text:
# Tidal truncation of gas replenishment and global suppression of galactic star formation in distant clusters

## 1. Introduction

An impressive number of spectroscopic and photometric results have been accumulated which reveal that the star-formation histories of galaxies in clusters are significantly different from those in the field (e.g., Dressler et al. 1985; Balogh et al. 1997; Couch et al. 1994; Dressler et al. 1999; Poggianti et al. 1999). It is, however, still highly uncertain which physical processes specific to cluster environments govern the observed difference. Starbursts triggered by some cluster-related mechanism and the subsequent rapid consumption of gas are suggested to be central to explaining the emission and absorption signatures seen in cluster galaxy spectra (e.g., \[$`\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{II}}`$\]$`\lambda `$3727 emission and strong H$`\delta `$ absorption; Dressler, Gunn 1983; Couch, Sharples 1987; Barger et al. 1996; Poggianti et al. 1999). On the other hand, some authors have claimed that if star formation is abruptly truncated when galaxies are accreted by clusters, this is enough to explain the mean strengths of emission lines and any gradients with cluster-centric radius (e.g., Newberry et al. 1990; Abraham et al. 1996; Balogh et al. 2000). Furthermore, Balogh et al. (2000) proposed an even ‘milder’ scenario whereby star formation in cluster galaxies has undergone just a gradual decline owing to the absence of halo gas that is required to fuel star formation in galaxy disks. It remains unclear which of the above three scenarios — starbursts, abrupt truncation of star formation, or gradual decline of star formation — most accurately describes the recent ($`z<1`$) star-formation history of the majority of cluster galaxies.

One of the difficulties in determining unambiguously the global star-formation histories of cluster galaxy populations is that dust extinction greatly affects the spectroscopic properties of star-forming galaxies (e.g., Poggianti et al. 1999). The level of on-going and recent star-formation activity inferred from \[$`\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{II}}`$\] emission and H$`\delta `$ absorption can be significantly distorted by dust (Smail et al. 1999; Poggianti, Wu 2000; Bekki et al. in preparation). In contrast to \[$`\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{II}}`$\], the H$`\alpha `$ emission line is less affected by dust extinction (Kennicutt 1998), and thus at least comes closer to quantifying the rate of on-going star formation. Accordingly, Couch et al. (2000) have embarked on a wide-field ($``$ 4 $`h_{50}^1`$ Mpc) H$`\alpha `$ survey of galaxies in 3 optically selected clusters at z $``$ 0.3. Their initial results show that star formation within the members of one of these clusters (AC114) is strongly and uniformly suppressed; within the region studied, at most only 10% of the cluster members are H$`\alpha `$-emitters, and their inferred star-formation rate is no more than $`4M_{}`$ yr-1. Similarly, Balogh and Morris (2000) found that only $``$ 12.5% of the members within the virial radius of Abell 2390 ($`z=0.23`$) showed H$`\alpha `$ emission with a rest-frame equivalent width greater than 50 Å, thus arguing that this is consistent with the ‘gradual decline’ model of star formation. Theoretical simulations by Balogh et al. (2000) have also shown that if a galaxy’s star formation undergoes a gradual decline after it has been accreted by a cluster, the observed radial gradients in optical colors and \[$`\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{II}}`$\] emission line strength can be clearly explained. Kodama and Bower (2001) have also demonstrated that the gradual decline of star formation is consistent with the distribution of galaxies in the color-magnitude diagrams for clusters in the range $`0<z<0.4`$. If the gradual decline of star formation is really the most promising scenario for the history of star formation in the cluster environment, a key issue is which physical processes cause such a decline.

The purpose of this letter is to discuss our numerical investigation of how the cluster environment can lead to a gradual decline in the star-formation rate of its constituent members. In particular, our numerical simulations have focused on the disruption, by the global cluster tidal field, of the gas that is accreted onto galaxy disks from a surrounding gaseous halo, and which fuels their star formation — an effect first suggested by Larson, Tinsley, and Caldwell (1980, hereafter LTC). Because the influence of the cluster tidal field is so widespread, this would seem to be a natural mechanism for producing a significant suppression of star formation over large regions of the cluster. Furthermore, because the starvation of disk galaxies of their gas supply is highly germane to the formation of S0 galaxies (see also LTC), we critically examine the cluster tidal truncation scenario in this context.

The plan of this paper is as follows: In the next section we briefly review our model and the numerical techniques and procedures used. The results of our modeling are then presented in section 3. Finally, we discuss our results and draw our conclusions in section 4.

## 2. Model

The replenishment of interstellar gas due to sporadic and/or continuous gas infall and acquisition from external environments (e.g., a gaseous halo) has generally been considered to play a vital role in maintaining star formation within disk galaxies up to the present day (LTC). We have investigated, numerically, the effect which the global tidal field of a rich cluster has on this important gas replenishment process in the case of a disk galaxy that has been accreted by the cluster from the surrounding field.

We have modeled the structure of a cluster using the universal density profile predicted by the standard cold dark-matter cosmogony (Navarro et al. 1996). The total cluster mass, represented by $`M_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, the scale (core) radius ($`r_\mathrm{c}`$), and the virial radius ($`r_\mathrm{v}`$) were taken to be $`2.0\times 10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$, 127 kpc, and 1.16 Mpc, respectively, which are reasonable and realistic values for rich clusters of galaxies such as Coma. The orbit of a disk galaxy accreted onto the cluster was assumed to be influenced by an $`external`$ $`fixed`$ gravitational potential resulting from the above-mentioned cluster structure (i.e., the cluster potential is not “live” and thus not represented by collisionless particles in the present simulations). Here, the disk galaxy was represented by Fall and Efstathiou’s (1980) bulgeless, purely stellar disk model. The initial ratio of the dark matter halo mass to the mass of disk stars was taken to be 4:1. Values of 6.0 $`\times `$ $`10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 17.5 kpc were adopted for the disk mass ($`M_\mathrm{d}`$) and size ($`R_\mathrm{d}`$), respectively. The velocity and time are measured in units of $`V_\mathrm{d}`$ = $`(GM_\mathrm{d}/R_\mathrm{d})^{1/2}`$ (1.21 $`\times `$ $`10^2`$ km s-1) and $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ = $`(R_\mathrm{d}^3/GM_\mathrm{d})^{1/2}`$ (1.41 $`\times `$ $`10^8`$ yr), respectively, where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, which was assumed to be 1.0 in the present study. The exponential disk scale length and the vertical scale height are 3.5 kpc and 500 pc, respectively. The rotation curve became nearly flat at 0.35 radius with the maximum velocity of $`v_\mathrm{m}`$ = 1.8 in our units. We used the density profile of the dark matter halo described by Fall and Efstathiou (1980). In addition to the disk’s rotational velocity, initial radial and azimuthal velocity dispersions are also included in its motion according to the epicyclic theory with Toomre’s stability parameter $`Q`$ (Toomre 1964) set equal to 1.2.

We assumed that the galaxy has a reservoir of halo gas from which gas can be accreted onto the disk. It was assumed that the halo gas was uniformly and spherically distributed with a cut-off radius of $`20R_\mathrm{d}`$ (0.35 Mpc). The halo gas, with a total mass of $`0.1M_\mathrm{d}`$, was represented by particles, each of which rotates around the disk with a rotational velocity, $`V_{\mathrm{hg}}`$, satisfying the relation $`V_{\mathrm{hg}}R_{\mathrm{hg}}`$ = $`V_\mathrm{d}R_\mathrm{d}`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{hg}}`$ is the initial position of each halo particle. By adopting this relation, the specific angular momentum of the halo gas is assumed not to be so remarkably different from that of the disk, accordingly, the halo gas is able to fall onto the stellar disk region in isolated evolution. A halo particle is considered to have been accreted onto the disk if it is within a vertical radius (z) of 500 pc. In our halo reservoir model, the accretion rate for the isolated evolution of the disk was estimated to be of the order of $``$ 1 $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (for $`T>`$ 4 Gyr), which is consistent with the value required for maintaining active star formation in disk galaxies (LTC; Blitz et al. 1999). Although the present numerical results depend on the initial size of the halo reservoir, we describe here only the results of the 20 $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ model, since its behaviour is very typical of the effects that the cluster tidal field has on such halo gas reservoirs. The adopted initial size of the halo reservoir is appreciably smaller than the observationally suggested mean distance ($``$ 1 Mpc from the center of the Galaxy) of the High-Velocity Clouds (HVC) that have been demonstrated to be halo gas reservoirs of the Galaxy (Blitz et al. 1999).

Using this model, we investigated the dynamical evolution of the halo gas reservoir for a variety of different orbits described by the disk galaxy upon its entry into the cluster. We present here the results of three representative models. Figure 1 shows the orbital evolution of the disk with three different initial positions in the cluster. For example, the disk with initial $`x`$ and $`y`$ positions equal to 1.73 and 1.15 Mpc, respectively, passes by its pericenter ($`x`$ = 0.49 and $`y`$ = 0.42 Mpc) at $`T`$ = 2.06 Gyr in orbit 1.

The total number used in the simulations is 10000 for the dark-matter halo of the disk, 12000 for the disk galaxy, and 10000 for the halo gas reservoir. In order to demonstrate more clearly the importance of cluster tidal effects on the halo gas reservoir, we treated the halo particles as collisionless ones. Accordingly, the evolution of the halo ‘gas’ reservoir was determined only by purely gravitational evolution (dissipative effects do not play a role at all in the evolution). Here, the softening length was 1.09 kpc for gravitational interactions between the disk stars, the halo gas components, and the dark matter halo surrounding the disk. We used these three different gravitational softening lengths to investigate how the global tidal field of the cluster affects the local dynamical evolution of the halo gas reservoir in an admittedly self-consistent manner. A direct summation method was used in a force calculation on a GPAPE board (Sugimoto et al. 1990). The energy and angular momentum were conserved within 1% accuracy in a test collisionless GRAPE simulation of an isolated disk model without halo-gas replenishment.

