text:
# Untitled Document

$`\mathrm{\copyright }`$ 2003 The American Institute of Physics

To be published in AIP Conference Proceedings of the

Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003)

Expanding the Frontiers of Space

February 2–6, 2003, Albuquerque, NM

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation,

the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios

Bernard Haisch1, Alfonso Rueda2, L. J. Nickisch3, and Jules Mollere4

1Calif. Inst. for Physics & Astrophysics, 901 Mariners Island Blvd., Ste. 325, San Mateo, CA 94404

2Dept. of Electrical Eng., California State Univ., Long Beach, CA 90840

3Mission Research Corp., Monterey, CA 93940-5776

4Henderson State Univ., Arkadelphia, AR 71999-0001

1haisch@calphysics.org, 650-593-8581, fax: 650-595-4466, $`<`$www.calphysics.org$`>`$

Abstract. A possible connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia was first published by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994). If correct, this would imply that mass may be an electromagnetic phenomenon and thus in principle subject to modification, with possible technological implications for propulsion. A multiyear NASA-funded study at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center further developed this concept, resulting in an independent theoretical validation of the fundamental approach (Rueda and Haisch, 1998ab). Distortion of the quantum vacuum in accelerated reference frames results in a force that appears to account for inertia. We have now shown that the same effect occurs in a region of curved spacetime, thus elucidating the origin of the principle of equivalence (Rueda, Haisch and Tung, 2001). A further connection with general relativity has been drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding a complementary perspective on the origin of inertia. Numerical simulations of this effect demonstrate the manner in which a massless fundamental particle, e.g. an electron, acquires inertial properties; this also shows the apparent origin of particle spin along lines originally proposed by Schrödinger. Finally, we suggest that the heavier leptons (muon and tau) may be explainable as spatial-harmonic resonances of the (fundamental) electron. They would carry the same overall charge, but with the charge now having spatially lobed structure, each lobe of which would respond to higher frequency components of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, thereby increasing the inertia and thus manifesting a heavier mass.

BACKGROUND

It has been assumed since the late 1960s that an explanation for the origin of mass compatible with the Standard Model of particle physics must involve a postulated Higgs field. The idea is that particles are presumed to acquire the property of mass through interactions with an underlying universal field called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs bosons (as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons). Evidence for the existence of a Higgs field has thus been sought in attempts to create and detect Higgs bosons in colliders by concentration of a sufficiently large amount of energy in particle collisions.

As the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN approached its final shutdown (to make way for construction of the Large Hadron Collider) in the autumn of 2000, the four LEP detector groups were reporting tentative evidence for a Higgs boson with a mass near 115 GeV/$`c^2`$, at the very limit of the LEP collider (which was already being pushed beyond its design limits). This was a tantalizing possibility, but the enhancement above background of the measurements was less than 3 standard deviations. However further analysis of the LEP data which had been thought to show evidence of the short-lived presence of a Higgs boson failed to demonstrate any convincing signal. This led to the publication of an article in the December 5, 2001 issue of the popular British magazine New Scientist with the headline “No sign of the Higgs boson” together with a strong suggestion that the Higgs does not exist. This anti-Higgs story was widely picked up in the press. However as pointed out by the CERN groups in a dissenting letter also published in that magazine, the mass of the Higgs boson could lie as high as 200 GeV/$`c^2`$.

Even if the elusive Higgs field is found, this may not shed any light on the property of inertia. As our approach shows, it is possible and potentially fruitful to question whether inertia is simply an innate property of matter, or whether it can be shown to have a separate and specific origin whose mechanism may be altered experimentally (see the discussion of such issues in the monograph by Jammer, 2000). The Standard Model does not address the question of why and how the structure of an elementary particle is able to display inertial effects. For a more extensive discussion of this and related points we refer to Dobyns, Rueda and Haisch (2000) and Haisch, Rueda and Dobyns (2001). The case of gravity is exactly parallel to the situation of inertia as should be expected in light of the principle of equivalence. The proposal that the quantum vacuum (also known in its more restrictive version as the electromagnetic zero-point field, or ZPF) sits at the origin of inertia and gravity, is not only an interesting theoretical proposition in itself but it is also technologically relevant. It opens the possibility to perhaps manipulate inertial and gravitational forces. This would have revolutionary implications for new technologies, especially for space exploration.

In this paper we present a summary of work in progress which indicates how the electromagnetic quantum vacuum interacting with idealized massless particles via the phenomenon of zitterbewegung may explain or at least provide deeper insight into the following fundamental laws and properties of matter:

– origin of inertia (i.e. why does F equal $`m𝐚`$ in Newton’s equation of motion?)

– principle of equivalence for inertial and gravitational mass

– de Broglie wavelength of material objects (in particular the electron)

– nature of spin

– mass ratios of fundamental particles (in particular the electron, muon and tau lepton)

Earlier papers on these topics are online at $`<`$http://www.calphysics.org/sci\_articles.html$`>`$.

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTUM VACUUM (ZPF)

The Heisenberg uncertainty relation applied to a harmonic oscillator requires that its ground state have a non-zero energy of $`h\nu /2`$, since quantum mechanically a particle cannot simultaneously be exactly at the bottom of its potential well and have exactly zero momentum. The quantization of the electromagnetic field in terms of quantum-mechanical operators is found in standard textbooks. As stated by Loudon (1984): “The electromagnetic field is now quantized by the association of a quantum-mechanical harmonic oscillator with each mode k of the radiation field.” Thus there exists the same $`h\nu /2`$ zero-point energy expression for each mode of the electromagnetic field as for a mechanical oscillator. Summing up the energy over the modes for all frequencies, directions, and polarization states, one arrives at a zero-point energy density for the electromagnetic fluctuations, and this is the origin of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. An energy of $`h\nu /2`$ per mode of the field characterizes the fluctuations of the quantized radiation field in quantum field theory. In the semi-classical representation of stochastic electrodynamics (SED, see the monographs by de la Peña and Cetto, 1996 and Milonni, 1994) the quantum vacuum is represented by propagating electromagnetic plane waves, $`𝐄^{zp}`$ and $`𝐁^{zp}`$, of random phase having this average energy, $`h\nu /2`$, in each mode.

The volumetric density of modes between frequencies $`\nu `$ and $`\nu +d\nu `$ is given by the density of states function $`N_\nu d\nu =(8\pi \nu ^2/c^3)d\nu `$. Each state has a minimum $`h\nu /2`$ of energy, and using this density of states function and this minimum zero-point energy per state one gets the spectral energy density of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum:

$$\rho (\nu )d\nu =\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}\frac{h\nu }{2}d\nu .$$
$`(1)`$
Writing this zero-point radiation together with ordinary blackbody radiation, the energy density is:

$$\rho (\nu ,T)d\nu =\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}\left(\frac{h\nu }{e^{h\nu /kT}1}+\frac{h\nu }{2}\right)d\nu .$$
$`(2)`$
The first term (outside the parentheses) represents the mode density, and the terms inside the parentheses are the average energy per mode of thermal radiation at temperature $`T`$ plus the zero-point energy, $`h\nu /2`$. Take away all thermal energy by formally letting $`T`$ go to zero, and one is still left with the zero-point term. The laws of quantum mechanics as applied to electromagnetic radiation force the existence of a background sea of electromagnetic zero-point energy that is traditionally called the electromagnetic quantum vacuum.

It was discovered in the mid-1970’s that the quantum vacuum acquires special characteristics when viewed from an accelerating frame. Just as there is an event horizon for a black hole, there is an analogous event horizon for an accelerating reference frame. Similar to radiation from evaporating black holes proposed by Hawking (1974), Unruh (1976) and Davies (1975) determined that a Planck-like radiation component will arise out of the quantum vacuum in a uniformly-accelerating coordinate system having constant proper acceleration a (where $`|𝐚|=a`$) with what amounts to an effective “temperature”

$$T_a=\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi ck}.$$
$`(3)`$
This “temperature” characterizing Unruh-Davies radiation does not originate in emission from particles undergoing thermal motions. As discussed by Davies, Dray and Manogue (1996):

One of the most curious properties to be discussed in recent years is the prediction that an observer who accelerates in the conventional quantum vacuum of Minkowski space will perceive a bath of radiation, while an inertial observer of course perceives nothing. In the case of linear acceleration, for which there exists an extensive literature, the response of a model particle detector mimics the effect of its being immersed in a bath of thermal radiation (the so-called Unruh effect).

This “heat bath” is a quantum phenomenon. The “temperature” is negligible for most accelerations. Only in the extremely large gravitational fields of black holes or in high-energy particle collisions can this become significant. At the June 2000 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, P. Chen of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center proposed using an ultra high intensity laser to accelerate electrons violently enough to directly detect Unruh-Davies radiation.

