text:
# Signals for Noncommutative QED at Future 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Colliders

## I Introduction

If the Planck scale is indeed of order a few TeV, some potential stringy effects may be observable at future colliders in addition to the existence of extra dimensions. One such possibility is that near the string scale space-time becomes noncommutative (NC), i.e., the co-ordinates themselves no longer commute: $`[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, where the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ are a constant, frame-independent set of six dimensionful parametersrev . This may occur in string theory in the presence of background fields. The $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ may be separated into two classes: (i) space-space noncommutivity with $`\theta _{ij}=c_{ij}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^2`$, and (ii) space-time noncommutivity with $`\theta _{0i}=c_{0i}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_E^2`$. The auxiliary quantities $`(\widehat{c}_E)_i=c_{0i}`$ and $`(\widehat{c}_B)_k=ϵ_{ijk}c_{ij}`$, with $`ijk`$ cyclic, can also be defined, where $`\widehat{c}_{E,B}`$ are two, fixed, frame-independent unit vectors associated with the mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E,B}`$. These NC scales are anticipated to lie above a TeV and the influence of NC physics will only become apparent as the these scales are approached. Since the commutator of the co-ordinates is not a tensor and is frame-independent, NC theories violate Lorentz invariance (but can be shown to conserve CPT), with the two vectors $`\widehat{c}_{E,B}`$ being preferred directions in space, related to the directions of the background fields. We note that momenta still commute in the usual way, thus energy and momentum remain conserved quantities. Since experimental probes of NC theories are sensitive to the directions of $`\widehat{c}_{E,B}`$, experiments must employ astronomical coordinate systems and time-stamp their data so that, e.g., the rotation of the Earth or the Earth’s motion around the Sun does not wash out or dilute the effect through time-averaging.

It is possible to construct noncommutative analogs of conventional field theories following either the Weyl-Moyal (WM)moyal  or Seiberg-Witten (SW)sw  approaches, both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. In the SW approach, the field theory is expanded in a power series in $`\theta `$ which then produces an infinite tower of additional operators. At any fixed order in $`\theta `$, the theory can be shownnonr  to be non-renormalizable. The SW construction can, however, be applied to any gauge theory with arbitrary matter representations. In the WM approach, only $`U(N)`$ gauge theories are found to be closed under the group algebra and the matter content is restricted to the (anti-)fundamental and adjoint representations. Further restrictions on matter representations apply when a product of group factors is present, such as in the SMjab . These theories are at least one-loop renormalizable and appear to remain so even when spontaneously brokenrenorm .

These distinctive properties of NC gauge theories render the construction of a satisfactory noncommutative version of the Standard Model (SM), the NCSM, quite difficultmodels . However, NCQED is a well-defined theory in the WM approach and we explore here its implications for very high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders following this prescription. This version of NCQED differs from ordinary QED in several ways: ($`i`$) the $`ee\gamma `$ vertex picks up a Lorentz violating phase factor given by $`e^{i\theta _{\mu \nu }p_i^\mu p_o^\nu /2}`$ where $`p_i`$ and $`p_o`$ are the incoming and outgoing electron momenta; ($`ii`$) the NC theory predicts trilinear and quartic couplings between the photons that are, to leading order, linear and quadratic in the parameters $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, respectively, and are kinematics dependent; ($`iii`$) only the charges $`Q=0,\pm 1`$ are allowed by gauge invariance in NCQEDhaya . Thus quarks cannot be accommodated in the theory as it presently exists and an extension to a full NCSM is required. We note that these difficulties can apparently be circumvented using the SW approach if one is willing to pay the price of nonrenormalizanlity and ambiquities in multiple gauge boson couplings. This restriction to $`Q=0,\pm 1`$ implies that we can only examine the NC effects for the handful of processes which have external charged leptons or photons. Despite this limitation, NCQED provides a testing ground for the basic ideas behind NC quantum field theory and has had its phenomenological implications examined by a number of authorsncqed . As we will see, the hallmark signal at colliders for NCQED is the appearance of an azimuthally-dependent cross section in $`22`$ processes; the azimuthal dependence arises from the existence of the two preferred directions discussed above. We note that in NC gauge theories, the leading NC contributions can be shown to take the form of new dimension-8 operators whose scale is set by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E,B}`$.

A caveat to our analysis below is the question of how/if the SM couplings of the $`Z`$ boson to $`e^+e^{}`$ are modified in the NC case, as they contribute to Bhabha and Möller scattering. In truth, this lies outside the realm of the NCQED model and can only be addressed within a full NCSM. Here we will assume that these $`Z`$ couplings get rescaled by kinematic-dependent exponents in a manner identical to photons. Within the SW approach we know that this is indeed what happens for on-shell electrons, to leading order in $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, and we might expect it to remain true in higher orders in the complete NCSM theory.

At typical linear collider energies, i.e., 500-100 GeV with integrated luminosities in the range approaching 500 fb-1, NC physics can be probed at the TeV scale. Very high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders such as CLIC will allow us to examine values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E,B}`$ beyond several TeV provided sufficient luminosity, $`1`$ ab-1, is available. To demonstrate these claims we will examine three specific processes: Bhabha and Möller scattering, as well as pair annihilation. In all cases we assume the incoming $`e^{}`$ direction to be along the $`z`$axis.

## II Results

The first process we consider is Bhabha scattering which proceeds through both $`s`$ and $`t`$channel gauge boson exchanges. There are no new amplitudes to consider in this case, but each vertex picks up the kinematic dependent phase discussed above. As demonstratedncqed  in earlier work, the NC modifications to the SM result only appear in the interference term in the squared matrix element and are sensitive only to finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$. This NC effect appears through the cosine of the relative phase: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Bhabha}=\varphi _s\varphi _t=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E^2}[c_{01}t+\sqrt{ut}(c_{02}c_\varphi +c_{03}s_\varphi )]`$, where $`t`$ and $`u`$ are the usual Mandelstam variables. Independently of the particular values of $`c_{0i}`$, the resulting $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution is modified; however, for $`c_{02}`$ and/or $`c_{03}`$ nonvanishing, the cross section also picks up a periodic azimuthal (i.e., $`\varphi `$) dependence as is shown in Fig. 1. While other new physics may lead to modifications of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution, only Lorentz violation can induce a $`\varphi `$dependence in the cross section. Note that the $`\varphi `$ dependence becomes more pronounced as stiffer cuts on the scattering angle, which selects more central events where both $`u`$ and $`t`$ are large, are applied. We find that beam polarization is not particularly useful for NC searches in Bhabha scattering; the Left-Right Polarization asymmetry, $`A_{LR}`$, is found to be rather insensitive to NC effects showing, in particular, little azimuthal dependence. The reach for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ in this case for CLIC energies is also presented in Figure 1 where we see that it is of order $`1.5\sqrt{s}`$. Figure 2 shows that similar results are obtained at lower energy colliders.

