format: text

text:
# Dual Abrikosov vortex between confined charges Presented by R. Haymaker. Supported in part by U.S. Dept. of Energy grant DE-FG05-91 ER 40617.

## 1 Introduction

In 1992 the LSU groupdemonstrated the viability of measuring the profile of the dual Abrikosov vortex between quark and antiquark as a signal of the spontaneous U(1) gauge symmetry breaking and hence confinement in Abelian projected SU(2) gauge theory. More recently Bali et.al. did a large-scale simulation confirming the picture to a higher resolution. Gubarev et.al. improved the fit to the same lattice data by employing a lattice Ginzburg-Landau-Higgs model rather than the continuum version used in prior fits.

In addition to the encouragement from the above mentioned improved lattice results we are interested in revisiting this study for a number of reasons. (i) In a recent work by DiCecio, Hart and Haymaker using a Ward Identity we were able to define a conserved U(1) current and hence a precise definition of field strength and charge density. This particular definition has not been used prior to this in determining the profile of the vortex. (ii) The Abrikosov vortex is an explicit consequence of spontaneous U(1) breaking of the vacuum and provides a connection between this and other confinement studies. (iii) Hart and Teper have shown that monopoles in Abelian projected SU(2) theory fall into two groups: there is one very large percolating cluster of connected monopole loops and the remaining monopoles form much smaller clusters or small simple loops. They showed that truncating all but the percolating cluster preserves the string tension. We verify here that this picture is preserved under the same truncation. (iv) Greensite et.al. have noted connections between Z(2) vortex dynamical variables and U(1) monopoles and this approach provides an added opportunity to further these connections.

## 2 Review of Ginzburg-Landau-Higgs effective theory for Modeling of lattice data

Consider the classical lattice field strength (in lattice units).

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(𝒎)=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mu \nu }.`$
We consider a constrained Higgs field

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒎)`$ $`=`$ $`ve^{i\chi (𝒎)},v=1.`$
Under these conditions the electric current is

$`\widehat{J}_\mu ^e(𝒎)=\mathrm{sin}\left\{\theta _\mu (𝒎)+\chi _\mu (𝒎+\mu )\chi _\mu (𝒎)\right\}.`$
For small $`\theta `$ we get the London relations

$`\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }(𝒎)\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }(𝒎)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\widehat{J}_\nu ^e(𝒎)+\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^+\widehat{J}_\mu ^e(𝒎)=0.`$
For small $`\theta `$ mod $`2\pi `$ at the origin we obtain a vortex with $`N`$ units of flux.

$`\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }(𝒎)=2\pi N\delta _{m_1,0}\delta _{m_2,0}.`$
This assumes an infinite Higgs mass $`M_H`$. With a finite mass there is a transition region of size $`1/M_H`$ in the core of the vortex but the above London relation holds outside the core. This suggests that we look for this relation far from the source. The quarks need not be far apart to check this.

## 3 Precise lattice Abelian flux

We can define the classical lattice field strength and conserved current through the relation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`J_\nu ,`$
$`0=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu J_\nu .`$
Zach et.al. noted that these relations can be derived from a Ward identity for lattice averages of the U(1) gauge theory

$`ea^2F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}.`$
$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`J_\mu ^{\text{ext.}}.`$
Evaluating the divergence of the electric field on a time-like line of a Wilson loop gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(ea^2𝑬)|_{𝒏\mathbf{=}𝒏_0}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{U(1)}}},`$
and zero otherwise.

In the generalization to Abelian projected SU(2) in the maximal Abelian gauge, multiplication of a link by a group element requires an associated gauge transformation to maintain the gauge condition . Taken together we obtain

$`ea^2F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}𝒕𝒓(i\sigma _3D_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}},`$
where the link variable is separated into the diagonal and off-diagonal parts

$`U_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu +O_\mu ,`$
and $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ is a plaquette constructed from the diagonal parts. The subsequent current defined by the divergence gets contributions from the external source, the charged fields, the gauge fixing and from ghosts.

$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`J_\mu ^{\text{ext.}}+J_\mu ^{\text{dyn.}}+J_\mu ^{\text{g.f.}}+J_\mu ^{\text{ghosts}}.`$
Separating the diagonal parts of the links gives the photon part of the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(D_{\mu \nu })}+\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \mathrm{cos}\varphi ^4\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mu \nu }}+\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mu \nu }}+\mathrm{},`$
where we used the fact that $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ has small fluctuations in this gauge.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}`$ $``$ $`\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ^4=2.5115\times (0.9331(2))^4,`$
$`e^2`$ $``$ $`0.53.`$
This identifies the U(1) charge that determines the electric flux quantization which will be discussed in a subsequent paper.

The divergence of the electric current measured on a time like Wilson line in the classical limit gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(ea^2𝑬)|_{𝒏=𝒏_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{SU(2)}}}=0.40\text{(bare).}`$
In the quantum case, the charged field dresses the bare charge and gives in this case

$`=`$ $`0.51\text{measured (dressed),}`$
showing that there is significant screening even at the shortest distances.

## 4 Percolating monopole cluster

Hart and Teper showed that for large volumes, the monopole currents fall into two distinct classes. There is one large percolating cluster that permeates the whole lattice volume and it gives the full string tension. On this cluster, scaling is observed for the current density and magnetic screening mass. The remaining loops are localized and appear to give no contribution to the string tension.

Fig. 1 gives the profile of the curl of the monopole current as a function of the transverse distance from the source, with and without the truncation of all but the percolating cluster.

Fig. 2 shows the blowup of the tail region. We see that as the transverse distance increases, the effect of the truncation is suppressed indicating that the London penetration depth is due to the percolating cluster alone.


text:
# Reverberation Mapping of High-Redshift, High-Luminosity Quasars

## 1. Introduction

While the origin of the continuum variability of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is still unclear, it is possible to use reverberation mapping to study AGN emission-line gas. In such studies, the time lags between the variations in the continuum flux and the emission-lines’ fluxes are used to estimate the Broad Line Region’s (BLR) size and map its geometry. Twenty low-luminosity AGN (Seyfert 1 galaxies) were spectrophotometrically monitored and their BLR sizes were measured using this method. Kaspi et al. (2000, ApJ, 533, 631) measured BLR sizes for 17 high-luminosity AGN (quasars) which increased the luminosity range of objects with known BLR size by two orders of magnitude. Kaspi et al. used all those BLR size measurements to determine for the first time the size–mass–luminosity relations over a luminosity range of 5 orders of magnitude.

