text:
# A Search for 𝐵→𝜏𝜈

## Abstract

We report results of a search for $`B\tau \nu `$ in a sample of 9.7 million charged $`B`$ meson decays. The search uses both $`\pi \nu `$ and $`\mathrm{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay modes of the $`\tau `$, and demands exclusive reconstruction of the companion $`\overline{B}`$ decay to suppress background. We set an upper limit on the branching fraction $`(B\tau \nu )<8.4\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level. With slight modification to the analysis we also establish $`(B^\pm K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu })<2.4\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level.

preprint:   CLNS 00/1674 CLEO 00-10

T. E. Browder,1 Y. Li,1 J. L. Rodriguez,1 H. Yamamoto,1 T. Bergfeld,2 B. I. Eisenstein,2 J. Ernst,2 G. E. Gladding,2 G. D. Gollin,2 R. M. Hans,2 E. Johnson,2 I. Karliner,2 M. A. Marsh,2 M. Palmer,2 C. Plager,2 C. Sedlack,2 M. Selen,2 J. J. Thaler,2 J. Williams,2 K. W. Edwards,3 R. Janicek,4 P. M. Patel,4 A. J. Sadoff,5 R. Ammar,6 A. Bean,6 D. Besson,6 R. Davis,6 N. Kwak,6 X. Zhao,6 S. Anderson,7 V. V. Frolov,7 Y. Kubota,7 S. J. Lee,7 R. Mahapatra,7 J. J. O’Neill,7 R. Poling,7 T. Riehle,7 A. Smith,7 C. J. Stepaniak,7 J. Urheim,7 S. Ahmed,8 M. S. Alam,8 S. B. Athar,8 L. Jian,8 L. Ling,8 M. Saleem,8 S. Timm,8 F. Wappler,8 A. Anastassov,9 J. E. Duboscq,9 E. Eckhart,9 K. K. Gan,9 C. Gwon,9 T. Hart,9 K. Honscheid,9 D. Hufnagel,9 H. Kagan,9 R. Kass,9 T. K. Pedlar,9 H. Schwarthoff,9 J. B. Thayer,9 E. von Toerne,9 M. M. Zoeller,9 S. J. Richichi,10 H. Severini,10 P. Skubic,10 A. Undrus,10 S. Chen,11 J. Fast,11 J. W. Hinson,11 J. Lee,11 D. H. Miller,11 E. I. Shibata,11 I. P. J. Shipsey,11 V. Pavlunin,11 D. Cronin-Hennessy,12 A.L. Lyon,12 E. H. Thorndike,12 C. P. Jessop,13 H. Marsiske,13 M. L. Perl,13 V. Savinov,13 D. Ugolini,13 X. Zhou,13 T. E. Coan,14 V. Fadeyev,14 Y. Maravin,14 I. Narsky,14 R. Stroynowski,14 J. Ye,14 T. Wlodek,14 M. Artuso,15 R. Ayad,15 C. Boulahouache,15 K. Bukin,15 E. Dambasuren,15 S. Karamov,15 G. Majumder,15 G. C. Moneti,15 R. Mountain,15 S. Schuh,15 T. Skwarnicki,15 S. Stone,15 G. Viehhauser,15 J.C. Wang,15 A. Wolf,15 J. Wu,15 S. Kopp,16 A. H. Mahmood,17 S. E. Csorna,18 I. Danko,18 K. W. McLean,18 Sz. Márka,18 Z. Xu,18 R. Godang,19 K. Kinoshita,19,***Permanent address: University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221 I. C. Lai,19 S. Schrenk,19 G. Bonvicini,20 D. Cinabro,20 S. McGee,20 L. P. Perera,20 G. J. Zhou,20 E. Lipeles,21 S. P. Pappas,21 M. Schmidtler,21 A. Shapiro,21 W. M. Sun,21 A. J. Weinstein,21 F. Würthwein,21,Permanent address: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. D. E. Jaffe,22 G. Masek,22 H. P. Paar,22 E. M. Potter,22 S. Prell,22 V. Sharma,22 D. M. Asner,23 A. Eppich,23 T. S. Hill,23 R. J. Morrison,23 R. A. Briere,24 T. Ferguson,24 H. Vogel,24 B. H. Behrens,25 W. T. Ford,25 A. Gritsan,25 J. Roy,25 J. G. Smith,25 J. P. Alexander,26 R. Baker,26 C. Bebek,26 B. E. Berger,26 K. Berkelman,26 F. Blanc,26 V. Boisvert,26 D. G. Cassel,26 M. Dickson,26 P. S. Drell,26 K. M. Ecklund,26 R. Ehrlich,26 A. D. Foland,26 P. Gaidarev,26 L. Gibbons,26 B. Gittelman,26 S. W. Gray,26 D. L. Hartill,26 B. K. Heltsley,26 P. I. Hopman,26 C. D. Jones,26 D. L. Kreinick,26 M. Lohner,26 A. Magerkurth,26 T. O. Meyer,26 N. B. Mistry,26 E. Nordberg,26 J. R. Patterson,26 D. Peterson,26 D. Riley,26 J. G. Thayer,26 P. G. Thies,26 D. Urner,26 B. Valant-Spaight,26 A. Warburton,26 P. Avery,27 C. Prescott,27 A. I. Rubiera,27 J. Yelton,27 J. Zheng,27 G. Brandenburg,28 A. Ershov,28 Y. S. Gao,28 D. Y.-J. Kim,28 and R. Wilson28

1University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

2University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

3Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

4McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

5Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850

6University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

7University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

8State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

9Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

10University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

11Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

12University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

13Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309

14Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

15Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

16University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712

17University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539

18Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

19Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

20Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

21California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

22University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

23University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

24Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

25University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0390

26Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

27University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

28Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

The purely leptonic decay of the $`B`$ meson offers a clean probe of the weak decay process. The branching fraction

$$(B\mathrm{}\nu )=\frac{G_F^2m_Bm_{\mathrm{}}^2}{8\pi }\left(1\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2f_B^2|V_{ub}|^2\tau _B,$$

exhibits simple dependence on the meson decay constant $`f_B`$ and the magnitude of the quark mixing matrix element $`V_{ub}`$. The dependence on lepton mass ($`m_{\mathrm{}}`$) arises from helicity conservation and heavily suppresses the rate to light leptons. In the $`B`$ system this means $`\tau \nu `$ is favored over $`\mu \nu `$ or $`e\nu `$ final states. Nevertheless, the expected branching fraction $`(B\tau \nu )0.21\times 10^4`$ is small and the presence of additional neutrinos in the final state significantly weakens the experimental signature.