Unruh and Davies treated the electromagnetic quantum vacuum as a scalar field. If a true vectorial approach is considered there appear additional terms beyond the quasi-thermal Unruh-Davies component. For the case of no true external thermal radiation $`(T=0)`$ but including the acceleration effect $`(T_a)`$, eqn. (1) becomes (Boyer 1980)

$$\rho (\nu ,T_a)d\nu =\frac{8\pi \nu ^2}{c^3}\left[1+\left(\frac{a}{2\pi c\nu }\right)^2\right]\left[\frac{h\nu }{2}+\frac{h\nu }{e^{h\nu /kT_a}1}\right]d\nu .$$
$`(4)`$
While these acceleration-dependent terms do not show any spatial asymmetry in the expression for the spectral energy density, an asymmetry does appear when the momentum flux of this radiation is calculated, resulting in a non-zero flux. This appears to be the process underlying inertial and gravitational forces.

ZITTERBEWEGUNG

In his study of the coordinate operator in the Dirac equation, Schrödinger (1930, 1931) discovered microscopic oscillatory motion at the speed of light, which he called zitterbewegung. While Dirac argued that such motion does not violate relativity or quantum theory (see Dirac, 1958), from a classical particle point of view, these speed of light motions would seem to imply masslessness of the particle. Dirac theory also describes particle spin, and Schrödinger considered spin to be an orbital angular momentum that is a consequence of the vacuum fields. This view of spin was explored further by Huang (1952) and Barut and Zanghi (1984).

We take the view presented in the monograph by de la Peña and Cetto (1996) that zitterbewegung is the result of electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations acting upon a fundamentally point-like massless charged particle. We discuss below how such a particle constantly undergoing transverse changes in direction due to these fluctuations would manifest the property of inertia, hence appearing to possess the property of mass. The spatially averaged size of a point-like particle undergoing such perturbations corresponds to the Compton radius (see MacGregor, 1992), thus showing one of several connections between quantum properties and zitterbewegung (Hestenes, 1990). Spin and the de Broglie wavelength can also be understood from this perspective.

THE LORENTZ FORCE APPOACH TO INERTIA (HRP)

In the paper “Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force” Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (HRP, 1994) assumed that a fundamental particle (such as an electron) could be treated as a two-dimensional Planck oscillator driven the by electric components ($`𝐄^{zp}`$) of the ZPF to oscillate in the $`xy`$-plane. They then examined the effects of the magnetic components ($`𝐁^{zp}`$) of the ZPF on the Planck oscillator under the condition of constant acceleration in the $`z`$-direction. The result was that the Lorentz force due to $`𝐁^{zp}`$ fluctuations proved to be proportional to the acceleration of the Planck oscillator, thus suggesting its interpretation as the reaction force due to inertia.

THE POYNTING VECTOR APPROACH TO INERTIA (RH)

The approach by Rueda and Haisch (RH) relies on making standard transformations of the $`𝐄^{zp}`$ and $`𝐁^{zp}`$ from a stationary to an accelerated coordinate system. In a stationary or uniformly-moving frame the $`𝐄^{zp}`$ and $`𝐁^{zp}`$ constitute an isotropic radiation pattern. In an accelerated frame the radiation pattern acquires asymmetries. There turns out to be a non-zero Poynting vector in any accelerated frame, and this carries a non-zero net flux of electromagnetic momentum. The scattering of this momentum flux generates a reaction force, $`𝐅_r`$. RH found an invariant scalar with the dimension of mass describing the resistance to acceleration resulting from this process. We interpret this scalar as the inertial mass,

$$m_i=\frac{V_0}{c^2}\eta (\nu )\rho _{zp}(\nu )𝑑\nu ,$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\rho _{zp}`$ is the well known spectral energy density of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum of eqn. (1). In other words, the amount of electromagnetic zero point energy instantaneously transiting through an object of volume $`V_0`$ and interacting with the quarks and electrons in that object is what constitutes the inertial mass of that object. It is change in the momentum of the radiation field that creates the resistance to acceleration usually attributed to the inertia of an object.

Indeed, not only does the ordinary form of Newton’s second law, $`𝐅=m_i𝐚`$, emerge from this analysis, but one can also obtain the relativistic form of the second law:

$$=\frac{d𝒫}{d\tau }=\frac{d}{d\tau }(\gamma _\tau m_ic,𝐩).$$
$`(6)`$
The origin of inertia, in this picture, becomes remarkably intuitive. Any material object resists acceleration because the acceleration produces a perceived flux of radiation in the opposite direction that scatters within the object and thereby pushes against the accelerating agent. Inertia in the present model appears as a kind of acceleration-dependent electromagnetic quantum vacuum drag force acting upon electromagnetically-interacting elementary particles (electrons and quarks). The relativistic law for “mass” transformation — that is, the formula describing how the inertia of a body has been calculated to change according to an observer’s relative motion — is automatically satisfied in this view, because the correct relativistic form of the reaction force is derived, as shown in eqn. (6).

THE NEW CONNECTIVITY APPROACH

Both of the approaches above (together called the RHP approach for convenience) assume classical electrodynamics operating in flat spacetime. Einstein’s field equations for general relativity (GR)

$$G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }$$
$`(7)`$
describe how curved spacetime geometry ($`G_{\mu \nu }`$) is produced by the presence of matter or energy as described by the energy-momentum tensor ($`T_{\mu \nu }`$). Nickisch and Mollere have considered the possibility that electromagnetic fields, including that of the zero-point fluctuations, can be treated as a distortion in the spacetime of the charge. A massless charge would behave like a photon, following a null geodesic, but in a spacetime defined by electromagnetic fields. A photon, in the absence of any energy or matter other than the zero-point fluctuations, will follow an unperturbed flat spacetime trajectory. However unlike the spacetime of a photon, the spacetime of the massless charge is defined by the distortions of the zero-point fluctuations, producing a geodesic description of zitterbewegung. Additional electromagnetic fields may produce a non-zero-mean drift of the zitterbewegung that is also accounted for in the geodesic motion. These non-zero-mean effects “accumulate” into a stretching of the particle’s spacetime, and this stretching is perceived by external observers to be inertia.

In the Nickisch-Mollere “Connectivity” theory, the ZPF defines a curvature in the particle’s spacetime. The metric describing this curvature implies a transformation to the viewpoint of an observer who assumes spacetime is flat (the Connective transformation). Application of the Connective transformation produces the usual effects of inertia when observed in Minkowski (flat) spacetime, including hyperbolic motion in a static electric field (above the vacuum) and uniform motion following an impulse. The motion of the massless charge is a helical motion that can be equated to the particle spin of quantum theory. This spin has the properties expected from quantum theory, being undetermined until “measured” by applying a field, and then being found in either a spin up or spin down state.

In Connectivity it is assumed that the equation of motion of a massless charge is that of a geodesic in a spacetime whose curvature is defined by the electromagnetic fields encountered by the particle. Since the charge is assumed to be massless and moving at the speed of light (following a “null” curve, in the terminology of relativity), proper time cannot be used as the affine parameter of the geodesic (proper time intervals vanish for null geodesics). However, normal time serves well as an affine parameter. The equation of the geodesic is therefore taken to be

$$\frac{dp^\mu }{dt}+\frac{1}{m_{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu p^\nu p^\rho =0,$$
$`(8)`$
where

$$p^\mu =m_{}cn^\mu ,$$
$`(9)`$
and

$$n^\mu =(n^0,𝐧).$$
$`(10)`$
Here $`p^\mu `$ is the four-momentum of the charge $`q`$, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field tensor of the impressed fields including the ZPF, and $`n^\mu `$ is the direction vector of the particle motion. The mass parameter $`m_{}`$ has the dimensions of mass, but it is not mass; particles described by eqn. (8) move at the speed of light. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu `$ are the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. The connection terms (the terms containing the Christoffel symbols) are equated with the Lorentz force, thus showing the connection between this approach and that of HRP. That is,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu p^\nu p^\rho =\frac{q}{c}F_\nu ^\mu p^\nu n^0.$$
$`(11)`$
These equations can be solved for the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of the particle’s spacetime, though not uniquely. The equations (11) actually define a class of metrics. Further constraints are required to select a particular solution from this class. In particular, the geodesic in the particle spacetime should be a null curve as expected for a massless object. One interesting aspect of the metrics derived from eqn. (11) is that they turn out to depend on the particle history through time integrations. Since each particle experiences its own history of encountered fields (including zero-point fluctuations), this means that the local spacetime distortion observed by a particle is unique to it; two particles at the same place and time will, in general, see spacetime stretched in a somewhat different way. This, in Connectivity, is how two identical massless charges can have different momenta.

