text:
# Neutralino Dark Matter in Focus Point Supersymmetry

## I Introduction

The idea that supersymmetry is an approximate symmetry of Nature, broken at a ‘low’ scale, is best and most concretely motivated by two general arguments. First, it addresses the question of why radiative corrections to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, due to the exchange of virtual particles at some much larger unification or Planck scale, do not pull the electroweak scale to a much higher value (the gauge hierarchy problem ). Second, it brings the unification of couplings calculation, which does not quite work if we use only the particles of the Standard Model, into adequate agreement with experiment . However neither of these arguments, on the face of it, yields very specific constraints on the spectrum of masses of the supersymmetric ($`R`$-parity odd) partners of ordinary ($`R`$-parity even) particles: the first because it is inherently semi-quantitative, the second because it depends on these masses only logarithmically.

On the other hand, it is becoming notorious that the existence of superpartners with masses below 1 TeV is difficult to reconcile with established limits on various flavor violating effects, unless one assumes accurate degeneracy of squarks and of sleptons. Even if one assumes such degeneracy, supersymmetric contributions to $`CP`$ violation and (in unified theories) proton decay become uncomfortably large, unless the squarks and sleptons are heavy.

Therefore one is motivated to examine supersymmetric models with large scalar superpartner masses. The issue immediately arises: To what extent can such models, when critically scrutinized, embody the motivating features we mentioned in our opening paragraph?

Recently it has been argued, using a seemingly reasonable objective definition of naturalness, that all squark and slepton masses can be taken well above 1 TeV with no loss of naturalness . The mathematical basis of this result is the existence of focus points in renormalization group trajectories, which render the weak scale (i.e., the Higgs potential) largely insensitive to variations in unknown supersymmetry parameters . We should note that while in these models the squark and slepton masses are unusually large (compared to conventional wisdom), the electroweak gaugino and Higgsino particle masses are generically well below 1 TeV.

In the focus point models, moreover, the quantitative aspect of the unification of coupling constants is actually slightly improved relative to more traditional supersymmetry models, reducing the need for significant high scale threshold corrections .

Besides preserving and sharpening the original motivations for supersymmetry, the focus point models with heavy scalars ameliorate the problems noted above . Specifically, constraints on $`CP`$ violation from electric dipole moments can be satisfied even with $`𝒪(1)`$ phases in the fundamental parameters, and the predicted rate for nucleon decay — being proportional to the square of gaugino and inversely proportional to the fourth power of squark/slepton masses — is suppressed and less dangerous, though still perhaps accessible.

In this note we will consider the implications of focus point supersymmetry for neutralino dark matter. We will concentrate on the focus point mechanism in its simplest ‘default’ incarnation, assuming a universal scalar mass within minimal supergravity. The focus point mechanism can also be realized in alternative models featuring gravity- , gauge- , and anomaly-mediated  supersymmetry breaking. In addition, the requirement of a universal scalar mass, though sufficient, is not necessary. For the precise set of requirements, see Ref. .

Of course, the cosmology of minimal supergravity (with universal scalar mass $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$) has been studied extensively. Prominent among conclusions one finds in the literature are the following:

(i) In essentially all of parameter space, the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ is Bino-like, with gaugino fraction $`R_\chi >0.9`$ . (See below for the definition of $`R_\chi `$.)

(ii) The neutralino relic abundance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ increases as $`m_0`$ increases. The requirement that neutralinos not overclose the universe, along with the requirement that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) be neutral, then typically leads to stringent upper bounds on scalar and/or gaugino masses, independent of naturalness considerations .

(iii) Dark matter detection rates decrease as $`m_0`$ increases. The rates predicted range widely over parameter space, but the prospects for discovery at ongoing experiments grow increasingly dim as $`m_0`$ increases .

In our analysis, we confirm these conclusions — for $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$. However, we find that they fail for focus point models with $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$. Instead, we find that in such models:

(i) The lightest neutralino is a gaugino-Higgsino mixture over much of parameter space.

(ii) Neutralino relic abundances do not overclose the universe. Rather, they tend to lie in the cosmologically interesting range. Therefore, in particular, cosmological considerations alone do not place stringent upper limits on superpartner masses, even apart from possible conspiracies involving poles  or co-annihilation .

(iii) Direct detection rates may be fairly large, with proton-neutralino cross sections plausibly falling within the range $`10^6`$-$`10^8`$ pb. (See the more detailed discussion and plots below.)

These results are especially interesting since ongoing and planned dark matter detection experiments promise to cover the indicated range.

## II Neutralinos in Focus Point Supersymmetry

The models we consider, like many supersymmetric models, contain a natural cold dark matter candidate . Assuming that $`R()^{B+L+2S}`$ is accurately conserved, the lightest supersymmetric ($`R`$-odd) particle is stable. We will be considering models where, with no special adjustment, this is a neutral weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), which is commonly called the neutralino.

The relic densities and detection rates of neutralino dark matter can be calculated, assuming straightforward extrapolation of Big Bang cosmology to $`T10\text{ GeV}`$ . In principle they depend on details of the entire supersymmetric spectrum, but in practice, especially in focus point models, they are mainly determined by the properties of the neutralino LSP itself.

Assuming $`R`$-parity conservation and minimal field content, at tree level the neutralino mass matrix is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W\\ 0& M_2& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W\\ m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& 0& \mu \\ m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
in the basis $`(i\stackrel{~}{B},i\stackrel{~}{W}^3,\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0,\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0)`$. Here $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the soft Bino and Wino masses, $`\mu `$ is the Higgsino mass parameter, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_u^0/H_d^0`$ is the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values. We parametrize the gaugino/Higgsino content of the lightest neutralino according to

$$\chi =a_1(i\stackrel{~}{B})+a_2(i\stackrel{~}{W}^3)+a_3\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0+a_4\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0,$$
(2)
and define the gaugino fraction of $`\chi `$ to be

$$R_\chi |a_1|^2+|a_2|^2.$$
(3)
In the framework of minimal supergravity, there are 4 continuous parameters and 1 binary choice:

$$m_0,M_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\text{sgn}(\mu ).$$
(4)
Here, $`m_0`$, $`M_{1/2}`$, and $`A_0`$ are, respectively, the universal scalar mass, gaugino mass, and trilinear scalar coupling at the grand unified theory (GUT) scale $`M_{\text{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\text{ GeV}`$. Given values for these input parameters, all the couplings and masses of the weak scale Lagrangian are determined through renormalization group (RG) evolution. In our work we use two-loop RG equations  and include one-loop threshold corrections from supersymmetric particles to the gauge and Yukawa coupling constants . We minimize the Higgs potential after including all one-loop effects, and include one-loop corrections in all superpartner masses . This framework imposes several specific relations among the weak scale supersymmetry parameters. In particular, $`M_1M_2/20.4M_{1/2}`$, and $`|\mu |`$ is fixed by the condition of electroweak symmetry breaking, which, at tree-level, is

$$\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2=\frac{m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\mu ^2m_{H_u}^2\mu ^2,$$
(5)
where the last relation is valid for moderate and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The essence of the focus point mechanism is the observation that the weak scale value of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ is remarkably insensitive to variations in the fundamental GUT scale supersymmetry parameters, even for multi-TeV $`m_0`$. By Eq. (5), therefore, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$ , the electroweak scale is insensitive to variations in these parameters, and in this sense multi-TeV values of $`m_0`$ are natural.

Contours of gaugino fraction $`R_\chi `$ are presented in Fig. 1. (For reference, contours for the fine-tuning parameter $`c`$, as defined in Ref. , are also given in Fig. 1. While large $`M_{1/2}`$ leads to large fine-tuning, large $`m_0`$ does not, as a result of the focus point discussed above.) For $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$, the lightest neutralino is nearly pure Bino, with $`R_\chi 0.9`$. This well-known result arises from the circumstance that RG evolution typically drives $`m_{H_u}^2`$ large (relative to the gaugino masses) and negative, which by Eq. (5) implies $`|\mu |`$ much larger than $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$.

For $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$, however, $`\chi `$ contains significant amounts of Higgsino over much of the parameter space. For large and moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, large values of $`m_0`$ generate positive corrections to $`m_{H_u}^2`$, rendering it less negative. Thus if all other parameters are fixed, we find that as $`m_0`$ increases, $`|\mu |`$ decreases, and eventually $`|\mu |M_1,M_2`$, which leads to significant mixing between Higgsino and gaugino states. As $`m_0`$ increases further, the Higgsino content of $`\chi `$ increases until ultimately one enters the domain $`|\mu |<95\text{ GeV}`$, which is excluded by limits from chargino searches at LEP II . At that point, we have entered the shaded region of Fig. 1.

Note that the above discussion holds for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$ where the focus point mechanism is operative. For small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$ becomes sensitive to $`m_{H_d}^2`$, and large $`m_0`$ gives negative contributions to $`m_{H_u}^2`$. Both of these effects imply that, as $`m_0`$ increases, $`|\mu |`$ also increases, and so there is no mixed gaugino-Higgsino region for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## III Relic Abundance

There is ample and increasingly precise evidence that the energy density of the universe is not dominated by the observed luminous matter . The evidence is conveniently expressed in terms of ratios $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\rho _i/\rho _c`$, where the $`\rho _i`$ are energy densities and $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density, and $`h0.65\pm 0.1`$, the Hubble parameter in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1. The luminous matter density is roughly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{lum}}0.005`$, and the successful predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis require baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.02`$. At the same time, rotation curves of spiral galaxies require matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.1`$, and a variety of observations, ranging from the velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters to the luminosities of Type Ia supernovae, favor values in the range $`0.2\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.6`$. There is therefore a need for both baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter. For non-baryonic dark matter, which is of interest here, galactic rotation curves require $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{DM}}h^20.025`$, and large scale measurements suggest $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{DM}}h^20.3`$.

Neutralinos remain in thermal equilibrium until their pair annihilation rate drops below the Hubble expansion rate. The relic density of neutralinos is therefore determined primarily by their cross section for pair annihilation in the early universe. Neutralinos annihilate to fermion pairs through the $`t`$-channel exchange of sfermions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, and via $`\chi \chi Z,A,h,Hf\overline{f}`$, where $`A`$ is the $`CP`$-odd Higgs boson, and $`h`$ and $`H`$ are the lighter and heavier $`CP`$-even Higgs bosons. When kinematically accessible, annihilation to two body states of gauge and Higgs bosons are also relevant.

The calculation of neutralino relic density has been discussed at length in the literature. We use the results of Drees and Nojiri , as implemented by Jungman, Kamionkowski, and Griest . $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave contributions to all tree-level processes with two-body final states are included.

