text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea  that our four-dimensional universe is just a domain wall embedded in five-dimensional spacetime has attracted a lot of attention recently -. So far, the study of BPS domain wall solutions in five-dimensional gauged supergravity has been restricted to the case of flat four-dimensional domain walls -. However, on general grounds, it is quite natural to ask whether there also exist curved BPS domain walls in five-dimensional gauged supergravity, i.e. four-dimensional curved domain walls with a non-vanishing cosmological constant. Such curved domain walls seem to play an important role in the context of locally localized gravity - in spaces with infinite volume.

In four dimensions, curved BPS domain wall solutions were recently constructed  in the context of $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity coupled to vector multiplets. There it was shown that an anti-de Sitter cosmological constant on the domain wall is related to both the imaginary part of the superpotential and to a non-vanishing $`U(1)`$-connection. Such a non-vanishing connection is also known to give rise to rotating four-dimensional BPS black hole solutions . Since this $`U(1)`$-connection is expressed in terms of a set of harmonic functions that also determine the behaviour of the scalar fields belonging to the vector multiplets, the anti-de Sitter cosmological constant on the domain wall does not constitute an independent quantity.

On the other hand, in $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions, there is no such $`U(1)`$-connection due to the reality property of very special geometry and hence, a mechanism similar to the one discussed above is not available. Nevertheless, as we will show in this paper, it may still be possible to construct curved domain wall solutions which are supported by non-constant scalar fields belonging either to vector multiplets only or to vector and hypermultiplets (we do not discuss the case of curved domain wall solutions with non-constant hyper scalar fields only). To achieve this, one has to give up the requirement that the potential of the theory be written solely in terms of a real superpotential $`W`$. The resulting BPS equations for the warp factor and for the vector scalars are then modified by the presence of a four-dimensional cosmological constant on the domain wall. These modified flow equations are in agreement with the earlier findings of , which were established in the context of non-supersymmetric gravitational theories in five dimensions. We will also show that the cosmological constant on the domain wall is then necessarily anti-de Sitter like and that it constitutes an independent quantity, not related to any of the objects appearing in the context of very special geometry. This is again in analogy with the angular momentum carried by five-dimensional rotating BPS black hole solutions in the theory of $`𝒩=2`$ ungauged supergravity coupled to vector multiplets, where the angular momentum enters as an independent quantity in the expression for the macroscopic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy .

In the case that all of the scalars are taken to be constant, the resulting solution describes an $`𝒩=2`$ five-dimensional anti-de Sitter vacuum with an (anti-)de Sitter foliation along the radial coordinate as in .

## 2 Setup

The five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity theory that we will consider in the following is the one constructed in , describing the general coupling of $`n_V`$ abelian vector multiplets and of $`n_H`$ hypermultiplets to supergravity. The scalar fields $`\varphi ^x`$ ($`x=1,\mathrm{},n_V`$) of the vector multiplets parametrize a very special manifold, whose sections $`h^I(\varphi )`$ satisfy the constraint

$`C_{IJK}h^Ih^Jh^K=1,`$ (1)
with real $`C_{IJK}`$ ($`I=0,\mathrm{},n_V`$). The dual fields $`h_I(\varphi )`$ are defined by

$`h_I=C_{IJK}h^Jh^K.`$ (2)
The hypermultiplet scalars $`q^X`$, on the other hand, parametrize a quaternionic Kähler geometry determined by $`4n_H`$-beins $`f_X^{iA}(q^X)`$, with the $`SU(2)`$ index $`i=1,2`$ and the $`Sp(2n_H)`$ index $`A=1,\mathrm{},2n_H`$, raised and lowered by the symplectic metrics $`C_{AB}`$ and $`\epsilon _{ij}`$. We refer to  for more details.

We will be interested in the construction of BPS solutions with spacetime metrics given by

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2U(r)}\widehat{g}_{mn}dx^mdx^n+\mathrm{e}^{2pU(r)}dr^2$$
(3)
with $`\widehat{g}_{mn}=\widehat{g}_{mn}(x^m)`$. Here we denote spacetime indices by $`x^\mu =(x^m,r)`$ and the corresponding tangent space indices by $`a=(0,1,2,3,5)`$. The constant $`p`$ is introduced for later convenience. We assume Lorentz invariance in the four-dimensional subspace $`a=(0,1,2,3)`$. The metric $`\widehat{g}_{mn}`$ is thus a four-dimensional constant curvature metric,

$`\widehat{R}_{mn}=\frac{12}{l^2}\widehat{g}_{mn},`$ (4)
with the four-dimensional cosmological constant proportional to $`l^2`$. The case of (imaginary) real $`l`$ corresponds to a four-dimensional (anti-) de Sitter spacetime. We take the solutions to be uncharged, that is we set the gauge fields to zero. We allow for a non-trivial dependence of the scalar fields on the coordinate $`r`$, and we write $`\varphi ^{}=\varphi /r`$, $`q^{}=q/r`$ as well as $`U^{}=U/r`$.

In the absence of gauge fields, the supersymmetry transformation laws for the gravitini $`\psi _{\mu i}`$, for the gaugini $`\lambda _i^x`$ and for the hyperini $`\zeta ^A`$ read

$`\delta \psi _{\mu i}`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu (\omega )ϵ_i+\frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}g\gamma _\mu P_{ij}ϵ^j,`$ (5)
$`\delta \lambda _i^x`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}(\overline{)}\varphi ^x)ϵ_i+gP_{ij}^xϵ^j,`$ (6)
$`\delta \zeta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}f_{iX}^A(\overline{)}q^X)ϵ^i+g𝒩_i^Aϵ^i,`$ (7)
where (as for all triplets $`P_{ij}=iP^s(\sigma ^s)_{ij}`$)

$`P^s`$ $``$ $`h^I(\varphi )P_I^s(q),P_x^s\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}_xP^s=h_x^IP_I^s,`$
$`𝒩_i^A`$ $``$ $`\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4}f_{iX}^AK^X,K^Xh^I(\varphi )K_I^X(q).`$ (8)
The scalar potential of such a theory is given by the squares of the shifts of the supersymmetry transformations

$$𝒱=4P^sP^s+2P_x^sP_y^sg^{xy}+2𝒩_{iA}𝒩^{iA}$$
(9)
and depends only on the triplet of prepotentials $`P^s`$ and their derivatives. By decomposing the triplet $`P^s`$ into its norm and phases,

$$P^s=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}WQ^s,Q^sQ^s=1,$$
(10)
one obtains

$`W=h^I(\varphi )P_I,P_I\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}P_I^s(q)Q^s`$ (11)
as well as

$$𝒱=6W^2+\frac{9}{2}g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }W_\mathrm{\Sigma }W+\frac{9}{2}W^2(_xQ^s)(^xQ^s).$$
(12)
Here $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ denotes the metric of the complete scalar manifold, which is positive definite, involving the scalars of both the vector and the hypermultiplets. The derivatives acting on the $`SU(2)`$ phases $`Q^s`$ are just computed with respect to the scalars of the vector multiplets. As noted in , when $`^xQ^s=0`$, i.e. when the phases only depend on the quaternions (or when they are constant), then the potential goes into a form for which gravitational stability is guaranteed .

We can now compute the integrability conditions coming from the vanishing of the gravitini variation (5). As already stated above, we only allow for a non-trivial dependence of the scalar fields on the coordinate $`r`$. This results in the following integrability conditions (for $`p=0`$):

$`R_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4g^2W^2\frac{1}{3}\varphi ^x\varphi ^yg_{xy}(\varphi )\frac{1}{6}q^Xq^Yg_{XY}(q)\frac{1}{4}K^XK^Yg_{XY}(q)\right]\mathrm{e}^{2U}\widehat{g}_{mn},`$ (13)
$`R_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`4g^2W^2\frac{4}{3}\varphi ^x\varphi ^yg_{xy}(\varphi )\frac{2}{3}q^Xq^Yg_{XY}(q)K^XK^Yg_{XY}(q),`$ (14)
where we also made use of the vanishing of the transformations (6) and (7).

For a metric of the form (3) subject to (4) this yields

$`3U^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{12}{l^2}\mathrm{e}^{2U}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^x\varphi ^yg_{xy}\frac{1}{2}q^Xq^Yg_{XY}\frac{9}{2}g^2g^{XY}_XW_YW,`$ (15)
$`(U^{})^2\frac{4}{l^2}\mathrm{e}^{2U}`$ $`=`$ $`g^2W^2,`$ (16)
where we used that $`g_{XY}K^XK^Y=6g^{XY}_XW_YW`$. For supersymmetric configurations, these equations are equivalent to the Einstein equations. It follows that the BPS equations we will obtain below must be compatible with (15) and (16). From (16) we obtain that

$`U^{}=\pm \gamma (r)gW,`$ (17)
where

$`\gamma (r)=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{e}^{2U}}{l^2g^2W^2}}}.`$ (18)
The first order differential equation (17) for the warp factor $`\mathrm{e}^U`$ was also derived in  in the context of non-supersymmetric five-dimensional gravity theories.

## 3 Flat BPS domain walls

The case of flat BPS domain walls without hypermultiplets has already been discussed extensively in the literature -. Flat BPS domain walls with hypermultiplets have been discussed in . Here we briefly review some of the features of these solutions, and we present an extension of these results to the case of non-trivial hypermultiplets.

Inserting the spacetime line element (3) into the gravitini variation yields

$`\delta \psi _{mi}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒟}_mϵ_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{pU}_rU\gamma _m\gamma _5ϵ_i+\frac{i}{2}gWQ_{ij}\gamma _mϵ^j,`$ (19)
$`\delta \psi _{ri}`$ $`=`$ $`_rϵ_iq^X\omega _{Xi}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_{j}^{}+\frac{i}{2}gW\mathrm{e}^{pU}Q_{ij}\gamma _5ϵ^j,`$ (20)
where $`\widehat{𝒟}_m`$ denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $`\widehat{g}_{mn}`$.

First consider the variation $`\delta \psi _{mi}=0`$. Since the four-dimensional domain wall is flat ($`\gamma =1`$), we set

$`\widehat{𝒟}_mϵ_i=0.`$ (21)
We then obtain from $`\delta \psi _{mi}=0`$ that

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{pU}_rU\gamma _5ϵ_i=\frac{i}{2}gWQ_{ij}ϵ^j.`$ (22)
The consistency of (22) implies that

$`\mathrm{e}^{2pU}\left(_rU\right)^2=g^2W^2,`$ (23)
and hence

$`\mathrm{e}^{pU}_rU=\pm gW,`$ (24)
which is in accordance with (17). Inserting (24) into (22) yields the projector condition

$`i\gamma _5ϵ_i=\pm Q_{ij}ϵ^j.`$ (25)
Since this is the only condition we impose on the supersymmetry parameters, we conclude that the resulting flat domain wall solutions preserve $`1/2`$ of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry.

Next, let us consider the vanishing of the variation of the other fermion fields. Using the projector equation (25), it follows from (6) and (7) that the scalar fields $`\varphi ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\varphi ^x,q^X\}`$ have to satisfy

$$\varphi ^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=3g\mathrm{e}^{pU}g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }W.$$
(26)
We note that (26) and (24) imply (15).