The above sample is luminosity and redshift limited because of the small telescopes used. In order to increase the luminosity beyond 1046 erg s-1 we need to monitor high-redshift, high-luminosity quasars.

## 2. Monitoring Program and Preliminary Results

For the past 8 yr we have been monitoring photometrically a sample of 11 high-redshift (2.1 $`<`$ $`z`$ $`<`$ 3.2), high-luminosity (1045.6 $`<`$ $`\lambda L_\lambda (5100\text{Å})`$ $`<`$ 1047 erg s-1) quasars. The choice of the objects in this sample is purely observational (limits on redshift, declination, observed flux, etc.). The observations are carried out every month at the Wise Observatory using broad-band filters ($`B`$ & $`R`$); thus we have good coverage of continuum variability. Most of the objects show 10% peak-to-peak continuum variations (Fig. 1 top). For the past 2.5 yr we have also monitored part of this sample, spectroscopically, with the 9 m Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) and the Wise Observatory telescope to check for the line (Ly$`\alpha `$ and Civ$`\lambda 1549`$) response to the continuum variations.

First results indicate that although continuum variations are detected no line variations are yet seen (Fig. 1 bottom). Our typical upper limit for the line variability is $`<25`$%. This is not surprising since these high-luminosity quasars are expected to have BLR sizes of order 3 light years which correspond, in our frame, to about a decade. In addition, significant continuum variation are needed to produce a detectable line response. Comparison with low-luminosity AGN shows that the continua of the high-luminosity quasars have smaller variability amplitudes and longer variability timescales. We expect that, when this long-term project is concluded, reverberation measurements of the BLR size will cover the luminosity range of 1041–1047 ergs s-1.


text:
# 𝐹-split Galois representations are potentially abelian

## References

\[H\] Henniart, G., Représentations $`\mathrm{}`$-adiques abéliennes, in Séminaire de Théorie des Nombres, Progress in Math. 22 (1982), 107–126, Birkhauser.

\[KhRa\] Khare, C., Rajan, C. S. , The density of ramified primes in semisimple $`p`$-adic Galois representations, International Mathematics Research Notices no. 12 (2001), 601–607.

\[LP\] Larsen, M., Pink, R., On $`\mathrm{}`$-independence of algebraic monodromy groups in compatible systems of representations, Invent. Math. 107 (1992), 603–636.

\[S\] Serre, J-P., Abelian $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations and elliptic curves, Addison-Wesley, 1989.

Addresses of the author: Dept of Math, Univ of Utah, 155 S 1400 E, Salt lake City, UT 84112. e-mail address: shekhar@math.utah.edu

School of Mathematics, TIFR, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, INDIA. e-mail addresses: shekhar@math.tifr.res.in


text:
# X-ray properties of 4U 1543–624

## 1 Introduction

In low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXB) a stellar-mass black hole or neutron star accretes from a low-mass companion star. X-ray emission powered by the accretion flow dominates the bolometric luminosity in LMXBs. Detailed studies of LMXBs may be helpful in understanding the physics of accretion and compact objects, as well as the evolution of close binary stars.

4U 1543–624 is a relatively bright LMXB discovered by UHURU. It has been observed at roughly constant flux levels by most major X-ray satellites over the last decades (Singh et al. 1994; Christian & Swank 1997; Asai et al. 2000; Juett et al. 2001). The optical counterpart has been identified as a faint $`(B20)`$ star (McClintock et al. 1978). (For a finding chart, see also Apparao et al. (App78 1978)). Spectral analysis of EXOSAT data shows that the X-ray continuum can be modeled with an isothermal blackbody (BB) and a Comptonized component (Singh et al. 1994), a model that fits most LMXB spectra quite well (White et al. 1988). Narrow spectral features have also been detected: the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line at $`6.5\mathrm{keV}`$ (Singh et al. 1994; Gottwald et al. 1995; Asai et al. 2000) and a feature at $`0.7\mathrm{keV}`$, which may be an emission line or an artifact caused by enhanced Ne absorption (Juett et al. 2001). In this paper, archival SAX, ASCA and RXTE observations of 4U 1543–624 are analyzed. Results of temporal and spectral variability analysis are discussed.

## 2 Observations and data reductions

Observations made with the narrow-field instruments of SAX, i.e. LECS (Parmar et al. 1997), MECS (Boella et al. 1997), HPGSPC (Manzo et al. 1997) and PDS (Frontera et al. 1997), all three RXTE (Bradt et al. 1993) instruments, i.e. HEXTE, PCA (Jahoda et al. 1996) and ASM (Levine et al. 1996), and both ASCA (Tanaka et al. 1994) instruments, i.e. GIS and SIS are analyzed. Of these, LECS, MECS, PCA, GIS and SIS (See Table 1) had data with sufficient S/N for spectral analysis.

The event lists provided by on-line archives were used for both SAX and ASCA data. Raw RXTE data were used for both PCA (‘Good Xenon’ or ‘Standard 2’-modes) and HEXTE analysis. The ‘definitive’ RXTE ASM data were used to study the long-term variability of 4U 1543–624.

### 2.1 SAX

For the SAX data, cleaned event lists were downloaded from the ASDC website. The LECS and MECS spectra were extracted from a 4’ region at the center of the field-of-view. The standard response files provided by ASDC were used. The background spectra were extracted from the blank-sky event lists available at ASDC using the same extraction regions as for the source spectra. The PDS and HPGSPC spectra were background-dominated, and not used for further analysis.