Using eqn. (11), the geodesic equation (8) can be written as,

$$\frac{dn^j}{dt}=\frac{q}{m_{}c}\left[F_\nu ^jn^\nu n^0F_\nu ^0n^\nu n^j\right]+\frac{n^j}{n^0}\frac{dn^0}{dt},$$
$`(12)`$
$$\frac{dm_{}}{dt}=\frac{q}{c}F_\nu ^0n^\nu \frac{m_{}}{n^0}\frac{dn^0}{dt}.$$
$`(13)`$
In general $`n^0`$ does not retain a value of unity, but changes in a way that preserves the null curve property,

$$g_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu =0.$$
$`(14)`$
Note that eqn. (13), which is the zeroth equation of eqn. (8), is an equation for the parameter $`m_{}`$. Thus $`m_{}`$ is not a constant, but rather varies in response to applied forces. The effect is to introduce time dilation (or Doppler shifting) in the energy-momentum four vector analogous to the gravitational redshift of GR.

Eqns. (8–14) describe the motion of a massless charge in response to impressed electromagnetic fields. The charge moves at a constant speed (the speed of light) with a changing direction given by eqn. (12). When the impressed fields include the ZPF, this motion may be regarded as Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung. When a field above the vacuum is applied, the charge will be observed to drift in a preferred direction in its zitterbewegung wander. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows the trajectory of a massless charge computed from eqn. (8) using one of the metrics from the class of metrics implied by eqn. (11). The electromagnetic fields influencing the motion of the charge are a random realization of the ZPF with a superimposed uniform electric field in the vertical direction (the driving field). Note that the charge drifts upward in response to the driving field. We see that the ZPF drives the charge in a pseudo-helical motion as in Schrödinger’s orbital angular momentum explanation for spin.

The metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ implies a transformation to Minkowski (flat) spacetime, the so-called Connective transformation. The transformation $`C_\mu ^\nu `$ from the particle’s spacetime to Minkowski spacetime is related to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ by $`g_{\mu \nu }=C_\mu ^\rho C_\nu ^\sigma \eta _{\rho \sigma }`$, or

$$g=C\eta \stackrel{~}{C},$$
$`(15)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the transpose of $`C`$ and $`\eta `$ is the flat spacetime metric.

FIGURE 1. Massless Charge Trajectory in a Uniform Electric Field plus the ZPF, Showing Spin-like Orbital Motion and its Projections   onto the $`xz`$ and $`yz`$ Planes.    FIGURE 2. Massless Charge Motion in a Uniform Electric Field plus the ZPF, Obtained Using Connectivity (solid curve), compared to the Hyperbolic Motion of a Massive Charge in Special Relativity (circles).    FIGURE 3. Massless Charge Motion in the ZPF Following an Impulse, Obtained Using Connectivity (solid curve), Compared to Constant Speed Motion (circles).

It is the application of the Connective transformation that allows one to view the particle trajectory in Minkowski spacetime, and here the effects of inertia appear. Two of the simplest manifestations of inertia are hyperbolic motion of a charge in the presence of a uniform electric field and uniform motion following an impulse. Figure 2 displays the component of the motion of a charge in the direction of a uniform electric field applied above the ZPF, obtained by solving eqn. (8) and applying the Connective transformation to view the result in Minkowski spacetime. The solid curve is the result of the Connectivity simulation. The circles lie on the hyperbola defined by a massive charge undergoing uniform acceleration in special relativity. The agreement is striking. Viewed in Minkowski spacetime, the massless charge is seen to accelerate hyperbolically as though it had inertia. Figure 3 is a similar depiction for the case in which an impulse has been applied to the charge, and the charge is observed in Minkowski spacetime to continue in uniform motion following the impulse. Here the circles lie on a straight line, indicating that the particle travels at a constant speed following the impulse. Note that it is the average motion of the charge that moves uniformly. Deviations about the average motion are apparent and are, in fact, zitterbewegung driven by the ZPF. The average motion defines a timelike curve, as expected of a massive particle. This dynamic is well-modelled by a moving center of mass with speed-of-light motions of the charge center about it, and is therefore consistent with the successful “displaced charge center” model that is often invoked to describe the zitterbewegung of classical charges (see, e.g., Rueda, 1993). The beauty of Connectivity is that the full dynamics of the displaced charge center model is obtained without having to assume particle structure, or rather, the particle structure of that model is obtained in a natural way.

When the forces acting on the charge are the Lorentz forces due to the electromagnetic vacuum fields (the ZPF), these drive the charge in zitterbewegung motion at the speed of light, in agreement with the speed-of-light eigenvalues of the Dirac theory. When the charge moves with a large average velocity in some direction, the zitterbewegung motion extends to a quasi-helical motion that may be the basis of particle spin. This spin is undetermined until “measured” by applying a field that aligns the zitterbewegung into helical motion, which will either be oriented with positive or negative helicity (spin up or spin down, see Figure 1).

The RHP theory of inertia has the implication that potentially all mass is due to interaction of bare massless charges with the vacuum fields, where “charge” is understood in the generalized sense as the charge associated with any fundamental vacuum field. It has recently been argued that since the effects of the ZPF on a massless particle moving at the speed of light can only involve transverse forces, no work can be done, hence no energy transferred from the ZPF to the particle, thus contradicting the proposed RHP inertia-generating mechanism (Ibison 2001). This problem is resolved in the Connectivity approach to inertia. Electromagnetic fields are assumed to describe the curvature of spacetime, and massless charges simply follow geodesic motion in this curved spacetime. When the view is transformed to the flat spacetime assumption, inertial forces appear.

Since the interpretation of Connectivity is that electromagnetic fields define a curvature of spacetime, it may be possible to show that radiation is related to the distortion of spacetime required to connect the views of different frames. This should then have implications for the problem of the stability of atoms. Furthermore, these distortions of spacetime are presumably no different from that described by the usual gravitational form of GR; it is simply a matter of scale. The ZPF represents spacetime distortions on a very fine scale. However, if there are many charges in a localized place (say in a star), then their presence (as boundary conditions for the ZPF and including their collective ZPF-induced radiation) changes the normally isotropic ZPF to an EM-field distribution yielding a broad overall spacetime curvature in that region. This broad curvature may in fact be the spacetime curvature usually assigned to gravity in GR, thereby providing the potential to relate gravitational and inertial mass.

FIGURE 4. Notional Depiction of Charge Sub-volumes that Yield Lepton Mass Spectrum as Harmonic Structures.

We conclude with a conjecture that, while speculative, is at least worthy of further study. The RHP theory implies that the effective inertial mass of a charge scales with either the third power of a resonance frequency or the fourth power of a cutoff frequency for the charge’s interaction with the ZPF. If this cutoff is associated with a finite charge distribution size, then it is reasonable to expect that the charge distribution itself may be capable of exhibiting a harmonic mode structure. Now imagine that for some reason the first strongly observable harmonic structure has the charge distribution exhibiting a two-lobe structure in each of the three spatial dimensions, with the second strongly observable harmonic exhibiting a three-lobe structure in each of the three dimensions. This is shown notionally in Figure 4. The number of charge sub-volumes so generated scales as the cube of the cutoff frequency of the fundamental. All told, then, the masses of the higher states will scale as the sixth or the seventh power of a resonance or a cutoff frequency respectively of the fundamental since each sub-lobe will be responsive to proportionately higher frequencies of the ZPF (i.e., a sub-lobe with half the size of the fundamental charge distribution size can be translated by wavelengths twice as small as the fundamental charge distribution size). When this conjecture is applied to the lepton mass spectrum, we find for the masses of the muon and tauon relative to the electron that $`\left(m_\mu /m_e\right)^{1/7}=2.1`$, $`\left(m_\tau /m_e\right)^{1/7}=3.2`$ for the case of a cutoff frequency or $`\left(m_\mu /m_e\right)^{1/6}=2.4`$, $`\left(m_\tau /m_e\right)^{1/6}=3.9`$ for the case of a resonance. Form factors associated with the actual shapes of the harmonic charge structures could easily account for the small deviations of these results from integer values. The spin of each of these states is associated with the zitterbewegung transport of the entire body as a whole, so the spin of each of the leptons will be the same. Although this mass relation is only conjecture, it provides an indication of the potential for a vacuum field origin of inertia to explain the mass spectra of elementary particles.

ORIGIN OF WEIGHT AND THE WEAK EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

Einstein introduced the local Lorentz invariance (LLI) principle in order to pass from special relativity to GR. It is possible to use this principle immediately to extend the results of the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis to gravitation (details discussed in Rueda, Haisch and Tung, 2001).

