text:
# CDF/PUB/EXOTIC/PUBLIC/5927 Search for a 𝑊' Boson Decaying to a Top and Bottom Quark Pair in 1.8 TeV 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions

## Abstract

We report the results of a search for a $`W^{}`$ boson produced in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV using a $`106\text{pb}^1`$ data sample recorded by the Collider Detector at Fermilab. We observe no significant excess of events above background for a $`W^{}`$ boson decaying to a top and bottom quark pair, with the top quark subsequently decaying into a semileptonic final state. These data allow us to set limits on the rate of $`W^{}`$ boson production and decay. In a model where this boson would mediate interactions involving a massive right-handed neutrino ($`\nu _R`$) and has Standard Model strength couplings, we exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass between 225 and $`536\text{GeV}/c^2`$ at 95% confidence level for $`M_W^{}M_{\nu _R}`$ and between 225 and $`566\text{GeV}/c^2`$ at 95% confidence level for $`M_W^{}<M_{\nu _R}`$.

The search for additional forces in nature have focused on identifying particle physics phenomena not predicted by the strong, electromagnetic and weak forces. These are described by the Standard Model using a local gauge theory that accounts for each interaction using a vector boson force carrier . Evidence for a new force could come from observation of the corresponding force carrier. There are a number of extensions to the Standard Model that predict the existence of a new charged vector boson, generically known as a $`W^{}`$ boson. The most common extensions are left-right symmetric , in that they presume that the $`W^{}`$ boson mediates right-handed interactions, in the same way that the Standard Model $`W`$ boson mediates only left-handed interactions.

Previous searches for new charged vector bosons with couplings to quarks and leptons have been reported. These searches have set model dependent limits on the new boson mass as well as limits on cross section times branching ratio. A comprehensive set of searches has been performed at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. Searches using the decay mode $`W^{}e\nu _e`$ exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass $`<754\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ at 95% CL , while similar searches considering the decay mode $`W^{}\mu \nu _\mu `$ have excluded a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass $`<660\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ at 95% CL . The most stringent single limit comes from a search combining both of these leptonic channels and excludes a $`W^{}`$ boson with mass $`<786\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ at 95% CL . These mass limits all assume that the new vector boson’s couplings to leptonic final states will be given by the Standard Model, with the additional assumption that the mass of the neutrino produced in the leptonic decay of the $`W^{}`$ is much less than the mass of the $`W^{}`$ boson itself. With these assumptions, the predicted total width of the boson increases linearly with $`M_W^{}`$, where $`M_W^{}`$ is the mass of the boson. A search that avoids any assumptions regarding the neutrino mass has involved the decay mode $`W^{}q\overline{q}^{}`$ where the quarks are observed as high-energy jets, but is background-limited and only excludes $`W^{}`$ bosons with $`300<M_W^{}<420\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ at 95% CL . Indirect searches studying, for example, the Michel spectrum in $`\mu `$ decay have resulted in more model-independent limits with less sensitivity .

In this letter, we present the results of a new search for a $`W^{}`$ boson decaying to a top quark-bottom quark pair, i.e. $`W^{}t\overline{b}`$. Although this search is only sensitive to $`W^{}`$ bosons with mass above the $`t\overline{b}`$ kinematic threshold of approximately 200 GeV$`/c^2`$, it is relatively free of background compared to the $`W^{}q\overline{q}^{}`$ decay mode because of the signature from the top quark decay $`tWb`$. Furthermore, the interpretation of the data is less sensitive to assumptions regarding the right-handed neutrino sector, since we avoid having to make assumptions regarding the nature of the right-handed neutrino or the leptonic couplings of the $`W^{}`$ boson . We use a data sample of $`106\pm 4\text{pb}^1`$ of 1.8 TeV $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions recorded by the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) detector during 1992-95.

The CDF detector is described in detail elsewhere . The detector has a charged particle tracking system immersed in a 1.4 T solenoidal magnetic field, which is coaxial with the $`p\overline{p}`$ beams. The tracking system consists of silicon strip detectors and drift chambers that measure particle momentum with an accuracy of $`\sigma _{p_T}/p_T=\sqrt{(0.0009p_T)^2+(0.0066)^2},`$ where $`p_T`$ is the momentum of the charged particle measured in GeV$`/c`$ transverse to the $`p\overline{p}`$ beamline. The tracking system is surrounded by segmented electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters measuring the flow of energy associated with particles that interact hadronically or electromagnetically out to $`|\eta |`$ of 4.2 . Electron candidates with $`|\eta |<1.0`$ are identified using the pattern of energy distribution in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters and the presence of a charged track consistent with the calorimeter information. A set of charged particle detectors outside the calorimeter is used to identify muon candidates with $`|\eta |<1.0`$.

Because of the good background rejection of the electron and muon identification systems in the CDF detector, we choose to search for those events that are consistent with $`W^{}t\overline{b}`$ with the top quark decaying to final states including either $`e\nu _eb`$ or $`\mu \nu _\mu b.`$ The primary selection criteria is identical to an earlier study searching for single top quark production . Candidate events are identified in the CDF trigger system by the requirement of at least one electron or muon candidate with $`p_T>18`$ GeV$`/c`$. The event sample is subsequently refined after full event reconstruction by requiring a well-identified electron or muon candidate with $`p_T>20`$ GeV$`/c`$ and by requiring that the missing transverse energy in the event, $`\mathit{}_T`$, be greater than 20 GeV. We reject events that are identified as dilepton candidates arising from top quark pair production ($`t\overline{t}`$) , and reject other dilepton candidates as described in Ref. . For example, candidate events with two well-identified electron or muon candidates consistent with coming from top quark decay were rejected. To select events with at least two bottom quark candidates, we require either two or three jets with transverse energy $`E_T>15`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2.0`$, where the jets are defined using a fixed-cone clustering algorithm employing a cone-size of $`R\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2}=0.4`$. The jet transverse energies are subsequently corrected with an algorithm that accounts for the effects of jet fragmentation, calorimeter non-uniformities and energy flow from the rest of the event . We require that at least one of the jets be identified as a $`b`$ quark candidate using displaced secondary vertex information from the silicon vertex detector . This selection results in 57 candidate events.

We use a PYTHIA Monte Carlo calculation  and a CDF detector simulation to determine the expected number of candidate events we would observe in this data sample as a function of $`W^{}`$ boson mass. We require the $`W^{}`$ boson to have a right-handed coupling to the $`t\overline{b}`$ final state, we set the top quark mass to 175 GeV$`/c^2`$ and we assume that the top quark always decays to a $`Wb`$ final state. We expect negligible signal yield differences between right-handed and left-handed couplings. We use the MRS(G) parton distribution functions  to model the momentum distribution of the initial state partons. We use a next-to-leading-order calculation to estimate the production cross section, as the next-to-leading order contributions are substantial ; the increase in cross section over the leading-order prediction ranges from a factor of 1.50 at $`M_W^{}=225\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ to 1.26 at $`M_W^{}=600\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. The efficiency times acceptance in both the electron and muon channels for our event selection is approximately 9% for $`M_W^{}=225\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, increases to 12% for $`M_W^{}=300\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and is approximately constant for masses up to $`600\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. The corresponding efficiency times acceptance for the $`\tau `$ lepton channel, where this lepton decays to an energetic muon or electron, is approximately a factor of six to ten smaller. We will not attempt to interpret our data for masses $`M_W^{}<225`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ as the cross section calculation and the acceptance calculation become increasingly uncertain as one nears the kinematic threshold for the decay $`W^{}t\overline{b}`$. The production cross section times branching ratio and the expected number of signal events as a function of $`M_W^{}`$ are shown in Table I. Over a wide-range of $`W^{}`$ boson masses, we would expect to see significant numbers of events contributing to our candidate sample.

