text:
# 1 Inverse couplings (𝛼₁⁻¹=(3/5)𝛼_𝑌⁻¹) as a function of scale for the minimal example. Solid lines show the actual running and unification at the string scale. Dashed lines show the apparent unification.

Introduction.  Four-dimensional weakly coupled heterotic string theories, such as those constructed from orbifold compactification , suffer from problems related to unification of gauge couplings. Extrapolation of the low energy (near the Z mass) gauge couplings, assuming only the spectrum of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), gives an approximate unification of the couplings at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV (see for example ). On the other hand, gauge couplings in the weakly coupled heterotic string should unify at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$, which is roughly $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H4\times 10^{17}`$ GeV; this is the infamous problem of a factor of 20.

Various solutions have been suggested for this difficulty; these have been nicely summarized by Dienes . One possibility is the following. Four-dimensional string theories typically contain exotic states charged under Standard Model (SM) gauge group $`G_{SM}=SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. These are states beyond those contained in the MSSM. One assumes that some of these exotics have masses at an intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$, between the scale of observable sector supersymmetry breaking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{SUSY}}`$ and the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$. The exotic matter effects the running of the gauge couplings above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ in just the right way to shift the unification scale up to the string scale. Recent work on this scenario may be found, for example, in .

A careful tuning of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ is generally required. This resolution of the string unification problem implies that the unification of gauge couplings in the conventional MSSM picture is accidental. It just so happens that the low energy coupling extrapolate to a unified value. If the intermediate scale or string coupling were perturbed, the apparent unification at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ would disappear. In general this unification scenario spoils the significance of the MSSM $`\alpha _3(m_Z)`$ versus $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)`$ prediction .

In this paper, we demonstrate a mechanism whereby string unification no longer implies that the apparent unification at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ is an accident. In elementary optics a virtual image is formed by a diverging thin lens, independent of the size and location of the object. So too with the mechanism we describe, a virtual unification happens regardless of the intermediate scale (object distance) or string coupling $`\alpha _H`$ (object height). Because of the analogy to the optics of thin lenses, we refer to the mechanism as optical unification. Optical unification is unlike the mechanism of mirage unification introduced by Ibáñez in , since unification is not an illusion; it really does occur near the string scale and does not require string threshold corrections.

Origin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$.  Quite commonly in the models considered here, some of the $`U(1)`$ factors contained in the string derived gauge group $`G`$ are anomalous: $`\text{tr}Q_a0`$. Redefinitions of the charge generators allow one to isolate this anomaly such that only one $`U(1)`$ is anomalous. We denote this factor $`U(1)_X`$. The associated anomaly is cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism , which induces a Fayet-Illiopoulos (FI) term $`\xi `$ for $`U(1)_X`$:

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}K_iq_i^X\varphi ^i+\xi ,\frac{\xi }{g_H^2}=\frac{\text{tr}Q_X}{192\pi ^2}m_P^2.$$
(1)
$`K_i=K/\varphi ^i`$, with $`K`$ the Kähler potential, $`q_i^X`$ the $`U(1)_X`$ charge of $`\varphi ^i`$, and $`m_P=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the (reduced) Planck mass. As discussed below, the (properly normalized) running gauge couplings $`g_a(\mu )`$ unify to the heterotic string coupling $`g_H`$ at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$. Since the scalar potential contains a term proportial to $`D_X^2`$, some scalar fields generically shift to cancel the FI term (i.e., $`D_X=0`$) and get large vacuum expectation values. This causes several fields to get effective vector couplings

$$W\frac{1}{m_P^{n1}}\varphi ^1\mathrm{}\varphi ^nAA^c.$$
(2)
Here, $`A`$ and $`A^c`$ are conjugate with respect to the gauge group which survives after spontaneous symmetry breaking caused by the $`U(1)_X`$ FI term. The right-hand side of (2) is an effective supersymmetric mass term, which results in masses $`𝒪(\varphi ^1\mathrm{}\varphi ^n/m_P^{n1})`$ once one shifts to the stable vacuum. This is a possible origin of an intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$.

Factors of $`G`$ besides $`U(1)_X`$ are typically broken when the Xiggses get vevs to cancel the FI term. This is an attractive feature of these models, since it provides an effective gauge theory with smaller rank. However, it is typically the case that $`U(1)`$ factors besides the hypercharge $`U(1)_Y`$ survive below the $`U(1)_X`$ breaking scale. In those cases where some of the observable sector fields are charged under these extra $`U(1)`$s, experimental limits on $`Z^{}`$ boson mediated processes require that the unhidden $`U(1)`$s be broken somewhere above the electroweak symmetry breaking scale. Thus, we envision the possibility of an intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ of gauge symmetry breaking independent of the $`U(1)_X`$ breaking.

Gaugino condensation of a condensing group $`G_C`$ in the hidden sector gives rise to the condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C`$, given roughly by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C\mathrm{\Lambda }_H\mathrm{exp}(8\pi ^2/b_Cg_H^2)`$, where $`b_C`$ is the beta function coefficient of $`G_C`$ in suitable conventions. Soft mass terms which split the supersymmetric partners to Standard Model (SM) particles are proportional to the gaugino condensate $`\lambda \lambda `$. This operator has mass dimension three, so one generically expects the the observable sector supersymmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{SUSY}}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{SUSY}}\lambda \lambda /m_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^3/m_P^2$$
(3)
For supersymmetry to protect the gauge hierarchy $`m_Zm_P`$ between the electroweak scale and the fundamental scale, one requires $`1`$ TeV $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{SUSY}}<100`$ TeV. This implies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C10^{13}`$ GeV. (More precise results may be obtained, for instance, with the detailed supersymmetry breaking models of Binétruy, Gaillard and Wu  as well as subsequent ellaborations by Gaillard and Nelson .) This gives another dimensionful parameter which may be used to produce $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$.

Hypercharge.  An important feature of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs)  is that the $`U(1)`$ generator corresponding to electroweak hypercharge does not have arbitrary normalization, since the hypercharge generator is embedded into the Lie algebra of the GUT group $`G_{\text{GUT}}SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. A similar situation holds for the normalization of $`U(1)`$ generators in string-derived field theories. Just as in GUTs, unification of the hypercharge coupling with the couplings of other factors of the gauge symmetry group $`G`$ corresponds to a particular normalization. This normalization of hypercharge is often different than the one which appears in $`SU(5)`$ or $`SO(10)`$ GUTs. In our analysis we will work with an arbitrary hypercharge normalization, conveyed by the constant $`k_Y`$. In an $`SU(5)`$ GUT, for instance, $`k_Y=5/3`$. However, in the semi-realistic heterotic orbifold constructions, $`k_Y`$ is typically some other value, which depends on the linear combination of $`U(1)`$ generators employed to “manufacture” the SM hypercharge generator. Furthermore, we exploit the fact that exotic SM-charged states typically carry very unusual hypercharges; i.e., not those which would occur in the decomposition of a standard GUT group. It will turn out that the occurence of the somewhat bizarre hypercharges we obtain here fits in nicely with the unusual values required to realize the optical unification alluded to above. (See for example  for a more complete discussion of these “stringy” features.)

String scale unification.  It has been known since the earliest attempts  to use closed string theories as unified theories of all fundamental interactions that $`g^2\kappa ^2/\alpha ^{}`$, where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling, $`\kappa `$ is the gravitational coupling and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the Regge slope, related to the string scale by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{string}}1/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$. In particular, this relation holds for the heterotic string . Here, however, $`g`$ and $`\kappa `$ are the ten-dimensional couplings. By dimensional reduction of the ten-dimensional effective field theory obtained from the ten-dimensional heterotic string in the zero slope limit, this relation may be translated into a constraint relating the heterotic string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ to the four-dimensional Planck mass $`m_P`$. One finds, as expected on dimensional grounds, $`m_P1/\sqrt{\kappa }`$, where the coefficients which have been supressed depend on the size of the six compact dimensions; similarly, the four-dimensional gauge coupling satisfies $`g_Hg`$; for details see Ref. . We thus obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Hg_Hm_P`$. Kaplunovsky has made this relation more precise, including one loop effects from heavy string states . Subject to various conventions described in , including a choice of the $`\overline{\text{DR}}`$ renormalization scheme in the effective field theory, the result is:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_H0.216\times g_Hm_P=g_H\times 5.27\times 10^{17}\text{GeV}.$$
(4)
In the heterotic orbifolds under consideration the gauge group $`G`$ has several factors, each of which will have its own running gauge coupling. Ginsparg  has shown that the running couplings $`g_a^2(\mu )`$ unify to a common value $`g_H`$ at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ according to

$$k_ag_a^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_H)=g_H^2,a.$$
(5)
Here, $`k_a`$ for a nonabelian factor $`G_a`$ is the affine or Kac-Moody level of the current algebra in the underlying theory which is responsible for the gauge symmetry in the effective field theory. It is unnecessary for us to trouble ourselves with a detailed explanation of this quantity or its string theoretic origins, since $`k_a=1`$ for any nonabelian factor in the heterotic orbifolds we are considering. For this reason, these heterotic orbifolds are referred to as affine-level 1 constructions. In the case of $`G_a`$ a $`U(1)`$ factor, $`k_a`$ carries information about the normalization of the corresponding current in the underlying theory, and hence the normalization of the charge generator in the effective field theory.

The important point, which has been emphasized many times before, is that a gauge coupling unification prediction is made by the underlying string theory. The SM gauge couplings are known (to varying levels of accuracy), say, at the Z scale. Given the particle content and mass spectrum of the theory between the Z scale and the string scale, one can easily check at the one loop level whether or not the unification prediction is approximately consistent with the Z scale boundary values. To go beyond one loop requires some knowledge of the other couplings in the theory, and the analysis becomes much more complicated. However, the one loop success is not typically spoiled by two loop corrections, but rather requires a slight adjustment of flexible parameters (such as superpartner masses) which enter the one loop analysis.

Due to the presence of exotic matter in the models studied here, we are able to achieve string scale unification. This sort of unification scenario has been studied many times before, for example in . However, in contrast to , we have—as in —states which would not appear in decompositions of standard GUT groups. The appearance of these states is due to the Wen-Witten defect in string orbifold models . Using exotics with small hypercharge values, the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$ running can be altered to unify at the string scale without having an overwhelming modification on the running of the $`U(1)_Y`$ coupling.

Nonstandard hypercharge normalization has been studied previously, for example in . In these analyses, it was found that lower values $`k_Y<5/3`$ were preferred if only the MSSM spectrum is present up to the unification scale; the preferred values were between $`1.4`$ to $`1.5`$. Unfortunately, in many semi-realistic orbifold models we are faced with the opposite effect—a larger than normal $`k_Y`$. This larger value requires a larger correction to the running from the exotic states, and has the effect of pushing down the required mass scale of the exotics .

The mechanism.  With a single intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$, unification of gauge couplings at the string scale requires

$$k_a4\pi \alpha _H^1=4\pi (\alpha _a^1(m_Z)\mathrm{\Delta }_a)b_a\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_I^2}{m_Z^2}(b_a+\delta b_a)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_I^2},a=Y,2,3.$$
(6)
The notation is conventional, with $`\alpha _a=g_a^2/4\pi (a=H,Y,2,3)`$. The quantities $`b_a,a=Y,2,3`$ are the beta function coefficients evaluated for the MSSM spectrum:222 Here, $`C(SU(N))=N`$ while $`C(U(1))=0`$. For a fundamental or antifundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$ we have $`X_a=1/2`$ while for hypercharge $`X_Y(R)=Y^2(R)`$.

$$b_a=3C(G_a)+\underset{R}{}X_a(R)b_Y=11,b_2=1,b_3=3.$$
(7)
$`k_2=k_3=1`$, and we leave $`k_Y`$ unspecified. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ are threshold corrections not including the exotic states that enter the running at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ are immaterial to the mechanism described here—they drop out of the analysis—therefore there is no need to estimate or discuss them here. The quantities $`\delta b_a`$ are the contributions to the beta function coefficients from exotic states above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$:

$$\delta b_3=\underset{q_i,q_i^c}{}\frac{1}{2},\delta b_2=\underset{\mathrm{}_i,\mathrm{}_i^c}{}\frac{1}{2},\delta b_Y=\underset{q_i,q_i^c}{}(Y_i)^2+\underset{\mathrm{}_i,\mathrm{}_i^c}{}(Y_i)^2+\underset{s_i,s_i^c}{}(Y_i)^2.$$
(8)
With respect to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L`$ the states $`q_i`$ are $`(3,1)`$, $`\mathrm{}_i`$ are $`(1,2)`$ and $`s_i`$ are $`(1,1)`$. We have vector pairs of each because we assume supersymmetric masses at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$.