### 2.2 ASCA

The standard filtering criteria were used to produce a cleaned event list from the raw event list. The GIS2 count rate was $`16\mathrm{cps}`$, so significant pileup is expected in the SIS data. As the SIS data was in single-frame mode, the spectrum could be extracted with the corpileup tool. For SIS, the background spectrum was extracted from a blank-sky event list. The background was compared to a spectrum extracted from the science data from a region without sources at the same off-axis distance as the source. The difference between alternative background models was small, and as the SIS data is affected by pileup and the background flux is less than 0.5 % of the source flux, instrumental effects probably dominate the uncertainties of the data. For GIS, a blank-sky event list was used for background extraction. The extraction radii used were 6’ for GIS and 4’ for SIS. The response files were generated by the techniques recommended in the ASCA Data Reduction Guide111http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/asca/abc/abc.html. To improve the signal-to-noise ratio, the separate data and calibration files of the two GIS and two SIS detectors were combined into files containing all GIS data and all SIS data.

### 2.3 RXTE

PCA and HEXTE target and background spectra and lightcurves were extracted from the raw data. The PCA data was also used to create response files and power spectra. The data were processed as recommended in the RXTE Users’ Guide222http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/abc/contents.html to get cleaned event lists. For HEXTE, the responses available at the HEXTE calibration status website333http://mamacass.ucsd.edu:8080/hexte/hexte\_calib.html, were used. Fitting a powerlaw to the summed HEXTE spectra ( between $`15`$$`200\mathrm{keV}`$) gives a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of $`1.410^{13}\mathrm{Wm}^2`$ for the high-energy flux ($`15`$$`200\mathrm{keV}`$ band). No further spectral analysis of the HEXTE data was made.

### 2.4 Spectral fitting

The XSPEC v. 11.0 spectral fitting package (Arnaud 1996) was used for spectral analysis. The data used for fitting were in the $`0.14`$$`4\mathrm{keV}`$ band for LECS, $`1.8`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$ for MECS, $`0.4`$$`7\mathrm{keV}`$ for SIS, $`1.0`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$ for GIS and $`3`$$`20\mathrm{keV}`$ for PCA.

To avoid possible instrument inter-calibration problems in the cases of ASCA (GIS/SIS) and SAX (MECS/LECS), a constant multiplier for one of the instruments was included in the fits. For ASCA, the difference in flux between GIS and SIS was $`2.7\pm 0.8\%`$. In the SAX data, the MECS/LECS ratio was $`0.70\pm 0.01`$ for the final spectral model. The ratio should be in the range $`0.7`$$`1.0`$ (Fiore et al. 1999), so the result is on the edge of the allowed range.

A systematic error of 1 % is usually added to the PCA data for spectral fitting. This was not applied, as the best models have $`\chi _\nu 1`$ even without systematic errors. To justify the inclusion of additional spectral components, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ was also calculated with systematic errors of 1 % and 2 %. During the fits to PCA data, the column density of interstellar matter was held fixed to the weighted mean of the values derived from ASCA and SAX fits, $`N_\mathrm{H}=33.0\pm 3.510^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$. As no PCA data below $`3\mathrm{keV}`$ was used in the analysis, column depths of this order should have only minor effects. To justify the fixed column depth, fits with a freely varying column depth were made to the PCA spectra. The column densities tended to diverge toward zero. Upper limits for the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ could not always be derived. When the limits could be derived, typical $`3\sigma `$ upper limits were of the order $`1310^{26}\mathrm{m}^2`$. The other spectral parameters were nearly identical, but their error ranges increased by about 20 %. The spectral fits to PCA data give flux estimates of the order $`310^{14}\mathrm{Wm}^2`$ for the flux above $`15\mathrm{keV}`$, which is consistent with the HEXTE data.

Several single component spectral models (isothermal and multicolor blackbody (Makishima et al. 1986), thermal bremsstrahlung, powerlaw, cut-off powerlaw and some Comptonization models) were tried, all with photoelectric absorption from the ISM. No single component model gave an acceptable fit, with typical values of $`\chi _\nu ^2>2.5`$. Two-component spectra with an isothermal blackbody (BB) as one component and a cut-off powerlaw or one of the Comptonization models, CompST (Sunyaev & Titarchuk 1980) or CompTT (Titarchuk 1994), as the other component gave the best fits. The BB-CompST fit was in most cases the best. In three cases, CompTT or powerlaw gave a better fit than CompST, but the differences were not statistically significant. The improvement in $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ was less than 0.01. The high optical depths of the Comptonization fits mean that the fitted spectra are relatively close to a cut-off powerlaw. In two cases, a combination of a multicolor blackbody and a powerlaw also gave a statistically acceptable fit. The CompST model was adopted for further analysis, as this would allow a meaningful comparison between the spectra of different observations.

The continuum fits were further improved by adding gaussian features when the residuals of the fits seemed to have a line component. In the SAX and ASCA data, a gaussian feature was detected near $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$. The Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line could not be detected in SAX and ASCA data, but an upper limit was derived for the line flux. This was done by adding a gaussian feature to the fit. The centroid energy was allowed to vary in the $`6.3`$$`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ range. As the fit failed to find a statistically significant line, the $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of the line flux was estimated using the ‘error’ command of XSPEC. For the RXTE/PCA data, the same procedure detected the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ lines, with equivalent widths of $`80`$$`160\mathrm{eV}`$. The improvement in $`\chi ^2`$ was of the order 200 (for 37 degrees of freedom). No systematic errors were used in the fitting, but the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line is statistically significant even with systematic errors. A systematic error of 1 % produces $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^260`$ and a 2 % error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^230`$ for adding the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line. The upper limit of the ASCA line flux is of the order 10 % of the detected RXTE/PCA flux. The parameters describing the final spectral fits are listed in Table 2 (continuum parameters) and 3 (line parameters).

To quantify the instrumental systematic effects on the iron line parameters, the RXTE calibration observations of the Crab were used. The standard products of Crab observations made near our observations (27.4, 9.5., 20.7, 12.9, 29.9, 12.10 and 13.10) were analyzed. The PCA $`3`$-$`20\mathrm{keV}`$ spectra were fitted with an absorbed powerlaw and a gaussian line. The line centroid energies were near $`7\mathrm{keV}`$. The fluxes of the line and continuum were calculated in a 1 keV band centered on the line centroid energy. The highest line to continuum ratio was 1.14 %. Typically the statistical error of the line to continuum ratio was a factor of 2-3, giving a 90 % upper limit of 3 % for the ratio. As the line to continuum flux ratios of the spectral fits of 4U 1543–624 vary between 3–7%, it can be concluded that the iron line has been detected. However, the line parameters of the RXTE fits listed in Table 3 are partially produced by instrumental uncertainties and therefore should be treated with some caution.