In the context of the Standard Model, a crisp determination of CKM parameters may be obtained in principle by comparing $`(B\tau \nu )`$ with the difference in heavy and light neutral $`B_d`$ masses,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=\frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}\eta _Bm_Bm_W^2f_B^2B_BS_0(x_t)|V_{td}|^2,$$

a quantity which is known from $`B_d`$ mixing measurements to considerable precision: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.464\pm 0.18\mathrm{ps}^1`$. In this comparison the dependence on the poorly known decay constant $`f_B`$ drops out, and one obtains

$$(B\tau \nu )=\left((4.08\pm 0.24)\times 10^4\right)\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{td}}\right|^2.$$

The range $`\pm 0.24`$ is set by current theoretical uncertainties. Given a sufficiently precise experimental measurement of the branching fraction, this relationship could be used to map out an allowed zone in the plane of Wolfenstein $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ parameters that is roughly similar to that determined by measurements of $`|V_{ub}|`$, but subject to a different mix of statistical, systematic, and theoretical uncertainties. Alternatively, if $`|V_{ub}|`$ is obtained from other measurements in the $`B`$ system, then the determination of $`(B\tau \nu )`$ may be viewed as a measurement of the decay constant $`f_B`$. This may be the only way to measure $`f_B`$. Looking beyond the Standard Model, the $`B\tau \nu `$ rate is sensitive to effects from charged Higgs bosons and may be used to set a limit on charged Higgs mass. The sensitivity is greatest for large values of the Higgs doublet vacuum expectation value ratio, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Existing experimental information is limited, however. A previous search by this collaboration in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ system yielded a 90% confidence level upper limit $`(B\tau \nu )<22\times 10^4`$, and three searches in the $`Z^0b\overline{b}`$ system have yielded upper limits ranging from $`16\times 10^4`$ down to $`5.7\times 10^4`$. Although the $`Z^0`$ system offers powerful kinematical advantages, future measurements will be at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$.

In this Letter we present results of a new search for $`B\tau \nu `$ using a method which is uniquely adapted to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ system. In this method we fully reconstruct the companion $`B`$ in a quasi-inclusive reconstruction technique similar to that developed for earlier measurements.

The data used in this analysis were collected with the CLEO II detector at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR). The data sample consists of $`9.13\mathrm{fb}^1`$ taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S), corresponding to 9.66M $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, and an additional $`4.35\mathrm{fb}^1`$ taken below the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold, which is used for background studies.

CLEO II is a general purpose solenoidal magnet detector, described in detail elsewhere . Cylindrical drift chambers in a 1.5T solenoidal magnetic field measure momentum and specific ionization ($`dE/dx`$) of charged particles. Photons are detected using a 7800-crystal CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter covering 98% of $`4\pi `$. Two-thirds of the data was taken in the CLEO II.V detector configuration, in which the innermost chamber was replaced by a 3-layer, double-sided silicon vertex detector, and the gas in the main drift chamber was changed from an argon-ethane to a helium-propane mixture.

Track quality requirements are imposed on charged tracks, and pions and kaons are identified by their specific ionization, $`dE/dx`$. Pairs of photons with an invariant mass within 2.5 standard deviations of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass are kinematically fit with a $`\pi ^0`$ mass constraint. $`K^0`$ mesons are identified in the $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay mode. Electrons are identified based on $`dE/dx`$ and the ratio of the track momentum to the associated shower energy in the CsI calorimeter; muons over about 1 GeV/c momentum are identified by their penetration depth in the instrumented steel flux return; below about 1 GeV/c muons are not distinguished from pions.

The experiment is fully simulated by a GEANT-based Monte Carlo that includes beam-related debris by overlaying random trigger events on Monte Carlo-generated events. The simulation is used to study backgrounds and optimize selection criteria, but directly enters the analysis only through the calculation of the signal reconstruction efficiency.

To search for $`B\tau \nu `$ decays we fully reconstruct each $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^+B^{}`$ event in the simultaneous decay modes $`B^+\tau ^+\nu `$ (“signal $`B`$”) and $`B^{}D^{()0}(n\pi )^{}`$ (“companion $`B`$”). Here and throughout, charge conjugate modes are implied.

For the signal $`B`$ we accept any single track which passes track quality requirements. Pion candidates must have momentum greater than 0.7 GeV/c and must neither pass lepton identification criteria nor be candidate $`K_S^0`$ daughters. We do not impose particle identification criterea. This approach encompasses the three decay modes $`\tau (e,\mu )\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\tau \pi \nu `$, which together constitute 46.5% of the $`\tau `$ branching fraction. Reconstruction efficiencies are 64%, 34%, and 84%, respectively, and there is some crossfeed into the “$`\pi \nu `$” channel from the tau decay modes $`e\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\mu \nu \overline{\nu }`$, and $`\rho \nu `$. The crossfeed efficiencies are 6%, 20%, and 8% respectively. The total $`\tau `$ reconstruction efficiency, including $`\tau `$ branching fractions and crossfeeds, is 32.9%.

For the companion $`B`$, we take advantage of the large (46%) $`bcu\overline{d}`$ branching fraction and seek to reconstruct $`B^{}D^{()0}(n\pi )^{}`$, accepting either $`D^0`$ or $`D^0D^0(\gamma ,\pi ^0)`$ and reconstructing the $`D^0`$ in the following eight modes, $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`K^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, and $`K^0\pi ^0`$. Based on the reconstructed $`D^0`$ mass, the $`\pi ^0`$ mass, and the kaon and pion particle identification information, we compute a $`\chi ^2`$ quality factor and use it to reject poor $`D^0`$ candidates. The $`(n\pi )^{}`$ system may be any of the following: $`\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, or $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$.

With each $`B`$ reconstructed in one of the target decay modes, we now require that there be no additional charged tracks in the detector, and that the sum of all energy in the crystal calorimeter not associated with the ionization energy deposition of charged tracks be less than a mode-dependent value $`E_{max}`$. For the clean decay modes of the companion $`B`$, $`B^+D^{()0}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^+D^{()0}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, we set $`E_{max}=0.6`$ GeV, while for all other modes it is tightened to 0.4 GeV. The main source of non-associated calorimeter energy deposition is from hadronic interactions in the calorimeter that cast debris laterally and result in small energy deposits that are not matched with a parent track. Monte Carlo simulation and careful investigation of appropriate data samples indicates that on average such deposits sum to 240 MeV per (signal) event. Additional contributions arise from beam-related debris, averaging 26 MeV per event and concentrated in the far forward and backward portions of the calorimeter; and from real photons from incorrect signal reconstruction, which average 10 MeV per event. In addition to this summed energy requirement, we also test whether any unassigned calorimeter signal can be paired with an already identified photon shower to form an object with invariant mass within 2.5 standard deviations of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. If such a pairing can be made, the event is rejected.