Consistency of the above equations also gives the following constraint on the phases $`Q^s`$

$`_xQ^s=0.`$ (27)
Thus, it follows from (11) that $`W=h^I(\varphi )P_I(q)`$. Using the chain rule $`_rh_I=_xh_I\varphi ^x`$ as well as (24), one then obtains from (26) that

$`\mathrm{e}^{pU}_rh_I(\varphi )+2\mathrm{e}^{pU}(_rU)h_I(\varphi )=\pm 2gP_I(q).`$ (28)
We note that (28) implies (24). This follows simply by contracting (28) with $`h^I`$ and using that $`h^Ih_I=1`$ as well as its consequence $`h^I_rh_I=0`$.

Next, we introduce the rescaled fields

$`Y^I=\mathrm{e}^Uh^I,Y_I=\mathrm{e}^{2U}h_I,`$ (29)
It then follows from (1) and (2) that

$`\mathrm{e}^{3U}=C_{IJK}Y^IY^JY^K,Y_I=C_{IJK}Y^JY^K.`$ (30)
Setting

$`p=2`$ (31)
for convenience , we then obtain from (28) that

$`_rY_I=\pm 2gP_I(q),`$ (32)
which is solved by

$`Y_I=c_I\pm 2g{\displaystyle ^r}𝑑r^{}P_I(q),`$ (33)
where the real $`c_I`$ denote integration constants. A solution to this equation in closed form can only be given if one determines the behaviour of the quaternions $`q^X`$. It does not appear to be possible to determine the behaviour of $`P_I(q)`$ in a way that is independent from the vector multiplet scalars.

When only vector multiplets are present, and in the case of Abelian gaugings, the superpotential $`W`$ reduces to $`W=h^I\alpha _I`$, where $`\alpha _I`$ are the Fayet-Iliopoulos terms, which are constant. Then it follows that

$`Y_I=c_I\pm 2g\alpha _Ir.`$ (34)
These equations are called attractor equations.

## 4 Curved BPS domain walls

Now we take $`\widehat{g}_{mn}`$ to be a constant curvature metric satisfying (4). Then (21) gets modified, and a natural ansatz describing this modification is given by

$`\widehat{𝒟}_mϵ_i=f(r)\widehat{e}_m{}_{}{}^{a}\gamma _{a}^{}\gamma _5ϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}h(r)Q_{ij}\widehat{e}_m{}_{}{}^{a}\gamma _{a}^{}ϵ^j,`$ (35)
where $`f(r)`$ and $`h(r)`$ denote real functions. Equation (35) gives rise to the following integrability condition:

$`f^2(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h^2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}.`$ (36)
As we shall see momentarily, the simple choices $`f^2=l^2`$, $`h=0`$ and $`f=0`$, $`h^2=4l^2`$ for the case of real and imaginary $`l`$, respectively, do not lead to a supersymmetric solution.

We set $`p=0`$ in the following. Inserting (35) into the supersymmetry condition $`\delta \psi _{mi}=0`$ now yields

$`\left(\mathrm{e}^Uf(r)+\frac{1}{2}_rU\right)\gamma _5ϵ_i=\frac{i}{2}\left(\mathrm{e}^Uh(r)+gW\right)Q_{ij}ϵ^j.`$ (37)
The consistency of (37) implies that

$`\mathrm{e}^Uf(r)+\frac{1}{2}_rU=\pm \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{e}^Uh(r)+gW\right).`$ (38)
Then, combining (38) with (36) and using (17) yields

$`f(r)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^U\gamma gW,h(r)=\mathrm{e}^UgW,`$ (39)
with $`\gamma `$ given by (18). We note that when inserting (39) into (37) both sides of the latter equation vanish, so that (37) does not result in a restriction of the amount of supersymmetry preserved by the solution.

In the case of constant scalar fields, the superpotential $`W`$ is constant and equation (17) can be solved explicitly. For $`\gamma 0`$ and $`|l|\mathrm{}`$ the solution reads

$`\mathrm{e}^U={\displaystyle \frac{2}{lgW}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pm gW(rr_0)\right)`$ (40)
for real $`l`$, whereas for imaginary $`l`$ it is given by

$`\mathrm{e}^U={\displaystyle \frac{2}{|l|gW}}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\pm gW(rr_0)\right).`$ (41)
As shown in , this describes a four-dimensional (anti-)de Sitter foliation of the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`AdS_5`$ vacuum. It can be checked that (15) is satisfied by this solution. The case $`\gamma =0`$, on the other hand, does not lead to a solution of (15).

Let us now turn to the case of non-constant scalar fields. First consider the case when $`_xQ^s=0`$. Below we will show that, in order to construct non-trivial solutions to the gaugino variation equation $`\delta \lambda _i^x=0`$ preserving 1/2 of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry, one has to impose the projector condition (25) on the supersymmetry parameters. Inspection of (37) then shows that $`f=h=0`$, so that $`l^1=0`$ and $`\gamma =1`$, which gives rise to a flat domain wall solution.

Thus, in order to obtain curved BPS domain wall solutions with either non-constant vector scalar fields or non-constant vector and hyper scalar fieldsaaaIt may be possible to construct curved domain wall solutions with only non-constant hyper scalars turned on ., one has to allow for a dependence of the $`Q^s`$ on some of the vector multiplet scalarsbbbIn $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity coupled to vector multiplets only, it may be possible to achieve $`_xQ^s0`$ by a non-abelian gauging.. We will shortly see that this implies that the projector condition (25) has to get modified, as follows:

$`i\gamma _5ϵ_i=A(r)Q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j+B(r)M_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j.`$ (42)
The $`SU(2)`$-valued matrix $`Q=iQ^s\sigma ^s`$ contains the phases of the prepotentials $`P_{ij}`$ (as in (10)), which may now depend on both the vector and the hyper scalars, and $`M=iM^s\sigma ^s`$ denotes an $`SU(2)`$-valued matrix satisfying $`M_i^jM_j^k=\delta _i^k`$ (i.e. $`M^sM^s=1`$). Without loss of generality, we take $`Q`$ and $`M`$ to be orthogonal in $`SU(2)`$ space, so that $`Q^sM^s=0`$. The consistency of (42) then yields that

$`A^2(r)+B^2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (43)
Since (42) is the only condition we will impose on the supersymmetry parameters, the resulting curved domain wall solutions will preserve 1/2 of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry.

Inserting (42) into the gaugini variation equation $`\delta \lambda _i^x=0`$ yields (with $`p=0`$)

$$\left(A(r)Q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j+B(r)M_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j\right)\varphi ^x=\sqrt{6}gg^{xy}_yP_i^jϵ_j.$$
(44)
Then, using the decomposition of $`P^s`$ given in (10) yields

$$\left(A(r)Q^s+B(r)M^s\right)\varphi ^x=3gg^{xy}(Q^s_yW+W_yQ^s).$$
(45)
Since $`Q^s_xQ^s=0`$, the two pieces on the right hand side of this equation are orthogonal to each other, and hence it follows that

$$A(r)\varphi ^x=3gg^{xy}_yW$$
(46)
as well as

$$B(r)M^s\varphi ^x=3gWg^{xy}_yQ^s.$$
(47)
Inspection of (47) shows that if the $`Q^s`$ do not depend on any of the vector scalar fields, then either all the vector scalar fields are constant, or $`BM^s=0`$. In the latter case, the projector condition (42) reduces to (25), thus yielding flat domain wall solutions. Hence we take $`_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s0`$ in the following. We denote the subset of vector scalar fields, on which the $`Q^s`$ depend, by $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$. The remaining vector scalars will be denoted by $`\varphi ^{\widehat{x}}`$. In order to be able to solve (46) and (47), we take the metric $`g_{xy}`$ to be factorisable as $`g_{xy}=(g_{\widehat{x}\widehat{y}},g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}})`$. Then, we find from (46) and (47) that

$`\varphi ^{\widehat{x}}=\mathrm{constant},_{\widehat{x}}W=0.`$ (48)
The scalar fields $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$, on the other hand, are non-constant.

Squaring (47) and using $`M^sM^s=1`$ yields

$`B^2(r)=9g^2W^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}(_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s)(_{\stackrel{~}{y}}Q^s)}{g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}}}}.`$ (49)
Since the right hand side of (49) is positive definite due to the reality of the $`Q^s`$ and the positivity of the metric $`g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}`$, we conclude that $`B(r)`$ is a real function.

On the other hand, we obtain from (47) that

$$M^s=\frac{3gW}{B}\frac{\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s}{g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}}}.$$
(50)
Squaring this and using again that $`M^sM^s=1`$ yields

$`B^2(r)=9g^2W^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s)(\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{\stackrel{~}{y}}Q^s)}{(g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}})^2}}.`$ (51)
Equating (51) with (49) then yields

$`(\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s)(\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}}_{\stackrel{~}{y}}Q^s)=(g_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{y}})(g^{\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{w}}(_{\stackrel{~}{z}}Q^s)(_{\stackrel{~}{w}}Q^s)).`$ (52)
We note that in the case that $`Q^s`$ only depends on one scalar field $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$, then the relation (52) is automatically satisfied.

We now determine $`A(r)`$ by using the integrability condition resulting from the gravitini equation $`\delta \psi _{mi}=0`$. Inserting (42) into (19) yields

$`\widehat{𝒟}_mϵ_i=\frac{i}{2}\left(U^{}A+gW\right)\gamma _mQ_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j+\frac{i}{2}U^{}B\gamma _mM_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}ϵ_j,`$ (53)
whose integrability gives

$`\left(U^{}A+gW\right)^2+B^2(U^{})^2=4l^2\mathrm{e}^{2U}.`$ (54)
Inserting (43) as well as (17) into (54) then gives

$`A(r)=\gamma (r).`$ (55)
Since the left hand side of (54) is positive definite, we conclude that $`l`$ has to be purely imaginary. Thus we conclude that the presence of non-constant vector scalars excludes the possibility of having BPS de Sitter like domain walls.

Inserting (55) into (46) yields

$$\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}=3g\gamma ^1g^{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}_{\stackrel{~}{y}}W.$$
(56)
Comparison of (26) with (56) shows that, in the presence of an anti-de Sitter cosmological constant on the wall, the flow equation for the vector scalar fields $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ gets modified by a factor $`\gamma ^1`$. This is in agreement with a similar finding  in the context of non-supersymmetric gravity theories in five dimensions.

We note that in the case of constant hyper scalars, (56) and (17) imply (15).

Using the chain rule $`_rh_I=_xh_I\varphi ^x^{}=_{\stackrel{~}{x}}h_I\varphi ^{\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}`$ as well as (17), one obtains from (56) that

$`_rh_I(\varphi )+2\gamma ^2(_rU)h_I(\varphi )=\pm 2g\gamma ^1P_I.`$ (57)
We note that (57) implies (17). This follows simply by contracting (57) with $`h^I`$ and using that $`h^Ih_I=1`$ as well as $`h^I_rh_I=0`$.

