, G. Weiss and I. Ipatova, Theory of Lattice Dynamics in the Harmonic Approximation, (Academic Press), 2nd edition, 1971.
 J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962).
 D. Perkins, Introduction to High-Energy Physics, (Addison Wesley 1982, p.128.
 H. Frauenfelder and E. Henley, Subatomic Physics, (Prentice- Hall) 1974, p. 128.
 A. Sommerfeld, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik, 1952, Bd.V, 56.
 P. Debye, Ann. d. Phys. 39, 789 (1912).
 S. Bose, Zeitschr. f. Phys. 26, 178 (1924).
 M. Born and A. Landé, Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 20, 210 (1918).
 M. Born and O. Stern, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 33, 901 (1919).


text:
# Infrared Behavior of the Gluon Propagator on a Large Volume Lattice

## I Introduction

There has been considerable interest in the infrared behavior of the gluon propagator, as a probe into the mechanism of confinement and as input for other calculations. Lattice gauge theory is an excellent means to study such nonperturbative behavior. See, for example, Ref.  for a recent survey.

The infrared part of any lattice calculation may be affected by the finite volume of the lattice. Larger volumes mean either more lattice points (with increased computational cost) or coarser lattices (with corresponding discretization errors). The desire for larger physical volumes thus provides strong motivation for using improved actions. Improved actions have been shown to reduce discretization effects , although some concerns have been expressed that coarse lattices may miss important instanton physics.

In this study, no change is seen in the infrared gluon propagator, even with a lattice spacing as coarse as 0.35 fm. We find the gluon propagator to be less singular than $`\frac{1}{q^2}`$ in the infrared. Our results suggest that the gluon propagator is infrared finite, although more data is needed in the far infrared to be conclusive. This behavior is similar to that observed in three-dimensional SU(2) studies .

## II $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ Improvement

The $`𝒪(a^2)`$ tadpole-improved action is defined as

$$S_G=\frac{5\beta }{3}\underset{\text{pl}}{}eTr(1U_{\text{pl}}(x))\frac{\beta }{12u_0^2}\underset{\text{rect}}{}eTr(1U_{\text{rect}}(x)),$$
(1)
where the operators $`U_{\text{pl}}(x)`$ and $`U_{\text{rect}}(x)`$ are defined

$`U_{\text{pl}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x),`$ (2)
and

$`U_{\text{rect}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu (x+\widehat{\nu }+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+2\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`U_\mu (x)U_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu (x+2\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x).`$ (4)
The link product $`U_{\text{rect}}(x)`$ denotes the rectangular $`1\times 2`$ and $`2\times 1`$ plaquettes. For the tadpole (mean-field) improvement parameter  we use the plaquette measure

$$u_0=\left(\frac{1}{3}eTr<U_{\text{pl}}>\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(5)
Eq. (1) reproduces the continuum action as $`a0`$, provided that $`\beta `$ takes the standard value of $`6/g^2`$. Note that our $`\beta =6/g^2`$ differs from that used in . Multiplication of our $`\beta `$ in Eq. (1) by a factor of $`5/3`$ reproduces their definition. $`𝒪(g^2a^2)`$ corrections to this action are estimated to be of the order of two to three percent .

Gauge configurations are generated using the Cabbibo-Marinari  pseudoheat-bath algorithm with three diagonal $`SU(2)`$ subgroups. The mean link, $`u_0`$, is averaged every 10 sweeps and updated during thermalization. Representative gauge fields are selected after 5000 thermalization sweeps.

Gauge fixing on the lattice is achieved by maximizing a functional, the extremum of which implies the gauge fixing condition. The usual Landau gauge fixing functional  is

$$_1^G[\{U\}]=\underset{\mu ,x}{}\frac{1}{2u_0}\text{Tr}\left\{U_\mu ^G(x)+U_\mu ^G(x)^{}\right\},$$
(6)
where

$$U_\mu ^G(x)=G(x)U_\mu (x)G(x+\widehat{\mu })^{},$$
(7)
and

$$G(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\underset{a}{}\omega ^a(x)T^a\right\}.$$
(8)
A maximum of Eq. (6) implies that $`_\mu _\mu A_\mu =0`$ up to $`𝒪(a^2)`$. To ensure that gauge dependent quantities are also $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved, we implement the analogous $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved gauge fixing functional

$$_{\text{Imp}}^G=\underset{\mu ,x}{}\frac{1}{2u_0}\text{Tr}\left\{\frac{4}{3}U_\mu ^G(x)\frac{1}{12u_0}U_\mu ^G(x)U_\mu ^G(x+\widehat{\mu })+\text{h.c.}\right\}$$
(9)
as described in . We employ a Conjugate Gradient, Fourier Accelerated gauge fixing algorithm  optimally designed for parallel machines.

## III The Landau Gauge Gluon Propagator

The gauge links $`U_\mu (x)`$ are expressed in terms of the continuum gluon fields as

$$U_\mu (x)=𝒫e^{ig_0_x^{x+\widehat{\mu }}A_\mu (z)𝑑z},$$
(10)
where $`𝒫`$ denotes path ordering. From this, the dimensionless lattice gluon field $`A_\mu (x)`$ may be obtained via

$$A_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu }/2)=\frac{1}{2ig_0}\left(U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)\right)\frac{1}{6ig_0}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)\right),$$
(11)
accurate to $`𝒪(a^2)`$. $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved gluon field operators have also been investigated. While the infrared behavior is unaffected by the improvement, the ultraviolet behavior suffers due to the extended nature of an improved operator. These results will be discussed in detail elsewhere .

