format: text

text:
# UCL-IPT-02-05 Finite Mixing Angles in the Standard Model

## 1 Introduction

Searching for relations between the apparently free parameters of the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles ranks among the most popular unification attempts. Most of those parameters find their origin in the Yukawa sector of the theory. In particular, the six quark masses and the three Cabibbo-like mixing angles exhibit a strongly hierarchical pattern among families. Furthermore, recent experiments tend to confirm the existence of neutrino masses and therefore of new mixing angles in the lepton sector . For decades one has tried to constrain the SM in order to obtain relations between those apparently free parameters. Until now, most attempts consisted in enlarging the symmetry group of the SM by adding a horizontal component to it . The horizontal symmetry imposes constraints on the structure of the Yukawa couplings. After spontaneous breakdown of the symmetry, the fermion mass matrices that are generated still bear the stamp of those constraints and through bidiagonalization, they give rise to relations between mass ratios and mixing angles. Such an implementation guarantees that the relations survive to renormalization; they are called natural . However one soon realized  that it could not be achieved without extending the particle content, namely by considering models with more than one Higgs doublet, thereby increasing the number of couplings…

In this paper we present an alternative way to envisage naturalness in the Yukawa sector. We assume the existence of a tree-level relation between some apparently free parameters, such that it is not spoiled by divergent one-loop radiative corrections. The condition is necessary to get natural relations (it is not sufficient as long as the relation does not hold at all orders in perturbation theory). Moreover, instead of one-loop naturalness, we talk about one-loop finiteness, since the obtained result is in principle not correlated with the presence of an extra symmetry group in the SM.

A first section is devoted to the presentation of a situation (evoked in ) where the use of a simple one-loop argument happens to be quite powerful. We show how such a kind of argument, applied to the weak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$, within the SM, may give an insight of some higher scale vertical symmetry, and suggest the existence, at that scale, of a Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

In the second section we focus on the Cabibbo mixing angle $`\theta _C`$  in a SM with one Higgs doublet and two fermion generations. Again we make use of a one-loop argument to show that it is impossible to determine a non-trivial Cabibbo angle as a fixed, calculable, parameter. The argument confirms a well-known result about horizontal symmetries with a single Higgs doublet .

We then consider a larger set of a priori free parameters in the hadronic Yukawa sector of the SM with one Higgs doublet and two fermion generations, and we establish a method to find out the one-loop finite relations between them. We show that there is indeed an infinite set of one-loop finite relations (expressing the Cabibbo angle $`\theta _C`$ as a function of the quark mass ratios $`m_u/m_c`$ and $`m_d/m_s`$) in the single-Higgs-doublet SM. We conclude that those relations cannot originate from any additionnal horizontal symmetry.

Assuming the existence of a purely Dirac mass term for the neutrinos, we obtain a second infinite set of one-loop finite relations in which the lepton mixing angle $`\theta _L`$ is found to be a non-trivial function of the lepton mass ratios $`m_{\nu _e}/m_{\nu _\mu }`$ and $`m_e/m_\mu `$.

Finally, using the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution favoured by the new results of the SNO collaboration , we predict the two-flavour mass spectrum of the neutrinos from a simple quark-lepton universality.

## 2 The Weak Angle

The weak angle $`\theta _W`$ defines the physical $`A`$ and $`Z^0`$ neutral gauge bosons of the tree-level $`SU(2)U(1)`$ Standard Model. This angle is in principle renormalized by the vacuum polarization diagrams that mix $`A`$ and $`Z^0`$.

Now imagine some new theory, beyond the SM, in which the weak angle is no longer a free parameter. In the absence of counterterm, the radiative corrections to it would then be finite. In particular, at the one-loop level, the fermionic contribution

(1)
would be finite. Therefore, if the matter content of the new theory is identical to the one of the SM, the divergent contributions of the diagram (1) vanish. At the one-loop level, the divergent part of the corrections to $`\theta _W`$ proportional to the number $`n`$ of fermion generations reads:

$$\delta \theta _Wn\left(1\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off111We did not write down the quadratically divergent term since it can be made irrelevant in other regularization schemes. However, including this term in equation (2) does not affect the form of the overall coefficient. and $`\mu `$ an arbitrary energy scale. Hence, putting those divergent contributions to zero amounts to impose the non-trivial tree-level relation

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=\frac{3}{8}.$$

Such a constraint on the weak angle does not match the measured value

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{exp}0.23$$

and, as such, should be thrown away. But our basic assumption was about the existence of some higher scale theory – or some higher scale symmetry which would determine $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at that very scale. From this point of view, one notices that $`\frac{3}{8}`$ is precisely the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ predicted at the $`SU(5)`$ GUT scale. So that one can expect $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ to run from its $`SU(5)`$ value to its SM value (partially due to the finite part of the diagram (1) if the fermion masses are taken to be non-degenerate within each generation).

Furthermore, equation (2) is also true, independently, for two subsets of fermions running in the loop of the diagram (1), namely the left-handed electron, the left-handed neutrino222The neutrino has no charge and does not couple to the photon, but we mention it since it is associated to the electron through the $`SU(2)`$ doublet structure.  and the three coloured right-handed $`down`$ quarks on the one hand, and the remaining ten SM fermions of the first generation on the other hand. This simply tells us the minimal way one could distribute the SM fermions in irreducible representations of the higher scale symmetry group, with well-defined dimensions:

$$\nu _L,e_L,d_R^r,d_R^b,d_R^g\mathrm{𝟓}\text{and}\text{others}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}.$$

A one-loop argument within the SM provides therefore some information about hypothetical vertical gauge symmetries (GUT’s). It is then tempting to adopt the same procedure for the Cabibbo mixing angle.

## 3 The Cabibbo Angle

In the two-fermion-generation SM, the Cabibbo angle $`\theta _C`$ mixes the isospin eigenstates quarks, to end up with the mass eigenstates ones. At the one-loop level, it is radiatively corrected by a combination of self-energy diagrams of the following type:

$$\text{}\text{}.$$
(3)
Now, one may ask again the question: is there a value of $`\theta _C`$ such that the radiative corrections to it are finite? Let us put the divergent contributions of the right combination of the diagrams (3) to zero, to obtain a constraint on the Cabibbo angle. At the one-loop level, in a single-Higgs-doublet model, the divergent part of the corrections to $`\theta _C`$ reads333The exact expression, given by the first equation of (7), is computed in the Appendix. :

$$\delta \theta _C\mathrm{sin}\theta _C\mathrm{cos}\theta _C\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off and $`\mu `$ an arbitrary energy scale. Hence, putting those divergent contributions to zero amounts to impose the constraint

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta _C=0\text{or}\mathrm{cos}\theta _C=0$$

that is a trivial mixing. This is not a satisfactory result since it does not correspond to the SM value

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta _C^{exp}0.22.$$

Moreover a trivial mixing angle cannot be associated to any higher scale symmetry, since it could not run to the non-zero SM value (with a trivial mixing, even the finite part of the diagrams (3) vanishes, so that a non-trivial mixing cannot originate from a tree-level trivial mixing444A tree-level trivial mixing implies the existence of a $`U(1)`$ symmetry for each generation, which guarantees the absence of mixing at all orders in perturbation theory. ).