Introducing the rescaled fields

$`Y^I=\mathrm{e}^{^r𝑑r^{}\gamma ^2(r^{})(_r^{}U)}h^I,Y_I=\mathrm{e}^{2^r𝑑r^{}\gamma ^2(r^{})(_r^{}U)}h_I`$ (58)
yields

$`_rY_I=\pm 2g\gamma ^1\mathrm{e}^{2^r𝑑r^{}\gamma ^2(r^{})(_r^{}U)}P_I.`$ (59)
Under the coordinate change $`dr\mathrm{e}^{2^r𝑑r^{}\gamma ^2(r^{})(_r^{}U)}dr`$ this goes into

$`_rY_I=\pm 2g\gamma ^1P_I,`$ (60)
and hence

$`Y_I=c_I\pm 2g{\displaystyle ^r}𝑑r^{}\gamma ^1(r^{})P_I,`$ (61)
where the real $`c_I`$ denote integration constants. An equation for the warp factor analogous to (30) can be obtained by inserting (58) into (1). An explicit solution for the warp factor may then be derived by expanding in powers of $`l^1`$.

We also obtain from (49), (55), (56) and (43) that

$`g^{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}(_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s)(_{\stackrel{~}{y}}Q^s)=g^{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}(_{\stackrel{~}{x}}W)(_{\stackrel{~}{y}}W){\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma ^2)}{\gamma ^2W^2}}.`$ (62)
Inserting (62) into the expression for the potential (12) then yields

$$𝒱=6W^2+\frac{9}{2}\gamma ^2g^{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}W_{\stackrel{~}{y}}W+\frac{9}{2}g^{XY}_XW_YW,$$
(63)
where we also used (48). The expression (63) for the potential is in agreement with the one given in .

Finally, let us briefly comment on the vanishing of the hyperini variation, $`\delta \zeta ^A=0`$. The insertion of (42) into $`\delta \zeta ^A=0`$ results in a more complicated matrix equation than (26), with the metric $`g^{XY}`$ in (26) replaced by a more complicated object. We leave the analysis of the resulting matrix equation for the future.

To summarize, we have addressed the issue of the construction of curved BPS domain wall solutions in five dimensions. We have seen that in the case when such domain wall solutions are supported either by non-constant vector scalars or by both non-constant vector and hyper scalars, we have to require $`_{\stackrel{~}{x}}Q^s0`$. We have also seen that only anti-de Sitter domain walls are allowed by this construction. The resulting first order BPS equations for the warp factor and for the vector scalars ((17) and (56), respectively) are modified by the factor $`\gamma `$ which depends on the four-dimensional cosmological constant on the wall. These equations agree with those obtained previously in  in the context of non-supersymmetric five-dimensional gravity theories. We also note the presence of the additional condition (52) on the solution, as well as those arising from the flow equations for the hyper scalars which we haven’t analyzed in this paper.

In the presence of hypermultiplets, it has been shown  that a gauged supergravity theory can possess critical points with ultraviolet and infrared directions. Using the AdS/CFT correspondence, this leads to the possibility of the construction of domain wall solutions dual to regular renormalization group flows. It would be very interesting to see if it is possible to construct curved BPS domain wall solutions interpolating between such vacua and to understand the meaning of the domain wall cosmological constant in the dual field theory flow. As an example one could consider deforming the two-parameter solution of  describing the $`𝒩=2`$ embedding of the UV-IR solution of .

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank K. Behrndt, P. Breitenlohner, B. de Wit and D. Maison for valuable discussions. We are very much indepted to A. Karch, L. Randall and A. Strominger for pointing out an error in the previous version of this paper. This work is supported by the DFG and by the European Commission RTN Programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131.


format: text

text:
# 1 Obtaining lower generation masses by the “leakage” mechanism

Like other quantities in quantum field theory such as the familiar running coupling constant, the fermion mass matrix also varies with changing scales. That its eigenvalues, namely the mass values, do actually run has already been verified experimentally in certain cases . It should thus come as no surprise that the fermion mass matrix may also change its orientation in generation space (rotate) as the scale changes.

Indeed, even in the situation when there are no other forces involved than those currently studied in the Standard Model, it is easily seen that the fermion mass matrices must rotate with changing scales once given nontrivial mixing between the $`U`$\- and $`D`$-fermion states. For instance, the $`U`$ mass matrix satisfies a renormalization group equation :

$$16\pi ^2\frac{dU}{dt}=\frac{3}{2}DD^{}U+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
which contains a term on the right which is nondiagonal even when $`U`$ is diagonal if the $`D`$ mass matrix is related to $`U`$ by a nontrivial mixing matrix. Hence, as the scale changes, a $`U`$ matrix diagonal at one scale will no longer remain so at another scale, or in other words, it will “rotate” with changing scales, as claimed. And since nontrivial mixing has long been established for quarks, while for leptons it has been strongly indicated if not already confirmed by recent experiment , we conclude that both the quark and lepton mass matrices must rotate with changing scales even in the traditional Standard Model scenario.

Looking further afield, there are good reasons to consider the possibility of having further, perhaps more direct, mechanisms driving the mass matrix rotation. The mere fact that different generations of fermions can rotate into one another, as the mass matrix rotation implies, already means that they are not distinct entities as once conceived but just different manifestations of the same object, like the different colours of a quark, related presumably by some continuous “horizontal” symmetry . And if this symmetry is gauged, as all other known continuous symmetries seem to be, then it would give rise to new forces which can change the generation index and hence contribute to the rotation of the fermion mass matrices. And these contributions would be over and above those driven by nontrivial mixing via (1).

Indeed, what we wish to point out in this note is a, to us, attractive possibility that it is the rotation of the mass matrix (due presumably to some new as yet unfamiliar forces) which is giving rise to fermion mixing rather than the other way round. As we shall show, this can give us an immediate explanation not only for the remarkable fermion mixing pattern observed in experiment but also for the otherwise puzzling hierarchical fermion mass spectrum.

The reason why one can at all entertain this possibility is that once the mass matrix rotates then it can generate fermion mixing and nonzero masses for the lower generation fermions even when one starts with neither. To see this, one will need first to re-examine some basic premises which have to be revised in view of the mass matrix rotation. When the mass matrix has a scale-independent orientation (i.e. when it does not rotate), the state vectors in generation space representing the different generations are trivially defined as the eigenvectors of the mass matrix. However, if the mass matrix rotates, then so will its eigenvectors, and the above definition of the generation states becomes imprecise, for it will need to be specified at what scale(s) these states are to be taken as the mass eigenvectors. Consider first as example the $`t`$ quark, which we can take as the eigenstate of the $`U`$-type quark mass matrix $`m^U`$ with the largest eigenvalue, say $`m_1^U`$. But this value $`m_1^U`$ depends on the scale $`\mu `$, and one usually defines the $`t`$ quark mass $`m_t`$ as the value at the scale equal to the value itself, i.e. when $`\mu =m_1^U(\mu )`$. It seems natural then to define also the $`t`$ quark state vector as the corresponding eigenvector of $`m^U`$ also at the same scale. Similarly, one would define the state vector of the $`b`$ quark as the eigenvector of the $`D`$-type quark mass matrix with the largest eigenvalue taken at the scale $`\mu =m_1^D(\mu )`$. If so, the state vectors for the $`t`$ and $`b`$ quarks would be defined at different scales. Hence, even with the additional ansatz that the $`U`$ and $`D`$ mass matrices have always exactly the same orientation (i.e. aligned eigenvectors) at the same scale, the state vectors of $`t`$ and $`b`$ will be different since the eigenvector would have rotated from the scale at which the $`t`$ state vector is defined to the scale at which the $`b`$ state vector is defined. In other words, there will be nontrivial mixing between the $`t`$ and $`b`$ states since the mixing (CKM) matrix element defined as $`V_{tb}=t|b`$ will differ from unity.111We have defined the CKM matrix here as the overlap matrix between the triads of physical state vectors of respectively the $`U`$ and $`D`$ fermions, i.e. the same as for non-rotating mass matrices. Apart from being conceptually simple, this definition also corresponds to what is usually actually measured in experiment. For example, the element $`V_{tb}`$ is inferred experimentally in $`t`$ decay from its branching ratio to $`b`$, where $`b`$ in the final state is identified also by the branching ratios in its decay, which means the state vector of the decaying particle is in each case evaluated at the scale equal to its mass, as it is done here. In the literature, the CKM matrix is sometimes defined instead as the overlap matrix between the eigenvectors of the $`U`$ and $`D`$ mass matrices taken all at the same scale, which matrix is then scale-dependent, since the eigenvectors are themselves scale-dependent. This alternative definition is of course perfectly justified if used consistently and is unambiguously related to the experimentally measured mixing matrix if it is known how the mass matrices rotate. If the rotation is slow in the energy range of fermion masses, then the two definitions are nearly equal, but if the rotation is of the order considered here, the difference is important, in which case the definition adopted in this paper seems to us more convenient.

Similarly, one sees that when the mass matrix rotates, lower fermion generations will acquire masses even when they start with none. To illustrate the point, it is sufficient to consider only two generations, i.e., say, for the $`U`$ quark case, only the $`t`$ and $`c`$ quarks. We have already defined the $`t`$ state vector above at the scale of the $`t`$ mass, and since there are only 2 states, it follows that the $`c`$ state vector is also uniquely defined as the vector orthogonal to $`|t`$. This is necessary since $`c`$ is quantum mechanically an independent state from $`t`$. Suppose now that the $`U`$ quark mass matrix at any scale has only one nonzero eigenvalue, which at the scale $`\mu =m_t`$ we take to be $`m_t`$. It follows therefore by assumption that the $`c`$ state taken at the same scale will have zero mass. But this should not be taken as the mass of the $`c`$ quark, for by the definition above, the physical mass of any fermion state is to be defined at the scale of the mass itself, namely for the $`c`$ state it should be taken at the scale $`\mu =m_c`$, not at the scale $`\mu =m_t`$. At $`\mu =m_c`$, however, the sole eigenvector $`|v_1^U`$ of the mass matrix $`m^U`$ with nonzero eigenvalue $`m_1^U`$ would have already rotated to a different direction, as depicted in Figure 1, and acquired a component in the $`|c`$ direction giving thus a nonzero mass value $`c|m^U|c`$ taken at this scale, as anticipated. A similar mechanism for generating lower generations masses would hold of course for other fermion types, which we shall henceforth refer to as the “leakage” mechanism.

Given that both nontrivial mixing and nonzero lower generation masses can result from a rotating mass matrix, and both of these effects are generally small and are in any case otherwise unexplained, it makes sense to enquire whether they can in fact all be obtained in this way. One can approach the problem empirically since, as we shall show, many of the relevant quantities have already been measured and need only to be arranged and interpreted in a manner appropriate for the present purpose. This will be done first in a simplified situation with only 2 generations, namely the 2 heaviest, in each fermion-type, which simplification will be shown later to approximate already very well the actual 3-generation situation. This makes the analysis much more transparent since the problem then becomes planar and there is only one rotation angle and no phases to consider . We have then the pictures shown in Figures 2 and 1 for obtaining respectively mixing matrix elements and lower generation masses.