The next reaction we examine is Möller scattering. As in the case of Bhabha scattering, the NC effects appear only in the cosine of the phase of the interference term between the two $`t`$ and $`u`$channel amplitudes : $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Moller}=\varphi _u\varphi _t=\frac{\sqrt{ut}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^2}[c_{12}c_\varphi c_{31}s_\varphi ]`$. Note that, unlike Bhabha scattering, Möller scattering is sensitive to a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$. If either $`c_{12}`$ or $`c_{31}`$ is nonzero, an azimuthal dependence is seen in the cross section as displayed in Fig. 3. (Note that there is no sensitivity to a nonvanishing $`c_{23}`$.) The oscillatory behavior is somewhat more pronounced here than in Bhabha scattering. Again, no additional sensitivity arises from the azimuthal dependence of $`A_{LR}`$. The reach for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ from Möller scattering is seen from Fig. 5 to exceed that for Bhabha scattering. Figure 4 shows that similar results are obtained at lower energy colliders.

The last case we consider is pair annihilation. In addition to the new phases that enter the $`t`$ and $`u`$ channel amplitudes, there is now an additional $`s`$channel photon exchange graph involving the NC-generated three photon vertex discussed above. This new amplitude is proportional to the sine of the phase: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PA}=\frac{s}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E^2}[c_{01}c_\theta +c_{02}s_\theta c_\varphi +c_{03}s_\theta s_\varphi ]`$. As in Bhabha scattering, this modification to the SM result appears to lowest order as a dimension-8 operator that probes finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$. As before, the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ distribution is modified for all values of the $`c_{0i}`$, but a nonvanishing $`c_{02}`$ and/or $`c_{03}`$ is required to produce an azimuthal dependence. The resulting angular distributions are shown in Fig. 5 for the case $`c_{02}=1`$. Writing $`c_{01}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`c_{02}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta `$, and $`c_{03}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta `$, Fig. 6 displays the reach for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$ for CLIC energies for several values of $`\alpha `$.

In summary, we have examined the effects of NCQED in several $`22`$ scattering processes at high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. We find that these effects produce an azimuthal dependence in the cross sections, providing a unique signature of the Lorentz violation inherent in these theories. The search reaches for the NC scale in a variety of processes are summarized in Table 1 for both $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and CLIC energies. We display the $`95\%`$ CL search limits on the NC scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ from the various processes considered above at a 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with an integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1 or at a 3 or 5 TeV CLIC with an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1. The sensitivities are from the first two papers in ncqed . The $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma e\gamma e`$ analyses of Godfrey and Doncheski include an overall $`2\%`$ systematic error not included by Hewett, Petriello and Rizzo. We see that these machines have a reasonable sensitivity to NC effects and provide a good probe of such theories.


format: text

text:
# Elusive vector glueball

## I Introduction

While theorists expect that the glueballs exist as the flavorless hadrons made of gluons alone, the predicted masses vary from lattice QCD to phenomenological models such as the bag-type model and a naive constituent model. Experiment provided a few candidates for the ground-state glueball of $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ in the past, but no consensus has been reached. The glueball $`𝒪`$ of $`1^{}`$ is made of three gluons in the constituent picture so that its mass is expected to be roughly 50% higher than the lowest glueball mass. The recent lattice QCD calculation predicts the mass of $`𝒪`$ at $`3850\pm 50\pm 190`$ MeV in the quenched approximation. It is amusing that this value happens to be very close to the $`\psi ^{}`$ mass (3686 MeV). In contrast to the masses, very little is known even theoretically about the widths since they are determined by how the glueballs couple to light quarks.

A few puzzles exist in the hadronic $`\psi ^{}`$ decay. One is the so-called $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle, i.e., the severe suppression of $`\psi ^{}\rho \pi `$. If both $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ decay into hadrons through the perturbative $`ggg`$ from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ states of $`c\overline{c}`$, we expect that their hadronic decays should be very similar to each other. Contrary to this expectation, the branching fractions are very different not only for $`\rho \pi `$ but also for many other exclusive hadron channels. Since $`\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \rho \pi )/\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \omega \pi )`$ is close to $`\mathrm{B}(J/\psi ggghadrons)/\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \gamma ^{}hadrons)`$, the decay $`J/\psi \rho \pi `$ is just as strong as the naive expectation. The experimental fact that $`\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\omega \pi )/\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \omega \pi )\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})/\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ assures us that there is nothing anomalous about the $`1^{}0^{}`$ modes in the one-photon annihilation. There appears to be no perturbative $`1^{}0^{}`$ suppression that was once suggested as a resolution to the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle. Therefore the source of the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle is in some property of $`\psi ^{}`$.

The other puzzle is an apparent excess of $`\psi ^{}hadrons`$ relative to $`J/\psi hadrons`$. To establish it quantitatively, we need more an accurate determination of the cascade decay branchings of $`\psi ^{}`$. The current data hint that there exists some unknown decay mechanism for $`\psi ^{}hadrons`$ other than the standard perturbative three-gluon decay. It is the $`\psi ^{}`$-$`𝒪`$ mixing that may resolve both puzzles by one shot.*** The other idea is a large virtual $`D\overline{D}`$ configuration or a large $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ mixing in the $`\psi ^{}`$ state. All earlier attempts to resolve the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle failed with the recent analysis of the $`\psi ^{}`$ decay modes, as was shown by Harris. See also Ref..

In view of the precision charm experiment proposed at CESR and at Beijing, we pursue here the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing as quantitatively as possible. Assuming that the excess $`\psi ^{}hadrons`$ really exists and that it is caused by the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing, we estimate the resonant $`𝒪`$ production cross sections. We find that the $`𝒪`$ resonance peak will be detected in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation only if the decay width is very narrow ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪<`$ a few MeV). If the width is wider, we shall be able to find only indirect evidences for $`𝒪`$ through the $`\psi ^{}`$ decay. In a dedicated charmonium experiment, experimentalists should first confirm the excess in $`\psi ^{}hadrons`$ by determining more accurately the $`\psi ^{}J/\psi `$ cascade decay branchings, and then examine individual exclusive hadron channels of even G-parity such as $`\omega \pi `$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`\rho \eta `$.