This simple one-loop argument agrees with a well-known theorem , which states that horizontal symmetries cannot lead to the non-trivial determination of the Cabibbo angle in the single-Higgs-doublet SM.

## 4 The Cabibbo Angle and the Quark Mass Ratios

One may think that the strict vanishing of the divergent corrections to $`\theta _C`$ is too strong a requirement. Inspired by the numerical success of $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _C=\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$ , one can indeed relax this requirement and try to find a similar relation such that the divergent corrections to $`\theta _C`$ exactly compensate the corrections to the mass ratios. We know that this kind of relation cannot be obtained via the use of horizontal symmetries in the single-Higgs-doublet SM . However, the existence of one-loop finite relations is not necessarily related to the presence of any horizontal symmetry.

We consider the two-fermion-generation SM in its minimal realization, namely built up with one single Higgs doublet. The hadronic Yukawa sector, which we are interested in, contains three useful free parameters: the Cabibbo angle $`\theta _C`$ and the two mass ratios $`r_u=m_u/m_c`$ and $`r_d=m_d/m_s`$. We assume the a priori existence of a relation between the Cabibbo angle and the mass ratios, whose general form reads:

$$F(\theta _C)=G(r_u,r_d)$$
(5)
so that

$$F(\theta _C+\delta \theta _C)=G(r_u+\delta r_u,r_d+\delta r_d)$$
(6)
where $`\delta \theta _C`$, $`\delta r_u`$ and $`\delta r_d`$ are the divergent parts of the radiative corrections to $`\theta `$, $`r_u`$ and $`r_d`$ respectively. Thus

$$F_{\theta _C}\delta \theta _C=G_{r_u}\delta r_u+G_{r_d}\delta r_d$$

where $`f_x`$ denotes the (partial) derivative of $`f`$ with respect to $`x`$. Computing the divergent part of the one-loop radiative corrections to the Yukawa couplings (see Appendix), one obtains:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta \theta _C=ϵ\left[\frac{1+r_u^2}{1r_u^2}(m_d^2m_s^2)+\frac{1+r_d^2}{1r_d^2}(m_u^2m_c^2)\right]\mathrm{sin}\theta _C\mathrm{cos}\theta _C\\ \\ \delta r_u=ϵr_u[(m_d^2m_s^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C(m_u^2m_c^2)]\\ \\ \delta r_d=ϵr_d[(m_u^2m_c^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C(m_d^2m_s^2)]\end{array}$$
(7)
with $`ϵ=\frac{3}{4}\frac{2}{v^2}\left(\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being a cut-off, $`\mu `$ an arbitrary energy scale and $`v`$ the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field. Introducing those expressions into equation (6) splits it into two independent equations (since we are only interested in relations involving the mass ratios $`r_u`$ and $`r_d`$):

$$F_{\theta _C}\mathrm{sin}\theta _C\mathrm{cos}\theta _C\frac{1+r_u^2}{1r_u^2}=G_{r_u}r_u\mathrm{cos}2\theta _CG_{r_d}r_d$$
(8)
$$F_{\theta _C}\mathrm{sin}\theta _C\mathrm{cos}\theta _C\frac{1+r_d^2}{1r_d^2}=G_{r_d}r_d\mathrm{cos}2\theta _CG_{r_u}r_u$$
(9)
which turn out to be compatible if and only if

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C=\frac{\frac{1r_u^2}{1+r_u^2}r_dG_{r_d}\frac{1r_d^2}{1+r_d^2}r_uG_{r_u}}{\frac{1r_u^2}{1+r_u^2}r_uG_{r_u}\frac{1r_d^2}{1+r_d^2}r_dG_{r_d}}.$$
(10)
Now this must be the relation (5) whose existence has been assumed, i.e.555One checks that the arbitrary character of those identifications will not show itself in the expected solution. To prove it, we imagine (11) would rather read $`f(F(\theta _C))=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C`$. One should then replace $`G`$ by $`f(G)`$ in the left-hand side of (12). But the right-hand side of it is invariant under $`Gf(G)`$. Namely, one can solve (12) with respect to the variable $`f(G)`$ which we eventually identify to $`f(F(\theta _C))=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C`$.

$$F(\theta _C)=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C$$
(11)
and

$$G(r_u,r_d)=\frac{\frac{1r_u^2}{1+r_u^2}r_dG_{r_d}\frac{1r_d^2}{1+r_d^2}r_uG_{r_u}}{\frac{1r_u^2}{1+r_u^2}r_uG_{r_u}\frac{1r_d^2}{1+r_d^2}r_dG_{r_d}}.$$
(12)
Exploiting the remaining information in (8) and (9), and using (10) and (11), yields

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+r_u^2}{1r_u^2}Gr_uG_{r_u}\hfill & +\frac{1+r_d^2}{1r_d^2}=0\hfill \\ \frac{1+r_d^2}{1r_d^2}Gr_dG_{r_d}\hfill & +\frac{1+r_u^2}{1r_u^2}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
This system – from which one obviously recovers equation (12) – is integrable, and the general solution reads

$$G(r_u,r_d)=\frac{(1+r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)+2\lambda _Cr_ur_d}{(1r_u^2)(1r_d^2)}$$

with $`\lambda _C`$ a flavour-blind integration constant! One concludes that, if a relation of the kind suggested in (5) exists, it necessarily belongs to the following class:

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C=\frac{(m_u^2+m_c^2)(m_d^2+m_s^2)+2\lambda _Cm_um_cm_dm_s}{(m_u^2m_c^2)(m_d^2m_s^2)}.$$
(14)
We have reached our goal to express the Cabibbo angle as a function of the quark mass ratios. However, there still is the unknown integration constant $`\lambda _C`$ which must be greater or equal to $`2`$. One checks that under the interchange $`m_um_c`$ (or $`m_dm_s`$), the Cabibbo angle of equation (14) moves to its complementary, as expected. In the realistic limit $`m_u<<m_c`$ and $`m_d<<m_s`$, equation (14) implies

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _C\lambda _C\frac{m_um_d}{m_cm_s}$$
(15)
and requires therefore a large-valued $`\lambda _C`$ to get $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _C`$ close to its experimental value.