## 3. Results

As is shown in figure 2, tidal effect of the cluster has a strong dynamical impact on the halo gas reservoir of the disk, and consequently greatly changes the mass distribution of the reservoir. As the disk enters the cluster region ($`T=1.70`$ Gyr), the halo gas begins to be distorted owing to the tidal field of the cluster. After the galaxy passes the pericenter (640 kpc corresponding to $`5r_\mathrm{c}`$) of the orbit ($`T=2.23`$ Gyr), the cluster’s global gravitational field dramatically transforms the initially spherical halo into a rather elongated bar-like structure ($`T=2.83`$ Gyr). As the disk leaves the inner region of the cluster ($`T=3.95`$ Gyr), the gas reservoir is completely destroyed and dispersed into the intra-cluster regions so that the mean gas density of the halo becomes rather low compared with the initial value. These results demonstrate that the outer halo gas reservoir, which is critically important for continuously supplying fresh gas to the disk, is fragile and thus susceptible to the tidal field of the cluster. We thus confirm here that stripping of the halo gas reservoir is an important physical effect in cluster environments.

As a natural result of this, the accretion rate of halo gas onto the disk is considerably reduced, both for $`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ and for $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$$`R`$ $`<`$ 2$`R_\mathrm{d}`$ (see figure 3). When the galaxy passes the pericenter ($``$ 640 kpc) at $`T=2.23`$ Gyr, the accretion rate is essentially truncated, particularly, for $`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$. The mean accretion rate for $`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ is 0.16 $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`T2.23`$ Gyr and 0.42 $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`T>2.23`$ Gyr in the isolated disk model. On the other hand, it is 0.05 $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`T2.23`$ Gyr and $``$ 0 $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`T>2.23`$ Gyr in the galaxy with orbit 1. Although the galaxy does not pass through the cluster core region ($`R`$ $`<`$ $`r_\mathrm{c}`$), the accretion rate is drastically reduced. The derived effect is very different from other physical effects thought to operate in clusters, such as ram pressure stripping (Dressler, Gunn 1983; Farouki, Shapiro 1980; Abadi et al. 1999) and the tidal effects of cluster cores (Byrd, Valtonen 1990). Here, the latter two effects are important only for galaxies passing through the cluster core. This is in contrast to the results obtained here, which show that even if disk galaxies are well outside the central region (even outside the virial radius), star formation in disk galaxies is greatly suppressed due to tidal truncation of the gas-replenishment process.

Figure 4 demonstrates that irrespective of the orbit that the disk galaxy takes through the cluster, the total mass accreted onto the disk is drastically decreased owing to tidal stripping of the halo gas. The ratio of accreted mass in the cluster model to that in the isolated one is estimated to be typically 0.07 (0.20) for $`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ ($`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$ $`R`$ $`<`$ $`2R_\mathrm{d}`$). These results imply that as a result of these disk galaxies being ‘starved’ of their gas supply once they are accreted by the cluster, their star formation will be substantially curtailed within a few Gyr, and remain so irrespective of their location within the cluster. Furthermore, figure 4 combined with figure 2 suggests that even if a galaxy is observed to be well outside the virial radius of a cluster, it can show a rather small star-formation rate owing to this abrupt truncation of its gas supply. Gas mass accretion is found to be strongly suppressed not only for the inner-disk regions ($`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$), but also for the outer ones ($`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$ $`R`$ $`<`$ $`2R_\mathrm{d}`$; see figure 4), which means that the size of the disk does not grow after the disk enters the cluster environment. If we consider that truncation of gas replenishment can also transform late-type disk galaxies into S0s (LTC), the present results suggest that the typical disk size of S0s is appreciably smaller than that of field disk galaxies because of truncation of gas infall onto the outer parts of their disks.

## 4. Discussion

We have demonstrated that the global tidal field of a cluster can greatly reduce the halo gas-accretion rate in a disk galaxy accreted by the cluster. The implication of this is that the disk rapidly consumes (typically in a few Gyr; LTC) the remaining gas and, as a result, shows a subsequent decline in star formation after this event. Thus, our numerical results have firstly confirmed the earlier suggestion by LTC that the star-formation can be significantly influenced by tidal effects in clusters. It is reasonable to say that star formation rate on a disk with truncation of star formation gradually declines after the tuncation owing to no gas replenishment from the halo region.

Cluster tidal fields were previously suggested to drive dramatic morphological transformations of galaxies (Byrd, Valtonen 1990; Moore et al. 1996) and to induce rapid gas consumption of $`disk`$ gas (Bekki 1998b). The ‘long-term’ and less drastic effects of cluster tidal fields on $`halo`$ gas derived in this study are in striking contrast to those other ‘short-term’ and rather dramatic effects. In combination, however, they play a vital role in both triggering transient enhancements in the star-formation rate and in reducing the mean star-formation rate in galaxies over a few Gyr.

Tidal effects between galaxies (Moore et al. 1996) and ram pressure stripping of halo gas (Bekki et al. in preparation), both of which were not modelled in the present study at all, are also suggested to efficiently remove the halo gas reservoirs surrounding disk galaxies in clusters. We, accordingly, suggest that the present study, investigating $`only`$ cluster tidal fields, gives only a partial account of how the cluster environment truncates gas replenishment, which leads to a substantial reduction in the rate of star formation within its galaxies.

Abrupt truncation of gas replenishment from halo regions in disks is suggested to transform gas-rich spiral galaxies into S0s (LTC). If this truncation is a dominant mechanism for S0 formation, the present study would provide the following three implications concerning the nature of S0 galaxies in clusters. Firstly, the color gradients within S0s can be appreciably shallower than those in disk galaxies, if metallicity gradients within the disk are their main cause. The radial dependence of chemical evolution driven mainly by star formation is considered to be responsible for the metallicity gradients within disk galaxies (e.g., de Jong 1996). Accordingly, if truncation of gas infall onto a disk galaxy strongly suppresses the star formation, and thus the chemical evolution, the galaxy should show smaller color (metallicity) gradients after its transformation into an S0. Secondly, the disk size could be smaller for an S0 that has been transformed from a disk galaxy after its accretion by the cluster at an earlier epoch (or higher redshift). The present numerical simulations demonstrate that gas infall onto the outer part of a disk ($`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$ $`R`$ $`<`$ $`2R_\mathrm{d}`$) is strongly suppressed, and thus any growth in disk size is prevented. Consequently, the disk size of an S0 would be determined by the epoch when the progenitor spiral galaxy was accreted by the cluster. Therefore, the disk size is smaller for an S0 formed (by truncation) at higher redshift, if the higher redshift spiral galaxies have smaller disks. Thirdly, S0s can be formed by the gas-truncation process even in low-density regions of clusters. This is consistent with the recent observational evidence of Fasano et al. (2000) that the transformation of spirals into S0s must have occurred efficiently even in low-density regions in intermediate redshift clusters.

Finally, we stress that S0s formed by the above $`gradual`$ transformation, and which do not involve any ‘starburst’, would have suffered a different fate to those that have been formed by the type of tidal interaction described by Byrd and Valtonen (1990), the galaxy ‘harrassment’ process described by Moore et al. (1996), and unequal-mass merging (e.g., Bekki 1998a), all of which inevitably trigger strong nuclear starbursts and a dramatic morphological change within only several dynamical time scales. The stellar populations in the central bulge components can be different between S0s formed by the ‘gradual’ truncation and those by interaction/merging. In particular, the bulges of S0s formed by the former process will have redder optical colors and weaker Balmer absorption lines than those formed via the latter process. Future imaging/spectroscopy at high resolution will be of much interest in discreminating between these two different evolutionary scenarios.

Y. S. thanks the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowships for Young Scientist.

## References

Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947

Abraham, R. G., Smecker-Hane, T.-A., Huchings, J. B., Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., Morris, S., Oke, J. B., & Rigler, M. 1996, ApJ, 471, 694

Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1997, APJ, 488, L75

Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, (astro-ph/0004078)

Balogh, M. L., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0007111)

Barger, A. J., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Ellis, R. S., Couch, W. J., Smail, I., & Sharples, R. M. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1

Bekki, K. 1998a, ApJ, 502, L133

Bekki, K. 1998b, ApJ, 510, L15

Bekki, K. Couch, W. J., Shioya, Y. 2000, in preparation

Blitz, L., Spergel, D. N., Teuben, P. J., Hartmann, D., & Burton, W. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 818

Byrd, G., & Valtonen, M., 1990, ApJ, 350, 89

Couch, W. J., & Sharples, R. M., 1987, MNRAS, 229, 423

Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., Sharples, R. M., & Smail, I. 1994, ApJ, 430, 121

Couch, W. J., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Smail, I., Glazebrook, K., & Taylor, M. 2000, ApJ , submitted

de Jong, R. S. 1996, A&A, 313, 377

Dressler, A., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 270, 7

Dressler, A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 577

Dressler, A., Smail, I., Poggianti, B. M., Butcher, H., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., & Oemler, A., Jr. 1999, ApJS, 122, 51

Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189

Fasano, G., Poggianti, B. M., Couch, W. J., Bettoni, D., Kjaergaad, P., & Mariano, M. 2000, preprint (astro-ph/0008195)

Farouki, R., & Shapiro, S. L. 1980, ApJ, 241, 928

Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ARAA, 36, 189

Kodama, T., & Bower, R. G., 2001, MNRAS, in press

Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692 (LTC)

Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A., Jr. 1996, ApJ, 379, 613

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Newberry, M. V., Boroson, T. A., Kirshner, R. P., 1990, ApJ, 350, 585

Poggianti, B. M., & Wu, H. 2000, ApJ, 529, 157

Poggianti, B. M., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W. J., Barger, J., Butcher, H., Ellis, R. S., & Oemler, A., Jr. 1999, ApJ, 518, 576

Smail, I., Morrison, G., Gray, M. E., Owen, F. N., Ivison, R. J., Kneib, J.-P., & Ellis, R. S. 1999, ApJ, 525, 609

Sugimoto, D., Chikada, Y., Makino, J., Ito, T., Ebisuzaki, T., & Umemura, M. 1990, Nature, 345, 33

Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1.

