text:
# Black hole to bulge mass correlation in Active Galactic Nuclei: A test for the simple unified formation scheme

## 1 Introduction

The existence of supermassive black holes, at least in elliptical and bulge-dominated galaxies is suggested by various observations, such as the optical spectroscopy, VLBI water maser measurements and X-ray observations of AGNs (Nakai et al. 1993, Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Faber et al. 1997, Miyoshi et al. 1995, Greenhill et al. 1996, Pounds et al. 1990). An intensive discussion about the possible relationship between the central properties and their host galaxies was spurred on especially since the high resolution HST photometry and several ground-based CCD photometries of early type galaxies . Although there are significant scatters, a linear mass correlation of central black holes and their host spheroids has still a high probability.

The theoretical interpretation for such linear scale is discussed by several authors (Merritt 1998, Silk & Rees 1998, Wang & Biermann 1998). Considering various observations, Wang & Biermann (1998) proposed a possible formation scenario for elliptical and bulge-dominated galaxies, as well as the consequential active evolution phase where early type galaxies are the products of major mergers between two comparable disk galaxies; the violent collision between two galaxies could destroy the original stellar disks and form the spheroidal component of merging galaxies after the relaxation; help to release the angular moment of the cold gas outside and drive them inwards; a central starburst and QSO accretion in the central condensed gas disk will compete for the gas supply, feedback and drain the gas in the disk in a short time; possibly grow a supermassive black hole during the spheroid formation, blow up the gas left probably by the nuclear wind when the central engine gets to be powerful enough; thus restrict the central black hole mass and the mass of the stellar component to a ratio of $`10^3`$.

The numerical simulation by Wang & Biermann (1998) shows the star formation approximately scales with the nuclear accretion during galaxy interactions, which can regulate the black hole to bulge mass ratio to the observed level $`0.002`$ within a factor of three. In this scenario, a quasar black hole is possibly formed at a cosmic time scale of $`10^9\mathrm{yr}`$, corresponding to $`z=35`$ in a flat Einstein-de Sitter world model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1,H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Afterwards, when the quasar active phase has ceased and the spheroidal stellar system gets relaxed in a comparable relaxation time scale, an elliptical or spiral bulge harboring a massive black hole in the center with the mass in a factor $`10^3`$ of the host spheroid may appear in the universe.

We should mention the black hole evolution in this model is assumed to reach the Eddington accretion rate whenever there is sufficient gas supplied to the center. The question of whether this mass correlation is universal for all AGNs, i.e. whether Seyfert galaxies follow a similar black hole to bulge mass correlation as in early type galaxies and luminous QSOs, is not only important for the understanding of the correlation between the host galaxies and the evolution of active nuclei, but for the relation of the formation and evolution scheme between Seyferts and QSOs.

Recent reverberation mapping of a sample of Seyferts with reliable central masses and the bulge magnitudes by Wandel (1999), suggests that there is a broad distribution of black hole to bulge mass ratio with a mean of $`10^{3.5}`$, about one magnitude lower than the value in early type galaxies and bright QSOs. Although this discrepancy may in part be explained by systematic errors and selection or orientation effects (Wandel 2000), a significant difference probably remains, in particular between Seyfert 1 galaxies and QSOs, at least a large dispersion for the medium-bulge system, with masses similar to those of Seyferts (Magorrian et al. 1998, Richstone et al. 1998, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000). Our purpose is to firstly present a model which could explain the black hole to bulge mass correlation in AGNs and the dependence on the environmental parameters of the host galaxies, such as the gas or stellar velocity dispersion, as well as the relation of the central starburst and accretion process during galactic interaction; Secondly, discuss the dispersion of black hole to bulge mass ratio in QSOs and Seyferts within a simple unified formation scheme, where the bulge formation and nuclear activity are triggered by galaxy mergers or tidal interactions. We found the variation of the velocity dispersion of accreting gas could cause a range of distribution for the mass ratio, leading to a correlation of the nuclear black hole mass and the gas velocity dispersion roughly as $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}v_\mathrm{e}^{4.7}`$ from our simulation, within the slope suggested by recent work of Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) and Gebhardt et al. (2000).

## 2 Black hole to bulge mass correlation in AGNs

### 2.1 Illustrative model

AGNs are usually thought to be powered by gas accretion to the central massive black holes. There is now firm evidence that QSOs could be formed during the violent galactic interactions together with central starbursts (Sanders et al. 1988a, 1998b, Taniguchi & Shioya 1998, Heckman et al. 1986, Bahcall et al. 1997). Although only $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\%`$ of Seyfert galaxies have companions, there are still many aspects of observations which support a simple unified formation scheme for QSOs and Seyferts (Rafanelli et al. 1995, Taniguchi 1999). In this sense, QSOs and Seyferts are the consequences of either galaxy mergers or tidal interactions, meanwhile a massive black hole may grow during the process of mergers or tidal interactions since the enhanced cloud-cloud collision or star formation could increase the mass inflow to the center.

We adopt such a unified formation scheme for Seyferts where we think the tidal perturbation of some satellites not only kinematically heat and thicken the host disks, form the central bulge, but may increase the effect of self-gravity in the molecular disk, enhance the cloud-cloud collision and star formation, thus result in a considerable mass inflow to the central region on a relatively short time (Lin et al. 1988, Quinn et al. 1993, Walker et al. 1996, Veláquez & White 1999). Although we consider in our model the tidal interactions as a formation scheme for most Seyferts, we do not reject a possibility that some of AGNs with low black hole to bulge mass ratio could still be major mergers, but at the earlier evolutionary phase in which the black holes have not had time to reach the asymptotic value.

We adopt $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0}{R}`$ as the initial mass distribution for protogalaxies in our model, with the typical mass of $`10^{11}M_{}`$ and the disk scale of $`14\mathrm{kpc}`$, similar as the size of our Galaxy. The evolution of the surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R,t)`$ of a differentially rotating disk with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and viscosity $`\nu `$ is governed by (Lüst 1952, Pringle 1981)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(R^2\mathrm{\Omega })}{R}}\right]^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}\left(\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }R^3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{R}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{t_{}}}\left(1R_\mathrm{e}\right)`$ (1)
where $`\nu =\beta _1v_\varphi r`$ for a Keplerian selfgravitating disk (Duschl et al. 2000); the accretion time scale $`t_{\mathrm{acc}}=r^2/\nu =r/\beta _1v_\varphi `$; and the star formation time scale $`t_{}=\alpha t_{\mathrm{acc}}=\beta _2r/v_\varphi `$ (Pringle 1981). $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/t_{}`$ is the star formation rate in the disk with mass return rate $`R_\mathrm{e}0.3`$ (Tinsley 1974). In this case, the mass influx at the inner boundary $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is:

$$F=2\pi \beta _1V_0\left[2R\mathrm{\Sigma }+R^2\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{R}\right]_{R_{\mathrm{in}}}=2\pi \beta _1V_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0$$
(2)
We adopt $`v_\varphi V_0`$ for a flat rotation law for the protogalaxies in our calculation with $`V_0=100\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ as a normalization velocity. The justification of such simplification for a self-gravitating disk at parsec to kiloparsec region is discussed in detail by Wang & Biermann (1998).

The spheroidal Bondi accretion rate is given by $`\dot{m}=4\pi \lambda \rho R_{\mathrm{acc}}^2v_\mathrm{e}`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is the Bondi accretion radius defined as $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}=\frac{GM_{\mathrm{bh}}}{v_\mathrm{e}^2}`$ ($`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is the mass of the central black hole; $`v_\mathrm{e}`$ the effective relative velocity between seed black hole and the ambient gas) (Bondi 1952). In our model, we start from a tiny black hole $`5M_{}`$, with the inner boundary of the accretion disk $`R_{\mathrm{in}}0.1\mathrm{pc}`$ which is usually thought to be the inner edge of a torus. Changing the scale of inner boundary or the seed black hole mass only influences the early evolution, but no significant effect on the final result. At early time, $`R_{\mathrm{in}}>>R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, we assume the mass shears inwards at the inner radius to form a uniform Bondi flow with the mass distribution $`\frac{\mathrm{}\rho (r)}{\mathrm{}t}=\frac{2\pi \beta _1V_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0}{4/3\pi R_{\mathrm{in}}^3}`$ ($`\mathrm{}t`$ is the time step of the calculation); afterwards, black hole would grow and reach a stage of $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}>R_{\mathrm{in}}`$, we assume in this case black hole accretes the mass shearing inwards within its influence at $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ via a uniform Bondi flow with the mass distribution $`\frac{\mathrm{}\rho (r)}{\mathrm{}t}=\frac{2\pi \beta _1V_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0}{4/3\pi R_{\mathrm{acc}}^3}`$.

The Bondi parameter is assumed to be $`\lambda =1/2`$ in our calculation as a possible reduction factor due to the angular momentum. Thus the accretion rate $`\dot{m}`$ and the star formation rate $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in a time step $`\mathrm{}t`$ is given by:

$`\dot{m}=\{\begin{array}{cc}3\lambda \beta _1V_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0G^2M_{\mathrm{bh}}^2/R_{\mathrm{in}}^3v_\mathrm{e}^3\hfill & \text{if }R_{\mathrm{acc}}<R_{\mathrm{in}}\hfill \\ & \\ 3\lambda \beta _1V_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0v_\mathrm{e}^3/GM_{\mathrm{bh}}\hfill & \text{if }R_{\mathrm{acc}}>R_{\mathrm{in}}\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{R_{\mathrm{in}}}^{R_{out}}}2\pi r𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{t_{}}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1R_e)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0V_0}{\beta _2}}ln(R_{out}/R_{\mathrm{in}})`$
We could roughly estimate the black hole to bulge mass ratio by $`\frac{\dot{m}}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{3\lambda \beta _1\beta _2v_\mathrm{e}^3}{GM_{\mathrm{bh}}ln(R_{out}/R_{\mathrm{in}})}`$, where we take the value of $`\dot{m}`$ in case of $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}>R_{\mathrm{in}}`$. The estimated ratio shows a strong dependence on the velocity dispersion $`v_\mathrm{e}`$, the value $`\beta _1\beta _2=t_{}/t_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ and the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$.