Virtual unification at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ requires

$$\widehat{k}_a4\pi \alpha _U^1=4\pi (\alpha _a^1(m_Z)\mathrm{\Delta }_a)b_a\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_U^2}{m_Z^2},a=Y,2,3.$$
(9)
Here, $`\widehat{k}_2=\widehat{k}_3=1`$, while we leave $`\widehat{k}_Y=5/3`$, the usual value. If we substitute (9) into (6), we arrive at the following constraints for virtual unification at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ to occur simultaneously with real unification at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$:

$$\widehat{k}_aa_Uk_aa_H=b_a(t_Ht_U)+\delta b_at_{HI},a=Y,2,3,$$
(10)
where for convenience we have defined

$$a_H=4\pi \alpha _H^1,a_U=4\pi \alpha _U^1,$$

$$t_U=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_U^2/m_Z^2),t_H=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2/m_Z^2),t_{HI}=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_I^2).$$
(11)
Generally, Eqs. (10) are inconsistent. Careful choices of $`\delta b_a`$, $`g_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ must be made. To have optical unification we seek solutions which are independent of $`g_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$, except that they correspond to weakly coupled heterotic string with an intermediate scale above $`m_Z`$ and below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$. If this can be done, fine-tuning of the intermediate scale disappears. We first solve the $`a=2,3`$ parts of (10) for the virtual unification scale and inverse coupling:

$$t_U=t_H+\frac{1}{4}(\delta b_2\delta b_3)t_{HI},a_U=a_H+\frac{1}{4}(3\delta b_2+\delta b_3)t_{HI}$$
(12)
To have the virtual scale below the string scale, the first equation in (12) requires $`\delta b_2<\delta b_3`$. Substituting (12) into the $`a=Y`$ part of (10) yields the single constraint for optical unification:

$$0=(k_Y\frac{5}{3})a_H+(\delta b_Y4\delta b_2+\frac{7}{3}\delta b_3)t_{HI}$$
(13)
Since we require a solution which is independent of both $`a_H`$ and $`t_{HI}`$, optical unification may only occur if

$$k_Y=5/3\mathrm{and}\delta b_2=\frac{7}{12}\delta b_3+\frac{1}{4}\delta b_Y.$$
(14)
$`k_Y=5/3`$ is by no means always possible in four-dimensional string models. However, models have been found where this condition may be satisfied . In the exotic matter cases considered here, both $`\delta b_2`$ and $`\delta b_3`$ will be non-negative integers. $`\delta b_Y0`$, (14) and $`\delta b_2<\delta b_3`$ together imply

$$\delta b_3>\delta b_2\frac{7}{12}\delta b_3.$$
(15)
GUT-like exotics.  It is well known that in the trivial case where the exotics introduced at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ consist entirely of vector pairs of complete $`SU(5)`$ representations we retain the unification prediction. For example if we have $`N`$ $`5+\overline{5}`$ pairs,

$$\delta b_3=\delta b_2=N,\delta b_Y=5N/3.$$
(16)
It is easy to check that this satisfies (14). However, $`\delta b_2<\delta b_3`$ is not satisfied which from (12) is inconsistent with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H>\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$. If we have $`N`$ $`10+\overline{10}`$ pairs,

$$\delta b_3=\delta b_2=3N,\delta b_Y=5N.$$
(17)
While this satisfies (14), once again we do not satisfy $`\delta b_2<\delta b_3`$.

Minimal example.  It is easily checked that the minimum solution to (14) and (15), consistent with integer values of $`\delta b_2`$ and $`\delta b_3`$, is

$$\delta b_3=3,\delta b_2=2,\delta b_Y=1.$$
(18)
This can only work if most of the $`3(3+\overline{3},1)+2(1,2+2)`$ exotic states have very small or vanishing hypercharges. However, as we mentioned above it is possible to have states with very small hypercharge in string-derived models.

For example, if the exotic spectrum which gets a mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ consists of

$$3(3+\overline{3},1,0)+2(1,2,0)+(1,2,+1/2)+(1,2,1/2)$$
(19)
with respect to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, then (18) is satisfied. It remains to be seen if this is possible to achieve in specific models.

In Figure 1 we show the running couplings in this scheme, assuming negligible Z scale threshold corrections; i.e., the MSSM superpartners are assumed to have masses of order the electroweak scale. Apparent unification occurs at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U=2.01\times 10^{16}`$ GeV as can be seen from the figure. Simultaneously we have string scale unification at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H=4.08\times 10^{17}`$ GeV and (4) is satisfied. The intermediate scale must be chosen to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I=2.39\times 10^{12}`$ GeV.

If the Z scale couplings are taken as fundamental, then we must regard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ as fine-tuned. If we shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I\mathrm{\Lambda }_I^{}=10\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$, holding the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ and the coupling $`g_H`$ fixed, then Figure 2 emerges. The Z scale couplings must be shifted away from their experimental values to accomodate the change in the intermediate scale. However, as Figure 3 makes clear, apparent unification is preserved. Thus Figure 3 illustrates our main point: if optical unification is in force, the qualitative phenomenon of apparent unification is not a finely-tuned accident of a particular choice of intermediate scale. It is granted, however, that the Z scale couplings and the precise location of the apparent unification point are accidents of the choice of intermediate scale. However, we would like to suggest that these features are not fundamental, but are a reflection of the underlying physics at the scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$.

Conclusions.  Clearly a careful tuning of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ is necessary in order to obtain the relation (4) and the observed Z scale boundary values for the running gauge couplings. Up to light particle thresholds (MSSM superpartners, etc.), the quantities $`\alpha _a^1,\alpha _U^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ are all determined from the pair of inputs $`(g_H,\mathrm{\Lambda }_I)`$. However, the crucial point is that for any pair $`(g_H,\mathrm{\Lambda }_I)`$ we would obtain an apparent unification at some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$, so long as (14) is satisfied. That is, the unification obtained from extrapolation from the Z scale is not accidental. It is in this sense that the virtual unification is robust.

In  a class of 175 models was studied in some detail. To check whether or not the conditions for optical unification, Eqs. (14) and (15), can be satisfied requires an involved analysis of all possible definitions of $`Y`$ for the 41 models where $`k_Y=5/3`$ is not excluded. Moreover, since these models have many extra $`SU(3)_C`$ triplets and $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets, the number of possible ways of accomodating the MSSM is vast. We hope to report the results of such a check in a future publication. At this juncture, we merely point out the mechanism, which has the nice feature that only the intermediate matter content—and not the intermediate scale—needs to be specified in order to naturally explain an apparent unification at a scale lower than the string scale in the context of affine-level 1 weakly coupled heterotic string models. It would be interesting to see how such a solution to the unification scale problem might work in semi-realistic heterotic string models other than those described in , such as the recent, very promising free fermionic constructions .

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mary K. Gaillard for helpful comments, and Christophe Grojean for mentioning Ref. . 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-00-98840.


format: text

text:
# References

Non-leptonic decays of the $`B_c`$ into tensor mesons

G. López Castro1, H. B. Mayorga2 and J. H. Muñoz2

1 Departamento de Física, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios
Avanzados del IPN, Apdo. Postal 14-740, 07000 México, D. F., México

2 Departamento de Física, Universidad del Tolima, A. A. 546, Ibagué, Colombia

## Abstract

We have computed the branching ratios of the exclusive pseudoscalar (vector) + tensor modes that are allowed in the decays of the $`B_c`$ meson. The dominant spectator and annihilation contributions in those decays are evaluated using the factorization hypothesis. We find that some of these decay channels, such as $`B_c^{}(\rho ^{},D_s^{},D_s^{})\chi _{c2}`$ and $`B_c^{}\pi ^{}\overline{B_{s2}^0}`$, have branching ratios of the order of $`10^4`$, which seems to be at the reach of forthcoming experiments at the LHC. The inclusive branching fraction of the two-body $`B_c`$ decays involving tensor particles is approximately $`1.28\times 10^3`$. At the dynamical level, it is interesting to observe that the exclusive decays $`B_c^{}K^{}(\pi ^{})\overline{D_2^0}`$, $`\pi ^0D_2^{}`$, $`\eta ^{^{}}D_{s2}^{}`$ are dominated by the annihilation contributions.

PACS number(s): 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 14.40.Lb

Studies of the $`B_c`$ meson decays are important for several reasons. The mass of the $`J^P=0^{}`$ meson composed of two heavy quarks ($`b\overline{c}`$) lies between the masses of the corresponding $`b\overline{q}`$ ($`q=u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$) and $`b\overline{b}`$ systems. While the light quark in $`B_{u,d}`$ mesons plays a marginal role as an spectator in the dominant decays, both $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks fully participate in the decays of beauty quarkonium states. The beauty-charmed meson share two interesting features of those systems. Firstly, the phase-space in $`B_c`$ meson decays is large enough to allow decays where not only the charm antiquark, but also the $`b`$ quark can play the role of spectator. Secondly, in some decays of the $`B_c`$ mesons we can expect that both processes, namely those containing a $`c`$ quark as spectator (a $`bcW^{}`$ transition) and the $`b\overline{c}W^{}`$ annihilation diagrams, play similar important roles since they can have the same Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing weights. Thus, $`B_c`$ meson decays can allow a unique place for testing the interplay of both dynamical processes which are not easily accessible in the decays of $`B_{u,d}`$ mesons. Furthermore, as also is explored in this paper, some $`B_c`$ decays have $`W`$-annihilation contributions which largely dominate some of the decay amplitudes.

The semileptonic and non-leptonic decays of the $`B_c`$ meson that are expected to be the dominant ones, have been considered previously by other authors . Here, we focus on the two-body non-leptonic $`B_c`$ decays that contain a $`J^P=2^+`$ tensor meson in the final state, i.e. $`B_cP(V)T`$, where $`P(V)`$ denotes a pseudoscalar (vector) and $`T`$ a tensor meson. The analogous decays of the $`B_{u,d}`$ mesons have been considered in refs.  (see also ). Our study is exhaustive in the sense that we make predictions for all the decays that are allowed by the kinematical constraints and the leading order dynamical factorizable contributions. As in our previous works, we have used the non-relativistic quark model of Isgur et al (ISGW-model)  as input for the hadronic matrix elements $`T|J_\mu |B_c`$ and $`PT|J_\mu |0`$ that are required in our factorization approximation for the spectator and annihilation contributions, respectively. Note that factorizable amplitudes proportional to the matrix element $`T|J_\mu |0`$ do not contribute because this matrix element vanishes identically from Lorentz covariance considerations. As a final remark, let us mention that the annihilation amplitudes will be more important in $`B_c`$ than in $`B_u`$ decays because they depend upon the same CKM mixing factors (namely $`V_{cb}`$) as the spectator $`bc`$ contributions to $`B_c`$ decays.

The specific interest of $`BXT`$ decays is two-fold. First, we would like to test how quark models work in describing matrix elements that involve orbital excitations of the $`q\overline{q^{^{}}}`$ system (the tensor meson). Second, we are interested in the evaluation of the fraction of non-leptonic decays provided by modes containing tensor mesons. This is important in order to test how different exclusive channels contribute to the inclusive rates which can in principle be computed using QCD and the quark-hadron duality . In addition, the study of the $`B_c`$ decays involving spin-2 (tensor) mesons can provide complementary tests for the quark models predictions of the orbital pieces of the meson wavefunctions, which are not accessible with purely lowest lying $`P`$ and $`V`$ states.