## II $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing

The $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing is determined by the $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix of $`𝒪`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$,

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_𝒪^2im_𝒪\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪& f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}\\ f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}& m_\psi ^{}^2im_\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Two eigenstates of $``$ are the standard Breit-Wigner resonances. Since the complex mixing angle $`\theta \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1[2f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}/(_{11}_{22})]`$ is very small in magnitude in the cases of our interest, we shall treat the mixing perturbatively and denote the physical Breit-Wigner states also by $`𝒪`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ below. We shall discard $`|m_\psi ^{}m_𝒪|/m_\psi ^{}1`$ wherever appropriate.

In addition to the standard perturbative $`ggg`$ decay, the physical $`\psi ^{}`$ state can decay through its mixing with $`𝒪`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}𝒪all)=\frac{|f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}|^2}{m_𝒪^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪}F(\mathrm{\Delta }m,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(2)
where $`F(\mathrm{\Delta }m,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ comes from the $`𝒪`$ resonance shape;

$$F(\mathrm{\Delta }m,\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪^2/[4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪^2]$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=|m_𝒪m_\psi ^{}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{})`$.

We parametrize the alleged excess in the hadronic $`\psi ^{}`$ decay as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}hadrons)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}ggg)=1+,$$
(4)
where $``$ 0.6-0.7 with large errors according to the current data. This excess is attributed to the additional decay, $`\psi ^{}𝒪hadrons`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{}`$, even a tiny mixing can make this contribution as large as the perturbative $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}ggg)`$. Without knowing dynamics of $`𝒪`$ decay, let us assume for the moment that $`\psi ^{}𝒪hadrons`$ adds to $`\psi ^{}ggghadrons`$ in the total rate. That is, we assume no interference in the inclusive decay rate, though the interference is crucial in individual exclusive rates. This is not an absurd assumption: If the $`ggg`$ state of $`𝒪`$ differs substantially from the perturbative $`ggg`$ configuration of $`\psi ^{}`$ decay, it is capable of producing very different interference patterns for one exclusive channel to another, leading to suppression or enhancement of the exclusive rates, yet the interference terms cancel out in the inclusive rate. On this assumption, $`f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}`$ is constrained by the excess $``$ as

$$|f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}|^2=\frac{(25\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4}{F(\mathrm{\Delta }m,\mathrm{\Gamma })}\times \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪}{1\mathrm{MeV}}\right).$$
(5)
The $`\psi ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ transition strength defined by $`f_{\gamma \psi ^{}}A^\mu \psi _\mu ^{}`$ can be expressed as $`f_{\gamma \psi ^{}}^2=(3m_\psi ^{}^3/\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}e^+e^{})`$.

If $`𝒪`$ decays mainly as $`𝒪q\overline{q}hadrons`$, and if the couplings of $`𝒪`$ to quarks are flavor blind, we could derive an additional interesting constraint with Eq. (5) by expressing $`f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}`$ with the $`𝒪c\overline{c}`$ coupling, and the $`𝒪q\overline{q}`$ coupling with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$. The result is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪30/\sqrt{}`$.

## III Resonant production cross sections

### A $`e^+e^{}𝒪all`$

The glueball $`𝒪`$ is most favorably reached through $`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}\psi ^{}𝒪all`$. The cross section at the $`𝒪`$ resonance peak is given by

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}𝒪all)=\frac{\pi \alpha |f_{\gamma \psi ^{}}f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}|^2}{m_𝒪^7(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪}.$$
(6)
In the unit of $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$, the peak value is

$$R=\frac{9|f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{4\alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2m_𝒪^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪}.$$
(7)
The right-hand side is sizable only if the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ is very narrow and $`|f_{𝒪\psi ^{}}|^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ is strongly enhanced by small $`F(\mathrm{\Delta }m,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. (See Eq. (5).) For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, $`R`$ is insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and scales approximately as $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪^2`$;

$$R\left(\frac{3.2\mathrm{MeV}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪}\right)^2.$$
(8)
If $`𝒪`$ decays with three gluons falling apart into quarks by long-distance interactions, such a narrow width is unlikely. On the other hand, if short-distance physics suppresses conversion of $`ggg`$ into light quarks by $`\alpha _s^3`$, a very narrow width is not totally out of question. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.087`$ MeV for $`J/\psi `$ by $`\alpha _s^3`$ suppression. Since we have no knowledge of how the glueballs decay, there is no orthodoxy about their widths.

Suppose that one finds a candidate of the $`𝒪`$ peak by scanning over the relevant energy range. If it is really the $`𝒪`$ resonance, the lepton-pair production cross section remains the same at the peak as at the side bands:

$$R_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}=1,(peak),$$
(9)
since $`𝒪q\overline{q}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is negligible. Another test is whether the increase in hadron events occurs all in $`I=0`$ or not. This is most easily checked by $`G`$-parity of the final states. At the continuum off the resonance, hadrons are produced through light quarks in $`I=0`$ and $`I=1`$ channels in the ratio of

$$R_{I=0}/R_{I=1}=1/3,(continuum).$$
(10)
That is, if one counts the final states of even pions and of odd pions at the continuum, the even-pion events dominate over the odd-pion events. This odd-to-even pion ratio should suddenly jump at the $`𝒪`$ resonance. Narrowness of width rules out light-quark resonances of $`I=0`$.

We comment on production of $`𝒪`$ through the light quarks instead of $`\psi ^{}`$: $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}(q=u,d,s)𝒪hadrons`$. This production process is actually flavor-SU(3)-forbidden since the electromagnetic current of the $`u,d,s`$ quarks is an octet while $`𝒪`$ is a singlet. Production of $`𝒪`$ occurs only by SU(3) breakings. We can compute these amplitudes perturbatively, if we keep only the on-shell contribution of $`q\overline{q}`$. The result is independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ is given by the process $`𝒪q\overline{q}hadrons`$:

$$R=\frac{1}{48}\left(\frac{2m_s}{m_𝒪}\right)^4,$$
(11)
where $`m_s`$ is the $`s`$-quark mass that enters through the quark mass splitting of the intermediate states. Even if $`𝒪`$ is produced through $`s\overline{s}`$ alone or through $`u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}`$ by the maximal SU(3) violation, the value of $`R`$ would be only 0.037. The off-shell $`q\overline{q}`$ contribution depends on the form factor damping of the $`𝒪q\overline{q}`$ vertex, which is expected to be soft since $`𝒪`$ is an extended object. Therefore the off-shell contribution cannot be much larger than the on-shell contribution. We may safely dismiss the $`𝒪`$ production through light quarks.

### B $`p\overline{p}𝒪hadrons`$

The coupling of $`𝒪`$ to $`p\overline{p}`$ is allowed by flavor SU(3). However, it is most likely small because so many channels are open aside from $`p\overline{p}`$ when $`ggg`$ of $`𝒪`$ turn in hadrons. Although accurate estimate of this coupling is not possible, we can make a reasonable guess with the charmonium decay branching into $`p\overline{p}`$.