### 2.5 Temporal variability analysis

The ASCA/GIS and SAX/MECS lightcurves were extracted from cleaned event lists. RXTE (HEXTE and PCA) lightcurves were extracted from the event lists generated from the raw data. The HEXTE lightcurves were extracted in the $`15`$$`200\mathrm{keV}`$ band. For PCA data, three bands were used, $`2`$$`5\mathrm{keV}`$ (soft), $`5`$$`13\mathrm{keV}`$ (medium) and $`13`$$`40\mathrm{keV}`$ (hard) in the extraction process. No statistically significant periodic variations were detected in a Lomb–Scargle periodogram (Scargle 1982) made from the inidividual lightcurves. Absence of X-ray modulation suggests a relatively low inclination of the accretion disk.

Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) were searched in the frequency range $`10\mathrm{kHz}`$$`0.01\mathrm{Hz}`$ (in the $`3`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$ band). Power spectra were extracted separately for each good time interval of all RXTE/PCA observations. After this, the power spectra were co-added to get a summed power spectrum. No statistically significant features (down to a few % rms amplitude) were seen in either the individual power spectra or the weighted mean.

To study the long-term variability, the lightcurve of the RXTE ASM (up to January 2002) was analyzed. No periodicities were detected in a Lomb–Scargle periodogram (Scargle 1982). In order to see if a trend is present in the ASM data, a linear model $`F_{\mathrm{ASM}}=A+Bt`$ was fitted to the flux values. $`F_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$ is the observed ASM count rate (counts per second, 1 mCrab = 0.075 cps), $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the fit parameters and $`t`$ is time in years from JD 2450000.5. The best fit values are $`A=3.269\pm 0.0082`$ and $`B=0.1735\pm 0.0044`$, but the improvement over a constant model in $`\chi ^2`$ is marginal (38887 to 37374).

To justify the fitting of a linear model, the literature was searched for older flux values of 4U 1543–624. MIR/Kvant observations (Emelyanov et al. 2000) on 30.1.1989 show a flux of $`65\pm 11`$ mCrab ($`1.71\pm 0.2910^{12}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$) in the $`2`$$`30\mathrm{keV}`$ band. An extrapolation of the linear fit predicts a flux $`58.7\pm 0.1`$ mCrab for the Kvant observation, which is surprisingly close to the observed value. However, older observations show that the Kvant value is probably an isolated event and does not reflect an underlying trend. All the values listed below are absorbed fluxes in the $`2`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$ band, unless otherwise stated. The HEAO–1 (Wood et al. 1984) flux is $`6.58\pm 0.0710^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (15.8.1977 to 15.2.1978), Ariel V (Warwick et al. 1981) $`6.9\pm 0.0710^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, (15.10.1974 to 14.3.1980), varying between $`3.0`$$`12.010^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, OSO–7 (Markert et al. 1979) $`8.09\pm 0.8510^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (October 1971 to May 1973) and UHURU (Forman et al. 1978) $`4.58\pm 0.2610^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (12.12.1970 to 18.3.1973). Einstein observations on 17.3.1979 (Christian & Swank 1997) give a flux of $`7.010^{13}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ in the $`0.5`$$`20\mathrm{keV}`$ band. The fluxes of the older surveys are clearly inconsistent with extrapolations of the linear model. The flux estimates of the 1970’s missions have been derived from multiple scans, and more likely represent the average flux. Combining the results of the older missions with the ASM monitoring data indicates that the source variations are mainly irregular. The flux differences of the observations listed above, as well as the results of the pointed observations discussed below, indicate that flux variations by a factor of 2 may be seen on timescales of a few weeks.

## 3 Spectroscopic results

### 3.1 Continuum

The best-fit model has the same continuum components, an isothermal blackbody and a Comptonized component, as the fit to older EXOSAT data (Singh et al. 1994), and the BB and line parameters also have values consistent with the EXOSAT fit. The high S/N of the more modern instruments naturally gives much better constraints on the model parameters. The parameters of the Comptonized component are different (however, these were only weakly constrained for the EXOSAT fit, which has $`kT_\mathrm{C}>4\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{C}<4.8`$). All continuum parameters are given in Table 2. The absorbing column depth is about one order of magnitude lower in the fits to the new data. In order to study this discrepancy, fits to archival EXOSAT data were made, with a column depth fixed to $`N_H=3310^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (the value derived from fits to SAX and ASCA data). The values of the spectral parameters were similar to those derived from the ASCA and SAX fits, but the reduced chi-squared of the fits was of the order $`\chi _\nu =1.4`$. The old EXOSAT analysis is significantly better, $`\chi _\nu =1.16`$ (Singh et al. 1994). The EXOSAT spectrum contains no information on fluxes below $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ and the spectral resolution is rather modest at the low energy end. Therefore, it is possible that the absorbing column is not strongly constrained by the EXOSAT data.

A literature value of $`N_H=29.9\pm 0.810^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$ can be found for Einstein data (Christian & Swank 1997). Analysis of the ASCA data with different absorption models gives column densities of $`26`$$`3710^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Juett et al. 2001). The galactic hydrogen column in the direction of 4U 1543–624 is $`N_H3010^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Dickey & Lockman 1990). As the absorbing column is constrained better with observations covering lower energies, the ASCA, SAX and Einstein fits are most likely representing the correct value. However, the absorption may be influenced by matter local to 4U 1543–624 enriched in medium–Z elements (Juett et al. 2001).

The parameters of the Comptonized component and the overall luminosity vary significantly between observations. This can be interpreted as the system having two distinct states: when the system has higher luminosity it is referred to as being in the high state while when it has lower luminosity it is referered to as being in the low state. In the low state the Comptonized component is cooler ($`kT0.6\mathrm{keV}`$), with $`\tau 30`$. In the high state the Comptonized component is hotter ($`kT3\mathrm{keV}`$), with $`\tau 10`$. The luminosity ($`2`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$) is about 50 % higher in the high state, and the spectrum is significantly harder. A difference of this magnitude can not be explained by calibration errors. The BB is marginally hotter in the low state ($`1.6`$ vs. $`1.5\mathrm{keV}`$). The RXTE observations show a high state spectrum. The ASCA observation and the SAX observation of 1.4.1997 show a low state spectrum. The SAX observation of 21.2.1997 shows a low state spectrum but the parameters are a little different from the two other low state spectra: the overall luminosity is higher, the Comptonized component is slightly hotter and has a lower optical depth.