We suppress background from $`B\overline{B}`$ events by imposing requirements on the value of $`q^2`$, the invariant mass squared of the $`n\pi `$ system. For most of the $`n\pi `$ states we demand $`q^2<2.0\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, but for the case $`n\pi =\pi ^+`$ no restriction is needed, and for $`n\pi =\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ we permit $`q^2<2.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

Backgrounds arising from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ events (“continuum”) are distinguished by a jetty topology. To suppress these backgrounds we compute the direction of the thrust axis of the companion $`B`$ candidate and measure the angle $`\theta `$ to the direction of the lepton or pion of the $`\tau `$ candidate. For a signal event these directions should be uncorrelated and the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ distribution uniform, while for continuum background the correlation is high and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ peaks at 1. We require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ be less than 0.90 and 0.75 for $`\tau \mathrm{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\tau \pi \nu `$ candidates, respectively. Continuum background is more severe in the $`\pi \nu `$ mode and demands the tighter cut. Additional backgrounds from $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are suppressed by requiring the Fox-Wolfram moments ratio H2/H0 to be less than 0.5, which favors spherical topologies. Contributions from two-photon events ($`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{()}e^+e^{}`$) are negligible.

The identification of acceptable candidates for the $`\tau `$ daughter, the $`D^0`$, and $`n\pi `$ system, together with the absence of extra tracks or significant extra neutral energy, marks the appearance of a signal candidate. We now characterize these candidates by the kinematic properties of the companion $`B`$, since there is no additional information in the lone $`\tau `$ daughter track. In particular we use the total momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}_B`$ and energy $`E_B`$ of the companion $`B`$, computed from momenta and energies of its daughter products. These raw quantities are then recast as the more useful beam-constrained mass $`M(B)(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2\stackrel{}{P}_B)^{1/2}`$ and energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_BE_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ variables. If more than one candidate is reconstructed in a given event, the one with the highest value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is selected.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }EM(B)`$ plane for Monte Carlo $`B\overline{B}`$ background, Monte Carlo continuum background, Monte Carlo signal, and for the actual data set. The Monte Carlo background samples represent equivalent integrated luminosity of, respectively, three times and two times the actual data sample. The clustering of signal Monte Carlo events inside the $`M(B)`$ signal region but around $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.2`$ GeV is due to reconstructing $`B^{}D^0(n\pi )^{}`$ as $`B^{}D^0(n\pi )^{}`$. In such cases, the absence of the appropriate soft $`\pi ^0`$ or $`\gamma `$ from $`D^0`$ decay lowers the candidate’s total energy. Events in this satellite peak constitute 24% of the total signal yield.

We select events whose $`M(B)`$ falls within 2.5 standard deviations of the true $`B`$ mass, and extract the signal yield by fitting the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution. The net signal efficiency including all secondary branching fractions for the analysis is $`\epsilon =0.69\times 10^3`$. The signal fit shape is the sum of a narrow ($`\sigma =24`$ MeV) Gaussian centered at $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ for the primary signal yield, and a wide Gaussian ($`\sigma =115`$ MeV) centered at $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=164`$ MeV for the $`D^0`$ satellite peak. The shapes and the relative normalization of these Gaussians are determined by Monte Carlo. Residual backgrounds are modelled by a linear distribution whose slope is determined by fitting the data lying outside the 2.5$`\sigma `$ window in $`M(B)`$. We fit the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution by an extended unbinned maximum likelihood method to obtain the total yield of signal and background; the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ shape parameters are fixed by the procedure described above and are not varied in the fit. Figure 2a shows the final $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution of data inside the 2.5 standard deviation signal region of $`M(B)`$; six events remain after all selection criteria are applied. Figure 2b shows the fit shape with normalization as resulting from the likelihood fit; the central value of the fitted yield is 0.96 events.

The background level is consistent with Monte Carlo expectations given the selection criteria and the size of the data sample. Figure 2c shows a comparison of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for Monte Carlo events and data. To increase the yield for this plot we have released the restriction on leftover tracks, and here require exactly one extra charged track. These data events thus constitute in a sideband to the signal region. There are 71 such events in data, and 68 predicted by Monte Carlo. As evident in the figure, the Monte Carlo also reproduces the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ spectrum of these events very closely. Examination of Monte Carlo background events in the signal region itself shows (a) that the background is composed of approximately equal amounts of $`B\overline{B}`$ and continuum events; (b) that the background in the $`\tau \pi \nu `$ mode is dominated by continuum while the background in the $`\tau \mathrm{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ mode is dominated by $`B\overline{B}`$; and (c) about 75% of all background events, whether $`B\overline{B}`$ or continuum, have a $`K_L^0`$ present. Were it available, hadronic calorimetry would help suppress some of this remaining background.

The branching ratio is related to the signal yield $`N_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ by $`(B\tau \nu )=N_{\mathrm{sig}}/N_{B\overline{B}}\epsilon `$ where $`N_{B\overline{B}}=9.66\times 10^6`$ is the number of charged $`B`$ mesons in the data sample and $`\epsilon `$ is the efficiency as given above. We crosscheck the efficiency by conducting a separate analysis identical to this one in all key respects except that the $`\tau \nu `$ target signal is replaced by $`D^0\mathrm{}^{}\nu `$ whose branching fraction is large and well-measured. To ensure as much topological similarity to the $`\tau \nu `$ case as possible, we restrict this ancillary analysis to the low-multiplicity sub-mode, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. We find a yield of $`N(D^0\mathrm{}^{}\nu )_{\mathrm{data}}=43.1\pm 8.4`$ events in data, and compare this to the Monte Carlo result $`N(D^0\mathrm{}^{}\nu )_{\mathrm{MC}}=30.4\pm 4.3`$ where the error is primarily due to uncertainties in the $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\nu `$ branching ratio. The discrepancy between these yields is 1.3$`\sigma `$. We adopt a conservative course, using the efficiency determined by Monte Carlo, and assigning to it a relative systematic error given by $`\delta \epsilon /\epsilon \sqrt{(4.3/30.4)^2+(8.4/43.1)^2}=24.1\%`$.