From Eq. (6), we know the accretion rate $`\dot{m}1/M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ when $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}>R_{\mathrm{in}}`$, which indicates that the nuclear activity would dim slowly as the central black hole becomes massive enough. In this case, a critical black hole mass would be reached when the nuclear accretion rate decreases to a level below Eddington rate $`\dot{m}_{\mathrm{edd}}=\mathrm{2.16\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^4(M_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{})`$ in units of $`t_010^4\mathrm{yr}`$. Assuming $`\dot{m}\dot{m}_{\mathrm{edd}}`$, we get the critical black hole mass $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.6\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^7M_{}`$, with $`v_\mathrm{e}50\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\beta _10.05`$ corresponding to the viscous diffuse time scale of $`10^9\mathrm{yr}`$ (we will discuss these particular parameters later). Afterwards, the accretion rate would decrease quickly to be much less than Eddington rate, and the black hole will not grow significantly. We say this is an upper limit, simply because we use the initial surface gas density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0R_0}{R}`$ throughout the estimation. Actually, the gas would be depleted during the evolution by star formation and accretion etc., it would thus take a time scale much longer than Hubble time in order to approch such a mass or maybe never could reach such a level if there is no external trigger for the nuclear accretion, such as galaxy mergers or tidal effects. In any sense, the black hole growth would be locked up in a level of $`10^7M_{}`$ in such an evolutionary scheme. Meanwhile, we assume in our model $`\beta _1\beta _21`$, since the result of numerical simulation by Wang & Biermann (1998) shows a strong correlation between the starburst and accretion in merging galaxies, which could regulate the black hole to bulge mass ratio to a level $`0.002`$ within a factor of three in QSOs and early type galaxies. In this case, if we consider Seyferts and QSOs are formed in a similar scheme, we could adopt this result as a reasonable assumption for our present model. We now use as input the critical black hole mass $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.6\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^7M_{}`$, the assumption $`\beta _1\beta _21`$ and $`v_\mathrm{e}50\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ to Eq. (6), a mass ratio about 0.001 would be approched. Choosing $`v_\mathrm{e}50\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ is based on the observations by Zylka et al. (1990) of molecular line emission in the central region of our Galaxy with the assumption that the velocity field of molecular clouds would be the low limit of the sound speed of hot gas (Linden et al. 1993, Garcia-Munoz et al. 1977, Reynolds 1989, 1990). We know from Eq. (6) and the numerical calculation, the variation of the velocity dispersion of accreting gas, $`v_\mathrm{e}`$, would cause a broad distribution of black hole to bulge mass ratio, which is actually shown by the observations. The ratio could reach $`0.06`$ when $`v_\mathrm{e}180\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$, close to the virial velocity of the system. In this case, the black hole evolution would follow Eddington accretion for a longer time, resulting in a QSO phase finally. We should mention here the range ($`0.0010.06`$) is a crude upper limit, since we could not include the surface density evolution by star formation and accretion in this estimation. The practical values should be given by numerical simulation shown in Fig. 1.

### 2.2 Numerical results and discussion

To numerically solve the partial differential Eq. (2.1), we introduce the dimensionless variables, $`r^{}=r/r_0`$, $`t^{}=t/t_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ with the scale $`r_0=1\mathrm{pc}`$, $`t_010^4\mathrm{yr}`$. The general boundary conditions $`lim_{rR_{out}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }(r,t)]=0`$, and zero torque at the origin, $`lim_{rR_{\mathrm{in}}}[G(r,t)]=0`$. The viscous torque $`G`$ is given by Pringle (1981) as $`G(r,t)=2\pi \nu \mathrm{\Sigma }R^3\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{R}`$, with the disk’s outer radius $`R_{out}14\mathrm{kpc}`$ and the inner radius $`R_{\mathrm{in}}0.1\mathrm{pc}`$.

This choice of boundary conditions guarantees zero viscous coupling between the disk and the central object, allows all mass reaching the inner boundary to flow freely inward.

The numerical results are shown in Fig. 1, where we model the effects of a tidal perturbation in a few kpc region by increasing the viscous friction. In fact, the numerical simulation by Lin et al. (1988) demonstrated that a tidal disturbance could propagate to the nucleus from a distance of a few kpc on a time scale shorter than the tidal interaction by “swing amplication”, which induces a rapid increase in the effective viscosity and results in an increase in the rate of mass transfer and energy dissipation. We adopted in the calculation a reasonable set of parameters which could match the observations quite well. The viscous diffuse time scale is $`10^9\mathrm{yr}(\beta _10.05)`$ in case of a tidal perburbation according to the numerical result of Lin et al. (1988). We consider the tidal perturbation would enhance cloud-cloud collision, thus increase both star formation and accretion in a self-gravitation disk. According to the numerical results of Wang & Biermann (1998) for the QSO evolution, we adopt the assumption $`\beta _1\beta _21`$ (i.e. the star formation approximately scales with the accretion). In this case, $`\beta _220`$, corresponding to a star formation rate $`10M_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$ in the central disk, which is at a reasonable level for the observed star formation rate in Seyferts. The initial seed black hole in our model is tiny, $`5M_{}`$. We know from the calculation that the black hole grows by a rate $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}^2`$ at the beginning till $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}R_{\mathrm{in}}`$; afterwards, the accretion rate would decrease by $`1/M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ and only a mediate black hole of $`10^6M_{}`$ can be formed if there is no external trigger. In this case, a tidal perturbation around $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^9\mathrm{yr}`$ could help to grow a massive black hole, which corresponds to $`z0.8`$ in an Einstein-de Sitter Universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1,H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ (where we think the tidal interactions happen frequently, also could be a peak of Seyfert activities).

Although the parameters, such as initial black hole mass, the inner boundary of the accretion disk etc. could have certain influence on the mass ratio, we notice from the numerical results and the illustrative estimation that velocity dispersion of the accreting gas is another key parameter besides the value of $`\beta _1\beta _2`$, which could cause a large dispersion of the black hole to bulge mass ratio in AGNs. Fig. 1 shows a correlation between the nuclear black hole to bulge mass ratio and the velocity dispersion of accreting gas to the center from our simulation, which gives a rough proportionality of $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{\mathrm{bulge}}v_\mathrm{e}^{1.4}`$. In our model, we are aiming to explain a broad distribution of black hole to bulge mass ratio of a similar bulge system in QSOs and Seyferts. If we adopt the masses of the spheroidal systems scale with their luminosities as $`ML^{5/4}`$ and the scale length $`rL^{1/2}`$, combining with the virial theorem gives the bulge velocity dispersion $`\sigma ^2\frac{M}{r}\frac{M}{L^{1/2}}\frac{M}{M^{2/5}}M^{3/5}`$ (Faber & Jackson 1976, Faber et al. 1987, Peterson 1997). So, we obtain $`M_{\mathrm{bulge}}\sigma ^{3.3}`$. The assumption that the velocity dispersion of accreting gas is systematically proportional to the bulge velocity dispersion gives a correlation of $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}v_\mathrm{e}^{4.7}`$, which is shallower than the slope of $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma ^{5.2}`$ given by Ferrarese & Merritt (2000), but steeper than the best-fit correlation ($`M_{\mathrm{bh}}\sigma ^{3.75}`$) by Gebhardt et al. (2000). We see from Fig. 1 that the variation of the velocity dispersion of accreting gas would cause a broad distribution of black hole to bulge mass correlation, where the accreting gas with higher velocity dispersion close to the bulge velocity dispersion could lead to an accretion near Eddington limit, and form more massive black holes in QSOs than in Seyferts of similar bulges. Therefore, the black hole to bulge mass correlation in massive systems is close to an upper limit and much tighter than that in medium-bulges. The physical interpretation of such discrepancy could be due to the different formation or evolution environment of the two kinds of systems (Seyferts and QSOs). The violent collision between two galaxies could trigger intense starburst in the center, heat or shock the interstellar medium efficiently than tidal interaction, thus drive a Bondi flow fuelling the central black hole with probably a higher sound speed and result in a higher accretion rate. In this case, it may enhance a QSO evolution with the accretion rate close to Eddington limit, form a massive black hole, and lead to a black hole to bulge mass ratio higher than in case of Seyferts.

## 3 Summary

Recent reverberation mapping of a sample of Seyfert 1 galaxies by Wandel (1999) suggests that the black hole to bulge mass correlation in Seyferts has a significant dispersion with a mean value of $`10^{3.5}`$, which is about one magnitude lower than in case of QSOs. Considering a simple unified formation scheme for AGNs, we demonstrated a possible black hole evolution scheme where we assume black hole accretes gas coming within its influence by a uniform Bondi flow. This scenario could interpret not only the statistical mass correlation in AGNs and normal galaxies, but a large dispersion of the black hole to bulge mass ratio in QSOs and Seyferts. We found the black hole to bulge mass correlation in such evolution scheme strongly depends on the velocity dispersion of the accreting gas, which might be an important environmental parameter for the observed correlation besides the relation between the star formation and accretion in the central accretion disk during galaxy interactions (Wang & Biermann 1998, 2000). Thus, the results of Wang & Biermann (1998) represent a limiting case for the black hole evolution in AGN, where the accretion is close to Eddington rate. The black hole to bulge mass ratio versus velocity dispersion of accreting gas to the central region is plotted in Fig. 1, which gives a rough proportionality of $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{\mathrm{bulge}}v_\mathrm{e}^{1.4}`$ for a fixed bulge system in our model. If we consider a relation of bulge mass with the galaxy velocity dispersion in the virial equilibrium ($`M_{\mathrm{bulge}}\sigma ^{3.3}`$), we could estimate a correlation of the nuclear black hole mass with the velocity dispersion of the accreting gas as $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}v_\mathrm{e}^{4.7}`$, within the slope suggested by recent work of Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) and Gebhardt et al. (2000). The square and the star in Fig. 1 correspond to the mean value of the black hole to bulge mass ratio in two typical systems ( Seyferts and QSOs), which shows the velocity dispersion of the accreting gas to form a QSO phase is much higher than in case of a Seyfert, almost close to the virial velocity of the system. We present a possible interpretation for such scenario, where we think the intense starburst during violent mergers could heat or shock the interstellar medium (ISM) to a higher sound speed more efficiently than by tidal interactions, result in a higher accretion rate close to Eddington limit and a higher black hole to bulge mass ratio finally in QSOs and early type galaxies than in case of Seyferts.

###### Acknowledgements.

YPW is supported by Chinese “Chuang Xin” project, and the Chinese post-doctor foundation. We thank our anonymous referee for her/his helpful comments and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# The Planetary System of Upsilon Andromedae

## 1 Introduction

As a result of recent observational efforts, the number of known extrasolar planets increased dramatically. Among these newly discovered planetary systems, upsilon Andromedae system appears to be the most interesting one because of the presence of three planetary members (Butler et al. 1999).