In Fig. 2 we display the neutralino relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ in the $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane for two representative values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_0=0`$, and $`\mu >0`$. These plots exhibit the most important parameter dependencies. Variations in $`A_0`$ within its natural range have little effect, as the $`A`$ parameter flows to a fixed point at the weak scale. Similarly, changing the sign of $`\mu `$ does not produce qualitatively new results. We have chosen the sign less constrained by $`bs\gamma `$ (see below).

In most of parameter space, the expected accuracy in Fig. 2 is $`𝒪(10\%)`$ . More significant errors are possible in special regions. First, a more refined treatment is necessary just below annihilation thresholds . Such a treatment will smooth out the kinks in the contours of Fig. 2, which are caused by the opening of annihilation channels such as $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$. Second, co-annihilation is important very near the left and right borders of the allowed region, where the LSP is nearly degenerate with staus  and Higgsinos , respectively. Finally, $`s`$-channel poles also require a more careful analysis . The $`Z`$ pole possibility, $`2m_\chi =m_Z`$, is now essentially eliminated by the chargino mass bound of 95 GeV , but a $`h`$ pole is possible near the bottom of the allowed region, as indicated in Fig. 2. $`H`$ and $`A`$ poles, though possibly significant for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$ region , are absent for $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$ for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ and $`\mu >0`$. (The sign of $`\mu `$ enters through the finite supersymmetric threshold corrections to the bottom Yukawa coupling .) Thus, although special effects warrant more sophisticated analysis in limited regions of parameter space, they are absent in the bulk of the focus point region. They do not affect our main conclusions.

For sub-TeV $`m_0`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`m_0`$. In this region, the LSP is nearly Bino-like, and so the dominant process is $`\chi \chi f\overline{f}`$ through $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ exchange. As $`m_0`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ increase, this annihilation process is suppressed, and the relic density grows. This behavior, along with the requirement of a neutral LSP, has led many authors to conclude that upper bounds on the relic density typically impose stringent upper limits on superpartner masses . As these results are independent of, and less subjective than, considerations based on naturalness or the fine structure of gauge coupling unification, they have often been taken, by the authors themselves or others, as robust phenomenological upper bounds. If correct, this conclusion would have important implications for supersymmetry searches at the Tevatron and the LHC, and in planning for future linear colliders .

But when we consider $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$, motivated by the focus point or otherwise, we find that the behavior of this function reverses. The reason for this behavior is not difficult to locate. For although as $`m_0`$ increases the $`t`$-channel sfermion exchange process is more and more suppressed, as noted in Sec. II, at the same time the LSP gradually acquires a significant Higgsino component. Because of this, other diagrams become unsuppressed, and pair annihilation again becomes efficient. The cosmologically interesting region, with a mixed gaugino-Higgsino LSP and $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$, extends at least to $`m_010\text{ TeV}`$, $`M_{1/2}6\text{ TeV}`$ and $`m_\chi 2.5\text{ TeV}`$. Thus, for all collider applications, cosmological considerations do not provide upper bounds on superpartner masses, even in the constrained framework of minimal supergravity. It has been noted previously that cosmological bounds might be weakened or eliminated by the effects of co-annihilation  or poles . Here, we see that even without appealing to such conspiratorial effects, sweeping claims that cosmology provides stringent upper bounds on superpartner masses are unfounded. Note that the cosmologically interesting region of parameter space with $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$ is in no sense small. For fixed $`M_{1/2}`$, this region extends over one to several hundred GeV in $`m_0`$, depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. It is comparable in area to the allowed region with $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$.

For all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$, we find relic densities in the cosmologically interesting range $`0.025<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ over most of the focus point regime with $`m_0>1.5\text{ TeV}`$. In fact, as can be seen from Fig. 2, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ never saturates the upper bound, even for $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$. This additional suppression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ is not due to any enhancement of the LSP’s Higgsino component from large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the gaugino purity of the LSP is largely independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Rather it results from two enhancements to the process $`\chi \chi Af\overline{f}`$. First, the $`Af\overline{f}`$ coupling is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for isospin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermions. Second, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the bottom Yukawa coupling $`h_b`$ becomes significant and lowers $`m_A`$. This can be seen by noting that, for $`h_t=h_b`$, symmetry under interchange $`tb`$ implies that $`m_{H_d}^2`$ also has a weak scale focus point, and so $`m_A𝒪(100\text{ GeV})m_0`$.

For small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as noted in Sec. II, there is no mixed gaugino-Higgsino region for large $`m_0`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ grows monotonically as $`m_0`$ increases. Low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, such as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, have been widely considered in the literature. They are, however, increasingly disfavored by current null results in Higgs searches, and, in any case, are less natural than moderate and large values, as low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ typically leads to large values of $`|\mu |`$ .

## IV Direct Detection

Having shown that focus point models predict cosmologically interesting densities of dark matter, we now consider their predictions for dark matter detection rates. The interactions of neutralinos with matter are dominated by scalar (spin-independent) couplings . These interactions are mediated either by $`t`$-channel $`h`$ and $`H`$ exchange, or via $`\chi q\stackrel{~}{q}\chi q`$. The former diagrams contain $`h\chi \chi `$ and $`H\chi \chi `$ vertices, which are suppressed for Bino-like $`\chi `$. They also contain $`h,H`$-nucleon vertices. These are dominated by contributions arising from fundamental couplings of $`h,H`$ to the strange quark and indirectly to gluons through heavy quark loops.

In the calculation of dark matter detection rates, we assume a Maxwellian $`\chi `$ velocity distribution with velocity dispersion $`\overline{v}=270\text{km/s}`$, and a local dark matter density of $`\rho _0=0.3\text{GeV/cm}\text{3}`$.

A major uncertainty in the estimate of dark matter detection rates arises from the poorly determined value of the nucleon matrix element

$$f_{T_s}N|m_s\overline{s}s|N/m_N.$$
(6)
If it is correct to treat the effect of the strange quark mass term $`m_s\overline{s}s`$ in first order perturbation theory, then we can identify $`f_{T_s}`$ as the fractional change in the nucleon mass from what it would be in a world with massless $`s`$ quarks. Values as high as $`f_{T_s}=0.62`$ and as low as $`f_{T_s}=0.08`$ have been considered in the literature .

The traditional strategy for evaluating $`f_{T_s}`$ is to combine an ‘experimental’ determination of the $`\sigma `$-term $`N|\frac{m_u+m_d}{2}(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)|N`$ with a fit of the flavor $`SU(3)`$-breaking term $`N|\frac{1}{3}m_s(2\overline{s}s\overline{u}u\overline{d}d)|N`$ to the baryon octet splitting, and finally the ratios of light quark masses from the $`\pi /K`$ mass ratio. This procedure is problematic, however, in several ways. First, theory relates the value of the $`\sigma `$ term to the value of the $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitude at an unphysical point, and a rather elaborate and numerically unstable extrapolation is necessary (hence the quotation marks). Second, in getting to the quantity of interest, the uncertainty in the $`\sigma `$ term is amplified by the large factor $`2m_s/(m_u+m_d)`$. Third, the nucleon matrix element of the $`SU(3)`$ breaking term is presumably dominated by the valence quark terms, so that the term of interest is subdominant. Fourth, and exacerbating all these, the use of first-order perturbation theory for the baryon splittings is questionable to begin with.

Clearly it would be very desirable to have a first-principles estimate of $`f_{T_s}`$. Straightforward evaluation in lattice gauge theory appears very difficult, because three-point amplitudes with disconnected components are noisy and computationally demanding. Here we would like to suggest an alternative strategy that avoids any measurement of three-point amplitudes. The basic idea is to vary the strange quark mass, starting with a very large value and bringing it down by small increments. In the heavy quark limit we have a universal answer by integrating out the heavy quark to obtain a gluon operator, which is (essentially) the trace of the energy-momentum tensor with a definite coefficient . And if we change the strange quark mass by a small amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, we have for the induced change in the nucleon mass

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_N=N|\mathrm{\Delta }m_s\overline{s}s|N,$$
(7)
by first-order perturbation theory. Of course, it is implicit in this procedure that one is doing a fully unquenched calculation, with dynamical quarks (including the strange quark). Since the error is at least quadratic in the step size, one should achieve good accuracy by taking the steps sufficiently small. Note that, since the nucleon state is changing at each step of the calculation, it is not correct to do the whole thing in one jump, despite the apparent linearity of Eq. (7). In any case, Eq. (7) allows one to extract the matrix element of interest by measuring masses only, without ever involving three-point functions.

No result of this type is currently available, and so at present one must rely on informed guesswork for a numerical estimate of $`f_{T_s}`$. There is a very extensive literature on the subject, which we will not review here. We will confine ourselves to two brief observations.

If one treats the strange quark as heavy, rather than light, then one obtains the universal value $`f_{T_{\text{Heavy}}}=0.074`$. This is presumably a lower limit. But of course if one takes the strange quark mass to zero, then $`f_{T_s}`$ will likewise vanish. Thus, in considering values of $`f_{T_s}`$ that are many times the heavy quark value, one is implicitly postulating that this quantity varies very rapidly as a function of $`m_s`$, which may be implausible.

Quenched calculations of the nucleon to rho mass ratio, and even more so calculations with two dynamical quarks, agree remarkably well with experiment, down to the few percent level. This fact can only be consistent with the idea that the strange quark is significantly perturbing the nucleon mass if the strange quark contributes an accurately equal proportion of the rho mass. In general, that would seem to require a conspiracy. Just such a “conspiracy” does take place for heavy quarks, since they can be integrated out in favor of a charge renormalization, whose primary effect is just to change the overall mass scale (dimensional transmutation). However, as we have seen, if it is valid to treat the strange quark as heavy, then its contribution is small.

While these considerations are far from definitive, they do seem to us to make the larger end of the range of values discussed for $`f_{T_s}`$ appear dubious. In preparing our plots, we have adopted the conventional value $`f_{T_s}=0.14`$. For extreme values in the range quoted above, the proton-neutralino cross sections plotted may decrease by roughly a factor of 2, or increase by a factor of 5.

In Fig. 3, we present proton-neutralino cross sections $`\sigma _P`$. For $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$, the dominant contribution is through squarks, and so the interaction rate decreases monotonically for increasing $`m_0`$ . A naive extrapolation would then suggest very small detection rates in the focus point region. However, for $`m_01\text{ TeV}`$, this behavior is reversed — in this region, as $`m_0`$ increases, the LSP’s Higgsino content increases, and so the Higgs boson diagrams become less and less suppressed. (This feature was also noticed in Ref. , where the region of large $`m_0`$ was singled out on the basis of Yukawa coupling unification in SO(10) GUT models.) Detection rates may therefore be large in the focus point region. This is especially true for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where the effect noted in Sec. III, a relatively light $`H`$ boson with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhanced $`Hf\overline{f}`$ couplings, leads to large and dominant heavy Higgs amplitudes .