The $`J=1`$ partial-wave cross section for $`p\overline{p}𝒪all`$ in the resonance region is given by the standard formula,

$$\sigma _{res}(p\overline{p}𝒪all)=\frac{3\pi }{|𝐩|^2}\frac{B_{in}\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪^2}{4(Wm_𝒪)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪^2},$$
(12)
where $`W`$ and $`𝐩`$ are the cm energy and momentum, and $`B_{in}`$ is the decay branching fraction for $`𝒪p\overline{p}`$. Since $`J/\psi `$ decays through $`ggg`$, a reasonable guess is to equate $`B_{in}`$ with $`\mathrm{B}(J/\psi p\overline{p})/\mathrm{B}(J/\psi ggg)=0.24\%`$. Then the peak cross section is

$$\sigma _{peak}=3.5\mu \mathrm{b}$$
(13)
for $`m_𝒪3.7`$ GeV. Since the $`p\overline{p}`$ total cross section is approximately 60 mb at this energy, there is no chance to see $`𝒪`$ as a resonance in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation.

Nonresonant production of $`𝒪`$ in conjunction with other light hadron(s), e.g., $`p\overline{p}𝒪X`$, is suppressed by the feeble coupling of $`q\overline{q}ggg`$ (the “disconnected quark diagram”) for an identifiably narrow $`𝒪`$. This suppression is severe even for $`\varphi `$, which is much lighter: $`\sigma (\pi p\varphi X)/\sigma (\pi p\omega X)1/100`$. Unlike $`J/\psi `$ search by $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, absence of a discriminating decay characteristic will make it hard to identify $`𝒪`$.

## IV Signals of $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing in $`\psi ^{}`$ decay

The only chance to produce and directly observe the vector glueball $`𝒪`$ will be in the case that the decay width is very narrow. Our numerical estimate is based on the assumption that $`\psi 𝒪hadrons`$ and $`\psi ^{}ggghadrons`$ add up without interference in the total rates. Most generally, $``$ should be left as a parameter of $`O(1)`$. If the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ happens to be wider than a few MeV and the resonance search is not feasible, $`𝒪`$ must be searched by the indirect signatures in the $`\psi ^{}`$ decay that result from the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing. Let us explore such indirect signatures.

If $`\psi ^{}`$ is purely an $`s`$-wave bound state of $`c\overline{c}`$, and its hadronic decay occurs through the perturbative three-gluon decay alone, we expect

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}gggall)}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi gggall)}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_\psi ^{})}{\alpha _s(m_{J/\psi })}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}}.`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`0.13\pm 0.03`$ (15)
The similarity of $`\psi ^{}`$ to $`J/\psi `$ led us to suspect that the same relation may hold approximately for individual exclusive channels as well. This naive rule of thumb was referred to as “the 14% rule”. However, experiment has shown very large deviations from the “rule” for many decay modes. The ratio is most prominently off for $`\rho \pi `$, by a factor of 60 or more. This is the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle.

### A Even-$`G`$ channels

The $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing affects only the final states of $`I=0`$. Since $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$, they are odd in G-parity. Since the even-$`G`$ states fed by $`\psi ^{}\gamma ^{}hadrons`$ are immune to the mixing, we should find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}h(G=+))}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi h(G=+))}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`0.15\pm 0.03.`$ (17)
Among the decay modes of even $`G`$ so far analyzed,

$$\frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\omega \pi )}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \omega \pi )}=0.09\pm 0.05,$$
(18)
which is off from Eq. (17), but only one standard deviation. A higher precision is desired for $`\psi ^{}\omega \pi `$. In comparison the $`\rho \pi `$ modes is severely suppressed as

$$\frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\rho \pi )}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \rho \pi )}<0.002.$$
(19)
The same ratio is $`<`$0.021 for $`\omega \eta `$ and $`\rho a_2`$, which are both odd in $`G`$. It is not true that all odd-$`G`$ channels are suppressed; the ratio is $`0.18\pm 0.05`$ for $`b_1^\pm \pi ^{}`$ over 0.13 of Eq. (15). The ratio is much larger for $`\omega \eta ^{}`$ ($`0.5\pm 0.4`$), though the error is large.

There are a few other even-$`G`$ channels in the $`J/\psi `$ decay for which good measurements already exist. Among them are $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\rho \eta `$, and $`\rho \eta ^{}`$. These decay modes should be measured carefully for $`\psi ^{}`$ for comparison. There is one $`\psi ^{}`$ decay mode that was observed with a large branching fraction but not yet identified in the $`J/\psi `$ decay. That is, $`\psi ^{}\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(3.7\pm 0.6\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$. Only $`\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(4.0\pm 1.0)\times 10^3`$ is quoted for $`J/\psi `$. If the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing is the solution to the puzzles, $`\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ should obey Eq. (17) so that a large fraction of $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ should consist of $`J/\psi \rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. No attempt has yet been made to search $`a_J\pi `$ (J=0,1,2) in $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. It is worth efforts for testing of the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing.

### B $`\gamma h`$ modes

Some final states that consist of one photon and a hadron have large branching fractions. It is often interpreted that they arise from $`J/\psi (\psi ^{})\gamma gg\gamma h`$ since the $`\alpha `$ suppression is partially compensated with lack of one power of $`\alpha _s`$ in $`\gamma gg`$. If this interpretation is right, the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing should little affect the $`\gamma h`$ modes. Then we would expect

$$\frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}h\gamma )}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi h\gamma )}\frac{\mathrm{B}(\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{B}(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}.$$
(20)
At present, three decay modes are available for comparison: The ratios are $`0.06\pm 0.04`$ for $`\gamma \eta `$, $`0.036\pm 0.012`$ for $`\gamma \eta ^{}`$, and $`0.22\pm 0.16`$ for $`\gamma f_2(1270)`$. The errors are still large for $`\gamma \eta `$ and $`\gamma f_2`$. But the ratio for $`\gamma \eta ^{}`$ is clearly off the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing predicton, $`0.15\pm 0.03`$. This may be taken against the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing. Or else the decay branching $`𝒪\gamma \eta ^{}`$ is enhanced for some reason. We recall that the $`\eta ^{}`$ yield tends to be larger than theoretical expectations in many other processes, e.g., $`B`$ decay. The common theme is the QCD anomalies involved in them. Together with higher precision in experiment, better theoretical understanding is needed for $`\gamma h`$, particularly for $`\gamma \eta ^{}`$.