## 5 The Lepton Mixing Angle and Neutrino Masses

The analysis we have conducted here can be applied to the leptons, provided that the neutrinos are massive, their mass being of the Dirac type exclusively. We thus consider the minimal extension of the SM that allows for massive neutrinos. We add right-handed neutrinos to the matter content and maintain the lepton number conservation, thereby forbidding Majorana mass terms. For the SM with two fermion generations and one Higgs doublet, we perform the same calculation666The calculation depends on the sole structure of the Yukawa couplings and is therefore identical. as in the quark sector. We conclude that any natural relation between the lepton mixing angle $`\theta _L`$ and the lepton mass ratios must be of the following type:

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _L=\frac{(m_{\nu _e}^2+m_{\nu _\mu }^2)(m_e^2+m_\mu ^2)+2\lambda _Lm_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }m_em_\mu }{(m_{\nu _e}^2m_{\nu _\mu }^2)(m_e^2m_\mu ^2)}$$
(16)
$`\lambda _L`$ being again a flavour-blind integration constant greater or equal to $`2`$. If $`m_{\nu _e}<<m_{\nu _\mu }`$, then one has the approximate relation

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _L\lambda _L\frac{m_{\nu _e}m_e}{m_{\nu _\mu }m_\mu }$$
(17)
analogous to (15). If $`m_{\nu _e}>>m_{\nu _\mu }`$, we simply interchange the neutrino masses in (17).

## 6 Quark-lepton Universality

A one-loop calculation does not determine neither $`\lambda _C`$ nor $`\lambda _L`$. These dimensionless parameters could a priori take any real value greater than $`2`$. But their flavour independence prompts us to assume a simple quark-lepton universality such that

$$\lambda _C=\lambda _L.$$

Combining equations (14) and (16) in terms of the mass ratios $`r_u`$, $`r_d`$, $`r_\nu m_{\nu _e}/m_{\nu _\mu }`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{}}m_e/m_\mu `$, we end up now with a one-loop finite relation

$$\frac{(1+r_\nu ^2)(1+r_{\mathrm{}}^2)+(1r_\nu ^2)(1r_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _L}{(1+r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)+(1r_u^2)(1r_d^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _C}=\frac{r_\nu r_{\mathrm{}}}{r_ur_d}.$$
(18)
involving only “measurable” quantities. In the limit $`r_u<<1`$, $`r_d<<1`$, $`r_\nu <<1`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{}}<<1`$, equation (18) yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _L}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _C}\frac{r_\nu r_{\mathrm{}}}{r_ur_d}.$$
(19)
Introducing reasonable mass ratios , the Cabibbo mixing angle and the LMA solution , one finds:

$$\frac{m_{\nu _e}}{m_{\nu _\mu }}\frac{1}{35}.$$

The mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_{\nu _\mu }^2m_{\nu _e}^2`$ associated to the LMA solution  implies $`m_{\nu _\mu }710^3\text{eV}`$ and $`m_{\nu _e}210^4\text{eV}`$.

## 7 Conclusion

We have derived two infinite sets of one-loop finite relations from the Yukawa sector. Each of them expresses a mixing angle as a function of fermion mass ratios. Determined by equations (14) and (16), thoses sets are parametrized in terms of two dimensionless constants $`\lambda _C`$ and $`\lambda _L`$. At the one-loop level, one has no further theoretical argument to constrain the value of those constants; and one cannot evade the difficulty by asking one of the quark (or lepton) masses to vanish, since it would then lead to a cosine smaller than minus one777Consequently we may already conclude that it is not possible to naturally set the mass of one single quark to zero, together with the requirement of the existence of a natural relation between the Cabibbo angle and the quark mass ratios. In this context, by excluding $`m_u=0`$ our result rules out the natural vanishing of the QCD $`T`$-violating parameter $`\theta _S`$.. However, by identifying $`\lambda _C`$ and $`\lambda _L`$, which are flavour-blind, we are then able to predict the two-flavour mass spectrum of the neutrinos.

Stating that finite relations potentially exist in a single-Higgs-doublet model apparently contradicts previous results obtained in the context of family symmetries . But since we do not appeal to such kind of symmetries, we do not expect our result to respect the conclusions derived in their context. Namely, the one-loop finite relations (14) or (16) cannot be associated with the presence of any extra horizontal symmetry. One should examine the validity of the results at higher loop level; then look for some possible “determination principle” of it outside or beyond the SM – just as the $`SU(5)`$ GUT determines the “one-loop conjectured” value of the weak angle $`\theta _W`$ at the GUT scale.

Whe should stress that the existence of non-trivial solutions to the system (13) crucially relies on the expression of the divergent one-loop radiative corrections to the Yukawa parameters, and would definitively be invalidated if one modifies a single coefficient in those corrections.

The extension of the present calculation to a three-generation SM seems to be doomed to failure because of the complexity of the one-loop radiative corrections to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters . Those corrections are indeed too cumbersome to be manipulated and introduced into a solvable partial differential equations system. We will however expound, in a forthcoming paper, an alternative approach to derive the one-loop finite relations in the $`n`$-generation SM.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA). We would like to thank J.-M. Gérard and J. Weyers for a critical reading of the manuscript.

## Appendix

## Appendix A Introductory remark

We start from a SM with one Higgs doublet and $`n`$ fermion generations. The approach we put forward is based on the calculation of the divergent one-loop radiative corrections to the quark mass matrices, which exclusively involves self-energy and tadpole diagrams. More precisely, since we are interested in natural relations between up-type quark mass ratios and down-type quark mass ratios on the one hand, and mixing angles on the other hand, we will solely compute the divergent one-loop radiative corrections to those specific parameters. This considerably simplifies our task. One indeed notices that neither QED nor QCD, which are flavour-blind, will bring in divergent contributions that would affect the mixing angle or the mass ratios. The same argument holds for the diagrams involving the transverse polarizations of the $`Z^0`$ and of the $`W^\pm `$ vector bosons, as well as the tadpoles. To convince oneself, it is worth checking that the contribution of the latter diagrams to the renormalization of the quark mass ratios reads

$$\frac{m_u}{m_c}\frac{(1+C_\gamma +C_G+C_{Z^0}+C_{W^\pm }+C_T)m_u}{(1+C_\gamma +C_G+C_{Z^0}+C_{W^\pm }+C_T)m_c}=\frac{m_u}{m_c}$$

where $`C_\gamma `$, $`C_G`$, $`C_{Z^0}`$ and $`C_{W^\pm }`$ respectively originate from the interventions of the photon, the gluons, the transverse $`Z^0`$ and the transverse $`W^\pm `$ in the up-type quark self-energies, while $`C_T`$ originates from the tadpole diagrams. Those $`C`$’s are identical for the mass renormalization of any up-type quark – as far as the divergent part is concerned. The same reasoning can be applied to the down-type quarks. For the mixing angles, the proof is even more direct since none of those diagrams leads to divergent non-diagonal correction to the tree-level diagonal mass matrices. In other words, the only diagrams one has to consider are the quark self-energies due to the exchange of the scalars (Higgs and would-be-Goldstone bosons) – for the complete list of the relevant divergent diagrams, see figure 1. This is not astonishing since the scalars are the only fields that know about the difference between the fermion families.