In Fig. 4, we show the correlation between relic density and proton-neutralino cross section for a representative sample of points in parameter space. As usual, there is a strong anti-correlation, with large $`\sigma _P`$ corresponding to low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. Nevertheless, we find that, for a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$, points with large $`m_0`$ have proton-neutralino cross sections comparable to those with conventional sub-TeV $`m_0`$. For the optimal case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, points with $`m_0>1\text{ TeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.025`$) have cross sections as large as $`\sigma _P2\times 10^7`$ pb ($`\sigma _P10^6`$ pb).

## V Discussion

Several ongoing and planned experiments, using a variety of techniques, are devoted to the search for WIMP dark matter . Assuming that the matter-WIMP interactions are dominated by spin-independent couplings, these experiments may be compared by scaling the matter-WIMP cross sections for each detector material to the proton-WIMP cross section $`\sigma _P`$ and displaying the sensitivity in the $`(m_\chi ,\sigma _P)`$ plane.

In Fig. 5 we plot predictions of focus point supersymmetry in the $`(m_\chi ,\sigma _P)`$ plane. We find that, for a given $`m_\chi `$, cross sections are typically maximized for large $`m_0`$, and large cross sections near current sensitivities are possible. At present, the DAMA Collaboration has reported data favoring the existence of a WIMP signal in their search for annual modulation . When WIMP velocity uncertainties are included , the preferred range of parameters is $`10^6\text{pb}\sigma _P10^5\text{pb}`$ and $`30\text{ GeV}m_\chi 200\text{ GeV}`$ ($`3\sigma `$ CL). The DAMA result has been criticized , and a recent analysis of the CDMS Collaboration excludes the $`3\sigma `$ DAMA region at $`>84\%`$ CL . While the situation is at present unclear, in the near future both experiments will improve their sensitivities significantly. It is noteworthy, in any case, that current experiments are on the verge of probing the region of parameter space arising in focus point models.

It is also interesting to compare the discovery potentials of dark matter searches and future colliders in focus point models. In the focus point scenario, all squarks and sleptons are beyond the reach of the Tevatron and may present significant challenges even for the LHC. However, the lightest Higgs boson has mass $`m_h120\text{ GeV}`$, and so may be discovered in Run II of the Tevatron. The correlation between $`m_h`$ and $`\sigma _P`$ is presented in Fig. 6. We note that focus point models provide a natural setting for Higgs masses above the current bound, as the large squark masses raise the Higgs mass through their radiative corrections. At the same time, both Higgs and dark matter searches are promising, and will confront the focus point scenario over the next few years.

It has been argued that the regions of parameter space which give large dark matter detection rates may also predict large rates for other processes, such as proton decay  and $`bs\gamma `$ . Conversely, present bounds from such processes may exclude the largest possible rates for dark matter detection. The proton decay rate, as noted in the introduction, scales as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^4`$, so it is relatively suppressed in the focus point models. The process $`bs\gamma `$ provides a stringent constraint on large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ only for one sign of $`\mu `$. For the positive sign (the one adopted in our plots), destructive interference between the chargino and charged Higgs diagrams typically leads to predictions within the experimental bounds.

Focus point scenarios can also imply interesting rates for anti-matter detectors and experiments sensitive to dark matter annihilation in the cores of the earth or sun .

Finally, of course, neutralinos and charginos themselves are targets for discovery at colliders. If they are found, detailed measurements of their masses and compositions could then be made, and might even be used to exclude neutralinos as dark matter candidates . However, colliders will never be able to distinguish unstable particles with long decay lengths from those stable on cosmological time scales. Since some well-motivated models with low energy supersymmetry breaking predict LSPs which are stable on accelerator detector, but unstable on cosmological, scales, in principle identification of neutralinos as the dark matter of our universe cannot be made at accelerators. Ultimately this identification requires detection, either directly or indirectly, of neutralinos permeating space.

## Acknowledgments

We thank M. Drees, C. Kolda, and T. Moroi for helpful conversations. We are grateful to G. Jungman for correspondence and M. Drees and T. Falk for extensive numerical comparisons that revealed a sign error in the program Neutdriver used in the first version of the paper. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under contracts DE–FG02–90ER40542 and DE–AC02–76CH03000, by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY–9513835. J.L.F. acknowledges the generosity of Frank and Peggy Taplin and the National Center for Theoretical Sciences and National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan for hospitality during the completion of this work. K.T.M. thanks the SLAC theory group for hospitality during the completion of this work.


format: text

text:
# Collective states in nuclei and many-body random interactions

## I Introduction

Random matrix ensembles provide a powerful tool to study generic spectral properties of complex many-body systems . Most applications in the literature have centered on global characteristics such as first neighbor energy distributions, which typically involve states with the same quantum numbers (angular momentum, parity, isospin, …). Recently, the relation between low-lying states in even-even nuclei with different quantum numbers was examined using Hamiltonians with random interactions in the nuclear shell model (SM)  and the interacting boson model (IBM) . These studies have given rise to several surprising results. In both cases it was found that for a large variety of conditions there is a dominance ($`\stackrel{>}{}60\%`$) of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states despite the random nature of the interactions. In addition, in the SM strong evidence was found for the occurrence of pairing properties , and in the IBM for both vibrational and rotational band structures . These results are not only based on energies, but also involve the behavior of the wave functions via the pair transfer amplitudes in the case of pairing, and the quadrupole transitions for the collective bands. The use of random interactions (both in size and in sign) show that these regular features arise for a much wider class of Hamiltonians than are usually considered to be realisitic. These results are in qualitative agreement with the empirical observations of very robust features in the low-lying spectra of medium and heavy even-even nuclei and a tripartite classification in terms of a seniority, a vibrator and a rotor regime . The conventional wisdom in nuclear structure physics is that the observed properties of nuclei can be explained by specific features of the SM (or IBM) Hamiltonian. The studies with random interactions, however, seem to imply that some of the generic characteristics of these systems may already be encoded in the corresponding shell model (or $`sd`$ boson model) space. This is particularly striking in the case of the IBM, for which the model space corresponds to a drastic truncation of the original (shell model) Hilbert space to that composed of like-nucleon pairs with angular momentum $`L=0`$ and $`L=2`$ . The selection of such a restricted subspace seems to impose strong constraints on the possible spectral properties.

These considerations lead naturally to the question of what are the specific causes of this behavior, given that the ingredients of the calculations are the preservation of fundamental symmetries of the Hamiltonian (hermiticity, rotational invariance, time-reversal invariance), the one- and two-body nature of the Hamiltonian, a given number of active particles, and the structure of the model space. In  it was shown that the preponderance of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states in the nuclear shell model is not due to the time-reversal symmetry of the interactions. The purpose of this paper is to address explicitly the role of the particle number and the rank of the random many-body interactions on the systematics of collective states in nuclei.

## II Random interactions in the IBM

To study the global features of low-lying collective states in nuclei we carry out an analysis of the IBM with random interactions. In the IBM, collective nuclei are described as a system of $`N`$ interacting monopole and quadrupole bosons . We consider all possible one-, two- and three-body interactions. The one-body Hamiltonian contains the boson energies

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0s^{}s+ϵ_2{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}d_m^{}d_m.`$ (1)
The two-body interactions can be expressed as

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L=0,2,4}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\zeta _{L_{ij}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{L_i}^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{L_j}+P_{L_j}^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{L_i}}{1+\delta _{ij}}},`$ (2)
with $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{LM}=(1)^{LM}P_{L,M}`$. Here $`P_L^{}`$ denotes the creation operator of a pair of bosons coupled to angular momentum $`L`$

$`P_{0_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s^{}\times s^{})^{(0)},`$ (3)
$`P_{0_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d^{}\times d^{})^{(0)},`$ (4)
$`P_{2_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(s^{}\times d^{})^{(2)},`$ (5)
$`P_{2_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d^{}\times d^{})^{(2)},`$ (6)
$`P_{4_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d^{}\times d^{})^{(4)}.`$ (7)
Similarly, the three-body interactions are given by

$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L=0,2,3,4,6}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\xi _{L_{ij}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{L_i}^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{L_j}+P_{L_j}^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{L_i}}{1+\delta _{ij}}},`$ (8)
with

$`P_{0_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(s^{}\times s^{}\times s^{})^{(0)},`$ (9)
$`P_{0_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(0)},`$ (10)
$`P_{0_3}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(d^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(0)},`$ (11)
$`P_{2_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s^{}\times s^{}\times d^{})^{(2)},`$ (12)
$`P_{2_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(2)},`$ (13)
$`P_{2_3}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(d^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(2)},`$ (14)
$`P_{3_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(d^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(3)},`$ (15)
$`P_{4_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(s^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(4)},`$ (16)
$`P_{4_2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(d^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(4)},`$ (17)
$`P_{6_1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(d^{}\times d^{}\times d^{})^{(6)}.`$ (18)
The coefficients $`ϵ_L`$, $`\zeta _{L_{ij}}`$ and $`\xi _{L_{ij}}`$ correspond to the 2 one-body, 7 two-body and 17 three-body matrix elements, respectively. They are chosen independently from a Gaussian distribution of random numbers with zero mean and variance $`v^2`$ as

$`ϵ_Lϵ_L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{LL^{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}v^2,`$ (19)
$`\zeta _{L_{ij}}\zeta _{L_{i^{}j^{}}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{LL^{}}(1+\delta _{ij,i^{}j^{}})v^2,`$ (20)
$`\xi _{L_{ij}}\xi _{L_{i^{}j^{}}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{LL^{}}(1+\delta _{ij,i^{}j^{}})v^2,`$ (21)
$`ϵ_L^{}\zeta _{L_{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_L^{}\xi _{L_{ij}}=\zeta _{L_{ij}}\xi _{L_{i^{}j^{}}^{}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (22)
The choice of the ensembles is such that they are invariant under orthogonal basis transformations. The variance of the Gaussian distribution $`v^2`$ sets the overall energy scale. The ensemble defined by Eq. (22) for $`H_k`$ is called the $`k`$-body random ensemble ($`k`$-BRE) . For two-body interactions $`H=H_2`$ it reduces to the T(wo)BRE . When the number of bosons is equal to the rank of the interactions $`N=k`$, the Hamiltonian matrix is entirely random and the ensemble coincides with the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE). For $`N>k`$ the many-body matrix elements of $`H_k`$ are correlated via the appropriate reduction formulas and depend, in principle, on all random $`k`$-body matrix elements.

## III Results

In  we used random one- and two-body interactions with $`N=16`$ to study the systematics of low-lying collective states in the IBM. Here we wish to study how these results depend on the boson number and the rank of the random interactions.