### C Alternatives to $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing

An alternative to the $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing is to postulate that $`\psi ^{}`$ contains a large $`d`$-wave component of $`c\overline{c}`$, much larger than we have so far accepted. The $`d`$-wave content of $`\psi ^{}`$ was studied in the nonrelativistic model in the past. The amount of the $`d`$-wave appears to be considerably smaller than what is relevant to the issues in the $`\psi ^{}`$ decay. There is also an inconsistency with the radiative decays of $`\psi ^{}`$. However, these problems may well be due to the nonrelativistic potential model. Let us abandon the nonrelativistic model for the moment and assume in an ad hoc manner that a large $`d`$-wave component exists in $`\psi ^{}`$. In this case $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ would also be affected by the mixing, but differently from $`\psi ^{}ggghadrons`$. Therefore, the branching fractions of even-$`G`$ channels would no longer obey the rule of Eq. (17) precisely.

One variation of this scenario is to replace the large $`d`$-wave component with the virtual $`D\overline{D}`$ configuration. In this case $`D\overline{D}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is dynamically suppressed since both $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ ($`q=u,d`$) must be annihilated into $`\gamma ^{}`$ to create $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. In other words, the form factor suppression of $`D\overline{D}`$ occurs relative to the hard $`c\overline{c}`$ annihilation. Therefore $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is reduced by the amount of the $`D\overline{D}`$ component. Then Eq. (15) would no longer hold. Although the hadrons from $`D\overline{D}`$ ($`D=c\overline{u},c\overline{d}`$) contains an SU(3)-octet $`I=0`$ component ($`\lambda _8`$) in addition to an SU(3) singlet, it will not be easy to identify this octet mixture, separating from the isoscalar electromagnetic contribution and the strong SU(3) breaking effects.

## V Summary and remarks

The chance of finding $`𝒪`$ exists only if its width is very narrow by the short-distance QCD suppression. Otherwise $`𝒪`$ will show up only in the $`\psi ^{}`$ decay indirectly. Even if the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle is set aside, the proximity of the predicted $`𝒪`$ mass to the $`\psi ^{}`$ mass inevitably generates some $`𝒪`$-$`\psi ^{}`$ mixing. This will be the only experimental clue to the vector glueball of width wider than a few MeV. It is therefore worth studying the mixing effect seriously.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to S.J. Brodsky, F.A. Harris, J.L. Rosner, and S.F. Tuan for useful conversations and/or communications on the $`\rho \pi `$ puzzle and related subjects during the past few years. Thanks are also due to P. Wang for informing me of the prospect of the Beijing charm experiment. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are three fundamental physical processes that gives rise to the morphology of a surface: deposition, surface diffusion and desorption. In the past decade, the characteristics of the interfaces generated by the combination of deposition and surface diffusion has been well studied.  In particular for growth models, particles are added to the surface and then they are allowed to relax by different mechanisms. Many of this models have been shown to lead to the formation of self-affine surfaces, characterized by scaling exponents. From a theoretical point of view, the studies dedicated to the self-affine interfaces generated by growth models can be considered to follow two main branches. The studies about the properties of discrete models and the studies about continuous models. Discrete models where dedicated mainly to the study of the properties of computational models in which the growth proceeds on an initially empty lattice representing a d-dimensional substrate. At each time step, the height of the lattice sites is increased by units (usually one unit) representing the incoming particles. Different models only differs on the relaxation mechanisms proposed to capture specific experimental characteristics. Then, the models are classified according to the values of the scaling exponents in several universality classes. The continuous models,  on the other hand, are based on stochastic differential equations of the type

$$h/t=F.𝐣+noise,$$
(1)
in which $`h(𝐫,t)`$ is the thickness of the film deposited onto the surface during time $`t`$, $`F`$ denotes the deposition rate and $`𝐣`$ denotes the current along the surface which in turn depends on the local surface configuration. If the surface current $`𝐣`$ represents some experimental nonlinear equilibrium processes it may gives rise to different types of nonlinear terms. The noise term corresponds to the fluctuations in the growth rate and, in general, is assumed to be uncorrelated. The differential equations are solved, either numerically or analytically (when it is possible), and the scaling exponents are determined. If the values of the exponents are similar to those of the discrete models, it is said that both (discrete and continuous models) belong to the same universality class. Although, the formal connection between both approaches (discrete and continuous) is still an open question.

Other type of models in which the interface shows dynamic scaling properties are those related with fluid invasion in porous media. In this case, the noise term in Eq. 1 takes the form $`\eta (𝐫,h(𝐫,t))`$, which is known as quenched noise and is considered to be uncorrelated. Usually, the corresponding discrete computational models resume all kind of irregularities that a appear in real porous media by invading a computational porous media which has only blocked and non-blocked sites. These models are classified according to its own universality classes in the same way that others growth models.

Desorption or detaching processes, despite its technological importance, have not received the same amount of attention. Maybe because they were considered to be, simply, the reciprocal of the growth models and no new characteristics were expected to appear.

There are many technological processes depending on the details of the etching phenomena and only recently few of them have been modeled in order to understand the phenomena at an atomic level.  For instance, corrosion is among the most important disaggregation processes because its economical importance. In this sense a simple deconstruction model was just introduced by Reverberi and Scalas (RS). They found that their model is in fact the reciprocal of a growth model known as Wolf-Villain (WV) model, and that the interface show the same characteristic exponents. In this paper we present a discrete disaggregation model, which can be considered as a generalization of the above mentioned RS deconstruction model. Besides its importance from an experimental point of view, academically, it is worth to study a deconstruction model in which the attack process may take place upon an heterogeneous material, because its ubiquity in many technological and applied areas.

## 2 Theory

Following previous studies realized on growth models, it is expected that the deconstructed surface will present self-affine properties. According to the rules depicted below for the computational model, no overhangs will be generated and the surface will be of the solid-on-solid (SOS) type. Then, the characteristics of interest are the scaling properties of the width (or roughness) defined as

$$\omega (L,t)=\left[h^2(x,t)_xh(x,t)_x^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(2)
where $`_x`$ denotes ensemble average over the entire lattice size $`L`$, $`h(x,t)`$ is the height (measured from the bottom) of the column at position $`x`$, $`h(x,t)_x`$ is the average surface height and $`t`$ is the time, roughly proportional to the number of removed monolayers $`m`$.