Our results show that some branching ratios of $`B_cP(V)T`$ decays, turn out to be of the order of $`10^4`$. Those fractions seems to be at the reach of future experiments at the LHC where it is expected to produce $`2.1\times 10^8`$ $`B_c`$ mesons with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 and cuts of $`P_T(B_c)>20`$ GeV, $`|y(B_c)|<2.5`$ . With a further increase in the luminosity one could reach $`10^{10}`$ $`B_c`$ mesons per year . In fact, with a fragmentation ratio of $`3.8\times 10^4`$ ($`5.4\times 10^4`$) for the $`B_c`$ ($`B_c^{}`$) meson , $`10^8`$-$`10^9`$ $`B_c`$$`^{^{}}`$s can be available from a rather conservative estimate . These samples of $`B_c`$ mesons, would allow a detailed study of a large diversity of properties and decay modes of these mesons.

Let us start our discussion of $`BXT`$ decays with the effective weak Hamiltonian that involve a $`b`$ quark decay (namely a $`\overline{c}`$ as spectator) :

$$_{eff}(\mathrm{\Delta }b=1)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{q^{^{}},Q^{^{}},q}{}V_{q^{^{}}b}V_{Q^{^{}}q}^{}\left[a_1(\overline{q^{^{}}}b)(\overline{q}Q^{^{}})+a_2(\overline{q}b)(\overline{q^{^{}}}Q^{^{}})\right]+h.c.$$
(1)
The corresponding operator for $`B_cXT`$ transitions that proceed through the $`c`$-antiquark decay ($`b`$ as spectator) in the $`B_c`$ meson is given by:

$$_{eff}(\mathrm{\Delta }c=1)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{Q,q}{}V_{cQ}V_{uq}^{}\left[a_1(\overline{Q}c)(\overline{u}q)+a_2(\overline{u}c)(\overline{Q}q)\right]+h.c.$$
(2)
In the above expressions $`(\overline{q}q^{^{}})`$ is used for the $`VA`$ current, $`Q^{^{}}`$, $`q^{^{}}`$ $`=u,`$ $`c`$ and $`Q`$, $`q`$ $`=d`$, $`s`$, $`G_F`$ denotes the Fermi constant, $`V_{ij}`$ are the CKM mixing factors, and $`a_{1,2}`$ denote the QCD coefficients. The effective Hamiltonian that give rises to annihilation amplitudes would be considered below (see Eq. (4)).

The contribution from $`a_1`$ corresponds to the $`W`$-external emission diagram at the tree level (class I decays ) and the contribution from $`W`$-internal emission (class II decays ) decays is given by $`a_2`$. We also distinguish two types of suppressed decays according to the occurrence of the CKM factors : in the type-I(II) decays the suppression occurs in the vertex where the boson $`W`$ is produced (annihilated). It is important to note that for the $`b`$-spectator $`B_c`$ decays these two kinds of suppression are at the same order in contrast to the $`c`$-spectator $`B_c`$ decays where the type-I suppression is stronger than in the type-II case.

In order to provide numerical values of the branching ratios we use the expressions (9) and (11) for the decay rates given in Ref.  and the following values of the CKM elements : $`|V_{cb}|=0.0402`$, $`|V_{ud}|=0.9735`$, $`|V_{cs}|=0.9749`$, $`|V_{us}|=0.2196`$, $`|V_{cd}|=0.224`$, and $`|V_{ub}|=3.3\times 10^3`$. The values for the lifetime and the mass of $`B_c`$ were taken from the experimental measurements of Ref.  and the value of the masses of the tensor mesons $`B_2^{}`$ and $`B_{s2}^{}`$ are 5.733 and 5.844 GeV, respectively . All the other masses required are taken from . The values used for the QCD coefficients are $`a_1=1.132`$  and $`a_2=0.29`$ (which is obtained using the relation $`|a_2/a_1|=0.26`$ of Ref. ).

The decay constants of pseudoscalar mesons $`f_P`$ (in GeV units) have the following central values: $`f_\pi ^{}=0.131`$ , $`f_{\pi ^0}=0.130`$ , $`f_\eta =0.131`$ , $`f_\eta ^{^{}}=0.118`$ , $`f_{D_s}=0.280`$ , $`f_D=0.252`$, $`f_{\eta _c}=0.393`$ , and $`f_K=0.159`$ . The decay constant $`f_D`$ was obtained using the theoretical prediction $`f_D/f_{D_s}=0.90`$  and the value for $`f_{D_s}`$ quoted above. On the other hand, the central values for the dimensionless decay constants of vector mesons $`f_V`$ are  $`f_\rho =0.281`$, $`f_\omega =0.249`$, $`f_\varphi =0.232`$, $`f_{D_s^{}}=0.128`$, $`f_D^{}=0.124`$, $`f_{J/\psi }=0.1307`$, and $`f_K^{}=0.248`$.

We have also used the following expressions for the physical states of the mixing between octet and singlet states of SU(3) with $`I=0`$:

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _P(s\overline{s})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _P,`$
$`\eta ^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _P+(s\overline{s})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _P,`$
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _V+(s\overline{s})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _V,`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _V(s\overline{s})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _V,`$ (3)
where the mixing angle is given by $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{arctan}(1/\sqrt{2})\theta _i`$ ($`i=P`$ or $`V`$) and the experimental values of $`\theta _i`$ are given by $`20^0`$ and $`39^0`$  for pseudoscalar ($`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$) and vector ($`\omega ,\varphi `$) mesons, respectively.

With the above convention and numerical values111Since we are interested in getting estimated values for the branching fractions, we do not quote their corresponding error bars which at present are dominated by the uncertainties in the mass and lifetime of the $`B_c`$ meson., we have computed the decay amplitudes for $`B_cXT`$ modes. They are shown in the second column of Tables 1 and 2 (second column in Table 3), respectively, for the $`PT`$ and $`VT`$ channels when the $`c`$-antiquark (the $`b`$-quark) plays the role of spectator in the $`B_c`$ decay. We do not calculate the $`b`$spectator $`B_cVT`$ decays because they are completely forbidden by kinematics. We can observe that the amplitudes of $`B_cP(V)T`$ are proportional to only one of the QCD coefficients $`a_i`$ at the time . The expressions for the factors $`^{if}`$ and $`_{\mu \nu }^{if}`$ in the amplitudes and the properties of the symmetric polarization tensor $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }`$ describing the tensor meson can be found in Ref. .

We have computed the branching ratios of $`B_cPT`$ and $`B_cVT`$ (last column in tables 1–3) using the non-relativistic constituent quark model ISGW , which can be reliable to describe the $`B_c`$ meson composed of two different heavy quarks . We restrict ourselves to this model because the predictions for the required form factors are not available in a systematic way in other quark model approaches. The branching ratios obtained for the $`B_c^{}(\rho ^{},D_s^{},D_s^{})\chi _{c2}`$ and $`B_c^+\pi ^+B_{s2}^0`$ decays (which are proportional to the QCD coefficient $`a_1`$) turn out to be of the order of $`10^4`$, which seems to be at the reach of future $`B_c`$ samples at the LHC .

The decays $`B_cP(V)T`$ with the largest branching fractions are of the same order that some $`B_cPP,PV,VV`$ modes . Note that the decay $`B_c^+\pi ^+B_{s2}^0`$, which proceeds having the $`b`$-quark as an spectator, has a similar branching ratio than $`B_c^{}(\rho ^{},D_s^{},D_s^{})\chi _{c2}`$ because it is favored by the CKM factor although it is suppressed by phase space. As a matter of fact, if this decay and someone of $`B_c^{}(\rho ^{},D_s^{},D_s^{})\chi _{c2}`$ were measured, they would provide a good test for the flavor independence of the QCD coefficient $`a_1`$ since in $`B_c`$ decays with $`b`$\- or $`c`$ quarks, they are assumed to be the same.

Let us mention that some of the branching ratios of the type-I suppressed decays $`B_cVT`$ (rows 5-10 in table 2) turn out to be of the same order than $`B(B_c^+\rho ^+(K^+)\gamma )`$ ($`10^810^9`$) . Observe also that the ratio $`B(B_cVT)/B(B_cPT)3`$ when the contribution arises from the $`a_1`$ coefficient, and $`B(B_c^{}D^0D_2^{})/B(B_c^{}\overline{D^0}D_2^{})`$ is different from unity (see the second ant the last columns in table 2) because they arise from the transitions $`bc`$ and $`bu`$, respectively.

In a recent paper , the authors have computed all the $`c`$-spectator modes $`B_cP(V)\chi _{c2}`$ using the so-called generalized instantaneous approximation . In order to compare their results and ours we show their numerical values within parenthesis in the third column of tables 1 and 2. Our results in these decays are in some cases of the same order of magnitude than the results of Ref.  and in the other cases are smaller by an order of magnitude except in the decay $`B_c^{}K^{}\chi _{c2}`$.

Now we will focus on the study of the annihilation contributions to $`B_cPT`$ decays. The evaluation of the corresponding contributions to $`B_cVT`$ would require the knowledge of the $`VT|J_\mu |0`$ matrix element, which has not been computed in the literature. As is well known, the annihilation amplitudes for the two-body non-leptonic $`B_{u,d}`$ decays are helicity-suppressed . In fact, as it has been proved in Refs. , the $`B_{u,d}P_1P_2`$ decays that proceed only via a single W-exchange or W-annihilation quark diagram have negligible branching ratios, although some of them can be at the reach of B-factories. On the other hand, in some exclusive processes where the non-annihilation contribution are highly suppressed, the annihilation contributions may become important .

Ali et al.  have shown explicitly that the annihilation amplitude in $`B_{u,d}P_1P_2`$ is suppressed by a hefty factor with respect to the non-annihilation contribution, and have suggested that in the decays $`B_{u,d}PV`$, $`VV`$ the situation may be different because the annihilation quark-diagram may enhance the decay rates. We expect that the annihilation contributions to some exclusive $`B_cPT`$ decays, where the non-annihilation contribution is too suppressed, may become more important than in the $`B_{u,d}`$ decays. This happens because the $`B_c`$ meson is composed of two heavy quarks and the annihilation amplitude is proportional to the CKM factor $`V_{cb}`$ instead of $`V_{ub}`$ as in $`B_{u,d}`$ decays.

The effective weak Hamiltonian for the annihilation contributions to $`B_cPT`$ is :

$$_a^{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{Q^{^{}}q}{}V_{cb}V_{Q^{^{}}q}^{}a_1(\overline{c}b)(\overline{q}Q^{^{}})+h.c.,$$
(4)
where the subscript $`a`$ denotes annihilation, $`Q^{^{}}=u`$, $`c`$ and $`q=d,`$ $`s`$. The $`a_1`$ contribution is associated to the $`W`$-annihilation for charged mesons. It is clear that in this case there is not an $`a_2`$ contribution corresponding to the $`W`$-exchange for neutral mesons.

The annihilation amplitude can be written as

$$_a(B_cPT)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}V_{Q^{^{}}q}^{}a_1<TP|J_\mu |0>_a<0|J^\mu |B_c>,$$
(5)
where $`<0|J^\mu |B_c>=if_{B_c}(P_{B_c})^\mu `$ and $`<TP|J_\mu |0>_a`$ is taken from the ISGW-model , using the crossing symmetry of the $`<T|J_\mu |P>`$ amplitude. Thus, we write the annihilation amplitude as:

$$_a(B_cPT)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}V_{Q^{^{}}q}^{}a_1f_{B_c}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}(P_P)^\mu (P_P)^\nu ^{PT}(m_{B_c}^2),$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the polarization of the tensor meson, $`^{PT}(m_{B_c}^2)=k_a+(m_P^2m_T^2)(b_+)_a+m_{B_c}^2(b_{})_a`$, with $`k_a`$, $`(b_\pm )_a`$ being the $`PT`$ form factors evaluated in $`q^2=m_{B_c}^2`$.