Orbital evolution of a disk galaxy accreted onto a cluster with the mass of 2 $`\times `$ $`10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$ for three differnt initial positions of the galaxy. The projected initial $`x`$ and $`y`$ positions are 1.73 Mpc (corresponding to 1.5 $`r_\mathrm{v}`$ where $`r_\mathrm{v}`$ is the virial radius of the cluster) and 1.16 Mpc ($`r_\mathrm{v}`$), respectively, for orbit 1, 1.73 Mpc and 0.64 Mpc (5 $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ where $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is the cluster core radius) for orbit 2, and 1.73 Mpc and 0.13 Mpc ($`r_\mathrm{c}`$) for orbit 3. The initial velocity of the disk is $`8.6`$ $`\times `$ $`10^2`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the $`x`$ direction and 0 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ for $`y`$ in all three models. Several positions of the disk are indicated by crosses along each of the three orbits for $`T`$ = 1.70, 2.23, 2.83, 3.95, and 5.66 Gyr. The small and large dotted circles represent the core (or scale) radius and the virial radius, respectively. The frame measures 7.7 Mpc on a side.

Fig. 2.

Mass distribution of halo gas at each time ($`T`$) projected onto the $`x`$$`y`$ plane for the disk galaxy that follows orbit 1. Each frame measures 1.75 Mpc on a side. Here, the center of mass of the halo gas is located at ($`x`$,$`y`$) = (0,0) for all time-steps, so that the transformation of the halo gas reservoir can be more clearly seen. Note that the cluster tidal field can completely destroy the disk’s halo gas reservoir and, consequently, strip the gas from the disk.

Fig. 3.

Time evolution of gas accretion rates (in units of $`M_{}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$) onto the region with $`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ (upper) and onto that with $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$ $`R`$ $`<`$ $`2R_\mathrm{d}`$ for an isolated disk (represented by the dotted line) and the disk which passes through the cluster on orbit 1 (a solid line). Note that at $`T`$ $`>`$ 2.5 Gyr, the gas accretion is abruptly truncated.

Fig. 4.

Time evolution of the total gas mass accreted onto the inner disk region ($`R`$ $``$ $`R_\mathrm{d}`$; upper panel) and that with $`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`<`$ $`R`$ $`<`$ $`2R_\mathrm{d}`$ (lower panel) for our three different orbit models (1,2,3). Here, the mass is given in our units ($`M_\mathrm{d}`$ corresponding to 6.0 $`\times `$ $`10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$). For a comparison, the results of the isolated disk model are also given (see solid lines). The results of the models for orbits 1, 2, and 3 are represented by the dotted, short-dashed, and long-dashed lines, respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Versus the standard model’s (SM) $`tW^+b`$ decay helicity amplitudes, three numerical puzzles occur at the $`0.1\%`$ level when one considers the amplitudes in the case of an additional $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(f_M+f_E)\mathrm{"}`$ coupling of relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+53GeV`$ . The puzzles are theoretical ones which involve the $`tW^+b`$ decay helicity amplitudes in the two cases, the relative strength of the additional $`(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling, and the observed masses of these three particles (see discussion at end of this Section). While the observed mass-values of the top-quark, W-boson, and b-quark are involved here, it is not a matter of presently available empirical data disagreeing with a SM prediction. The puzzles arose in a search for empirical ambiguities between the standard model’s $`(VA)`$ coupling and possible single additional Lorentz couplings that could occur in the ongoing  and forthcoming  top-quark decay experiments at hadron and $`l^{}l^+`$ colliders.

In this paper we report analytic realizations of these three numerical puzzles. There are four types of analytical relations which are listed below as (i)-(iv) in Section 2.

For $`tW^+b`$, the most general Lorentz coupling is $`W_\mu ^{}J_{\overline{b}t}^\mu =W_\mu ^{}\overline{u}_b\left(p\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu u_t\left(k\right)`$ where $`k_t=q_W+p_b`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu =g_V\gamma ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{f_M}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(kp)_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_S^{}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(kp)^\mu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_S}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(k+p)^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_{T^+}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(k+p)_\nu `$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\mu =g_A\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5+{\displaystyle \frac{f_E}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(kp)_\nu \gamma _5+{\displaystyle \frac{g_P^{}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(kp)^\mu \gamma _5`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_P}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(k+p)^\mu \gamma _5+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{T_5^+}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(k+p)_\nu \gamma _5`$ (2)
For a most general treatment of additional Lorentz structures to pure $`VA`$, the $`g_i`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ must be considered as complex phenomenological parameters.

To avoid confusion, two notational details should be noted in our usage of Eqs. (1,2) in this paper: First, we will more often use chiral combinations of the couplings which are defined by $`g_{L,R}g_Vg_A,`$ $`g_\pm g_{f_M\pm f_E}f_M\pm f_E`$, $`g_{S\pm P}=g_S\pm g_P,\mathrm{}`$ (for others see appendix). Second, to avoid cumbersome notation and verbiage, we find it very convenient to suppress the analogous subscript on the effective mass-scales, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. For example, in (1) a reader might choose to write $`\frac{f_M}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ as $`\frac{f_M}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_M}`$. However, a smarter reader would realize that in the analysis in this paper for each $`i`$ value only the ratio of $`g_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ ever occurs so one could just omit the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ by completely absorbing it into its $`g_i`$. Nevertheless, we proceed a little differently: we use the unsubscripted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s in (1,2) which does keep track of the mass-dimensions and then we subscript them when we must. For instance, whenever we use “$`g_L=1`$ units with $`g_i=1`$”, we do move the corresponding subscript from the $`g_i`$ to its $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. In essence, this is but a slight variation on the smarter reader’s procedure but one which, we believe, is worthwhile in this paper. For present purposes, referring to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ scale in “$`g_L=1`$ units with $`g_i=1`$” is a simple way to characterize the size and sign of the additional effective $`\frac{g_i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}`$ coupling. \[ When a fundamental theory leads to a specific coupling in (1,2), both $`f_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, and not just their ratio, would normally be independently defined and observable. In general, one would then not want to omit either such quantity nor any such subscripts! A more fundamental or more general realization of electroweak symmetry in the context of the SM might also yield deviations from $`g_L=1,g_i=0`$ limit but we do not consider that possibility here. \]

As discussed in greater detail in the earliest paper in , the various couplings in (1,2) are not Lorentz independent. In particular, to obtain the identical $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes as for the pure $`VA`$ coupling of the SM, there is a dominant scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{S+P}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_M+f_E}\frac{m_t}{2}=87GeV`$ and there is a negligible (for $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes) scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SP}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_Mf_E}\frac{(m_t)^2}{2m_b}=3,400GeV`$. These scales are, of course, not to be confused with those for the 2 “dynamical phase-type ambiguities”  discussed below in this Section in association with Table 1; the “ambiguity scale” for the additional Lorentz structure is respectively $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{S+P}35GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_M+f_E}53GeV`$.

These various coupling scales can be compared with the SM’s EW scale $`v_{EW}=\sqrt{\mu ^2/|\lambda |}=\sqrt{2}0|\varphi |0246GeV`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the Higgs field. These scales can also be compared with the “few TeV” cut-off scale needed to control the one-loop quadratic-divergent radiative corrections which arise in the Higgs mass renormalization in the SM; this “few TeV” scale thereby occurs in the SUSY and technicolor generalizations of the SM.

In the $`t`$ rest frame, the matrix element for $`tW^+b`$ is

$$\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t,\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b|\frac{1}{2},\lambda _1=D_{\lambda _1,\mu }^{(1/2)}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)$$
(3)
where $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b`$ in terms of the $`W^+`$ and $`b`$-quark helicities. The helicity amplitudes, $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$, corresponding to the couplings in (1) and (2) are listed in the Appendix. We will denote respectively the “Standard Model’s” and the “$`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$” coupling’s amplitudes by an (SM) and (+) subscript.

In (3), the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. The final $`W^+`$ momentum is in the $`\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t`$ direction and the $`b`$-quark momentum is in the opposite direction. $`\lambda _1`$ gives the $`t`$-quark’s spin component quantized along the $`z`$ axis. $`\lambda _1`$ is also the helicity of the $`t`$-quark if one has boosted, along the “$`z`$” direction, back to the $`t`$ rest frame from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ frame. It is this boost which defines the $`z`$ axis in the $`t`$-quark rest frame for angular analysis .

To be able to quantitatively assess future measurements of competing observables in $`tW^+b`$ decay, we considered in  the $`g_{VA}`$ coupling values of helicity decay parameters versus those for “ $`(VA)`$ $`+`$ single additional Lorentz structures.” Versus the SM’s dominant L-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes, there are 2 dynamical phase-type ambiguities produced respectively by an additional $`(S+P)`$ and by an additional $`(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling, see the $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ columns of Table 1. For a reader interested in more details about this table, we note that in the earliest reference in , this same table is discussed at length in association with another table with the corresponding consequences for the observable helicity parameters for $`tW^+b`$ decay in the cases that the observed top-quark is coupled respectively by “$`(VA)+(S+P)`$” and “$`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$”. By tuning the effective-mass-scale associated with the additional coupling constant, the additional $`(S+P)`$ coupling, $`(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling, has respectively changed the sign of the $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})`$, $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ amplitude. In $`g_L=g_{S+P}=g_+=1`$ units, the respective effective-mass scales are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{S+P}35GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_M+f_E}53GeV`$. The occurrence of these two ambiguities is not surprising because these 3 chiral combinations only contribute to the L-handed b-quark amplitudes as $`m_b0`$. However, associated with the latter $`(f_M+f_E)`$ ambiguity, 3 very interesting numerical puzzles arose at the $`0.1\%`$ level in the “(+)” amplitudes versus the SM’s pure $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(VA)\mathrm{"}`$ amplitudes, see Table 1 :

The 1st puzzle is that the $`A_+(0,1/2)`$ amplitude for $`g_L+g_{f_M+f_E}`$ has the same value in $`g_L=1`$ units, as the $`A_{SM}(1,1/2)`$ amplitude in the SM; see the corresponding two “220” entries in the top of Table 1. From the empirical t-quark and W-boson mass values , the mass ratio $`y=\frac{m_W}{m_t}=0.461\pm 0.014`$. This can be compared with the puzzle’s associated mass relation