We calculate the gluon propagator in coordinate space

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(x,y)A_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(y),$$
(12)
using (11). To improve statistics, we use translational invariance and calculate

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(y)=\frac{1}{V}\underset{x}{}A_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(x+y).$$
(13)
In this report we focus on the scalar part of the propagator,

$$D(y)=\frac{1}{N_d1}\underset{\mu }{}\frac{1}{N_c^21}\underset{a}{}D_{\mu \mu }^{aa}(y),$$
(14)
where $`N_d=4`$ and $`N_c=3`$ are the number of dimensions and colors. This is then Fourier transformed into momentum space

$$D(q)=\underset{y}{}e^{i\widehat{q}y}D(y),$$
(15)
where the available momentum values, $`\widehat{q}`$, are given by

$$\widehat{q}_\mu =\frac{2\pi n_\mu }{aL_\mu },n_\mu (\frac{L_\mu }{2},\frac{L_\mu }{2}],$$
(16)
and $`L_\mu `$ is the length of the box in the $`\mu `$ direction. In the continuum, the scalar function $`D(q^2)`$ is related to the Landau gauge gluon propagator via

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2})\delta ^{ab}D(q^2).$$
(17)
The bare, dimensionless lattice gluon propagator, $`D(qa)`$ is related to the renormalized continuum propagator, $`D_R(q;\mu )`$ via

$$a^2D(qa)=Z_3(\mu ,a)D_R(q;\mu ),$$
(18)
where the renormalization constant, $`Z_3(\mu ,a)`$ is determined by imposing a renormalization condition at some chosen renormalization scale, $`\mu `$, e.g.,

$$D_R(q)|_{q^2=\mu ^2}=\frac{1}{\mu ^2}.$$
(19)
This means that there is an undetermined multiplicative renormalization factor, $`Z_3(a)`$, on each of our propagators. Since our purpose is to compare our two improved, coarse lattices with the unimproved, finer one, it is sufficient to consider only the their relative renormalizations. We have slightly rescaled the improved propagators so as to provide a reasonable match with old one. The relevant quantity is

$$Z_3(0.10)/Z_3(0.35)=1.02.$$
(20)
## IV Analysis of Lattice Artifacts

To emphasize the nonperturbative behavior of the gluon propagator, we divide the propagator by the tree level result of lattice perturbation theory. Hence Figs. 1, 2 and 3 are plotted with $`q^2D(q^2)`$ on the $`y`$-axis, which is expected to approach a constant up to logarithmic corrections as $`q^2\mathrm{}`$. Here

$$q_\mu \frac{2}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}.$$
(21)
To reduce ultraviolet noise resulting from the lattice discretization, the available momenta are cut half way into the Brillouin zone, that is

$$q_{\text{max}}=\frac{\pi }{2a}.$$
(22)
All figures have a cylinder cut imposed upon them, i.e. all momenta must lie within a cylinder of radius two spatial momentum units centered about the lattice diagonal. The propagators are plotted in physical units, which we obtain from the string tension  with $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV.

Fig. 1 is reproduced from Ref. , where the standard, Wilson action is used. The propagator is calculated on a $`32^3\times 64`$ lattice at $`\beta =6.0`$, which corresponds to a lattice spacing of 0.1 fm. This propagator produces the correct asymptotic behavior and a detailed analysis shows the anisotropic finite volume errors are small. However, it was impossible to rule out isotropic finite volume artifacts.

We use the improved action described above to calculate the gluon propagator on a small ($`10^3\times 20`$), coarse ($`a=0.35`$ fm) lattice, which is shown in Fig. 2. Despite the coarse lattice spacing we see that it reproduces the infrared behavior of Fig. 1.

Finally, we calculate the propagator on a $`16^3\times 32`$ lattice, at the same $`\beta `$ providing $`a=0.35`$ fm. This corresponds to a very large physical volume of $`5.6^3\times 11.2\text{ fm}^4.`$ Fig. 3 illustrates the results. These results largely agree with the previous two calculations of the propagators. The behavior of the gluon propagator is not changed by changing the volume.

In Fig. 4 we have superimposed the gluon propagators for all three lattices. Here we plot $`D(q^2)`$ on the $`y`$-axis to allow an alternative examination of the most infrared momenta. The points at $``$ 350 MeV are very robust with respect to volume. Only the very lowest momenta points show signs of finite volume effects. With more volumes it should be possible to extrapolate to the infinite volume limit. We see that the propagator, at the very lowest momentum points, decreases as the volume increases. This strongly suggests an infrared finite propagator.

## V Conclusions

The gluon propagator has been calculated on a coarse lattice with an $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved action, in $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved Landau gauge. The infrared behavior of this propagator is consistent with that of a previous study on a finer lattice with an unimproved action, but comparable volume. The propagator was then calculated on another improved lattice with the same spacing, but larger volume. The increase in volume left the propagator largely unchanged. In particular, it has been shown that the turnover observed in  is not a finite volume effect.

With more lattices it may be possible to extrapolate to infinite volume, but from this study we can only make tentative conclusions. We have ruled out the $`q^4`$ behavior popular in Dyson-Schwinger studies, and any infrared singularity appears to be unlikely. An infrared finite propagator is most plausible. The gluon propagator would need to drop rapidly for momenta below $``$ 350 MeV in order to vanish as suggested by Zwanziger and others. Even larger volume lattices will be needed to study this possibility. The possible effects of lattice Gribov copies remains a very interesting question and we plan to study this in the near future.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and by grants of supercomputer time on the CM-5 made available through the South Australian Centre for Parallel Computing. The authors also wish to thank J-I. Skullerud for his useful comments.