The decay rate for those processes which are produced only by the annihilation contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(B_cPT)=|𝒜_a|^2\left(\frac{m_{B_c}}{m_T}\right)^2\frac{|\stackrel{}{P_P}|^5}{12\pi m_T^2},$$
(7)
with $`𝒜_a`$ given by

$$𝒜_a=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}V_{Q^{^{}}q}^{}a_1f_{B_c}^{PT}(m_{B_c}^2).$$

To get an idea about the order of magnitude of the annihilation contribution to $`B_cPT`$ we can compare the expressions given by the Eq. (9) in Ref. , and our Eq. (7) shown above. If a given decay has $`W`$-emission ($`t`$) and annihilation ($`a`$) contributions, we get the following ratio among them:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t(B_cPT)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(B_cPT)}=\left[\frac{V_1^tV_2^ta_if_P^{B_cT}(m_P^2)}{V_1^aV_2^aa_1f_{B_c}^{PT}(m_{B_c}^2)}\right]^2.$$
(8)
In table 4 we list the ratio $``$ for some exclusive $`B_cPT`$ decays that receive both of these contributions. In our numerical evaluations we have used the value $`f_{B_c}=0.48`$ GeV from Ref. . If we had assumed that the form factors for the annihilation and the direct diagrams are of the same order, we would see that the annihilation contribution becomes much bigger than the $`W`$-emission contribution. For example, in the $`B_c^{}K^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ decay, the annihilation contribution is almost $`10^5`$ times the tree level one, and for the decay $`B_c\eta ^{^{}}D_{s2}^{}`$ it becomes approximately $`10^6`$ times the direct contribution. These hefty factors arise basically from the CKM factors. Thus, we expect that the annihilation contribution in these decays, which have a highly suppressed non-annihilation amplitude, may become important.

In summary, in this paper we have computed the branching ratios of the two-body non-leptonic $`B_c`$ decays involving tensor mesons. The measurement of these decays would provide additional tests for the quark models used to compute the hadronic matrix elements that involve orbital excitations of the $`q\overline{q^{}}`$ system (as is the case of tensor mesons). The decays with the largest branching ratios –of order $`10^4`$– are $`B_c^{}(\rho ^{},D_s^{},D_s^{})\chi _{C2}`$ and $`B_c^+\pi ^+B_{S2}^0`$, which proceed dominantly through $`c`$ and $`b`$ quarks as spectators, respectively. The fractions for these decays seems to be at the reach of future experiments at the LHC. On the other hand, we have found that annihilation contributions to $`B_cPT`$ decays may become important in the exclusive channels $`B_c^{}K^{}(\pi ^{})\overline{D_2^0}`$, $`\pi ^0D_2^{}`$, $`\eta ^{^{}}D_{s2}^{}`$, which have highly suppressed non-annihilation contributions. Taking into account all the results for the estimated exclusive modes given in Tables 1-3, we observe that the inclusive production of tensor mesons in $`B_c`$ meson decays have a branching ratio of $`B(B_cXT)=1.28\times 10^3`$. This result is dominated by the modes having a $`c`$-quark as an spectator.

Acknowledgements H. B. Mayorga and J. H. Muñoz are grateful to Comité Central de Investigaciones (CCI) of the University of Tolima and COLCIENCIAS for financial support. JHM also thanks to the Physics Department at Cinvestav for the hospitality while this work was ended. GLC acknowledges financial support from Conacyt and SNI (México).

| Process | Amplitude | $`B(B_cPT)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}a_1f_\pi ^{}^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_\pi ^{}^2)`$ | $`7.5\times 10^5`$ $`(2.48\times 10^4)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^0D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_{D^0}^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`6.26\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D_s^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}a_1f_{D_s^{}}^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_{D_s^{}}^2)`$ | $`1.54\times 10^4`$ $`(4.54\times 10^4)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta _cD_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}a_2f_{\eta _c}^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{\eta _c}^2)`$ | $`1.4\times 10^6`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_1f_\pi ^{}^{B_cD_2^0}(m_\pi ^{}^2)`$ | $`1.79\times 10^9`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^0D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_{\pi ^0}^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{\pi ^0}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`5.81\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_\eta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _P^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_\eta ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`7.46\times 10^{12}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta ^{^{}}D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_\eta ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _P^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_\eta ^{^{}}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`5.4\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D_s^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_1f_{D_s^{}}^{B_cD_2^0}(m_{D_s^{}}^2)`$ | $`2.18\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\overline{D^0}D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_2f_{D^0}^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`5.66\times 10^9`$ |
| $`B_c^{}K^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{us}^{}a_1f_K^{}^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_K^{}^2)`$ | $`5.49\times 10^6`$ $`(1.78\times 10^6)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^0D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{us}^{}a_2f_{D^0}^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`1.94\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}a_1f_D^{}^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_D^{}^2)`$ | $`7.56\times 10^6`$ $`(1.86\times 10^5)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta _cD_2^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}a_2f_{\eta _c}^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{\eta _c}^2)`$ | $`1.92\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}K^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1f_K^{}^{B_cD_2^0}(m_K^{}^2)`$ | $`1.43\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^0D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_{\pi ^0}^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{\pi ^0}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`1.99\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_\eta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _P^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_\eta ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`2.51\times 10^{12}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta ^{^{}}D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_\eta ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _P^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_\eta ^{^{}}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`1.74\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cd}^{}a_1f_D^{}^{B_cD_2^0}(m_D^{}^2)`$ | $`8.57\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\overline{D^0}D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cd}^{}a_2f_{D^0}^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`5.6\times 10^{11}`$ |

Table 1. Decay amplitudes and branching ratios for the c-spectator $`B_cPT`$ decays (the amplitudes must be multiplied by $`(iG_F/\sqrt{2})\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^{}p_{B_c}^\mu p_{B_c}^\nu `$). The values within parenthesis in the third column are taken from the Ref. .

| Process | Amplitude | $`B(B_cVT)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`B_c^{}\rho ^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}a_1f_\rho ^{}m_\rho ^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_\rho ^{}^2)`$ | $`2.38\times 10^4`$$`(5.18\times 10^4)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^0D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_{D^0}m_{D^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`3.42\times 10^7`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D_s^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}a_1f_{D_s^{}}m_{D_s^{}}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_{D_s^{}}^2)`$ | $`5.25\times 10^4`$ $`(2.4\times 10^3)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}J/\psi D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}a_2f_{J/\psi }m_{J/\psi }^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{J/\psi }^2)`$ | $`2.06\times 10^5`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\rho ^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_1f_\rho ^{}m_\rho ^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^0}(m_\rho ^{}^2)`$ | $`7.43\times 10^9`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\rho ^0D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_{\rho ^0}m_{\rho ^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{\rho ^0}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`2.44\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\omega D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_\omega m_\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _V_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_\omega ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`1.21\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\varphi D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}a_2f_\varphi m_\varphi ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _V_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_\varphi ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`1.55\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D_s^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_1f_{D_s^{}}m_{D_s^{}}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^0}(m_{D_s^{}}^2)`$ | $`8.72\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\overline{D^0}D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_2f_{D^0}m_{D^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`1.89\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}K^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{us}^{}a_1f_K^{}m_K^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_K^{}^2)`$ | $`1.33\times 10^5`$ $`(3.12\times 10^6)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^0D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{us}^{}a_2f_{D^0}m_{D^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`7.63\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^{}\chi _{c2}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}a_1f_D^{}m_D^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_c\chi _{c2}}(m_D^{}^2)`$ | $`2.42\times 10^5`$ $`(8.66\times 10^5)`$ |
| $`B_c^{}J/\psi D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}a_2f_{J/\psi }m_{J/\psi }^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{J/\psi }^2)`$ | $`4.22\times 10^7`$ |
| $`B_c^{}K^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1f_K^{}m_K^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^0}(m_K^{}^2)`$ | $`4.52\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\rho ^0D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_{\rho ^0}m_{\rho ^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_{\rho ^0}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`7.91\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\omega D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_\omega m_\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _V_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_\omega ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`3.94\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\varphi D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_2f_\varphi m_\varphi ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _V_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_{s2}^{}}(m_\varphi ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`4.81\times 10^{11}`$ |
| $`B_c^{}D^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cd}^{}a_1f_D^{}m_D^{}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^0}(m_D^{}^2)`$ | $`3.26\times 10^9`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\overline{D^0}D_2^{}`$ | $`V_{ub}V_{cd}^{}a_2f_{D^0}m_{D^0}^2_{\mu \nu }^{B_cD_2^{}}(m_{D^0}^2)`$ | $`2.12\times 10^{10}`$ |

Table 2. Decay amplitudes and branching ratios for the c-spectator $`B_cVT`$ decays (the amplitudes must be multiplied by $`(G_F/\sqrt{2})\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^{}`$). The values within parenthesis in the third column are taken from the Ref. .

| Process | Amplitude | $`B(B_cPT)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`B_c^+\pi ^+B_{s2}^0`$ | $`V_{cs}V_{ud}a_1f_{\pi ^+}^{B_cB_{s2}^0}(m_{\pi ^+}^2)`$ | $`2.01\times 10^4`$ |
| $`B_c^+\overline{K^0}B_2^+`$ | $`V_{cs}V_{ud}a_2f_{\overline{K^0}}^{B_cB_2^+}(m_{\overline{K^0}}^2)`$ | $`4.22\times 10^6`$ |
| $`B_c^+\pi ^+B_2^0`$ | $`V_{cd}V_{ud}a_1f_{\pi ^+}^{B_cB_2^0}(m_{\pi ^+}^2)`$ | $`1.18\times 10^5`$ |
| $`B_c^+\pi ^0B_2^+`$ | $`V_{cd}V_{ud}a_2f_{\pi ^0}^{B_cB_2^+}(m_{\pi ^0}^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`3.86\times 10^7`$ |
| $`B_c^+K^+B_{s2}^0`$ | $`V_{cs}V_{us}a_1f_{K^+}^{B_cB_{s2}^0}(m_{K^+}^2)`$ | $`5.03\times 10^7`$ |
| $`B_c^+\eta B_2^+`$ | $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _PV_{cs}V_{us}a_2f_\eta ^{B_cB_2^+}(m_\eta ^2)`$ | $`6.46\times 10^8`$ |
| $`B_c^+K^+B_2^0`$ | $`V_{cd}V_{us}a_1f_{K^+}^{B_cB_2^0}(m_{K^+}^2)`$ | $`1.90\times 10^7`$ |
| $`B_c^+K^0B_2^+`$ | $`V_{cd}V_{us}a_2f_{K^0}^{B_cB_2^+}(m_{K^0}^2)`$ | $`1.19\times 10^8`$ |

Table 3. Decay amplitudes and branching ratios for the b-spectator $`B_cPT`$ decays. The amplitudes must be multiplied by $`(iG_F/\sqrt{2})\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^{}p_{B_c}^\mu p_{B_c}^\nu `$.

| $`B_cPT`$ | $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_t/\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`B_c^{}K^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`3.8\times 10^5`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\eta ^{^{}}D_{s2}^{}`$ | $`1.01\times 10^6`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^{}\overline{D_2^0}`$ | $`9.8\times 10^3`$ |
| $`B_c^{}\pi ^0D_2^{}`$ | $`3.24\times 10^4`$ |

Table 4. Relation between the tree level and annihilation contributions to $`B_c^{}PT`$. The values in the second column must be multiplied by $`\left[^{B_cT}(m_P^2)/^{PT}(m_{B_c}^2)\right]^2`$.


text:
# On the real zeroes of the Hurwitz zeta-function and Bernoulli polynomials

## 1 Introduction.

The classical Hurwitz zeta-function is defined for any positive real $`a`$ as an analytic continuation of the series

$$\zeta (s,a)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(a+r\right)^s.$$

When $`a=1`$ it reduces to the Riemann zeta-function.