$`1\sqrt{2}yy^2\sqrt{2}y^3=x^2({\displaystyle \frac{2}{1y^2}}\sqrt{2}y)x^4({\displaystyle \frac{13y^2}{(1y^2)^3}})+\mathrm{}`$
$`=1.89x^20.748x^4+\mathrm{}`$
which follows by expanding the $`A_+(0,1/2)`$ amplitude, given in the appendix, in the mass ratio $`x^2=(m_b/m_t)^2`$. Before expanding, to express the $`A_+(0,1/2)`$ amplitude in the mass ratios $`x`$ and $`y`$, the relative strength of the additional “$`(f_M+f_E)`$” coupling is specified by substituting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2=\frac{m_t}{4}[1+y^2x^2]`$ in $`g_L=g_+=1`$ units \[ see discussions following (8) and (9) below \]. Since empirically $`x^2710^4`$, there is only a 4th significant-figure correction from the finite b-quark mass to the only real-valued solution $`y=0.46006`$ ($`m_b=0`$) of this mass relation. Note versus theoretical interpretation of this mass relation that $`x^2`$ is very small and not of order one. \[ The $`0.1\%`$ level of agreement of the two “220” entries of Table 1 is due to the present central value of $`m_t`$, and to the central value and $`0.05\%`$ precision of $`m_W`$. The error in the empirical value of the mass ratio $`y`$ is dominated by the current $`3\%`$ precision of $`m_t`$. \]

The 2nd and 3rd numerical puzzles are the occurrence of the same magnitudes of the two R-handed b-quark amplitudes $`A_{New}=A_{g_L=1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ for the SM and for the case of $`(g_L+g_{f_M+f_E})`$. This is shown in the $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ columns in the bottom half of Table 1. Except for the differing partial width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=0.66GeV`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}=1.55GeV`$, by tuning the magnitude of L-handed amplitude ratio to that of the SM, we found that the R-handed amplitude’s moduli became those of the SM to the $`0.1\%`$ level. \[As explained below following (8), for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$ the magnitudes of these two R-handed moduli are actually exactly equal and not merely numerically equal to the $`0.1\%`$ level.\]

Notice that due to the additional $`f_M+f_E`$ coupling, it is the $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b=1/2`$ helicity amplitudes $`A_{New}`$ which get an overall sign change.

## 2 Four types of analytic relations

The first three of the four analytical relations, (i)-(iv) below, are a deeper realization of the just discussed 2nd and 3rd numerical puzzles: The first type of relation is (i):

$$\frac{A_i(0,1/2)}{A_i(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_i(1,1/2)}{A_i(0,1/2)}$$
(4)
This holds separately for $`i=`$(SM), (+). (i) relates the two amplitudes which change or “flip” sign, i.e. the amplitudes with $`\mu =\lambda _W\lambda _b=1/2`$, to the two amplitudes which do not in the case of the 3 numerical puzzles. The second type of relation is (ii):

$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}$$
(5)
Notice that this relation relates the $`tW^+b`$ amplitudes in the two cases, (SM) and (+). (ii) is for the sign-flip amplitudes, c.f. Table 1, but the analogous relation holds for the non-sign-flip amplitudes. \[This non-sign-flip relation is not independent of (i) and (ii); it follows by simply substituting (4) with respectively $`i=`$(+), (SM) on each side of (5).\]

These 3 equations, the two in (4) and one in (5), occur to all orders in the $`y`$ and $`x`$ mass ratios. (5) and the (+) one in (4) are also independent of the effective-mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$. This independence with respect to specific values of $`x,y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is an analytic generalization of the numerical agreement discussed in Section 1. Due to (ii), the two equations in (i) imply but are stronger than simply an independent equality of the ratios of the (SM) and (+) amplitudes which do/do-not change sign, i.e. the existence of 3 equations is also a stronger result than is apparent from only the 2nd and 3rd numerical puzzles.

On the other hand, the two equations in (i) can be rewritten to relate the ratios of left-handed and right-handed amplitudes for each coupling, that is

$$\frac{A_i(0,1/2)}{A_i(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_i(1,1/2)}{A_i(0,1/2)}$$
(6)
for $`i=`$(SM), (+). Consequently, by determining the effective mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(m_W/m_t,m_b/m_t)`$ so that there is an exact equality for the ratio of left-handed amplitudes (iii):

$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)},$$
(7)
the normalized $`A_{New}=A_{g_L=1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ amplitudes for the SM and for the case of a $`(g_L+g_{f_M+f_E})`$ coupling are all exactly equal in magnitude to all orders in $`y`$ and $`x`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+53GeV`$. From (7), in $`g_L=g_+=1`$ units, the analytic formula for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\frac{m_t}{4}[1+(m_W/m_t)^2(m_b/m_t)^2]$$
(8)
or equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$ where $`E_W`$ is the energy of the final W-boson in the t-rest frame. Eq.(7) is the third type of relation; it requires (8) to hold whereas (i) and (ii) do not.

Therefore, due to (i) and (ii), relation (iii) implies an S-matrix probability condition that the $`A_{New}=A_{g_L=1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ amplitudes are exactly equal in magnitude between the SM and (+) case, to all orders in the two mass ratios. Only the actual value of this new EW scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+53GeV`$ depends on the empirical values of $`m_W/m_t`$, $`m_t`$, and the fact that the $`m_b/m_t`$ ratio is small. This S-matrix “locking mechanism” for arbitrary $`x`$ and $`y`$, as described by relations (i) thru (iii), supports the simple interpretation that the 2nd and 3rd numerical puzzles arise due to a large chiral weak-moment of the top quark. Although a large chiral weak-moment, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/253GeV`$, changes the $`t_R`$ to $`b_L`$ transition amplitude, it does not drastically effect the $`SU(2)_L`$ X $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge structure. With present knowledge, it is also less radical to consider an unexpected intrinsic property of the top-quark itself, i.e. an anomalous “moment”, instead of a tree-level occurrence of an additional EW coupling.

The SM is a theory, being renormalizable and unitary. In such a framework, an anomalous moment coupling implies other new physics, e.g. new particle production, at an effective mass scale of $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+106GeV`$. Unfortunately in regard to detailed predictions, such models are rather non-unique in regard to the particle multiplets and their associated couplings; they are also complex and complicated in regard to a satisfactory treatment of higher order effects. Here the additional R-chirality t-quark weak coupling could be problematic given (i) the successful agreements of the SM through the one-loop level versus EW observables and (ii) the SM’s self-consistency of 3 point-like fermion families; however, due to possible form-factor effects there need not be any inconsistencies. When there is additional empirical information on $`tW^+b`$ and if , for instance, a deeper exact symmetry were found which yields the tWb-transformation, see (10) below, this should expedite development of a theory with a top-quark with a large chiral weak-moment.

The final type of relation is simply the first numerical puzzle, i.e. the equality (iv):

$$A_+(0,1/2)=A_{SM}(1,1/2),$$
(9)
It is important to note that (9) assumes that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$. The numerical agreement of the two sides of (9) and the empirical agreement of the associated mass relation discussed in Section 1 depend on the empirical value of the mass ratio $`m_W/m_t`$, on having set the relative coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$, and on $`m_b/m_t<<m_W/m_t`$.

The top-quark mass is the most accurately measured quark mass. It is the measured values of the $`W`$-boson and top-quark masses that make this (iv) relation something that is not understood. If the measured value of $`m_W/m_t`$ were different, (iv) would not hold. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is not set equal to $`E_W/253GeV`$, (iv) would not hold. Therefore, relations (i) thru (iii) lead to the possibility of (iv) and its equivalent realizations holding for the current values of $`m_W/m_t`$ and $`m_b/m_t`$ with their present precisions .

It is not obvious whether (iv) is an exact or approximate relation and, unfortunately, the empirical masses will not be better known for some time. The equality (iv) is equivalent to $`\sqrt{2}=\frac{q_W}{E_W}\left(\frac{E_W+q_W}{m_W}\right)`$ . Thus, (iv) is also equivalent to the velocity formula $`\sqrt{2}=v\gamma (1+v)=v\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}}`$, where $`v`$ is the velocity of the W-boson in the t-rest frame, so by this cubic equation $`v=0.6506\mathrm{}`$ without input of a specific value for $`m_b`$. Other $`Q_{em}=\frac{1}{3}`$ quark decay modes are predicted by the standard model and the observed W-boson velocity must vary with different flavor $`Q_{em}=\frac{1}{3}`$ quark mass values, so $`v=0.6506\mathrm{}`$ is presumably modified by higher order corrections depending on the $`Q_{em}=\frac{1}{3}`$ quark mass. In the context of these four analytic relations, we think that the relation of $`v`$ and $`m_{Q_{em}=\frac{1}{3}}`$ is a very important, fundamental open issue that has become manifest by this equivalent realization of (iv). To empirically investigate (iv), a measurement of $`v`$ at a $`l^{}l^+`$ collider near the $`t\overline{t}`$-threshold might eventually be better than using the empirical mass ratio $`y=\frac{m_W}{m_t}`$. \[ In the $`m_b=0`$ limit, the formula $`v=\sqrt{2}\frac{m_W}{m_t}c`$ transforms this cubic equation into the mass relation listed in Sec. 1 and inversely; in this formula the speed of light has not been set equal to 1. \]

In summary, the four analytic-type relations can be characterized by a tWb-transformation $`A_+=M`$ $`A_{SM}`$ where $`M=v`$ $`diag(1,1,1,1)`$ due to (i) thru (iii), and where

$`A_{SM}=[A(0,1/2),A(1,1/2),A(0,1/2),A(1,1/2)]`$
$`=\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v}},\sqrt{2},{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{E_b+q_W}}),\sqrt{2}({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{E_b+q_W}})]`$ (10)
with $`v`$ the real root of $`\sqrt{2}=v\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}}`$ due to relation (iv). In (10), (iv) has been used for the two components involving the longitudinal component of the W. It is not clear whether there is a dynamical mechanism and/or a mathematical-symmetry origin for such a tWb-transformation.