The idea behind the LLI principle is embodied in the Einstein elevator thought experiment. He proposed that a freely-falling elevator in a gravitational field is equivalent to one that is not accelerating and is far from any gravitating body. Physics experiments would yield the same results in either elevator, and therefore a freely-falling coordinate frame in a gravitational field is the same as an inertial Lorentz frame. (This is rigorously only true for a “small elevator” since a gravitational field around a planet, say, must be radial, hence there are inevitably tidal forces which would not be the case for an ideal acceleration.) The device Einstein used to develop GR was to invoke an infinite set of such freely falling frames. In each such frame, the laws of physics are those of special relativity. The additional features of GR emerge by comparing the properties of measurements made in freely-falling Lorentz frames “dropped” one after the other.

This approach of Einstein is both elegant and powerful. The LLI principle immediately tells us that an object accelerating through the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is equivalent to an object held fixed in a gravitational field while the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is effectively accelerating (falling) past it. The prediction of GR that light rays deviate from straight-line propagation in the presence of a gravitating body translates into acceleration (falling) of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. An object accelerating through the electromagnetic quantum vacuum experiences a flux which causes the inertia reaction force. A fixed object past which the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is accelerating, following the laws of GR, experiences the same flux and the resulting force is what we call weight. That is why $`m_g=m_i`$ and is the basis of the weak equivalence principle.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that a simple model of a particle as an electromagnrtic quantum vacuum-driven oscillating charge with a resonance at its Compton frequency may simultaneously offer insight into the nature of inertial and gravitational mass, the origin of the de Broglie wavelength and spin, and possibly particle mass ratios. For a recent popular-level discussion of our appoach to the nature of mass see the article by Chown (2001) in New Scientist. Numerous papers are also online at $`<`$http://www.calphysics.org/sci\_articles.html$`>`$.

APPENDIX: INERTIA AND THE DE BROGLIE WAVELENGTH

Four-momentum is defined as

$$𝐏=(\frac{E}{c},𝐩)=(\gamma m_0c,𝐩)=(\gamma m_0c,\gamma m_0𝐯),$$
$`\left(\mathrm{A1}\right)`$
where $`\left|𝐏\right|=m_0c`$ and $`E=\gamma m_0c^2`$. The Einstein-de Broglie relation defines the Compton frequency $`h\nu _C=m_oc^2`$ for an object of rest mass $`m_0`$, and if we make the de Broglie assumption that the momentum-wave number relation for light also characterizes matter then $`𝐩=\mathrm{}𝐤_B`$ where $`𝐤_B=2\pi (\lambda _{B,1}^1,\lambda _{B,2}^1,\lambda _{B,3}^1)`$. We thus write

$$\frac{𝐏}{\mathrm{}}=(\frac{2\pi \gamma \nu _C}{c},𝐤_B)=2\pi (\frac{\gamma }{\lambda _C},\frac{1}{\lambda _{B,1}},\frac{1}{\lambda _{B,2}},\frac{1}{\lambda _{B,3}})$$
$`\left(\mathrm{A2}\right)`$
and from this obtain the relationship

$$\lambda _B=\frac{c}{\gamma v}\lambda _C$$
$`\left(\mathrm{A3}\right)`$
between the Compton wavelength, $`\lambda _C`$, and the de Broglie wavelength, $`\lambda _B`$. For a stationary object $`\lambda _B`$ is infinite, and the de Broglie wavelength decreases in inverse proportion to the momentum.

Eqn. (5) is very suggestive that quantum vacuum-elementary particle interaction involves a resonance at the Compton frequency. de Broglie proposed that an elementary particle is associated with a localized wave whose frequency is the Compton frequency. As summarized by Hunter (1996): “…what we regard as the (inertial) mass of the particle is, according to de Broglie’s proposal, simply the vibrational energy (divided by $`c^2`$) of a localized oscillating field (most likely the electromagnetic field). From this standpoint inertial mass is not an elementary property of a particle, but rather a property derived from the localized oscillation of the (electromagnetic) field. de Broglie described this equivalence between mass and the energy of oscillational motion…as ‘une grande loi de la Nature’ (a great law of nature).”

This perspective is consistent with the proposition that inertial mass, $`m_i`$, may be a coupling parameter between electromagnetically interacting particles and the quantum vacuum. Although de Broglie assumed that his wave at the Compton frequency originates in the particle itself (due to some intrinsic oscillation or circulation of charge perhaps) there is an alternative interpretation discussed in some detail by de la Peña and Cetto that a particle “is tuned to a wave originating in the high-frequency modes of the zero-point background field.” The de Broglie oscillation would thus be due to a resonant interaction with the quantum vacuum, presumably the same resonance that is responsible for creating a contribution to inertial mass as in eqn. (5). In other words, the electromagnetic quantum vacuum would be driving this $`\nu _C`$ oscillation.

We therefore suggest that an elementary charge driven to oscillate at the Compton frequency, $`\nu _C`$, by the quantum vacuum may be the physical basis of the $`\eta \left(\nu \right)`$ scattering parameter in eqn. (5). For the case of the electron, this would imply that $`\eta \left(\nu \right)`$ is a sharply-peaked resonance at the frequency, expressed in terms of energy, $`h\nu _C=512`$ keV. The inertial mass of the electron would physically be the reaction force due to resonance scattering of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation at that frequency.

This leads to a surprising corollary. It has been shown that as viewed from a laboratory frame, a standing wave at the Compton frequency in the electron frame transforms into a traveling wave having the de Broglie wavelength for a moving electron. (Hunter, 1996; de la Peña and Cetto, 1996; Kracklauer, 1992; Haisch and Rueda, 2000) The wave nature of the moving electron (as measured in the Davisson-Germer experiment, for example) would be basically due to Doppler shifts associated with its Einstein-de Broglie resonance at the Compton frequency. A simplified heuristic model shows this, and a detailed treatment showing the same result may be found in de la Peña and Cetto. Represent a quantum vacuum-like driving force field as two waves having the Compton frequency $`\omega _C=2\pi \nu _C`$ travelling in equal and opposite directions, $`\pm \widehat{x}`$. The amplitude of the combined oppositely-moving waves acting upon an electron will be

$$\varphi =\varphi _++\varphi _{}=2\mathrm{cos}\omega _Ct\mathrm{cos}k_Cx.$$
$`\left(\mathrm{A4}\right)`$
But now assume an electron is moving with velocity $`v`$ in the $`+x`$-direction. The wave responsible for driving the resonant oscillation impinging on the electron from the front will be the wave seen in the laboratory frame to have frequency $`\omega _{}=\gamma \omega _C\left(1v/c\right)`$, i.e. it is the wave below the Compton frequency in the laboratory that for the electron is Doppler shifted up to the $`\omega _C`$ resonance. Similarly the zero-point wave responsible for driving the electron resonant oscillation impinging on the electron from the rear will have a laboratory frequency $`\omega _+=\gamma \omega _C\left(1+v/c\right)`$ which is Doppler shifted down to $`\omega _C`$ for the electron. The same transformations apply to the wave numbers, $`k_+`$ and $`k_{}`$. The Lorentz invariance of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum spectrum ensures that regardless of the electron’s (unaccelerated) motion the up- and down-shifting of the laboratory-frame spectral energy density will always yield a standing wave in the electron’s frame.

It can be shown that the superposition of these two oppositely-moving, Doppler-shifted waves is

$$\varphi ^{}=\varphi _+^{}+\varphi _{}^{}=2\mathrm{cos}\left(\gamma \omega _Ctk_Bx\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega _Bt\gamma k_Cx\right).$$
$`\left(\mathrm{A5}\right)`$
Observe that for fixed $`x`$, the rapidly oscillating “carrier” of frequency $`\gamma \omega _C`$ is modulated by the slowly varying envelope function in frequency $`\omega _B`$. And vice versa observe that at a given $`t`$ the “carrier” in space appears to have a relatively large wave number $`\gamma k_C`$ which is modulated by the envelope of much smaller wave number $`k_B`$. Hence both timewise at a fixed point in space and spacewise at a given time, there appears a carrier that is modulated by a much broader wave of dimension corresponding to the de Broglie time $`t_B=2\pi /\omega _B`$, or equivalently, the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _B=2\pi /k_B`$.

de la Peña and Cetto (1996) generalize this to include quantum vacuum radiation from all other directions and conclude: “The foregoing discussion assigns a physical meaning to de Broglie’s wave: it is the modulation of the wave formed by the Lorentz-transformed, Doppler-shifted superposition of the whole set of random stationary electromagnetic waves of frequency $`\omega _C`$ with which the electron interacts selectively.” Another way of looking at the spatial modulation is in terms of the wave function: the spatial modulation of eqn. (A5) is exactly the $`e^{ipx/\mathrm{}}`$ wave function of a freely moving particle satisfying the Schrödinger equation (Hunter, 1996). In such a view the quantum wave function of a moving free particle becomes a “beat frequency” produced by the relative motion of the observer with respect to the particle and its oscillating charge.