## Appendix B Self-energies in the Yukawa sector

After spontaneous breakdown of the symmetry, the Yukawa sector Lagrangian for quarks reads:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}_Y& =& \overline{u}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_dd_R\varphi ^+& +& \overline{d}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_dd_R\varphi ^0& +& \overline{d}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}u_L\varphi ^{}& +& \overline{d}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}d_L\varphi ^0& \\ & +& \overline{u}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_uu_R\varphi ^0& & \overline{d}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_uu_R\varphi ^{}& +& \overline{u}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}u_L\varphi ^0& & \overline{u}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}d_L\varphi ^+& \\ & +& \overline{d}_LM_dd_R& +& \overline{u}_LM_uu_R& +& \overline{d}_RM_d^{}d_L& +& \overline{u}_RM_d^{}u_L& .\end{array}$$

The Lagrangian fields and parameters are renormalized:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}u_{L,R}& & u_{L,R}^{}& =& (Z_{L,R}^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{L,R}& \\ d_{L,R}& & d_{L,R}^{}& =& (Z_{L,R}^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}d_{L,R}& \\ M_u& & M_u^{}& =& (Z_L^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Z_{M_u})^1M_u(Z_R^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}& \\ M_u& & M_d^{}& =& (Z_L^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Z_{M_d})^1M_d(Z_R^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}& .\end{array}$$

The one-loop calculation of the fermion self-energies leads to (the first term corresponding to the neutral current intervention ; the second, to the charged current intervention – see figure 1):

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Z_L^u=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]& & & Z_L^d=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]\\ Z_R^u=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]& & & Z_R^d=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]\\ Z_{M_u}=1ϵ[0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]& & & Z_{M_d}=1ϵ[0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]\end{array}$$
(20)
with $`ϵ=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}\right)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off and $`\mu `$ an arbitrary energy scale (one checks that $`Z_L^u=Z_L^d`$ as expected). Those results are true only up to a term proportional to the identity in the flavour space, which would take into account the electromagnetic, weak transversal and strong contributions, as well as the tadpole ones. But since this term would factor out in the final result, which is supposed to involve exclusively mixing parameters and up\- or down-type mass ratios, we chose not to write it down. The finite parts of the diagrams are omitted.

From (20), one derives the corrections to the mass matrices in the weak base

$`M_u^{}`$ $`=M_u+ϵ[M_dM_d^{}M_uM_uM_u^{}M_u]`$
$`M_d^{}`$ $`=M_d+ϵ[M_uM_u^{}M_dM_dM_d^{}M_d]`$
and in the physical base

$`U_L^{}M_u^{}U_R`$ $`=D_u+ϵ[KD_d^2K^{}D_uD_u^3]`$
$`V_L^{}M_d^{}V_R`$ $`=D_d+ϵ[K^{}D_u^2KD_dD_d^3]`$
where we have absorbed a $`\frac{3}{4}\frac{2}{v^2}`$ factor in $`ϵ`$, $`v`$ being the scalar VEV, and where $`D_u`$ and $`D_d`$ are the tree-level diagonal mass matrices while $`K`$ is the tree-level Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Let us repeat that those expressions do not include the finite parts of the radiative correction, and that they account for the sole (neutral and charged) scalar exchanges in the fermion self-energies.

One can rewrite those last expressions as follows

$`M_u^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=D_u+ϵ_u`$
$`M_d^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=D_d+ϵ_d`$
and proceed to the diagonalization of $`M_u^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`M_d^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e.

$`U_L^{}M_u^{\prime \prime }U_R^{}`$ $`=D_u^{}`$
$`V_L^{}M_d^{\prime \prime }V_R^{}`$ $`=D_d^{}`$
where, in the two-fermion generations case,

$$D_u^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_u+ϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}}& \\ & m_c+ϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}\end{array}\right)U_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta _u\\ \theta _u& 1\end{array}\right)$$

$$D_d^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_d+ϵ_{d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}}& \\ & m_s+ϵ_{d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}\end{array}\right)V_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta _d\\ \theta _d& 1\end{array}\right)$$

with

$$\theta _u=\frac{m_uϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}}+m_cϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}}}{m_c^2m_u^2}\text{and}\theta _d=\frac{m_dϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}}+m_sϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}}}{m_s^2m_d^2}.$$

The one-loop mixing matrix is defined by

$$K^{}=U_L^{}KV_L^{}$$

so that the one-loop mixing angle reads

$$\theta _C^{}=\theta _C\theta _u+\theta _d.$$

Inserting the value of $`ϵ_u`$ and $`ϵ_d`$ in $`\theta _C^{}`$, $`D_u^{}`$ and $`D_d^{}`$, leads to equations (7).

Fig. 1: relevant divergent diagrams involved in the calculation of the renormalization constants.


text:
# Origin of Life in the Universe

## 1 Introduction

We all know broadly what life is, but even today it is difficult to give a precise definition. An extreme example from the inanimate world of something which resembles life is the case of certain crystals which can replicate or reproduce. But life means a lot more - for example growth and metabolism and all this within the context of an interaction with the environment. An extreme example from the low end of the animate world is that of a virus. As of today it is very difficult to precisely bridge the apparently narrow gap between the inanimate and the animate. Apart from these nuances a question that arises is, how did life originate in the first place?