## 3 Remarks

Unfortunately, model-dependent interpretations and assumptions are needed to relate the above analytic realizations to the observed $`t\overline{t}`$ production . Experimental tests and measurements at the Tevatron  and LHC  should be able to clarify situation, for instance by excluding simple phenomenological possibilities. Here in (1) and (2) we discuss two simple models:

(1) As the simplest assumption, the top-quarks $`t`$ described by the SM weak decay amplitude and those $`T`$ described by the (+) weak decay amplitude are presumed identical except for their differing chiral weak-moments. Since (i) nothing sufficiently fundamental appears to forbid that the observed top is more than one top-like object and since (ii) the explanation of the first numerical puzzle (9) might be dynamical, it is important to perform simple tests so as to empirically constrain such a possibility from $`t\overline{t}`$ hadroproduction. In regard to the model we now construct, these are our motivations; it is not a matter of any presently available empirical data on $`t\overline{t}`$ hadroproduction disagreeing with a SM prediction. The $`t\overline{t}`$ cross-section has a $`25\%`$ precision from Run I at the Tevatron which is expected to be reduced to $`10\%`$ in Run IIa . Our limited objective is to make a simple model to investigate how one can empirically restrict the possibility that in hadroproduction the observed top-quark is a linear combination of $`t`$ and $`T`$, specifically $`t_{obs}=c_tt+c_TT`$ where $`c_{t,T}`$ are unknown complex coefficients. The observed anti-top-quark is $`\overline{t}_{obs}=c_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{t}+c_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}`$ and the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. We also assume that production of $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`T\overline{T}`$ combinations occur and quantum-mechanically interfere in hadroproduction, but that the production of $`t\overline{T}`$ and $`T\overline{t}`$ combinations is forbidden. Note that for this model to be viable, simultaneous non-zero values of both $`|c_{t,T}|^2`$ are required. Given continued agreement of QCD with more precise hadroproduction data, the viability of this model will require that neither $`t`$ nor $`T`$ couple with full QCD strength. This might occur due to possible form-factor effects. Alternative and/or more detailed models of this type could, of course, be constructed.

Tests of this model are possible because the (+) types, $`T`$, would occur with a longer lifetime and because there are simple differences in stage-two spin-correlation functions: If for simplicity only $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes are considered, then for the general angular distribution in the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ frame, i.e. in Eq.(62) of , the product of decay density matrices $`R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}(tW^+b\mathrm{})\overline{R_{\lambda _2\lambda _2^{^{}}}}(\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}\mathrm{})`$ for the top and anti-top is to be replaced according to

$`R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}\overline{R_{\lambda _2\lambda _2^{^{}}}}`$ $``$ $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}+I\overline{I}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }](|c_t|^2+v^2|c_T|^2)^2`$ (11)
$`+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}](|c_t|^2v^2|c_T|^2)^2`$
$`+[I\mathrm{cos}\theta (\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T})+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T)\overline{I}\mathrm{cos}\overline{\theta }](|c_t|^4v^4|c_T|^4)`$
This equation is a compact, schematic display of the terms arising from the, now four, composite decay density matrices $`R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}\mathrm{}`$ per

$$R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}+I_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not depend on W longitudinal/transverse interference ( the helicity parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\sigma =\zeta `$ in the case of non-coexistence) and $`I`$ depends on W longitudinal/transverse interference ( the $`\eta _L`$ helicity parameter in the case of non-coexistence). The term “schematic” means, for instance, that the angle $`\theta `$ in (12) represents the angles/momenta specifying $`W^+b\mathrm{}`$ which can be used for separating the $`I`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ terms in $`R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}`$, c.f. . The helicity parameters of  were normalized by the partial width assuming a single kind of t-quark whereas in (11) the overall normalization includes a factor $`(|c_t|^2+v^2|c_T|^2)^2`$. From (11), measurement of both this factor and, e.g., the ratio $`(|c_t|^2v^2|c_T|^2)^2/(|c_t|^2+v^2|c_T|^2)^2`$ can be used to constrain the possibility of simultaneous non-zero values of $`|c_{t,T}|^2`$. By (11), it is evident that a W longitudinal/interference measurement is not needed, i.e. the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}`$ terms are sufficient. If indirect signatures for such a model were to be found, it would obviously then be desirable to perform a direct lifetime experiment to confirm and better investigate the empirical phenomena. It is to be emphasized that (11) is model dependent regarding non-$`W^+b`$-channel interactions of the $`t,T`$. In single top-production  by W-gluon fusion, the unknown $`|c_{t,T}|^2`$ factors do not occur, and both $`t`$ and $`T`$ would be produced by their respective weak current couplings, per (1) and (2).

(2) Fortunately, in the simpler non-coexistence case where either $`t`$ or $`T`$ is the observed top-quark, a sufficiently precise measurement of the sign of the $`\eta _L\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{cos}\beta _L`$ helicity parameter will determine the sign of $`cos\beta _L`$ where $`\beta _L=\varphi _1^L\varphi _0^L`$ is the relative phase of the two $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$-amplitudes, $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)=|A|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{\lambda _{W^+}}^{L,R})`$. Measurement of the sign of $`\eta _L=\pm 0.46`$(SM/+) due to the large interference between the W longitudinal/transverse amplitudes could exclude such a large chiral weak-moment. Second, measurement of the closely associated $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{sin}\beta _L`$ helicity parameter would provide useful complementary information, c.f. second paper in . In the absence of $`T_{FS}`$-violation, $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=0`$. The possibility of $`CP`$ violation effects in top-quark physics is reviewed in . In the case of the SM’s top-quark, next-to-leading order QCD corrections to top-quark spin correlations at hadron colliders have been recently calculated in .

By single top-quark production  at a hadron collider the partial width for $`tW^+b`$ can be measured and so the $`v^2`$ factor-difference in their associated partial widths can also be used to determine whether the observed top-quark is the SM’s $`t`$ ( with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}=1.55GeV`$ ), or a $`T`$ ( with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=0.66GeV`$). More generally, single top-production at hadron and at linear colliders can provide important information on the Lorentz-structure of the $`tWb`$-vertex . For hadron colliders, the effects of a finite top-quark width in a variety of top-quark production processes have been investigated in .

(3) The observed top-quark may, indeed, turn out as predicted by the standard model. In this case, the empirical significance of the four types of analytic relations is not clear. They might dynamically arise due to a weak-interaction phase-interface, or some other mixed-component quantum phenomena between top-quarks $`t`$ without the large chiral weak-moment and others $`T`$ with such a moment. Such a possibility is indirectly indicated by the fact that all the analytic relations involve both the (SM) and (+) amplitudes and by the appearance in the above analytic realizations of the kinematic variables $`E_W`$ (as the $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ value) and $`v`$, the W-boson velocity in the top rest-frame (e.g. in the tWb-transformation). For the (+) amplitudes, the Lorentz structure of the effective coupling is

$$\gamma ^\mu P_L+\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu P_R$$
(13)
where $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$ and $`v_\nu `$ is the W-boson’s relativistic four-velocity. From this perspective, besides higher precision accelerator-experiment mass measurements, theoretical investigations of mechanisms to produce anomalous weak and/or electromagnetic interaction moments in quantum field theoretic systems and in quantum statistical mechanical systems can be constructive. Such studies could be useful towards (i) unraveling the physical significance of these analytical relations, (ii) indicating relevant non-accelerator and/or accelerator tests, and (iii) relating the mass generation of the top-quark, the W-boson, and the different flavor $`Q_{em}=\frac{1}{3}`$ quarks.

This work was partially supported by U.S. Dept. of Energy Contract No. DE-FG 02-86ER40291.

Appendix: Helicity amplitudes for $`tW^+b`$

In terms of all the coupling constants in (1) and (2), from  the helicity amplitudes defined by (3) and in the Jacob-Wick phase convention are:

For both $`(VA)`$ couplings and for $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$,

$`A(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`g_L{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}g_R{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}`$
$`A(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`g_L\sqrt{2m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}g_R\sqrt{2m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}.`$
and for $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$,

$`A(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`g_L{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}+g_R{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}`$
$`A(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`g_L\sqrt{2m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}+g_R\sqrt{2m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}`$
where $`g_L=g_Vg_A`$, $`g_R=g_V+g_A`$.

For $`(S\pm P)`$ couplings, $`g_{S\pm P}=g_S\pm g_P`$ the additional contributions are

$`A(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=g_{S+P}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}){\displaystyle \frac{2q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t(E_b+q_W)}+g_{SP}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}){\displaystyle \frac{2q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t(E_bq_W)},A(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=0`$
$`A(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=g_{S+P}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}){\displaystyle \frac{2q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t(E_bq_W)}+g_{SP}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}){\displaystyle \frac{2q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t(E_b+q_W)},A(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=0`$
The two types of tensorial couplings, $`g_\pm =f_M\pm f_E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_\pm =g_{T^+}\pm g_{T_5^+}`$, give the additional contributions

$`A(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`g_+({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\pm g_{}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W\pm q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_W\pm q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_+({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_W\pm q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\pm \stackrel{~}{g}_{}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W\pm q_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_W}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`A(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_+({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\pm \sqrt{2}g_{}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_+({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
$`\pm \sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{}({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_t}}\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b\pm q_W\right)}+\sqrt{m_t\left(E_bq_W\right)}\right]`$
The present paper uses the Standard Model’s (SM) and the $`(f_M+f_E)`$’s amplitudes: In $`g_L=g_+=1`$ units and suppressing a common overall factor of $`\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}`$, from the above expressions these helicity amplitudes are with $`y=m_W/m_t`$:

For only the $`(VA)`$ coupling

$`A_{SM}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_t}}`$
$`A_{SM}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}`$
$`A_{SM}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
$`A_{SM}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
and for only the $`(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling

$`A_{f_M+f_E}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})y`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_t}}`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})y\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
From these, the “$`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$” coupling’s amplitudes are obtained by
$`A_+(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)=A_{SM}(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)+A_{f_M+f_E}(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)`$.