We identified three sources that comprise the dominant background contributions to this search: the pair production of top quarks ($`t\overline{t}`$), single top quark production and the associated QCD production of $`W`$ bosons with one or more heavy quarks ($`Wb\overline{b}`$ and $`Wc`$ where $`c`$ is the charm quark). We have investigated other possible background sources and find them to be individually insignificant. We estimate the background contribution from $`t\overline{t}`$ production by employing a PYTHIA Monte Carlo calculation of this process and a detector simulation. Using the predicted $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section of $`5.1\pm 0.9`$ pb , we estimate the $`t\overline{t}`$ background to be $`15.0\pm 4.0`$ observed events. We use the same methods as in our measurement of single top quark production search  to estimate the single top quark contribution to our candidate sample to be $`3.9\pm 0.9`$ observed events. The largest single background contribution comes from the associated QCD production of $`W`$ bosons with heavy quarks. We employ the technique described in an earlier report  to estimate these, taking into account the different event selection requirements, and find a total expected background contribution of $`15.6\pm 3.0`$ events. Other sources of background, including events not containing a heavy quark jet, dilepton final states and events with misidentified lepton candidates are predicted to give rise to $`13.6\pm 2.9`$ events. We thus expect $`48\pm 6`$ candidate events from background processes. This is in reasonable agreement with the 57 candidate events observed, and we conclude we have no significant evidence for $`W^{}`$ boson production.

To set a limit on the $`W^{}`$ mass, we employ the invariant mass distribution of the $`Wb\overline{b}`$ final state as that provides more information about possible $`W^{}`$ production than the number of candidate events alone. We reconstruct the momentum of the neutrino along the beam axis ($`p_z`$) by constraining the invariant mass of the lepton-neutrino pair to equal the $`W`$ boson mass of 80.22 GeV$`/c^2`$, which results in a quadratic constraint on $`p_z`$. This generally provides two solutions, and we select the solution with the smaller value of $`|p_z|`$ as that is more likely correct given the central nature of the production mechanism of this very heavy state. If the solution has an imaginary component, we use only the real component. The resulting $`Wb\overline{b}`$ mass distribution for our 57 candidate event sample is shown in Fig. 1 and is compared with the expected mass distribution for a $`W^{}`$ boson with $`M_W^{}=500\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ . We also show the mass distribution expected from the sum of the background processes.

To estimate the size of the potential signal contribution, we perform an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to both the number of observed events and the observed mass distribution, allowing for both a signal and background contribution for different values of $`M_W^{}`$ ranging from 225 to 600 GeV$`/c^2`$. We use a fitting technique that is identical to that employed in the recent search for single top quark production , where we model the expected mass distribution as a sum of a signal component with size $`\beta _W^{}`$, and three background components with sizes $`\beta _{t\overline{t}}`$, $`\beta _{st}`$ and $`\beta _{nt}`$ for the backgrounds from top quark pair production, single top quark production, and sources not containing a top quark, respectively. These parameters are normalized so that they equal unity when the fit results in the number of observed events equal to the number of predicted events from each individual source. With this choice of normalization, we can interpret

$`\beta _W^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (W^{}t\overline{b})}{\sigma (W^{}t\overline{b})_{SM}}},`$ (1)
where the denominator is the expected production cross section times branching fraction for the $`W^{}`$ boson assuming Standard Model couplings. Since the latter depends on the nature of the right-handed neutrino, we express our results using the two scenarios described earlier. We include in the likelihood Gaussian constraints on the expected number of events from the three background sources. The results of the fit are presented in Table II. An example of the dependence of the likelihood on $`\beta _W^{}`$ is shown in Fig. 2 for the case $`M_W^{}=550\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and $`M_W^{}<M_{\nu _R}`$.

We set Bayesian 95% CL upper limits on the relative contribution of a $`W^{}`$ boson by constructing a posterior distribution $`f(\beta _W^{})`$ for each fixed value of $`M_W^{}`$. First we maximize the likelihood function for fixed values of $`\beta _W^{}`$ and multiply the resulting function by a flat prior distribution for $`\beta _W^{}`$. We then convolute $`f(\beta _W^{})`$ with two Gaussian prior distributions to take into account the systematic uncertainties that affect the number of expected background or signal events and the shape of the resulting invariant mass distribution. The largest systematic uncertainties arise from our uncertainty in the efficiency for $`b`$ quark tagging (11%), our understanding of the lepton selection efficiency (10%) and on the parton distribution functions (between 4 and 11%). We are also sensitive to the value of the top quark mass near kinematic threshold; its current uncertainty of $`\pm 5`$ GeV$`/c^2`$  results in a systematic uncertainty on the acceptance and cross section of 15% at $`M_W^{}=225\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, 8% at $`M_W^{}=250`$ GeV$`/c^2`$, and $`4`$% for higher masses. The systematic uncertainties from all effects total approximately 20% for $`W^{}`$ boson masses ranging from $`M_W^{}=225\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ to $`600\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. To set a 95% CL upper limit on $`\beta _W^{}`$, we integrate the posterior distribution $`f(\beta _W^{})`$. A frequentist calculation of this limit yields consistent results.

The results of the fit and this limit-setting procedure are summarized in Table II and plotted in Fig. 3. We find that we can exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson at 95% CL with masses $`225<M_W^{}<536`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ for $`M_W^{}M_{\nu _R}`$ and $`225<M_W^{}<566`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ assuming $`M_W^{}<M_{\nu _R}`$.

In summary, we have performed a search for the production of a new heavy vector gauge boson in 1.8 TeV $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions and decaying into the $`t\overline{b}`$ final state. We see no evidence for a signal above the expected background contributions. We use a fit of the final state invariant mass distribution to exclude a $`W^{}`$ boson with $`225<M_W^{}<536`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ for $`M_W^{}M_{\nu _R}`$ and $`225<M_W^{}<566`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ for $`M_W^{}<M_{\nu _R}`$. This is the first study made of this production process, and we expect that it will continue to be an effective search signature for higher mass $`W^{}`$ bosons that might be produced at future higher energy and higher luminosity colliders.

We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staff at the participating institutions for their essential contributions to this research. This work is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KoSEF); the Korea Research Foundation; and the Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “Radiative corrections and parity nonconservation in heavy atoms”

A recent paper of Milstein et al milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 , which is commented below, presents an opportunity to summarize briefly interesting results that have been obtained for QED corrections to the parity nonconservation amplitude (PNC) in atoms.

It has become clear quite recently, that the QED radiate corrections to the PNC amplitude in atoms are sufficiently large, of the order of $`1\%`$, and therefore should be included in an analysis of experimental data. High accuracy of this data ($`0.3\%`$ for the $`6s7s`$ PNC amplitude in 133Cs wood\_97 ) is used as a test of the standard model, prompting accurate treatment of the radiative corrections. The most difficult for calculations (and even estimations) part of the QED corrections presented the self-energy and vertex corrections to the PNC amplitude. They also prove to give the largest contribution, as has become clear only during last several months, while beforehand they were assumed to be negligible small. It should be noted that without the self-energy corrections the experimental data of Ref. wood\_97  deviate by more than $`2\sigma `$ from predictions of the standard model, for a brief guide to the modern literature devoted to the subject see kf\_02 . Remarkably, when these corrections are calculated accurately, their contribution brings the experimental results of wood\_97  in full agreement with the standard model, as was first demonstrated in kf\_02  and confirmed by recent k\_02  and milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 . The above mentioned facts have made last developments in the outlined research area quite interesting and exciting.