We should note that sometimes the definition of the Hurwitz zeta-function is restricted to $`0<a1`$ (see e.g. ). From our point of view this is not natural and we follow the definition of the Hurwitz zeta-function from  where all positive $`a`$ are allowed (cf. also the original Hurwitz paper ).

It is known (see e.g. , volume 1, page 27) that in the special cases when $`s`$ is a negative integer this function (as a function of the parameter $`a`$) reduces, up to a factor, to a Bernoulli polynomial: explicitly when $`s=m,m=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}.`$

$$\zeta (m,a)=\frac{B_{m+1}\left(a\right)}{m+1}.$$

The Bernoulli polynomials $`B_k\left(a\right)`$ can be defined through the generating function:

$$\frac{ze^{za}}{e^z1}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_k\left(a\right)}{k!}z^k$$

giving, for example:

$$B_0\left(a\right)=1B_1\left(a\right)=a\frac{1}{2}B_2\left(a\right)=a^2a+\frac{1}{6}B_3\left(a\right)=a^3\frac{3a^2}{2}+\frac{a}{2},\mathrm{}$$

Bernoulli polynomials possess many interesting properties and arise in many areas of mathematics (see ).

Inkeri  proved a remarkable fact that the number $`N\left(n\right)`$ of real roots of the Bernoulli polynomials $`B_n`$ for large $`n`$ asymptotically equals to $`\frac{2n}{\pi e}`$. More precise estimates for $`N\left(n\right)`$ have been found by Delange .

In this paper we investigate the behaviour of the real zeroes of the Hurwitz zeta function $`\zeta (\sigma ,a)`$ in the upper half-plane $`a>0.`$ As a corollary we have a simple proof of Inkeri’s result. Our approach is different from  and we believe is more elementary. It is based on the remarkable Hurwitz representation of the $`\zeta (s,a)`$ on the interval $`0<a1`$ and Re$`\left(s\right)=\sigma <0`$:

$$\zeta (s,a)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1s}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi ra+\frac{1}{2}\pi s\right)}{r^{1s}},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Euler gamma-function (see e.g , volume 1, page 26).

Our main observation is that for a large negative $`\sigma `$ this formula gives a good approximation for $`\zeta (\sigma ,a)`$ on a much wider interval: $`0<a<\frac{\sigma }{2\pi e}`$. As a result we prove that

$$\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,a)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a+\frac{1}{2}\pi \sigma \right)+o\left(1\right)\mathrm{as}\sigma \mathrm{}\mathrm{provided}0<a<\frac{\sigma }{2\pi e}$$

where $`Q\left(s\right)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1s}}`$. We show also that in the region $`a>\frac{\sigma }{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}\left(\sigma \right)+1`$ the Hurwitz zeta-function has no real zeroes for large negative $`\sigma `$.

Figure 1

Our results are illustrated in Figure 1 which shows the behaviour of the real zeroes of $`\zeta (\sigma ,a)`$. Since $`\frac{1}{2\pi e}`$ is a small number we have chosen different scales on the axes to make the picture more illuminating. Notice that $`\zeta (s,1)`$ coincides with the Riemann zeta-function $`\zeta \left(s\right)`$ which only has real zeroes (for $`s<0`$) at negative even numbers $`s=2,4,6,\mathrm{}`$. Also, using the well-known identity $`\zeta (s,1/2)=\left(2^s1\right)\zeta \left(s\right)`$, we see that the only real zeroes of $`\zeta (s,a)`$ on $`a=1`$ are $`s=2,4,6,\mathrm{}`$ and on $`a=\frac{1}{2}`$ they are $`s=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ As we have mentioned above when $`s`$ is a non-positive integer $`\zeta (s,a)`$ reduces to a Bernoulli polynomial. We have used this fact to compute numerically the corresponding values of $`\zeta (s,a)`$ and to draw the picture in the regions II and IV. When $`s=1`$ the Hurwitz zeta-function has a simple pole with the residue 1 and for $`\sigma =\mathrm{Re}\left(s\right)>1`$ it is given by the convergent series with positive elements and therefore has no zeroes.

## 2 Asymptotic behaviour of the Hurwitz zeta-function $`\zeta (\sigma ,a)`$ for large negative $`\sigma `$.

The Hurwitz zeta-function (or generalised Riemann zeta-function) is defined as a series

$$\zeta (s,a)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(a+r\right)^sa>0$$

in the complex domain Re$`\left(s\right)>1`$ and can be analytically continued to a meromorphic function in the whole complex plane with the only pole at $`s=1`$ (see ,,). When $`a=1`$ it reduces to the Riemann zeta-function

$$\zeta \left(s\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k^s.$$

The Hurwitz zeta-function can be extended to the whole of the complex $`s`$-plane through the formula

$$\zeta (s,a)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1s\right)}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\left(0+\right)}\frac{\left(z\right)^{s1}e^{az}}{1e^z}dza>0$$

in which the integral is taken over a curve starting at ‘infinity’ on the real axis, encircles the origin in a positive direction and returns to the starting point (see ). By using an alternative integral formulation for $`\zeta (s,a)`$ it can be shown that $`\zeta (s,a)`$ is analytic everywhere except for the simple pole at $`s=1`$.

The Hurwitz zeta-function obviously satisfies the functional relation:

$$\zeta (s,a)=\zeta (s,n+a)+\underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(r+a\right)^sn=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(1)
Since each term in this relation is analytic we can assume this relation is true for the whole of the complex $`s`$ plane, except for $`s=1`$.

In this paper we restrict ourselves to the case when $`s`$ is real: $`s=\sigma 𝐑`$. When $`\sigma `$ is negative Hurwitz has found the following Fourier representation for $`\zeta (\sigma ,a)`$ on the interval $`0<a1`$:

$$\zeta (\sigma ,a)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\sigma \right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1\sigma }}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi ra+\frac{1}{2}\pi \sigma \right)}{r^{1\sigma }}$$
(2)
From this formula we see that

$$\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,a)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a+\frac{1}{2}\pi \sigma \right)+o\left(1\right)\mathrm{when}\sigma \mathrm{},$$

where $`Q\left(\sigma \right)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\sigma \right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1\sigma }}`$. Our first theorem proves that this is actually true on a much larger interval.

As part of the theorem proofs we will use the following inequality for the function $`S(p,n)=1^p+2^p+\mathrm{}+n^p`$:

$$S(p,n)<n^p\left(\frac{1e^p}{1e^{p/n}}\right)$$

Indeed,

$$S(p,n)=n^p\left(1+\left(1\frac{1}{n}\right)^p+\left(1\frac{2}{n}\right)^p+\mathrm{}+\left(1\frac{n1}{n}\right)^p\right)$$

But since $`1x<e^x`$ for $`x<1`$ we have

$$1\frac{1}{n}<e^{1/n}1\frac{2}{n}<e^{2/n}\mathrm{}1\frac{n1}{n}<e^{\left(n1\right)/n}$$

and therefore

$$S(p,n)<n^p\left(1+e^{p/n}+e^{2p/n}+\mathrm{}+e^{\left(n1\right)p/n}\right)=n^p\left(\frac{1e^p}{1e^{p/n}}\right).$$

We shall also need an estimate for the sum of the series: $`_{r=2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{r^{1+p}}`$. Now

$$\frac{1}{2^{1+p}}+\frac{1}{3^{1+p}}+\frac{1}{4^{1+p}}+\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2^p}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^p+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{2}{4}\right)^p+\mathrm{}\right)$$

But $`\left(\frac{2}{n}\right)^p<\frac{1}{n}`$ if $`p>4`$ and $`n3`$ so we easily deduce

$$\underset{r=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{r^{1+p}}<\left(\zeta \left(2\right)\frac{3}{4}\right)2^pp>4$$

Finally, we will also make particular use of Stirling’s inequality for the gamma function:

$$\left(2\pi p\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}p^pe^p<\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)<\left(2\pi p\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}p^pe^pe^{\frac{1}{12p}}p>>1$$

Theorem 1. Let $`\sigma =p,p0`$ and $`0<a<\alpha p`$ for some positive $`\alpha `$ then the Hurwitz zeta-function satisfies the inequality

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (p,a)}{Q\left(p\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)\right|<C_1p^{1/2}\left(2\pi e\alpha \right)^p+C_22^p,$$
(3)
where $`C_1,C_2`$ are constants, which do not depend on $`p`$. In particular, on the interval $`0<a<\frac{1}{2\pi e}p`$ we have the asymptotic behaviour

$$\frac{\zeta (p,a)}{Q\left(p\right)}=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+o\left(1\right)\mathrm{when}p\mathrm{}.$$

Proof

Let us represent $`a`$ as $`n+b`$$`0<b1`$ and with $`n`$ integer. It follows from the functional relation (1) that

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,a)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,b)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}\right|=\left|\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,n+b)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}\frac{\zeta (\sigma ,b)}{Q\left(\sigma \right)}\right|\frac{1}{\left|Q\left(\sigma \right)\right|}\underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(r+b\right)^\sigma $$

Since $`0<b1`$ we obviously have

$$\underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(r+b\right)^\sigma S(p,n)0<p=\sigma $$

and, as we obtained above,

$$S(p,n)<n^p\left(\frac{1e^p}{1e^{p/n}}\right).$$

Also, from the Stirling formula for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function we have the following asymptotically exact inequality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)>\left(2\pi p\right)^{1/2}p^pe^p`$ and therefore

$$\frac{1}{Q\left(p\right)}=\frac{\left(2\pi \right)^{1+p}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)}<\left\{\frac{2\pi e}{p}\right\}^p\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2\pi p}}$$

Thus for a large $`p`$

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (p,a)}{Q\left(p\right)}\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}\right|<\left\{\frac{2\pi en}{p}\right\}^p\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2\pi p}}\left(\frac{1e^p}{1e^{p/n}}\right)$$

$$<\left\{\frac{2\pi en}{p}\right\}^p\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2\pi p}}\frac{1}{\left(1e^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}\right)}\mathrm{if}\frac{n}{p}<\alpha $$
(4)
which is true since $`\frac{n}{p}<\frac{a}{p}<\alpha `$ by assumption.

However, from Hurwitz’ formula (2) it follows that

$$\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi rb\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)}{r^{1+p}}=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi b\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(4\pi b\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)}{2^{1+p}}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(6\pi b\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)}{3^{1+p}}+\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi b\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)\right|=\left|\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)\right|<\underset{r=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r^{p1}<\left(\zeta \left(2\right)\frac{3}{4}\right)2^p$$
(5)
if $`p>4`$. The estimates (4) and (5) imply the theorem.

By a slight modification of the previous arguments we can prove the following result.

Theorem 2In the region

$$a>\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1$$

$`\zeta (p,a)`$ is negative if $`p`$ is sufficiently large.

Proof From the same functional relation (1)

$$\frac{\zeta (p,a)}{Q\left(p\right)}<\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}\frac{\left(a1\right)^p}{Q\left(p\right)}.$$

Now assuming that $`p`$ is sufficiently large we can use Stirling’s inequality $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)<\sqrt{2\pi p}\left(\frac{p}{e}\right)^pe^{\frac{1}{12p}}`$, so

$$Q\left(p\right)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1+p}}<\frac{\sqrt{2\pi p}}{\pi }\left(\frac{p}{2\pi e}\right)^pe^{\frac{1}{12p}}$$

However, we know from the Hurwitz formula, that when $`p\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{\zeta (p,b)}{Q\left(p\right)}=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi b\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+o\left(1\right)$$

Therefore if $`\frac{\left(a1\right)^p}{Q\left(p\right)}>1`$ and $`p`$ large enough then $`\zeta (p,a)<0`$. But as we have shown

$$\frac{\left(a1\right)^p}{Q\left(p\right)}>\left(\frac{2\pi e\left(a1\right)}{p}\right)^p\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2p}}e^{\frac{1}{12p}}$$

which is greater than 1 if

$$a1>\frac{p}{2\pi e}\left(\frac{2p}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2p}}e^{\frac{1}{12p^2}}=\frac{p}{2\pi e}e^{\left\{\frac{\left(\mathrm{log}2p\mathrm{log}\pi \right)}{2p}+\frac{1}{12p^2}\right\}}$$

Now, using the inequality $`e^x<1+x+x^2`$ for sufficiently small $`x`$ we find that to guarantee that $`\frac{\left(a1\right)^p}{Q\left(p\right)}>1`$ it is enough to demand that

$$a>\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1.$$

This implies the theorem.