Table Captions

Table 1: Numerical values of the helicity amplitudes $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ for the standard model and for the 2 dynamical phase-type ambiguities (with respect to the SM’s dominant $`\lambda _b=1/2`$ amplitudes). The values are listed first in $`g_L=g_{S+P}=g_+=1`$ units, and second as $`A_{new}=A_{g_L=1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. The latter removes the effect of the differing partial width in the $`(f_M+f_E)`$ case. The respective effective-mass scales for these 2 dynamical phase-type ambiguities are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{S+P}35GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f_M+f_E}53GeV`$. \[$`m_t=175GeV,m_W=80.35GeV,m_b=4.5GeV`$ \].


text:
# Empirical constraints on alternative gravity theories from gravitational lensing

## 1 Introduction

The hypothesis that the universe is made up primarily of luminous, baryonic matter and that its dynamics are governed by general relativity (GR) is manifestly incorrect. Measurements of galaxy rotation curves provide the clearest invalidation of the above model, but the dynamics of galaxy clusters and the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation both lead to the same conclusion (as reviewed in e.g. Trimble 1987 or Peebles 1993). An obvious possibility is that the universe contains large amounts of (as-yet undetected) dark matter, and this hypothesis has become part of the standard cosmological model.

The alternative to dark matter is that GR is incorrect on the large scales or low accelerations not subject to direct investigation within the Solar system, and a number of possible alternative gravity theories have been proposed (e.g. Milgrom 1983; Tohline 1983; Beckenstein & Milgrom 1984; Rood 1984; Mannheim & Kazanas 1989; Beckenstein & Sanders 1994). A generic feature of these theories is that the gravitational force of an isolated point-mass is modified to fall off more slowly than Newton’s inverse square law, although the force law must eventually return to the Newtonian form (or steeper), to ensure that the gravitational acceleration caused by an ensemble of masses is bound (e.g. Walker 1994).

In the absence of dark matter the nature of gravity can be inferred from dynamical observations or gravitational lensing. Aside from their tendency to rely on assumptions of equilibrium, dynamical measurements are subject to the more fundamental limitation that the gravitational field can only be probed in regions where there is visible matter. Conversely, gravitational lensing can be used to measure gravitational effects well beyond the visible extent of the deflector(s). If such measurements can be made sufficiently far from the lens, any internal structure can be ignored, and it can be treated as a point-mass. Such ‘simple lensing’ scenarios allow the variation of the deflection angle with impact parameter to be measured directly. Once this function is known a number of other tests are possible: it should have the same form for all simple lenses and it should not depend on the orientation of the deflector. Observations of this nature have the power not only to distinguish between various alternative gravity theories, but also to confirm the existence of dark matter independently.

Mortlock & Turner (2001) use some of these ideas to investigate gravitational lensing in the context of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND; Milgrom 1983), but a more general approach is adopted here. A simple parameterisation of the deflection law of a point-mass (Section 2) is constrained using two simple lensing scenarios: galaxy-galaxy lensing (Section 3) and microlensing (Section 4). These results and the future possibilities are summarised in Section 5.

## 2 Generalised deflection laws

In time it may be possible to invert the available lensing data to give the deflection law of a point-mass in a model-independent fashion, but for the moment a parameterisation is required. This can specified in terms of the reduced bending angle, $`𝜶(𝜽)`$, which relates the angular position of a source, $`𝜷`$, to the angular position of its image(s), $`𝜽`$, via the lens equation, $`𝜷=𝜽+𝜶(𝜽)`$ (e.g. Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992). Given that only ‘simple’ deflectors (i.e. ideally point-masses, but also physically extended lenses, such as galaxies, if the impact parameter is large) are considered here, rotational symmetry can be assumed, and so the vector notation can be omitted without loss of generality.

The deflection law for a point-mass in GR is simply (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992)

$$\alpha (\theta )=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{\theta },$$
(1)
where $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is the Einstein radius of the lens, given by

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4GM}{c^2}\frac{d_{\mathrm{o}s}}{d_{\mathrm{o}d}d_{\mathrm{d}s}}},$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitational constant, $`M`$ is the mass of the deflector, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`d_{\mathrm{o}d}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{o}s}`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{d}s}`$ are the angular diameter distances from observer to deflector, observer to source, and deflector to source, respectively. For a given cosmological model these distance measures are well defined in GR, but it is unclear how they vary with redshift in an alternative theory. Fortunately the results presented here are not strongly dependent on the distance measure used, and so they are calculated assuming a standard Einstein-de Sitter model (with Hubble’s constant taken to be $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1). Nonetheless a more self-consistent formulation should be adopted when a full analysis of this sort becomes feasible.

If GR is incorrect on large scales (or at small accelerations) the deflection law given in equation (1) will also break down, presumably falling off more slowly with $`\theta `$. In order to preserve generality no specific alternative gravity theory is adopted here, and instead a more generic point-mass deflection law is adopted. The parameterisation used is

$$\alpha (\theta )=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{\theta }\left(\frac{\theta _0}{\theta _0+\theta }\right)^{\xi 1},$$
(3)
which matches the Schwarzschild form for $`\theta \theta _0`$, but falls off as $`\alpha (\theta )\theta ^\xi `$ for $`\theta \theta _0`$. Note that the deflection angle actually increases with impact parameter if $`\xi <0`$. In terms of a physical theory, characterised by a scale $`r_0`$ beyond which the physics becomes non-Newtonian, equation (3) suggests the identification $`\theta _0=r_0/d_{\mathrm{o}d}`$. GR (given by $`\xi =1`$) is scale-free, and so $`r_0`$ can take any value; in a non-dark matter theory dynamical measurements of galaxies imply that $`r_010`$ kpc and $`\xi 0`$, although this scale may either vary with mass \[e.g. in MOND $`R_0=(GM/a_0)^{1/2}`$, where $`a_01.2\times 10^{10}`$ m s-2; Milgrom 1983\] or be a fundamental constant of the theory.

From the deflection law defined in equation (3), the tangential shear of an image is given by (cf. Miralda-Escudé et al. 1991; Fischer et al. 2000)

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an}(\theta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\theta )}{\theta }}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{\theta _0\theta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi +1}{2}}\theta +\theta _0\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _0}{\theta _0+\theta }}\right)^\xi .`$
Note that this is half the image polarisation, $`p(\theta )`$, as defined by Brainerd et al. (1996). If $`\theta \theta _0`$ then equation (2) reduces to $`\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an}(\theta )=(\xi +1)/2(\theta _\mathrm{E}/\theta _0)^2(\theta _0/\theta )^{\xi +1}\theta ^{(\xi +1)}`$.

The magnification of an image is given by (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992)

$`\mu (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\theta )}{\theta }}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}\theta }}\right]\right|^1`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2\theta _0(\theta _0+\theta )^\xi }{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2\theta _0^\xi (\theta _0+\theta )\theta ^2\theta _0(\theta +\theta _0)^\xi }}\right|`$
$`\times `$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2\theta _0(\theta _0+\theta )^\xi }{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2\theta _0^\xi (\xi \theta +\theta _0)+\theta ^2\theta _0(\theta +\theta _0)^\xi }}\right|,`$
from equation (3). From this it is also possible to calculate the total magnification of a source, $`\mu _{\mathrm{t}ot}(\beta )`$, by solving the lens equation and then summing the magnifications of the resultant images.

Other observables could be calculated, but the shear of an image and the total magnification of a source are chosen as they relate directly to the quantities observed in measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing (Section 3) and microlensing (Section 4), respectively.

## 3 Galaxy-galaxy lensing

Background galaxies are observed to be tangentially aligned around foreground galaxies due to the latter population’s gravitational lensing effect. The angular dependence of the shear signal is consistent with the hypothesis that galaxies are dominated by approximately isothermal haloes (e.g. Brainerd et al. 1996; Fischer et al. 2000), but could also be explained without recourse to dark matter if the (effective) gravitational force decreases as $`r^1`$ at large distances.

Under the no-dark matter hypothesis galaxy-galaxy lensing is a very clean probe of the deflection law. Further, as such measurements rely on averaging over many background sources, the signal is only appreciable at large angular separations from the foreground deflectors. Thus, in the absence of dark matter, the foreground galaxies can be regarded as simple lenses and, despite the fact that equation (3) does not match their lensing properties at small $`\theta `$, and the available data can be used to constrain the deflection law directly. The most comprehensive galaxy-galaxy lensing observations made to date are those described by Fischer et al. (2000), who used Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) commissioning data to measure the mean shear signal out to $`600`$ arcsec around $`3\times 10^4`$ foreground galaxies. A power law fit of the form

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an}(\theta )=\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an,60}\left(\frac{60\mathrm{a}rcsec}{\theta }\right)^\eta $$
(7)
gave one standard deviation limits of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an,60}=0.0027\pm 0.0005`$ and $`\eta =0.9\pm 0.1`$, although the errors are correlated.

Comparing equations (2) and (7), it is clear that $`\theta _0`$ and $`\xi `$ are directly constrained by these results, provided that $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is known. It is given by integrating over the deflector and source populations (cf. Brainerd et al. 1996) an approach that will be necessary when the full SDSS data-set becomes available. However $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ can usefully be approximated by a fiducial value here as the shear signal (and hence the deflection law) is a simple power law in the regime probed, and so the angular dependence of equation (3) can be factored out of the integrals, which then only give the normalisation. Moreover, the range of angular separations is such that the fitted values of $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ are degenerate, and so the normalisation of the signal cannot place strong limits on the average mass of the foreground galaxies. The local galaxy population is dominated by spirals (e.g. Postman & Geller 1984) and the mean deflector and source redshifts are $`z_\mathrm{d}=0.17`$ and $`z_\mathrm{s}=0.3`$, respectively (Fischer et al. 2000), which imply that $`\theta _\mathrm{E}=1.0\pm 0.1`$ arcsec111The value is slightly larger than the actual Einstein radii of the galaxies due to use of the point-mass lens model, and the large error is a combination of uncertainties in the distance measures and the size of the foreground galaxies..