REFERENCES

Barut A. O. and Zanghi, N., Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2009 (1984).

Boyer, T. H., Phys. Rev. D 21, 2137 (1980).

Chown, M., New Scientist, No. 2276, 3 Feb. (2001).

Davies, P. C. W., J. Phys. A 8, 609 (1975).

de la Peña, L. and Cetto, A.M., The Quantum Dice: An Introduction to Stochastic Electrodynamics, (Kluwer Acad. Publ.), (1996).

Davies, P. C. W., Dray, T. and Manogue, C. A. , Phys. Rev. D 53, 4382 (1996).

Dirac, P. A .M.The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, (Clarendon, Oxford), 4th edition, p. 262 (1958).

Dobyns, Y., Rueda, A. and B. Haisch, Found. Phys., 30, No.1, 59, (2000)

Haisch, B., Rueda, A. and Dobyns, Y., Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 10, No. 5, 393-414, (2001).

Haisch, B. and Rueda, A. Phys. Lett. A 268, 224 (2000).

Haisch, B., Rueda, A. and Puthoff, H.E. (HRP), Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).

Hawking, S. Nature 248, 30 (1974).

Hestenes, D., Found. Phys., 20, No. 10, 1213 (1990).

Huang, K. Am. J. Physics 20, 479 (1952).

Hunter, G. in The Present Status of the Quantum Theory of Light, S. Jeffers et al. (eds.), (Kluwer Acad. Publ.), chap. 12 (1996)

Ibison, M., www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0106080 (2001).

Jammer, M. Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosopy, Princeton Univ. Press (2000).

Kracklauer, A. F., Physics Essays 5, 226 (1992).

Loudon, R., The Quantum Theory of Light, chap. 1, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) (1983).

MacGregor, M., The Enigmatic Electron, Kluwer, (1992).

Milonni, P.W. The Quantum Vacuum, Academic Press (1994).

Nickisch, L. J. and J. Mollere, www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205086 (2002).

Rueda, A. Found. Phys. Lett., 6, no. 1, 75 and no. 2, 139 (1993).

Rueda, A. and Haisch, B., Physics Lett. A, 240, 115 (1998a). www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031

Rueda, A. and Haisch, B., Found. Phys., 28, 1057 (1998b). www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802030

Rueda, A., Haisch B. and Tung, R., www.arxiv.org/gr-qc/0108026, (2001).

Schrödinger, E. Sitzungsb. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K1. 24, 418 (1930); 3, 1 (1931).

Unruh, W. G., Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976).


format: text

text:
# Light Bottom Squark Phenomenology

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The cross section for bottom-quark $`b`$ production at hadron collider energies exceeds the central value of predictions of next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) by about a factor of two or three . The NLO contributions are large, and a combination of further higher-order effects in production and/or fragmentation may eventually reduce the discrepancy . In Ref. , my collaborators and I propose a contribution from physics beyond the standard model (SM). In this paper, I summarize the proposal in Ref.  of light gluinos $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and light bottom squarks $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, as well as subsequent work . In this scenario the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is the lightest supersymmetric (SUSY) particle, and the masses of all other SUSY particles are arbitrarily heavy, i.e., of order the electroweak scale or greater. The lifetime of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is assumed to be less than the cosmological time scale so that these squarks make no contribution to the dark matter density. References to an extensive body of other recent theoretical papers can be found in . Various experimental constraints and phenomenological implications are examined in Ref. .

There are important restrictions on couplings of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ from precise measurements of $`Z^0`$ decays. A light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ would be ruled out unless its coupling to the $`Z^0`$ is very small. The squark couplings to the $`Z^0`$ depend on the mixing angle $`\theta _b`$. The lowest-order (tree-level) coupling to the $`Z^0`$ can be arranged to be small  if $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _b1/6`$. The couplings of the heavier bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ survive. A careful phenomenological analysis is needed of expected $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ decay signatures, along with an understanding of detection efficiencies and expected event rates, before one knows the admissible range of its masses consistent with LEP data. In the first paper of Ref.  it is argued that one-loop contributions may render the light $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ scenario inconsistent with data, unless the mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ is less than about 125 GeV. The possibility that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ lies in this mass range is not excluded. In the second paper, the mass bound is relaxed to about 180 GeV, and in the third, the constraint is further relaxed if $`CP`$-violating phases are present.

## 2 HADRON COLLIDERS

The light gluinos are produced in pairs via standard QCD subprocesses, dominantly $`g+g\stackrel{~}{g}+\stackrel{~}{g}`$ at Tevatron and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) energies. The $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ has a strong color coupling to $`b`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s and, as long as its mass satisfies $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>m_b+m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays promptly to $`b+\stackrel{~}{b}`$. The magnitude of the $`b`$ cross section, the shape of the $`b`$’s transverse momentum $`p_{Tb}`$ distribution, and the CDF measurement  of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing are three features of the data that help to establish the preferred masses of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$. Values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ 12 to 16 GeV are chosen because the resulting $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays produce $`p_{Tb}`$ spectra that are enhanced primarily in the neighborhood of $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ where the data show the most prominent enhancement above the QCD expectation. Larger values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ yield too little cross section to be of interest, and smaller values produce more cross section than seems tolerated by the ratio of like-sign to opposite-sign leptons from $`b`$ decay.

After the contributions of the NLO QCD and SUSY components are added, the magnitude of the bottom-quark cross section and the shape of the integrated $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ distribution are described well. The SUSY process produces $`b`$’s in a four-body final state. Nevertheless, the angular correlations between $`b`$’s in the SUSY case are nearly indistinguishable from those of QCD once experimental cuts are applied. The energy dependence of the $`b`$ cross section is a potentially important constraint on models in which new physics is invoked. Since the assumed $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ mass is larger than the mass of the $`b`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ pair process will turn on more slowly with energy than pure QCD production of $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. The new physics contribution will depress the ratio of cross sections at 630 GeV and 1.8 TeV from the pure QCD expectation. An explicit calculation with CTEQ4M parton densities and the $`b`$ rapidity selection $`|y|<1`$, yields a pure NLO QCD prediction for the ratio of 0.17 +/- 0.02 for $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}=`$ 10.5 GeV, and 0.16 +/- 0.02 after inclusion of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ pair contribution. Either of these numbers is consistent with data .

### 2.1 Like/Unlike-sign B’s and Leptons

If, as in many scenarios, the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a Majorana particle, its decay yields both quarks and antiquarks. Pair production of Majorana gluinos and subsequent decay to $`b`$’s will generate $`bb`$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{b}`$ pairs, as well as the $`b\overline{b}`$ final states that appear in QCD production. Therefore, a “gold-plated” prediction is production of $`B^+B^+`$ and $`B^{}B^{}`$ pairs. For the cuts chosen in current hadron collider experiments, an equal number of like-sign and opposite-sign $`b`$’s is expected from the SUSY mechanism, leading to an increase of like-sign leptons in the final state after semi-leptonic decays of the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks. This increase could be confused with an enhanced rate of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing.

Time-integrated mixing analyses of lepton pairs observed at hadron colliders are interpreted in terms of the quantity $`\overline{\chi }`$. The CDF measurement  of $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.131\pm 0.02\pm 0.016`$ is marginally larger than the world average value $`\overline{\chi }=0.118\pm 0.005`$ , assumed to be the contribution from the pure QCD component only. After the contribution from new physics is included, the predictions are $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.17\pm 0.02`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 14 GeV, and $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.16\pm 0.02`$ with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 16 GeV. The calculated $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is consistent with the data within uncertainties if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>12`$ GeV. The published result is based on an analysis of only 20% of the run-I sample and only the $`\mu \mu `$ final state. It would be valuable to extend the analysis to the full sample in both the $`e\mu `$ and $`\mu \mu `$ modes.

With $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}1/3`$, the mixing data and the magnitude and $`p_T`$ dependence of the $`b`$ production cross section can be satisfied.

## 3 $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ DECAY

If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ is less than half the mass of one of the Upsilon states, then $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay to a pair of bottom squarks might proceed with sufficient rate for observation or exclusion of a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$. The rate for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is computed in Ref.  as a function of the masses of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, and $`\chi _{bJ}`$ decays are treated in Ref. . The data sample is largest at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. For a fixed $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ mass of 14 GeV, the branching fraction into a pair of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s is about $`10^4`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=`$ 4.85 GeV. A large sample may be available from the CLEO, BaBar, and BELLE experiments. Direct observation of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)`$ or $`\chi _b`$ decay into $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s requires an understanding of the ways that $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s may manifest themselves, discussed in Refs. . Possible baryon-number-violating R-parity-violating decays of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ lead to $`u+s`$; $`c+d`$; and $`c+s`$ final states.