### 3.2 Narrow features

In the RXTE spectra the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line is seen as a gaussian feature at $`6.5\mathrm{keV}`$ with flux $`10^{14}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$. Two flux values similar to this, $`1.2310^{14}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Singh et al. 1994) and $`0.6310^{14}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Gottwald et al. 1995) have been derived from the EXOSAT observation. The first value is from a dedicated study, the second one from the iron line catalogue, so the continuum model may be more refined in the first fit. A previous analysis of the ASCA data (Asai et al. 2000) has given line fluxes of $`0.37`$ and $`0.5910^{14}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ for narrow and broad line models, respectively. However, the continuum model is fitted to data only in the band $`4`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$, and the column density used is $`N_\mathrm{H}=14010^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$, considerably higher than the values derived from the same data. The possible differences in continuum slope and contribution of the iron K absorption edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ to the spectrum are most likely responsible for the difference in the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line parameters derived for the EXOSAT and ASCA observations.

Non-detection of the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line in the ASCA and SAX/MECS spectra suggest variations of at least an order of magnitude in the line flux. The line is seen in observations from two different satellites (EXOSAT and RXTE). Therefore it is most probably safe to assume that the detection of the line is not caused by incorrect background subtraction.

Another gaussian feature is seen at $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ in the SAX/LECS and ASCA/SIS spectra. All three observations have similar line parameters. The RXTE energy band does not cover the energy of this line. The feature may be a neon emission line. Another possibility is enhanced absorption of Ne–enriched matter (Juett et al. 2001). The deeper absorption edge is seen as an artifact that is misinterpreted as a line.

## 4 Discussion

Potential black hole diagnostics include ultrasoft X-ray spectra, high-energy powerlaw ‘tails’, high-soft and low-hard spectral states and millisecond variability in the hard state (Tanaka & Lewin 1995). As 4U 1543–624 exhibits none of these features, it is assumed that the compact object is a neutron star. Asai et al. (2000) label 4U 1543–624 as an X-ray burster (which would confirm the neutron star nature of the compact object), but no reference is given.

### 4.1 The X-ray continuum

The isothermal blackbody originates from an optically thick boundary layer between the accretion disk and the neutron star surface (Sunyaev & Shakura 1986: see also Inogamov & Sunyaev 1999). The Comptonized component is produced by a corona of hot electrons upscattering soft photons from the disk. The energy of the Comptonized component is probably derived from the disk (see e.g. Church et al. (2002) and references therein).

The ratio of the boundary layer and inner disk luminosities should be close to unity if the neutron star is rotating slowly (Sunyaev & Shakura 1986). For faster rotators, the boundary layer should be less luminous, as the velocity of the accreted matter is closer to that of the neutron star surface. If the disk is truncated by the neutron star magnetosphere, its luminosity should be smaller (White et al. 1988). Stronger accretion flows should then push the inner disk closer to the compact object by decreasing the magnetosphere. The observed BB luminosity of 4U 1543–624 is about 3/4 of the total ($`L_{\mathrm{BB}}/L_{\mathrm{comp}}3`$) in the low state and slightly above 1/3 of the total ($`L_{\mathrm{BB}}/L_{\mathrm{comp}}0.5`$) in the high state. The ratio of the continuum component luminosities is relatively close to theoretical excpectations for a slow rotator, suggesting the neutron star has not experienced spin-up to millisecond periods. Decreasing BB temperature in the high state reduces the BB luminosity slightly. It might be that the boundary layer is not radiating as a pure blackbody in the high state. Part of the luminosity difference could also be due to smaller inner disk radius, which would explain the higher disk (Comptonized component) luminosity. The blackbody fraction of the luminosity is clearly higher than in most LMXBs and in general the BB luminosity correlates strongly with total luminosity (Church et al. 2002; White et al. 1988).

### 4.2 Comptonizing corona

Observational evidence for Comptonizing coronae is quite convincing (White et al. 1988). No generally accepted model for the geometry (location, size and shape) of the Comptonizing coronae in LMXBs exists. A few geometries are discussed qualitatively below.

Should the corona be close to the boundary layer, the high optical depth of the Comptonized component would probably completely block any boundary layer emission. A clumpy Comptonizing corona could have high optical depth, and allow some boundary layer emission to shine through. Only a fraction of the boundary layer emission would then be intercepted by the corona. Reprocessed boundary layer photons would probably be seen as an additional X-ray continuum component. The higher temperature and lower optical depth of the clumps in the high state would be explained by evaporation of the outer parts of the clumps.

For a face-on system, a toroidal corona where the center is empty could produce the observed spectra. The accretion flow would be prevented from entering the central region by radiation pressure or the magnetic field of the neutron star. Near-Eddington accretion rates are needed to reach levels of radiation pressure that can influence the accretion flow. The X-ray flux of the source would imply a distance greater than 30 kpc for near-Eddington luminosities. Magnetic fields capable of controlling the corona far from the neutron star would also be able to control the bulk of the accretion flow near the surface. (The magnetic pressure scales as $`P_\mathrm{B}B^2`$ and for a dipole field $`B^2r^6`$. For higher-order components, the scaling is steeper.) The absence of X-ray pulsations from such a system can be explained by geometrical effects. The influence of a magnetic field on the accretion flow could introduce a non-Maxwellian electron distribution, especially near the magnetic poles. This could in turn be seen as non-thermal hard X-ray emission from the neutron star surface, which is not observed. A corona controlled by the magnetic field could have a rather large vertical extent, as charged particles in a magnetic field can move rather freely along the field-lines. A mechanism that keeps the corona close to the disk so that the input photons of the Comptonization are mainly from the soft disk radiation and not from the boundary layer is hard to find.