We first analyze the dependence on the total number of bosons. Hereto we take the Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ of Eq. (2) with random two-body matrix elements. In all calculations we make 1000 runs. For each set of randomly generated two-body matrix elements we calculate the entire energy spectrum and the $`B(E2)`$ values between the yrast states. In Fig. 1 we show the percentage of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states as a function of $`N`$ (solid line). For $`N=2`$ the Hamiltonian matrix is a real-symmetric random matrix. For each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ the ensemble corresponds to GOE, whose level distribution is a semicircle with radius $`\sqrt{4dv^2}`$ and width $`\sqrt{(d+1)v^2}`$ . In this case, the percentage of ground states for a given value of $`L`$ is determined by the dimension $`d`$ of the Hamiltonian matrix: $`d=2`$ for $`L=0`$, 2 and $`d=1`$ for $`L=4`$. For $`3N16`$ the situation is completely different. The ensemble is now TBRE. The dominant angular momentum of the ground state is determined by the shapes of the level distributions as a function of the angular momentum, in particular by the tails, i.e. the higher moments, of the distributions (all have the same centroid). The distribution whose tail extends furthest is the most likely to provide the ground state. For a semicircular (GOE) or a Gaussian distribution (TBRE in the nuclear shell model ) the shape is completely detemined by the width. In these two cases, the dominance of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states can be correlated to the widths of the distributions . However, for a system of interacting bosons the TBRE distribution of eigenvalues is neither semicircular (except for $`N=k`$) nor Gaussian . There is no relation between the width (first moment) and higher moments of the distribution, which determine the dominant angular momentum of the ground state. Table I shows that the width increases with angular momentum, whereas the most likely value of the ground state angular momentum is $`L^P=0^+`$. In fact, the probability that the ground state has a certain value of the angular momentum is not really fixed by the full distribution of eigenvalues, but rather by that of the lowest one. Work is in progress to elucidate the form of these distributions in a schematic exactly solvable model .

Despite the different shapes of the TBRE level distributions for fermions and bosons we find, just as in the fermion case , a dominance ($`60\%`$) of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states in the IBM with $`3N16`$. This fraction is large compared to the percentage of $`L^P=0^+`$ states in the model space (solid and dashed-dotted lines in Fig. 1). The oscillations with maxima at $`N=3n`$ (multiple of 3) are due to the ‘unphysical’ region of parameter space for which the energy ratio

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E(4_1^+)E(0_1^+)}{E(2_1^+)E(0_1^+)}},`$ (23)
is less than 1 (dashed line) corresponding to a level sequence $`0_1^+`$, $`4_1^+`$, $`2_1^+`$, rather than $`0_1^+`$, $`2_1^+`$, $`4_1^+`$ for $`R>1`$ (dotted line). The enhancement for $`N=3n`$ can be attributed to the existence of a $`0^+`$ state in which all $`d`$ bosons are organized into $`n_\mathrm{\Delta }=N/3`$ triplets. This state has the $`U(5)`$ quantum numbers $`|N,n_d,v,n_\mathrm{\Delta },L>=|N,N,0,N/3,0>`$ and can become the ground state if the vibrational spectrum is turned ‘upside down’.

For the cases with a $`L^P=0^+`$ ground state we present in Fig. 2 the probability distribution $`P(R)`$ of the energy ratio $`R`$ of Eq. (23). This energy ratio has very characteristic values for the harmonic vibrator and the rotor, $`R=2`$ and $`R=10/3`$, respectively. The Hamiltonian matrix of $`H_2`$ depends on 7 independent random two-body matrix elements. For small values of $`N`$ there is little correlation among the matrix elements of $`H`$, and as a consequence the probability distribution $`P(R)`$ shows little structure for $`N=3`$ (dashed-dotted curve). For increasing values of $`N`$ there is a correspondingly higher correlation between the different matrix elements of $`H`$, which results in the development of two peaks in $`P(R)`$. We first see the development of a maximum at $`R1.9`$ for $`N=6`$ (dotted curve), followed by another one at $`R3.3`$ for $`N=10`$ (dashed curve). For $`N=16`$ the probability distribution $`P(R)`$ has two very pronounced peaks, one at $`R1.95`$ and a narrower one at $`R3.35`$ (solid curve). These values correspond almost exactly to those for the harmonic vibrator and the rotor. The two maxima correspond to the two basic phases that characterize the collective region: a spherical one with $`R2.0`$ and a axially deformed one with $`R3.3`$. There is no peak for $`\gamma `$-unstable nuclei ($`SO(6)`$ limit), since this requires that the matrix element of $`\zeta _{2_{12}}\left[(s^{}\times d^{})^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{d}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}+\text{h.c.}\right]`$ vanishes identically, effectively corresponding to a zero-measure case for the random sample. Any other value of $`\zeta _{2_{12}}`$ ($`0`$) gives rise to an axially symmetric rotor .

In a second calculation we take the Hamiltonian $`H_3`$ of Eq. (8) with random three-body interactions. Fig. 3 shows the same qualitative behavior as Fig. 2 although the peak structure is far less pronounced. For $`N=16`$ we see again two maxima at the vibrator and rotor values of the energy ratio $`R`$. The case of three-body interactions in the IBM is of special interest, since it can give rise to stable triaxial deformations , which are absent in the case of Hamiltonians including one- and two-body interactions only. We note, however, that in the neutron-proton version of the IBM, triaxial deformation can be obtained from Hamiltonians with one- and two-body interactions only . Fig. 3 shows no clear sign of a ‘triaxial’ peak (e.g. a triaxially deformed rotor with $`\gamma =30^{}`$ has $`R=8/3`$), nor of a ‘$`\gamma `$-unstable’ one with $`R=5/2`$.

After these two model studies, we now turn to a more realistic case. It has been shown  that the phenomelogy of low-lying collective states in nuclei is well described by an IBM Hamiltonian consisting of both one- and two-body interactions

$`H_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N1}}H_2\right].`$ (24)
In order to remove the $`N`$ dependence of the matrix elements of $`k`$-body interactions, we have scaled $`H_k`$ by $`_{i=1}^k(N+1i)`$. In Fig. 4 we show the corresponding probability distribution $`P(R)`$ of the energy ratio $`R`$ of Eq. (23) for different values of the number of bosons. The results are very similar to those of Fig. 2 which were obtained with pure two-body interactions. With increasing values of $`N`$ the many-body matrix elements of $`H_{12}`$ become increasingly correlated, which results in the development of two maxima in $`P(R)`$. The curve for $`N=16`$ is identical to the calculation discussed in . The occurrence of two basic phases for the collective region is further exemplified in Fig. 5 in which we plot the energy ratio $`R`$ for the consistent-Q formulation  of the IBM

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\widehat{n}_d\kappa \widehat{Q}(\chi )\widehat{Q}(\chi ),`$ (25)
$`\widehat{Q}_\mu (\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`(s^{}\stackrel{~}{d}+d^{}s)_\mu ^{(2)}+\chi (d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})_\mu ^{(2)},`$ (26)
with realistic values of the interactions, i.e. a positive $`d`$ boson energy ($`ϵ>0`$) and an attractive quadrupole-quadrupole interaction ($`\kappa >0`$). The results in Fig. 5 are plotted as a function of the scaled parameters $`x=2\chi /\sqrt{7}`$ and $`y=ϵ/[ϵ+4\kappa (N1)]`$, which have been used as control parameters in a study of phase transitions in the IBM ). For $`y=1`$ we recover the vibrational or $`SU(5)`$ limit of the IBM, whereas for $`y=0`$ and $`x=1`$ one finds the rotational or $`SU(3)`$ limit, and for $`y=0`$ and $`x=0`$ the $`\gamma `$-unstable or $`SO(6)`$ limit. We clearly see two planes corresponding to $`R2.0`$ and $`R3.3`$ respectively, which are separated by a sharp transitional region, in agreement with the observation in  that the collective region is characterized by two phases (spherical and deformed) connected by a sharp phase transition.

In order to investigate the effect of higher order interactions we now add three-body interactions to the Hamiltonian

$`H_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N1}}\left[H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N2}}H_3\right]\right].`$ (27)
In this case the Hamiltonian matrix depends on 26 independent random matrix elements (2 one-body, 7 two-body and 17 three-body). Therefore, for a fixed value of $`N`$ there is less correlation between the $`N`$-body matrix elements of $`H_{123}`$ than for $`H_{12}`$, which results in broader peaks in the probability distribution $`P(R)`$. A comparison of Figs. 4 and 6 shows that the probability distribution $`P(R)`$ behaves in a very similar way, and that the addition of three-body interactions does not change the results in a significant way. When $`N`$ is sufficiently large compared to the maximum rank $`k`$ of the interactions (2 and 3, respectively) the results become independent of $`k`$.

This result is qualitatively very similar to that of , in which the transition from a Gaussian to a semicircular level distribution was studied in the nuclear shell model for a fixed particle number $`N=7`$ with increasing values of the rank $`2k7`$. The characteristic features of the ensemble depend on the ratio of the number of particles and the rank of the interactions. For $`N`$ sufficiently large compared to $`k`$ there is a saturation, and the properties of the ensemble no longer depend on $`k`$.

## IV Summary and conclusions

In summary, we have studied global properties of low-lying collective levels using the interacting boson model with random interations. In particular, we addressed the dependence of the dominance of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states and the occurrence of vibrational and rotational band structures on the boson number $`N`$ and the rank $`k`$ of the interactions.

Just as for the nuclear shell model it was found that despite the randomness of the interactions (both in size and sign) the ground state has $`L^P=0^+`$ in approximately 60 $`\%`$ of the cases. The oscillation in the percentage of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states with $`N`$ was shown to be entirely due to cases in which the level sequence is given by $`0^+`$, $`4^+`$, $`2^+`$ ($`R<1`$). For the cases with $`R>1`$ there is a very smooth dependence on $`N`$.

The vibrational and rotational band structures appear gradually as $`N/k`$ increases. For $`Nk`$ there is little or no evidence for such bands. As $`N`$ grows we first see evidence for the development of vibrational structure, followed later by the appearance of rotational bands. If $`N`$ increases further these band structures become more and more pronounced. Essentially the same behavior is found for random two- and three-body interactions. In realistic applications to collective nuclei the IBM Hamiltonian consists of a combination of one- and two-body interactions. A study with random ensembles of one- and two-body interactions shows similar results to the case of pure two-body terms. The inclusion of random three-body interactions does not significantly change the basic features.

In conclusion, we find that the dominance of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states and the occurrence of vibrational and rotational features are independent of the boson number, as long as $`N`$ is sufficiently large compared with the maximum rank of the interactions. We can conclude that these features represent general and robust properties of the interacting boson model space, and are a consequence of the many-body dynamics, which enters via the reduction formulas for the $`N`$-body matrix elements of $`k`$-body interactions (angular momentum coupling, coefficients of fractional parentage, etc.). Since the structure of the model space is completely determined by the corresponding degrees of freedom, these results emphasize the importance of the selection of the relevant degrees of freedom. In this context, a relevant question is whether vibrational and rotational collective behavior can be directly observed in the shell model with random interactions if an appropriate truncation of the (shell model) Hilbert space is carried out.