Fig. 1 presents a summary of results for the QED self-energy (plus vertex) radiative corrections to the PNC amplitude in atoms. It shows these corrections in relative units, as a percent of the PNC amplitude, versus the charge of the atomic nucleus considered. The most interesting for recent experimental applications atoms are Cs, $`Z=55`$, and Tl, Pb and Bi with $`Z`$ close to $`80`$. Fig. 1 shows a close agreement of results of our Ref. kf\_02  with the more recent results of k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 . The important conclusion that follows from this figure is that the self-energy correction to the PNC amplitude is negative and large. For the Cs atom there exists perfect agreement between all the results $`0.73(20)\%`$ kf\_02 , $`0.9(2)\%`$ k\_02 , and $`0.85\%`$ milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 . A slight discrepancy observed for more heavy atoms Tl, Pb, and Bi, $`1.6\%`$ kf\_02 ; k\_02  and $`1.4\%`$ milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 , is, probably, within the errors of the methods used, as is specified below. As was demonstrated in kf\_02  and supported by k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 , the found correction brings the experimental data of Wood et al wood\_97  within the limits of the standard model.

A reliability of this conclusion is supported by two different groups which have converged to one and the same result. This positive development is further magnified by the fact that previously there has existed a sharp contradiction between kf\_02  and the results of Milstein and Sushkov who insisted that the self-energy correction is small and positive milstein\_sushkov\_02 , casting doubts on possible relation between experimental data of wood\_97  and the standard model.

Note that the results presented in Fig. 1 were obtained in kf\_02 ; k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02  using different methods and approximations. The work kf\_02  takes into account all orders in the $`\alpha Z`$-expansion deriving an identity which relates the radiative corrections to the PNC matrix elements between the s1/2 and p1/2 electron wave functions with the radiative corrections to the finite nuclear size (FNS) energy shifts of the s1/2 and p1/2 levels. The works k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02  calculated the self-energy corrections to PNC using the $`\alpha Z`$-expansion. The results of these latter works can be used to test validity of the identity found in Ref. kf\_02 . Numerical results of k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02  shown in Fig. 1 indicate that this identity holds, bringing the final conclusions of these works in very close agreement with kf\_02 . (Note that a possible $`20\%`$ violation of the identity, that was proclaimed in milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 , is smaller than the error that follows from the parameter of the perturbative expansion used in k\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 , which is $`\alpha Z=0.4`$ for Cs and $`\alpha Z=0.6`$ for Tl, Pb, Bi. The mentioned deviation appeared probably because the p1/2 FNS was extrapolated in milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02  to small-$`Z`$ values from the high-$`Z`$ FNS of the $`2p_{1/2}`$ state calculated numerically in different works - see Refs. in kf\_02 ; milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02 . This extrapolation should incorporate an error governed by the parameter mentioned above difference .) The work milstein\_sushkov\_terekhov\_02  calculates also corrections $`\alpha ^3Z^2\mathrm{ln}mR`$ where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius verifying (in this order) that the identity of kf\_02  holds exactly, as it should.

Thus, the results obtained by completely different methods agree. We believe this signifies a point after which the discrepancy between the atomic experimental data of wood\_97  and the standard model disappears.

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.


text:
# A sufficient condition for a finite-time 𝐿₂ singularity of the 3d Euler Equation

A sufficient condition is derived for a finite-time $`L_2`$ singularity of the 3d incompressible Euler equations, making appropriate assumptions on eigenvalues of the Hessian of pressure. Under this condition $`lim_{tT_{}}sup\frac{D\omega }{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}=\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ moves with the fluid. In particular, $`|\omega |`$, $`|𝒮_{ij}|`$ , and $`|𝒫_{ij}|`$ all become unbounded at one point $`(x_1,T_1)`$, $`T_1`$ being the first blow-up time in $`L_2`$.

1. Introduction

Consider the incompressible Euler equations in $`^3\times [0,\mathrm{})`$

$$\frac{u}{t}+uu=p,u=0,$$
$`1.1`$
where $`u(x,t)=(u_1,u_2,u_3)`$ denotes the unknown velocity field, $`p`$ the pressure scalar. Denote the material derivative in (1.1) by $`D/Dt=/t+u`$, and the vorticity vector by $`\omega =u`$, which is governed by

$$\frac{D\omega }{Dt}=𝒮\omega ,\omega =0,\text{where}𝒮_{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_i}{x_j}+\frac{u_j}{x_i}\right).$$
$`1.2`$
Defining the Hessian of pressure $`p`$ by

$$𝒫_{ij}:=\frac{^2p}{x_ix_j},$$
$`1.3`$
the second order derivative of $`\omega `$ is given by (see \[Ma\] and \[O\])

$$\frac{D^2\omega }{Dt^2}=𝒫\omega .$$
$`1.4`$
Combining (1.2) and (1.4), it is shown in \[GGK\] that

$$\frac{D(\omega 𝒮\omega )}{Dt}=\omega 𝒫\omega .$$

This means that if $`\omega `$ aligns with an eigenvector of $`𝒮`$ (call this a $`𝒮\omega `$ alignment), then it must do so simultaneously with an eigenvector of $`𝒫`$ (call this a $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment). See (3.1) for the converse. It is clear from (1.4) that only negative eigenvalues of $`𝒫`$ cause $`\omega `$ to increase in time. Intuitively, one expects that singular solutions of (1.1), if they exist, are related to alignments of $`𝒫\omega `$ or $`𝒮\omega `$. In this sense, the geometry matters.

The theorem of \[BKM\] states that the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of $`\omega `$ controls the smoothness of solutions of the Euler equations (1.1). On the other hand, the direction of vorticity plays an important role with its evolution connected to the Hessian of pressure $`𝒫`$ \[ p. 40, C \]. It is further proved in \[CFM\] that if the direction of $`\omega `$ remains regular and the velocity is bounded, then a singularity cannot form.

There has been evidence that alignments exist in a wide classes of fluid flows. It is found in \[Pe\] that in the Euler singular region, the vorticity is aligned with the eigenvector of the most positive eigenvalue of the strain $`𝒮`$. With vortex pairs initially aligned with $`𝒮`$, a blow-up model is constructed \[Mo\]. Using a set of equations for the angle variables in terms of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$, \[GGK\] has recently analysed the data \[K\], indicative of intense stretching and compression of vorticity at the singular region where the alignments occur (see their Fig. 2 and 3). See also \[H\] for the alignments associated with Navier-Stokes turbulence.

The present paper is to study geometrical configurations of $`𝒫`$. We shall derive a sufficient condition in Theorem 2.1 for a finite-time $`L_2`$ Euler singularity, assuming the direction of $`\omega `$ is parallel to an eigenvector of $`𝒫`$ only. Furthermore, assuming the direction of $`\omega `$ is parallel to both $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒮`$ in a simple way, Theorem 2.2 is obtained. Deducing from this theorem, we analyse the singular patterns in time and space by Corollary 2.3 and 2.4. Apparently, these patterns seem to be observed in \[K\] and \[Pe\] for the turbulent enstrophy dissipation. Finally, we discuss effectiveness of the Hessian of pressure on producing potential $`L_2`$ singularities.

###### Remark Remark A

To prove the theorems, we imposed some conditions on the eigenvalues of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$. Although little is known about a relation between their eigenvalues, the conditions imposed may be justified by available numerical data. Note that the conditions already imply possible pointwise Euler singularities. However, the central point of the paper is to demonstrate that a $`L_2`$ blowup demands stronger conditions. Our condition for a pointwise singularity is not sufficient (see Remark D). Moreover, global constraints need to be satisfied, for instance only fluid elements satisfying inequality (2.10) become unbounded in $`L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. To the author’s knowledge, sufficient conditions for $`L_2`$ Euler blowup have not been precisely derived before.

2. A sufficient condition

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ be a smooth material volume carried by the fluid. Let $`\omega (x,t)`$ be a sufficiently smooth solution of (1.1) for which we set

$$\varpi :=\omega (t)_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2,\varpi (t)0t0,\text{and}\phi _1(t):=\frac{1}{2\varpi }.$$
$`2.1`$
###### Remark Remark B

One could also set

$$\phi _n(t):=\frac{1}{2[\varpi ]^{\frac{1}{n}}},n.$$

This would slightly improve an estimate for the constant $`c_0`$ in Theorem 2.2 below (smaller $`c_0`$ for $`n>1`$). However for clarity, we take $`n=1`$ as in (2.1).