Since the discovery of the planetary system of upsilon Andromedae, the dynamics of this multiple planetary system with intriguing orbital configuration has drawn a lot of attention. Table 1 is the latest (as of 21st August, 2000) orbital elements obtained by the Marcy’s group (http://exoplanets.org/esp/upsandb/upsandb.html). It would be interesting to understand the origin of the orbital configurations of these three extrasolar planets and their mutual interactions.

It is a remarkable fact that the eccentricities of the companion planets increase from 0.01 for the innermost member to a value as large as 0.35 for the outermost member. An interesting question is therefore if orbital evolution leads to this configuration. This question is related to whether these planets interacted strongly in the past.

Without studying the past history, several groups have investigated this system by forward orbital integration from the observed orbital elements. Laughlin & Adams (1999) simplified the model computation by ignoring the innermost planet. They found that the upsilon Andromedae system should experience chaotic evolution for all parameters derived from present observations. In spite of the large amplitudes of the eccentricities of the middle and outer planets, this system could remain non-crossing over a time interval of 2-3 Gyr for a significant number of the cases studies.

Rivera & Lissauer (2000) did many extensive calculations for both nearly coplanar systems and mutually inclined orbits. For coplanar systems, they found that the nominal Lick data systems are more stable than the system with the nominal Advanced Fiber Optic Echelle (AFOE) parameters. They also explore different values of the overall mass factor $`m_f=(\mathrm{sin}i)^1`$ and found that the systems with smaller $`m_f`$ are more stable for both Lick data systems and AFOE data systems.

Rivera & Lissauer (2000) also ignored the innermost planet for some calculations and they found that two-planet systems with AFOE parameters typically last much longer than their three-planet analogs.

In this paper, we focus on the most stable configuration in Rivera & Lissauer (2000), i.e. the coplanar Lick data system with $`m_f=1`$. First of all, we study the orbital interaction between three planets by an forward integration of $`10^5`$ yrs. We analyze the interaction by comparing the numerical result to the analytical equations. The main goal of this analysis is to understand the validity of ignoring the innermost planet.

In order to study the past history and origin of the orbital elements, we perform the backward integration, which was not done in the previous work. In order to test the correctness of our calculations, we also do forward integration and check if the results are consistent with the results of Rivera & Lissauer (2000). We therefore do both forward and backward integrations of three-planet system for $`10^6`$ yrs. We also do both forward and backward integrations of two-planet system for $`10^8`$ yrs.

From these calculations, we found that it is a good approximation to ignore the innermost planet of the coplanar Lick data system with $`m_f=1`$ for a long term integration. This was already shown in Rivera & Lissauer’s results of coplanar Lick data systems (Their three-planet system survived at least $`10^8`$ yrs and two-planet system survived at least $`10^9`$ yrs.) What is new here is that we show that the results of backward integration behave similarly to the forward integration and therefore the system is likely to oscillate around current orbital elements since its formation. The origin of these orbital elements is complicated but we use one simple calculation of disc-planet interaction to argue that the protostellar disc might be important in causing these orbital elements.

In Section 2, we describe the simulation model. We analyze the planet-planet interaction for a time scale of $`10^5`$ in Section 3. In Section 4, we investigate the dynamical origin of the orbital elements. We provide the conclusions in Section 5.

## 2 The Simulation Models

### 2.1 The Orbital Integration

We use mixed variable symplectic (MVS) integrator in the SWIFT package (Levison & Duncan 1994) to integrate the orbit for the planetary system of upsilon Andromedae. The initial condition was from Table 1, which is the latest orbital elements determined by Marcy’s group. We modified MVS integrator to be able to do backward integration. This can be done because of the integrator’s symplectic property. We follow Rivera & Lissauer (2000) to use 0.23 days as our timestep for both forward and backward integration when all three planets are included. We also follow Rivera & Lissauer (2000) to use 2.42 days as our timestep for both forward and backward integration of two-planet system.

### 2.2 The Planet-Disc Interaction

In the calculation of planet-disc interaction, we assume both the mass of the central star and the gravitational constant $`G`$ to be unity. The masses of the planets are set to be zero, so there is no interaction between different planets.

We include a disc into the Hermit integrator developed by Sverre Aarseth (Markino & Aarseth 1992, Aarseth, Lin & Palmer 1993) The disc has density profile as:

$$\rho (r,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & rϵ\hfill \\ cr^{11/4}\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )\hfill & r>ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
We choose $`ϵ=0.01`$, $`c=0.001`$ and $`\tau =30`$ so that the mass of the disc would be about 0.1 and the disc would be depleted in a time scale of 30.

## 3 The Planet-Planet Interactions

The numerical integration of the three-planet system is expensive because the period of the innermost planet is only 4.617 days. Therefore, the innermost planet is usually ignored when one wishes to study long-term stability.

In order to see if the omission of the innermost planet is a good approximation, we analyze the interaction between three planets by comparing the numerical result of $`10^5`$ yrs to the analytic equations in this section.

The initial condition of the numerical integration was from Table 1. The time variations of the semi-major axises and eccentricities are given in Figure 1. Rather significant variations in eccentricities are found which can be understood in terms of planet-planet interaction. As usually encountered in celestial mechanics, the semi-major axes remain nearly invariant while the eccentricities could follow rapid variations of large amplitudes as a consequence of angular momentum exchange.

We can understand the details of this interaction from the results in Figure 1 with the help of equation (2.144) and equation (2.147) in Murry & Dermott (1999):

$$\dot{C_i}=\frac{\mu _i}{2a_i^2}\dot{a_i},$$
(2)
where $`C_i`$ is the energy, $`\mu _i=G(M_{}+M_i)`$, $`a_i`$ is the semi-major axis. The index $`i`$ can be $`\mathrm{m}`$ for the middle planet and $`\mathrm{o}`$ for the outer planet. Therefore, $`M_\mathrm{m}`$ is the mass of the middle planet and $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the central star.

$$\frac{de_i}{dt}=\frac{e_i^21}{2e_i}[2\dot{h_i}/h_i+\dot{C_i}/C_i],$$
(3)
where $`e_i`$ is the eccentricity and $`h_i`$ is the angular momentum.

The main result from the numerical simulation is that the semi-major axis of the middle planet does not change much but the eccentricity change quickly between 0.125 and 0.225 . This tells us that $`\dot{C_\mathrm{m}}`$ is small from Equation (2). Thus, from Equation (3), we know that all the quick eccentricity variation is due to the angular momentum variation. Bottom panel of Figure 1 showed that the frequencies of the eccentricity variations of the middle and outer planet are very close and thus the angular momentum change of the middle planet must be due to the forcing from the outer planet. The semi-major axis of the outer planet also has certain variation and this should be from the energy exchange with the middle planet because Equation (2) tells us that the time derivative of semi-major axis is related to the time derivative of energy. The reason why the variation of semi-major axis of the middle planet looks so small is due to the form of Equation (2): For the same $`\dot{C_i}`$, $`\dot{a_i}`$ is smaller for smaller $`a_i`$. The reason why the variation of $`e_i`$ for the outer planet is smaller is partially because $`(e_i^21)/(2e_i)`$ for the outer is about 1.05 but 2.4 for the middle planet in Equation (3). Therefore, the outer and middle planets are indeed interacting strongly.

On the other hand, from the bottom panel of Figure 1, we see that the frequency of eccentricity variation of the innermost planet is very different from the other two planets and the semi-major axis is almost constant. The innermost planet does not involve that much of the dynamics of the middle and outer planets. Therefore, it is a good approximation to ignore the innermost planet when one needs to do it for a long-term integration.

## 4 The Origin of Orbital Elements

The planetary system of upsilon Andromedae is interesting not only because of the presence of multiple planets but also because of the orbital configuration.

It is therefore important to investigate if orbital evolution leads to this current configuration: the innermost planet has very low eccentricity but the outermost planet has much higher eccentricity.

There are two obvious ways to lead to the current orbital elements of the exoplanets of upsilon Andromedae. One way is that even all of these three planets had similarly small eccentricities when they were form, the long-term orbital evolution can cause the outer two planets to have higher eccentricities. Another way is that, these orbital configuration was originally due to the disc-planet interaction when the system was formed. After that, the orbital elements are kept to be similar but oscillate around the current values.

We can investigate the first possibility by doing backward integrations. In order to check if our numerical code can produce the results which are consistent with the results of Rivera & Lissauer (2000), we also do the usual forward integrations.

Figure 2 are the results of both backward and forward integrations for $`10^6`$ yrs. The semi-major axises of three planets are almost constant all the time except the small fluctuations for the outermost planet. However, the eccentricities of all three planets oscillate in very large amplitudes: The innermost planet oscillate between 0 and 0.15, the middle planet oscillate between 0.125 and 0.225, the outermost planet oscillate between 0.33 and 0.35 . Therefore the orbital elements remain unchanged but just oscillate around the current observed values for both backward and forward integrations.

To check if this is still the case for a longer time scale, we integrate 100 times longer, i.e. $`10^8`$ yrs. We ignore the innermost planet in this case because the long-term integrations are far more expensive and from the last section we know that the ignorance of the innermost planet is a good approximation.

Figure 3 are the results of both backward and forward integrations for $`10^8`$ yrs. The results are just the extension of the results in Figure 2, so the orbital elements still oscillate around the current observed values for both backward and forward integrations of $`10^8`$ yrs. From Figure 3, we can see that it is already impossible to see the lines in the figure. We also integrate for a longer time scale (order of Gyr). The result remains to be the same and it is not necessary to provide this figure in the paper because it looks almost the same as Figure 3.

From the above calculations of forward integrations, it is encouraging that we can produce the results which are consistent with those of Rivera & Lissauer (2000). From the calculations of backward integrations, we know that the long-term orbital evolution might not be able to produce the current orbital configuration because the orbital elements do not really change but just oscillate around the current values. Thus, we should test if the orbital configuration was originally due to the planet-disc interaction when the system was formed. After the formation process, the orbital elements keep to be similar but oscillate around the current values.

We use the model we described in Section 2.2 to simulate the planet-disc interaction. We assume the inner planet is at $`r=0.8`$ and the outer planet is at $`r=2.5`$ and both of them have eccentricity $`e=0.2`$ initially. Figure 4 is the result for time evolution of both semi-major axis and the eccentricity.