Figure 2d shows the likelihood function ($``$) plotted as $`2\mathrm{ln}/_{max}`$ versus $`(B\tau \nu )`$. Also shown is the result of convolving the likelihood function with the systematic uncertainty distribution of the efficiency (assumed to be Gaussian). The systematic error on the efficiency is dominated by the 24.1% discussed in the preceding paragraph, but also includes contributions from reconstruction efficiency uncertainty and uncertainty in the efficiency of the non-associated neutral energy cuts. In total, the relative systematic error on efficiency is 24.4%. We integrate the systematics-convolved likelihood function to obtain a 90% confidence upper limit $`_{90}`$ on $`(B\tau \nu )`$ from $`0.90=_0^{_{90}}()𝑑/_0^1()𝑑.`$ We find:

$$(B\tau \nu )<8.4\times 10^4$$

at 90% confidence level. This approach can be shown to be equivalent to the assumption of a flat Bayesian prior probability for $`(B\tau \nu )`$ and is known to yield a conservative upper limit. A frequentist approach based on generating Monte Carlo experiments gives $`(B\tau \nu )<7.4\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level .

We also investigate the decay mode $`B^\pm K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu }`$ . There is currently no experimental information on this decay mode although limits on the related decays $`BX_s\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`BK^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ exist. The search strategy is the same as described above, but we require that the lone track on the signal side fail lepton identification. The expected momentum distribution of the charged track peaks at $`2.5`$ GeV/c, so we retain the 0.7 GeV/c momentum requirement previously applied to the pion candidate in the $`\pi \nu `$ mode. The resulting set of three $`K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu }`$ signal candidates is a subset of the six $`\tau \nu `$ candidates. They are marked by shading in Fig. 2. We perform the same unbinned likelihood fit as above and obtain a central value yield of 0.81 events. The efficiency of the $`K^\pm \nu \nu `$ is $`\epsilon =1.8\times 10^3`$; we find $`(B^\pm K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu })<2.4\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level. The efficiency is calculated using the form factor model of Reference REFERENCES, but it changes only negligibly if instead we use 3-body phase space and a constant matrix element. We corroborate our result with an independent analysis, which is based only on counting events and yields an upper limit $`(B^\pm K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu })<6.6\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level.

We have reported an analysis of 9.66 million charged $`B`$ meson decays which results in a conservative upper limit on the branching fraction $`(B\tau \nu )<8.4\times 10^4`$. We also modify the analysis slightly to establish $`(B^\pm K^\pm \nu \overline{\nu })<2.4\times 10^4`$ The method used is optimized for conditions available at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ experiments, and we anticipate useful application of the method to other rare decay modes with large missing energy.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Research Corporation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the A.P. Sloan Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.


format: text

text:
# Neutrino Zero Modes on Electroweak Strings

## I Introduction

The interactions of fermions with solitons has led to the discovery of many novel and important field theoretic phenomena such as fractional charges  and quantum anomalies . Fermionic zero modes on strings  may play an important role in cosmology since they can be responsible for string superconductivity  and vortons . Although the standard electroweak theory does not contain any topological defects, “embedded defects” such as Z-strings are possible . Fermionic (quark and leptonic) zero modes on electroweak Z-strings have been studied in the literature  and can provide linked configurations of strings with anomalous values of baryonic charge and other quantum numbers . Quark and leptonic zero modes also have an important effect on the stability of the Z-string .

The work on fermionic zero modes on Z-strings has so far considered massless neutrinos. The conclusion of these studies has been  that there are no normalizable zero energy solutions for massless particles in the vortex background. Some attention had been given to massive neutrinos before, but in the framework of strings in Grand Unified models . A reconsideration of both massive and massless neutrino zero modes on electroweak strings is needed. This is the aim of the present paper.

In Section 2, we present the electroweak standard model Lagrangian for leptons and find the neutrino equations of motion in a Z-string background. We find the solutions of these equations of motion, and show that a zero mode does exist as part of the continuum. In Section 3 we present the standard extension of the electroweak Lagrangian with a massive neutrino and derive the neutrino equations of motion. We solve the equations of motion in two asymptotic regimes (small and large $`r`$) and discuss the number of well-behaved solutions. We finally solve the equations numerically to obtain the zero mode solution.

There are several index theorems in the literature which specify the number of zero modes in a given Lagrangian. The index theorem in  does not apply to a massive neutrino case because it assumes that the source of all fermionic masses is the interaction with a single Higgs field (which is not true for the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass). The generalized index theorem in  and  also does not apply because it uses an ansatz for the spinor components not general enough to cover our case. The generalized index theorem in  applies to the massive neutrino with a Dirac mass and either a left- or a right-handed Majorana mass but not both.

## II The Standard Model Neutrino

We consider first the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam electroweak standard model, and focus on the interactions of a single lepton family. The fermion content is a left-handed SU(2) lepton doublet, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\nu _L,e_L^{})^T`$ and a right-handed electron singlet $`e_R^{}`$. Electrons acquire their (Dirac) mass from Yukawa coupling to the SU(2) doublet Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, while neutrinos are massless. (There is no right-handed neutrino to participate in a Dirac mass, and there is assumed to be no left-handed Majorana mass, since there is no fundamental Higgs triplet in the model.) The Lagrangian of the theory is:

$`_{SM}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }^aW^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\left(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)^{}\left(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ (1)
$``$ $`\lambda \left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\eta ^2\right)^2i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }i\overline{e_R}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu e_R+`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`h^{}\left(\overline{e_R}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }e_R\right).`$ (3)
Here

$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ $``$ $`\left(_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\tau ^aW_\mu ^a+i{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}B_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (4)
$`D_\mu e_R`$ $``$ $`\left(_\mu +ig^{}B_\mu \right)e_R`$ (5)
$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`\left(_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\tau ^aW_\mu ^ai{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}B_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (6)
with

$`W_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $``$ $`_\mu W_\nu ^a_\nu W_\mu ^a+gϵ^{abc}W_\mu ^bW_\nu ^c,`$ (7)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu `$ (8)
where $`\tau ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices. As is conventional, we define

$`Z_\mu `$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _wW_\mu ^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _wB_\mu `$ (9)
$`A_\mu `$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _wW_\mu ^3+\mathrm{cos}\theta _wB_\mu `$ (10)
where $`\theta _w`$ is the weak mixing angle. The fermionic equations of motion for Lagrangian (1) are

$`i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`h^{}\mathrm{\Phi }e_R`$ (11)
$`i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu e_R`$ $`=`$ $`h^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_L.`$ (12)
In the Z-string ansatz, $`A^\mu =W_\mu ^1=W_\mu ^2=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(0,\varphi )^T`$. In cylindrical coordinates $`(r,\theta ,z)`$ the gauge and Higgs fields take the form

$$qZ^\mu =(0,\frac{v(r)}{r}\stackrel{}{e}_\theta ),\varphi =\eta f(r)e^{i\theta }$$
(13)
where $`q\alpha /2=\sqrt{g^2+g^2}/2`$, and $`v(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ are the Z-string profile functions.