## 3 The Real Zeroes of the Hurwitz Zeta-function and Bernoulli Polynomials.

Let us now fix $`\sigma =p`$ and consider $`\zeta (p,a)`$ as a function of $`a`$. It follows from theorem 2 that the zeroes of this function for large $`p`$ are located in the interval $`0<a<\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1.`$ For given $`p`$ let $`N\left(p\right)`$ be the number of real zeroes of $`\zeta (p,a)`$, and $`A\left(p\right)`$ be the largest of these zeroes.

Theorem 3 For $`p`$ sufficiently large

$$\frac{p1}{2\pi e}\frac{1}{2}<A\left(p\right)<\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1$$
(6)
$$\frac{p1}{\pi e}1<N\left(p\right)<\frac{p1}{\pi e}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p+2\pi e+2$$
(7)
The zeroes of $`\zeta (p,a)`$ on the interval $`0<a<\frac{p1}{2\pi e}`$are simple and close to the half-integer lattice: $`a=\frac{p}{4}+\frac{l}{2},l𝐙.`$

Proof Let us introduce the function $`Z_p\left(a\right)=\frac{\zeta (p,a)}{Q\left(p\right)}`$. From theorem 1 it follows that

$$Z_p\left(a\right)=\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+o\left(1\right)$$

on the interval $`I_p:0<a<\frac{p}{2\pi e}`$ when $`p\mathrm{}`$. Actually this is true also for the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative of $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ but on a smaller interval $`I_{pk}`$. Indeed, from the definition of the Hurwitz zeta-function we see that

$$\frac{}{a}\zeta (s,a)=\left(s\right)\zeta (s+1,a).$$

From the property of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p+1\right)=p\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p\right)`$ it follows that

$$Q\left(p\right)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+p\right)}{\left(2\pi \right)^{1+p}}=\frac{p}{2\pi }Q\left(p+1\right).$$

Thus the derivative of $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ is equal to

$$Z_p^{}\left(a\right)=2\pi Z_{p1}\left(a\right)=2\pi \mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi \left(p1\right)\right)+o\left(1\right)=2\pi \mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+o\left(1\right)$$

on the interval $`I_{p1}.`$ Similarly we have for the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative of $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$

$$Z_p^{\left(k\right)}\left(a\right)=\mathrm{sin}^{\left(k\right)}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)+o\left(1\right)$$

on the interval $`I_{pk}.`$

In particular, on the interval $`I_{p1}`$ the function $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ (and its derivative) tend to $`\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi a\frac{1}{2}\pi p\right)`$ (and its derivative) when $`p\mathrm{}`$ which ensures that for large $`p`$ all the roots of $`\zeta (p,a)`$ on this interval are simple and located near the points $`a=\frac{p}{4}+\frac{l}{2}l𝐙`$. This implies the last statement of the theorem and the lower estimates of (6) and (7).

The upper estimates for $`A\left(p\right)`$ follows directly from theorem 2. To prove the upper estimates for $`N\left(p\right)`$ we need the following simple lemma.
Lemma If a function $`f\left(x\right)`$ (with a continuous $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative) on some interval $`(a,b)`$ has the property that the sign of the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative is constant throughout the interval then $`f`$ has no more than $`n`$ roots on this interval.

Now we apply this lemma to the function $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ on the interval $`J_p:(\frac{p1}{2\pi e},\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1)`$ to estimate the number of roots there. The idea of this calculation is clear from Figure 2 (in which $`\kappa \frac{1}{2\pi e}`$).

Figure 2

Using the fact that

$$Z_p^{\left(n\right)}\left(a\right)=\left(2\pi \right)^nZ_{pn}\left(a\right)$$

we differentiate $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ many times until we have a negative function and then apply the lemma. As one can see from Figure 2 if $`n>\left[y\right]`$ then $`Z_p^{\left(n\right)}\left(a\right)`$ will be negative in the interval $`J_p`$ and, as such, cannot have more than $`n`$ simple roots in this interval. Now $`y`$ is the solution to the equation

$$\kappa \left(\left(py\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(py\right)\right)+1=\kappa \left(p1\right)$$

or

$$y+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(py\right)+\left(\kappa ^1+1\right)=0$$

We claim that the solution to this equation for large $`p`$ satisfies the inequality

$$y<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p+2\pi e+1$$

Indeed the function $`F\left(y\right)=y+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(py\right)+\left(2\pi e+1\right)`$ is monotonically decreasing and

$$F\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p+2\pi e+1\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p2\pi e1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(p\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p2\pi e1\right)+\left(2\pi e+1\right)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(1\frac{1}{2p}\mathrm{log}p\frac{2\pi e+1}{p}\right)<0$$

for large $`p.`$ Thus according to the lemma $`Z_p\left(a\right)`$ has no more than $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p+2\pi e+1`$ roots on the interval $`(\frac{p1}{2\pi e},\frac{p}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}p+1)`$. Since on the interval $`(0,\frac{p1}{2\pi e}]`$ we have no more than $`\frac{p1}{\pi e}+1`$ zeroes this proves theorem 3.

As we have already mentioned, when $`p=\sigma =m,m𝐙^+`$ the Hurwitz-zeta function reduces to certain polynomials related in a simple way to the Bernoulli polynomials:

$$\zeta (m,a)=\frac{B_{m+1}\left(a\right)}{m+1}$$
(8)
Theorem 3 applied to these special values of $`p`$ gives some estimates on the real positive roots of the Bernoulli polynomials but because of their well-known symmetry properties:

$$B_m\left(1a\right)=\left(1\right)^mB_m\left(a\right)$$
(9)
we can immediately extend this result for all real roots of $`B_m\left(a\right)`$. In particular if $`𝐍\left(m\right)`$ is the number of all real roots of $`B_m\left(a\right)`$ and $`𝐀\left(m\right)`$ is the largest of these roots then from Theorem 3 it follows that for a large $`m`$

$$\frac{m}{2\pi e}\left(\frac{1}{\pi e}+\frac{1}{2}\right)<𝐀\left(m\right)<\frac{m}{2\pi e}+\frac{1}{4\pi e}\mathrm{log}m+\left(1\frac{1}{2\pi e}\right)$$
(10)
$$\frac{2m}{\pi e}\left(\frac{2}{\pi e}+2\right)<𝐍\left(m\right)<\frac{2m}{\pi e}+\mathrm{log}m+\left(4\pi e+3\frac{4}{\pi e}\right)$$
(11)
Corollary (K. Inkeri).

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{𝐍(m)}{m}=\frac{2}{\pi e},\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{𝐀(m)}{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi e}.$$

Remark. H. Delange in  has found sharper estimates for $`𝐀(m)`$ and $`𝐍(m)`$. In particular he showed that the additional logarithmic terms exist in both upper and lower bounds. This should be true also for the real zeroes of the Hurwitz zeta-function but it does not follow from our elementary arguments.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to John Gibbons and Peter Shiu for helpful and stimulating discussions.


text:
# PHASE TRANSITIONS FOR GAUGE THEORIES ON TORI FROM THE ADS/CFT CORRESPONDENCE Alberta-Thy-02-07, hep-th/0205001

((2002 April 30))

## Abstract

The vacuum of a large-$`N`$ gauge field on a $`p`$-torus has a spatial stress tensor with tension along the direction of smallest periodicity and equal pressures (but $`p`$ times smaller in magnitude) along the other directions, assuming an AdS/CFT correspondence and a refined form of the Horowitz-Myers positive-energy conjecture. For infinite $`N`$, the vacuum exhibits a phase transition when the lengths of the two shortest periodicities cross. A comparison is made with the Surya-Schleich-Witt phase transition at finite temperature. A zero-loop approximation is also given for large but finite $`N`$.

Horowitz and Myers  have noted that one can calculate the Casimir energy density of a nonsupersymmetric Yang-Mills gauge theory on $`S^1\times R^p`$, in the limit that the number $`N`$ of gauge fields is made very large, by using the AdS/CFT correspondence  and the supergravity energy of what they call the AdS soliton. Here I note that if one takes the gauge theory to be defined on $`R^1\times T^p`$, the product of a temporal $`R^1`$ with a spatial $`p`$-torus (the product of $`p`$ $`S^1`$ circles), then in the large-$`N`$ limit one gets vacuum phase transitions (e.g., in the stress tensor) when one varies the lengths of the $`S^1`$’s so that the values of the two shortest lengths cross. For a thermal state of the gauge theory at temperature $`T`$, which corresponds to making the Euclidean time periodic with period $`\beta =1/T`$, so that the theory is defined on a Euclidean $`(p+1)`$-torus, there is an additional phase transition, found previously by Surya, Schleich, and Witt , when $`\beta `$ crosses the length of the shortest other period.

The AdS soliton metric in $`p+2`$ spacetime dimensions is

$$ds^2=\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[\left(1\frac{r_0^{p+1}}{r^{p+1}}\right)d\tau ^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(dx^i)^2dt^2\right]+\left(1\frac{r_0^{p+1}}{r^{p+1}}\right)^1\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}dr^2,$$
(1)
where the radial variable $`r`$ ranges from $`r_0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, and where to avoid a conical singularity at $`r=r_0`$, one must make $`\tau `$ periodic with period $`\beta _\tau =4\pi \mathrm{}^2/(p+1)r_0`$. (I have added the subscript $`\tau `$ to what Horowitz and Myers call simply $`\beta `$ in order to distinguish that period, of the spatial coordinate $`\tau `$, from my use of $`\beta `$ to denote the period of the Euclidean time coordinate when I consider a thermal state.)

This soliton, an Einstein metric with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=p(p+1)/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$ that is negative, represents a solution for a supergravity theory in $`p+2`$ dimensions in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{P}lanck}`$. By the AdS/CFT correspondence, it should be dual to a suitable state (e.g., the vacuum) of a large-$`N`$ gauge theory defined on the conformal boundary of the AdS soliton metric, at $`r=\mathrm{}`$.

Horowitz and Myers  considered the case in which $`\tau `$ was periodic but the other spatial coordinates at constant $`r`$, the $`p`$ $`x^i`$’s, were not (except when they normalized the energy, which is infinite for unbounded $`x^i`$’s). Then with $`t`$ also unbounded, the dual gauge theory was defined on $`S^1\times R^p`$ (with spatial sections $`S^1\times R^{p1}`$). However, I shall take the case in which each $`x^i`$ is periodic, with period $`L_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p1`$. For symmetry of notation, I shall also define $`x^p=\tau `$ and $`L_p=\beta _\tau `$, so each of the $`p`$ spatial coordinates for the gauge theory has period $`L_i`$, but now with $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$. Thus the spatial part of the manifold on which the gauge theory lives is the product of $`p`$ $`S^1`$’s, the $`p`$-torus $`T^p`$. I shall also take the case in which all of the fermionic fields are antiperiodic around each of the $`S^1`$’s, so that in principle any of the $`S^1`$’s could have length shrunk to zero at some locations in the metric of the dual supergravity theory (and hence representing a rotation by $`2\pi `$ at those locations, reversing the sign of fermionic fields).