Consider first mixing matrix elements. Suppose from the scale of the $`t`$ mass to that of the $`b`$ mass, the mass matrix has rotated by an angle $`\theta _{tb}`$. We have then the dyads of state vectors shown in Figure 2 for respectively the $`U`$\- and $`D`$-type quarks. One easily obtains then the CKM elements as: $`V_{tb}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ and $`|V_{ts}|=|V_{cb}|=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tb}`$. From the measured values of these elements given in the latest databook , namely:

$$|V_{tb}|=0.99900.9993,|V_{ts}|=0.0350.043,|V_{cb}|=0.0370.043,$$
(2)
one gets thus from each an estimate of the rotation angle, respectively:

$$\theta _{tb}=0.03740.0447,0.03500.0430,0.03700.0430,$$
(3)
the values obtained being fully consistent with one another. (One notes that from the same Figure 2, one could deduce in principle also $`V_{cs}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$, but this will be seen, in contrast to the 3 other mixing elements already considered, to be a poor approximation receiving large nonplanar corrections when all 3 generations are taken into account.)

Consider next the second generation masses obtained by the leakage mechanism. Suppose from the scale of the $`t`$ mass to that of the $`c`$ mass, the mass matrix has rotated by an angle $`\theta _{tc}`$, then one sees from Figure 1 that $`m_c/m_t=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tc}`$. Hence, from the measured values of $`m_t`$ and $`m_c`$ given in , namely:

$$m_t=174.3\pm 5.1\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.151.35\mathrm{GeV},$$
(4)
one obtains the estimate:

$$\theta _{tc}=0.08010.0894.$$
(5)
Similarly, from the measured values from :

$$m_b=4.04.4\mathrm{GeV},m_s=75170\mathrm{MeV},$$
(6)
one obtains the estimate:

$$\theta _{bs}=0.13090.2076,$$
(7)
the error being so large because of the intrinsic uncertainty in defining the $`s`$ quark mass, while from the measured values from :

$$m_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV},m_\mu =105.66\mathrm{MeV},$$
(8)
one obtains the estimate:

$$\theta _{\tau \mu }=0.2463.$$
(9)
Assume now that the mass matrices of the $`U`$ and $`D`$ quarks as well as the charged leptons are all aligned at the same scale as proposed above, and plot the values of the rotation angles obtained before, all starting from the direction of the $`t`$ quark state. One obtains then the Figure 3 where, in the planar approximation, we have taken $`\theta _{ts}=\theta _{tb}+\theta _{bs}`$, and $`\theta _{t\mu }=\theta _{t\tau }+\theta _{\tau \mu }`$, with $`\theta _{tb}`$ taken from (3) and $`\theta _{t\tau }`$ (indicated by a cross in Figure 3) estimated by interpolation between the values of $`\theta _{tb}`$ and $`\theta _{tc}`$ given above. One sees that all the gathered information can indeed be comfortably explained by a mass matrix rotating smoothly as the scale changes, as suggested.

The above analysis was done under the simplifying assumption of there being only 2 generations of fermion states, but we shall now show that it is already a very good approximation to the actual 3-generation situation. When 3 generations are introduced, the mixing matrix can be parametrized as:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{tb}& V_{ts}& V_{td}\\ V_{cb}& V_{cs}& V_{cd}\\ V_{ub}& V_{us}& V_{ud}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1c_3& s_1s_3\\ s_1c_2& c_1c_2c_3s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_3+s_2c_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1s_2& c_1s_2c_3+c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_3c_2c_3e^{i\delta }\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Notice that although this parametrization, which is more convenient for our purpose here, is formally the same as the original Kobayashi-Maskawa parametrization , the rows and columns are labelled differently, namely in order of decreasing mass rather than in order of increasing mass, so that the meanings of the angles are also different. But, as for the original Kobayashi-Maskawa parametrization, (10) can be interpreted as a product of 3 Euler rotations and a phase change :

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_2& s_2\\ 0& s_2& c_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1& 0\\ s_1& c_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\delta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_3& s_3\\ 0& s_3& c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where $`c_i`$ and $`s_i`$ are the cosines and sines of the Euler-like angles $`\theta _i`$. One sees then that if we continue to denote as before $`V_{tb}`$ as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$, the elements $`V_{ts}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ are no longer just given by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tb}`$ but by respectively $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tb}\mathrm{cos}\theta _3`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tb}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$. However, the angles $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _3`$, being still in the present picture just rotation angles undergone by the triad of state vectors from the scale $`m_t`$ to $`m_b`$, are expected to be small, namely of the order of the difference in scale times the rotation rate. Indeed, their actual values can be estimated from the empirical values given in  for the corner elements of the CKM matrix in comparison to the values of $`V_{ts}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ quoted above, giving:

$`|V_{td}|=0.0040.014`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _3|=0.0930.400,`$
$`|V_{ub}|=0.0020.005`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _2|=0.0470.135,`$ (12)
from which one gets:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _2=0.9990.991;\mathrm{cos}\theta _3=0.9960.928.$$
(13)
Hence, one concludes that in the 2 generation planar approximation of Figures 2 and 3 where one puts $`V_{ts}=V_{cb}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tb}`$, one has made an error of at most a few percent.

A similar error has been made in Figure 3 as regards the lower generation masses obtained from the “leakage” mechanism. The estimate (7) is for the angle rotated between the scales of $`m_b`$ and $`m_s`$ but in Figure 3 we have added this angle to the rotation angle from scale $`m_t`$ to scale $`m_b`$ to get the angle from scale $`m_t`$ to scale $`m_s`$. Such an addition is valid in the 2 generation approximation but has nonplanar corrections in the actual 3 generation situation. In this case, there does not seem to be enough empirical information to evaluate the error directly, but its rough value can be inferred. The angle between the plane defined by the $`t`$ and $`c`$ vectors and the plane defined by $`b`$ and $`s`$ is given by the angle between their normals, namely the vectors for $`u`$ and $`d`$ respectively, which according to  takes the value:

$$|V_{ud}|=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ud}=0.97420.9757$$
(14)
giving

$$\theta _{ud}=0.22090.2276.$$
(15)
The nonplanar error incurred in the angle at scale $`m_s`$ plotted in Figure 3 is of order $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ud}`$ and is thus of order a few percent, which is negligible given the large error already inherent in the definition of the $`s`$ quark mass. A similar error is presumably present in the angle plotted in Figure 3 at scale $`m_\mu `$, but one has at present no means for directly ascertaining this.

Thus, as far as the evidence goes in Figure 3, one seems justified in suggesting that both quark mixing and the second generation masses of quarks and charged leptons can arise from a continuous rotation with scale change of the fermion mass matrix. The analysis can in principle be extended further to lower scales to examine the masses of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and eventually even the electron and neutrino masses and lepton mixing, i.e. neutrino oscillations. For doing so, however, analyses with the full 3 generation rotation matrices involving 3 angles and a phase as detailed in (10) is necessary, and there is as yet insufficient empirical information to do so without relying on some extrapolation model.

For this reason, let us consider the curve shown in Figure 3. This appears to be the best-fit to the data points but is actually the result of a calculation  done two years ago with the Dualized Standard Model (DSM) scheme that we ourselves advocate. The DSM scheme first suggests a possible explanation for 3 fermion generations as the broken dual symmetry to colour, and then goes on to attempt a semi-quantitative understanding of the fermion mass and mixing patterns with reasonable success . To achieve the latter purpose, it assumes that the fermion mass and mixing patterns both arise as consequences of the rotation of the mass matrix, exactly in the manner suggested by the above empirical analysis. The mass matrix rotation in this scheme is driven by a dual Higgs mechanism the full details of which can be found in e.g.  but need not bother us at this juncture. We note here only the following two points of particular relevance to the present discussion. (a) The mass matrix has a high energy rotational fixed point at infinite scale with its heaviest eigenvector pointing in the direction $`(1,0,0)`$ and a low energy fixed point at zero scale with the heaviest eigenvector pointing in the direction $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$. (b) The rotation of the mass matrix between the two fixed points calculated to one-loop order depends on 3 parameters, namely 2 Higgs vev’s and a Yukawa coupling, which were fitted to the data on fermion mass and mixing parameters, specifically in  to $`m_c/m_t`$, $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$, and the Cabibbo angle.

The fact (a) that there is a rotational fixed point at infinite scale means that the rotation will go slower at high energy, which is apparently what is indicated by the data in Figure 3. This is one reason why the DSM curve in Figure 3 is able to reproduce so well the scale dependence of the mass matrix rotation with only 2 parameters (the third having to do with the degree of nonplanarity as measured by the Cabibbo angle $`\theta _{ud}`$). Conversely, the fact that the data points in Figure 3 by themselves already seem to follow a continuous rotation curve also goes some way towards explaining the at first sight somewhat puzzling numerical success of the DSM in fitting, seemingly so effortlessly, the empirical mass and mixing patterns.

That being the case, it seems worthwhile to explore even lower scales by attempting an extrapolation with the DSM formula. This has already been done for the lowest generation masses $`u,d`$ and $`e`$ . The results fall into a sensibly hierarchical pattern but are numerically inaccurate. Presumably, this means that the rotation curve calculated to one-loop order in the DSM, which has apparently worked over an already surprisingly large range of scales down to the $`\mu `$ mass because of angular proximity to the rotational fixed point at infinite scale, is no longer reliable further down. Nevertheless, it may still be worthwhile to consider with this extrapolation lepton mixing or neutrino oscillation, where even a qualitative answer would be instructive. Although in so doing an even further extrapolation is needed, there is, as we shall see, a saving grace by virtue of the low energy fixed point (a) at zero scale. Following then the previous precepts, one should presumably define the state vectors of neutrinos at their respective mass scales as for the other particles.222In , we had defined instead the state vectors of neutrinos at the scales of their respective Dirac masses, with which prescription we are thus now at variance. As we shall see, however, the result for the MNS elements are qualitatively similar, and are equally consistent with existing data, the reason being that the physical masses of neutrinos as well as their Dirac masses as found in  are all already close to the fixed point at zero scale. From the DSM point of view, the present prescription means that the MNS matrix elements can now be predicted from the trajectory fitted with quark and charged lepton data without any further input from neutrinos; it also removes the requirement previously found necessary in  of selecting only the vacuum solution to the solar neutrino problem. Details of these and other implications on the DSM will, we hope, be reported later in a separate communication. In particular, for the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$, experiment suggests a mass of around 0.05 eV , which is some 9 orders of magnitude below the last point at the scale $`m_\mu `$ shown in Figure 3. This means first that neutrino mixing angles can be considerably larger than those for quarks, which agrees with what has been observed experimentally, but it also means that without an accurate extrapolation formula, any estimate would seem at first sight quite hopeless.