With this ansatz, the neutrino equation of motion is:

$$i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \nu _L=0$$
(14)
A representation of the Dirac matrices in cylindrical coordinates is

$$\gamma ^r=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& e^{i\theta }& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta }\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
$$\gamma ^\theta =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& ie^{i\theta }& 0& 0\\ ie^{i\theta }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& ie^{i\theta }\\ 0& 0& ie^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
$`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau ^3& 0\\ 0& \tau ^3\end{array}\right),\gamma ^z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$In this representation, a left-handed Dirac fermion has the form: $`\nu _L^T=(\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha ,\beta )`$.

A general solution to equation (14) can be written as a superposition of all modes with definite winding number,

$`\alpha =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (17)
$`\beta =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i\beta _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (18)
$`\alpha _m`$ and $`\beta _m`$ are, in general, complex functions of $`r`$. We are interested in zero energy solutions to equation (14) such that all spinor components fall off outside the string core (large $`r`$) fast enough to be normalizable and are well-behaved at the origin (small $`r`$).

After setting $`k_z=0`$, we get a set of two recursive equations for the coefficients of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$`\omega \alpha _{m1}+\beta _m^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m+v}{r}}\beta _m=`$ $`0`$ (19)
$`\omega \beta _m+\alpha _{m1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m1+v}{r}}\alpha _{m1}=`$ $`0`$ (20)
Let us consider the case $`m=0`$. For large $`r`$, $`v1`$, $`f1`$ and the closed system of equations is:

$`\omega \alpha _1+\beta _0^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\beta _0=`$ $`0`$ (21)
$`\omega \beta _0+\alpha _1^{}=`$ $`0`$ (22)
Eliminating $`\alpha _1`$ from the system we get Bessel’s equation for $`\beta `$:

$$\beta _0^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}\beta _0^{}+\beta _0(\omega ^2\frac{1}{r^2})=0$$
(23)
the general solution of which is given by

$$\beta _0(\omega r)=A\sqrt{\omega }J_1(\omega r)+B\sqrt{\omega }Y_1(\omega r)$$
(24)
Here $`J_1`$ and $`Y_1`$ are Bessel’s functions of the first and second kind, while $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants. We see therefore that the $`k_z=0`$ solutions comprise a continuum labeled by $`\omega `$. Using the normalization relation for Bessel’s functions:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}J_1(\omega r)J_1(\omega ^{}r)r𝑑r=\frac{1}{\omega }\delta (\omega ^{}\omega ).$$
(25)
and a similar relation which holds for $`Y_1`$, we see that the solution is properly $`\delta `$-function normalized. For $`\omega 0`$ and $`r`$ large, (24) is just a cylindrical wave $`\beta _0e^{\pm i\omega r}/\sqrt{r}`$. To see what happens with the zero mode, i.e. $`\omega =0`$, solution, we take $`r`$ fixed but large enough for eq. (21) to be valid, say $`r\eta ^1`$. Thus, the limit $`\omega 0`$ implies that $`\omega r0`$. Using the asymptotic expansion for Bessel’s function of small argument we get the neutrino wave function:

$$\beta _0=\frac{D}{\sqrt{\omega }r}$$
(26)
where $`D`$ is a constant independent of $`\omega `$ and $`r`$.

The neutrino equations for small $`r`$ and $`m=0`$ are:

$`\omega \alpha _1+\beta _0^{}+v_0r\beta _0=`$ $`0`$ (27)
$`\omega \beta _0+\alpha _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\alpha _1=`$ $`0`$ (28)
where we used $`vv_0r^2`$ and $`ff_0r`$ near the origin. Eliminating $`\alpha _1`$ from the system we get equation for $`\beta `$:

$$\beta _0^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}\beta _0^{}+\beta _0(\omega ^2+2v_0)=0$$
(29)
whose solution is given by

$$\beta _0(\omega r)=CI_0(\sqrt{\omega ^22v_0}r)$$
(30)
where $`C`$ is a constant and $`I_0`$ is a modified Bessel function of the first kind. Thus, $`\beta _0\sqrt{\omega }C`$ near the origin, where $`\sqrt{\omega }`$ is introduced in order to have a consistent normalization. This is in agreement with the result in .

$`\beta _0`$ is the only nontrivial solution of the system (19) in the zero mode limit, i.e. $`\omega r0`$. The solutions for all other $`\alpha _m`$ and $`\beta _m`$ are not valid in the zero mode limit because of singular behavior at either small or large $`r`$ which makes solutions not even Dirac delta function normalizable.

If we look at the solution for $`\beta _0`$ as an isolated zero mode, it is obviously not normalizable because the normalization integral diverges logarithmically . But, we have seen that this state is actually part of a continuum spectrum of the theory and is Dirac delta function normalizable. Therefore it is a valid zero mode solution.

## III Beyond the Standard Model

Recent evidence from the Super Kamiokande experiment  strongly suggests that neutrinos are very light, but not massless. A simple extension to the standard model which incorporates light neutrino masses is to add to each standard model family an $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ singlet right-handed neutrino, and to incorporate both a Dirac mass for the neutrino and a Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino. The origin of $`M_R`$ is a vacuum expectation value of some $`SU(2)`$ singlet Higgs field, acquired at some energy scale much greater than that of the electroweak scale. $`M_R`$ can therefore be taken to be spatially homogeneous. The modified Lagrangian is

$`=_{SM}`$ $`+`$ $`h\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\tau _2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\nu _R\overline{\nu _R}\mathrm{\Phi }^Ti\tau _2^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right]`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu _R^c}M_R^{}\nu _R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu _R}M_R\nu _R^c`$ (32)
where $`\nu ^cC\overline{\nu }^T`$ and $`\nu _R^T=(\gamma ,\delta ,\gamma ,\delta )`$. The charge conjugation matrix $`C`$ in the representation we are working in is:

$$Ci\gamma ^2\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
The resulting neutrino equations of motion are:

$`i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \nu _L=`$ $`h\varphi ^{}\nu _R`$ (34)
$`i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _R=`$ $`h\varphi \nu _L+M_R(\nu _R)^c`$ (35)
The presence of the Majorana mass term, $`M_R`$, prevents us from removing the angular dependence from the Dirac equations for the neutrino fields using the standard procedure . Instead, we must consider a superposition of all modes with definite winding number. Extending the ansatz (17), we write

$`\alpha =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (36)
$`\beta =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i\beta _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (37)
$`\gamma =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (38)
$`\delta =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i\delta _m(r)e^{ik_zzi\omega t+im\theta }`$ (39)
After setting $`\omega =k_z=0`$, we get a set of four recursive equations for the coefficients $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$

$`\beta _m^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(m+v)}{r}}\beta _m=`$ $`h\eta f\gamma _m`$ (40)
$`\gamma _m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}\gamma _miM_R\gamma _{1m}^{}=`$ $`h\eta f\beta _m`$ (41)
$`\alpha _m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+v)}{r}}\alpha _m=`$ $`h\eta f\delta _{m+2}`$ (42)
$`\delta _m^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}\delta _miM_R\delta _{1m}^{}=`$ $`h\eta f\alpha _{m2}`$ (43)
In the $`M_R=0`$ limit, the equations are not recursively connected.