Because of the interaction with the disc, both eccentricities increase and oscillate. The existence of the disc makes the gravitational force experienced by the planets more complicated and increase the eccentricities. (If there were energy dissipation during the planet-disc interaction, the eccentricities of both planets should decrease.) However, the outer planet’s eccentricity is pumped to a higher value. During the depletion of the disc, the eccentricities of both planets gradually settle down to a stable value and stop oscillation. The final eccentricity of the outer planet is higher than the final eccentricity of the inner planet. Further, the final semi-major axes of both planets are about the same as initial values. Therefore, we have produced a orbital configuration that the outer planet has higher eccentricity than the inner planet by the interaction with the disc.

We found that the results are qualitatively about the same when we explore different values of parameters. Though we make the value of $`\tau `$ to be very small to save our computational time, it would not affect the final values of eccentricities.

## 5 Conclusions

The dynamics of extrasolar planetary systems continues to be a fascinating and important subject. One of the very intriguing aspects for the extrasolar planets is the existence of orbits of high eccentricities. The dynamical cause of high eccentricities is unknown but should be related to the early history of planetary formation or stellar encounters.

Among these discovered extrasolar planetary systems, the upsilon Andromedae planetary system appears to be one of the most interesting one because of the presence of multiple planets and also the orbital configuration. Even though the cause of the high eccentricity of the outer planet of the upsilon Andromedae planetary system is not clear yet, our computation showed that the gravitational interaction of the four-body system is potentially very complex and the eccentricity of the middle planet oscillate between 0.125 and 0.225 over the time interval of orbital integration. The middle and the outer planets are indeed interacting strongly and the ignorance of the innermost planet can be a good approximation for the long-term integrations.

On the other hand, one general observational fact is that extrasolar planets with high eccentricities usually have larger semi-major axes than those with small eccentricities. The upsilon Andromedae planetary system follows this observational trend.

We investigate the origin of the current observed orbital elements of the upsilon Andromedae planetary system. Our long-term backward integration (order of Gyr) shows that the current orbital configuration was not caused by the orbital evolution because the orbital elements do not really change during the backward integration but just oscillate around the current values.

Our results show that the interaction between the exoplanets and the protostellar disc might lead to the current orbital configuration. It is possible that the model will be even more pertinent if there is energy dissipation when the planets interact with the disc. This energy dissipation might make the eccentricity of the inner planet decrease more than the outer planet would because there could be more dissipation around the inner disc. In this case, the eccentricity difference between two planets might be even larger. We hope to come back to this issue in the future.

## Acknowledgements

Ing-Guey Jiang wishes to take this opportunity to acknowledge James Binney’s supervision on Dynamics during his study at Oxford and also the hospitality of Doug Lin and Martin Duncan during his visits at both UC Santa Cruz and Queen’s University.

## REFERENCES

Aarseth, S.J., Lin, D.N.C. & Palmer, P.L., 1993, ApJ, 403, 351

Butler et al., 1999, ApJ, 526, 916.

Laughlin, G. & Adams, F.C., 1999, ApJ, 526, 881.

Levison, H. F. & Duncan, M. J., 1994, Icarus, 108, 18

Makino, J. & Aarseth, S.J., 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F., 1999, Solar System Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rivera, E. J. & Lissauer, J. J., 2000, ApJ, 530, 454.


text:
# (August 2000) Bottom-up model for maximal 𝜈_𝜇-𝜈_𝜏 mixing

## I Introduction

Mounting evidence from the SuperKamiokande  experiment suggests that muon neutrinos are mixed with neutrinos of another flavour, with a mixing angle of close to $`\pi /4`$, that is, maximal mixing. In this paper, we adopt the point of view that the angle $`\pi /4`$ is a special, unique value that ought to be explained. In other words, we will attempt to understand the origin of this maximally large mixing, as opposed to the view that it is just one possible point in parameter space which should be assigned no particular significance. The contrast between this large leptonic mixing angle and the small Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing angles in the quark sector is stark, and justifies our point of view.

It is interesting that two-fold maximal mixing can be fairly easily explained if each active neutrino mixes with a sterile partner. There are two known ways to do this: embrace the Exact Parity or Mirror Matter Model , or suppose a pseudo-Dirac structure . The former seems especially compelling, because the Exact Parity Model is not much more complicated than the Standard Model (SM) itself. The pseudo-Dirac structure, while having a degree of elegance in and of itself, suffers when one requires it to emerge from a complete extension of the SM. Both possibilities, though, provide a strong theoretical motivation for light sterile neutrino flavours. Also, the combined solar , atmospheric and LSND  data provide interesting indirect experimental support for the existence of at least one light sterile neutrino.

One of the most important problems in experimental atmospheric neutrino physics at present is to discriminate between the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ possibilities. The cleanest atmospheric neutrino data (the fully and partially contained events) can be explained equally well by both oscillation modes. The modes can in principle be distinguished by processes sensitive to the matter-effect (ME) and/or the neutral current (NC). SuperKamiokande has four data sets of this type: neutrino induced $`\pi ^0`$ production (NC), upward through-going muons (ME), higher energy partially contained events (ME), and multiring events (NC). The $`\pi ^0`$ event sample is not very useful at present because the production cross-section is poorly known. A forthcoming measurement of this quantity by the K2K long baseline experiment is eagerly awaited. SuperKamiokande have recently argued that the last three data sets disfavour the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ scenario , though this has been disputed in Ref.. We await with interest a complete account of the SuperKamiokande analysis, so that independent researchers can judge the robustness of their conclusion. In any case, the future MINOS and CERN to Gran Sasso long baseline terrestrial experiments will be able to check whatever conclusions are drawn on the basis of atmospheric neutrino data.

This paper will be devoted to building a theoretical bottom-up style model for maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. We do so partly to provide a foil for the mirror and pseudo-Dirac approaches to understanding two-fold maximal mixing. Can one understand active-active maximal mixing in as compelling a way as one can active-mirror or active-sterile mixing? In addition, most other proposals for understanding large angle $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing  have invoked grand unification and/or string motivated physics \[such as anomalous U(1) symmetries\]. By contrast, we will use a bottom-up approach, whereby we try to keep the new physics at as low an energy scale as possible. Also, we will not attempt to connect the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing angle problem with the rest of the flavour (mass and mixing angle hierarchy) problem. We ask the question: what new physics principles are implied by the discrete hypothesis of maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing? Then, given these general principles, how may they be instantiated within a complete extension of the SM?

## II Symmetry principles for maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing.

Our experience with the SM strongly suggests that internal symmetry principles play a very fundamental role in nature. In this section, we will deduce some very simple symmetry principles suggested by maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. Strictly speaking, the atmospheric neutrino results do not rigorously establish exact maximal mixing. It is a logical possibility that the mixing is very large but not maximal. It is reasonable to expect that exact maximal mixing would be correlated with a symmetry principle, because maximality arises from a special point in parameter space. For aesthetic reasons, and because of the historical precedent regarding the importance of symmetries, our fundamental supposition here is that maximal mixing is our target.

We first make a short and apparently digressive comment. It is interesting to note that the observation of neutrino oscillations, ***To be precise, neutrino oscillations have yet to be seen - only $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance has been rigorously established. See, for example, Ref.. and hence the necessary introduction of neutrino masses into the SM, implies degrees of freedom beyond those in the minimal SM. This is true irrespective of whether the neutrino masses are of Dirac or Majorana type. In a sense, therefore, the discovery of neutrino mass is akin to the previous discoveries of new particles such as the top quark. In another sense, though, it is dissimilar: the new degrees of freedom implied by neutrino mass within the gauge theoretic rules of the SM are not uniquely specified, and not directly observed (as yet). It is certainly true, however, that renormalisable models of nonzero neutrino mass necessitate either an expansion of the fermion sector (right-handed neutrino states, for instance) or an expansion of the scalar sector (Higgs triplets, for instance), or both. We will begin with the second possibility, by including only the minimal lefthanded neutrino degrees of freedom. In the end, however, we will find that there is a natural role within our framework for at least one light mirror or sterile neutrino state.

Consider a general mass matrix involving $`\nu _{\mu L}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau L}`$,

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\overline{(\nu _{\mu L})^c}& \overline{(\nu _{\tau L})^c}\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _\mu & m\\ m& \delta _\tau \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\delta _{\mu ,\tau }`$ are Majorana masses for $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, while $`m`$ is a transition mass. The mass eigenvalues are

$$m_\pm =\left|\frac{\sqrt{4m^2+(\delta _\mu \delta _\tau )^2}\pm (\delta _\mu +\delta _\tau )}{2}\right|.$$
(2)
The mixing angle is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{2m}{\delta _\tau \delta _\mu }.$$
(3)
Very close to maximal mixing arises in the parameter range

$$\text{Case 1:}\delta _{\mu ,\tau }m.$$
(4)
The mass eigenvalues are then

$$m_\pm m\pm \frac{\delta _\mu +\delta _\tau }{2},$$
(5)
with

$$\theta \frac{\pi }{4}+\frac{\delta _\mu \delta _\tau }{4m}.$$
(6)
This defines a pseudo-Dirac structure  for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ system. This type of active-active pseudo-Dirac neutrino is of course distinct from the active-sterile pseudo-Dirac neutrino states discussed in the Introduction. Alternatively, exact maximal mixing arises if

$$\text{Case 2:}\delta _\mu =\delta _\tau .$$
(7)
Case 1, with its pseudo-Dirac structure, leads to a nearly degenerate pair of almost maximally mixed eigenstates with a mass gap $`m`$ above zero mass. Case 2 has exact maximal mixing without the necessity of a mass gap. We will see later that this mass gap is most naturally related to the LSND anomaly.

The symmetry structures underlying the two cases are very simple. Consider Case 1 first. The relatively large transition mass term is invariant under any U(1) symmetry for which $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ have opposite charges. The obvious choice for this symmetry is simply $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ , where $`L_\alpha `$ is the lepton number for family $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$. The Majorana mass terms break this symmetry. The hierarchy $`\delta _{\mu ,\tau }m`$ guarantees, however, that $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ is an approximate symmetry correlated with the pseudo-Dirac structure. As $`\delta _{\mu ,\tau }0`$, the symmetry becomes more exact and the mixing angle approaches complete maximality (and the masses become more degenerate). The limiting case of vanishing Majorana masses supplies a four-component massive neutrino which preserves $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ but breaks $`L_\mu +L_\tau `$ by two units. (The $`m`$ and $`\delta `$ terms both break $`L_\mu +L_\tau `$.) The connection between maximal mixing and increased symmetry guarantees that the close-to-maximal mixing angle deduced at tree-level will not be spoiled by radiative corrections (unless some other sector of the theory breaks the $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry strongly). This is a well-known property of pseudo-Dirac states.