A ‘corona’ that is actually the upper part of the accretion disk, could also explain the observed properties. Such models usually have relatively low optical depths of the corona (Poutanen & Svensson 1996). The source of soft input photons is very close to the Comptonizing electrons. When viewed from the neutron star, the solid angle covered by the Comptonizing disk portion will be quite low, so the absence of processed boundary layer emission can be explained easily in this scenario. An increase in the accretion rate is likely to increase the vertical extent of the disk and the surface layer temperature, due to increased viscous heat release. An optically thick surface layer with a temperature in the keV range would practically prevent cooling of the bulk of the disk, resulting in mass loss, possibly through a disk wind. The response of the relative thicknesses of the layers to changes in accretion rates is unclear. Improved models for the interdependence of accretion rate and vertical disk structure are needed for a more quantitative discussion. This ‘flared-disk’ scenario seems to be an adequate explanation for the observed X-ray spectra.

### 4.3 Iron line

The flux of the Comptonized component and the flux of the 6 keV Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ feature are both higher in the high state. In the low state, the line is undetected, with a flux lower by a factor of at least five to ten. This correlation suggests the components could be physically related. Potential sources for the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ feature are collisional excitation (Arnaud & Rothenflug 1985), radiative recombination (Arnaud & Raymond 1992), fluorescent emission and Compton reflection (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995).

The parameters of the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line in the RXTE data are similar to those of the EXOSAT observation (Singh et al. 1994; Gottwald et al. 1995). The line energy is slightly above the 6.4 keV value, indicating ionization states up to $`Fe\text{xxv}`$ (Nagase 1989). Collisional excitation would require temperatures of a few $`\mathrm{keV}`$ (Arnaud & Rothenflug 1985) to produce a line where the high ionization states dominate. These temperatures are similar to the observed temperature of the Comptonized component. The high line flux differences between the states (at least one order of magnitude) when the temperature drops by a factor of 4–5 is not straightforward to explain by pure collisional excitation. Photoionization may also influence the ionization state, as the gas emitting the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line is irradiated by the accretion disk and the boundary layer. Radiative recombination of photoionized iron may be partially responsible for the line. More detailed modeling of the environment and better observational constraints on the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line are needed before any firm conclusions regarding these mechanisms can be drawn.

If the line is produced by Compton reflection or fluorescence, the line flux should be proportional to the continuum providing the input energy or ‘seed photons’ for the line emission mechanism. For fluorescence, the seed photon energy is near $`8\mathrm{keV}`$ (iron absorption edge). The flux ratio of the Comptonized component in this band between the states is $`200`$. As variations in the ionization state are not likely to change the fluorescent yield with a factor larger than $`10`$ (Kallman 1995), fluorescence can not be ruled out by flux considerations. However, the large line width is hard to explain with fluorescence.

The Compton reflection seed photons have an energy very close to the line energy. In the low state, the flux of the Comptonized component ($`6`$$`7\mathrm{keV}`$) is lower by a factor of $`20`$. The ratio of the line and continuum ($`6`$$`7\mathrm{keV}`$) fluxes in the high state is $`0.04`$$`0.1`$, suggesting a face-on disk (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995). If the ratio of Comptonized and reflected components remains constant during phase transitions, the line flux should be well below the detection limit in the low state. The fact that the BB component is not absorbed by the thick corona supports the face-on disk hypothesis. The above discussion shows that the mechanism producing the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ feature detected in the RXTE data can not be deduced from these observations alone.

### 4.4 Absorption and the 0.67 keV feature

The galactic coordinates of 4U 1543–624 are $`\beta =6.3`$ and $`\lambda =321.8`$. The total galactic hydrogen column density in this direction is $`N_\mathrm{H}3010^{24}\mathrm{m}^2`$ (Dickey & Lockman 1990). The X-ray spectral fits give similar values for the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, suggesting that 4U 1543–624 is at a distance greater than 10 kpc. Another possibility is that there is a local ISM component related to 4U 1543–624, increasing the absorption above the galactic value. The $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature could be an artifact of the local ISM (Juett et al. 2001), as interstellar absorption features complicate the analysis of the $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature. The neon absorption edge is very close to this, and the absorption of the ISM makes the continuum slope rather steep at these energies (see Fig. 1). These complications might also cause the changes in line/edge parameters when the continuum model is changed. The small differences in line parameters when comparing my results to those of Juett et al. (2001) are likely to be due to the different continuum model (powerlaw and BB with $`kT0.4\mathrm{keV}`$). Juett et al. (2001) suggest observations with high spectral resolution near $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ to distinguish between an enhanced absorption edge and an emission line. Emission would more likely be related to only one of the continuum components, as absorption affects the total spectrum. As the ratio of continuum component fluxes varies considerably, observations in the high state with energy resolution comparable to ASCA or SAX would also help in finding the cause of the $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature. Unfortunately all observations with instruments capable of detecting the the $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature have been made in the low state.

The $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ from the X-ray spectral fits presented above should give a visual extinction of $`A_\mathrm{V}1.8`$ (Predehl & Schmitt 1995; Bohlin et al. 1978). The optical counterpart has been identified as a $`B20`$ magnitude star (McClintock et al. 1978). The LMXB optical emission is usually dominated by the accretion disk. The intrinsic color indices are in the range $`(BV)_0=[0.5,0.5]`$, the average being around $`0.2`$ (Van Paradijs & McClintock 1995). The known absolute visual magnitudes are between $`M_\mathrm{V}=[5,6]`$ (Van Paradijs & McClintock 1994), and the weaker sources with $`M_\mathrm{B}<0`$ are generally X-ray bursters. After correcting for absorption, the ratio of X-ray ($`2`$$`10\mathrm{keV}`$) to optical luminosity is $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{opt}}480`$, a typical LMXB value (Van Paradijs & McClintock 1995).

The galactic coordinates of 4U 1543–624 ($`\beta =6.3`$ and $`\lambda =321.8`$) imply a minimum distance between the source and Galactic Center of $`5.6\mathrm{kpc}`$ (assuming a distance of 8.6 kpc for the Galactic Center). Therefore 4U 1543–624 is probably a member of the disk population, and the common literature value of distance $`10\mathrm{kpc}`$, more representative for the bulge population, should be regarded as an order-of-magnitude estimate. Using the empirical relation between optical and X-ray fluxes and the period (Van Paradijs & McClintock 1994), it can be concluded that the system may have a degenerate donor (Fig. 3), and the distance is likely to be in the range $`3`$$`20\mathrm{kpc}`$.