Define a smooth function

$$v(t):=\phi _1^{}$$
$`2.2`$
so that

$$v(t)=\frac{1}{\varpi ^2}_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega \frac{D\omega }{Dt}𝑑x,$$
$`2.3`$
and

$$v^{}(t)=\frac{1}{\varpi ^3}\left\{\left(_\mathrm{\Omega }[\left|\frac{D\omega }{Dt}\right|^2+\omega \frac{D^2\omega }{Dt^2}]𝑑x\right)\varpi 4\left(_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega \frac{D\omega }{Dt}𝑑x\right)^2\right\}.$$
$`2.4`$
Concerning the above equations, an easy estimate is

###### Lemma 2.0

Let $`v,v^{}`$ be as in (2.3) and (2.4). Then for $`t[0,\mathrm{})`$

$$v(t)\varpi ^{3/2}(t)\frac{D\omega }{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
$`2.5`$
and

$$v^{}(t)\varpi ^2(t)_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega \frac{D^2\omega }{Dt^2}𝑑xc_1_\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\frac{D\omega }{Dt}\right|^2𝑑x,c_1=3.$$
$`2.6`$
###### Demonstration Proof

By Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, we get for the integral in (2.3):

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega \frac{D\omega }{Dt}𝑑x\omega _{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{D\omega }{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.$$

But $`\varpi =\omega _{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2`$, so this leads to (2.5). Using this relation again for the last term in (2.4) yields (2.6). $`\mathit{}`$

###### Remark Remark C

Inequality (2.6) involves both (1.2) and (1.4), therefore it will be used to investigate various links between $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$ for solutions of (1.1).

No rigorous estimate is known about the two terms on the right hand-side of (2.6), and certain assumptions will be made on geometrical arrangements of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$. First, we consider a case when there is only $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment. This arrangement is shown by numerical data \[O\], which suggests the configuration to be a generic property of Euler flows. A sufficient condition can now be given.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`𝒫\omega =\lambda \omega `$ in (1.4) $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`t0`$, where $`\lambda >0`$. Assume that at some $`t_0>0`$, $`\lambda >3\mu _m^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times [t_0,\mathrm{})`$, where $`\mu _m=\mathrm{max}\{|\mu _1|,|\mu _2|,|\mu _3|\}`$, $`\mu _i`$ being eigenvalues of the matrix $`𝒮`$. Then there exists a finite time $`T_0>t_0`$ (depending only on $`\varpi _0`$ and $`v_0`$) and $`T_{}(t_0,T_0)`$, such that

$$\underset{tT_{}}{lim}sup\frac{D\omega }{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}=\mathrm{}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

By Lemma 2.0, clearly

$$v^{}\varpi ^2_\mathrm{\Omega }\lambda (x,t)|\omega |^2𝑑x3_\mathrm{\Omega }|𝒮\omega |^2𝑑x.$$

Setting $`\mu _m=\mathrm{max}\{|\mu _i|\}`$ gives

$$v^{}\varpi ^2_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (x,t)3\mu _m^2(x,t)\right]|\omega |^2𝑑x.$$

It then follows from the assumption and (2.5)

$$v^{}(t)c\varpi (t)v^2(t),t[t_0,\mathrm{}),c(0,1].$$

This implies $`\phi _1^{}<0`$ in (2.2) after $`t_0`$, in turn $`\varpi (t)\varpi _0=\varpi (t_0)`$. Hence

$$v^{}c\varpi _0v^2,v_0=v(t_0)>0.$$

One finds that for $`t_0t<T_0`$, setting $`A=1/(c\varpi _0)`$,

$$v(t)\frac{A}{T_0t},T_0=t_0+1/(c\varpi _0v_0).$$

We see that $`t_0<T_0<K`$. According to (2.5), in which note $`\varpi (t)\varpi _0`$,

$$\frac{D\omega (t)}{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{B}{T_0t},B=\varpi _0^{1/2}/c.$$

This establishes the assertion. $`\mathit{}`$

The basic idea of Theorem 2.1 is that if $`\lambda `$ is larger than $`\mu _m`$ for a certain length of time, then a $`L_2`$ singularity forms. The critical time $`T_0`$ is determined by initial $`\varpi _0`$ (the enstrophy at $`t_0`$ ) and $`v_0`$ (the rate change of enstrophy); higher is the initial enstrophy, shorter is the critical time.

To be precise how large $`\lambda `$ needs to be, next we examine a special case of the above theorem: both $`𝒫\omega `$ and $`𝒮\omega `$ configurations hold. Such flow geometry is often observed in numerical simulations, for example \[O\], \[GGK\]. Making a assumption on the eigenvalues of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$, we have

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`𝒫\omega =\lambda \omega `$ in (1.4) and $`𝒮\omega =\mu \omega `$ in (1.2) $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`t0`$, where $`\lambda ,\mu >0`$. Assume that at some $`t_0>0`$, $`\lambda =c_0\mu ^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times [t_0,\mathrm{})`$ with some constant $`c_0>3`$. Then there exists a finite time $`T_0>t_0`$ and $`T_{}(t_0,T_0)`$, such that

$$\underset{tT_{}}{lim}sup\frac{D\omega }{Dt}_{L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })}=\mathrm{}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.1. Here for $`T_0`$, we have

$$T_0=t_0+1/(c\varpi _0v_0),c=c_03>0.$$
$`2.7`$
$`\mathit{}`$

###### Remark Remark D

When both $`𝒫\omega `$ and $`𝒮\omega `$ alignments hold, there may exist many functional relations between their eigenvalues, $`\lambda =f(\mu )`$. The hypothesis in the theorem, $`\lambda =c_0\mu ^2`$ with $`c_0(3,3+ϵ)`$, is a requirement for the $`L_2`$ blowup \[but note not every fluid element satisfying the relation can blowup, see (2.10) below\]. This requirement already implies pointwise singular solutions. For such singularities, a similar relation is $`\lambda =c_p\mu ^2`$ with $`c_p(1,1+ϵ)`$ (see the proof of Corollary 2.3). Notice that $`c_p<c_0`$ for $`ϵ(0,1)`$.

This case is the simplest to analyse structures of the $`L_2`$ blowup. To do so we will further assume that $`\mu `$ is the only positive eigenvalue of $`𝒮`$, as suggested by an analysis \[p. 309, Pe\]. Thus the very first blow-up time in $`L_2`$ is identified by

###### Corollary 2.3 (Temporal interval)

Suppose in Theorem 2.2 that $`\mu `$ is the only positive eigenvalue of $`𝒮`$. Then there exists a smallest time $`T_1(t_0,T_0)`$ such that

$$\underset{tT_1}{lim}sup|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{},\underset{tT_1}{lim}sup|𝒮_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{},\text{and}\underset{tT_1}{lim}sup|𝒫_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}.$$