Is there any independent reason for considering the $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ symmetry to be in any way fundamental? Interestingly, it has been observed  that $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ is actually an anomaly free symmetry of the minimal (zero neutrino mass) Standard Model and may therefore be gauged. In fact the gauge group of the minimal SM may be enlarged to

$$SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_YU(1)_X$$
(8)
where $`X`$ is either $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ or $`L_\tau L_e`$ or $`L_eL_\mu `$. It is important to recognise that it is possible to gauge only one of these three alternatives, because anomalies involving two different $`X`$’s do not cancel given the minimal SM fermion spectrum.

Because the pseudo-Dirac structure we want is correlated with the anomaly-free symmetry $`X=L_\mu L_\tau `$, we shall choose to gauge it, consistent with the common view that local symmetries are likely to be more fundamental than global symmetries . Of course we cannot explain why an $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry should be given this status, rather than either of the two alternatives. We are simply suggesting that the maximal mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ could be associated with a gauged $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ which singles out $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ as special.

Having identified $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ as playing a crucial role, it is tempting to speculate about further lines of development. An obvious path is to identify this quantity with the diagonal generator of a flavour SU(2) symmetry with the second and third lepton families placed in a doublet. Will not pursue this thought here, because we want to follow the simplest clues first.

Let us now turn to Case 2. This obviously requires broken $`U(1)_{L_\mu }`$ and $`U(1)_{L_\tau }`$, but the central feature is an unbroken interchange symmetry $`\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L}`$ to enforce $`\delta _\mu =\delta _\tau `$. Note that, by contrast to the pseudo-Dirac case, there need be no hierarchy in the breaking scales for $`L_\mu +L_\tau `$ and $`L_\mu L_\tau `$. The interchange symmetry can arise as a remnant of a fundamental U(2) flavour symmetry acting on the second and third family of leptons. Observe that SU(2) is not enough, because the transformation matrix within

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
is an element of U(2) but not SU(2).

These symmetry principles are simple suggestions for a new physics framework that could lie behind maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. We will now take the pseudo-Dirac possibility and build a complete extension of the SM around it. We will not develop Case 2 further in this paper.

## III Model for a pseudo-Dirac $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ system.

### A Basic framework.

We shall now construct a model which realises the pseudo-Dirac structure of Case 1. Our mass matrix will have the general form of Eq.(1), with each of the mass terms arising from the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet Higgs fields. Note that the $`\delta _\mu `$ and $`\delta _\tau `$ terms require Higgs field having opposite charges under $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$. For simplicity we shall assume that $`\delta _\mu `$ is absent in order to limit the number of Higgs fields.

We wish for the neutrino masses to be naturally tiny, which implies a hierarchy between the VEVs of the Higgs triplets and the standard Higgs doublet, which may be achieved by invoking the VEV seesaw mechanism. This is an appealing scenario whereby the triplets acquire tiny VEVs because they have masses much greater than the electroweak scale.

The Higgs sector we shall consider consists of the following fields,

$`\varphi _0(1,2,1,0),\chi _0`$ $``$ $`(1,3,2,0),`$ (10)
$`\varphi _1(1,2,1,1),\chi _1`$ $``$ $`(1,3,2,1),`$ (11)
$`\chi _2`$ $``$ $`(1,3,2,2),`$ (12)
where the numbers label the $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_YU(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ properties. Here $`\varphi _0`$ denotes the Standard Model Higgs field. The additional doublet, $`\varphi _1`$, is necessary for the implementation of the VEV seesaw mechanism for $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$, and will also give rise to off-diagonal terms in the mass matrix of the charged fermions. The triplet $`\chi _0`$, which has no $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ charge, is responsible for the $`m`$ terms in Eq.(1), while the triplet $`\chi _2`$, which carries an $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ charge of 2, produces the $`\delta _\tau `$ mass term. We round out the model with a third triplet $`\chi _1`$.

Thus the Higgs-fermion couplings are given by

$`_\nu ^{\text{Y}uk}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{\mu L}^C\mathrm{}_{\tau L}\chi _0+\lambda _{\nu _\tau }\overline{\mathrm{}}_{\tau L}^C\mathrm{}_{\tau L}\chi _2+\lambda _{\nu _e}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{eL}^C\mathrm{}_{eL}\chi _0+\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{eL}^C\mathrm{}_{\tau L}\chi _1+\text{H.c.}\text{and},`$ (13)
$`_e^{\text{Y}uk}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{\tau e}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{eL}\varphi _1\tau _R+\lambda _{\mu e}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{\mu L}\varphi _1e_R+\lambda _e\overline{\mathrm{}}_{eL}\varphi _0e_R+\lambda _\mu \overline{\mathrm{}}_{\mu L}\varphi _0\mu _R+\lambda _\tau \overline{\mathrm{}}_{\tau L}\varphi _0\tau _R+\text{H.c},`$ (14)
where the $`\mathrm{}`$’s are left-handed leptonic doublets. The Higgs potential is of the form,

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[m_i^2\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _i^2(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i)^2\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[M_j^2\chi _j^{}\chi _j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^2(\chi _j^{}\chi _j)^2\right]`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\alpha (\varphi _0^{}\varphi _0)(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1)+{\displaystyle \underset{jj^{}}{}}\alpha _{jj^{}}(\chi _j^{}\chi _j)(\chi _j^{}^{}\chi _j^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\beta _{ij}(\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i)(\chi _j^{}\chi _j)`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\left[\mu _0\chi _0^{}\varphi _0^2+\mu _1\chi _1^{}\varphi _0\varphi _1+\mu _2\chi _2^{}\varphi _1^2+\text{H.c.}\right],`$ (17)
with $`i=0,1`$ and $`j,j^{}=0,1,2`$. Denoting the VEVs of the Higgs fields by,

$`\varphi _0=v_0,\chi _0`$ $`=`$ $`u_0,`$ (18)
$`\varphi _1=v_1,\chi _1`$ $`=`$ $`u_1`$ (19)
$`\chi _2`$ $`=`$ $`u_2,`$ (20)
it may be observed that for large $`M_0,M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the VEV seesaw relations are given by

$`u_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0v_0^2}{M_0^2}},`$ (21)
$`u_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1v_0v_1}{M_1^2}}\text{and}`$ (22)
$`u_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2v_1^2}{M_2^2}},`$ (23)
and thus we may obtain tiny neutrino masses by making $`M_0,M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ suitably large.

The proliferation of Higgs fields may not be as ad hoc as it appears at first sight. Observe that the quantum numbers of the fields are such that

$`\chi _0`$ $``$ $`\varphi _0^2,`$ (24)
$`\chi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _0\varphi _1,`$ (25)
$`\chi _2`$ $``$ $`\varphi _1^2,`$ (26)
hinting, speculatively, that perhaps the $`\chi `$’s can be reinterpreted as composite objects. This would then suggest re-expressing the model in terms of effective operator language, making the replacements,

$`\chi _0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\varphi _0^2,`$ (27)
$`\chi _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\varphi _0\varphi _1,`$ (28)
$`\chi _2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\varphi _1^2,`$ (29)
where $`M`$ is a large mass scale, which of course is connected to the VEV seesaw mechanism.

While the Higgs potential (15) is undeniably ugly, it is also true that as long as the electroweak Higgs particle remains undiscovered, we cannot claim to really understand gauge symmetry breaking. One may wistfully speculate that symmetry breaking is actually achieved by a more economical mechanism that we shall eventually uncover, and all the Higgs messiness will be re-expressed in more elegant language. In the meantime though, we are forced to work with Higgs fields.

In order to realise the pseudo-Dirac form for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ sector, we require the hierarchy

$$u_2u_0,$$
(30)
which may be achieved by appropriately adjusting the values of the $`M_i`$. According to our symmetry argument, we would also tend to expect $`v_1<v_0`$, that is, the VEVs which break $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ ought to be smaller than their $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ conserving counterparts. This would also help to achieve the hierarchy (30), though it is not essential. Note that we also expect $`u_1<u_0`$.

We may now write down the neutrino mass matrix,

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{(\nu _{e^{}L})^C}& \overline{(\nu _{\mu ^{}L})^C}& \overline{(\nu _{\tau ^{}L})^C}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _{\nu _e}u_0& 0& \lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_1\\ 0& 0& \lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0\\ \lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_1& \lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0& \lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{e^{}L}\\ \nu _{\mu ^{}L}\\ \nu _{\tau ^{}L}\end{array}\right),`$ (38)
where the primes signify that we are not in the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. To first order in $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ the neutrino masses are

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _{\nu _e}u_0|,`$ (39)
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2|\text{and},`$ (40)
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2|.`$ (41)
Typical values for the combination of Yukawa coupling constants and the triplet VEV’s might be

$`|\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0|`$ $``$ $`|\lambda _{\nu _e}u_0|1\text{eV},\text{and}`$ (42)
$`|\lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2|`$ $``$ $`10^310^2\text{eV}.`$ (43)
Nearly maximal mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is guaranteed by the hierarchy $`u_2u_0`$ (provided that the relavant Yukawa coupling constants do not have a nullifying hierarchy). Mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ system is controlled by $`\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_1`$. Its magnitude will be discussed shortly.

The mass matrix for the charged leptons has the form

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{e_L^{}}& \overline{\mu _L^{}}& \overline{\tau _L^{}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& 0& E\\ D& B& 0\\ 0& 0& C\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}e_R^{}\\ \mu _R^{}\\ \tau _R^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (51)
where $`A,B,Cv_1`$ and $`D,Ev_2`$.

In order to obtain the necessary hierarchy in the fermion masses, we must assume some hierarchy in the mass matrix parameters $`A,B,C,D`$ and $`E`$. Although the choice is by no means unique the possibility which is most natural and compelling is $`D,EABC`$. This is the case where the (off-diagonal) $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ violating terms $`D`$ and $`E`$, are much smaller than the (diagonal) $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ conserving terms $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$. In this limit, the charged lepton masses are given by

$`m_e^2`$ $`=`$ $`A^2+O(D^2,E^2),`$ (52)
$`m_\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`B^2+O(D^2,E^2),`$ (53)
$`m_\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`C^2+O(D^2,E^2).`$ (54)
Recall from the Introduction that our ambitions in this paper are rather limited: we want to address the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ maximal mixing problem without simultaneously solving the entire flavour problem. So, we just have to live with imposed hierarchies like the above.