Fortunately, with the DSM scheme, the extrapolation is saved by the fact that the mass matrix rotation has a fixed point at the scale $`\mu =0`$, which means that the rotation is at least asymptotically bounded. Further, at $`\mu =m_{\nu _3}0.05\mathrm{eV}`$, one is likely to be already so near this low energy fixed point that one can safely approximate the state vector of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$ just by the vector at the fixed point, namely: $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$. That this is indeed the case is confirmed by the calculation in e.g. . Putting in then the state vectors obtained before in  for $`\mu `$ and $`e`$:

$`|\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0.075925,0.774100,0.628494),`$
$`|e`$ $`=`$ $`(0.027068,0.628482,0.777354),`$ (16)
one obtains immediately:

$`U_{\mu 3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu |\nu _3=0.7660`$
$`U_{e3}`$ $`=`$ $`e|\nu _3=0.1016,`$ (17)
where one notes that the vector $`|e`$, being defined as the vector normal to both $`|\tau `$ and $`|\mu `$, is already determined at the $`\mu `$ mass scale, and does not therefore suffer from the inaccuracy mentioned above in the determination of the $`e`$ mass through extrapolation. These numbers, being near maximal for the “atmospheric” angle $`U_{\mu 3}`$ and small for the “Chooz” angle $`U_{e3}`$, are well consistent with the present experimental limits of around $`0.560.83`$ and $`0.000.15`$ for $`U_{\mu 3}`$  and $`U_{e3}`$  respectively. We note that these predictions are quite robust. Although the actual numbers in (17) come from the state vectors (16) of $`\mu `$ and $`e`$, which depend on the details of the DSM calculation in , the conclusion that $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is large and $`U_{e3}`$ small is a consequence only of the “leakage” mechanism illustrated by Figure 1 which dictates that the $`\mu `$ state vector should point in the direction of rotation. And so long as the rotation from the $`\tau `$ scale to the $`\mu `$ scale is in the general direction of the asymptotic rotation between the two fixed points at infinite and zero scales, the $`\mu `$ vector will lie roughly on the plane containing the two asymtoptic vectors and the $`e`$ vector be roughly normal to this plane, from which fact alone the qualitative conclusion that $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is large and $`U_{e3}`$ small will already follow. However, if one goes one step further and approximates the state vector of the second heaviest neutrino by the tangent to the rotation trajectory at the fixed point, which now depends on how the fixed point is approached by the extrapolated rotation trajectory and therefore can be inaccurate, one obtains a rough value also for the “solar” angle $`U_{e2}`$ of about 0.24, but this lies outside the present experimental range of around $`0.40.7`$.

Thus it seems that just with the general idea of mass matrix rotation, plus the two fixed points at infinite and zero scales as suggested by the DSM scheme but without the injection of its other details, one obtains already a consistent near-quantitative description of both quark and lepton mixing plus the fermion mass hierarchy, with most of the salient features (except for the moment CP-violation) included. The DSM comes in, apart from locating the fixed points, only in supplying a raison d’etre for the 3 generations of fermions in the first place, and then an explicit theoretical mechanism for driving the mass matrix rotation, both of which are of course conceptually very important, but are not really essential for deriving the above numerical results.

An obvious next question is whether such a description can be independently tested, and the answer is that perhaps it can, which we consider one of its attractive features. Once the mass matrix rotates, then its eigenstates defined at one scale will in general no longer be eigenstates at some other scale. In particular, this means that the fermion flavour states defined each at its own mass scale as outlined above will not be diagonal states of the mass matrix at an arbitrary energy. Since reaction amplitudes depend in general on the fermion mass matrix, it follows that these too may become non-diagonal and lead, as has been suggested in , to new flavour-violating reactions differing in nature from those arising from, say, flavour-changing neutral currents. Such so-called “transmutation” effects have been studied in  and in other cases and it is found that with a mass matrix rotating at the sort of speed indicated in Figure 3 they could be of sufficient size to be observable in some high sensitivity experiments in current operation such as Bepc, Cleo, BaBar, and Belle . However, although the observation of flavour-violation at the estimated magnitude favours its interpretation as coming from a rotating mass matrix as here advocated, the absence of the same is less conclusive since reaction amplitudes depend on quantities other than the fermion mass matrix, such as interaction vertices, which may also rotate giving rise to other effects modifying the above-cited estimates. Nevertheless, in view of the very significant implications on fermion properties discussed in this note, an experimental search for such possible transmutation effects due to a rotating mass matrix will seem to be an extremely worthwhile quest.


text:
# Experimental Investigation of the Two-photon Widths of the 𝜒_{𝑐0} and the 𝜒_{𝑐2} Mesons

## Abstract

Using 12.7 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of data collected with the CLEO detector at CESR, we observed two-photon production of the $`c\overline{c}`$ states $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ in their decay to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. We measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _c)\times (\chi _c\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ to be 75 $`\pm `$ 13 (stat) $`\pm `$ 8 (syst) eV for the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and 6.4 $`\pm `$ 1.8 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.8 (syst) eV for the $`\chi _{c2}`$, implying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})=3.76\pm 0.65(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.41(\mathrm{syst})\pm 1.69(\mathrm{br})`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=0.53\pm 0.15(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.06(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.22(\mathrm{br})`$ keV. Also, cancelation of dominant experimental and theoretical uncertainties permits a precise comparison of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$, evaluated to be $`7.4\pm 2.4(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.5(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.9(\mathrm{br})`$, with QCD-based predictions.

preprint:   CLNS 01-1732  CLEO 01-08

B. I. Eisenstein,1 J. Ernst,1 G. E. Gladding,1 G. D. Gollin,1 R. M. Hans,1 E. Johnson,1 I. Karliner,1 M. A. Marsh,1 C. Plager,1 C. Sedlack,1 M. Selen,1 J. J. Thaler,1 J. Williams,1 K. W. Edwards,2 A. J. Sadoff,3 R. Ammar,4 A. Bean,4 D. Besson,4 X. Zhao,4 S. Anderson,5 V. V. Frolov,5 Y. Kubota,5 S. J. Lee,5 R. Poling,5 A. Smith,5 C. J. Stepaniak,5 J. Urheim,5 S. Ahmed,6 M. S. Alam,6 S. B. Athar,6 L. Jian,6 L. Ling,6 M. Saleem,6 S. Timm,6 F. Wappler,6 A. Anastassov,7 E. Eckhart,7 K. K. Gan,7 C. Gwon,7 T. Hart,7 K. Honscheid,7 D. Hufnagel,7 H. Kagan,7 R. Kass,7 T. K. Pedlar,7 J. B. Thayer,7 E. von Toerne,7 M. M. Zoeller,7 S. J. Richichi,8 H. Severini,8 P. Skubic,8 A. Undrus,8 V. Savinov,9 S. Chen,10 J. W. Hinson,10 J. Lee,10 D. H. Miller,10 E. I. Shibata,10 I. P. J. Shipsey,10 V. Pavlunin,10 D. Cronin-Hennessy,11 A.L. Lyon,11 E. H. Thorndike,11 T. E. Coan,12 V. Fadeyev,12 Y. S. Gao,12 Y. Maravin,12 I. Narsky,12 R. Stroynowski,12 J. Ye,12 T. Wlodek,12 M. Artuso,13 K. Benslama,13 C. Boulahouache,13 K. Bukin,13 E. Dambasuren,13 G. Majumder,13 R. Mountain,13 T. Skwarnicki,13 S. Stone,13 J.C. Wang,13 A. Wolf,13 S. Kopp,14 M. Kostin,14 A. H. Mahmood,15 S. E. Csorna,16 I. Danko,16 K. W. McLean,16 Z. Xu,16 R. Godang,17 G. Bonvicini,18 D. Cinabro,18 M. Dubrovin,18 S. McGee,18 A. Bornheim,19 E. Lipeles,19 S. P. Pappas,19 A. Shapiro,19 W. M. Sun,19 A. J. Weinstein,19 D. E. Jaffe,20 R. Mahapatra,20 G. Masek,20 H. P. Paar,20 D. M. Asner,21 A. Eppich,21 T. S. Hill,21 R. J. Morrison,21 R. A. Briere,22 G. P. Chen,22 T. Ferguson,22 H. Vogel,22 J. P. Alexander,23 C. Bebek,23 B. E. Berger,23 K. Berkelman,23 F. Blanc,23 V. Boisvert,23 D. G. Cassel,23 P. S. Drell,23 J. E. Duboscq,23 K. M. Ecklund,23 R. Ehrlich,23 P. Gaidarev,23 R. S. Galik,23 L. Gibbons,23 B. Gittelman,23 S. W. Gray,23 D. L. Hartill,23 B. K. Heltsley,23 L. Hsu,23 C. D. Jones,23 J. Kandaswamy,23 D. L. Kreinick,23 M. Lohner,23 A. Magerkurth,23 H. Mahlke-Krüger,23 T. O. Meyer,23 N. B. Mistry,23 E. Nordberg,23 M. Palmer,23 J. R. Patterson,23 D. Peterson,23 D. Riley,23 A. Romano,23 H. Schwarthoff,23 J. G. Thayer,23 D. Urner,23 B. Valant-Spaight,23 G. Viehhauser,23 A. Warburton,23 P. Avery,24 C. Prescott,24 A. I. Rubiera,24 H. Stoeck,24 J. Yelton,24 G. Brandenburg,25 A. Ershov,25 D. Y.-J. Kim,25 and R. Wilson25

1University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

2Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

3Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850

4University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

5University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

6State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

7Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

8University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

9University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

10Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

11University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

12Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

13Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

14University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712

15University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

16Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

17Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

18Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

19California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

20University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

21University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

22Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

23Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

24University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

25Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

In this Letter, we report a study of two-photon production of the C-even $`1^3P`$ charmonium states $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ using the CLEO detector at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR). The charmonium system is an ideal testing ground for quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Perturbative QCD (PQCD) provides predictions for the two-photon widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$. These predictions involve charmed quark mass factors, non-perturbative factors, and wave-function dependence, all of which cancel in the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$. The experimentally measured quantities are the two products $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _c)\times (\chi _c\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, $`\chi _c\chi _{c0}`$ or $`\chi _{c2}`$. Systematic uncertainties in the measurements mostly cancel in the ratio of these products. Further, the contribution to the uncertainty on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ from the uncertainty on the ratio $`(\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})/(\chi _{c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ is greatly reduced because both branching fractions have been measured in the same experiment leading to cancelation of their systematic uncertainties in the ratio. Thus the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ affords a more precise comparison of theory and experiment than do the individual $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _c)`$.

The two-photon width of a $`\chi _c`$ meson can be determined from a measurement of its two-photon cross section. The ratio of the two-photon width to the two-gluon width of a $`\chi _c`$ meson can be calculated in PQCD with reduced uncertainties due to cancelation of charmed quark mass factors, non-perturbative factors, and wave function dependence. In next-to-leading order (NLO) PQCD one obtains the following relationships  :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gg}(\chi _{c0})}=\frac{8\alpha ^2}{9\alpha _s^2}\frac{(1+0.18\alpha _s/\pi )}{(1+9.5\alpha _s/\pi )},$$
(1)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gg}(\chi _{c2})}=\frac{8\alpha ^2}{9\alpha _s^2}\frac{(15.3\alpha _s/\pi )}{(12.2\alpha _s/\pi )}.$$
(2)
The width of the $`\chi _{c0}`$ meson can be assumed to be dominated by its two-gluon component, so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gg}(\chi _{c0})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\chi _{c0})=14.9_{2.3}^{+2.6}`$ MeV . Using a value of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s=0.28`$ , one obtains the NLO PQCD prediction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})=5.0\pm 0.8`$ keV. Due to the uncertainty in the charm mass scale, we also calculate the NLO PQCD prediction at $`\alpha _s=0.35`$ and find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})=2.9\pm 0.5`$ keV. A measurement reported in a thesis gave $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})=4.0\pm 2.8`$ keV . The E835 collaboration reported an upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})3.47`$ keV (95% C.L.) .