In fact, $`[T_1,T_0)=\{t|T_1t<T_0\}`$ is the interval of blow-up.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t_0)`$ and $`\mu ^0(x)=\mu (x,t_0)`$ for $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Consider a fluid element located at $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Differentiating $`D\omega /Dt=\mu \omega `$ and using (1.4), one obtains by following the element: $`\mu ^{}(t)=\lambda \mu ^2`$. Inserting $`\lambda =c_0\mu ^2`$ gives $`\mu ^{}=(c_01)\mu ^2`$. This equation admits a solution which ceases to be regular at a finite-time

$$\mu (t;\alpha )=\frac{(c_01)^1}{T_{}t},T_{}=t_0+1/[(c_01)\mu ^0(\alpha )].$$
$`2.8`$
Note $`inf\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)\mu ^0(\alpha )sup\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Define

$$T_1:=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_0}{inf}T_{}(\alpha )=t_0+1/[(c_01)\mu _1^0],\mu _1^0=sup\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_0).$$
$`2.9`$
We claim $`T_1<T_0`$ as defined in (2.7). Computing $`c\varpi _0v_0`$ in $`T_0`$ by use of the Second Mean-Value Theorem for Integrals in (2.3), we get $`c\varpi _0v_0=(c_03)\mu ^0(\beta )`$ for some $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. The fact $`(c_01)\mu _1^0>(c_03)\mu ^0(\beta )\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ suffices for the claim. Consequently, $`T_1`$ is the first time in the blow-up interval $`[T_1,T_0)`$, in which corresponding $`\mu ^0(\alpha )`$ necessarily satisfy

$$\mu ^0(\alpha )\mu ^0(\beta _{})(c_03)/(c_01),\beta _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0.$$
$`2.10`$
We now ask what functions are singular at $`T_1`$ ? Since both matrices $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$ are symmetric, we have only to consider their eigenvalues. Let $`\mu _a`$ and $`\mu _b`$ be the two other eigenvalues of $`𝒮`$ whose eigenvectors are not aligned with the vorticity vector. By the incompressibility condition, $`\mu >\mathrm{max}\{|\mu _a|,|\mu _b|\}`$ as it is the only positive eigenvalue. Thus it is obvious from (2.8) and (2.9) that $`|𝒮_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is unbounded at $`T_1`$. This means, by the theorems of \[BKM\] and \[Po\], that $`|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ also fails to be smooth at the same time. Finally we turn to the Hessian of pressure. Let $`\lambda _\zeta `$ and $`\lambda _\eta `$ be the two other eigenvalues of $`𝒫`$ while $`\lambda `$ is the negative eigenvalue associated with the eigenvector aligned to $`\omega `$. Note that $`\lambda _\zeta `$ or $`\lambda _\eta `$ cannot blow up at any time earlier than $`T_1`$, because if this happened, it can be shown by (1.2) and (1.4) that $`|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ would have blown up at a time earlier than $`T_1`$, contradicting (2.9). Now given $`\delta >0t(T_1\delta ,T_1)`$, either (a) $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda \mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$, or (b) $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda <\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$. We know that $`lim_{tT_1}sup|𝒮_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$, which is equivalent to $`lim_{tT_1}sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ by the alignment relation $`\lambda =c_0\mu ^2`$. Thus inequality (a) is left as the only choice. Evidently $`lim_{tT_1}sup|𝒫_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. The proof is complete. $`\mathit{}`$

It is natural to wonder what would be the singular set in space. In this direction we deduce

###### Corollary 2.4 (Spatial set)

Let $`x_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the space point where $`|𝒮_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ as $`tT_1`$. Then $`|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|𝒫_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ also blow up at $`(x_1,T_1)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Without loss of generality, let us assume that at time $`t_0`$, there is only one fluid element having $`\mu _1^0=sup\mu ^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$. Suppose $`|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ blows up at $`(y,T_1)`$, $`yx_1`$, however this is impossible. At the time $`T_1`$, $`y`$ is a location arrived by a fluid element with initial $`\mu ^0(y)\mu _1^0`$, which is not singular at that time. We then conclude $`y=x_1`$. To find the singular location of $`|𝒫_{ij}|_L_{\mathrm{}}`$, we recall in Corollary 2.3 that $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda \mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$ for $`t(T_1\delta ,T_1)`$. If $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda >\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$, then it is unbounded at $`(x_1,T_1)`$ by the alignment relation. If $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda =\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$, this means both $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$ blow up at $`T_1`$. Having stated $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\lambda `$ is singular at $`(x_1,T_1)`$, let us suppose $`\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda _\zeta |,|\lambda _\eta |\}`$ be singular at $`(z,T_1),zx_1`$. A similar argument to the above for $`|\omega |_L_{\mathrm{}}`$ shows we must have $`z=x_1`$. $`\mathit{}`$

We make a few observations about the above results. (i) Geometrical arrangements can limit the set of singularities. In the case of the double alignments, we have shown that $`|\omega |`$, $`|𝒮_{ij}|`$, and $`|𝒫_{ij}|`$ all blowup at one point $`(x_1,T_1)`$. (ii) The $`L_2`$ singularity condition is stronger, namely the integral relation (2.6) has to be satisfied as a constraint. In this instance, although in (2.8) any fluid element could locally blow up at $`T_{}`$, only those satisfying the inequality (2.10) can actually make up the $`L_2`$ singularity. (iii) Taking the divergence of (1.1) results in $`|\omega |^2/2𝒮^2=𝒫_{ii}=\lambda _\zeta +\lambda _\eta \lambda `$. From Corollary 2.4, we see that in any neighborhood of $`(x_1,T_1)`$, the above equation has an indefinite sign of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$.

3. Necessity for $`L_2`$ blow-up

On the right hand-side of (2.6), if the first integral is persistently greater than the second, then a singularity could result. In our above theorems, we only used the geometric conditions on the integrands, which is more restrictive than the integral requirement. However in general cases when there is not any coherent configuration, it seems hard to proceed. In what follows, we shall discuss solutions of (1.1) having some coherence in the Hessian of pressure.

To simplify the discussion, let $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒫`$ be diagonalised on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ with respect to the principal axes. Since (2.6) is invariant under the coordinate transformations, we can write referring to these axes

$$v^{}\varpi ^2_\mathrm{\Omega }[\lambda _\zeta \omega _\zeta ^2+\lambda _\eta \omega _\eta ^2+\lambda _\xi \omega _\xi ^2]𝑑x3_\mathrm{\Omega }[\mu _a^2\omega _a^2+\mu _b^2\omega _b^2+\mu _c^2\omega _c^2]𝑑x,$$

where $`\zeta ,\eta ,`$ and $`\xi `$ denote the principal axes of $`𝒫`$, $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ the principal axes of $`𝒮`$, respectively. It appears that a $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment with a negative eigenvalue would be an effective way for attaining the requirement, for the following reason.

As shown in the Introduction, when a $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment occurs, we have

$$\omega 𝒫\omega 0\omega 𝒮\omega =\text{constant}.$$
$`3.1`$
Let us write out three components of the invariant $`(\omega 𝒮\omega )`$:

$`\omega _c\omega _b(\mu _c\mu _b)`$ $`=c_1,`$ $`3.2`$
$`\omega _a\omega _c(\mu _a\mu _c)`$ $`=c_2,`$
$`\omega _b\omega _a(\mu _b\mu _a)`$ $`=c_3.`$
A key point here is that from the instant $`t_0`$ at which $`𝒫\omega `$ occurs for some fluid elements, the constants in (3.2) are fixed in time following the same elements. The configuration of a vortex tube would give an interesting example of (3.2). Suppose at $`t_0`$, the fluid elements have $`\mu _a>0`$, and $`\mu _b,\mu _c<0`$ with $`\mu _b=\mu _c`$. This leads to initially, $`c_1=0`$, $`c_2>0`$, and $`c_3<0`$. We obtain in (3.2) $`\omega _a=c_2/\omega _c(\mu _a+|\mu _c|)`$. In this formula: (i) $`c_2>0`$ is fixed; (ii) it is not clear how $`(\mu _a+|\mu _c|)`$ changes in time (Theorem 2.2 is not applicable); (iii) $`\omega _c`$ decreases according to (1.2), since $`\mu _c`$ remains negative to keep $`c_1=0`$, due to the incompressibility. So there is a tendency for $`\omega _a`$ to increase in time, keeping the vortex-tube state alive, and such a state will be strengthened if there are some symmetries existing in the flow at $`t_0`$. This (extreme) example illustrates that a $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment “freezes ” the initial straining states by (3.1), and if the initial configuration favours vortex stretching, then these vortex lines would have to be stretched indefinitely. This suggests that the Hessian of pressure alone could possibly produce a $`L_2`$ singularity.