## 5 Conclusions

Archival X-ray observations of 4U 1543–624 have been analyzed. The X-ray continuum can be fitted with a two-component model consisting of an isothermal blackbody and a Comptonized component. Two different X-ray states are seen. In the high state, the luminosity comes mainly from the Comptonized component and the spectrum is harder. The low state spectrum is dominated by the BB, but the Comptonized component is also important at energies below $`2\mathrm{keV}`$. Two gaussian features at $`6.5\mathrm{keV}`$ (the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line) and $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ are detected. The Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line is seen only in the high state, and it has at least one order of magnitude lower flux in the low state. A two-layer disk, with the lower and cooler layer providing the input photons to be upscattered by the hotter surface layer, provides a qualitative explanation for the X-ray continuum and state transitions.

The BB component of the X-ray spectrum can be taken as weak evidence of a neutron star. It is probably safe to assume that the BB comes from a boundary layer between the neutron star surface and the inner disk, and the Comptonized component is from a hot disk corona. The ratio of the continuum component luminosities is close to unity. This is in good accordance with the theoretical expectation for a slowly rotating neutron star (Sunyaev & Shakura 1986). Most LMXBs have lower BB luminosities (White et al. 1988). A rapidly rotating neutron star or non-thermal emission from the boundary layer have been suggested to explain this discrepancy. In LMXBs with detected BB emission, the BB luminosity correlates strongly with total luminosity. The BB luminosity of 4U 1543–624 decreases slightly when the total luminosity increases significantly. The changes seen in continuum spectrum and its variations, which are oppposite to observations of other LMXBs, can be explained if 4U 1543–624 has a boundary layer with a spectrum close to BB and a slowly rotating neutron star ($`P\mathrm{ms}`$).

Angular momentum of the accreted matter tends to spin up the neutron stars. An equilibrium between angular momentum gain from the accretion flow and losses due to gravitational radiation is reached at periods of the order one millisecond. For typical LMXB accretion rates the equilibrium is reached in a time of the order $`10^7`$ years (Rappaport et al. 1983). The observations suggest that 4U 1543–624 has gained less angluar momentum. It has either been accreting for a shorter time than a typical LMXB, or the accretion rate is significantly smaller. Monitoring observations with sufficient energy resolution to estimate the continuum components would be especially useful. Such observations have the best possibility of observing the system in a wide range of states.

The gaussian feature seen in the RXTE high state spectra near $`6.5\mathrm{keV}`$ is interpreted as the Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ line. The line parameters are partially produced by instrumental effects, and should be treated with some caution. As the line is absent in the low state, with an upper flux limit one order of magnitude lower than the observed RXTE flux, the line is probably related to the Comptonized component. The line is broad and the centroid energy is above the neutral iron value, suggesting it might originate from ionized gas. Possible mechanisms producing this line are radiative recombination (Arnaud & Raymond 1992), collisional excitation (Arnaud & Rothenflug 1985) and Compton reflection (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995). The line width implies fluorescence is less likely to be responsible for the line. High S/N low-state spectra are needed to provide better constraints on the line formation. If the low-state Fe $`\mathrm{K}_\alpha `$ fluxes are close to the upper limit derived from ASCA data, more detailed modeling than presented here is needed. On the other hand, very low line fluxes would favour the Compton reflection mechanism. The two-layer disk model providing the best qualitative explanation for the Comptonized spectrum could easily produce such a reflected component.

The $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature has been detected previously in ASCA data (Juett et al. 2001). It also detected in SAX data, and the parameters do not change significantly, when a different continuum model is used. This analysis confirms the detection of the $`0.67\mathrm{keV}`$ feature. The feature is either a neon absorption edge, made stronger by enhanced neon abundace (Juett et al. 2001), or an emission line. Juett et al. (2001) suggest observations with very high spectral resolution to distinguish between the two mechanisms producing the feature. The detected state transitions show that the distinction could also be made by comparing medium-resolution observations in the two states. If the feature strength changes with state, the line interpretation is more likely. Changes in the continuum component physically related to the line are likely to produce changes in the line parameters. If the equivalent width of the feature remains unchanged during state transitions, it is more likely to be the absorption edge.

Optical spectroscopy of the system would allow determining the abundances of the inflowing matter. The equivalent widths of the lines near $`460\mathrm{nm}`$ $`He\text{II}`$, $`C\text{III}`$, $`N\text{III}`$ and H$`\beta `$ could provide the needed abundance diagnostics. A short-period system with a degenerate donor would have stronger He and possibly CNO lines and weaker H$`\beta `$ line than a system with a main sequence donor.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Pasi Hakala, Panu Muhli and Osmi Vilhu for useful discussions, and to Diana Hannikainen for both useful discussions and checking the English of the manuscript. I thank the anonymous referee for his/her useful comments. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Bibliographic Services and data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. Financial support of Academy of Finland and the National Technology Agency TEKES is acknowledged.


text:
# Generalized Partial Dynamical Symmetry in Nuclei

## Abstract

We introduce the notion of a generalized partial dynamical symmetry for which part of the eigenstates have part of the dynamical symmetry. This general concept is illustrated with the example of Hamiltonians with a partial dynamical $`O(6)`$ symmetry in the framework of the interacting boson model. The resulting spectrum and electromagnetic transitions are compared with empirical data in 162Dy.