## 2 The Origins of Life

In the above context, the discovery of Friedrich Wohler in the nineteenth Century that Urea which is so interlinked with living creatures could be made in the laboratory with inanimate chemical reactions was a crucial first step. Was it then possible that life itself could have evolved on the earth, through a fortuitous combination of circumstances combined with ordinary chemical reactions?
Actually, broadly three substances are crucial for living creatures. These are carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Carbohydrates are basically carbon compounds with water. These include sugars which can be found for example in fruits, honey and even certain vegetables. They play a role in the storage of energy. Fats are long chain molecules, which include waxes and oils. They form (nearly insoluble) suspensions in water and coalesce to form distinct units. This helps in the formation of cells. Finally, proteins are highly complex molecules containing linked amino-acids, containing compounds of Nitrogen and Hydrogen. The three together form the cells of living creatures, including plants and micro organisms.
More specifically living organisms consist of cells. Each cell has a small nucleus surrounded by a larger block of material, the Cytoplasm. The nucleus consists of long molecular threads or chromosomes, which issue instructions to the Cytoplasm to produce other complex organic molecules required for life processes like growth and survival. The chromosomes themselves are made up of long molecular chains or nucleic acids, which themselves are made up of four different kinds of smaller units called nucleotides, for example the DNA. The Cytoplasm on the other hand consists of long molecular chains, proteins, which themselves are made up of twenty different combinations of smaller molecular chains called the amino acids. The nucleotides and the amino acids are the basic building blocks. They are made up of about thirty electrically bound atoms of Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen.
Scientists realised that for life to form on the earth, first amino acids, sugars and other complex molecules needed to be present. These are born out of various chemical reactions. Next these materials had to become proteins, and what we call today nucleic acids. It was believed that the relatively warm seas and oceans of the earth were the container for this chemistry, in which living cells finally developed. These in turn would use sun light to split water molecules, and would also capture carbon dioxide to synthesise glucose. In the process they would release Oxygen into the atmosphere.
The all important question was, could the amino acids and sugars have been formed on the earth? The answer came in the 1950s when Harold Urey and Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago subjected various gases such as Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Water vapour to lightning flashes. This resulted in the building up of four of the twenty common amino acids in proteins. These experiments have since been refined and confirmed. So it is generally accepted that a few billion years ago given the right conditions, life evolved from the seas and oceans on the earth.
However, in the nineteenth Century itself, there was speculation that ready made life came down to earth from outer space. There were a few variants of this theme. For example life could have been brought down to earth by radio waves. This theory was called Radiopanspermia. Another line of thinking was that life could have been transported from outer space by Meteorites, a theory that went by the name, lithopanspermia.
In more recent times the extraterrestrial origin of life has received some support, though it remains a minority view. One interesting rationale for this view is that evidence from fossilised rocks in Greenland points to microscopic forms of life as early as about a billion years after the formation of the earth. It could be argued that this time span is much too short to provide the rather special circumstances for the formation of living organisms.
On the other hand it is interesting that complex molecules have been found in interstellar space, for example in the cool dust clouds of the Orion Nebula and in the constellation of Sagittarius. Observations with telescopes, spectrascopes, radio telescopes and even orbiting observatories have confirmed the presence of molecules like Methyl Cyanide, Water vapour, Formal Dehyde, Methyl Alcohol and even the potable Ethyl Alcohol. Clearly there are certain organic molecules in the cool dust clouds spread across outer space. In any case the vast life span of the universe and its great variety in different parts provides a stage where it is plausible that primitive life forms could have been synthesised.
Based on these considerations Sir Fred Hoyle and Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe have proposed that life has been transported to the earth from outer space. Such life forms could have been delivered to the earth through debris of comets. These comets which inhabit the cool and dark regions of the Solar System do contain the building blocks of life. There is increasing evidence through spectroscopic, space craft and even laboratory examinations of debris fallen on the earth, that the frozen dirty ice balls, as comets have been characterised contain not just molecular compounds of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen, but also even more complicated sugar related substances. Latest studies at NASA’s Ames Research Centre point to the presence of polyhydroxilated compounds.
Interestingly a few years ago samples of a Meteorite, found in Antarctica and believed to have been ejected from Mars some 3.5 billion years ago, were independently examined by NASA and a team from England. Traces of fossilised micro organisms were reported.
This conclusion if finally reconfirmed and accepted would have exciting implications: there would have been life on Mars some 3.5 billion years ago, at about the same time that life is believed to have surfaced on the earth. This would then point to a common origin - for example through transportation by cometary debris.
In any case, the latest findings of sugar related compounds and other complex molecules in meteoritic and cometary objects would also support a suggestion by the author some years ago, that infact the formation of life on the earth could have been triggered by a dual process: some of these molecules possibly sugars, but not yet living organisms being transported to the earth, and then further biochemical reactions taking place on the earth itself with for example proteins . Such a hybrid view for the origin of life is consistent with observation and experiment.

## 3 Life Elsewhere

Going beyond the question of life on earth itself, it is generally accepted that there could be millions, if not billions of other candidates in the universe for harbouring life. Life as we know it can survive not in the hot interior of stars, nor in the frozen outer reaches of interstellar space, but more likely on planet like objects attached to stars. Such objects would be neither too hot nor too cold, and they could have gaseous atmospheres, all of which could support life. In recent years there has been direct and indirect evidence for such planetary systems, and most recently it appears that atleast one of these extra solar planets even has an atmosphere. We are severely handicapped with the very limited reach of our observations. Hopefully the European Space Agency’s spacecraft GAIA, which could be launched in 2010-11 would scan hundreds of samples and would provide more definitive answers.


text:
# Adiabatic Theory of Nonlinear Evolution of Quantum States

(August 1st, 2002)

## Abstract

We present a general theory for adiabatic evolution of quantum states as governed by the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, and provide examples of applications with a nonlinear tunneling model for Bose-Einstein condensates. Our theory not only spells out conditions for adiabatic evolution of eigenstates, but also characterizes the motion of non-eigenstates which cannot be obtained from the former in the absence of the superposition principle. We find that in the adiabatic evolution of non-eigenstates, the Aharonov-Anandan phases play the role of classical canonical actions.

Adiabatic evolution has been an important method of preparation and control of quantum statesbergmann ; raizen ; comp . The main guidance comes from the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics book , which dictates that an initial nondegenerate eigenstate remains to be an instantaneous eigenstate when the Hamiltonian changes slowly compared to the level spacings. More precisely, the quantum eigenstate evolves only in its phase, given by the time integral of the eigenenergy (known as the dynamical phase) and a quantity independent of the time duration (known as the geometric phase). The linearity of quantum mechanics then immediately allows a precise statement about the adiabatic evolution of non-eigenstates through the superposition principle.

Our concern here is how the adiabatic theorem gets modified in nonlinear evolution of quantum states. Nonlinearity has been introduced in various forms as possible modifications of quantum mechanics on the fundamental levelweinberg . Our motivation, however, derives from practical applications in current pursuits of adiabatic control of Bose Einstein condensates (BECs)bec , which can often be accurately described by the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. Here the nonlinearity stems from a mean field treatment of the interactions between atoms. Difficulties in theoretical study of adiabatic control of the condensate arise not only from the lack of unitarity in the evolution of the states but also from the absence of the superposition principle. This problem was recently addressed for BECs in some specific casesband , and a similar problem was discussed in the past for soliton dynamicskivshar .

In this Letter, we present a general adiabatic theory for the nonlinear evolution of quantum states (eigenstates or noneigenstates). Our study is conducted by transforming the nonlinear Schrödinger equation into a mathematically equivalent classical Hamiltonian problem, where nonlinearity is no longer a peculiar issue but rather a common character. We can thus apply the adiabatic theory for classical systemsarnold ; LL83 ; landau  to the study of adiabatic evolution of quantum states. The eigenstates become fixed points in the classical problem, whose adiabatic evolution can be understood from a stability analysis of such points. Aharonov-Anandan phasesaa  of cyclic or quasi-cyclic quantum states play the role of canonical action in the classical problem, and are therefore conserved during adiabatic changes of the control parameters. In the linear case, i.e., standard quantum mechanics, these conserved actions are just the occupation probabilities on the eigenenergy levels and the quantum adiabatic theorem becomes a special case of classical adiabatic theorem. Our results are illustrated with a nonlinear two-level modelwuniunlz , which describes the tunneling of BECs.