As for a growth processes we assume that the roughness obeys the Family-Vicsek scaling relation,  valid for SOS self-affine interfaces,

$$\omega (L,t)=L^\alpha f\left(\frac{t}{L^z}\right),$$
(3)
being $`\alpha `$ the roughness exponent because $`\omega L^\alpha `$ when $`tL^z`$ and $`\beta `$ the growth exponent because $`\omega t^\beta `$ when $`tL^z`$. Of course, in the case studied here there is no growth, but an exponent $`\beta `$ can be defined in the same way. $`z=\alpha /\beta `$ is the dynamic exponent. From a computational point of view, there are various ways in which the scaling exponents can be calculated. The exponent $`\beta `$ is usually determined by measuring the slope of the log-log plot of $`\omega (L,t)`$ vs $`t`$ at early times. For the exponent $`\alpha `$, several techniques are available. In discrete models, simulations with different systems sizes $`L`$ can be made. Then the values of the saturation width, ($`\omega _s=\omega (L,t)`$ for $`tL^z`$), are plotted against $`L`$ and the exponent $`\alpha `$ is determined directly from the plot. On the other hand, the height-height correlation function defined as $`c(r,\tau )=[h(x,t)h(x+r,t+\tau )]^2^{1/2}`$, can be used. The correlation function is known to scale in the same way as the width $`w(L,t)`$; in particular for $`tL^z`$ and for $`rL`$ the correlation function behaves as $`c(r,0)r^\alpha `$. A third technique for calculating the dynamic exponent $`\alpha `$ is based in the scaling properties of the structure factor.  Within this approach the dynamic scaling behavior can be investigated by calculating the structure factor (power spectrum) defined as

$$S(k,t)=h(k,t)h(k,t),$$
(4)
where $`h(k,t)=(L^{1/2})_x[h(x,t)\overline{h(t)}]e^{ikx}`$. The structure factor scales as

$$S(k,t)=k^{(2\alpha +1)}g(t/k^z),$$
(5)
where the scaling function has the form

$$g(u)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}u^{(2\alpha +1)/z}\hfill & u1,& \\ const\hfill & u1.& \end{array}$$
(6)
The equation $`\omega ^2(L,t)=(1/L)_kS(k,t)`$ gives the relation between the roughness and the structure factor. 222Recently,  a generalization of the scaling properties of S(k,t) has been proposed. However here it is considered that the Family-Vicsek scaling anzat is obeyed and hence the scaling properties of the structure factor must be those represented by equations (5-6).

It is worth to mention that for $`tŁ^z`$, the structure factor does not show any dependence with the lattice size $`L`$. This characteristic makes $`S(k)`$ very suitable to calculate the exponent $`\alpha `$ using smaller system sizes for the simulations. This approach will be used here.

## 3 Computational Model

As stated above, the deconstruction model presented by Reverberi and Scalas can be considered as the reciprocal of the WV growth model and shows the same values of the scaling exponents. In the RS model the deconstruction proceeds by picking at random a site in the lattice and remove the particle which presents the smaller amount of bonds between the selected one and its nearest neighbors. On the other hand, in the WV model the deposition process is as follows; after selecting at random a site, the number of bonds of the site is calculated as well as the number of bonds of it nearest neighbors sites. The particle is deposited in the site with the larger amount of bonds. This deposition mechanism is justified by saying that the number of bonds of a site is roughly proportional to the local chemical potential, because the number of bonds increases with the local curvature of the interface, i.e., $`\mu (x,t)^2h(x,t)`$. In this sense, another growth model can be formulated. This model is called the larger curvature (LC) model and was introduced by Kim and Das Sarma.  In this case, the larger local curvature $`[h(x+1)+h(x1)2h(x)]`$ between a random selected site and its neighbors is used to decide where to deposit the new incoming particle. It can be shown, by using an argument based on a Hamiltonian, that the LC model belongs to the same universality class that the WV model.

Following this line of reasoning, a deconstruction model equivalent to the RV model would be one in which particles are removed from the site with the smaller value of the local curvature. This would be the reciprocal of the LC growth model. Lets call it the smaller curvature (SC) deconstruction model. Of course, by the same arguments stated above, the RV and the SC deconstruction models will belong to the same universality class; the WV and LC universality class.

The model presented here is mostly related with another type of growth models. Those in which the advance of the interface takes place on a random environment.333However, as it is shown below, the model presented here is not the direct reciprocal of any of the known growth models. Several models of this kind has been presented and their universality classes and scaling exponents has been studied.  In those models, the growing interface advances in a random environment. Usually, the randomness of a real porous media is resumed in a computational random media in which there are a certain amount of sites which are blocked to the advance of the interface while others are not.  Beyond a certain amount of blocked sites present in the system the interface becomes pinned and cannot advance any more. The scaling properties of such interfaces is, in general, studied near the pinning transition.

Here, and in order to model various types of real heterogeneities, the deconstruction is considered to take place on a bulk in which two types of particles are present, those particles susceptible to the etching and those which cannot be detached by the external agent acting upon the interface. Then, the deconstruction rules run as follows. A surface is represented by a one-dimensional array of integers specifying the number of atoms in each one of the columns of the bulk. To maintain the solid-on-solid characteristic of the model, the detaching processes will not give rise to overhangs. Each column of the one-dimensional array (indexed by $`i`$) is initially filled enough in order to allow the deconstruction process to take place during the whole simulational time, i.e., no column height must become negative at the end of the simulation. Before starting the deconstruction, at each lattice site $`[i,h(i)]`$ a particle of the type $`A`$ is placed with probability $`(1P)`$ and a particle of type $`B`$ is placed with probability $`P`$. Particles $`A`$ are considered to be susceptible to the attack, while particles $`B`$ no. Initially all columns are filled with the same amount of atoms, so the the simulations start with a flat surface at $`t=0`$. The selectivity of the deconstruction process is simulated in the following way. A column $`K`$ is picked at random. The local curvature $`[h_{i+1}+h_{i1}2h_i]`$ is calculated for $`i=K`$, $`i=K+1`$ and $`i=K1`$. The particle at the top of the column with the smaller curvature is removed ($`h_Kh_K1`$) if it is of type $`A`$, otherwise it is not removed. However, if the local curvature is smaller than a certain threshold $`\theta `$ the particle is removed, no matter which type it is. 444In this way, the possibility of lateral attack is taken into account. For instance, it could happen that a particle $`B`$ may remain at the top of a long column. In a real situation, lateral attack could detach $`A`$ particles underneath, leaving particle $`B`$ isolated from the interface. A value of $`\theta =1`$ and periodic boundary conditions were used. It is worth to notice that for P=0, i.e., just particles of type $`A`$ in the system, the model turns to be the SC model, the reciprocal of the LC model.

## 4 Results and Discussion

Main results are summarized by the plots presented in Figs.1 and 2. In both figures, ensemble averages where taken over 500 independent runs. A value of $`L=2^{11}`$ was used in Fig.1, while $`L=2^9`$ was used in Fig.2. As it was numerically tested, there is a critical probability that pinn the interface at $`P=P_c0.14`$. A value of $`P`$ slightly under $`P_c`$, $`P=0.13`$, was used in order to study the properties of the interface near the pinning transition. It is worth to notice that the critical probability has a different value than those corresponding to the directed percolation transition, which is the effect responsible of the pinning transition in interfaces invading porous media. It can be thought that the difference is due to the fact that, in the model presented here, the interface becomes pinned when two simultaneous conditions are fulfilled: the local curvature is greater than $`\theta `$ and all the particles at the interface are of type $`B`$. On the other hand, in growth models on porous media it is enough to have a lateral directed percolation effect in order to pinn the interface.