The two-gluon component of the $`\chi _{c2}`$ width can be extracted from its width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\chi _{c2})=2.00\pm 0.18`$ MeV  by subtracting the radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{c2}\gamma J/\psi )`$ and the color-octet width in which the $`\chi _{c2}`$ decays via three gluons to light hadrons. This latter contribution has been shown in Ref.  to be equal to the hadronic width of the $`\chi _{c1}`$ meson. In the case of the $`\chi _{c2}`$ meson, the color octet contribution to the full width is significant; for the $`\chi _{c0}`$ meson, it is negligible. Hence, one obtains the NLO PQCD prediction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=0.47\pm 0.04`$ keV using a value of $`\alpha _s=0.28`$. This prediction becomes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=0.25\pm 0.02`$ keV for $`\alpha _s=0.35`$. The Particle Data Group (PDG) value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ is 0.47 $`\pm `$ 0.17 keV , where the uncertainty includes a scale factor of 1.9 to account for the poor consistency among the various measurements. The recent measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=0.270\pm 0.049(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.033(\mathrm{syst})`$ keV  by the E835 collaboration was not included in this average.

The comparison of the experimental results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ with the theoretical predictions is hampered by the lack of precision in the measured $`\chi _c`$ hadronic branching fractions, which are needed to extract the two-photon widths. Exploiting the fact that the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and the $`\chi _{c2}`$ mesons were both detected in their decay into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, we calculate the ratio of their two-photon widths where the dominant branching fraction uncertainties cancel. In addition, some of the dominant systematic uncertainties in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ measurements cancel in the ratio because the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and the $`\chi _{c2}`$ mesons were detected in the same experiment. The NLO PQCD prediction for the ratio of the two-photon widths is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})}=\frac{15}{4}\frac{(1+0.18\alpha _s/\pi )}{(15.3\alpha _s/\pi )},$$
(3)
Here too, charmed quark mass factors have canceled, and we have assumed $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\chi _{c0}}^{}(0)|^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\chi _{c2}}^{}(0)|^2`$ in the non-relativistic limit, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\chi _c}^{}(0)`$ denotes the derivative of the $`\chi _c`$ wave function at the origin. Relativistic corrections due to explicit modification of the meson decay amplitudes decrease the above ratio whereas corrections arising from the modification of the $`\chi _c`$ wave-functions increase the above ratio . In NLO PQCD, predictions for this ratio range from 7 to 9 when $`\alpha _s`$ varies from 0.28 to 0.35. Experimentally, this ratio is found to be 8.7 $`\pm `$ 6.9, using the single available $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})`$ measurement  and the PDG value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ . Thus a precise measurement of the individual two-photon widths of the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and the $`\chi _{c2}`$ mesons and, more importantly, their ratio are of interest for a comparison with theory.

At CESR, which operates at and near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, C-even charmonium states are produced through the fusion of two space-like photons, radiated by the 5.3 GeV $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams. The data used in this study correspond to an integrated luminosity of 12.7 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and were collected with two configurations (CLEO II  and CLEO II.V ) of the CLEO detector. Approximately one third of the data was taken with the CLEO II configuration. The detector components most useful for this study were the concentric tracking devices for charged particles, operating in a 1.5 T magnetic field generated by a superconducting solenoid. For CLEO II, this tracking system consisted of a 6-layer straw tube chamber, a 10-layer precision drift chamber, and a 51-layer main drift chamber. The main drift chamber also provided measurements of the specific ionization loss, $`dE/dx`$, used for particle identification. For CLEO II.V, the straw tube chamber was replaced by a 3-layer, double-sided silicon vertex detector and the gas in the main drift chamber was changed from a 50:50 mixture of argon-ethane to a 60:40 helium-propane mixture. These changes gave rise to a significant improvement in the momentum and $`dE/dx`$ resolutions for charged tracks. Photons were detected using the high-resolution electromagnetic calorimeter consisting of 7800 CsI crystals. The Monte Carlo simulation of the CLEO detector response was based upon GEANT . Simulated events were processed in the same manner as the data to determine the $`\chi _c\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ detection efficiencies and the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass resolutions at the two $`\chi _c`$ meson masses.

In the two-photon process $`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ $``$ $`e^+e^{}\chi _c`$ $``$ $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, the photon propagators dictate that the photons are almost real (“on shell”). Therefore the incident leptons are scattered at very small angles with the beam and remain undetected. Such “untagged” events typically have low transverse momentum ($`p_T|_i\stackrel{}{p}_{T_i}|`$, $`i=14`$) and low visible energy.

The events were required to have exactly four charged tracks with zero total charge. The background from processes other than two-photon production was suppressed by requiring that the $`\chi _c`$ candidate reconstructed from these four charged tracks has transverse momentum less than 0.4 GeV/c and that the visible energy in the event be less than 6.0 GeV. A $`\chi ^2`$ probability was constructed using the $`dE/dx`$ information from the four tracks, and required to be greater than 10%. Also, because the final state had no expected energy deposits in the calorimeter from neutral particles, the total calorimeter energy in the event not matched to charged tracks was required to be less than 0.6 GeV. We required that at least two of the four tracks traversed all layers of the tracking volume to achieve a well-modeled trigger simulation in the Monte Carlo.

The invariant mass distribution of the selected four-pion events is shown in Figure 1. Enhancements near the known $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ masses are seen upon a smooth background. To obtain the number of signal events and mass values, the mass distribution was fitted as follows. The background was fitted with a power law function: $`AW_{\gamma \gamma }^n`$, with $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass and $`A`$ and $`n`$ parameters to be fitted. The $`\chi _{c0}`$ signal was fitted with a spin-0 relativistic Breit-Wigner function with a width equal to the PDG value of 14.9 MeV (describing the natural line shape) convolved with a double Gaussian function (describing the detector resolution). The $`\chi _{c2}`$ signal was fitted using only a double Gaussian resolution because the PDG value of 2.0 MeV for its width is negligible in comparison to the mass resolution. The parameters of the resolution functions were determined from Monte Carlo samples of the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$, generated with zero width. The invariant mass resolution was approximately 9 MeV for both the resonances. We performed a simultaneous, binned, maximum-likelihood fit to the invariant mass distribution using these three functions.

From the fit, we obtained 234 $`\pm `$ 40 candidate $`\chi _{c0}`$ events and 89 $`\pm `$ 25 candidate $`\chi _{c2}`$ events, with masses of 3416.5 $`\pm `$ 3.0 MeV and 3559.9 $`\pm `$ 2.9 MeV, respectively. Our measured masses are consistent with the PDG values, 3415.0 $`\pm `$ 0.8 MeV and 3556.18 $`\pm `$ 0.13 MeV  respectively.

Comparison of the two-photon crosssection of a resonance measured from data with that estimated from Monte Carlo for a given two-photon width allows extraction of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _c)`$. The Monte Carlo crosssection ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{MC}}`$) estimation was based upon the BGMS formalism . The cross-section in data was calculated by dividing the number of events from the fit by the detection efficiency, the integrated luminosity, and the branching fraction $`(\chi _c\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$. The detection efficiencies were 19.6% and 21.7% for the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and the $`\chi _{c2}`$, respectively. Due to the large uncertainties in the branching fractions, we preferred to express our primary results as the products of the branching fraction and the two-photon width. We obtained $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})\times (\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=75\pm 13(\mathrm{stat})\pm 8(\mathrm{syst})`$ eV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})\times (\chi _{c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=6.4\pm 1.8(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.8(\mathrm{syst})`$ eV. From these primary results we obtained the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=7.4\pm 2.4(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.5(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.9(\mathrm{br})`$, where the last uncertainty corresponds to branching fraction uncertainties that do not cancel in the ratio. Using the known branching fractions, $`(\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=2.0\pm 0.9`$ % and $`(\chi _{c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=1.2\pm 0.5`$ % , we obtained the two-photon widths as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})=3.76\pm 0.65(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.41(\mathrm{syst})\pm 1.69(\mathrm{br})`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=0.53\pm 0.15(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.06(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.22(\mathrm{br})`$ keV, where the last uncertainties correspond to the systematic uncertainties arising from the hadronic branching fraction.

Sources of systematic uncertainty in the measured product branching fractions are summarized in Table I. The uncertainties which were correlated are marked by an asterisk. The uncertainties were added in quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty. The systematic uncertainty of the ratio of the two-photon widths takes into account correlations among the uncertainties. Systematic uncertainties in this ratio were separately estimated for our experimental measurement and the branching fraction measurements from other experiments . Though the individual measurements of $`(\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ and the $`(\chi _{c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ have poor consistency, the ratios of these two branching fractions are consistent.

The systematic uncertainties were dominated by the uncertainties in the simulation of the signal $`p_T`$ distribution, the particle identification procedure and the simulation of the unmatched neutral energy.

In our cross-section estimate from Monte Carlo we had assumed that the $`\chi _{c2}`$ meson was produced only in the helicity 2 state. The helicity 0 state has zero two-photon width in the non-relativistic approximation, while in relativistic models it is predicted to be up to 4% of the helicity 2 state . We allowed the mass of each resonance to vary between our measurement and the PDG value to estimate the systematic uncertainty from uncertainty in the mass scale. We similarly varied the width of the $`\chi _{c0}`$ within its known uncertainty. Using the known branching fractions of the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$  into $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and estimating the difference in detection efficiencies using Monte Carlo we assigned the systematic uncertainty due to the presence of resonant $`\rho ^0`$ substructure in the $`\chi _c`$ decay. Ref.  had reported no significant $`\rho ^0\rho ^0`$ sub-structure in the $`\chi _{c0}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ decay.

We investigated the possible effects of interference between the four-pion decay of the $`\chi _c`$ states and non-resonant production of four pions in two-photon interaction. From Monte Carlo simulation we found that a fifth of the selected events were from annihilation $`\tau `$-pair production. Another one-third were estimated to be not of two-photon origin based on the candidate transverse momentum distribution. Neither of these two classes of events can interfere with signal events. Interference can distort the signal shape derived from the signal Monte Carlo. We observed no such distortion demonstrated by the good fit $`\chi ^2`$ in the two regions of the resonances: 12.4 for 12 degrees of freedom.

The systematic uncertainty of 0.5 in the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ takes the correlations marked by an asterisk in Table I into account. The systematic uncertainty of 0.9 from the ratio of branching fractions was calculated taking into account correlations as ascertained from Ref.  and . The ratio of the branching fractions has significantly lower relative uncertainty than the branching fractions themselves due to partial cancelation of correlated systematic uncertainties. The branching fractions $`(\psi (2S)\gamma \chi _c)`$ needed were taken from Ref. , taking into account correlations between them.