The Euler equation is rich in its geometrical structures (see a recent paper \[G\]). One further speculates whether the geometry of $`𝒫\omega `$ or $`𝒮\omega `$ is a necessary condition for solutions of (1.1) to develop finite-time singularities. Note a $`𝒮\omega `$ alignment automatically implies a $`𝒫\omega `$ alignment, but the converse is not true. Reflecting that the alignment enforces growth of $`\omega `$ (cf. \[Ma\], p. 192), and in view of analytical and numerical works on the subject, we may loosely make a

###### Definition Conjecture

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$. Suppose (1.1) has a $`L_2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ singularity at $`T_{}<+\mathrm{}`$. Then $`\omega `$, $`𝒮`$, and $`𝒫`$ blow up at the same space point $`x_{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $``$ there exists a $`𝒮\omega `$ alignment.

References

\[BKM\] J.T. Beale, T. Kato and A.J. Majda, Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the 3d Euler equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 94 (1984), 61-66.

\[C\] P. Constantin, Geometric and analytical studies in turbulence, in Appl. Math. Sci. 100, Springer-Verlag 1994.

\[CFM\] P. Constantin, C. Fefferman and A.J. Majda, Geometric constraints on potentially singular solutions for the 3d Euler equations, Comm. PDE 21 (1996), 559 - 571.

\[G\] J.D. Gibbon, A quaternionic structure in the 3d Euler and ideal MHD equations, to appear in Physica D (2002).

\[GGK\] J.D. Gibbon, B. Galanti and R.M. Kerr, Stretching and compression of vorticity in the 3d Euler equations, in Turbulence Structure and Vortex Dynamics (ed. J.C.R. Hunt & J.C. Vassilicos), Cambridge University Press 2000.

\[H\] X. He, An invariant for the 3d Euler equations, Applied Mathematics Letters 12 (1999), 55-58.

\[K\] R.M. Kerr, Evidence for a singularity of the 3d, incompressible Euler equations, Phys. Fluids A 5 (1993), 1725-1746.

\[Ma\] A.J. Majda, Vorticity and the mathematical theory of incompressible fluid flow, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 39 (1986), S187-S220.

\[Mo\] H.K. Moffatt, The interaction of skewed vortex pairs: a model for blow-up of the Navier-Stokes equations, J. Fluid Mech. 409 (2000), 51-68.

\[O\] K. Ohkitani, Eigenvalue problems in 3d Euler flows, Phys. Fluids 5 (1993), 2570-2572.

\[Pe\] R.B. Pelz, Symmetry and the hydrodynamic blow-up problem, J. Fluid Mech. 444 (2001), 299-320 \[see also: Discrete groups, symmetric flows and hydrodynamic blowup, in Tubes, Sheets and Singularities in Fluid Dynamics (ed. K. Bajer), IUTAM Symposium Series, Kluwer 2002\].

\[Po\] G. Ponce, Remarks on a paper by J.T. Beale, T. Kato, and A.J. Majda, Comm. Math. Phys. 98 (1985), 349-353.


text:
# Magnetic polarizability of hadrons from lattice QCD presented by L. Zhou at Lattice 2002. This work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-95ER40907, and by NSF grant 0070836. The computing resources at NERSC and JLab have been used.

## Abstract

We extract the magnetic polarizability from the quadratic response of a hadron’s mass shift in progressively small static magnetic fields. The calculation is done on a 24 $`\times `$ 12 $`\times `$ 12 $`\times `$ 24 lattice at $`a`$ = 0.17 fm with an improved gauge action and the clover quark action. The results are compared to those from experiments and models where available.

Polarizabilities are important fundamental properties of particles. They determine dynamical response of a bound system to external perturbations, and provide valuable insight into internal strong interaction structure. We discuss a lattice calculation for static magnetic polarizability $`\beta `$ in the quenched approximation. This work is an extension of a lattice calculation for the electric polarizability . For an updated calculation of the electric polarizability, see .

For small external magnetic fields, $`\beta `$ can be defined via the energy (mass) shift of a particle in the fields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\frac{1}{2}\beta 𝐁^2$$
(1)
We determine the magnetic polarizability by calculating the mass shift of hadrons

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=m(B)m(0)$$
(2)
where $`m(B)`$ is the hadron mass in the presence of an magnetic field $`B`$. We fit the data with the polynomial

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m(B)=c_1B+\frac{1}{2}c_2B^2$$
(3)
We calculate mass shifts both in the field $`B`$ and its inverse $`B`$, then average them. The magnetic polarizabilities are the negative quadratic coefficients

$$\beta =c_2$$
(4)
The gauge action is the zero-loop, tadpole-improved Lüscher-Weiz action with a=0.17 fm (or 1/a=1159 MeV) set from the string tension. The tadpole factor is determined by the average plaquette as $`u_0=0.877.`$ The clover quark action was used to put fermions on the lattice,

$$S_f=S_W\frac{\kappa }{u_0^4}\underset{x}{}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}\left[\overline{\psi }(x)i\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\psi (x)\right],$$
(5)
where $`S_W`$ is the tadpole-improved Wilson fermion action.

In order to place an magnetic field on the lattice, we construct an analogy to the continuum case. There, the fermion action is modified by the minimal coupling prescription $`_\mu _\mu +iqA_\mu `$, where $`q`$ is the charge of the fermion field and $`A_\mu `$ is the vector potential describing the external field. On the lattice, the prescription amounts to a phase factor $`e^{iaqA_\mu }`$ to the link variables . Choosing $`A_2=Bx_1`$ and $`A_0=A_1=A_3=0`$ a constant magnetic field $`F_{12}=_1A_2_2A_1=B_3=B`$ can be introduced in the $`z`$-direction. We introduce two dimensionless parameters: one is

$$\eta =qBa^2,$$
(6)
where $`q=Qe`$ with $`Q=\pm 1/3,\pm 2/3`$. The other is the integer lattice length,

$$\rho =x_1/a.$$
(7)
In terms of these two parameters the phase factor becomes:

$$e^{iaqA_2}=e^{i\eta \rho }(1+i\eta \rho ),$$
(8)
where we have linearized the phase factor to mimic the continuum prescription. Therefore, the field strength we use will be chosen to satisfy the linearization requirement. To summarize, our method to place the external magnetic field on the lattice is to multiply each gauge field link variable $`U_\mu (x)`$ in the $`z`$-direction with a $`x`$-dependent factor:

$$U_3(x)(1+i\eta \rho )U_3(x)$$
(9)
This factor is applied only to the $`S_W`$ part of the action, the clover term is untouched.

Periodic boundary conditions were imposed on the fermion fields in $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions. In the $`x`$ and $`t`$ directions, we have employed fixed (or Dirichlet) boundary conditions, i.e. the fermion fields are not allowed to propagate across the edges of $`x`$ and $`t`$. To minimize the non-periodic boundary effects, we use a lattice size of $`24\times 12\times 12\times 24`$ with the fermion source location $`(x,y,z,t)=(12,1,1,3)`$. We analyzed 100 configurations.

Fermion propagators $`M^1`$ were constructed at six $`\kappa `$ values, $`\kappa `$=0.1219, 0.1214, 0.1209, 0.1201, 0.1194, 0.1182 corresponding to $`m_\pi `$=450 to 820 MeV. The critical value $`\kappa _c=0.1232(1)`$. We use six different values of the parameter $`\eta `$ = 0.0, $`+0.00036`$, $`0.00072`$, $`+0.00144`$, $`0.00288`$, $`+0.00576`$. The $`\eta `$ values in this sequence are related by a factor of $`2`$. Thus we are able to study the response of a hadron composed of both up and down (strange) quarks to four different nonzero magnetic fields.

Typical mass shifts are displayed in Fig. 1 in the case of neutron. There is good parabolic behavior going through the origin, an indication that contamination from the linear term has been effectively eliminated by averaging results from $`B`$ and $`B`$.