### B Without LSND.

The model building process now presents us with a choice. In this subsection, we will suppose that the LSND anomaly is not due to neutrino oscillations. Degree of freedom economy then suggests that the solar neutrino problem should be solved by $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillations. Let us see what parameter range will allow this.

We are immediately faced with a difficulty. The electron neutrino mass $`\lambda _{\nu _e}u_0`$ is expected to be of the same order of magnitude as the average $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mass $`\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0`$. The combined effect of the relatively small solar neutrino $`\delta m^2`$ and the mass gap arising from the pseudo-Dirac structure is to demand a near degeneracy between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$. This entails some fine-tuning.

The mass squared difference corresponding to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is

$$\delta m_{\text{atmos}}^2u_0u_2,$$
(55)
whereas the mass squared difference between the electron neutrino and either of the other two mass eigenstates is naturally

$$\delta m_{\text{solar}}^2u_0^2.$$
(56)
Since $`u_2u_0`$, we have to adjust $`|\lambda _{\nu _e}/\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}|1`$ so that,

$$\delta m_{\text{solar}}^2<\delta m_{\text{atm}}^2.$$
(57)
For example, for either the small or large angle MSW  solutions we need $`\delta m_{\text{solar}}^210^5\text{eV}^2`$ which requires $`(\lambda _{\nu _e}/\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }})^2`$ to be fine-tuned to one part in $`10^5`$ if $`m_{2,3}1`$ eV. This is regrettable, although perhaps not egregiously bad.

The leptonic mixing matrix is given by,

$`U_{\alpha i}U_e^{}U_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ& ϵ^{}\\ ϵ& 1& 0\\ ϵ& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_1}}& \frac{\gamma _1}{\sqrt{N_2}}& \frac{\gamma _2}{\sqrt{N_3}}\\ \frac{\gamma _3}{\sqrt{N_1}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_2}}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta )& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_3}}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta )\\ \frac{\gamma _4}{\sqrt{N_1}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_2}}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta )& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_3}}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta )\end{array}\right)+O(u_1^2,u_2^2),`$ (64)
where

$$ϵ=\frac{AD}{B^2}<\left(\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }\right)^2,ϵ^{}=\frac{E}{C}<\frac{m_e}{m_\tau },$$
(65)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _\tau }}{4\sqrt{2}\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_2}{u_0}}`$ (66)
$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{\sqrt{2}(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}+\lambda _{\nu _e})}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\lambda _e)}{\sqrt{2}\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\lambda _{\nu _\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_2}},`$ (67)
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{\sqrt{2}(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\lambda _{\nu _e})}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}+\lambda _e)}{\sqrt{2}\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\lambda _{\nu _\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_2}},`$ (68)
$`\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}^2\lambda _{\nu _e}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{\lambda _{\nu _\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_2}},`$ (69)
$`\gamma _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _e}\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}^2\lambda _{\nu _e}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _e}}{\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}}{\lambda _{\nu _\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_2}},`$ (70)
and

$`N_1`$ $``$ $`1+\gamma _3^2+\gamma _4^2`$ (71)
$`N_2`$ $``$ $`1+\gamma _1^2+O(\delta ^2)`$ (72)
$`N_3`$ $``$ $`1+\gamma _2^2+O(\delta ^2)`$ (73)
The second set of near equalities in eq.(70) is related to the fine-tuning $`|\lambda _{\nu _e}/\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}|1`$, or more specifically, $`(\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}^2\lambda _{\nu _e}^2)u_0^2\lambda _{\nu _\tau }\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}u_0u_2`$.

The values of $`\gamma _i`$ could be such as to provide either a small or large angle solar MSW solution. We note that recent Superkamiokande data disfavour the small-angle MSW solution . The statistical significance is, however, not yet severe enough to make this type of solution completely uninteresting. For example, with $`\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_10.04\lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2`$, we would have the small angle solution with $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\text{solar}}0.05`$. Alternatively, consider for example $`\lambda _{\nu _e}\lambda _{\nu _{\mu \tau }}`$, and $`\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_10.3\lambda _{\nu _\tau }u_2`$. We then obtain a large angle solution with $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\text{solar}}\gamma _10.4`$, and $`\gamma _21`$.

### C With LSND.

As we have just seen, the pseudo-Dirac mass gap causes some problems with solving the solar neutrino problem. A more elegant and natural alternative is to exploit the mass gap, rather than trying to fight it. The $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mass eigenvalues are naturally of the same order, with the scale set by $`u_0`$. The $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ $`\delta m^2`$ scale is thus of order $`u_0^2`$ if we do not fine tune a near degeneracy.

Indeed, the guideline values of eq.(43) put the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ $`\delta m^2`$ scale in the LSND range. It is certainly noteworthy that the LSND scale is a few orders of magnitude larger than the solar and atmospheric scales, and it is quite attractive to associate this higher scale with the mass gap which was constructed for another reason.

The LSND mixing angle must come out of the first equalities in eq.(70) (the near equalities do not hold in the absence of the previous fine tuning). Using eq.(43) as a guide, we see that $`\lambda _{\nu _{e\tau }}u_1`$ should be of order $`0.1`$ eV to put $`\gamma _1`$ or $`\gamma _2`$ in the LSND mixing angle range. Since this is intermediate between the $`u_0`$ and $`u_2`$ scales, it fits in nicely with our fundamental $`u_2<u_1<u_0`$ symmetry breaking pattern, dictated by approximate $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ symmetry.

The solar neutrino problem then requires the introduction of a light sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ which mixes with $`\nu _e`$. The most attractive possibility is to have this mixing also being maximal. This scenario fits all of the data, except for Homestake, extremely well . The proper incorporation of a light sterile neutrino into the model is really beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is pretty obvious that the mirror matter or exact parity idea  is quite relevant, not only for providing a reason for the sterile state to be light, but also to explain the $`\nu _e/\nu _s`$ maximal mixing. One could imagine that the mirror matter solution to the neutrino anomalies summarised in Ref. is half correct: that the solar oscillations are into mirror partners, but the atmospheric oscillations are $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$. Intriguingly, Ref. has also recently canvassed this possibility.

## IV Other phenomenology.

Let us now consider constraints on the model. There will be a new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$, corresponding to the $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ gauge symmetry. Due to the VEV of $`\varphi _1`$, there will be a mass mixing term involving the $`Z^{}`$ and the ordinary $`Z`$ gauge boson. In order not to significantly modify the properties of the standard Z boson, the $`Z^{}`$ boson must have a mass that is much smaller.

The constraints on the model, however, are not terribly stringent, since the family lepton number violating processes involve essentially only the neutrinos. We suppress the processes involving the charged leptons simply by making the off-diagonal ($`L_\mu L_\tau `$ violating) terms $`D`$ and $`E`$ in the mass matrix suitably small, which will also avoid flavour changing neutral current type processes due to exchange of $`\varphi `$ bosons. Note that this is not an ad hoc requirement, but is in perfect accord with our symmetry argument.

There is also the issue of kinetic mixing of the neutral gauge bosons to consider, which arises whenever you have a theory with two local $`U(1)`$ symmetries. The kinetic part of the Lagrangian may be written as

$$^{\text{kinetic}}=\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{2}{4}\kappa F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(74)
where, in general, the kinetic mixing term, $`\kappa `$, will arise directly in the Lagrangian , though it may also be generated radiatively . The physical neutral gauge boson states are then found by diagonalising the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ kinetic and mass terms . This alters the coupling of the $`L_\mu L_\tau `$ gauge boson by adding a term proportional to the hypercharge - hence $`Z^{}`$ will couple not only to the leptons but also to the quarks, though in a generation independent fashion. We have to assume that $`\kappa `$ is small.

An interesting point to consider, since the $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson is light, is whether there will be any “5th force” effects. In other words, an effective violation of the equivalence principle through a tiny $`Z^{}`$ boson mediated repulsion of matter . In fact, for suitable parameters, a signature of the model would be a new intermediate range force of nature. The $`Z,Z^{}`$ mass matrix is

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{g^2}{8\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}(v_0^2+v_1^2)& \frac{gg^{}}{8\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}v_1^2\\ \frac{gg^{}}{8\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}v_1^2& \frac{g^2}{8}v_1^2\end{array}\right),`$ (77)
where $`g^{}`$ denotes the gauge coupling constant of the $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ symmetry, and for simplicity, kinetic mixing and the tiny triplet VEVs have been neglected. The light eigenstate, which will be predominately the $`Z^{}`$, will have a mass given by

$$M_{Z_{\text{light}}}^2\frac{g^2}{8}\frac{v_1^2v_0^2}{v_1^2+v_0^2}.$$
(78)
Of course, in order for the $`Z^{}`$ to be detectable through violation of the equivalence principle its mass must be incredibly tiny. For example, if the mass of the $`Z^{}`$ was larger than say $`10^5`$ eV, the corresponding range of the force would be less than of order 1cm. The electron couples to the light gauge boson, both through mixing between the $`e,\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, and mixing of $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$. The coupling is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _Z(ϵ^2ϵ^2)\overline{e}_LZ/_{\text{light}}e_L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _Z(\zeta ^2\zeta ^2)\overline{e}_RZ/_{\text{light}}e_R`$ (79)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\theta _Z{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{e}Z/_{\text{light}}(14\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\gamma _5)e`$ (80)
where $`\theta _Z`$ is the $`Z,Z^{}`$ mixing angle such that

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta _Z\mathrm{tan}\theta _Z=\frac{g^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}{g}\frac{v_1^2}{v_0^2+v_1^2},$$
(81)
and

$$\zeta =\frac{D}{B},\zeta ^{}=\frac{AE}{C^2}.$$
(82)
Note that the strength of the force is diminished both by $`g^{}`$ and the small parameters $`ϵ^2`$, $`ϵ^2`$, $`\zeta ^2`$, $`\zeta ^2`$ and $`(v_1/v_0)^2`$. If one demands consistency with standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, then the very rough bound $`g^{}\stackrel{<}{}10^{10}`$ is indicated to prevent the $`Z^{}`$ boson being in thermal equilibrium during the relevant epoch of the early universe.

Tests of the equivalence principle on short distance scales are the subject of a proposed experiment  which aims to explore the range from about $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ to $`1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}`$, for forces of strength relative to gravity of about $`10^2`$ upward. See Fig.1 of Ref.. The predicted $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson may be observable in this experiment, for a certain parameter region.