It is important to stress that these properties do not arise as an artefact of a particular model of nuclear structure. In empirical studies of the low-lying collective states of medium and heavy even-even nuclei very regular and robust features have been observed, such as the tripartite classification into seniority, anharmonic vibrator and rotor regimes  and the systematics of excitation energy and $`M1`$ strength of the scissors mode .

Finally, we remark that the use of random interactions to study the generic behavior of low-lying states has also found useful applications in many-body quantum systems of a different nature, such a quantum dots or small metallic particles .

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Rick Casten, Jorge Flores, Franco Iachello Stuart Pittel and Thomas Seligman for illuminating discussions. This work was supported in part by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN101997 and by CONACyT under projects 32416-E and 32397-E.


text:
# WEAK AND MAGNETIC INELASTIC SCATTERING OF ANTINEUTRINOS ON ATOMIC ELECTRONS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In the present paper some issues of the low-energy neutrino physics are considered that could be essential for the current and future experiments aimed to search for a “large” neutrino magnetic moment. In the previous publication  we have studied the inelastic weak and magnetic scattering of reactor antineutrinos on the K- and L-shell electrons in a iodine atom. Here we extend our calculations to the iodine M-shell electrons, and present the results for the K- and L-shell electrons bound in a germanium atom. Besides the reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s, we also consider electron antineutrinos emitted by the 90Sr–90Y and 147Pm artificial sources. The use of artificial $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ sources and semiconductor germanium detectors in experiments on the neutrino magnetic moment has been considered in a number of recent publications (and references therein).

For the reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s, as was shown in ref. , the free scattering differential cross sections can be approximately converted to the inelastic ones by means of a simple step-function transformation. Here we investigate the accuracy of such a recipe in more detail, with different $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy spectra.

As an input, we use the standard power reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum corrected for antineutrinos from the beta-emitters born in a core through the (n,$`\gamma `$) reactions ; for the 90Sr–90Y and 147Pm sources we use the spectra tabulated in ref. . The chosen input spectra are plotted in Fig. 1. The calculated recoil electron energy spectra with these three sources for the case of a free $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$-scattering are presented in Fig. 2. In these calculations, eqs. (2)–(4) of ref.  have been used. The free magnetic- and weak-scattering recoil spectra are denoted as $`S_{\mathrm{free}}^M`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{free}}^W`$, respectively. All calculations in the present paper are done for the neutrino magnetic moment $`\mu =210^{11}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ ($`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is the Bohr magneton), the constants of the electroweak interaction are the same as in ref. .

## 2 INELASTIC SCATTERING ON ATOMIC
ELECTRONS

In this section we consider the $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$scattering on electrons bound in the iodine and germanium atoms. The energies and wave functions of the discrete single-electron states are calculated within the relativistic self-consistent Hart-ree-Fock-Dirac (HF-D) approach, with a local exchange-correlation potential. The wave functions of outgoing electrons in the continuum were obtained by a numerical integration of the Dirac equation in the HF-D mean field. The details of this approach can be found in refs. . The calculated energies of some electronic subshells are listed in Table 1, they agree with spectroscopic data within a few percent.

For an iodine atom, the weak and magnetic inelastic $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$-scattering cross sections have been calculated for K-, L- and M-shells which contain in total 28 electrons, the remaining 25 electrons with binding energies less than 200 eV were considered as free. For germanium, atomic binding of K- and L-shell electrons has been taken into account, all the other electrons were treated as free. We shall denote the inelastic recoil energy spectra for electrons knocked out from an atom due to the magnetic and weak interactions by $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^M`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^W`$, respectively.

Shown in the top panels of Figs. 3 and 4 are the results of calculations of the recoil spectra $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^M`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^W`$, respectively, for electrons knocked out from different electronic subshells of an iodine atom by $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from the 90Sr–90Y source. In the bottom panels in these figures, the ratios to the corresponding free recoil spectra are plotted. It can be seen that the magnetic scattering is strongly suppressed by the atomic binding effect for the K- and L-shell electrons, and even for the M-shell with lower binding energy, the effect of suppression is quite noticeable. Atomic electron binding also influences the weak scattering cross sections but the effect is much weaker. This unfavours the detectability of the neutrino magnetic moment.

As follows from our calculations, the ratios $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^{M,W}(T)/S_{\mathrm{free}}^{M,W}(T)`$ for the other sources and target atoms are typically of the same character as those presented in Figs. 3 and 4.

Let us introduce now, instead of the electron kinetic energy $`T`$, the energy transfer $`q`$ which is defined by

$$q=\mathrm{\Delta }E=ϵ_i+T,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the neutrino energy loss in the inelastic scattering process, $`ϵ_i`$ is the electron binding energy on the considered atomic shell (the nuclear recoil is neglected). For the scattering on free electrons one has $`ϵ=0`$ and $`q=T`$. In practice, for majority of detectors, $`q`$ is just the total energy that could be recorded as a visible energy of the event since the soft X-rays and Auger electrons, ejected to fill the vacancy in the shell, are absorbed in the detector sensitive volume and their summed energy, i.e. $`ϵ_i`$, is added to the kinetic energy $`T`$ of the recoil electron.

It has been demonstrated in ref.  that, for reactor antineutrinos, the inelastic scattering spectrum $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)`$ for electrons from the subshell $`i`$ of the iodine atom can be obtained from the free scattering spectrum $`S_{\mathrm{free}}(q)`$, taken at the same visible energy $`q`$, if one introduces the response function $`R^i(q,ϵ_i)`$ defined by the relation

$$S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)=R^i(q,ϵ_i)\times S_{\mathrm{free}}(q),$$
(2)
in which $`R^i(q,ϵ_i)`$ is approximated by the Heaviside step-function $`\theta (qϵ_i)`$:

$$R^i(q,ϵ_i)\theta (qϵ_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & q>ϵ_i\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & q<ϵ_i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
In the following, this will be referred to as the zero (or step-function) approximation.

Now, for each antineutrino source under consideration, we calculate the “exact” spectra $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)`$ of electrons knocked out from the iodine and germanium atomic subshells in the magnetic and weak $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$-scattering processes, evaluate the “exact” partial response functions $`R^i(q,ϵ_i)S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)/S_{\mathrm{free}}^i(q)`$ and analyze their deviations from the zero approximation of eq. (3). “Exact” means that the calculations are performed with the HF-D model. Some of the obtained results are discussed below.

For the L- and M-shell electrons, as can be seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the “exact” response functions both for magnetic and weak inelastic scattering processes differ only slightly one from the other. They, however, are close to unity everywhere except the rather narrow regions near the corresponding threshold energies $`q=ϵ_i`$. The same is true, in case of magnetic scattering, for the K-shell electrons; on the other hand, the weak scattering K-shell response function exceeds unity at sufficiently large energies. This latter effect reflects the influence of the atomic binding at relativistic energies  due to which the weak inelastic cross section could be enhanced by a factor of the order of $`1+O(\alpha ^2Z^2)1+O(ϵ_K/mc^2)`$ ($`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`m`$ the electron mass, $`ϵ_K`$ the K-shell binding energy); such an effect might be of relative importance only for the tightly bound K-shell electrons.

For the soft 147Pm antineutrinos, as seen in Figs. 7 and 8, the zero approximation does not provide a good fit for the weak scattering on the K-shell electrons either in iodine or germanium atom. We also note that the step-function approximation is strongly violated at the energy transfers around the free scattering upper limit $`q^{\mathrm{max}}=2E^2/(2E+mc^2)`$ ($`E`$ is the incoming $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy). For $`q>q^{\mathrm{max}}`$, the free scattering cross sections are identically zero while the inelastic ones are small but still finite in the “kinema-tically forbidden” region beyond $`q^{\mathrm{max}}`$ . This tendency can be clearly seen for all iodine and germanium subshells: for the energy transfer $`q>80`$ keV, as demonstrated in Figs. 7-9, the ratios $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)/S_{\mathrm{free}}^i(q)`$ rapidly increase with $`q`$.

## 3 HOW GOOD IS THE STEP-FUNCTION
APPROXIMATION?

To obtain an “exact” visible-energy-transfer electron spectrum $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^Z(q)`$ for a given atom, we have to sum all the partial contributions $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)`$ from different subshells:

$$S_{\mathrm{in}}^Z(q)=(n_i/Z)S_{\mathrm{in}}^i(q)=S_{\mathrm{free}}(q)(n_i/Z)R^i(q,ϵ_i)$$
(4)
Here $`n_i`$ is the number of electrons in the $`i`$-th subshell; the spectrum is normalized to one electron. According to Eq. (4), the “exact” response function for the whole atom has the form

$$R^Z(q)S_{\mathrm{in}}^Z(q)/S_{\mathrm{free}}(q)=(n_i/Z)R^i(q,ϵ_i),$$
(5)
and, correspondingly, the atomic response function in the zero approximation reads

$$R_0^Z(q)=(n_i/Z)\theta (qϵ_i).$$
(6)
One sees that $`R_0^Z`$ is defined only by a set of the shell energies $`ϵ_i`$ and shell occupancies $`n_i`$ of the particular atom. It is the same for magnetic and weak scattering and does not depend on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ source. For the iodine and germanium atoms, the functions $`R_0^Z`$ are shown in Fig. 10.

To check the validity of the step-function approximation for the three $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ sources considered in the present paper, we have calculated the “exact” electron energy spectra $`S_{\mathrm{in}}^Z(q)`$ for the weak and magnetic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ scattering on these two atoms. We have got in total 12 different spectra. Then 12 corresponding “exact” response functions (5) have been evaluated and com-pared with those obtained in the zero approximation of Eq. (6). The main output of this comparison can be summarized as follows:

In the $`q=`$(1.5–100) keV energy range for the reactor and 90Sr–90Y $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ sources, and in the $`q=`$(1.5–80) keV range for the 147Pm $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ source, the relative deviation $`R_0^ZR^Z/R_0^Z`$ does not exceed (1.5–2)% except the case of weak scattering of 147Pm $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s on an iodine atom where the deviation can reach (3–4)%.

## CONCLUSIONS

A simple prescription is formulated on how to take into account the effects of atomic electron binding: To a good approximation, to obtain a visible-energy single-electron spectrum for the atomic inelastic $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$–scattering, it is sufficient to multiply the free-electron spectrum by the “zero response function” $`R_0^Z=(n_i/Z)\theta (qϵ_i)`$. Such a step-function approximation can be safely used in the majority of current and future experiments aimed at searches for the neutrino magnetic moment.