The factor

$$e^2a^3=0.358\times 10^{43}\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(10)
was used to convert the lattice numbers into physical polarizability in units of $`10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$. The curves in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 represent our preliminary results for neutron, proton, $`\pi ^0`$, and K<sup>±</sup>. They are smooth functions of the quark mass. We did not attempt an extrapolation in the quark mass.

In Table 1, we show some experimental and theoretical values for the magnetic polarizabilities $`\beta `$ of neutron, proton, pion and kaon.

The $`\beta `$ for neutron is not well-determined. A recent experimental value  is 2.7 with a big error bar, while an earlier experimental data analysis  has it at 11. The range from models and experiments is from 1.22 to 14. Our lattice simulation result is at the higher end of this range. For the proton, the range is 1.6 to 4.4, while our lattice result lies in the range. For $`\pi ^0`$, there is scant data. The number from Chiral Perturbation Theory calculation to $`𝒪(p^6)`$ is 0.5 to 1.7. Our result is quite high, about 20. For $`K^+`$, there is one theoretical value $`6.2`$ from the NJL model. Our result is around -20.

In summary, we have computed the magnetic polarizability of hadrons for the first time on the lattice using the external field method. In additon to the particles described here, we have computed $`\beta `$ for other mesons, the other members of the octet baryon, and the entire decuplet baryon family. We plan to present the final results elsewhere. Also under way is the extraction of magnetic moments from the same data set.


text:
# STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst

## 1 Introduction

The blazar Markarian 421 is one of only a handful of astrophysical objects detected in the very high energy (VHE) $`\gamma `$-ray regime, between 10 GeV and 100 TeV. At a red-shift of 0.031, it is the closest BL Lac object seen by EGRET, and the first to be detected by a ground-based TeV instrument (Punch et al., 1992; Petry et al., 1996). Along with Markarian 501 (z=0.034), it is one of the most prominent sources of extra-galactic VHE $`\gamma `$-rays, and has been regularly monitored by atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes since its TeV identification (see Catanese & Weekes, 1999, for a review).

Markarian 421 is an X-ray selected BL Lac object, and as such, it exhibits the double-humped spectrum that is characteristic of blazars (e.g. Takahashi et al., 2000). The lower energy hump, believed to arise from synchrotron radiation, peaks in the X-ray range, while the higher energy hump, generally attributed to inverse Compton (IC) scattering of soft photons, peaks in the GeV to TeV energy range.

The details of the emission processes that produce the IC hump are, as yet, unresolved. For example, the origin of the soft photons that seed the IC component of the spectrum is an outstanding question in the study of blazars. Although synchrotron self-Compton models, in which the seed photons originate from synchrotron radiation within the blazar jets, are generally favored for Markarian 421 (Coppi, 1992; Coppi & Aharonian, 1999), other competing models exist. These include external Compton models (Dermer, Schlickeiser, & Mastichiadis, 1992; Sikora, Begelman, & Rees, 1994), proton-induced cascades (Mannheim, 1993), and proton synchrotron models (Aharonian, 2000; Mücke & Protheroe, 2001).

Markarian 421 has been given to strong periods of flaring activity over the past few years. Of note was a flare in 1996 during which the source was detected at more than ten times the flux of the Crab Nebula (Gaidos et al., 1996). In the early part of 2001, a rather impressive flare was again observed (Boerst et al., 2001), with reported TeV fluxes of comparable magnitude to those recorded in 1996, but of much longer duration (Krennrich et al., 2001).

It was during the 2001 flare that STACEE–48, an intermediate incarnation of STACEE (the Solar Tower Atmospheric Cherenkov Effect Experiment), was commencing operation. STACEE was able to observe the activities of Markarian 421 for much of the flaring period. These observations are of particular note as they represent the only $`\gamma `$-ray detection below 200 GeV during this flare.

## 2 The STACEE–48 Detector

STACEE is a low threshold ground-based $`\gamma `$-ray detector located at the National Solar Thermal Test Facility near Albuquerque, New Mexico. STACEE uses the large steerable mirrors (heliostats) of an existing solar research facility to collect Cherenkov photons from particle cascades in the atmosphere. The photons are focused, via secondary optics located on a central tower, onto an array of photomultiplier tubes, and their arrival times are recorded and processed by high-speed electronics. Because of their very large collection areas, wavefront sampling detectors, such as STACEE and CELESTE (de Naurois et al., 2002), are currently the only ground-based instruments capable of detecting $`\gamma `$-rays below 200 GeV. STACEE was commissioned for its first science observations with 32 heliostats (STACEE–32, see Hanna et al., 2002) and was used to detect $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the Crab Nebula in 1998 and 1999 (Oser et al., 2001).

STACEE–48 (Covault et al., 2001) was an upgrade of the prior 32-channel experiment in which 16 new heliostats were added, bringing the total to 48, each with a mirror area of 37 m2. The introduction of these new heliostats had the dual advantage of increasing the total collection area, as well as producing a more favorable detector geometry. In addition, by incorporating these new channels into the trigger, the energy threshold of the experiment was lowered from 190 GeV to 140 GeV due to improved suppression of the night sky background.

The trigger hardware for STACEE–48 was re-instrumented with custom built modules that handle the tasks of signal delay and trigger formation (Martin & Ragan, 2000). The delays are constructed from a 125 MHz pipeline capable of storing and delaying one hit per channel in each 8 ns bin. The system has a coincidence resolution of 1 ns, by virtue of a vernier encoding scheme, and a maximum possible delay of 2048 ns. It applies delays to each channel such that an idealized Cherenkov event will produce a coincident signal across the entire detector. Channels are grouped by geography into subclusters of eight heliostats each, and a trigger was formed if four of the six subclusters were hit within a 28 ns window. Individual subclusters registered a hit if five of their eight constituent channels fired within a 12 ns window.

Improvements from STACEE–32 were also made on a number of other fronts. We aligned the mirror facets on all 48 heliostats using a laser look-back system. The phototubes were re-calibrated, and then re-distributed in the camera to better balance the detector response. We used the full Moon to align the optics from end to end, which resulted in important improvements to the optical throughput. We also reduced the background light reflected from the asphalt on the heliostat field by up to 40% by resurfacing the field with a dark sealant.

We have conducted extensive simulations of the STACEE–48 detector and its response to both $`\gamma `$-ray and hadronic events. We employ the CORSIKA air-shower simulation package (Heck et al., 1998) with the QGSJET hadronic interaction model (Kalmykov & Ostapchenko, 1993), together with custom optical and electronics simulation packages to obtain the detector response. We have been successful in reproducing various detector characteristics with the simulations, including the detector rate at zenith and the trigger rate as a function of discriminator threshold. From simulations of our effective area convolved with a $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum of differential index $`\alpha =2.1`$ (see Fig. STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst), the energy threshold for our observations (defined as the peak of the detected differential spectrum) was determined to be $`140\pm 20`$ GeV. The error represents the shift in the peak location as the spectral index is varied between $`1.7`$ and $`2.5`$.

## 3 Observations

STACEE–48 was used to observe Markarian 421 in the early part of 2001 (Boone, 2002). STACEE uses an on-off technique for source observations as described in Oser et al. (2001). We take on-source data for 28 minutes, with a corresponding off-source run of 28 minutes to form an on-off pair. Our observations from March to May included about 26 nights, yielding 78 on-off pairs from 36 hours of source observations and an equal amount of background observations.

We have found that the subcluster firing rates, which are driven primarily by the night-sky background, are a powerful diagnostic of abnormal fluctuations in sky conditions. In good-quality pairs, the time evolution of the subcluster rates for both on and off-source runs are very linear, and well correlated. However, in runs with passing clouds or high haze, the rates are irregular and uncorrelated. Thus, removing runs whose subcluster rates exhibit deviations from a linear time-evolution has proven to be an effective quality selection criterion. Of the original 78 pairs, 17 were removed from the data set using this criterion.