System (40) decomposes into two subsystems - ($`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$) and ($`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$). Let us first analyze the ($`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$) equations. From (40) we see that a self consistent set of equations consists of four equations for $`\beta _m`$, $`\beta _{1m}`$, $`\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _{1m}`$. The case $`m=0`$ is the most interesting one because we already know that in the $`M_R=0`$ case (e.g. electrons), zero modes have $`m=0`$ . Setting $`m=0`$ in the first two equations of the system (40) we get:

$`\beta _0^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{r}}\beta _0=`$ $`h\eta f\gamma _0`$ (44)
$`\beta _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(v1)}{r}}\beta _1=`$ $`h\eta f\gamma _1`$ (45)
$`\gamma _0^{}iM_R\gamma _1^{}=`$ $`h\eta f\beta _0`$ (46)
$`\gamma _1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\gamma _1iM_R\gamma _0^{}=`$ $`h\eta f\beta _1`$ (47)
An analytic solution to the system (44) could not be found, but we can learn something about the structure of solutions by looking at their asymptotic behavior. Neglecting fermion back reaction to the string background, $`v`$ and $`f`$ are just the Nielsen-Olesen profiles and at large $`r`$ behave as $`f(r\mathrm{})1`$, $`v(r\mathrm{})1`$. Assuming the asymptotic behavior $`\beta _0ae^{sr}`$, $`\gamma _0be^{tr}`$, $`\beta _1ce^{ur}`$, $`\gamma _1de^{lr}`$ ($`a`$, $`b`$,$`c`$ and $`d`$ are arbitrary complex numbers while $`s`$, $`t`$, $`u`$ and $`l`$ are complex numbers, with a nonpositive real part) we get following conditions:

$$s=t=u^{}=l^{}\mathrm{and}|M_R|^2s^2=(|h\eta |^2s^2)^2$$
(48)
The solutions to this fourth order polynomial equation for $`s`$ are given by

$$s_\pm ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[|M_R|^2+2|h\eta |^2\pm |M_R|\sqrt{|M_R|^2+4|h\eta |^2}\right]$$
(49)
All four of these solutions for $`s`$ are real. Two of these are positive, giving rise to exponentially growing modes and two are negative, giving rise to exponentially decaying modes. Only the latter are physically acceptable. In the physical limit of $`M_R|h\eta |`$ we get $`s_+=M_R`$ and $`s_{}=(h\eta )^2/(2M_R)`$, which is the standard “see-saw” result — outside the string core neutrino zero modes decay such that one decay channel is driven by the heavy neutrino (vacuum) mass eigenstate and another one is driven by the light one. In the limit of $`M_R/(h\eta )0`$ we have the standard result $`s=\pm |h\eta |`$ .

If we want to match the exponentially decaying large $`r`$ solutions in a given pair of equations ($`\beta `$,$`\gamma `$) to the solutions at the origin, we must know how many solutions for small $`r`$ are well-behaved for the set of $`(\beta _0,\gamma _0,\beta _1,\gamma _1)`$ . By well-behaved we mean nonsingular and single-valued. We require not only the functions, but also all their derivatives to be single-valued in order to have a well defined solution. Therefore, for a solution of the form $`r^pe^{iq\theta }`$ the following must be true: (i) $`p|q|`$, (ii) both $`p`$ and $`q`$ are even or both are odd. Neglecting fermion back reaction on the string background, the asymptotic behavior of the profile functions is $`vv_0r^2+v_2r^4+\mathrm{}`$ and $`ff_0r+f_2r^3+\mathrm{}`$ for small $`r`$. Writing $`\beta _0ar^s`$, $`\gamma _0br^t`$, $`\beta _1cr^u`$, $`\gamma _1dr^l`$ ($`a`$, $`b`$,$`c`$ and $`d`$ are arbitrary complex numbers and $`s`$, $`t`$, $`u`$ and $`l`$ are nonnegative real numbers, $`s`$ and $`t`$ even, $`u`$ and $`l`$ odd) for small $`r`$ we find that the leading orders are $`s=0`$, $`t=0`$, $`u=1`$ and $`l=1`$. System (44) is invariant under the parity transformation ($`rr`$), so all corrections to the solutions which are parity violating are zero. We can write the general well behaved solution in the form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _0\\ \gamma _0\\ \beta _1\\ \gamma _1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_0r^0+a_2r^2+a_4r^4+\mathrm{}\\ b_0r^0+b_2r^2+b_4r^4+\mathrm{}\\ c_0r^1+c_2r^3+c_4r^5+\mathrm{}\\ d_0r^1+d_2r^3+d_4r^5+\mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(50)
The structure of the system (44) is such that only three coefficients are independent (say $`a_0`$, $`b_0`$ and $`d_0`$ are independent, while $`c_0=iM_Rb_0/2`$ and all other coefficient are functions of the first three) which says that there are three linearly independent well-behaved solutions. For the system of four linear first order differential equations we should have four solutions in total, so we conclude that one solution is not well-behaved, i.e. contains one or more terms such as $`r^p`$, $`p<0`$ and/or $`r^p(\mathrm{log}(r))^q`$.

With three well-behaved solutions at the origin and two well-behaved solutions at infinity there must be at least one solution which is well-behaved everywhere. Each of the two well-behaved solutions at infinity matches on to a unique linear combination of all four solutions at the origin where only one of them is bad, so there is always one linear combination of the two good solutions at infinity which does not have any contribution from the single bad solution at the origin. However, it could happen that there are two solutions which are well-behaved everywhere if each of the two good solutions at infinity matches exactly to a linear combination of the three good solutions at origin. (We call this possibility a “conspiracy”.) One must also be concerned that the regular solution for one spinor component, say $`\beta _0`$, might correspond to a solution of other spinor components which are not well-behaved. However, it is easy to show that if $`\beta _00`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ then $`\gamma _0`$, $`\beta _1`$, $`\gamma _1`$ $`0`$. Thus, barring conspiracies, we expect to find only one regular solution of the $`(\beta _0,\gamma _0,\beta _1,\gamma _1)`$ equations.