General formalism — The quantum system we consider follows the nonlinear Schrödinger equation,

$$i\frac{d|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}{dt}=H(|\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }|,𝑹)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ has been set to one and $`𝑹`$ denotes all the system parameters subject to adiabatic change. For clarity and simplicity, we focus in this Letter on quantum systems of finite number of levels, that is, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{col}(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }|=(\psi _1^{},\psi _2^{},\mathrm{},\psi _N^{})`$ . We also assume that the system is invariant under the global phase transformation since it is the case of most interest in physics. The total probability $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then conserved and is set to unity hereafter. As shown below, it is possible to separate out the dynamics of the overall phase, and to describe the motion of the remaining variables exactly in terms of an $`(N1)`$ dimensional classical Hamiltonian dynamics.

First, we write $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\lambda (t)}|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where the overall phase $`\lambda `$ may be chosen to be the phase of any component, say, $`\psi _N`$. Time evolution of the overall phase is given in terms of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as derived from Eq.(1)

$$\frac{d\lambda (t)}{dt}=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)|i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\mathrm{\Phi }(t)|H|\mathrm{\Phi }(t).$$
(2)
The first term is related to a geometric phase, called the Aharonov-Anandan phase aa , which will be a key component of our theory.

Second, without the total phase $`\lambda `$, the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes a member of the so-called projective Hilbert space and has $`2(N1)`$ independent real variables, which can be conveniently chosen as

$`𝑸`$ $`=`$ $`(|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|^2,|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Phi }_{N1}|^2),`$ (3)
$`𝑷`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1),\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_2),\mathrm{},\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{N1})).`$ (4)
They turn out to form a canonical set for an effective classical Hamiltonian dynamics as shown below.

Finally, the dynamics of these variables may be obtained from the time-dependent variational principle of the original nonlinear Schrödinger equation (1) with the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(|\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }|,𝑹)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }|i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|\mathrm{\Phi }(|\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }|,𝑹){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\lambda (t),`$
where $``$ is the total energy of the system and we have used the gauge symmetry of the Hamiltonian with respect to the overall phase. Note that $`=\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is true only for a linear system; for a nonlinear system, we generally have $`H|\mathrm{\Phi }=\delta /\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$. Because the overall phase enters in the Lagrangian only through a term of total time derivative, the dynamics of the $`2(N1)`$ independent variables of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are closed. With the generalized coordinates introduced in Eqs.(3,4) and the relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }|i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Phi }=𝑸\frac{d𝑷}{dt}`$, in virtue of the variational principle of the Lagrangian, we find that motions of the generalized coordinates are governed by a classical Hamiltonian $`_{cl}(𝑸,𝑷,𝑹)=(|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝑸,𝑷),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝑸,𝑷)|,𝑹)`$, with the equations of motion

$$\frac{d𝑸}{dt}=\frac{_{cl}}{𝑷},\frac{d𝑷}{dt}=\frac{_{cl}}{𝑸}.$$
(6)
In this way, we have cast the nonlinear quantum problem (1) into a formalism of classical dynamics, which will allow us to use some important results on the adiabaticity of classical mechanics.

Eigenstates — We first consider adiabatic evolution of quantum eigenstates, which can be defined as extremum states of the system energy by $`H(|\mathrm{\Psi }^j(𝑹),\mathrm{\Psi }^j(𝑹)|,𝑹)|\mathrm{\Psi }^j(𝑹)=E^j(𝑹)|\mathrm{\Psi }^j(𝑹),`$ where the eigenenergies are Lagrange multipliers for imposing the normalization condition of the states. The eigenstates correspond to fixed points in the classical dynamics (6) at a given $`𝑹`$fixed . For an elliptic fixed point, we expect it to be able to follow adiabatically the control parameter provided the latter changes slowly compared with the fundamental frequencies of periodic orbits around the fixed point. The frequencies can be evaluated by linearizing Eq.(6) about the fixed point arnold ; LL83 ; landau . In standard linear quantum mechanics, these frequencies are just the level spacings, so that breakdown of adiabaticity occurs by level crossing. In the nonlinear quantum problem, the fundamental frequencies are in general different from the level spacings, so that adiabaticity can often be maintained even if the energy levels cross as demonstrated later with a two-level model.

Nonlinearity in our quantum problem not only makes different eigenstates non-orthogonal to each other, but also can produce more eigenstates than the dimension $`N`$ of the Hilbert space. Some of these additional eigenstates correspond to hyperbolic points in the classical dynamics, characterized by complex fundamental frequencies and strong sensitivity to small perturbations. We thus expect that such quantum eigenstates not to be able to follow adiabatically the control parameter $`𝑹`$. In addition, quantum states corresponding to elliptic fixed points can collide and annihilate with a hyperbolic point during a change of the parameters, leading to the breakdown of adiabaticity.

As an illustration, we consider a nonlinear two-level model,

$$i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\frac{R}{2}\sigma _z\frac{c}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _z|\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _z+\frac{v}{2}\sigma _x\right)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(7)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{col}(a,b)`$ and $`\sigma _{z,x}`$ is Pauli matrix. This model was proposed to describe the tunneling of Bose-Einstein condensates in optical latticeswuniunlz ; zobay  or in a double-well potentialdw . In the model, the parameter $`c`$ characterizes the interaction strength between atoms; $`v`$ is the coupling strength between the two modes. The parameter $`R`$ can be the Bloch wave numberwuniunlz  or energy difference between the two wells dw . We are interested in the tunneling between the energy levels shown in the top panels of Fig.1 when $`R`$ is increased slowly from the far negative end to the far positive end.

Following the scheme in our general theory, we choose the total phase as $`\lambda =\phi _b=\mathrm{arg}(b)`$ and introduce a pair of canonical variables, $`q=\phi _a\phi _b`$ and $`p=|a|^2`$. The total energy of the system is $`=\frac{v}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _x|\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _z|\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{c}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _z|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _z|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ Then we have the equivalent classical Hamiltonian as in Eq.(6),

$$_{cl}=v\sqrt{p(1p)}\mathrm{cos}(q)+\frac{R}{2}(2p1)\frac{c}{4}(2p1)^2.$$
(8)
Fig.1 shows in the top panels the structure of eigenenergy levels of Eq.(7) while the phase space orbits of the corresponding classical system (8) is shown in the bottom panels. When $`c<v`$, there are only two eigenstates and two fixed points. Both fixed points are surrounded by periodic orbits and hence elliptic. The frequencies of the surrounding orbits approach the fundamental frequencies of the fixed points as they get closer to the fixed points. Since both $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are elliptic, the corresponding quantum states are expected to be able to follow the adiabatically changing $`R`$. This has been corroborated by our numerical simulations.