Using the above value for $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, equation (7) implies the constraints $`\theta _0=3.65\pm 0.08`$ arcsec (which implies that $`r_0=d_{\mathrm{o}d}\theta _0=10\pm 2`$ kpc, assuming $`d_{\mathrm{o}d}=600`$ Mpc) and $`\xi =0.1\pm 0.1`$, results confirmed by an independent likelihood analysis. Several of these fits, along with the Fischer et al. (2000) data, are shown in Fig. 1. Firstly, it is important to note that the data points cover angles much greater than the inferred value of $`\theta _0`$; if this were not the case equation (3) could not be used for the deflection law. As expected, GR (i.e. $`\xi =1`$) cannot explain the signal without recourse to dark matter, but the data are consistent with the MONDian lensing formalism investigated by Qin et al. (1995) and Mortlock & Turner (2001), which predicts $`\xi =0`$. More generally, the concordance between dynamical measurements and these lensing results implies that the relativistic prediction for geodesics (that photons experience twice the deflection of massive particles moving at the speed of light) must also be true in any alternative theory of gravity.

The observations used in the above analysis represent just a few percent of the eventual SDSS data-set, which should allow shear measurements out to several Mpc with uncertainties at about the 5 per cent level. Beyond this scale the signal will be diluted by secondary deflectors along the line-of-sight, although if the shear signal was observed to drop off faster than $`\gamma _{\mathrm{t}an}(\theta )\theta ^1`$ it could indicate the edge of galaxy haloes (in the dark matter paradigm) or a return Newtonian physics (if there is no dark matter).

The SDSS data will also allow the azimuthal symmetry of the mean shear signal (cf. Natarajan & Refregier 2000) to be measured; this provides a means of distinguishing between the two paradigms. A rotationally invariant signal would imply that dark matter haloes are typically spherical (or at least circular in projection), in conflict with most collapse models (e.g. Navarro, Frenk & White 1995, 1996), whereas any measured asymmetry much beyond the visible extent of the foreground galaxies would be difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis they contain no dark matter.

Further, non-dark matter theories, by virtue of their simplicity, are also subject to a number of tests that have no counterpart if there is dark matter. Modulo scaling uncertainties (see Section 2), the point-mass deflection law should always have the same form. In the context of galaxy-galaxy lensing this means that the shear profile should be the same, within statistical uncertainties, around all possible subsets of the foreground galaxy population. For instance, whilst spirals and ellipticals may have slightly different mass-to-light ratios, their deflection laws should have essentially the same form. This principle can also be extended to stellar mass lenses, a possibility explored in Section 4.

## 4 Microlensing

Microlensing of a point-source by a single star provides an unambiguous measurement of the deflection law of a point-mass, but does not necessarily probe regimes in which gravity could be expected to deviate from GR. The family of theories described in Section 2 become non-Newtonian only beyond some scale $`r_0`$, which must be several kpc for galaxies but may or may not vary with the mass of the deflector. If it does not, then an isolated star would behave as a Schwarzschild lens out to several kpc, whereas microlensing measurements are only likely to probe sub-pc impact parameters. However, if $`r_0`$ scales with mass, the deflection law of stars could differ from the standard form as close in as $`0.01`$ pc (e.g., $`r_00.03`$ pc for a Solar mass star in MOND). As shown in Mortlock & Turner (2001), microlensing light-curves in such a theory would have narrower peaks and broader wings (relative to GR), although if this was observed, care would have to be taken to exclude more mundane explanations, such as blending and finite source effects.

Observationally, most efforts to detect microlensing have been concentrated in the local group. Several collaborations (e.g. Afonso et al. 1999; Alcock et al. 2000; see Paczynski 1996 for a summary) have monitored millions of stars in the Magellanic Clouds and the Galactic bulge, and over a hundred events have been recorded. In several cases the deflector appears to be a binary system (e.g. Alcock et al. 2001), but for the vast majority the approximation that the lens is a single, isolated point-mass is excellent. Unfortunately, the distance scales within the local group are such that single light-curves can only probe Solar system scales, a regime in which Newtonian physics has already been confirmed. Even if magnifications of 0.1 per cent could be measured, microlensing of sources in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC; $`d_{\mathrm{o}s}60`$ kpc) would still only probe the gravitational field of a Solar mass deflector to scales of $`0.001`$ pc. One way to escape this limitation might be to ‘stack’ the light-curves of a large number of lens events, although the effective integration over the deflector population could dilute any non-Newtonian signatures.

A more direct way around this geometrical problem is to search for low optical depth microlensing at cosmological distances. From the definitions in Section 2, and assuming the deflector to be about half way between observer and source, $`\theta _\mathrm{E}d_{\mathrm{o}d}^{1/2}`$, whereas $`\theta _0d_{\mathrm{o}d}^1`$, which together imply that $`\theta _0/\theta _\mathrm{E}d_{\mathrm{o}d}^{1/2}`$. Thus at cosmological distances $`\theta _0\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ and the strong lensing regime is subject to non-Newtonian effects, resulting in microlensing light-curves which are markedly more peaked, as described above. The degree of distortion depends upon the value of $`r_0`$, but any simple microlensing event with a source redshift close to unity should differ visibly from the GR prediction if $`r_00.1`$ pc (Mortlock & Turner 2001).

It is possible that microlensing of a cosmologically distant source has already been seen, albeit serendipitously. The redshift 2.04 gamma ray burst (GRB) 000301C (Sagar et al. 2000) was observed to have an achromatic peak in its otherwise smoothly decaying light-curve. Garnavich et al. (2000) successfully modelled this as microlensing of the expanding fireball by a point-mass, although the fit relied on the assumption that it appeared as a ring on the sky. Unfortunately the photometry of GRB 000301C was not of sufficient quality to facilitate a measurement of the deflection law of the lens, and the uncertain nature of the source only makes such inferences more difficult. More lensed GRBs should be discovered (even if the event rate is low; Koopmans & Wambsganss 2001), but there are also systematic cosmological microlensing searches underway.

Both Walker (1999) and Tadros, Warren & Hewett (2001) describe programs to monitor high-redshift quasars seen through the outskirts of nearby galaxies and clusters. There have not yet been any detection of microlensing, but even a single light-curve should be sufficient to place a lower bound on $`r_0`$ (assuming $`\xi 1`$; see Section 2). However the motivation for both these searches was to search for compact dark matter in the foreground objects and so some of the sources were chosen to lie behind their ‘outer haloes’, regions which might be completely devoid of microlenses if there is no dark matter. This would be unfortunate in the context of light-curve measurements, but also suggests an alternative test of non-dark matter theories.

If there is no dark matter, then the only potential deflectors on these scales are planets, stars and other (known) compact objects. Observations of ‘dark’ microlensing would tend contradict this hypothesis, but no such detection has been reported. The local group results are consistent with there being do compact dark matter in the galactic halo, provided that the LMC is extended along the line-of-sight (Afonso et al. 1999; Alcock et al. 2001). The quasar monitoring programs described above have not yet detected any lensing at all, and the GRB microlens could be a star in a galaxy near the line-of-sight (Garnavich et al. 2000). Microlensing has been observed in Q 2237+0305 (Østensen et al. 1996; Woźniak et al. 2000), but this can be attributed to stars in the bulge of the lensing galaxy, and no microlensing has been observed in either image of Q 0957+561 (e.g. Pelt et al. 1998). These results are not only consistent with the no-dark matter hypothesis, but also strongly rule out several popular dark matter candidates.

## 5 Conclusions

If there is no dark matter in the universe then gravitational lensing is an ideal probe of the gravitational field around isolated deflectors. By applying basic symmetries, lensing can be used to distinguish between alternative gravity theories and GR, or used to measure the deflection law in non-dark matter models.

The most suitable data available are the galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements of Fischer et al. (2000). Modelling the deflection law of the foreground galaxies as a power law, the logarithmic slope was constrained to be $`0.1\pm 0.1`$ beyond $`50`$ kpc. The full SDSS data-set will be fifty times larger, facilitating a measurement of the (as)symmetry of the shear signal. This is particularly powerful diagnostic, with the power to discriminate unambiguously between the dark matter paradigm and alternative gravity theories.

Non-dark matter models are subject to several other tests, based on the principle that the deflection laws of all isolated deflectors should be the same, modulo possible scaling uncertainties. The galaxy-galaxy lensing results should be independent of galaxy type or luminosity, and the implied physics should be consistent with that inferred from lensing by stars and planets. Observations of microlensing within the local group are fairly insensitive to any putative departures from GR, as non-Newtonian effects are expected only in the wings of lensing events. Nonetheless it may be possible to synthesise sufficiently accurate photometry by stacking multiple light-curves. More promising is the prospect of measuring microlensing events on cosmological scales, either by serendipitous discoveries (Garnavich et al. 2000) or dedicated monitoring programs (Walker 1999; Tadros et al. 2001). With good photometry even a single light-curve could be used to measure the deflection law of a star out to many pc, scales on which many theories predict non-Newtonian effects.

All the above ideas pertain to simple lensing scenarios, in which the deflector is not spatially extended; more complex situations permit various observational tests as well, but require additional theoretical development (cf. Mortlock & Turner 2001). Moreover the tests proposed above are powerful primarily due to their simplicity, and the forthcoming results should place unambiguous constraints on the nature of gravity.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge a number of interesting discussions with Anthony Challinor, Geraint Lewis, Bohdan Paczyński and Joachim Wambsganss. Several aspects of this paper were clarified due to the comments of the anonymous referee. DJM was funded by PPARC and this work was supported in part by NSF grant AST98-02802.


text:
# Firewalls, Disorder, and Percolation in Epidemics

## Abstract

We consider a spatial model related to bond percolation for the spread of a disease that includes variation in the susceptibility to infection. We work on a lattice with random bond strengths and show that with strong disorder, i.e. a wide range of variation of susceptibility, patchiness in the spread of the epidemic is very likely, and the criterion for epidemic outbreak depends strongly on the disorder. These results are qualitatively different from those of standard models in epidemiology, but correspond to real effects.