Numerically solving system (44), we find a well behaved solution (Figure 1). We took $`f(r)=\mathrm{tanh}(r)`$ and $`v(r)=\mathrm{tanh}^2(r)`$ for the string profile functions which gives the correct asymptotical behavior $`fr`$, $`vr^2`$ as $`r0`$, $`f1`$, $`v1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ and the correct parity. We also set $`iM_R/(h\eta )=1.1`$. Although no other well behaved numerical solutions were found, a “conspiracy” can not be entirely dismissed because of possible numerical errors. However, more than one neutrino zero mode would lead to a mismatch between the number of neutrino and electron zero modes***An analysis in the case of electrons, similar to the one done for neutrinos, shows that there is only one well behaved solution without the possibility for a conspiracy..

Next we consider non-zero values of the parameter $`m`$ in eq. (40). For the case $`m=1`$, analysis of large $`r`$ gives results similar to the $`m=0`$ case — two exponentially growing and two exponentially decaying solutions, the latter ones with the expected large $`M_R`$ “see-saw” behavior and the standard $`M_R0`$ limit. For small $`r`$, the general well behaved solution is of the form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1\\ \gamma _1\\ \beta _2\\ \gamma _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_0r^3+a_2r^5+a_4r^7+\mathrm{}\\ b_0r^1+b_2r^3+b_4r^5+\mathrm{}\\ c_0r^2+c_2r^4+c_4r^6+\mathrm{}\\ d_0r^2+d_2r^4+d_4r^6+\mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(51)
where only two coefficients are independent (say $`b_0`$ and $`c_0`$, while $`a_0=f_0h\eta b_0/4`$, $`d_0=iM_Rb_0/4`$, $`c_2=(c_0v_0+h\eta f_0iM_Rb_0/4)/2`$). With only two good asymptotic solutions, both at infinity and at the origin, we cannot say anything definite about existence of the zero modes in this sector. Depending on the specific matching coefficients between small and large $`r`$ solutions we could have none, one or two zero modes. However, numerical analysis shows that there are no nontrivial well-behaved solutions, i.e. $`\beta _1=\gamma _1=\beta _2=\gamma _2=0`$ everywhere. Numerical experiments also indicates that a similar situation occurs for $`m2`$.

As a simple consequence of the fact that zero modes in $`3+1`$ dimension satisfy the relationship $`\omega =\pm k`$, they must be eigenstates of the $`\gamma ^0\gamma ^z`$ operator. We found one neutrino zero mode with $`\beta 0`$, $`\gamma 0`$ and therefore, analysis of the ($`\alpha `$,$`\delta `$) pair of the equations of the system (40) is not necessary. In order to be eigenstate of $`\gamma ^0\gamma ^z`$ with the definite eigenvalue (in this case $`1`$) the neutrino zero mode must have $`\alpha =\delta =0`$.

## IV Conclusion

We have found that in the standard model a massless neutrino has one well-behaved zero mode on a Z-string which, being part of a continuum, is Dirac delta function normalizable.

We considered the minimal extension of the standard model Lagrangian which includes a phenomenologically valid massive neutrino, with both Dirac and Majorana mass terms. The homogeneous, non-winding Majorana mass term $`M_R`$ makes this case considerably different from the electron one. To accommodate the angular dependence of the equations of motion we must use an ansatz in which each spinor component is a superposition of at least two modes with definite winding number. As a consequence, we get a set of coupled equations. We solved the equations analytically in two asymptotic regimes, small and large $`r`$, and argued that in each sector determined by a definite winding number $`m`$ it is possible, in principle, to have one or more zero modes. Numerical analysis indicates that there is one well-behaved zero mode in the $`m=0`$ sector and none in higher $`m`$ sectors.

## V Acknowledgements

One of the authors, Dejan Stojkovic, would like to thank Zlatko Dimcovic for the help in numerical aspects of this problem. This work was supported by DOE 3422837 to the Particle/Astrophysics group at CWRU and NSF 3423593 to GDS.


text:
# 1 Is there a Higgs?

## 1 Is there a Higgs?

Any decent theory of the EW interactions must contain the Goldstone bosons, two charged and one neutral, that provide the longitudinal degrees of freedom for the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons. On top of them, the Standard Model has a neutral Higgs boson. Without the Higgs and without specifying what replaces it, one deals with a gauge Lagrangian with $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_L\mathrm{U}(1)`$ non-linearly realized in the Goldstone boson sector. This is in formal analogy with the chiral $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_L\mathrm{SU}(3)_R`$ of strong interactions in the pseudoscalar octet sector.

The predictive power of such a non-linear Lagrangian is reduced with respect to the SM. In practice, at present, the comparison can be made by considering 2 “$`(g2)`$-like” quantities, $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$ , which include the EW radiative correction effects more sensitive to the Higgs sector. The experimentally determined $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$ , mostly by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, $`M_W/M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$, are shown in fig. 1 and compared with the SM prediction. All the radiative corrections not included in $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$, less sensitive to the Higgs mass, are fixed at their SM values. The agreement with the SM for a Higgs mass below the triviality bound of about $`600\mathrm{GeV}`$ is remarkable and constitutes indirect evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson.

With a non linear Lagrangian, neither $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$ can be computed. Some believe, however, that suitable models of EW symmetry breaking may exist where both $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_3`$ deviate from the SM values for $`m_h=(100÷200)\mathrm{GeV}`$ by less than $`(1÷2)10^3`$, having therefore a chance of also reproducing the data without an explicit Higgs boson in the spectrum . In the case where a reliable estimate can be made, technicolour models with QCD-like dynamics, this is known not to happen .

## 2 Where is the Higgs?

If one accepts the existence of a Higgs boson, the SM Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ becomes an unavoidable effective low energy approximation of any sensible theory. A deviation from it could occur for the need of describing new degrees of freedom with mass comparable or lower than the Fermi scale. Barring this possibility, the predictions of the SM — hence the indirect determination of $`m_h`$ from the EW Precision Tests — could only be altered by the presence of operators $`𝒪_i^{(4+p)}`$ of dimension $`4+p5`$ weighted by inverse powers of a cut-off scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, associated with some kind of new physics

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}(E<\mathrm{\Lambda })=_{\mathrm{SM}}+\underset{i,p}{}\frac{c_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^p}𝒪_i^{(4+p)}.$$

It is unavoidable that the $`𝒪_i`$ respect gauge invariance. For the purposes of the following discussion, it is conservative that we restrict them to be flavour universal and $`B`$, $`L`$, CP conserving.