Our result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})=7.4\pm 2.4(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.5(\mathrm{syst})\pm 0.9(\mathrm{br})`$ represents a significant improvement upon the current value of 8.7 $`\pm `$ 6.9 and is compared with the NLO PQCD prediction (Eq. 3) in Figure 2. There is good agreement for reasonable values of $`\alpha _s`$; however one wishes for increased theoretical and experimental precision. Our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c0})`$ measurement of 3.76 $`\pm `$ 0.65 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.41 (syst) $`\pm `$ 1.69 (br) keV is a significant improvement in experimental precision over the single available measurement of 4.0 $`\pm `$ 2.8 keV , but limited by poor knowledge of the branching fraction. The NLO PQCD prediction of 3 - 5 keV is consistent with our measurement. Our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ measurement of 0.53 $`\pm `$ 0.15 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.06 (syst) $`\pm `$ 0.22 (br) keV is consistent with the PDG value of 0.47 $`\pm `$ 0.17 keV . The PDG average of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\chi _{c2})`$ neglects correlated systematic uncertainties between experiments. The NLO PQCD prediction of 0.25 - 0.47 keV is consistent with our measurement and the PDG value. Our measurements show that PQCD based calculations are able to predict the ratios of decay rates, where non-perturbative effects cancel; however the uncertainties in both theory and experiment limit the precision of such comparisons.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Research Corporation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Texas Advanced Research Program.


text:
# Comment on ‘Renormalization-Group Calculation of the Dependence on Gravity of the Surface Tension and Bending Rigidity of a Fluid Interface’

In a recent Letter  a renormalization-group (RG) calculation of the gravity dependence of properties of a liquid-vapor interface is presented whose central point is the use of the (bare) capillary-wave-like Hamiltonian

$$_{CW}[\zeta ]=d^{d1}R\left[\frac{\gamma _0}{2}\left|\zeta \right|^2+\frac{a_0(g)}{2}\zeta ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\zeta ^4\right]$$
(1)
to study the interface in the limit of vanishing gravitational acceleration $`g`$. Here $`\zeta (\stackrel{}{R})`$ is the local height of the interface configuration $`[\zeta ]`$ at position $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ relative to the plane $`z=0`$. Recognizing that (1) is just the usual $`\phi ^4`$ Hamiltonian and that $`a_0(g)`$ vanishes as $`g0`$, the authors followed the standard RG analysis for the critical Ising system, arrived at the fixed point Hamiltonian

$$d^{d1}R\left[\frac{1}{2}|\zeta |^2+\frac{\lambda ^{}}{4!}\zeta ^4\right],$$
(2)
and reached a remarkable conclusion: interfacial properties (in $`d`$ dimensions) for $`g=0`$ should be identical to those in a critical, $`d1`$ dimensional bulk Ising system.

In order for this analysis and its conclusions to be valid, the (renormalized) coupling constant $`\lambda `$ must remain positive in this limit, i.e., $`lim_{g0}\lambda (g)=\lambda ^{(0)}>0`$. However, in the present interface case (in contrast to that of critical bulk systems), there are fundamental symmetry requirements that enforce $`\lambda ^{(0)}=0`$. We believe that the authors’ introduction of a nontrivial $`\lambda (g)`$ is justifiable. But as we shall show in the sequel, their assumption of $`\lambda ^{(0)}>0`$ is untenable, so that their subsequent analysis is irrelevant and the conclusion unreliable.

Consider a simple liquid-vapor system in $`d`$ dimensions, under the influence of a potential $`gz`$. Let $`(x_i)=(R_\alpha ,x_dz)^d`$ be the coordinates of a point relative to a fixed frame with Euclidean unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{e}_i`$. In the absence of gravity, the system respects the Euclidean symmetries and hence is invariant under translations and rotations $`x_ix_i^{}=_{ij}x_jA_i`$, where $`(_{ij})`$ is a rotation matrix. In the two-phase region (of the $`g=0`$ system), these symmetries are broken spontaneously by the presence of an interface, so that nonlinear realizations of the Euclidean group are necessary. For $`g0`$, these symmetries are broken explicitly. Under a rotation, the system transforms into one with a rotated field: $`g\stackrel{}{e}_d_{id}g\stackrel{}{e}_i`$.

Let us write possible (bare) interface Hamiltonians as

$$^{(g)}[\zeta ]=d^{d1}R^{(g)}(\zeta ,\zeta ,^2\zeta ,\mathrm{}),$$
(3)
where $`\zeta `$, $`^2\zeta `$,…stand for first, second, and higher partial derivatives $`\zeta /R_\alpha `$ etc. $`^{(0)}[\zeta ]`$ must be invariant under the transformations discussed above. We consider separately the consequences of this trivial observation.

(i) Translations along the $`z`$ axis: This symmetry is realized by $`\zeta \zeta ^{}=\zeta A_d`$. The invariance of $`^{(0)}`$ means that the energy cost of such a translation vanishes as $`g0`$. Hence $`^{(0)}`$ cannot depend explicitly on $`\zeta `$: we must have $`^{(g)}^{(0)}(\zeta ,^2\zeta ,\mathrm{})`$. This rules out terms like $`\lambda \zeta ^4`$, as well as (2), in the limit $`g0`$. Yet, $`\lambda ^{(0)}>0`$ is crucial for the approach in , the presence of an upper critical dimension of $`5`$, and the fixed point (2).

(ii) Rotations about $`\stackrel{}{e}_\alpha `$: As discussed in Ref. , $`^{(0)}`$ must realize this symmetry in a nonlinear fashion. Specifically, if only first derivatives $`\zeta `$ are taken into account, then $`^{(0)}`$ is simply proportional to the surface area, i.e.,

$$^{(0)}(\zeta ,0,\mathrm{})=\sigma \sqrt{\eta },$$
(4)
where $`\eta =1+(_\alpha \zeta )^2`$ is the determinant of the induced metric. In fact, this ‘drumhead’ model can be derived directly from appropriate bulk models of the $`\phi ^4`$ type in the low-temperature limit . Corrections to it depending on derivatives of higher than first order can be derived in a systematic fashion ; the leading ones involve the trace of the curvature tensor and the curvature scalar.

Starting from a $`\phi ^4`$ model for the bulk, the parameters $`a_0`$ and $`\lambda `$ could be computed by an appropriate generalization of the analysis of Refs.  and  to the case $`g0`$. That these parameters vanish for $`g=0`$ has been shown already in these references.

In summary, the interface model of Ref. , while valid for $`g0`$, violates fundamental symmetry requirements for $`g=0`$. Thus its results cannot be applied to critical properties of interfaces in vanishing gravitational fields.

One of us (H.W.D.) is indebted to S. Dietrich for calling his attention to Ref. .
H. W. Diehl, Fachbereich Physik, Universität Essen, D-45117 Essen, Germany
R. K. P. Zia, Department of Physics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24601, USA


text:
# Integral Transform and Segal-Bargmann Representation associated to q-Charlier Polynomials11footnote 1Posted on http://arXiv.org/abs/math.CA/0104260

## 1 Introduction

The classical Segal-Bargmann transform in Gaussian analysis yields a unitary map of $`L^2`$ space of the Gaussian measure on $``$ onto the space of $`L^2`$ holomorphic functions of the Gaussian measure on $``$, see papers .

Recently, Accardi-Bożejko  showed the existence of a unitary operator between a one-mode interacting Fock space and $`L^2`$ space of a probability measure on $``$ by making use of the basic properties of classical orthogonal polynomials and associated recurrence formulas . Inspired by this work, the author  has recently extended the Segal-Bargmann transform to non-Gaussian cases. The crucial point is to introduce a coherent state vector as a kernel function in such a way that a transformed function, which is a holomorphic function on a certain domain in general, becomes a power series expression. Along this line, Asai-Kubo-Kuo  have considered the case of the Poisson measure compared with the case of the Gaussian measure. However, the case of $`L^2`$ space of Wigner’s semi-circle distributions in free probability theory  is beyond their scope.

On the other hand, Leeuwen-Maassen  considered a transform associated with $`q`$ deformation of the Gaussian measure  and showed that for a given real number $`q[0,1)`$ it is a unitary map of $`L^2`$ space of $`q`$-defomed Gaussian measure onto the $`q`$-deformed Hardy space $`^2(\nu _q)`$ where $`\nu _q`$ is given in (3.6). Biane  examined the case of $`q=0`$ (Free case). Roughly speaking, their methods do not give the relationship between Szegö-Jacobi parameters and kernel functions for their transforms. As observed in Section 3 and Appendix A, our approach clarifies the relationship between them.

In this paper, we shall consider the $`q`$-deformed version of the Segal-Bargmann transform $`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}`$ associated with $`q`$-deformed Poisson measure, denoted by $`\mu _p^{(q)}`$, in the sense of Saitoh-Yoshida . As a main result, we shall provide Proposition 4.1, which claims that $`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}`$ is a unitary map of $`L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$ onto $`^2(\nu _q)`$. Moreover, in Theorem 4.3 we shall give the representation in $`^2(\nu _q)`$ of the multiplication operator by $`x`$ in $`L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$, which is a linear combination of the $`q`$-creation, $`q`$-annihilation, $`q`$-number, and scalar operators. We remark that our representation is compatible with that on the $`q`$-Fock space by Saitoh-Yoshida  and can be viewed as the $`q`$-analogue of the Hudson-Parthasarathy  decomposition of the usual Poisson random variable on the standard Boson Fock space ($`q=1`$). Ito-Kubo  also studied a similar decomposition in details from the point of white noise calculus  (For more recent formulation, see papers ).

The present article serves a good example to papers by Accardi-Bożejko  and Asai . The present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the recurrence formula for $`q`$-Charlier polynomials. In Section 3, we introduce a $`q`$-deformed coherent state vector and a Segal-Bargmann transform associated to a $`q`$-deformed Poisson measure. In addition, we quickly define the Hardy space as the Segal-Bargmann representation space. In Section 4, our main results are given. In Appendix A, we give some remarks on known results  related to $`q`$-Hermite polynomials.

Notation.
Let us recall standard notation from $`q`$-analysis . We put for $`n_0`$,

$$[n]_q:=1+q+\mathrm{}+q^{n1}\text{with}[0]_q=0.$$

Then $`q`$-factorial is naturally defined as

$$[n]_q!:=[1]_q\mathrm{}[n]_q\text{with}[0]_q!=0.$$

The $`q`$-exponential is given by

$$\mathrm{exp}_q(x):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{[n]_q!}.$$

whose radious of convergence is $`1/(1q)`$. In addition, another symbol used is the q-analogue of the Pochhammer symbol,

$$(a;q)_n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1aq^j)\text{and}(a;q)_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1aq^j)$$

with the convention $`(a;q)_0=1`$.

## 2 q-deformed Charlier Polynomials

From now on, we always assume that $`q[0,1)`$ is fixed. Recently, Saitoh-Yoshida  calculated the explicit form of the $`q`$-deformed Poisson measure with a parameter $`\beta >0`$ for $`q[0,1)`$. We denote it by $`\mu _p^{(q)}`$. The orthogonal polynomials associated to $`\mu _p^{(q)}`$ are the $`q`$-Charlier polynomials $`\{C_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ with the Szegö-Jacobi parameters $`\alpha _n=[n]_q+\beta ,\omega _n=\beta [n]_q`$. See papers . We also refer the book  for the standard Charlier polynomials case ($`q=1`$). Let $`\lambda =\{\beta ^n[n]_q!\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. The following relations hold for each $`n1`$:

$`(x[n]_q\beta )C_n^{(q)}(x)=C_{n+1}^{(q)}(x)+\beta [n]_qC_{n1}^{(q)}(x)`$ (2.1)
where $`C_0^{(q)}=1`$, $`C_1^{(q)}=x\beta `$. Then, for any $`L^2`$-convergent decompositions $`f(x)=a_nC_n^{(q)}(x)`$ and $`g(x)=b_nC_n^{(q)}(x)`$, the inner product $`,_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}`$ is given by the form

$$f,g_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}=\underset{n}{}\beta ^n[n]_q!\overline{a}_nb_n.$$
(2.2)
Moreover, let $`f_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}^2=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\beta ^n[n]_q!|a_n|^2`$.