The most commonly used models for the spread of an epidemic assume perfect mixing: i.e., all individuals are able to infect all others. In an inhomogeneous population the susceptibility to infection is replaced by its average. To account for spatial effects many workers use reaction-diffusion equations to describe traveling waves of infection. In both cases important phenomena are not reproduced by the models. For example, it is common experience that in plant diseases islands of susceptible individuals can be protected by a band of immune ones, a ‘firewall’. A map of the infected areas looks patchy. Even in human diseases such as AIDS these effects seem to be important. Such effects do not occur in perfect mixing or reaction-diffusion theories in which susceptibilities are replaced by averages. In this work we give a simple model for these phenomena using ideas taken from percolation theory. We show that for inhomogenous populations, the variability of susceptiblity to infection among individuals gives rise to qualitatively new effects.

Percolation theory is a natural way to think about populations which are not well mixed. Consider a spatially random distribution of susceptible individuals which occur with probability $`p`$. A (site) percolation model for an epidemic is a lattice algorithm where, with probability $`p`$, a site is occupied and susceptible sites infect their susceptible neighbors. For diseases where some agents travel long distances, ‘small-world’ theory extends the percolation model. In this approach a few sites are considered to be neighbors of distant sites.

Percolation accounts for the existence of firewalls and islands because near the percolation threshold only part of the lattice belongs to the spanning cluster. However, a close look makes such an application suspect. Islands and firewalls occur only in a rather narrow transition region $`\delta p`$ near the critical probability, $`p_c`$. In nature it would be unlikely that a fine-tuning of parameters to be near $`p_c`$ would occur. This kind of difficulty always plagues attempts to apply theories of critical phenomena in the natural world. Here, we show that introducing disorder in the susceptibility to infection solves this problem in an elegant way because it broadens the transition region for the outbreak, so that a generic epidemic could produce islands and firewalls.

There is a further unexpected result of this study. By definition, an epidemic starts when a sick individual infects more than one other before she recovers, i.e. $`R_o1`$, where $`R_o`$, the reproduction number, is the mean number of infections produced by a site. The usual expression for $`R_o`$ is $`xS(0)\tau `$ where $`x`$ is the probability per unit time to infect neigbors, $`S(0)`$ the number which can be infected, and $`\tau `$ the time to recovery. We will show that disorder can change this formula by a large amount.

Our model is of the SIR (Susceptible, Infected, Recovered) type. We use bond percolation: each site of a square lattice is occupied by an individual which can be infected by neighbors connected by bonds (four in our case). To account for variability the probability per unit time of infection along a given bond is chosen from a distribution $`f(x)`$. After exactly $`\tau `$ time steps any infected site recovers. We start with one $`I`$ in the middle of the lattice and the rest $`S`$. We say that we have an epidemic when the $`I`$ and $`R`$ sites span a large lattice, i.e. reach the edges. A snapshot is shown in Figure 1. If the recovery time, $`\tau `$, is too small the epidemic will die out, and if $`\tau `$ is large enough it will persist. A critical value of $`\tau `$ plays the role of $`p_c`$. In Figure 2 we show the spanning probability, $`M`$, for a 256 x 256 lattice as a function of $`\tau `$ for two different choices of $`f(x)`$. $`M`$ is the probability to span starting from a single site. We should note that $`M`$ is the same as the mass of the infinite cluster in percolation theory i.e., the fraction of sites which belong to the spanning cluster. This is true because the probability to span starting at any given site is the probability that the site is a member of the infinite cluster.

We have studied two classes of $`f`$’s which we call weak and strong disorder. An example of weak disorder is:

$$f_w(x)=1/x_{max},0xx_{max}.$$
(1)
Other functions with a rather narrow range of $`x`$ give similar effects, and the results do not differ very much from the case with no disorder.

Strong disorder refers to broad distribution such as:

$$f_s(x)=C/xx_{min}x1;C=1/|\mathrm{ln}(x_{min})|$$
(2)
Any strongly skewed distribution should give similar results to those quoted here. Distribution functions of this type were studied in random resistor networks, and are known, in that context, to give different behavior from the ordered case.

The black portion of Figure 1 corresponds to sites that are protected by the weak bonds at the edge of the infected cluster, the firewall. Effects of this type occur only in the transition region of Figure 2. The transition region is very broad for strong disorder. Firewalls and large islands of uninfected sites arise purely from the statistics of the problem, as in any percolation problem.

Ordinary bond percolation has some bonds present and some absent, which appears to be quite different from our approach. If $`x`$ takes on a single value, the relationship was pointed out by Grassberger: the probability to infect a neighbor before recovery is $`p=1(1x)^\tau `$. Thus $`p`$ is the fraction of bonds completed in a given epidemic. If we have disorder we write:

$$p=1(1x)^\tau f(x)𝑑x.$$
(3)
For a square lattice $`p_c=1/2`$, so we expect that when $`p`$ in Equation 3 is greater than $`1/2`$ we will have an epidemic. We verify this in the inset to Figure 2 where plot $`M`$ against $`p`$ for various choices of $`f(x)`$ and compare them to ordinary bond percolation on the same lattice.

We can discuss the threshold for outbreak of an epidemic by using the usual SIR equations for the perfect mixing case:

$$dS/dt=xSI,dI/dt=xSII/\tau $$
(4)
Here there is a rate of recovery $`1/\tau `$ rather than a fixed recovery time. However this is qualitatively the same. Clearly, we have an outbreak if $`R_o=xS(0)\tau >1`$.

If we convert Equation 4 into a spatial model by adding diffusion terms then the criterion for outbreak is of the same form , where $`S(0)`$ now refers to the initial number of susceptibles which can be infected by a single infected site, a number of order unity. For the Grassberger model (or weak disorder) we have a similar looking result: we put $`p=1(1x)^{\tau _c}=p_c=1/2`$. For small $`x`$, $`R_o=x\tau _c=O(1)`$.

Strong disorder is quite different. We can estimate the integral in Eq.(3) using the $`f_s(x)`$ of Eq. (2) for $`x_{min}<<1`$. We get

$$(1x)^\tau f_s(x)𝑑x[\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{ln}(\tau x_{min})]/|\mathrm{ln}(x_{min})|$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Euler’s constant. Using this estimate we find $`\tau _c0.56/\sqrt{x_{min}}`$. To estimate $`R_o`$ we replace $`x`$ by its average, $`\overline{x}`$. The naive estimate for the reproduction number at the threshold for outbreak gives:

$$R_o=\tau _c\overline{x}1/[\sqrt{x_{min}}|\mathrm{ln}(x_{min})|].$$
(6)
This estimate for $`R_o`$ can be arbitrarily large. The effective $`R_o`$ for a disordered lattice is very much smaller than $`\tau _c\overline{x}`$.

This statement may seem reminiscent of the well-known fact  that for diseases such as AIDS the naive formula for $`R_o`$ does not work if there are very active agents, because active agents have an outsize effect in spreading the disease. However, the results are, in fact, in opposite directions. Here, the spatial correlations between strong bonds make them less effective than they might seem to be. A clump of very infective bonds does not do as much damage as we might suspect since the infected sites are sharing the same victims. In the transition region there are always bottlenecks to the spread of the infections, and thus random spatial correlations are always important.

We can understand the broadening of the transition region due to disorder in the same way. Using the expressions in Eq. (3) and Eq. (5) we find $`\delta \tau /\tau _c=|\mathrm{ln}(x_{min})|\delta p`$. We can define the transition region, $`\delta p`$, as the range over which $`M`$ increases from, say, 0.1 to 0.9; it is of order 0.05. We see that $`\delta \tau /\tau _c`$ is large as $`x_{min}0`$.

In epidemics of human diseases some (usually a small number) of individuals travel long distances. We use a small-world lattice to account for these contacts by adding a small fraction, $`\varphi `$, of ‘long’ bonds connecting randomly chosen sites. The result is shown in Figure 3. Even a very small $`\varphi `$ breaks up the large uninfected regions. The percolation threshold is lowered, and below the old $`p_c`$ there are many small regions of epidemic connected by long bonds. However, the effects of disorder remain. Long distance contacts are not the same as perfect mixing: firewalls still occur over a substantial range of parameters.

To understand these results we extend the work of Newman and Watts to our case. The infected islands of Figure 3 can be considered to be nodes of a random graph whose edges are the long bonds. The graph percolates if there are two islands per long bond; this occurs for some $`p<p_c`$.

We need to count the nodes of the random graph. To do this we use the average island size defined as $`\overline{n}=s^2n_s/sn_s`$ where $`n_s`$ is the number of clusters of size $`s`$. This is the correct average because it counts the probability that a given site (the end of a long bond) belongs to a cluster . Scaling theory gives $`\overline{n}=K|pp_c|^\gamma `$ where $`K`$ is a constant, and $`\gamma `$ is a critical exponent equal to $`43/18=2.39`$ for our case. The number of islands is $`N_i=N/\overline{n}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of sites. The number of long bonds that connect two sites that are parts of islands is $`B=N\varphi [1(1p)^4]^2`$. Setting $`2N_i=B`$ gives a criterion for percolation on a small world lattice with one adjustable parameter, $`K`$:

$$\varphi =K(p_cp)^\gamma (1(1p)^4)^2$$
(7)
In Figure 4 we show the depression of the percolation threshold as a function of $`\varphi `$. We exhibit data as a function of $`p`$ rather than $`\tau `$. They are related by Eq. (3). The threshold is obtained by requiring that an epidemic infects 20% of the lattice sites. (In this case, with long bonds, the notion of spanning loses its meaning). We also show a fit to the formula in Eq. (7) with $`\gamma `$ and $`K`$ as adjustable parameters. The best fit gives $`\gamma =2.40`$, remarkably close to the theoretical value quoted above. However, as we see in Figure (3) there are still islands is surrounded by a firewall, and all of the above considerations carry over in the strongly disordered case. In particular, the size of the transition region in terms of $`\tau `$ is expanded .

Our model for percolation with strong disorder illustrates two effects: there is a mechanism which produces patches of uninfected but susceptible individuals without fine tuning of parameters. And for this case $`R_o`$ depends on the disorder. Whether strong disorder is a valid description of nature needs to be determined by consideration of real epidemics. It is known, for example, that variability in susceptibility increases when epidemics recur. Our model may apply best to that case.

We would like to thank C. Simon and J. Koopman who taught us what little we know about epidemics. Supported by DOE grant DEFG-02-95ER-45546.