When $`c>v`$, the situation becomes very different. In the energy band, there are two more eigenstates, forming a loop structure; in the phase space portrait, there appear two more fixed points with one of them, $`f_3`$, being hyperbolic. Due to this structure change, the adiabatic evolution becomes very different here. First, the eigenstate corresponding to $`f_3`$ will not be able to follow the adiabatic change of $`R`$ since $`f_3`$ is hyperbolic. This has been checked by our numerical integration of Eq.(7). Second, even elliptic point may not able to follow adiabatically. The fixed point $`f_1`$ can annihilate itself by colliding with $`f_3`$ as $`R`$ changes slowly, leading to the breakdown of adiabaticity of the tunneling as reported numerically in Ref.wuniunlz . We also notice that there is a level crossing between $`f_1`$ and $`f_4`$ at $`R=0`$; however, our calculation shows that their fundamental frequencies are $`v((\frac{c}{v})^21)^{1/2}`$, not equal to zero. This clearly illustrates our statement in the general theory that the fundamental frequencies are not related to the level spacing in the nonlinear case.

Cyclic and quasi-cyclic states Compared with eigenstates, adiabatic evolution of non-eigenstates is in general very complicated as the motions given by Eq. (6) may be chaotic. We choose to focus on the quantum states around an elliptic point, where the classical orbits are regular. In particular, for the nonlinear two-level problem, the classical dynamics is completely integrable. The non-eigenstates in such cases are cyclic or quasicyclic states, in which the system returns or almost returns to its original state after an evolution. On the $`(N1)`$-dimensional torus of the regular region, we may introduce a set of action-angle variables, with $`𝑰=(I_1,I_2,\mathrm{},I_{N1}),𝚯=(\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{N1})`$arnold ; LL83 ; landau . The angular variables change with time with the frequencies $`𝝎=(\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1})`$ while the actions $`𝑰`$ are constants. More importantly, according to the classical adiabatic theorem LL83 ; landau , the actions $`𝑰`$ are adiabatic invariants in the sense that they remain constant even if the control parameter $`𝑹`$ changes (slowly) in time. The existence of these adiabatic invariants presents strong constraint on the motion, and guarantees a quantum state initially close to an eigenstate (elliptic point) to stay near it as the system is changed adiabatically.

Interestingly, we can attach a physical meaning to these adiabatic invariants in the effective classical description by making connection to the Aharonov-Anandan (AA) phase of the quantum states. The AA phase is defined as the time integral of the first term in Eq.(2) for a periodic orbit or a quasi-periodic stateadd ,

$$\gamma _{AA}(𝑹)=_0^\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(t)|i\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)𝑑t$$
(9)
We can rewrite it with the canonical variables $`(𝑸,𝑷)`$ and further with the action-angle variables,

$$\gamma _{AA}=𝑷𝑑𝑸=𝑰𝛀.$$
(10)
where $`𝛀=(\omega _1\tau ,\omega _2\tau ,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1}\tau )`$ and $`\tau `$ is time period. Therefore, the actions are related to the AA phase $`\gamma _{AA}`$, which is an observable physical quantity exppp . In the special case of $`N=2`$, there is only one independent action, so the AA phase is simply $`\gamma _{AA}=2\pi I`$. This simple connection can be expanded to the general case of $`N>2`$, where one can single out a particular cyclic state that involves with only one action $`I_n`$. For this cyclic state, we again have the simple relation $`\gamma _{AAn}=2\pi I_n`$. As a result, one can identify these AA phases $`\gamma _{AAn}`$ as the adiabatic invariants in place of the actions $`I_n`$.

How do the above adiabatic invariants connect to the familiar notions in the standard linear quantum mechanics? Consider the time evolution of a general state in a linear quantum system for a given $`𝑹`$ , $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_nc_ne^{iE^nt}|n`$. where $`E^n`$’s are the eigenenergies. This is a (quasi-)cyclic state with the projective wave function given by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=_{n=1}^{N1}c_ne^{i(E^nE^N)t}|n+c_N|N`$. Its AA phase can be computed with Eq.(9); after comparing with Eq.(10), we immediately find that $`I_n=|c_n|^2`$. Therefore, in the linear quantum mechanics, these adiabatically invariant actions $`I_n`$ are nothing but the probabilities on the energy levels. In this way, we have rederived the adiabatic theorem of linear quantum mechanics which states that the probability on each energy level is conserved in adiabatic processes. Note that this derivation of the quantum adiabatic theorem through our effective classical description is distinct from the usual semiclassical relation discussed in Ref.mberry .

The conservation of probabilities on the energy levels can be generalized to the case where the system is nonlinear only in an intermediate range of the parameter $`𝑹`$ (see Fig.2). When the actions (or AA phases) are conserved during the entire process, the initial and final probabilities on the energy levels must remain the same, $`I_n=I_n^{}`$, because the system is linear at the beginning and end of the process so the actions are just the occupation probabilities. On the other hand, in the intermediate range where the nonlinearity dominates, the probabilities will change (even oscillate greatly) since the conserved actions are not probabilities on the energy levels.

We now illustrate this important result using our two-level model, where, at the two infinite ends with $`|R|c`$, the nonlinear term can be ignored and the system is effectively linear. For $`c<v`$, where all the fixed points are elliptic, the fundamental frequency $`\omega `$ for the periodic orbit remains finite and the AA phase (action) is conserved (see lines (a) in the right panels of Fig.3). The initial and final probabilities on each level are indeed the same (Fig.3(a)), although they oscillate in the intermediate range of the parameter where the system is nonlinear. As the nonlinearity gets strong, the occurrence of tunneling begins to depend on the choice of the initial state. In case (b) of Fig.3, where one starts with probability $`I=0.1`$ on level two, tunneling happens; however, in case (c) where one starts with probability $`I=0.8`$ on level two, there is no tunneling. The difference is whether there is collision with the hyperbolic point $`f_3`$. In case (b), the initial noneigenstate falls on a periodic orbit surrounding the fixed point $`f_1`$, which will later collide with the hyperbolic point $`f_3`$, where the fundamental frequency drops to zero and the AA phase has a finite jump (see lines (b) in the right panels). The jump height is proportional to the tunneling probability. In case (c), the initial state falls on a periodic orbit around the fixed point $`f_2`$, which will not collide with $`f_3`$.

In conclusion, we have generalized the standard quantum adiabatic theorem to nonlinear quantum systems by transforming them into mathematically equivalent classical Hamiltonians. In the classical systems, the eigenstates become fixed points and their adiabatic evolutions are determined by whether these fixed points are elliptic or hyperbolic. Furthermore, we have found that the adiabatic evolutions of non-eigenstates are controlled by AA phases, which play the role of classical actions. Within the same framework we have also considered the case of closed-loop parameter change as pioneered by Berryberry , we find that Hannay’s angleshannay  are accumulated at the return of the quantum state (details will be published in the future).

We acknowledge the support of NSF, R.A. Welch Foundation, and the International Center of Quantum Structures in Beijing.


text:
# Are Recoil Polarization Measurements of 𝐺_𝐸^𝑝/𝐺_𝑀^𝑝 Consistent with Rosenbluth Separation Data?