In Fig.1, values of the exponent $`\beta `$ as a function of time are presented. The figure was constructed by calculating, at each time $`t`$, the slope of the roughness as $`[log(w_{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t})log(w_t)]/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=10`$ was used. This method for determining the exponent $`\beta `$ is known as the consecutive slopes method.  It can be seen that the calculated values fluctuate between $`0.6`$ and $`0.7`$ for the first $`1000`$ layers removed. The average value of the exponent calculated up to $`t=1000`$ is $`\beta =0.676`$. For comparison, the corresponding exponent for the advance of an interface in porous media was found to be $`\beta =0.7`$

In Fig.2 the a plot of the structure factor $`S(k)`$ is shown. As stated above, for $`tL^z`$ the structure factor behaves has $`S(k)k^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =2\alpha +1`$. The slope of a line trough the points was found to be $`3.27\pm 0.0085`$, which gives a value of $`\alpha 1.135`$. In this case the value of the exponent is quite different from the corresponding to interfaces advancing in porous media, $`\alpha =0.7`$

The values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ indicate that the exponent $`z`$ is $`z=\alpha /\beta 1.8`$ and that the scaling relation $`\alpha +z=2`$ is not fulfilled. Although, due to the strong nonlinear effects present in the evolution of the interface, it is not expected to hold.

Final, it is pointed out that same kind of simulations were done using $`P=0.0`$. In this case the disorder in the bulk has no influence, since there are just one type of particles in the system. Then the model is equivalent to the SC or the RV models, which in turn are the reciprocal of the LC or WV models. The equivalence is confirmed by the values of the exponents obtained for the no-disorder case: $`\beta =0.353`$ and $`\alpha =1.385`$, in good agreement with the previously reported values, $`\beta =0.365`$ and $`\alpha =1.4`$, for the WV model.

## 5 Conclusions

A new deconstruction model has been presented. In the model the natural heterogeneities present in all materials of technological relevance were include. According to the values obtained for the scaling exponents the model could be though to belong to a new universality class, when the properties of the interface are studied near the pinning transition. The values of the exponents indicate that there is no growth model which can be associated as the reciprocal of the model analyzed here. In this sense a theoretical continuum model need to be developed. As a natural continuation of the present work, simulations on higher dimensions are under development.

This work was partially supported by Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.


text:
# Nanowire formation on sputter eroded surfaces

## Abstract

Rotated ripple structures (RRS) on sputter eroded surfaces are potential candidates for nanoscale wire fabrication. We show that the necessary condition for RRS formation is that the width of the collision cascade in the longitudinal direction has to be larger than that in the transverse direction, which can be achieved by using high energy ion beams. By calculating the structure factor for the RRS we find that they are more regular and their amplitude is more enhanced compared to the much studied ripple structure forming in the linear regime of sputter erosion.

today

The fabrication of nanoscale surface structures such as quantum dots (QDs) and quantum wires (QWs), have attracted considerable attention due to their applications in optical and electronic devices . These nanostructures form thanks to various self-assembled mechanisms, induced by the combined effect of strain and growth kinetics. Yet, the strained nanostructures obtained by these methods have a size distribution wider than required by applications, and display random alignment. Lithographic methods  are often considered prime candidates to overcome these shortcomings, but their limited resolution offers further challenges. Consequently, there is continued high demand for alternative methods that would allow low cost and efficient mass fabrication of nanoscale surface structures. In the light of these technological and scientific driving forces, the recent demonstration by Facsko et al. that low-energy (40 eV $``$ 1.8 keV) normal incident Ar<sup>+</sup> sputtering on GaSb (100) surfaces leads to nanoscale islands which display remarkably good hexagonal ordering and have a uniform size distribution, has captured the interest of the scientific community .

It is known that the morphological evolution of a sputter eroded surface is well approximated by the noisy nonlinear Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (KS) equation,

$`_th`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _x_x^2h+\nu _y_y^2hD_{xx}_x^4hD_{yy}_y^4hD_{xy}_x^2_y^2h`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _x}{2}}(_xh)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _y}{2}}(_yh)^2+\xi (x,y,t),`$
where $`\nu _x`$ and $`\nu _y`$ are the effective surface tensions generated by the erosion process; $`D_{xx}`$, $`D_{yy}`$, and $`D_{xy}`$ are the ion induced effective diffusion constants; $`\lambda _x`$ and $`\lambda _y`$ describe the tilt-dependent erosion rates in each direction; and $`\xi (x,y,t)`$ is an uncorrelated white noise with zero mean, mimicking the randomness resulting from the stochastic nature of ion arrival to the surface . At low temperatures all the coefficients in Eq. (2) depend on experimental parameters such as the ion beam flux $`f`$, the ion beam energy $`ϵ`$, and the incidence angle of ion beam $`\theta `$ , while at high temperatures $`D`$ depends on surface temperature. For the sputter erosion process $`\nu <0`$ and $`D>0`$, while the signs of $`\lambda _x`$ and $`\lambda _y`$ vary depending on the incident angle of the ion beam.

Recently numerical simulations have shown that there is a clear separation of the linear and nonlinear regimes in time : Up to a crossover time $`\tau _1`$ the surface is eroded as if the nonlinear terms would be completely absent, following the predictions of the linear theory  (i.e. $`\lambda _x=\lambda _y=0`$ in Eq. (2)). After $`\tau _1`$, however, the nonlinear terms with coefficients $`\lambda _x`$ and $`\lambda _y`$ take over and completely determine the surface morphology. The transition from the linear to the nonlinear regime can be seen either by monitoring the surface width (which is proportional to the ripple amplitude) or the erosion velocity.

In the nonlinear regime the case $`\lambda _x\lambda _y<0`$ is in particular interesting. The surface morphology in this case exhibits another transition from kinetic roughening to a rotated ripple structures (RRS) at a second crossover time $`\tau _2`$ ($`\tau _2>\tau _1`$), as first predicted by Rost and Krug , and observed numerically in . Moreover, it was found that the RRS is straighter than the ripple pattern forming in the linear regime, making it a potential candidate for nanowire fabrication. In this Letter we investigate the necessary conditions for the formation of RRSs and the impact of the various experimentally controllable parameters on the morphology of the RRS. We find that at low temperatures the RRSs form when the longitudinal width ($`\sigma `$) of the damage cascade generated by the ion beam is larger than the transverse width ($`\mu `$), which can be achieved for high energy ($`ϵ`$). When the energy is too high, however, the crossover time $`\tau _2`$ becomes too long. Thus, we predict that the RRS structure could be obtained in a moderate range of the incident energy, using an appropriate exposure time and low temperatures.