Three on-off pairs were removed because they showed abnormally high rates from background light, and two pairs were removed due to heliostat malfunctions. Other pairs were trimmed to remove short-term contamination from an otherwise acceptable run. Removing and trimming runs reduced the usable data to 56 on-off pairs, totaling 22.0 hours of observations.

After applying all the selection criteria, the data set consists of $`317,045\pm 563`$ on-source events and $`307,641\pm 555`$ off-source events, yielding a $`9,404\pm 790`$ event excess in the on-source data. This corresponds to a raw average excess of $`7.1\pm 0.6`$ events/min, where the quoted error is statistical only.

Of particular concern to non-imaging atmospheric Cherenkov detectors like STACEE is the relatively bright star HD 95934 (magnitude 6.16 in the B band), which is within a few arc-minutes of Markarian 421, and well within the STACEE field of view. A calculation of the expected photon flux from this star and the trigger multiplicity required by the detector indicates that we should see much less than one false trigger per night from the star alone. However, random fluctuations in the excess noise generated on each channel by the starlight may promote an otherwise sub-threshold cosmic-ray event. Such promotions of sub-threshold background events would only occur in on-source observations, as there is no corresponding star in the off-source field of view. In this way, it may be possible to create a fake signal.

To study this star effect, we spent some time observing HIP 80460 (RA=16.42 hr, Dec=37.39), a star with a magnitude and declination comparable to HD 95934. We took 12 on-off pairs, consisting of approximately five on-source hours. After applying analogous quality requirements to those described above, 11 pairs and 4.3 hours of data survive. These data indicate a raw excess of $`1.9\pm 1.2`$ events/min from the star effect.

After correcting for this fake signal, the detector deadtime, and the distributions of detector configurations (as described in the next section), we detect an average $`\gamma `$-ray rate from Markarian 421 of $`7.7\pm 0.7\pm 1.2`$ $`\gamma `$/min, where the first error is the statistical error on the Markarian 421 measurement alone, and the second represents the statistical error in the observations of HIP 80460, used to correct for the effect of the star HD 95934.

## 4 Flux Determination

Although the source is expected to be highly variable, it is useful to calculate an average flux over all the STACEE–48 observations. Detector simulations indicate that the trigger rate varies significantly as a function of zenith angle, and, to a lesser extent, detector thresholds. In order to calculate quantities that are relatively independent of these effects, we corrected the measured rate at a given detector zenith angle and threshold to the corresponding expected rate at a fiducial configuration (a zenith angle of $`5^{}`$, near Markarian 421 transit, and a detector threshold of $`5`$ photoelectrons on each phototube). To do this, we simulated the detector response to an assumed source spectrum at the fiducial configuration, as well as the observation configuration. We then scaled the measured rate by the ratio of these responses to obtain a corrected constant-configuration curve.

These corrections are sensitive to assumptions about the functional form of the incident $`\gamma `$-ray flux. Thus, we must first choose a hypothesis for what the $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum might be in our energy range. Figure STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst is a spectral energy distribution of Markarian 421 showing measurements by EGRET, averaged over five years of observations (Hartman et al., 1999), and Whipple during the 2001 flare (Krennrich et al., 2002). The STACEE butterfly was obtained by assuming a simple power-law spectrum with a given spectral index. The normalization was then fit such that the convolution of the assumed spectrum and the detector effective area matched the actual rate measured by STACEE. This procedure was done for a range of differential spectral indices from $`2.00`$ to $`2.20`$, yielding a derived differential photon flux of $`(6.4\pm 0.5_{stat}\pm 1.3_{sys})\times 10^9\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$ at 140 GeV. Here the statistical error is the error on the Markarian 421 measurement. The systematic error is obtained by adding in quadrature the statistical error from the HIP 80460 measurement ($`1.0\times 10^9`$), the variation of the result with respect to the spectral index ($`0.5\times 10^9`$), and $`0.6\times 10^9`$ from the uncertainty in the detector corrections (see Boone, 2002, for details). Note that this result represents an average for the 2001 flare. Though spectral variability was reported at higher energies (Krennrich et al., 2002; Aharonian et al., 2002), STACEE–48 was not sufficiently sensitive to resolve this variation.

Figure STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst is a plot of the correlation between the STACEE integral flux above 140 GeV and corresponding data taken by the Whipple $`\gamma `$-ray telescope (Mt. Hopkins, AZ, USA) above 390 GeV (Holder et al., 2001). Points represent data from both experiments whose time stamps agree to within 0.02 days ($``$29 minutes). A linear fit to the data yields a flux ratio of $`4.3\pm 1.4`$. Assuming a simple power law spectrum for Markarian 421, this ratio corresponds to a differential spectral index of $`\alpha =2.4_{0.4}^{+0.3}`$. If we include an exponential roll-off at $`E_o=4.3`$ TeV, the derived index drops to $`\alpha =2.3_{0.4}^{+0.3}`$, both of which are consistent with the value of $`\alpha =2.14`$ from Krennrich et al. (2001).

Assuming a differential spectrum of index $`\alpha =2.1`$ over STACEE’s energy range, and after correcting for variations in the detector configuration, as well as for the observed star effect, we find the integral flux above 140 GeV to be $`(8.0\pm 0.7_{stat}\pm 1.5_{sys})\times 10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The first error is the statistical error in the Markarian 421 observations, and the second reflects the systematic errors discussed above, of which the error in the star correction is the dominant contribution ($`\pm 1.3\times 10^{10}`$).

## 5 Temporal Analysis

While there is a substantial excess from Markarian 421 in the entire data set, individual on-off pairs generally do not exhibit highly significant detections. By combining the observations of a single night, we can improve the flux significance at the cost of some temporal resolution. To obtain the STACEE–48 light curve for Markarian 421, we averaged the rate over all the observations of each night, and assigned a date which was a weighted average of the Modified Julian Date in the middle of each run.

Figure STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst includes the STACEE–48 light-curve for Markarian 421 between early March and late May. Filled circles are the counts per minute, and error bars are statistical only. For comparison, contemporaneous RXTE quick-look results (provided by the RXTE All Sky Monitor team) are plotted above, and Whipple observations (Holder et al., 2001) are plotted below. All the experiments observe an increased flux in the latter part of March, falling to lower values in April. Note that the coincident gaps in both the STACEE and Whipple coverage correspond to dates near the full Moon, during which Cherenkov telescopes generally cannot operate.

The STACEE fluxes appear correlated with both the RXTE and Whipple observations. In fact, a discrete correlation analysis (Edelson & Krolik, 1988) is consistent with the STACEE and Whipple observations being correlated on day timescales. However, the limited statistics in the nightly STACEE observations currently make analysis on shorter timescales infeasible.

## 6 Conclusions

STACEE has detected the BL Lac object, Markarian 421, with high significance in the 140 GeV energy band, a hitherto unexplored region of its spectral energy distribution. The STACEE observed flux is consistent with other VHE $`\gamma `$-ray observations, and the temporal evolution of the STACEE observations appears similar to observations in both the TeV and X-ray bands.

Figure STACEE Observations of Markarian 421 During an Extended Gamma-Ray Outburst indicates that the STACEE measurements occupy an important region in Markarian 421’s spectral energy distribution near the peak of the IC hump. Future measurements of the spectrum by STACEE, along with simultaneous data at X-ray and TeV energies should help to further constrain synchrotron and IC blazar models for this source. STACEE is currently operating with 64 channels, each equipped with a flash ADC, and should be able to obtain more detailed spectral information in the near future.

We are grateful to the staff of the National Solar Thermal Test Facility for their excellent support. Thanks to Gora Mohanty, Jeff Zweerink, Tumay Tumer, Marta Lewandowska, Scott Oser, François Vincent, and Joseph Boone. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (under Grant Numbers PHY-9983836, PHY-0070927, and PHY-0296052), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, FCAR (Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche), the Research Corporation and the California Space Institute.