We note, however, that this prescription is not universal. It can be used for some specific though practically important cases like those considered in the present paper. For much softer antineutrinos (e.g., from tritium source), the direct accurate calculations of the cross sections for $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$–scattering on the atomic electrons are needed.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project 00-15-96708.


text:
# RXTE Studies of Cyclotron Lines in Accreting Pulsars

## I Introduction

Cyclotron lines in accreting X-ray pulsar spectra result from the resonant scattering of X-rays by electrons in Landau orbits on the intense ($``$$`10^{12}`$ G) magnetic fields near the neutron star poles. For this reason they are known as cyclotron resonance scattering features (CRSFs). Because Landau transition energies are proportional to field strength ($`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{cyc}}=12`$ keV approximately corresponds to $`B=10^{12}`$ G), CRSF energies give us our most direct measures of neutron star magnetic fields. Other line properties, such as depths, widths, and presence of multiple harmonics, are strongly dependent on the details of the geometry and environment at the base of the accretion column. CRSFs therefore give us a sensitive (if difficult to interpret) diagnostic of the accretion region.

In this paper, we summarize the RXTE measurements of CRSFs in 8 accreting pulsars. The wide bandpass and modest resolution of the RXTE instruments make them ideal for measuring these generally broad features. In particular, the high energy response of HEXTE provides a window for discovery of new lines not detectable with proportional counters such as Ginga or the PCA alone.

Some highlights of this work are:

* New lines in the well known pulsars Cen X-3 and 4U 1626-67 hei99b ; San98 ; Orl98 .
* The discovery of more than two cyclotron line harmonics in 4U 0115+63 Hei99 .
* The RXTE picture of the correlation between cyclotron line energy and width.

## II Observations and Analysis

The results discussed here are based on observations made with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) jah96  and High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE) rot98  on board RXTE. The PCA is a set of 5 Xenon proportional counters, while HEXTE consists of two arrays of 4 NaI(Tl)/CsI(Na) phoswich scintillation counters. The PCA and HEXTE share a 1 field of view.

Figures 1 and 2 show the measured count spectra together with model fits and inferred incident spectra for eight accreting pulsars. To emphasize the presence of cyclotron lines, residuals to fits made without lines are also shown. In general, these residuals show a dip-like structure at the line energy and then a gross underprediction of the continuum above the line. This is caused by the better statistics on the low side of the feature forcing the model to fit the falling edge of the line. Because no adequate prediction of accreting pulsar continua exists, we employ empirical continuum models. These models (high energy cut-off power law (HECUT), Fermi-Dirac cut-off times a power law (FDCO), and Negative and Positive power law Exponential (NPEX); see kre98 ) have been successful in fitting pulsars with no cyclotron lines. Only when none of these continuum models provided an acceptable fit, did we allow cyclotron line(s). We modeled the cyclotron lines with a simple Gaussian optical depth profile.

## III Results and Discussion

Table 1 summarizes the cyclotron line parameters in eight accreting pulsars. In general, pulsar spectra (including line parameters) vary with pulse phase. For this reason, cyclotron lines are often best measured in spectra from limited pulse phase ranges. This is called “pulse phase spectroscopy”. Table 1 indicates the phase relative to the pulse profile for which the given parameters apply.

New Lines in Cen X-3 and 4U 1626-67  Cen X-3 and 4U 1626-67 are two of the earliest known accreting pulsars; however, it is only recently that CRSFs were discovered in their spectra hei99b ; Ddf99 . Figure 1 shows folded light curves, phase resolved count spectra, and fits to the peak phase spectra. In Cen X-3, the CRSF energy moves by about 20% with phase. This variation has been modeled as resulting from an offset of the magnetic dipole moment from the center of the neutron star Bur99 . In both sources, the CRSF appears strongest in the “peak” and “fall” spectra. This may also be related to an offset dipole.

4U 0115+63: Multiple Cyclotron Line Harmonics  4U 0115+63 is a transient accreting pulsar in an eccentric orbit with a massive star, a so-called “Be X-ray binary”. It was also the first pulsar to show two cyclotron line harmonics wsh83 . 4U 0115+63 underwent a two month long outburst in 1999 February–April. Observations made with RXTE and BeppoSAX reveal for the first time more than two harmonics in a single pulsar hei99c ; san99a  (see Fig. 2).

Correlation between Line Energy and Width  The width of a CRSF depends on the temperature of the emitting region (kT), the line energy ($`\omega _B`$) and the viewing angle ($`\theta `$) with respect to the magnetic field as: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega _B(kT/mc^2)^{1/2}cos\theta `$ Mes85 . This predicts that a correlation between line energy and width should exist, provided that viewing angles and plasma temperatures do not vary too greatly from source to source. These RXTE results, as well as measurements by BeppoSAXDdf99 , show a strong correlation, which supports this picture.


text:
# Chiral aspects of hadron structure

## Abstract

Chiral loop corrections for hadronic properties are considered in a constituent quark model. It is emphasized that the correct implementation of such corrections requires a sum over intermediate hadronic states. The leading non-analytic corrections are very important for baryon magnetic moments and explain the failure of the sum rule $`(\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}+2\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})/\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ predicted by the constituent quark model.

PACS NUMBERS: 11.30.Rd, 12.39.Jh, 12.39.Fe, 12.40.Yx,13.40.E

KEYWORDS: Chiral symmetry, quark model, potential models, hadron spectrum, magnetic moments

The role of chiral symmetry in hadron structure, spectroscopy and hadron-hadron interactions is a recurrent theme in modern strong interaction physics. Even lattice QCD cannot avoid the issue. Current lattice simulations for light current quark masses are computationally intensive and present computer limitations mean that lattice simulations are restricted to relatively large quark masses. In order to make contact with the physical world extrapolation schemes must be devised. Guidance from quark models which are able to interpolate between the correct chiral and heavy quark limits of QCD is of importance for such extrapolations.

Extrapolations of lattice data which respect both the chiral behavior of QCD and the heavy quark limit have recently been developed for baryon masses  and magnetic moments . The cloudy bag model  (CBM) proved extremely useful as a framework for exploring such problems. As the CBM is based upon the MIT bag as a model for the underlying quark structure, it would clearly be desirable to carry out similar studies with alternative models. However, the essential feature of the CBM, which must be retained in any treatment of hadron structure or hadronic interactions in order to be consistent with the chiral structure of QCD, is that in calculating chiral loops one must project onto intermediate hadronic states . One must not calculate chiral loops at the quark level, independent of the hadronic environment in which the quark is found.

This particular point is of importance for the problem recently raised by Lipkin  concerning the sum rule for the ratio of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons

$$R_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}+2\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(1)
The quark model prediction is $`R_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{QM}=1`$. Using the experimental values from hyperon magnetic moments, one obtains $`R_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{Exp}=0.23`$. In the following we show that the leading non-analytic (LNA) chiral corrections are large and explain why the sum rule fails. Moreover, we explain why the correct model independent LNA behavior is not obtained from chiral loops on single quarks.

We start by reviewing the basic equations and concentrate on pionic corrections; the extension to include kaon corrections is straightforward. The Hamiltonian of a chiral quark model can quite generally be written as

$$H=H_0+H_\pi +W$$
(2)
where $`H_0`$ describes the bare quark states $`|B_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ of the system

$$H_0|B_\alpha ^{(0)}=E_\alpha ^{(0)}|B_\alpha ^{(0)}.$$
(3)
In this, $`\alpha `$ represents the set of spatial, spin and isospin quantum numbers of the baryons. $`H_\pi `$ is the Hamiltonian for non-interacting pions and $`W`$ is the pion-quark interaction vertex. Note that in principle $`H_0`$ might contain not only the confinement interaction, but also hyperfine interactions, such as one-gluon exchange.

Pionic corrections are calculated by projecting the Hamiltonian onto the single-baryon states $`|B^{(0)}B^{}|0`$, where $`B^{(0)}`$ is the creation operator of the bare baryon and $`|0`$ is the vacuum state. The resulting effective baryon-pion Hamiltonian can be written schematically as

$$H=\underset{\alpha }{}E_\alpha ^{(0)}B_\alpha ^{}B_\alpha +\underset{j}{}\omega _ja_j^{}a_j+\underset{j\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}W_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^jB_\alpha ^{}^{}B_\alpha a_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(4)
where $`a_j^{}`$ and $`a_j`$ are pion creation and annihilation operators and $`j`$ indicates isospin and spatial variables. (Note that we have taken bare baryon states with different $`\alpha `$ indices to be orthogonal.)

The physical baryon mass $`M_B`$ (where $`B`$ stands for e.g. $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ etc. ) can be computed by dressing the bare (quark model) baryon with its meson cloud in a straightforward way:

$$M_B=M_B^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }(M_B)$$
(5)
where $`M_B^{(0)}`$ is the bare baryon mass (i.e. without pionic corrections) and the self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)`$, is given as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)=B_0|W^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E\stackrel{~}{H}_0}}W|B_0.`$ (6)
Here $`W`$ is the effective pion-nucleon vertex and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$ is the single-particle Hamiltonian, evaluated with the physical masses of the baryons and the pion  ***One can also systematically choose the level of sophistication of the underlying quark model by subdividing the space of bare hadron states into a $`P`$-space which is dealt with explicitly and a $`Q`$-space whose effects are parametrized .. Insertion of a sum over intermediate baryon-pion states in Eq. (6) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)=\underset{n}{}B_0|W^{}|n\frac{1}{EE_n}n|W|B_0.$$
(7)
The structure vertex-propagator-vertex $`W^{}(E\stackrel{~}{H}_0)^1W`$ in Eq. (6) is an effective quark-quark interaction. For a quark-quark interaction mediated by pion exchange, it is crucial that it includes processes where the pion is emitted and re-absorbed by the same quark, as well as those where it is exchanged between a pair of quarks. As explained in Ref. , any treatment that misses diagrams where the pion is emitted and absorbed by the same quark line in the hadron leads to incorrect conclusions concerning hadron properties. Such diagrams are essential for the correct spin-isospin dependence of the corrections and, in particular, to yield the correct leading non-analytic contributions (LNA). On the other hand, in order to obtain the correct LNA corrections to hadron masses it is not sufficient to consider just loop diagrams on a quark line, independent of its environment.