Then in the case in which one is interested in the Lorentzian gauge theory (so that the Lorentzian time $`t`$ has infinite range, giving an $`R^1`$ factor), the total spacetime topology on which the gauge theory lives is $`R^1\times T^p`$. Up to an arbitrary (smooth, positive) conformal factor, the metric of this spacetime is what is obtained from the soliton metric (1) by dropping the $`dr^2`$ part, multiplying by a conformal factor $`l^2/r^2`$, and taking the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$:

$$ds^2=dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(dx^i)^2+d\tau ^2=dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(dx^i)^2.$$
(2)
This metric is of course flat, and the only nontrivial continuous parameters are the $`p`$ lengths $`L_i`$ of the $`S^1`$ factors. Since the gauge theory in this $`p+1`$ dimensional spacetime, dual to the supergravity theory in $`p+2`$ dimensions, is conformally invariant, only the $`p1`$ ratios of the lengths are physically relevant for conformally invariant properties of that theory.

When the lengths $`L_i`$ are all multiplied by the same positive number $`c`$, the conformally invariant gauge theory has the same physical form. Since its energy $`E`$ has the dimension of inverse length, it would be multiplied by $`1/c`$ under this scale transformation. Thus the actual value of the energy of a CFT is not invariant under conformal transformations. However, when a representative of the conformal class of metrics for the CFT is stationary, as is the metric (2), and when any other external field coupling to the CFT is also stationary (none in our example), then in that representative metric the energy is well defined and simply scales as $`1/c`$ if the lengths in the metric are scaled by $`c`$ under a constant conformal factor. Therefore, if the energy is multiplied by a length scale taken from the metric, the resulting product is invariant under the scaling.

In our case we can use the spatial volume to define a length scale $`L`$. If we follow Horowitz and Myers  to define $`V_{p1}`$ to be the volume of their $`p1`$ $`x^i`$’s, i.e., $`V_{p1}=L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_{p1}`$, we can analogously define $`V_p`$ to be the volume of our $`p`$ $`x^i`$’s, i.e.,

$$V_pL^p=L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_{p1}L_p=V_{p1}\beta _\tau ,$$
(3)
where the length scale $`L`$ is thus defined to be the geometric mean of the $`p`$ spatial periodicities. Then the scale-invariant quantity that reduces to the energy $`E`$ when the spatial volume is scaled to unity is

$$ϵ=ELEV_p^{1/p},$$
(4)
which I shall call the scale-invariant energy.

Now by the AdS/CFT correspondence, one can equate the energy of the CFT, for some choice of scale, with the energy of the supergravity solution at the same choice of scale. Using Eq. (3.16) of Horowitz and Myers  for the latter, one can readily calculate that the scale-invariant energy is

$$ϵ=C_p\left(\frac{L}{\beta _\tau }\right)^{p+1}=C_p\left(\frac{L}{L_p}\right)^{p+1},$$
(5)
$$C_p\left(\frac{4\pi }{p+1}\right)^{p+1}\frac{\mathrm{}^p}{16\pi G_{p+2}}=\frac{1}{4(p+1)G_{p+2}}\left(\frac{8\pi ^2p}{(p+1)(\mathrm{\Lambda })}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}.$$
(6)
This value comes from using the metric (1), in which it is the special coordinate $`x^p=\tau `$, with coordinate periodicity $`L_p=\beta _\tau `$, that has a proper length whose ratio with the proper length of each other $`p1`$ $`x^i`$ changes with $`r`$ and goes to zero at $`r=r_0`$. In particular, the $`p1`$ periodic $`x^i`$’s for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p1`$ give circles whose proper lengths change in the same ratio as $`r`$ is reduced from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`r_0`$, and whose proper lengths never go to zero, but the proper length of the circle represented by $`x^p`$ changes at a different rate with $`r`$ and goes to zero at the nut  at $`r=r_0`$, a regular center of polar coordinates for the $`(r,x^p)`$ two-surface.

If one filled in the conformal boundary, with metric conformal to (2), with a metric analogous to (1) but having a coordinate different from $`\tau =x^p`$, say $`x^k`$ instead, having a nut at $`r=r_0`$, then one would get a supergravity solution with

$$ϵ=ϵ_k=C_p\left(\frac{L}{L_k}\right)^{p+1}.$$
(7)
For $`L_kL_p`$, this would correspond to a different state of the gauge theory.

Thus we see that if all of the $`L_i`$’s are different, we get $`p`$ different AdS solitons that can fill in the conformal boundary with representative metric (2), one for each choice of the spatial coordinate $`x^k`$ that is chosen to have the nut in the interior. Each of these supergravity configurations has a different scale-invariant energy given by Eq. (7).

If we chose an AdS soliton corresponding to an $`L_k`$ that is not the shortest circle, then the scale-invariant energy would not be the minimum possible value for that conformal boundary. This would be a (rather trivial) counterexample to the positive-energy conjectures of Horowitz and Myers , assuming that one measured the energy relative to the base metric given by their Eq. (4.1) and had one of their $`x^i`$’s (without the nut) having a shorter period than their $`\tau `$ that does have the nut. (Of course, this would not be a counterexample if it is implicitly assumed that the $`x^i`$’s have infinite range, as Horowitz and Myers  seem to do except when they assume a finite $`V_{p1}`$ in order to get a finite $`E`$.)

In any case, one could trivially rephrase the Horowitz-Myers conjectures to include the assumption that the base metric has the period of the $`\tau `$ coordinate shorter than the period of any of the other spatial coordinates transverse to $`r`$. If these slightly revised conjectures are true, as I shall assume here, then the lowest scale-invariant energy is the $`ϵ_k`$ given by Eq. (7) with $`L_k`$ chosen to be the shortest $`S^1`$ in the boundary metric (2). This would then be the scale-invariant ground state energy of the gauge theory:

$$ϵ_0=\underset{k}{\mathrm{min}}ϵ_k=C_p\left(\frac{L}{\mathrm{min}L_k}\right)^{p+1}.$$
(8)
If we divide this by L, we get that the ground state energy of the gauge field in the flat spatial $`p`$-torus of edge lengths $`L_i`$ is

$$E_0=C_p\frac{L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_{k1}L_{k+1}\mathrm{}L_{p1}L_p}{L_k^p},$$
(9)
where $`L_k`$ is the minimum of the $`L_i`$’s.

From dividing this energy by the volume, and from differentiating the energy with respect to each of the edge lengths and dividing by the transverse area, one can easily get that the stress-energy tensor has only the following nonzero components, in the flat coordinate basis used in the metric (2), and with $`i`$ indicating a spatial index not equal to the special index $`k`$ that labels the shortest $`L_k`$ (no sum on the repeated indices):

$$T_{00}=\frac{C_p}{L_k^{p+1}},$$
(10)
$$T_{ii}=+\frac{C_p}{L_k^{p+1}},$$
(11)
$$T_{kk}=\frac{C_pp}{L_k^{p+1}}.$$
(12)
Thus we see that the energy density is negative, there is a positive pressure of that same magnitude in each of the periodic directions except for the shortest one, and there is a negative pressure (tension) of $`p`$ times that magnitude in the direction of the shortest periodic direction. As expected, the trace of the stress-energy tensor is zero.

This dependence on the spatial periodicities of the stress-energy tensor of the large-N gauge theory vacuum state in the spatial $`p`$-torus gives a vacuum phase transition whenever the periodicities are changed so that the direction of the shortest periodicity is switched. The energy density, $`T_{00}`$, is continuous but has a discontinuity in its derivative with respect to the length that either was or becomes the shortest. However, the pressures in the two directions that correspond to what was and what becomes the shortest periodicity have discontinuities, suddenly interchanging with the interchange of shortest lengths. The strong coupling apparently makes the gauge theory vacuum highly sensitive to the periodicity in the two shortest directions when they become equal.

This sudden change in the stress tensor of the strongly coupled gauge field vacuum is not similar to the smooth change in the Casimir stress tensor for a weakly coupled gauge field, so it is another feature of the difference between strong and weak coupling, besides the famous factor of 3/4 (for $`p=3`$) .

Of course, for large but finite $`N`$, there would be no real discontinuity in the stress tensor, and no real phase transition for this system that is effectively in a finite cavity (with periodic boundary conditions for the bosons and antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions). However, for large $`N`$, the stress tensor would change rapidly with the two shortest periods when they are crossed, as we shall discuss later.

When one goes from the vacuum state to the thermal state at a finite temperature $`T`$ for the strongly coupled gauge theory, this is equivalent to making the Euclidean time periodic with period $`\beta =1/T`$, so the Euclidean metric for the gauge field would simply be the $`p+1`$ torus $`T^{p+1}`$ with edge lengths $`\beta `$ and the $`p`$ $`L_i`$’s. In this case a slight modification of the analysis above would predict that there should be a thermal phase transition when $`\beta `$ drops below $`L_k`$, the shortest other periodicity. This is indeed what has been found .

For $`T<1/L_k`$,  find one has a confinement phase, with the expectation value of the temporal Wilson loop operator being zero (in the large-$`N`$ limit). The expectation value of the spatial Wilson loops along the spatial $`S^1`$’s would be zero for all but the shortest $`S^1`$, which would have a nonzero expectation value for its Wilson loop. By the analysis above, using the AdS/CFT correspondence with only the purely classical supergravity solutions, one finds that the gauge field stress-energy tensor has the form given by Eqs. (10)-(12), which thus does not change with temperature so long as it is below the transition temperature $`1/L_k`$. (This of course ignores the correspondence to the small effect of thermal field fluctuations about the classical supergravity solution.) Thus the strongly coupled gauge field is effectively frozen in its confined ground state, with very low specific heat (which would be slightly nonzero from the correspondence with the thermal field fluctuations about the supergravity solution).

For $`T>1/L_k`$,  find one has a deconfinement phase, with the expectation value of the temporal Wilson loop operator being nonzero. Then the expectation value of all of the Wilson loops over the spatial $`S^1`$’s would be zero (in the large-$`N`$ limit). By a trivial extension of the analysis above, one finds that the gauge field stress-energy has the form

$$T_{00}=+C_ppT^{p+1},$$
(13)
$$T_{ii}=T_{kk}=+C_pT^{p+1}.$$
(14)
(Here $`T^{p+1}`$ denotes the temperature raised to the power that is the dimension of the spacetime in which the gauge theory is defined, not a $`p+1`$ torus as has been my previous use of this expression.)

This is exactly the same as the large-volume limit of a thermal gas with 3/4 (for $`p=3`$) the number of degrees of freedom as the weak coupling limit of the large-$`N`$ gauge field . However, I emphasize that this factor of 3/4 really applies only when $`\beta L_k`$. When $`\beta `$ is comparable to $`L_k`$, the true thermal-Casimir stress-energy tensor of the weakly coupled gauge field would be expected to change slowly with the ratios of the periodicities, and not suddenly as its components do in Eqs. (10)-(14) for large $`N`$. Thus it is not simply the factor of 3/4 that differs between the weak and strong coupling limits, but also the more detailed dependence on the periodicities.

It may be of interest to give an improved approximation for the stress-energy tensor for large but finite $`N`$ when the shortest periodicities are nearly equal, which I shall do by using the zero-loop approximation for the partition function for the supergravity theory that is dual to the gauge theory.

To shorten the expressions, I shall use $`np+1`$, the dimension of the spacetime in which the conformal gauge theory lives, which in the thermal case (with periodic Euclidean time) is the flat Euclidean $`n`$-torus with orthogonal periods and with periodicity lengths $`L_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},n1`$, with $`L_0=\beta `$ and with the $`n1`$ other $`L_i`$’s being as before. For brevity, also define the $`n`$-dimensional volume of the Euclidean spacetime to be

$$V_nV_{p+1}=\beta V_p=L_0L_1\mathrm{}L_{p1}L_p,$$
(15)
and use

$$CC_pC_{n1}\left(\frac{4\pi }{n}\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{}^{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}=\frac{1}{4nG_{n+1}}\left(\frac{8\pi ^2(n1)}{n\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{\frac{n1}{2}}.$$
(16)
From  one can see that for $`n=p+1=4`$, $`C=(\pi ^2/8)N^2`$, and from some examples of  for $`n=3`$ and $`n=6`$, I would conjecture that for general $`n`$, $`CN^{n/2}`$.