## Abstract

Recent recoil polarization measurements in Hall A at Jefferson Lab show that the ratio of the electric to magnetic form factors for the proton decreases significantly with increasing $`Q^2`$. This contradicts previous Rosenbluth measurements which indicate approximate scaling of the form factors ($`\mu _pG_E^p(Q^2)/G_M^p(Q^2)1`$). The cross section measurements were reanalyzed to try and understand the source of this discrepancy. We find that the various Rosenbluth measurements are consistent with each other when normalization uncertainties are taken into account and that the discrepancy cannot simply be the result of errors in one or two data sets. If there is a problem in the Rosenbluth data, it must be a systematic, $`ϵ`$-dependent uncertainty affecting several experiments.

The structure of the proton is a matter of universal interest in nuclear and particle physics. The electromagnetic structure of the proton can be parameterized in terms of the electric and magnetic form factors, $`G_E(Q^2)`$ and $`G_M(Q^2)`$, which can be measured in elastic electron-proton scattering. The electric and magnetic form factors can be separated using the Rosenbluth technique, or by measurements of the polarization transfer to the struck nucleon. Figure 1 shows the ratio of $`\mu _pG_E/G_M`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$ for the Jefferson Lab recoil polarization measurements and from a global Rosenbluth analysis of the cross section measurements. Clearly we must understand this discrepancy if we want to be confident in our knowledge of the proton form factors.

While it is possible that there is a fundamental problem with one of these techniques, we first want to understand if we can explain the difference in terms of less fundamental problems (e.g. experimental errors or analysis procedures). The Rosenbluth measurements are more sensitive to experimental uncertainties as $`Q^2`$ increases, and extractions that involve combining multiple data sets are sensitive to their relative normalization factors. Thus, we wish to examine both the individual cross section measurements and the analysis procedures to see if there could be problems that would explain the discrepancy between the two techniques.

In the global analysis shown in fig. 1, many data sets are combined, and a global fit is performed to extract the relative normalization of the experiments as well as the value of $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ at several $`Q^2`$ values. Errors in one or more of the experiments or improper normalization procedures for experiments which combine multiple measurements could cause such a global fit to give an incorrect result. In addition, because relative normalization factors are being fit, it is possible that one could vary the normalization factors for one or more experiments by an amount that is within the experimental uncertainty in such a way that the ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ changes significantly, while the overall $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is not significantly increased (i.e. the global minimum might give the results shown in fig. 1, but a local minimum may give a global fit that is almost as good in which the ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ falls with $`Q^2`$).

A new global fit was performed in order to investigate possible problems in the previous data or analyses. Experiments where multiple spectrometers were used to take portions of the data were broken up, so that there were 16 data sets (and 16 normalization parameters) for the 13 experiments included. As this analysis was focussed on the discrepancy at larger $`Q^2`$, data below $`Q^2=0.3`$ GeV2 were excluded. The small angle data ($`\theta <15^{}`$) from the Walker measurement  were also excluded, because a later SLAC experiment found corrections that had been neglected in the analysis. The new fit gives results that were similar to the global analysis by Walker, and no data set had an anomalously large contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$. Additional fits were performed with individual data sets left out, to see if the result might be driven by a single (potentially bad) data set. No single experiment had a large impact on the overall fit, and even removing the three data sets that had the largest effect only decreased the ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ by $``$5-10% at high $`Q^2`$.

While improvement to the global analysis and removal of data sets did not allow for agreement between the two techniques, there is still the question as to whether a different solution for the relative normalizations could be found which brings the experiments into agreement without significantly decreasing the quality of the fit. This was tested in two different ways. First, $`G_M`$ was fit to the data, with the ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ determined from a parameterization of the recoil polarization data ($`\mu _pG_E/G_M=10.13Q^2`$). Even though the normalization parameters for the different data sets are allowed to vary in this procedure, the overall quality if fit is much lower when the fit is forced to match the $`G_E/G_M`$ ratio from the recoil polarization measurements (the total $`\chi ^2`$ increases by 69 for the fit to 301 cross section data points). Fixing the ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ to match the recoil polarization measurements gives these data more impact on the fitting than they should have and ignores their uncertainties, so this test likely overestimates the inconsistency. A global analysis including both the cross section data and the $`G_E/G_M`$ polarization measurements from fig. 1 (including their statistical and systematic errors) also gives a significantly worse overall fit, though not as bad as when the ratio is fixed in the fit (16 data points are added to the fit and the total $`\chi ^2`$ increases by 49).

Finally, it has been noted that individual extractions of $`G_E/G_M`$ from different cross section measurements are inconsistent. However, these extractions often involve combining two or three data sets that cover different $`ϵ`$ ranges, which requires determining the cross-normalization between experiments. While various procedures have been used to determine these normalization factors, the uncertainty in the normalization is often not taken into account in extracting $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$, even though a normalization error can yield a correlated change in the ratio at all $`Q^2`$ values. Thus, it is difficult to verify the consistency of the underlying cross section data based on these extractions. If one examines only experiments where a single detector covered an adequate range of $`ϵ`$ to perform a Rosenbluth separation, these experiments are consistent with each other and give results similar to the previous global fits (although with significantly reduced precision). One can increase the amount of data available by including experiments where multiple detectors were used, but where direct cross-calibrations were possible within the experiment. Again, this set of experiments give consistent results, and are in good agreement with the cross section global analysis. The inconsistency of the Rosenbluth extractions appears to come from the assumptions made when combining data sets at different $`ϵ`$ values, and does not indicate a fundamental inconsistency between the different measurements.

Even if the recoil polarization result is correct and the problem lies with the cross section data, we must still understand the problem with the Rosenbluth measurements. If the recoil polarization data is correct, this implies that there is a problem in the cross section measurements that introduces a systematic $`ϵ`$-dependence in multiple data sets. Even with perfect knowledge of $`G_E/G_M`$, we need these cross sections to extract the absolute values of $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$, and we cannot extract precise and accurate values for the form factors if we do not know what the problem is with the cross section measurements.

In conclusion, the disagreement between the recoil polarization and Rosenbluth measurements cannot be explained by assuming that there is a problem with one or two data sets, nor can they be made to agree by simply adjusting the relative normalization factors in a global analysis (without significantly worsening the quality of the fit). There is no evidence of problems within any of the data sets (with the exception of the low angle Walker data), and the existing Rosenbluth measurements are completely consistent. The extractions of $`G_E`$ from these data are only inconsistent when one includes analyses that combine different data sets without properly taking into account the uncertainties in the relative normalizations. Thus, there is no experimental evidence to tell us which of these techniques is failing. It is important to determine which is correct not only because we want to know the form factors of the proton, but also because these techniques are used in other measurements, and a fundamental problem with either technique could affect other measurements. Future measurements at JLab including a high precision Rosenbluth separation and a new recoil polarization measurement (using a different experimental setup) will help us understand the discrepancy and determine if it is a fundamental problem with one of the techniques or a problem with the existing data.

This work is supported (in part) by the U.S. DOE, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract W-31-109-ENG-38.