Rotated ripple structures form when $`\lambda _x\lambda _y<0`$ and the rotation angle is given by $`\varphi _c=\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{\lambda _x/\lambda _y}`$. As shown in Fig. 1, the angle $`\varphi _c`$ increases with the ratio $`a_\mu =a/\mu `$, but decreases with the incident angle $`\theta `$, where $`a`$ denotes the penetration depth of the ion beam and $`a_\mu `$ depends on the ion beam energy $`ϵ`$. The KS equation in the rotated frame can be written in the same form as Eq. (2) except that the coefficients $`\nu `$, $`D`$, and $`\lambda `$ are replaced by $`\nu ^{}`$, $`D^{}`$, and $`\lambda ^{}`$, which are functions of those in the original frame and the angle $`\varphi _c`$. In the rotated frame one of the coefficients of the nonlinear terms, say $`\lambda _x^{}^{}`$, is equal to zero, and the other is given by $`\lambda _y^{}^{}=\lambda _x+\lambda _y`$, where $`(x^{},y^{})`$ represents the coordinates in the rotated frame. Since $`\lambda _x^{}^{}`$ vanishes, the dynamic equation in the $`x^{}`$ direction becomes linear. Consequently, the ripple pattern is along the $`x^{}`$ direction as long as (i) $`\nu _x^{}^{}<0`$; (ii) $`D_{x^{}x^{}}^{}>0`$; and (iii) $`\lambda _x\lambda _y<0`$. Therefore the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) are the necessary conditions for the formation of the RRS.

We investigate the satisfiability of these conditions in the parameter space ($`\theta ,a_\mu =a/\mu `$) for different values of $`a_\sigma =a/\sigma `$. We find that when $`a_\mu >1`$ and $`a_\sigma =1`$ or $`a_\mu >2`$ and $`a_\sigma =2`$, the RRS can form in the region depicted in Fig. 2. For $`a_\mu <1`$ given $`a_\sigma =1`$, the shaded region satisfying (i) – (iii) scarcely exists, so that the formation of RRS is less likely. That means the RRSs are expected to form when the longitudinal width $`\sigma `$ is larger than the transverse width $`\mu `$, that is, $`\sigma >\mu `$. Recent experimental results indicate that for graphite surfaces $`\sigma `$ depends on $`ϵ`$, while $`\mu `$ is independent of $`ϵ`$ for large $`ϵ`$ ($`250`$ keV) . Therefore, the $`\sigma >\mu `$ condition can be met when the energy of the incident ion beam is high enough. Thus in order to obtain the RRS experimentally it is desirable to use high energy ion beam with an appropriate choice of the incident angle (Fig. 2). However, the use of a high energy ion beam increases $`\tau _2`$ rapidly, requiring a longer exposure time.

Since the nonlinear term disappears in the $`x^{}`$ direction the surface in this direction is driven by a linear instability. The amplitude of the RRS grows exponentially with time until the nonlinear term in the $`y^{}`$ direction becomes effective, after which the amplitude saturates. Meanwhile, the surface in the $`y^{}`$ direction displays kinetic roughening due to the presence of the nonlinear term $`\lambda _y^{}^{}(_y^{}h)^2/2`$, so that the roughness in the $`y^{}`$ direction is considerably reduced compared with the roughness in the $`x^{}`$ direction. Therefore the RRS develops a rough morphology in the $`x^{}`$ direction, while it is relatively smooth in the $`y^{}`$ direction, the end configuration resembling a V-shaped wire pattern, as shown in Fig. 3 . The RRS formed in the nonlinear regime is comparable with the ripple pattern formed in the linear regime, where there are modulations in both directions, and the roughness in each direction is almost of the same order.

We also examined the structure factor

$$S(𝐪)=\frac{d𝐫}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫)H(𝐫),$$
(3)
where $`H(𝐫)`$ is the height-height correlation function,

$$H(𝐫,t)=\underset{𝐫^{}}{}h(𝐫^{}+𝐫,t)h(𝐫^{},t)\underset{𝐫^{}}{}h^2(𝐫^{},t),$$
(4)
averaged over different configurations . We find that the structure factor exhibits a peak at $`(q_{x,c},q_{y,c})`$, corresponding to ($`q_{x^{},c}^{},0`$) in the rotated coordinaates (Fig. 4). The fact that $`q_{y^{},c}^{}=0`$ confirms that the RRS is straight in the $`y^{}`$ direction. Moreover, the amplitude of the structure factor for the RRS is much larger compared to the ripple formed in the linear regime, as shown in the inset of Fig. 4. Accordingly, the RRS could be a good candidate for the fabrication of nanowires.

Applying the linear instability theory in the $`x^{}`$ direction we obtain the wavelength of the RRSs $`\mathrm{}_x^{}^{}=2\pi \sqrt{2D_{x^{}x^{}}^{}/|\nu _x^{}^{}|}`$. The wavelength depends on the penetration depth linearly, i.e. $`\mathrm{}_x^{}^{}a`$, independent of the ion flux $`f`$. In general, the penetration depth depends on the incident ion energy $`ϵ`$ as $`aϵ^{2m}`$, where $`m1/4`$ was obtained recently for the nanoscale dot structure in low energy sputtering . We also examined $`\mathrm{}_x^{}^{}`$ in function of the ratio $`a_\mu `$ and incident angle $`\theta `$, observing a monotonically increasing and decreasing behavior, respectively (Fig. 5).

In the high temperature limit the wavelength of the RRS depends on the ion energy as $`\mathrm{}_x^{}^{}ϵ^{1/2}`$, and on the ion flux as $`f^{1/2}`$, and on the temperature as $`\mathrm{exp}(ϵ/4kT)`$, a dependence similar to that observed during the formation of nanoscale dots .

In summary, we examined the necessary conditions for the formation of RRSs, potential candidates for nanowires for electron transport. We predict that the RRS can be generated under high energy ion beam, in contrast with the formation of nanoscale dots structure occurring during low energy ion beam sputtering. Since high energy ion beam causes longer crossover time for the formation of the RRS, exposure time of the ion beam has to be adjusted to obtain the desired RRS.

This work was supported by ONR, the Korean Research Foundation (Grant No. 99-041-D00150), NSF-DMR 01-08494 and NSF-INT 99-10426.


text: # 1 C stars identified by 2MASS in Fornax