It is possible that the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is relatively stable and, hence, bound states of a bottom squark and bottom antisquark (sbottomonium) could exist. These bound states could be produced in radiative decays of bottomonium states, such as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\stackrel{~}{S}\gamma `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the $`S`$-wave bound state of a $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ pair. In Ref. , a calculation is presented of the radiative decay of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)`$ states into a bound state of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s. Predictions are provided of the branching fraction as a function of the masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. Branching fractions as large as several times $`10^4`$ are obtained for SUSY particle masses in the range suggested by the analysis of the $`b`$ cross section. Provided that a bound state can be formed, the resonance search by the CUSB Collaboration  raises the allowed lower bounds on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. Discovery of the $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ bound states may be possible with the high-statistics 2002 CLEO-c data set, or a larger range of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ masses may be disfavored .

## 4 HIGGS BOSON DECAY

Current strategies for discovery and measurement of the properties the neutral scalar Higgs particle $`h`$ with $`m_h<135`$ GeV rely heavily on the presumption that the principal branching fractions are close to those predicted in the SM or in the usual minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). For masses in this range, the decay width of the SM Higgs boson is dominated by its decay into bottom quarks, $`b\overline{b}`$. In Ref. , my collaborators and I show explicitly that these assumptions are not warranted if there are non-standard light particles such as $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s in the spectrum. We analyze the possibility that the $`h`$ decays into new particles that manifest themselves as hadronic jets without necessarily significant bottom or charm flavor content. As an example of this possibility, we present the case of a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, with mass smaller than about 10 GeV.

We work in the decoupling limit in which the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson ($`m_A`$) is large compared to $`m_Z`$, and we assume that the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. No assumption is made about the gluino mass; a light $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is not required. Under these conditions, the dominant decay of $`h`$ is into a pair of light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s. The total decay width of the $`h`$ becomes several orders of magnitude larger than the width for decay into $`b`$’s. Branching fractions into SM decay channels are reduced from their SM values by a factor proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$. For values of the branching ratio $`BR(h\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ larger than two to five times that into bottom quarks, the large QCD jet backgrounds will make observation of the $`h`$ very difficult in Tevatron and LHC experiments. Because they rely principally on the production process $`e^+e^{}hZ^0`$, experiments at proposed $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders remain fully viable for direct observation of the $`h`$ and measurement of its mass and some of its branching fractions .


text:
# Symmetric Word Equations in Two Positive Definite Letters

## 1. Introduction

A generalized word (g-word, for short) $`W=W(A,B)`$ in two letters $`A`$ and $`B`$ is an expression of the form

$$W=A^{p_1}B^{q_1}A^{p_2}B^{q_2}\mathrm{}A^{p_k}B^{q_k}A^{p_{k+1}}$$

in which the exponents $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are real numbers such that $`p_i,q_i0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and $`p_{k+1}`$ is an arbitrary real number. We call $`k`$ the class number of $`W`$. The reversal of the g-word $`W`$ is $`W^{}=A^{p_{k+1}}B^{q_k}A^{p_k}\mathrm{}B^{q_2}A^{p_2}B^{q_1}A^{p_1}`$ and a g-word is symmetric if it is identical to its reversal (in other contexts, the name ”palindromic” is also used). We will call a g-word, $`W`$, $`A`$-positive ($`A`$-negative) if all exponents of $`A`$ in $`W`$ are positive (negative).

We are interested in the matrices that result when the two letters are (independent) positive definite (complex Hermitian) $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrices (PD, for short). For convenience, the letters $`A,B`$ will also represent the substituted PD matrices (the context will make the distinction clear). To make sure that $`W`$ is well-defined after substitution, we take primary PD powers (see \[3, p. 433\] and \[3, p. 413\]). I.e. given $`p\backslash \{0\}`$, a unitary matrix $`U`$, and a nonnegative diagonal matrix $`D`$, we have $`(UDU^{})^p=UD^pU^{}`$.

Our primary interest will be matrix equations involving $`A`$-positive symmetric g-words.

###### Definition 1.1.

A symmetric word equation is an equation, $`S(A,B)=P`$, in which $`S(A,B)`$ is an $`A`$-positive symmetric g-word. If $`B`$ and $`P`$ are given positive definite matrices, any positive definite matrix $`A`$ for which the equation holds is called a solution to the symmetric word equation.

A symmetric word equation will be called solvable if there exists a solution for every pair of positive definite $`n`$-by-$`n`$ $`B`$,$`P`$. Moreover, if each such pair gives rise to a unique solution, the equation will be called uniquely solvable. It is clear that the (unique) solvability of $`A`$-positive word equations implies the same as for $`A`$-negative equations (by replacing $`A`$ with $`A^1`$), and hence, no generality is lost in Definition 1.1. As we shall soon see, the restriction of the definition above to $`A`$-positive words is important.

We first encountered symmetric word equations while studying a trace conjecture  in the case of words with positive integral powers. The conjecture is

###### Conjecture 1.2.

A word has positive trace for every pair of real positive definite matrices if and only if the word is symmetric or a product (juxtaposition) of 2 symmetric words.

It turns out that for each solvable symmetric word equation, we can identify an infinite class of words that admit real PD matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ giving those words a negative trace. Our investigation of these equations, although useful for our methods in , show that they have a rich structure of their own, some of which we explore here. (See Section 7 for a generalization of the notion of ”symmetric word equation” defined above). A natural question to ask is if it is necessary to focus attention on symmetric g-words. We remark that it can be shown that symmetric g-words are the only g-words that are positive definite for all positive definite matrices $`A,B`$. In light of Definition 1.1, our restriction seems appropriate.

## 2. Symmetric words

Recall that two $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are said to be congruent if there is an invertible $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrix $`Z`$ such that $`Y=Z^{}XZ`$; and that congruence on Hermitian matrices preserves inertia (the ordered triple consisting of the number of positive, negative, and zero eigenvalues) and, thus, positive definiteness \[2, p. 223\]. A symmetric word of class $`k`$ in two positive definite matrices is congruent to one of class $`k1`$, iteration of which implies congruence to the ”center,” class $`0`$, positive definite matrix. We conclude that

###### Lemma 2.1.

A symmetric g-word in two positive definite matrices is positive definite.

A natural question to ask is if the map from the set of PD matrices to itself given by $`h:AS(A,B)`$ is surjective. Our main result answers this in the affirmative.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Every symmetric word equation is solvable.

We remark that the statement is not generally valid if the definition of ”symmetric word equation” is widened to allow mixed sign powers of $`A`$, even in the case $`n>1`$. Let $`I`$ denote the $`n`$-by-$`n`$ identity matrix and let $`BI`$ be an $`n`$-by-$`n`$ PD matrix. Then, the equation, $`A^1BA^2BA^1=I`$, has no PD solution. For if there were a PD solution $`A`$, then $`ABA^1=U`$, for some unitary $`U`$. Hence, $`B=A^1UA`$ has eigenvalues on the unit disc. The only positive definite matrix for which this is so is $`B=I`$.

We believe that $`h`$ is also injective, but this is proven only in special cases. This is

###### Conjecture 2.3.

Every symmetric word equation is uniquely solvable.

## 3. Some specific equations

In what follows, we shall say that two symmetric word equations are (uniquely) equivalent if for each, its (unique) solvability implies the (unique) solvability of the other. For instance, the equations $`ABA^2BA=P`$ and $`ABA=P`$ are uniquely equivalent because PD matrices have unique PD square roots. As a more subtle example, the equations $`A^2BABA^2=P`$ and $`ABA^3BA=P`$ are seen to be uniquely equivalent by setting $`A=B^{1/2}XB^{1/2}`$ in $`A^2BABA^2=P`$. Additionally, the same substitution gives us that for any integer $`k>2`$, $`A^2(BA)^{k2}BA^2=P`$ and $`ABA^kBA=P`$ are uniquely equivalent.

It is an easy exercise that the facts below follow from our definition of unique equivalence:

1. For $`r>0`$ and $`s0`$, the equations $`S(A^r,B^s)=P`$ and $`S(A,B)=P`$ are uniquely equivalent.
2. For each positive integer $`k`$, $`S(A,B)^k=P`$ and $`S(A,B)=P`$ are uniquely equivalent.
3. For $`s`$ real, the equations $`B^sS(A,B)B^s=P`$ and $`S(A,B)=P`$ are uniquely equivalent.