Now, as discussed above, there are $`n`$ classical Euclidean supergravity solutions with this Euclidean $`n`$-torus as their conformal boundary, one for each choice of one of the $`n`$ $`S^1`$’s to be given a nut inside, at which the periodicity length shrinks to zero to form, along with the radial coordinate $`r`$, the center of a two-dimensional disk. If it is the coordinate $`\gamma `$ that has the nut, then the action of that solution is

$$I_\gamma =C\frac{V_n}{L_\gamma ^n}.$$
(17)
Then in the zero-loop approximation, this classical solution makes a contribution to the partition function of

$$Z_\gamma =e^{I_\gamma }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{CV_n}{L_\gamma ^n}\right).$$
(18)
Assuming the Horowitz-Myers conjectures  in the form revised above, which imply that these supergravity configurations dominate the path integral, one has that the total zero-loop partition function is

$$Z=\underset{\gamma =0}{\overset{n1}{}}Z_\gamma =\underset{\gamma =0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{CV_n}{L_\gamma ^n}\right).$$
(19)
One can then say that each of the $`n`$ classical supergravity solutions has probability

$$P_\gamma =\frac{Z_\gamma }{Z}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{CV_n}{L_\gamma ^n}\right)/\underset{\delta =0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{CV_n}{L_\delta ^n}\right).$$
(20)
Now using the toroidal symmetry of the metric and differentiating the partition function by the nontrivial parameters of the metric (the periodicity lengths $`L_\gamma `$) gives the following stress-energy tensor (to zero-loop approximation, which is good only for $`C1`$, and which ignores the correspondence to the thermal field fluctuations in the dual supergravity theory and other similar effects that would show up in a one-loop calculation for that theory):

$$T_\beta ^\alpha =\underset{\gamma =0}{\overset{n1}{}}P_\gamma \frac{C}{L_\gamma ^n}\left(\delta _\beta ^\alpha n\delta _\gamma ^\alpha \delta _\beta ^\gamma \right),$$
(21)
where the Einstein summation convention is not used in the last term.

Thus we see that for finite $`N`$, and hence for finite $`C`$ (which goes as a power of $`N`$, with the power apparently being half the spacetime dimension $`n`$ in which the gauge theory lives), there are no discontinuities in the stress-energy tensor and no true phase transitions, which agrees with what one expects on general grounds for a finite system. However, for $`C1`$, the stress-energy tensor changes very rapidly with the two shortest periodicities when they are very nearly equal.

For example, when the inverse temperature, $`\beta 1/TL_0`$, is very nearly the same as the shortest spatial periodicity, say $`L_k`$, and when all the other periodicities are significantly longer, then only

$$P_0\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{CV_n}{2\beta ^n}\frac{CV_n}{2L_k^n}\right)\right]$$
(22)
and

$$P_k\frac{1}{2}\left[1\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{CV_n}{2\beta ^n}\frac{CV_n}{2L_k^n}\right)\right]$$
(23)
are significantly different from zero, and when they are both significantly different from zero, they change very rapidly with $`\beta `$ and with $`L_k`$. When one integrates $`T_{00}`$ over the spatial volume $`V_{n1}=V_n/\beta `$, one gets, for $`\beta L_k`$,

$$E\frac{CV_{n1}}{L_k^n}(nP_01)=E_0(nP_01),$$
(24)
where the negative $`E_0`$, given by Eq. (9), is the ground state energy when the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is taken to infinity. Then one can calculate that the specific heat is

$$\frac{dE}{dT}P_0P_k\left(\frac{nCV_{n1}}{L_k^{n1}}\right)^2=P_0P_k(nL_kE_0)^2=P_0P_kn^2C^2\left(\frac{L}{\mathrm{min}L_k}\right)^{2n2}.$$
(25)
Since $`C1`$, and since $`L`$, the geometric mean of all of the $`n1`$ spatial periodicities, is larger than $`\mathrm{min}L_k`$ (and can be much larger), the specific heat can be very large when $`P_0`$ and $`P_k`$ are both comparable to $`1/2`$. Therefore, although there is not literally a phase transition for finite $`N`$ (and hence finite $`C`$) and for finite $`V_{n1}/L_k^{n1}`$, the stress-energy tensor can change very rapidly with the temperature for large finite values of one or both of these quantities.

Thus we can conclude that in the limit of infinite $`N`$, a conformally invariant gauge theory on a flat torus (with antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions), dual to a supergravity theory in one higher dimension, has vacuum and thermal states that are infinitely sensitive to the two shortest periodicities of the torus when they are equal, giving a phase transition when the two shortest lengths are interchanged. This is analogous to what was previously found  for the thermal phase transition when the inverse temperature crosses the shortest spatial periodicity. The phase transition involves a discontinuity in the stress-energy tensor, in the components along the two shortest periodicities (either both spatial, or one being the Euclidean time periodicity for the thermal phase transition).

I was introduced to the AdS soliton by Sumati Surya and Eric Woolgar and had valuable discussions about it with them. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Phase transition in a triplet process

## Mean field approximation.

In order to determine critical dimension $`d_c`$ and the mean field critical exponents of the reaction-diffusion process (1) for general $`m<n`$, let us consider a simple mean field theory. We expect this process to be described by the Langevin equation

$$_t\rho (\text{x},t)=a\rho ^n(\text{x},t)\rho ^{n+1}(\text{x},t)+D^2\rho (\text{x},t)+\zeta (\text{x},t),$$
(2)
which for $`n=1`$ reduces to the well-known Langevin equation for DP DPConjecture . The first term accounts for both particle creation and removal so that the parameter $`a`$ plays the role of the reduced spreading probability $`pp_c`$. The second term is the most relevant contribution preventing the particle density from going to infinity, while the third term describes nearest-neighbor diffusion.

The noise $`\zeta (\text{x},t)`$ takes the stochastic nature of particle creation and removal into account. Its amplitude has to depend on the local density $`\rho (\text{x},t)`$ since in the absorbing state $`\rho =0`$ there are no density fluctuations. Thus it is near at hand to expect noise correlations of the form

$$\zeta (\text{x},t)\zeta (\text{x}^{},t^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho ^\mu (\text{x},t)\delta ^d(\text{x}\text{x}^{})\delta (tt^{})$$
(3)
with an unknown exponent $`\mu `$. For DP ($`n=1`$), where the squared noise amplitude is proportional to the density of particles, this exponent is given by $`\mu =1`$. For $`n>1`$, however, the situation is more involved. Without the branching process, i.e., deep in the inactive phase, the squared noise amplitude is proportional to $`_t\rho (\text{x},t)`$, hence $`\mu =n`$. At the transition, however, the branching process may lead to positive correlations among the particles, increasing the intensity of the noise and thereby reducing the value of $`\mu `$. At criticality we therefore expect $`\mu `$ to be in the range

$$1\mu n.$$
(4)
Solving the stationary mean field equation $`0=a\rho ^n\rho ^{n+1}`$ we obtain the stationary density $`\rho =a`$, hence the critical point is $`a_c=0`$ and the density exponent is $`\beta ^{\mathrm{MF}}=1`$. At the mean field critical point the full Langevin equation should be invariant under the scaling transformation

$$\text{x}\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{x},t\mathrm{\Lambda }^zt,\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }^\chi \rho ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a dilatation factor while $`z=\nu _{}/\nu _{}`$ and $`\chi =\beta /\nu _{}`$ are quotients of the three standard critical exponents. Comparing all terms except for the noise, scaling invariance implies that $`z=2`$ and $`\chi =2/n`$, i.e.,

$$\beta ^{\mathrm{MF}}=1,\nu _{}^{\mathrm{MF}}=n/2,\nu _{}^{\mathrm{MF}}=n.$$
(6)
Moreover, we can check the relevance of the noise term, which is responsible for fluctuation effects. By simple power counting we find that the noise is relevant below the upper critical dimension

$$d_c=2+\frac{42\mu }{n},$$
(7)
while it is irrelevant above $`d_c`$ where the mean field exponents (6) are expected to become exact. For DP ($`n=\mu =1`$) we obtain the well-known result $`d_c=4`$, while for the PCPD the upper critical dimension has to be in the range $`2d_c3`$. This result is in agreement with recent numerical findings by Ódor et al. OMS02  suggesting that $`d_c=2`$.

As the main observation, which triggered the present work, we note that the upper critical dimension for third-order processes ($`n=3`$, $`m<n`$, $`1\mu 3`$) is larger than $`4/3`$. Consequently, in 1+1 dimensions such a triplet process (TP) should still be characterized by non-trivial fluctuation effects. Moreover, the density in the inactive phase is known to decay as $`\rho (t)(\mathrm{ln}t/t)^{1/2}`$. This type of decay in the absorbing phase differs from all other previously known universality classes of phase transitions into absorbing states, suggesting that also the transition itself should belong to yet another universality class.

## Numerical simulations.

In order to study the triplet process numerically, we introduce a fermionic variant of the reaction-diffusion process (1) with $`n=3`$ and $`m=2`$. It evolves by random-sequential updates and is defined by the following dynamic rules:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}AA\mathrm{}& \text{ with rate }& \hfill (1p)/2\\ A\mathrm{}\mathrm{}A& & \hfill (1p)/2\\ AAAAA\mathrm{}& & \hfill (1p)/2\\ AAA\mathrm{}AA& & \hfill (1p)/2\\ AAA\mathrm{}AAAA& & \hfill p/2\\ \mathrm{}AAAAAAA& & \hfill p/2\end{array}$$
(8)
A typicial space-time plot of the process at criticality is shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen the process generates spatiotemporal structures, possibly indicating the presence of fluctuation effects. Note that we tuned the rates for diffusion and particle removal in the same way as in Ref. PreviousPaper .

Performing standard Monte Carlo simulations (see, e.g., Hinrichsen ) we find clear evidence for a continuous phase transition between an active phase, where the denstity of particles is asymptotically constant, and an inactive phase, where the particle density decays algebraically with logarithmic corrections. Assuming that the critical behavior at the transition obeys simple power law scaling we find the critical threshold $`p_c=0.6851(4)`$(see Fig. 2). As in the PCPD, there are strong corrections so that the scaling regime, if existent at all, is not reached before $`10^4`$ time steps. Averaging over many independent runs in the time interval $`10^4<t<10^6`$ we estimate the critical exponents by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _{}=2.5(2),& z=1.75(10),& \hfill \delta =\beta /\nu _{}=0.32(1).\end{array}$$
(9)
Similar exponents were obtained in other variants of the triplet process with $`m<n=3`$ (not reported here). In all cases the estimates differ from the mean field (MF) exponents $`\nu _{}^{\mathrm{MF}}=3`$, $`z^{\mathrm{MF}}=2,`$ and $`\delta ^{\mathrm{MF}}=1/3`$, leading us to the conclusion that critical behavior of the 1+1-dimensional TP is indeed characterized by non-trivial fluctuation effects. As expected, these deviations are quite small (less than $`20\%`$) since the simulations are carried out close to the upper critical dimension.

We note that our results are not accurate enough to doubtless confirm the validity of power-law scaling over a large range. As our simulations seem to reach the scaling regime only after $`10^4`$ time steps, the accuary of our estimate for $`p_c`$ is limited as well. In addition, the asymptotic power-law behavior may be shadowed by logarithmic corrections which are also present in the inactive phase. Finally, as in the case of the PCPD, the assupmtion of simple power-law scaling and the concept of universality may be questioned as a whole. Nevertheless we believe that the MF arguments and the numerical evidence are strong enough to conclude that this model exhibits a different type of critical behavior, where fluctuation effects are likely to play an important role.

Regarding the limited accuracy of numerical simulations a major drawback could be the definition of the model as a fermionic reaction-diffusion process with four-site interactions. A bosonic variant with two-site interactions is currently under investigation. Moreover, it is important to determine the exponent $`\mu `$ in the noise correlator. Preliminary simulations suggest a value close to $`\mu 2`$. Finally, the influence of the diffusion rate has to be studied systematically.

We would like to thank G. Ódor for numerous helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-2001-015-DP0120 and also in part by the Ministry of Education through the BK21 project.