Let us be more specific. Consider an interaction of the form (we restrict ourselves to the SU(2) case, but the argument is general):

$$\underset{i<j}{}𝝈_i\mathbf{}𝝈_j𝝉_i\mathbf{}𝝉_jV_{ij},$$
(8)
where $`V_{ij}`$ is the radial part, not restricted to be a contact interaction. Such an interaction is the basis of the calculations in several quark models, in particular in the model of Glozman and Riska . The overall strength (in hadron $`|H`$) from the interaction of Eq. (8) is given by the spin-isospin ($`SI`$) matrix element

$$SI_H=H|\underset{i<j}{}𝝈_i\mathbf{}𝝈_j𝝉_i\mathbf{}𝝉_j|H,$$
(9)
which yields, for the $`N`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`SI_N=30`$ and $`SI_\mathrm{\Delta }=6`$. These lead to the relations

$`M_N`$ $`=`$ $`M_015P_{00}^\pi `$ (10)
$`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_03P_{00}^\pi ,`$ (11)
where $`M_0`$ is the corresponding unperturbed energy and $`P_{00}^\pi 30`$ MeV is the fitting parameter corresponding to the radial matrix element of Eq. (8), in the lowest-energy unperturbed shell of the 3-quark system.

On the other hand, the correct field theoretic self-energy calculation leads to

$`M_N`$ $`=`$ $`M_0{\displaystyle \frac{25}{2}}P_{00}^\pi 16P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi `$ (12)
$`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_04P_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{25}{2}}P_{00}^\pi ,`$ (13)
where $`P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi `$ and $`P_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^\pi `$ differ from $`P_{00}^\pi `$ by a factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N`$ in the energy denominator (see Eq. (7) and Fig. 1). Note that the form of these equations is general, in the sense that the chiral limit does not alter this structure. Also, it should be noted that because of the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N`$ of the self-energies $`P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi `$ and $`P_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^\pi `$, these equations go beyond simple perturbation theory (recall the difference between Rayleigh-Schrödinger and Wigner-Brillouin methods).

FIGURE 1. One-loop pion self-energy corrections to the nucleon ($`N`$) and delta ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$).

Suppose for the moment that $`P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi =P_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^\pi `$. Then we find

$$M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N=12P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi .$$
(14)
Of course, $`P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi `$ can now be fitted to the experimental value of $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N`$, and nothing apparently changes with respect to the result of Eqs. (10) and (11). But this is not the entire story, since this then implies a huge nucleon self energy. To estimate this, suppose $`P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi =P_{00}^\pi `$, which is equivalent to setting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-$`N`$ mass difference to zero in the radial integrals. Then, the nucleon self-energy would be given by $`57/2P_{00}^\pi `$, instead of $`15P_{00}^\pi `$. This would imply a total nucleon self-energy of -$`855`$ MeV; a pretty big self-energy indeed! The situation becomes even worse in practice, because the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-$`N`$ mass difference is quite large and therefore $`P_{00}^\pi >P_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^\pi `$. Of course, it is very hard to justify nucleon self-energies of the order of the nucleon rest mass in a non-relativistic framework. In addition, in the process of calculating self-energy corrections for the low-lying and excited states, the incorrect treatment of intermediate hadronic states will lead to fatally incorrect systematics.

Let us now consider the problem raised by Lipkin . The magnetic moment of a baryon $`B`$ is defined by $`\mu _B=G_M^B(0)`$, where $`G_M^B(q^2)`$ is the magnetic form factor. In Fig. 1 we show the different contributions to $`G_M^B(q^2)`$. The calculation of $`G_M^B(q^2)`$ proceeds on the same lines as for the cloudy bag model ; the explicit expressions (including both octet and decuplet baryons in the intermediate states) were derived in Ref. . The leading non-analytic contributions to $`\mu _B`$ come from intermediate states with the same quantum numbers as the external ones, i.e. from the terms $`C=B`$ in Fig. 1(c). The explicit form of this contribution is

$$G_M^{1(c)}(0)=2m_N\frac{1}{16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\beta ^{BB\pi }𝑑k\frac{k^4u^2(k)}{w^4(k)}$$
(15)
where the $`\beta ^{BB\pi }`$ are given by SU(3). For the case of interest here they are given by

$`\beta ^{NN\pi }=(F+D)^2N|\tau _3|N`$ (16)
$`\beta ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi }=\beta ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi }=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D^2+F^2\right)`$ (17)
$`\beta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }=0`$ (18)
where $`F`$ and $`D`$ are usual SU(3) axial couplings.

FIGURE 1. The various contributions to the magnetic moment of a baryon.

The LNA contribution for $`G_M(0)`$ is easily obtained from Eq. (15) and is given by

$$\mu _B^{LNA}=\frac{m_Nm_\pi }{8\pi f_\pi ^2}\beta ^{BB\pi }\alpha _Bm_\pi .$$
(19)
Note that this is precisely what is obtained in Refs.   with chiral perturbation theory – as it must, because both calculations are based upon chiral symmetry. The LNA behavior does not necessarily dominate the physics of hadronic properties in general. However, in the case of the magnetic moments the fact that the LNA term is also the first term in a power series for $`\mu _B`$ as a function of $`m_\pi `$ and that the numerical value of the LNA coefficient is large means that it is phenomenologically important there. Over the range $`m_\pi ϵ(0,2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}})`$ it is quite a good approximation to write the baryon magnetic moments as:

$$\mu _B=\mu _B^0+\alpha _Bm_\pi +𝒪(m_\pi ^2).$$
(20)
Applying this to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ magnetic moments, with the one loop chiral coefficients of Ref. one finds:

$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ $``$ $`2.802.46m_\pi `$ (21)
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $``$ $`1.50+2.46m_\pi `$ (22)
with $`m_\pi `$ in GeV. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ magnetic moment is just equal to the experimentally measured moment up to order $`m_\pi ^2`$. We stress that the coefficient of the $`m_\pi `$ term is model independent and that the non-analytic terms are large – for example, roughly $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of the measured $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ magnetic moment at the physical pion mass.

Using these expressions we can now evaluate the ratio of magnetic moments considered by Lipkin, as a function of the pion mass:

$$\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}+2\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.330.56\frac{m_\pi }{m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}}}+𝒪(m_\pi ^2).$$
(23)
This expression makes it exceptionally clear why the sum-rule fails. It is extremely sensitive to the value of the pion mass because it involves a LNA piece of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ magnetic moment that has not been arranged to cancel in some way. While the ratio is only -0.23 at the physical pion mass, way below the naive expectation of -1, and in the chiral limit it even has the opposite sign (+0.33), at just above twice the physical pion mass it would take the expected value. We note that such behavior could never be reproduced within a constituent quark model, where the constituent mass would vary by a mere 10-20 MeV as $`m_\pi `$ varies over $`(0,2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}})`$.

Next we examine whether the LNA contributions can be equivalently included in the constituent quark mass . The essence of chiral perturbation theory, as a phenomenological implementation of the chiral symmetry of QCD, is that there are certain non-analytic terms in the exact expression for any hadronic property, as a function of the current quark masses, which are model independent. These terms are determined by just a few gross hadron properties, including their axial charges. For the nucleon mass the leading non-analytic (LNA) term is:

$$\delta M_N=\frac{3}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}g_A^2m_\pi ^3.$$
(24)
This comes from the loop diagram in Fig. 1(a), with the pion-nucleon coupling given by PCAC as $`\frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }`$. In terms of quarks this diagram necessarily involves pion exchange between both $`i=j`$ and $`ij`$, the essential point being that the 3-quark intermediate state is a nucleon and hence degenerate with the initial baryon state.

In Ref.  it is argued that the LNA contribution comes from quark self-energy loops. It is emphasized that the non-relativistic quark model connection between $`g_A`$ (nucleon understood) and $`g_A^q`$ (the quark axial charge), namely $`g_A^q=\frac{3}{5}g_A`$, satisfies:

$$3\left[g_A^q\right]^2=\frac{27}{25}g_A^2g_A^2.$$
(25)
This argument, which attributes the discrepancy to the use of exact SU(6) is misleading. We note that Eq. (24) is model independent – it cannot depend on the model used to describe nucleon structure. As an extreme example, we note that if the relativistic quark model were used to relate $`g_A^q`$ and $`g_A`$ we would find:

$$3\left[g_A^q\right]^2=\frac{27}{25(0.65)^2}g_A^22.6g_A^2,$$
(26)
where the factor of 0.65 is the well known relativistic correction for massless quarks given by (for example) the MIT bag model . The discrepancy in this case is now 260%.

To summarize, the suggestion that one can incorporate the chiral loop on the individual quark lines into the definition of the constituent quark mass is inappropriate for many reasons. Firstly, if one were to use such a mass to define a Dirac magnetic moment for the quark one would build in an incorrect LNA contribution. Secondly, for an unstable particle like the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the mass has an imaginary piece arising from the decay to $`N\pi `$. In order to obtain the correct imaginary piece (i.e., the correct width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) one must include the imaginary part associated with the pion being emitted and absorbed by the same quark – an imaginary part that is omitted in a naive calculation which ignores the environment in which the constituent quark is sitting. Finally, if one were to compute chiral corrections to the magnetic moments of the quarks themselves they would be model dependent, for the reasons explained around Eqs. (25) and (26). This is in contradiction with QCD, within which the LNA correction should be model independent.

In conclusion we have shown that the LNA corrections to hadron properties have important practical consequences. In particular, they explain the reason for the failure of the sum-rule for hyperon magnetic moments noted by Lipkin. We have also shown that the correct LNA contributions to hadronic properties such as masses and magnetic moments cannot be obtained by calculating loops at the quark level, independent of the hadronic environment.

This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council and CNPq (Brazil).


text:
# Particle dynamics in sheared granular matter

## I Acknowledgments

We thank A. Liu, H. Jaeger and C. Bizon for helpful discussions. Part of this work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DMR-9704301.


text:
# 𝑇=0 Phase Diagram of the Double-Exchange Model

## I INTRODUCTION

In this Brief Report we present the $`T=0`$ magnetic phase diagram of the double exchange model believed relevant to the physics of ’colossal’ magnetoresistance manganites . Our results may also be of interest in the context of magnetic semiconductors . We obtain the different magnetic phases, the boundaries between them, and the regimes of phase separation using the dynamical mean field approximation (DMFT) . We consider only the double-exchange interaction, and study only magnetic ordering, not charge or orbital ordering. This paper is a companion to a previous paper  which reported results mainly in regimes believed directly relevant to experiment on manganites. Here we present the complete $`T=0`$ phase diagram of the model, for the convenience of other workers, and to provide a basis for quantitative comparison of the dynamical mean field method to other methods, i.e the phase diagram given in this paper is not just limited to CMR physics in manganites, but is of much more general validity covering other systems like Mn doped GaAs .

The double-exchange-only (DE) model involves electrons moving in a band structure defined by a hopping matrix $`t_{ij}^{ab}`$ and a chemical potential $`\mu `$, and connected by a Hund’s coupling ($`J>0`$) to core spins $`𝐒`$. We denote the operator creating an electron in orbital $`a`$ with spin $`\alpha `$ on site $`i`$ by $`d_{ia\alpha }^{}`$ and define the double-exchange only Hamiltonian $`H_{DE}`$ by

$`H_{DE}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>\alpha }{}}t_{ij}^{ab}d_{ia\alpha }^{}d_{jb\alpha }\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha }{}}d_{i\alpha }^{}d_{i\alpha }`$ (1)
$``$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha \beta }{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{c,i}d_{i\alpha }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }d_{i\beta }.`$ (2)
where $`<ij>`$ implies sum over nearest neighbors.