The simplest examples of symmetric word equations are $`\{A^q=P,q\backslash \{0\}\}`$. These satisfy Conjecture 2.3 by uniqueness of PD $`q^{th}`$ roots. More interesting is the first non-trivial equation, $`ABA=P`$. This equation has arisen in other contexts . We indicate some aspects of this equation useful to us.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The equation, $`ABA=P`$, has a unique solution for each pair of PD matrices $`B,P`$. Moreover, the unique PD matrix $`A`$ is given by

$$A=B^{1/2}(B^{1/2}PB^{1/2})^{1/2}B^{1/2}.$$

###### Proof.

Assume that $`P`$ and $`B`$ are given positive definite matrices and $`A`$ is a PD solution to $`ABA=P`$. Set $`X=B^{1/2}AB^{1/2}`$, which is PD by Lemma 2.1, so that $`A=B^{1/2}XB^{1/2}`$. Then,

$$P=B^{1/2}XB^{1/2}BB^{1/2}XB^{1/2}=B^{1/2}X^2B^{1/2}.$$

Therefore, $`X^2=B^{1/2}PB^{1/2}`$, from which it follows that $`X`$ is uniquely determined as $`(B^{1/2}PB^{1/2})^{1/2}`$. Hence, $`A`$ must be $`B^{1/2}(B^{1/2}PB^{1/2})^{1/2}B^{1/2}`$. Finally, substituting this positive definite $`A`$ (by Lemma 2.1 again) into the original equation does verify that it is a solution. ∎

As in , given two PD matrices $`C`$ and $`D`$ we will denote $`C\mathrm{\#}D`$ as the PD matrix,

$$C\mathrm{\#}D=C^{1/2}(C^{1/2}DC^{1/2})^{1/2}C^{1/2},$$

the so-called geometric mean of $`C`$ and $`D`$. Notice that from Theorem 3.1, $`ABA=P`$ has the unique solution $`A=(B^1)\mathrm{\#}P`$. Writing this equation (by inverting) as $`B^1=AP^1A`$, we also have that $`A=P\mathrm{\#}(B^1)`$, and from this comes the not so obvious fact that $`C\mathrm{\#}D=D\mathrm{\#}C`$.

## 4. Fixed points and a sequence lemma

For more complex symmetric word equations, it is not clear that there should be an explicit formula for a solution, as in Theorem 3.1. We do not know one, for example, for $`A^2BABA^2=P`$. Since our proof of the solvability of this equation (and all others) will use fixed-point theory, we record a useful theorem of Brouwer .

###### Theorem 4.1 (Brouwer’s fixed point theorem).

If $`M`$ is a compact, convex subset of a finite dimensional Banach space and if $`f:MM`$ is a continuous function, then there is a fixed point, $`p`$, for $`f`$ in $`M`$.

We will be using the spectral matrix norm throughout (see \[2, p. 295\]). This norm is useful because for positive semidefinite $`A`$, it is just the largest eigenvalue of $`A`$. Brouwer’s result is an important ingredient in the proof of Theorem 2.2. Before proving Theorem 2.2, we record the following.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Suppose $`\{A_k\}`$ is a convergent sequence of positive definite matrices. Then, there is a subsequence $`\left\{A_{k_j}\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{(A_{k_j}+I/k_j)^1}{\left(A_{k_j}+I/k_j\right)^1}$$

exists.

###### Proof.

Set $`A_k=U_kD_kU_k^{}`$ for unitary $`U_k`$ and $`D_k=`$ diag$`(\lambda _{1k},\lambda _{2k},\mathrm{},\lambda _{nk})`$ in which $`0<\lambda _{1k}\lambda _{2k}\mathrm{}\lambda _{nk}`$ are the eigenvalues of $`A_k`$. For each $`m\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, define new sequences,

$$h_m(k)=\frac{\lambda _{1k}+1/k}{\lambda _{mk}+1/k}.$$

Notice that $`h_1(k)=1`$ for all $`k`$. We now show by induction that there exists a subsequence, $`\left\{k_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that each of $`\left\{h_m(k_j)\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converges. To simplify matters later, we first assume that $`\{U_k\}`$ converges to a unitary $`U`$ by passing to a subsequence (the set of unitary matrices is compact).

Let $`M\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be such that there exists a subsequence $`\left\{k_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ making each of $`\left\{h_1(k_j)\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$,$`\mathrm{}`$,$`\left\{h_M(k_j)\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converge. Such an $`M`$ clearly exists (e.g. $`M=1`$). If $`M=n`$, then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, examine the inequality,

$$0<h_{M+1}(k_j)=\frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{(M+1)k_j}+1/k_j}1,$$

which holds for all $`j`$. Since this is a bounded sequence, choose a subsequence of the sequence, $`\left\{k_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, making this ratio converge to some nonnegative number. This will not alter the convergence of the first $`M`$ sequences. This completes the induction.

We conclude that there exists a subsequence, $`\left\{k_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{mk_j}+1/k_j}=h_m0.$$

We now claim that $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{(A_{k_j}+I/k_j)^1}{\left(A_{k_j}+I/k_j\right)^1}`$ exists. But the matrix in question is just

$$U_{k_j}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{nk_j}+1/k_j}\end{array}\right)U_{k_j}^{}$$

which by construction has the limit,

$$U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& h_n\end{array}\right)U^{}.$$

This proves the lemma. ∎

## 5. All symmetric word equations are solvable

We may now prove the main result.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.2.

Notice (using (1), (3) above) that it is equivalent to study symmetric word equations of the form $`AS(A,B)A=P`$, where $`S(A,B)`$ is a symmetric g-word beginning and ending with a power of $`A`$. For instance, the equation $`A^{1/2}BABA^{1/2}=P`$ is (uniquely) equivalent to $`A(ABA^4BA)A=P`$. The convex, compact set to which we apply Brouwer’s theorem is

$$M=\{A|A\text{ is positive semidefinite and }A1\}$$

Define $`S_A`$ to denote the sum of all the powers of $`A`$ in $`S(A,B)`$. Also, let $`S_B`$ $`(S_B)`$ denote the sum of all negative (positive) powers of $`B`$ in $`S(A,B)`$. Let $`k`$ be a positive integer. Define a function $`f_k`$ on the set $`M`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_k(X)& =\frac{P\mathrm{\#}\left(S(X+I/k,B)^1\right)}{g_k(X)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{P^{1/2}\left(P^{1/2}S(X+I/k,B)^1P^{1/2}\right)^{1/2}P^{1/2}}{g_k(X)}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`g_k:M^+`$ is defined by,

$$g_k(X)=PP^1^{1/2}B^{S_B/2}B^1^{S_B/2}\left(X+I/k\right)^1^{S_A/2}.$$

From the properties of the spectral matrix norm and the fact that $`S(C,D)^1=S(C^1,D^1)`$, it follows that $`f_k`$ is bounded by 1. I.e.,

$$f_k(X)\frac{PP^1^{1/2}B^{S_B/2}B^1^{S_B/2}\left(X+I/k\right)^1^{S_A/2}}{g_k(X)}=1.$$

We should note that in the 1-by-1 case, we simply have $`f_k(X)=1`$, so that the unique fixed point for $`f_k(X)`$ is given by $`X=1`$. More generally, from the properties of the geometric mean and since $`k>0`$, it is also clear that $`f_k(X)`$ is positive definite. Hence, $`f_k(X)M`$. From the discussion of primary matrix functions \[3, p. 433\] for normal matrices, it is seen that for $`q0`$, $`X^q`$ is a continuous function on $`M`$. Therefore, $`f_k`$ is also continuous on $`M`$ (it is made up of compositions and products of continuous functions).

Now, apply Brouwer’s fixed point theorem to give us $`A_k=f_k(A_k)`$. Because $`f_k`$ is always positive definite, we must have that $`A_k`$ is nonsingular. Hence, from the properties of the geometric mean (Theorem 3.1), we have

(5.1)
$$g_k(A_k)^2A_kS(A_k+I/k,B)A_k=P.$$

Because $`\left\{A_k\right\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an infinite, bounded sequence of PD matrices, there is a subsequence that converges to a positive semidefinite matrix $`T`$. We will therefore assume that $`\{A_k\}`$ converges. If $`T`$ is actually positive definite, then we have

$$P=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}g_k(A_k)^2A_kS(A_k+I/k,B)A_k=TS(T,B)Tg_{\mathrm{}}(T)^2$$

in which $`g_{\mathrm{}}(T)=PP^1^{1/2}B^{S_B/2}B^1^{S_B/2}T^1^{S_A/2}`$ . Then, it is easily seen that

$$A=Tg_{\mathrm{}}(T)^{2/\left(2+S_A\right)}$$

is our desired PD solution.