The Yukawa potential associated with the $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson will be of the form

$$V_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}=f^2\frac{e^{r/\lambda }}{r},$$
(83)
where $`\lambda 1/M_{\mathrm{Z}_{\mathrm{light}}}`$ is the range of the force. For the coupling to electrons given by Eq.(79) we have

$$f^2/\mathrm{}cg^2\left(\frac{v_1}{v_0}\right)^4,$$
(84)
and the strength of the force, relative to gravity, will be

$$\alpha =\frac{f^2}{G_Nu^2},$$
(85)
where $`u`$ is the atomic mass, and $`G_N`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant. The range and strength of the force have the approximate values

$`\lambda `$ $``$ $`10^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{v_1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{10}}{g^{}}}\right)\mathrm{meters},`$ (86)
$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`10^{18}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{v_0}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{10^{10}}}\right)^2.`$ (87)
If we assume for example $`g^{}10^{10}`$ and $`v_1/v_00.1`$, the range $`\lambda `$ will be too short for the force to be detected, while for smaller values of $`v_1/v_0`$ it should be observable in the proposed experiment . If we assume smaller values of $`g^{}`$, the range of the force increases and would violate current experimental constraints.

## V conclusion

We have taken a bottom-up approach to constructing a model with maximal mixing between two standard neutrinos. The simple $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ symmetry naturally provides a pseudo-Dirac form for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ with close to maximal mixing, with a mass gap. The model can incorporate mixing with the $`\nu _e`$, consistent with either a small or large angle MSW solution of the solar neutrino anomaly. However, a mild fine-tuning price must be paid to achieve $`\delta m_{\text{solar}}^2<\delta m_{\text{atmos}}^2`$. If this price is taken to be too high, then one needs to introduce a light mirror or sterile neutrino to solve the solar deficit problem by $`\nu _e\nu _s`$. It is certainly suggestive that the natural scale for the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mass squared difference could be in the LSND range, due to the mass gap required by the pseudo-Dirac structure. The breaking of the $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ symmetry occurs at a low scale, and we predict a new intermediate range force which may be detectable as an apparent violation of the equivalence principle.

###### Acknowledgements.

RRV is supported by the Australian Research Council. NFB is supported by the Commonwealth of Australia and The University of Melbourne. We thank T. L. Yoon and R. Foot for somewhat belated discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An understanding of the decays of $`B`$ mesons to final states including a charmonium resonance ($`J/\psi `$, $`\psi (2S)`$, $`\chi _{c1}`$) is a prerequisite to an analysis of $`CP`$ violation in the $`B`$ system. In this paper we report the measurement of several branching fractions of exclusive decays, some of which have been used in our measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ . The channels considered are listed in Table 1. Here and throughout this paper the inclusion of charge conjugate states is implied.

We have used some of these exclusive modes to measure the masses of the $`B^+`$ and $`B^0`$ mesons and their mass difference. We also present initial results on the yield of $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ which will be used for a future $`CP`$ analysis. Finally we describe an amplitude analysis of the $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ decay.

## 2 The BABAR detector and dataset

The BABAR detector is located at the PEP-II storage ring, an $`e^+e^{}`$ facility operating at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. PEP-II collides 9.0$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ electrons with 3.1$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ positrons to give a center of mass energy of 10.58$`\mathrm{GeV}`$, the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance.

The BABAR detector is described elsewhere ; here we give only a brief overview. Surrounding the interaction point is a 5-layer double-sided silicon vertex tracker (SVT) which gives precision spatial information for all charged particles, and is the primary detection device for low momentum charged particles. Outside the SVT, a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH) provides measurements of charged particle momenta. The $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ information from the DCH and SVT is used for particle identification. Beyond the outer radius of the DCH is a detector of internally reflected Cherenkov radiation (DIRC) which is used primarily for charged hadron identification. The detector consists of quartz bars in which Cherenkov light is produced as relativistic charged particles traverse the material. The light is internally reflected, and the Cherenkov rings are measured with an array of photo-multiplier tubes mounted on the rear of the detector. A CsI(Tl) crystal electro-magnetic calorimeter (EMC) is used to detect photons and neutral hadrons, as well as to identify electrons. The EMC is surrounded by a super-conducting solenoid which produces a 1.5 T magnetic field. The Instrumented Flux Return (IFR) consists of multiple layers of resistive plate chambers interleaved with the flux return iron. It is used in the identification of muons and neutral hadrons.

The data used in these analyses correspond to a integrated luminosity of 7.7$`\text{ fb}^1`$ taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ and 1.2$`\text{ fb}^1`$ taken 0.04$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ below the peak. The data set contains $`8.8\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ events. For the analysis of the $`B`$ meson masses we use a restricted set of data corresponding to 4.6$`\text{ fb}^1`$.

## 3 Particle reconstruction

Inclusive charmonium reconstruction is described in detail in another contribution to this conference .

We here reconstruct $`J/\psi `$ candidates by combining pairs of oppositely charged tracks within the angular range $`0.41<\theta <2.41(2.53)`$ for electron (muon) candidates, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle to the beam axis. The invariant mass of the candidate must lie in the range $`2.95<\mathrm{m}_{J/\psi }<3.14`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`3.06<\mathrm{m}_{J/\psi }<3.14`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, respectively. When the $`J/\psi `$ decays to electrons, we demand that at least one of the tracks pass stringent particle identification requirements based on the ratio of the energy deposited in the EMC to the track momentum ($`E/p`$), and on the ionization loss of the track in the drift chamber ($`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$). For $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates, one track is required to pass a loose muon selection on the basis of the number of hit layers in the IFR and the other track is required to have an associated energy in the EMC which is consistent with a minimum ionizing particle. In the case of the decay to electrons, we apply a procedure to add photons which are close to the electron tracks and thereby reduce the impact of bremsstrahlung on the reconstruction efficiency.

We select $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ candidates in a similar way. For the decay to $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ the invariant mass of the candidate is required to be within 0.05$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal mass. In the case of $`\psi (2S)`$ decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ the lower limit is relaxed to 0.25$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ below the nominal mass value. For the decay $`\psi (2S)`$ to $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`J/\psi `$ candidates are combined with pairs of oppositely charged tracks which originate from a common vertex, and the mass difference between the resulting $`\psi (2S)`$ candidate and the $`J/\psi `$ is required to be within 0.05$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal mass difference. For the decay $`J/\psi `$$`e^+e^{}`$, the mass difference is relaxed to $`0.25<\mathrm{m}_{\psi (2S)}\mathrm{m}_{J/\psi }<0.05`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

Candidate $`\chi _{c1}`$ mesons are reconstructed via their decay to $`J/\psi `$$`\gamma `$. The $`\gamma `$ candidates are selected by requiring a neutral cluster in the EMC that has a distribution of crystal energies consistent with a $`\gamma `$ shower. The mass difference between the reconstructed $`\chi _{c1}`$ and the $`J/\psi `$ is required to satisfy $`0.35<\mathrm{\Delta }M<0.45`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and the momentum of the $`\chi _{c1}`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame must lie in the range $`1.15<p^{}<1.70`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

$`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates are formed from pairs of oppositely charged tracks which have an invariant mass between 0.489 and 0.507$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. $`K_S^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ candidates are required to have a mass between 0.470 and 0.525$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and an energy greater than 0.8$`\mathrm{GeV}`$. A $`\pi ^0`$ decay to two photons is observed in the EMC either as a single neutral cluster with substructure or as two distinct $`\gamma `$ clusters. The most probable decay point of the $`K_S^0`$ is determined after refitting the two $`\pi ^0`$ mesons at several points along the path defined by their summed momentum vector and the $`J/\psi `$ vertex.

We reconstruct $`K^0`$ decays to $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$$`\pi ^0`$, and $`K^+`$ decays to $`K_S^0`$$`\pi ^+`$ and $`K^+`$$`\pi ^0`$. In all cases the candidate $`K^{}`$ is required to have an invariant mass within 0.075$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal value.

A $`K_L^0`$ candidate is reconstructed using neutral clusters observed in the EMC or the IFR. For an EMC candidate we require the deposited energy to be between 0.2 and 2.0$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the cluster center-of-gravity to be well contained within the fiducial volume of the calorimeter ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta <0.935`$). We reject candidates that are likely to be produced by photons by means of energy-dependent criteria based on the spatial distribution of the deposited energy in the cluster. A neutral cluster that can be combined with other neutral clusters to form a $`\pi ^0`$ or clusters with sub-structure consistent with a $`\pi ^0`$ is also rejected. A $`K_L^0`$ candidate observed in the IFR is required to have the cluster center within the fiducial volume $`(0.75<\mathrm{cos}\theta <0.93)`$ and to have a signal in at least two detector layers. We also apply additional isolation criteria to remove candidates that may have been split from clusters produced by charged particles.

## 4 Exclusive $`𝑩`$ reconstruction

For the decays $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) and $`B^+`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^+`$, we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|`$, the absolute value of the cosine of the helicity angle of the $`J/\psi `$, to be less than 0.8 (0.9) for $`J/\psi `$ decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ ($`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$). In addition we require that the $`K_S^0`$ be consistent with having originated from the $`J/\psi `$ vertex.

For the decay $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^0`$$`\pi ^0`$) we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|<0.75`$ (0.8) for $`J/\psi `$ decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ ($`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$). To further reduce background in the $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ channel, we require both tracks to satisfy electron identification criteria, one stringent and one loose.

In reconstructing the decays $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^0`$ and $`B^+`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^+`$ we require that a candidate charged kaon satisfy particle identification criteria based on ionization loss in the DCH and SVT and on the Cherenkov angle measured in the DIRC. The candidate $`\pi ^0`$ mass is required to lie in the range 0.115 to 0.150$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. We require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.9`$, where $`\theta _T`$ is the angle between the thrust direction of the reconstructed B and that of the rest of the event in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame. For the decay $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$, the vertices of the $`K^0`$ and $`J/\psi `$ must be consistent with a single production point.

For the decays $`B^+`$$``$$`\psi (2S)`$$`K^+`$ and $`B^0`$$``$$`\psi (2S)`$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.9`$ for $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|<0.8`$ for $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. We also require the $`K_S^0`$ flight length to be greater than $`2.5`$$`\mathrm{mm}`$ and the $`K^+`$ to satisfy loose kaon identification criteria.