Note that there are only two independent dimensionless parameters defining $`H_{DE}`$, since the hopping amplitude can be used to define the energy unit. Our interest in this paper is the $`T=0`$ magnetic phase diagram of $`H_{DE}`$ as a function of density $`n`$ and coupling $`J`$. To compute this we use the dynamical mean field approximation which becomes exact in the limit of spatial dimensionality $`d\mathrm{}`$ and is believed to be reliable in $`d=3`$ \[Ref.\]. The complete $`T=0`$ phase diagram of this important model has not to our knowledge been presented in any limit. Other workers have considered two phases: a commensurate antiferromagnet (AF) and a homogeneous ferromagnet (FM). In a previous paper we demonstrated the existence of a free energy minimum with spin order which is neither AF nor FM; this possible phase has magnetic correlations incommensurate with the underlying lattice and was denoted IC. However, in our previous work the precise spin correlations were not established, nor was the issue of phase separation addressed. The importance of phase separation in the CMR context has been stressed by other workers. Here, we resolve these issues. As results obtained by other methods become more available, comparison to our results will allow the accuracy of DMFT in $`d=3`$ to be assessed.

For our specific computations we take the core spins to be classical. This is reasonable because we consider $`T=0`$ energetics in high spatial dimension, and in cases of physical relevance the core spin is not small ($`S=3/2`$ for the manganites). We proceed by calculating the energies of the different phases. We identify the ground state as the phase of lowest energy and use an explicit Maxwell construction to determine regions of phase separation.

We now discuss the possible phases which may occur. In the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit, Muller-Hartmann pointed out that the susceptibility depends on the one-dimensional parameter $`X(k)=\frac{1}{d}_icos(k_i)`$; similar considerations imply the ordering pattern and the energy are also functions of $`X`$. Because $`1<X<1`$, we write $`X=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$; $`\theta =0`$ corresponds to ferromagnetic (FM) phase and $`\theta =\pi `$ to antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase considered previously. $`0<\theta <\pi `$ coresponds to a phase with incommensurate (IC) spin correlations. The specific IC phase treated in our previous work corresponds to $`\theta =\pi /2`$.

The DMFT solution of Eq. 2 may be written in terms of a spin-dependent mean field function $`𝐚(\omega )`$, which obeys an equation that depends on the density of states of the underlying lattice. We study the semicircular density of states $`N(ϵ)=\sqrt{4t^2ϵ^2}/(2\pi t^2)`$, corresponding to the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit of the Bethe lattice with nearest neighbor hopping, so that $`𝐚_i(\omega )=\omega +\mu _\delta t_\delta G_{i+\delta ,i+\delta }^{loc}t_\delta `$ with $`t_\delta `$ the hopping. To solve the equations, we adopt a space dependent spin basis, quantized parallel to the core spin on site $`i`$. The conventions just described then imply that $`𝐚`$ has two independent components $`a_{},a_{}`$ given by

$`a_{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +\mu t^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)}{a_{}(\omega )+J}}t^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)}{a_{}(\omega )J}}`$ (3)
$`a_{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +\mu t^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)}{a_{}(\omega )J}}t^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)}{a_{}(\omega )+J}}`$ (4)
These equations contain as special cases the equations previously studied for the FM, AFM and $`\theta =\pi /2`$ phases. They may be obtained by minimizing with respect to $`a_{},a_{}`$, the energy

$`E=T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[a(\omega _n)(\omega _n+\mu )]^2}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b(\omega _n)^2}{t^2\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (5)
$`+\mathrm{ln}[a(\omega _n)^2(b(\omega _n)+J)^2]`$ (6)
where $`a=(a_{}+a_{})/2`$ and $`b=(a_{}a_{})/2`$. This equation may be transformed into the familiar expression

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ_kN(ϵ_k)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\pi }f(\omega )\omega Tr[A(ϵ_k,\omega )]}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }}f(\omega )\omega Tr[ImG_{loc}(\omega )]`$ (8)
through an integration by parts and use of the mean field equations (recalling that $`E`$ is extremized by $`a_{},a_{}`$). Here $`N(ϵ_k)`$ is the ”band” density of states determined from the hopping $`t_{ij}^{ab}`$, $`A(ϵ_k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G(ϵ_k,\omega )`$ and the electron Green function $`𝐆=(\omega +\mu ϵ_k𝚺(\omega ))^1`$. $`𝚺=𝐚𝐆_{loc}^1`$ is the self energy, which is local (k-independent) but dependent on spin in the dynamical mean field approximation. Replacing the form of $`G_{loc}`$ in Eq. 8, we get

$$E=\frac{d\omega }{\pi }f(\omega )\omega \mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{2a(\omega )}{a(\omega )^2[b(\omega )+J]^2}\right)$$
(9)
We have solved the mean field equations (Eq. 4) and computed the energies for a wide range of $`\theta ,n`$. The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. 1. As one can see from Fig. 1, a homogeneous ferromagnetic phase is supported over a wide range of fillings and couplings. There is a small island of IC phase characterized by a $`\theta `$ which varies with position inside the IC phase. The AFM phase exists only at $`n=1`$. The FM-IC phase boundary is apprently second order; all of the other phase boundaries are (within our numerical accuracy) first-order and are accompanied by regions of phase separation. At sufficiently small $`J`$, phase separation preempts the IC phase entirely even though this phase minimizes the energy for $`0.47n0.7`$.

Fig. 2 shows energy as a function of $`n`$ for the FM and AF states, as well as $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and $`3\pi /4`$. We see immediately from these curves that at $`n=1`$ the AF phase is the lowest; at intermediate $`n`$ there is a sequence of IC phases characterized by a varying angle and at small $`n`$ the FM phase is stable. Between the $`n=1`$ AF phase and the intermediate $`n`$ IC phase there is a region of phase separation, and the $`\theta `$ value at the PS-IC boundary is a non-universal $`J`$-dependent number. Fig. 3 shows the behavior in the vicinity of the FM/IC phase boundary. We see that the transition is apprently second-order, with $`\theta `$ evolving smoothly to 0 at the FM/IC phase boundary.

Fig. 4 shows the behavior for $`J=0.6t`$ and $`n`$ close to $`1`$. A Maxwell construction shows that the $`\theta =7\pi /8`$ curve lies higher than the line connecting the AF $`n=1`$ point and the $`\theta =3\pi /4,n0.78`$ point. The energy differences involved are seen to be tiny, implying large uncertainties in the location of the phase boundary and rather complicated behavior in physical systems.

A generally noteworthy feature of Fig. 3 is the extremely small energy differences between different phases: typically the energy difference per site $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the lowest and next lowest phase is only about $`0.02t`$. For manganites, a reasonable value of $`t`$ is $`0.65`$eV  leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/site100K`$. This suggests an unusual sensitivity to disorder, as already noted by Moreo et al..

We now use analytic arguments to analyze more carefully the behavior in the small $`J`$ limit, where the energy may be written as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\chi (\theta )J^2$$
(10)
with

$$\chi (\theta )=2\frac{d\omega }{\pi }f(\omega )\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{1}{a_0(\omega )^2t^2\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)$$
(11)
and $`a_0=\frac{1}{2}[\omega +\mu \sqrt{(\omega +\mu )^24t^2}]`$

Note that the behavior as $`\theta \pi `$ and $`n1`$ is complicated because the energy of the $`n=1,\theta =\pi `$ AFM phase $`J^2\mathrm{ln}(1/J)`$. From the explicit energy expression we find (neglecting $`O(J^4)`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{AF}}{J^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{4}}\left[E(sin^1(\mu /2);4/J^2)E(\pi /2;4/J^2)\right]`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4+J^2}{4J}}\left[F(sin^1(\mu /2);4/J^2)F(\pi /2;4/J^2)\right]`$
where $`F(\varphi ;m),E(\varphi ;m)`$ are elliptic integrals of the First and Second Kind. The corresponding energies are plotted in Fig. 5 for $`J=0.05`$. Note that for $`n`$ very near 1 ($`\mu <J`$), $`\chi _{AF}`$ is linear in $`1n`$. Thus at $`n1`$ the AF phase is always unstable to phase separation. The Maxwell construction also shows that in the small $`J`$ limit the IC phase is preempted entirely, and the ferromagnetic phase is only stable for $`n0.15`$.

We now briefly discuss the physical meaning of the IC phase. From Eq. 10, the lowest energy phase is the one with the largest $`\chi (\theta )`$. For typical band structures even in $`d=3`$ $`\chi `$ takes one value at $`q=0`$ and another value at $`q=Q=(\pi ,\pi ,\pi );`$ the variation between these limits is smooth for momenta along the zone diagonal, but over much of the Brillouin zone $`\chi `$ is quite weakly momentum dependent. In the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit this weak momentum dependence disappears: $`\chi (\stackrel{}{q})`$ at any $`\stackrel{}{q}\lambda (\pi ,\pi ,\mathrm{})`$ takes the $`q`$-independent value $`\chi _{loc}=_q\chi (\stackrel{}{q})`$ and along the diagonal. For $`d`$ large but finite, $`\chi `$ varies rapidly with $`q`$crossing over from its $`\stackrel{}{q}=\lambda (\pi ,\pi ,\mathrm{})`$ values to a very weakly $`q`$-dependent value in a range $`\delta qO(1/\sqrt{d})`$. Thus the hallmark of the phases which are characterized by a small $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is a large range of spin arrangements very nearby in energy. We suspect that this regime would appear experimentally as a spin glass in the presence of disorder

In conclusion, we have determined the $`T=0`$ phase diagram of the double-exchange Hamiltonian including regions of phase separation, using analytic arguments at small and large $`J`$ and the dynamical mean field method. We find that the incommensurate phase noted in Ref.  has a rather small region of existence, being mostly overwhelmed by phase separation, and have found the differences in energy between the different phases to be very small.

We have learned of related work by L. Yin and J. Ho (APS March Meeting 2000 Bulletin; L. Yin and J. Ho, private communication), who used a different mean-field technique in $`d=3`$ to obtain a phase diagram including spiral states, with regions of phase separation qualitatively similar to what is found here. Our results are also similar to the phase diagram of Alonso et al..

Acknowledgements We thank J. K. Freericks for suggesting that we examine the $`\theta `$ dependence of the incomensurate phase and the University of Maryland NSF-MRSEC, NSF-DMR-0081075 (AJM) and US-ONR (SDS) for support.