Since (5.1) has no limit interpretation if $`T`$ is singular, we now show that $`T`$ is necessarily positive definite. For each $`k`$, form the decomposition, $`A_k=U_kD_kU_k^{}`$, with unitary $`U_k`$ and $`D_k=`$ diag$`(\lambda _{1k},\lambda _{2k},\mathrm{},\lambda _{nk})`$, where $`0<\lambda _{1k}\lambda _{2k}\mathrm{}\lambda _{nk}`$ are the eigenvalues of $`A_k`$. Now, suppose that $`\{A_k\}`$ converges to a singular matrix $`T`$ with $`0\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ being the eigenvalues of $`T`$. Since $`T`$ is assumed to be singular, let $`m1`$ be such that $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _m\}`$ are the zero eigenvalues of $`T`$. Set $`c=P^2P^1B^{S_B}B^1^{S_B}`$, and examine the equality (following from inverting equation (5.1))

$$\left(A_k+I/k\right)^1^{S_A}S((A_k+I/k)^1,B^1)=cA_kP^1A_k$$

which is just

(5.2)
$$S(\frac{(A_k+I/k)^1}{\left(A_k+I/k\right)^1},B^1)=cA_kP^1A_k.$$

From Lemma 4.2, there is a subsequence $`\left\{A_{k_j}\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\left\{U_{k_j}\right\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converges to some unitary $`U`$ and such that $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{(A_{k_j}+I/k_j)^r}{\left(A_{k_j}+I/k_j\right)^1^r}`$ exists for all $`r>0`$. Moreover, this limit is equal to

(5.3)
$$U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& h_n^r\end{array}\right)U^{}$$

for some $`h_2,h_3,\mathrm{},h_n0`$. If $`h_2,h_3,\mathrm{},h_n`$ are all nonzero, then the limit as $`j\mathrm{}`$ of

$$S(\frac{(A_{k_j}+I/k_j)^1}{\left(A_{k_j}+I/k_j\right)^1},B^1)$$

is invertible, while the limit of $`cA_{k_j}P^1A_{k_j}`$ is singular. Whence, $`h_t=0`$ for some $`t\{2,3,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Moreover, if $`s>t`$, then $`h_s=0`$ as well; this coming from the fact that

$$h_t(k_j)=\frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{tk_j}+1/k_j}\frac{\lambda _{1k_j}+1/k_j}{\lambda _{sk_j}+1/k_j}=h_s(k_j)$$

by our ordering of the eigenvalues of $`A_k`$. So assume that $`t`$ is the largest element of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`h_t0`$. Then, our limit (5.3) looks like

$$L=U\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_h^r& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)U^{}=UE^rU^{}$$

in which $`E_h`$ = diag$`(1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_t)`$ is positive and $`E`$ = diag$`(1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_t,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Now, set $`\stackrel{~}{B}=U^{}B^1U`$ . Then, the left hand side of (5.2) (within the subsequence above) converges to

(5.4)
$$S(UEU^{},B^1)=UE^{p_1}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_1}E^{p_2}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_2}E^{p_2}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_1}E^{p_1}U^{}.$$

We claim (5.4) has the form

$$U\left(\begin{array}{cc}H& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)U^{}$$

for some PD $`t`$-by-$`t`$ matrix $`H`$. Indeed, the center matrix in (5.4) is of the form $`E^p`$ or $`E^p\stackrel{~}{B}^qE^p`$, each being the direct sum of a $`t`$-by-$`t`$ PD matrix and an ($`nt`$)-by-($`nt`$) zero matrix. We now induct on the form of (5.4). Assume that $`E^{p_d}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_d}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_d}E^{p_d}`$ is a direct sum of a $`t`$-by-$`t`$ PD matrix $`H_d`$ with a zero matrix. Form the partition,

(5.5)
$$\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_{d1}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_{11}& B_{12}\\ B_{21}& B_{22}\end{array}\right)$$

in which $`B_{11}`$ is a $`t`$-by-$`t`$ PD matrix, $`B_{22}`$ is an ($`nt`$)-by-($`nt`$) PD matrix and $`B_{12}=B_{21}^{}`$ (see \[2, p. 472\]). Then,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E^{p_{d1}}\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_{d1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_d& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{B}^{q_{d1}}E^{p_{d1}}& =E^{p_{d1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_{11}& B_{12}\\ B_{21}& B_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_d& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_{11}& B_{12}\\ B_{21}& B_{22}\end{array}\right)E^{p_{d1}}\hfill \\ & =E^{p_{d1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_{11}H_dB_{11}& B_{11}H_dB_{12}\\ B_{21}H_dB_{11}& B_{21}H_dB_{12}\end{array}\right)E^{p_{d1}}\hfill \\ & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_h^{p_{d1}}B_{11}H_dB_{11}E_h^{p_{d1}}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

is of the desired form, completing the induction.

Examine now the right hand side of (5.2), $`cA_{k_j}P^1A_{k_j}`$, which converges to $`cTP^1T`$. Since the left hand side limit by above has rank $`t>0`$, $`T`$ cannot have all its eigenvalues equal to 0. Whence, we can write this limit as $`cUDU^{}P^1UDU^{}`$, in which $`D`$ = $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the positive diagonal matrix, diag$`(\lambda _{m+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$. Setting these two expressions equal gives us

$$c\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right)U^{}P^1U\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Of course, this equality is impossible. We simply compare the two $`(n,n)`$ entries of the left and right hand sides to arrive at a contradiction (one is positive, the other zero). Hence, $`T`$ is invertible, completing the proof. ∎

We remark that if $`P`$ and $`B`$ are chosen to be real, then the proof above shows that the solution $`A`$ may be chosen to be real as well.

## 6. Approximate solutions

We now make some remarks about finding approximate solutions to symmetric word equations. As a first approach one would hope that an iteration of the function defined in the proof of Theorem 2.2 would give rise to approximate solutions. Unfortunately, experimentation shows this not to be the case. We detail another method that has been quite effective in practice at finding solutions (in the case of positive integral powers) and in verifying our conjecture of unique solvability.

Given a symmetric word $`S(A,B)`$ with positive integral exponents, start with an initial PD matrix, $`A_0`$, (usually $`I`$), and expand the expression, $`S(A_0+D,B)`$. Consider the formal sum, $`S^{}(A_0+D,B)`$, of the terms in this expansion with at most a single $`D`$. Now, solve the linear system

$$S^{}(A_0+D,B)=P$$

for the matrix $`D`$ and set $`A_1`$ $``$ $`A_0+D`$. Repeating this process gives our algorithm. As a simple example, the repeated equations for $`ABA=P`$ are given by

$$A_{i1}BD+DBA_{i1}=PA_{i1}BA_{i1}$$

$$A_i=A_{i1}+D.$$

Curiously enough, there seems to be no guarantee in general that these $`A_i`$ will be positive definite (or even Hermitian), nor is it clear that the linear system for $`D`$ above will always have a solution. Nonetheless, experimentation has shown that these iterations always converge to the same PD solution regardless of initial starting point.

## 7. A generalization

We close by noting a generalization of Theorem 2.2 to a larger class of matrix equations. If $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_m`$ is any list of $`m`$ invertible $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrices and $`W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)=A^{p_1}C_1A^{p_2}C_2\mathrm{}C_2^{}A^{p_2}C_1^{}A^{p_1}`$ is such that $`W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)^{}`$ $`=W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)`$, we call $`W`$ a generalized symmetric word. It is again an elementary exercise in congruence that, if $`A`$ is PD and $`W`$ is a generalized symmetric word, then $`W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)`$ is positive definite. For a given PD matrix $`P`$ and invertible $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_m`$ we call

$$W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)=P$$

with each $`p_i>0`$, a generalized symmetric word equation in the PD variable $`A`$. Though we are not motivated by any particular application, generalized symmetric word equations are natural to consider on a theoretical level. Our proof of Theorem 2.2 goes over directly to generalized symmetric word equations, except that a further technical condition on the $`C_i`$’s is needed. That condition is that the leading principal minors of any unitary similarity of $`C_i^1`$ should be nonzero. Of course, this means that any principal minor of any unitary similarity of $`C_i^1`$ should be nonzero for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Using elementary facts about the field of values of an $`n`$-by-$`n`$ matrix $`C`$:

$$F(C)=\{x^{}Cx|x^{}x=1,x^n\},$$

see chapter 1 of , the latter condition may easily be seen to be equivalent to the statement that $`0F(C)`$. For purposes of this work, we call such a matrix completely invertible. Of course, any power of a positive definite matrix $`B`$ is completely invertible, and this is what is essential in the proof of Theorem 2.2. For generalized symmetric word equations, the analysis of (5.4) remains valid because any partition as in (5.5) will have an invertible leading principle submatrix. We conclude

###### Theorem 7.1.

For completely invertible $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_m`$, the generalized symmetric word equation

$$W(A;C_1,\mathrm{},C_m)=P$$

is solvable for any positive definite $`P`$.

We have no example showing that complete invertibility cannot be replaced by invertibility.

## 8. Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Scott Armstrong for a careful reading of a preliminary version of this manuscript.