We reconstruct the decay $`B^+`$$``$$`\chi _{c1}`$$`K^+`$ with the requirement $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.9`$ and demand that the $`K^+`$ pass loose kaon identification criterion to further reduce the background in this channel.

For $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ decays we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H|`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|`$ to be less than 0.9, where $`\theta _B`$ is the angle of the $`B`$ candidate direction with respect to the beam axis in the rest-frame of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. We also require the sum of these quantities to be less than 1.3.

To isolate the signal for each mode we use the variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the difference between the reconstructed and expected $`B`$ meson energy measured in the center-of-mass frame, and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, the beam-energy substituted mass. These variables are defined as:

$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{E_b^2𝒑_B^2},`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`E_B^{}E_b^{},`$ (2)
where $`E_b^{}`$ is the beam energy in the center-of-mass, i.e., half the center-of-mass energy, and $`E_B^{}`$ and $`𝒑_B^{}`$ are the energy and momentum of the reconstructed $`B`$ meson in the center-of-mass. For the $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ selection the momentum of the $`K_L^0`$ candidate is obtained by constraining the invariant mass of the $`K_L^0`$ and $`J/\psi `$ combination to the mass of the $`B`$ meson. Therefore, in this mode only $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ can be used to separate the signal from background. We exclude any event that passes the other exclusive $`B`$ selections, has $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ greater than 5.2$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ less than 0.1$`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Only one exclusive candidate per event is accepted. If there are multiple candidates, we select the one with the smallest value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$. Exceptionally, in the $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ selection we choose the candidate with the largest $`K_L^0`$ energy as measured by the EMC. If none of the candidate $`K_L^0`$ mesons have EMC information, we choose the candidate that has the largest number of layers with hits in the IFR.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 Branching fraction measurements

When deriving branching fractions we have used the secondary branching fractions and their associated errors published by the Particle Data Group .

We determine the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events from the difference in the multi-hadron rate on and off the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, normalized to the respective luminosity. This leads to a systematic error of 3.6% on all measured branching fractions. We have assumed the branching fraction of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ to $`B\overline{B}`$ is 100%, with an equal admixture of charged and neutral $`B`$ final states.

The efficiencies for each mode have been obtained from Monte Carlo simulations complemented with measurements of tracking and particle identification efficiencies extracted from the data. From particle identification control samples we assign a systematic error of 2% (3%) per electron (muon). We attribute a 5% systematic error to the $`\pi ^0`$ reconstruction efficiency and resolution. The track finding efficiency has an uncertainty of 2.5% per track. Uncertainties in the modeling of the track resolution lead to an additional 1–2% error depending on the details of the primary and secondary decays.

For each mode the shape of the beam-energy substituted mass distribution is parameterized with the sum of a Gaussian and the ARGUS function . We assign a systematic error due to our uncertainty of the shape of the background of between 1% and 9% depending on the mode. For the $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ channels, a likelihood fit is performed for all the decay modes simultaneously, taking into account the cross-feed between decays.

Figure 1 shows the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions of the candidates. In Table 2 we present the yields and measured branching fractions for the individual exclusive modes. Figure 2 shows the measured branching fractions compared to the values compiled by the Particle Data Group .

### 5.2 Observation of a signal for the decay $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝑳^\mathrm{𝟎}`$

Figure 3 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions for the $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ candidates in data and Monte Carlo events. We determine the yield by counting events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.01`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and subtracting the background contributions. There are two categories of background to this mode. The first arises from other $`BJ/\psi X`$ decays and is estimated from simulations normalized to the measured $`J/\psi `$ yield. We estimate the systematic error on the yield from this background determination by varying the $`K_L^0`$ reconstruction efficiency, the branching fractions of the major background modes, and the helicity amplitudes used in the simulation of $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ decays. The second background arises from non-$`J/\psi `$ modes and is measured from a sideband above the $`J/\psi `$ peak in the data. The systematic error from this contribution is determined by varying the shape of the background. We measure the yield of $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ events to be $`82\pm 14`$ (stat) $`\pm 9`$ (syst). This is in good agreement with the expected number of 93 signal events predicted from Monte Carlo simulation.

### 5.3 Measurements of the $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$ masses

Measurements of the $`B^0`$ and $`B^+`$ invariant masses have been performed using the decay modes $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^0`$($`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$) and $`B^+`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^+`$. These modes are chosen because they have small backgrounds and the masses of the secondary decay products are well known. The event selections are as described in section 5.1, with the additional requirements $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<36`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The $`B`$ candidate invariant mass is derived by fitting the decay products to a common vertex, with the masses of the $`J/\psi `$ and $`K_S^0`$ constrained to their nominal values. Uncertainties in the magnetic field and in the internal and relative alignment of the tracking devices can introduce a bias in the momentum measurement. The size of this effect is quantified by comparing the reconstructed mass of $`J/\psi `$$`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates, determined by fitting to the invariant mass distribution, to the nominal mass value. Any observed shift is subsequently applied to the track momenta in simulated data to determine a correction to the measured $`B`$ mass. The systematic error attributed to this correction is derived from statistical uncertainty on the parameters from the fit to the $`J/\psi `$ invariant mass. The $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) sample requires special consideration as the decay products of the $`K_S^0`$ do not come from the interaction point and are sensitive to details of the track parameterization. A fit to the observed $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass is performed and a correction derived in the same way as described above. The correction applied to the $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) sample is taken to be the mean of the correction factors determined from the fits to the $`J/\psi `$ and $`K_S^0`$ distributions, taking the semi-dispersion as the error. The resulting systematic uncertainty is $`\pm 0.62`$, $`{}_{0.62}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.59}`$ and $`{}_{0.44}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.42}`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^0`$($`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$) and $`B^+`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^+`$ modes, respectively.

An additional uncertainty comes from background contamination in the event samples, which are determined from a fit to the sideband events, and is found to be between 2% and 4%. The measurement of the mass is performed by fitting a single Gaussian and a flat background to the $`B`$ invariant mass distribution. Examples of the mass distributions are shown in Fig. 4. The distortion of the mass measurement due to the presence of background has been estimated by removing the $`N`$ events with smallest mass and the $`N`$ events with highest mass, where $`N`$ is the number of background events in the sample. The corresponding systematic uncertainty is $`{}_{0.60}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.73}`$, $`{}_{0.61}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.62}`$ and $`{}_{0.28}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.30}`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K_S^0`$($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), $`B^0`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^0`$($`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$) and $`B^+`$$``$$`J/\psi `$$`K^+`$ modes, respectively.

The $`B`$ masses have been measured to be:

$`m(B^0)`$ $`=`$ $`5279.0\pm 0.8_{0.8}^{+0.8}\mathrm{MeV}/c^2,`$
$`m(B^+)`$ $`=`$ $`5278.8\pm 0.6_{0.4}^{+0.4}\mathrm{MeV}/c^2,`$
where the first error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic errors and the second error is the correlated systematic error.

The mass difference between the $`B^0`$ and $`B^+`$ mesons is evaluated by fitting the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distributions of the three above-mentioned channels with the ARGUS function to describe the background and a Gaussian to describe the signal. The use of $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ has the advantage that it reduces the sensitivity to the measured momentum scale and the uncertainties in the energy scale of the beam particles cancel in the mass difference. The same systematic study has been performed as in the invariant mass measurement described above, and was found to contribute 0.01$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ to the systematic error on the mass difference measurement. Simulations indicate that the effect of the uncertainties in the beam parameters on the mass difference measurement is only 0.001$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

We also consider how the uncertainty in the shape of the background under the signal affects the mass difference measurement. We estimate the uncertainty by fitting the shape of the distribution in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands and using these parameters when fitting to the signal. The effect on the mass difference between fixing the background shape or not is found to be 0.04$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

We measure the mass difference to be:

$`m(B^0)m(B^+)=0.28\pm 0.21\pm 0.04\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$
where the first error is the quadratic sum of the statistical and uncorrelated systematic errors and the second error is the correlated systematic error.

### 5.4 Angular analysis of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$

The $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ decay proceeds through three amplitudes, corresponding to the three different helicity configurations of the decay products . The transversity formalism involves linear combinations of these amplitudes, denoted by $`A_0`$, $`A_t`$ and $`A_{}`$. Both $`A_0`$ and $`A_{}`$ are $`CP`$ even while $`A_t`$ is $`CP`$ odd. The size of the $`CP`$ odd contribution in the decay must be known before a value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can be extracted from this decay channel.

The event selection is similar to that used for the branching fraction measurement in section 5.1. In this analysis we have considered only those channels which have a final state composed solely of charged particles. $`B`$ candidates were required to have a reconstructed mass within $`\pm 0.01`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal value and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.075`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The background is determined from the sideband region $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.25`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The amplitudes are determined from a fit using the unbinned extended likelihood method , that takes into account the normalization condition $`|A_0|^2+|A_{}|^2+|A_t|^2=1`$, the finite detector acceptance and the background contributions (assumed to have a flat angular distribution).

The 68% contours of the fit are presented in the $`|A_0|^2+|A_{}|^2+|A_t|^2=1`$ plane of the $`|A_0|^2`$, $`|A_{}|^2`$, $`|A_t|^2`$ space in Fig. 5. The fraction of the amplitude that is $`CP`$ odd is determined to be $`|A_t|^2=0.13\pm 0.06\pm 0.02`$, while the longitudinal polarization ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is found to be $`|A_0|^2=0.60\pm 0.06\pm 0.04`$.

Systematic errors arising from our knowledge of the background, the acceptance corrections, the cross-feed among $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ modes, and the contribution due to heavier $`K^{}`$ mesons have been considered. The effect on the transversity amplitudes and phases are summarized in Table 3.

The results obtained are presented in Table 4.

## 6 Summary

We have presented preliminary measurements of branching fractions of $`B`$ mesons to several two body charmonium final states. The results are in good agreement with previous measurements. A signal for the decay $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ is observed, with a yield compatible with our expectation.

The $`B^0`$ and $`B^+`$ masses and their mass difference have been measured, with results that are in good agreement with the world average values .

Finally we have presented an analysis of the transversity amplitudes in the decay $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ that confirm that this final state is dominantly $`CP`$ even and the $`CP`$ asymmetry measurements in this channel will have a small dilution.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. We acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), The Research Council of Norway, Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the Department of Energy (US), and the National Science Foundation (US). In addition, individual support has been received from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The visiting groups wish to thank SLAC for the support and kind hospitality extended to them.