## 3 Segal-Bargmann Transform and Hardy Space

Let us define the q-deformed coherent state vector for $`\{C_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ by

$$E_{\lambda ,p}^{(q)}(x,z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_n^{(q)}(x)}{\beta ^n[n]_q!}z^n,z\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta :=\{z:|z|^2<\frac{\beta }{1q}\}.$$
(3.1)
It is easy to see that $`E_p^{(q)}(x,z)L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$ due to

$$E_{\lambda ,p}^{(q)}(x,z)_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}^2=\mathrm{exp}_q(\beta ^1|z|^2)<\mathrm{}.$$
(3.2)
Moreover, it can be shown that $`\{E_{\lambda ,p}^{(q)}(x,y)\}`$ is linearly independent and total in $`L^2(\mu _p)`$.

Now we are in a position to introduce our key tool in this paper. Let us consider the $`q`$-analogue of the Segal-Bargmann transform $`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}`$ associated to $`\{C_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ given by

$$(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}f)(z)=E_{\lambda ,p}^{(q)}(x,\overline{z}),f(x)_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}\text{for any}fL^2(\mu _p^{(q)}).$$
(3.3)
###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`fL^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$. Then $`(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}f)(z)`$ converges absolutely for all $`z\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta `$.

###### Proof.

For $`f(x)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_nC_n^{(q)}(x)`$, it is quite easy to see

$$(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}f)(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nz^n.$$
(3.4)
By the Schwartz inequality, we get the inequality

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_nz^n|f_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}\mathrm{exp}_q\left(\frac{|z|^2}{\beta }\right).$$

This shows that the $`(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}f)(z)`$ converges absolutely for all $`z\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta `$. ∎

The completion of the space of holomorphic functions $`F,G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta `$ with respect to the inner product,

$$(F,G)_{_q^2}=\overline{F(z)}G(z)\nu _q(dz),$$
(3.5)
is nothing but the $`q`$-deformed Hardy space $`^2(\nu _q)`$. Here $`\nu _q`$ means that

$$\nu _q(dz)=(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^j}{(q;q)_j}\lambda _{r_j}^\beta (dz),q[0,1),r_j=q^{\frac{j}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{1q}}$$
(3.6)
where $`\lambda _{r_j}^\beta (dz)`$ is the Lebesgue measure on the circle of radious $`r_j`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`\{z^n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ forms an orthogonal basis of $`^2(\nu _q)`$.

###### Proof.

We adopt the same idea as in the proof .

$`(z^n,z^m)_{_q^2}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta }}\overline{z}^nz^m\nu _q(dz)`$
$`=(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{(q;q)_j}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta }}\overline{z}^nz^m\lambda _{r_j}^\beta (dz)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{(q;q)_j}}r_j^{n+m}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}e^{i(mn)\theta }𝑑\theta `$
$`=\delta _{n,m}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^n(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(1q)^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{(n+1)j}}{(q;q)_j}}`$
$`=\delta _{n,m}\beta ^n[n]_q!.`$
Note that we have used the $`q`$-Gamma function ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(n+1):=\frac{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(1q)^n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^{(n+1)j}}{(q;q)_j}=[n]_q!\text{for any}n.$$

Remark. It can be shown by Proposition 4.4 in the recent paper  that $`\nu _q`$ is a unique measure satisfying $`(z^n,z^m)_{_q^2}=\delta _{n,m}\beta ^n[n]_q!`$.

Hence, for any $`F=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_nz^n`$, $`G=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}b_nz^n^2(\nu _q)`$, the inner product $`(,)_{_q^2}`$ is written as

$$(F,G)_{_q^2}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta ^n[n]_q!\overline{a}_nb_n$$
(3.7)
and the corresponding norm of $`F`$ is

$$F_{_q^2}^2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta ^n[n]_q!|a_n|^2.$$
(3.8)
## 4 Main Results

###### Proposition 4.1.

$`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}`$ is a unitary map of $`L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$ onto $`^2(\nu _q)`$.

###### Proof.

As we have seen in Lemma 3.1,

$$(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}C_n^{(q)})(z)=z^n.$$
(4.1)
In addition, we derive by Lemma 3.2,

$$C_n^{(q)}_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}^2=z^n_{_q^2}^2=\beta ^n.$$

Therefore, we finish the proof. ∎

Let us define operators $`Z_q`$ and $`D_q`$ in $`^2(\nu _q)`$ satisfying

$$Z_qF(z)=zF(z).$$
(4.2)
and

$$D_{q,\beta }F(z):=0(z=0),D_{q,\beta }F(z):=\frac{\beta (F(z)F(qz))}{z(1q)}.(z0)$$
(4.3)
Operators $`Z_q`$ and $`D_{q,\beta }`$ play the roles of the q-creation operator and q-annihilation operator respectively and satisfy the $`q`$-deformed commutation relation $`D_{q,\beta }Z_qqZ_qD_{q,\beta }=I`$. The q-number operator acting on $`^2(\nu _q)`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{N}_qF(z)=[n]_qF(z),n0.$$
(4.4)
In addition, the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}`$ acting on $`^2(\nu _q)`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}F(z)=([n]_q+\beta )F(z),n0.$$
(4.5)
Remark that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}F(z)=0`$ for $`q`$-Gaussian case, see Appendix A. By the direct calculation, we have

###### Lemma 4.2.

* $`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}1=1`$
* $`D_{q,\beta }z^n=\beta [n]_qz^{n1}`$
* $`Z_qz^n=z^{n+1}`$

The transformation of the multiplication operator $`Q_p^{(q)}`$ by $`x`$ in $`L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$ satisfies the following relation.

###### Theorem 4.3.

$`S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}Q_p^{(q)}=(D_{q,\beta }+Z_q+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q})S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}`$

###### Proof.

By the recurrence formula (2.1), Equation (4.1) and Lemma 4.2, we derive

$`(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}Q_p^{(q)}C_n^{(q)})(z)`$ $`=E_{\lambda ,p}^{(q)}(x,\overline{z}),C_{n+1}^{(q)}+\beta [n]_qC_{n1}^{(q)}+([n]_q+\beta )C_n^{(q)}_{L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})}`$
$`=(D_{q,\beta }+Z_q+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q})(S_{\mu _p^{(q)}}C_n^{(q)})(z).`$
Moreover we obtain

###### Corollary 4.4.

The operators $`Z_q,D_q,\stackrel{~}{N}_q,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}`$ have the following properties:
(1) $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}=\frac{1}{\beta }Z_qD_{q,\beta }+\beta I=\stackrel{~}{N}_q+\beta I`$
(2) $`Z_q+D_{q,\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{N_q}=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}Z_q+\sqrt{\beta }I\right)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}D_{q,\beta }+\sqrt{\beta }I\right)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is done by Equations (4.2), (4.3), (4.4), (4.5), and Lemma 4.2. ∎

Therefore, by Theorem 4.3 and Corollary 4.4, the multiplication operator $`Q_p^{(q)}`$ by $`x`$ in $`L^2(\mu _p^{(q)})`$ is represented as a linear combination of the $`q`$-creation, $`q`$-annihilation, $`q`$-number, and scalar operators in the Hardy space $`^2(\nu _q)`$. In the $`q`$-deformed Gaussian case, due to Equation (A.4) in Appendix A, the multiplication operator $`Q_g^{(q)}`$ in $`L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})`$ is represented as a linear combination of $`q`$-creation and $`q`$-annihilation operators in the “same” Hardy space $`^2(\nu _q)`$.

Remark. (1) The analogous results in this paper to $`q=1`$ have been considered by Asai, et al. . (2) In general, if variances of two given measures $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are the same, then the actions of creation and annihilation operators are the same. In addition, the transformed function spaces by $`S_{\mu _1}`$ and $`S_{\mu _2}`$ are also the same. However, if $`\mu _1`$ is non-symmetric and $`\mu _2`$ is symmetric, then the representation of multiplication in $`L^2(\mu _1)`$ is different from that in $`L^2(\mu _2)`$.

## Appendix A Appendix. On q-Hermite Polynomials

First of all, we refer to the papers  and references cited therein for the detailed description of $`q`$-Hermite polynomials. For $`q=1`$, see books .

Let $`\mu _g^{(q)}`$ be the $`q`$-deformed Gaussian measure with mean zero and variance $`\beta >0`$. It is well-known that an associated orthogonal polynomial to $`\mu _g^{(q)}`$ is the $`q`$-Hermite polynomial $`\{H_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ with the Szegö-Jacobi parameters $`\alpha _n=0,\omega _n=\beta [n]_q`$. In this case the following relations hold for each $`n1`$:

$`xH_n^{(q)}(x)=H_{n+1}^{(q)}(x)+\beta [n]_qH_{n1}^{(q)}(x)`$ (A.1)
where $`H_0^{(q)}=1`$ and $`H_1^{(q)}=x`$. Then for any $`f(x)=a_nH_n^{(q)}(x)`$ and $`g(x)=b_nH_n^{(q)}(x)`$ in $`L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})`$, the inner product $`,_{L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})}`$ is given by the form

$$f,g_{L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})}=\underset{n}{}\beta ^n[n]_q!\overline{a}_nb_n.$$

Moreover, let $`f_{L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})}^2=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\beta ^n[n]_q!|a_n|^2`$.

A q-deformed coherent state vector $`E_{\lambda ,g}^{(q)}(x,z)`$ for $`\{H_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ is defined by

$$E_{\lambda ,g}^{(q)}(x,z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{H_n^{(q)}(x)}{\beta ^nn!}z^n,z\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta .$$
(A.2)
It can be shown that the set $`\{E_{\lambda ,g}^{(q)}(x,z):z\mathrm{\Omega }_q^\beta \}`$ is linearly independent and total in $`L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})`$. The $`q`$-analogue of the Segal-Bargmann transform $`S_{\mu _g^{(q)}}`$ associated to $`\{H_n^{(q)}(x)\}`$ is given by

$$(S_{\mu _g^{(q)}}f)(z)=E_{\lambda ,g}^{(q)}(x,\overline{z}),f(x)_{L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})}\text{for any}fL^2(\mu _g^{(q)}).$$
(A.3)
With this transform, we can reproduce the same results as for $`q[0,1)`$ Theorem III.4 in Leeuwen-Maassen  and for $`q=0`$ Proposition 1 in Biane . That is, $`S_{\mu _g^{(q)}}`$-transform yields a unitary isomorphism between $`L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})`$ and $`^2(\nu _q)`$ and

$$S_{\mu _g^{(q)}}Q_g^{(q)}=(D_{q,\beta }+Z_q)S_{\mu _g^{(q)}}$$
(A.4)
where $`Q_g^{(q)}`$ is the multiplication operator by $`x`$ in $`L^2(\mu _g^{(q)})`$.

## Acknowledgments

The author expresses sincere thanks to Professors T. Hida and K. Saitô for their kind arrangement of the conference. He is grateful for research support by International Institute for Advanced Studies, Kyoto, Japan. He also thanks Professor Bożejko for his comments.