How does this modified Lagrangian compare with the most recent EWPT ? Table 1 gives a list of the (independent) operators that affect the EWPT, together with the lower limits that the same EWPT set on the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameters. We take one operator at a time with the dimensionless coefficients $`c_i=+1`$ or $`c_i=1`$ and different values of the Higgs mass. The blanks in the columns with $`m_h=300`$ or $`800\mathrm{GeV}`$ are there because no fit is possible, at $`95\%`$ C.L., for whatever value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A fit is possible, however, for $`m_h=(300÷500)\mathrm{GeV}`$ with suitable operators and with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a defined range , as shown in fig. 2.

For this reason one is cautious about saying that the Higgs is between 100 and 200 GeV, as obtained in a pure SM fit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}`$. To fake a light Higgs, however, a coincidence is needed. From table 1, a more likely conclusion seems that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is indeed bigger than about $`5\mathrm{TeV}`$ and the Higgs is light.

In spite of this, an interesting question is the following : suppose that a Higgs heavier than $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$ appears light in the EWPT because of a suitable operator in the above list. Would any direct effect of such operator be visibile in high energy collisions? Not possible, we think, at the Tevatron and unlikely at the LHC, where it would be definitively easier to discover the Higgs itself.

## 3 Is supersymmetry there?

The naturalness problem of the Fermi scale, caused by the quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass, is with us since more than 20 years. We think that a Higgs mass in the $`(100÷200)\mathrm{GeV}`$ range and, especially, a lower bound on the scale of new physics of about $`5\mathrm{TeV}`$ turn the naturalness problem of the Fermi scale into a clear paradox. The loop with a top of $`170\mathrm{GeV}`$ gives a contribution to the Higgs mass

$$\delta m_h^2(\mathrm{top})=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}G_\mathrm{F}m_t^2k_{\mathrm{max}}^2=(0.3k_{\mathrm{max}})^2$$
(1)
where $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum momentum of the virtual top. The paradox arises if one thinks that $`5\mathrm{TeV}`$ is also a lower bound on $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, since in this case $`\delta m_h^2(\mathrm{top})`$ would exceed $`(1.5\mathrm{TeV})^2`$, about 100 times the indirect value of $`m_h^2`$. We like to call this the “LEP paradox”, for obvious reasons.

Supersymmetry offers a neat solution to this paradox. A stop loop counteracts the top loop contribution to the Higgs mass, turning $`k_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ of eq. (1) into

$$k_{\mathrm{max}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{k_{\mathrm{max}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2}$$
(2)
In this way a stop mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ in the Fermi-scale range keeps the top-stop contribution to $`m_h`$ under control, while not undoing the success of the SM in passing the EWPT. This is a non trivial constraint for any possible solution of the LEP paradox. The success of supersymmetric grand unification adds significant support to this view .

The contrary arguments to the supersymmetric solution of the LEP paradox are of general character. One argument is that power divergences in field theory are not significant. This looks problematic to us: the top loop is there and something must be done with it. A quadratic divergence explains the $`\pi ^\pm /\pi ^0`$ mass splitting $`m_{\pi ^\pm }^2m_{\pi ^0}^2(\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}/4\pi )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ . More relevant may be the observation that the cosmological constant poses another serious unsolved problem, also related to power divergences.

Alternative physical pictures are proposed for solving the hierarchy problem (top-colour , extra dimensions without supersymmetry , …). As far as we know, they all share a common problem: the lack of calculative techniques and/or of suitable conceptual developments do not allow to address the LEP paradox. Maybe the fundamental scale of these theories is low and the agreement of the EWPT with the SM and a high cut-off is accidental. Alternatively, the separation between the Higgs mass and the scale of these theories may be considerable. In this last case, unfortunately, the related experimental signatures may become elusive.

## 4 Where is supersymmetry?

If supersymmetry solves the hierarchy problem, where is it then? In supersymmetric models, a good approximation to the Higgs mass for moderately large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is given by

$$m_h^2\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}G_\mathrm{F}m_t^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2}.$$
(3)
Note how this simply arises by the replacement (2) into (1) and the identification of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with $`Q`$, the RGE scale at which $`m_h`$ vanishes. In specific models $`Q`$ is a function of the various parameters.

As well known, $`m_h^2`$ can also be computed from the quartic coupling of the Higgs potential. Including the one loop large top corrections, one has ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta >\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$)

$$m_h^2M_Z^2+\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}G_\mathrm{F}m_t^4\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2}{v^2}$$
(4)
Eq.s (3) and (4) may be viewed as a relation between $`Q`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, graphically represented in fig. 3.

As mentioned $`Q`$ is a model dependent function of the various parameters, ranging from the weak scale to the Planck scale. A random choice of the original parameters leads most often to a point on the prolongation of the left branch of the curve in fig. 3, where $`\mathrm{ln}(Q/m_{\stackrel{~}{t}})1`$. However, given the correlation between stop masses and the other sparticle masses expected in explicit models, experiments have excluded this region, requiring that $`Qm_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$.

‘Where is supersymmetry?’ depends on the interpretation of this fact. If it is due to an accidental fine-tuning, it is no longer unlikely to have sparticles above a TeV due to a slightly more improbable accident. At the same time the explanation of the LEP paradox becomes cloudy.

If instead $`Qm_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is not accidental, it is important to notice that experiments do not yet require that we live on the right branch in fig. 3, with $`Q`$ very close to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. If, for some reason, $`Qm_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, so that sparticle masses are related to the weak scale by a one loop relation (rather than by the usual tree level relation), sparticles should be around the corner. We have recently conjectured that suitable models may exist where $`Q`$ is predicted to be close to the minimum in fig. 3, where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}400\mathrm{GeV}`$ . In fig. 4 we show a sampling of the spectra expected in these models, if we also assume minimal supergravity relations between soft terms.

## 5 Conclusion

A straight interpretation of the results of the EWPT, mostly performed at LEP in the last decade, gives rise to an apparent paradox. The EWPT indicate both a light Higgs mass $`m_h(100÷200)\mathrm{GeV}`$ and a high cut-off, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\mathrm{TeV}`$, with the consequence of a top loop correction to $`m_h`$ largely exceeding the preferred value of $`m_h`$ itself. The well known naturalness problem of the Fermi scale has gained a pure ‘low energy’ aspect. At present, supersymmetry at the Fermi scale is the only way we know of to attach this problem.

This way of looking at the data may be too naive. As we said, in EWPT the SM with a light Higgs and a large cut-off can at least be faked by a fortuitous cancellation. In any case the point is not to replace direct searches for supersymmetry or for any other kind of new physics. Rather, we wonder if a better theoretical focus on the LEP paradox might be not without useful consequences. Its solution, we think, is bound to give us some surprise, in a way or another.

### Acknowledgments

Work supported in part by the E.C. under TMR contract No. ERBFMRX–CT96–0090. Talk given at the IVth Rencontres du Vietnam, July 2000.