PACS numbers: 21.60.Fw, 21.10.Re, 21.60Ev, 27.70+q

The concept of dynamical symmetry has been widely used in diverse areas of physics with notable examples in nuclear, molecular, and hadronic physics \[1-3\]. In this approach one assumes that the Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the Casimir operators of a chain of nested algebras

$$G_1G_2\mathrm{}G_n,$$
(1)
in which case it has the following properties: (i) Solvability: all states are solvable and analytic expressions are available for energies and other observables; (ii) Quantum numbers: all states are classified by quantum numbers which are the labels of irreducible representations (irreps) of the algebras in the chain; (iii) Pre-determined structure: the structure of wave functions is completely dictated by symmetry and is independent of the Hamiltonian’s parameters. The merits of a dynamical symmetry are self-evident. However, in most applications to realistic systems, the predictions of an exact dynamical symmetry are rarely fulfilled and one is compelled to break it. This is usually done by including in the Hamiltonian symmetry-breaking terms associated with different sub-algebra chains of the parent spectrum generating algebra ($`G_1`$). In general, under such circumstances, solvability is lost, there are no remaining non-trivial conserved quantum numbers and all eigenstates are expected to be mixed. A partial dynamical symmetry (PDS) corresponds to a particular symmetry breaking for which some (but not all) of the above mentioned virtues of a dynamical symmetry are retained. Such intermediate symmetry structures were recently shown to be relevant for nuclear \[4-10\] and molecular  spectroscopy, as well as to the study of mixed systems with coexisting regularity and chaos .

Two types of PDS were encountered so far. The first type corresponds to a situation for which part of the states preserve all the dynamical symmetry. In this case the properties of solvability, good quantum numbers, and symmetry-dictated structure are fulfilled exactly, but by only a subset of states. An example in the framework of the interacting boson model (IBM-1)  is the chain $`U(6)SU(3)O(3)`$, applicable to axially deformed nuclei, where a non-$`SU(3)`$-scalar Hamiltonian has been constructed and shown to have a subset of solvable states with good $`SU(3)`$ symmetry while other states are mixed .

The second type of PDS corresponds to a situation for which all the states preserve part of the dynamical symmetry. In this second case there are no analytic solutions, yet selected quantum numbers (of the conserved symmetries) are retained. This occurs, for example, when the Hamiltonian contains interaction terms from two different chains with a common symmetry subalgebra, e.g. the $`U(5)O(5)`$ and $`O(6)O(5)`$ chains in the IBM-1 . Alternatively, this type of PDS occurs when the Hamiltonian preserves only some of the symmetries $`G_i`$ in the chain (1) and only their irreps are unmixed. Such a scenario was recently considered in  in relation to the chain

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}U(6)& & O(6)& & O(5)& & O(3)\\ \left[N\right]& & 0,\sigma ,0& & (\tau ,0)& & L\end{array}.$$
(2)
An IBM-1 Hamiltonian was constructed which preserves the $`U(6)`$, $`O(6)`$, and $`O(3)`$ symmetries (with quantum numbers $`N,\sigma ,L`$) but not the $`O(5)`$ symmetry (and hence leads to $`\tau `$ admixtures). To obtain this type of PDS in the IBM-1, it is necessary to include higher-order (three-body) terms in the Hamiltonian.

The purpose of the present work is to show that it is possible to combine both types of PDS, namely, to construct a Hamiltonian for which part of the states have part of the dynamical symmetry. We refer to such a structure as a generalized partial dynamical symmetry. For the chain (2) this can be achieved with an IBM-1 Hamiltonian with only two-body interactions. We analyze the resulting band structure and multi-phonon admixtures, and compare the spectrum and E2 rates with empirical data in 162Dy.

The following type of IBM-1 Hamiltonian has been proposed  as a representative of a PDS of the second kind

$$H_1=\kappa _0P_0^{}P_0+\kappa _2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}\times \mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}\right)^{(2)}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}.$$
(3)
The $`\kappa _0`$ term is the $`O(6)`$ pairing term defined in terms of monopole ($`s`$) and quadrupole ($`d`$) bosons, $`P_0^{}=d^{}d^{}(s^{})^2`$. It is diagonal in the dynamical-symmetry basis $`|[N],\sigma ,\tau ,L`$ of Eq. (2) with eigenvalues $`\kappa _0(N\sigma )(N+\sigma +4)`$. The $`\kappa _2`$ term is constructed only from the $`O(6)`$ generator, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}=d^{}s+s^{}\stackrel{~}{d}`$, which is not a generator of $`O(5)`$. Therefore, it cannot connect states in different $`O(6)`$ irreps but can induce $`O(5)`$ mixing subject to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\pm 1,\pm 3`$. Consequently, all eigenstates of $`H_1`$ have good $`O(6)`$ quantum number $`\sigma `$ but do not possess $`O(5)`$ symmetry $`\tau `$.

To consider a generalized $`O(6)`$ PDS, we introduce the following IBM-1 Hamiltonian:

$$H_2=h_0P_0^{}P_0+h_2P_2^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_2.$$
(4)
The $`h_0`$ term is identical to the $`\kappa _0`$ term of Eq. (3), and the $`h_2`$ term is defined in terms of the boson pair $`P_{2,\mu }^{}=\sqrt{2}s^{}d_\mu ^{}+\sqrt{7}(d^{}d^{})_\mu ^{(2)}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{2,\mu }=()^\mu P_{2,\mu }`$. The multipole form of $`H_2`$ is

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`h_0\left[\widehat{C}_{O(6)}+\widehat{N}(\widehat{N}+4)\right]+h_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\widehat{C}_{O(5)}h_2\widehat{C}_{O(3)}`$ (6)
$`+h_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\widehat{n}_d(\widehat{N}2)+h_2\sqrt{14}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}(d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)},`$
where $`\widehat{N}`$ and $`\widehat{n}_d`$ are the total and $`d`$-boson number operators, and $`\widehat{C}_G`$ denotes the quadratic Casimir operator of $`G=O(6),O(5),O(3)`$ with eigenvalues $`\sigma (\sigma +4),\tau (\tau +3),L(L+1)`$, respectively. The first three terms in Eq. (6) are diagonal in the dynamical symmetry basis of Eq. (2). The $`\widehat{n}_d(\widehat{N}2)`$ term is a scalar under $`O(5)`$ but can connect states differing by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0,\pm 2`$. The last term in Eq. (6) induces both $`O(6)`$ and $`O(5)`$ mixing subject to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0,\pm 2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\pm 1,\pm 3`$. Although $`H_2`$ is not an $`O(6)`$ scalar, it has an exactly solvable ground band with good $`O(6)`$ symmetry. This arises from the fact that the $`O(6)`$ intrinsic state for the ground band

$`|c;N=(N!)^{1/2}(b_c^{})^N|0,b_c^{}=(d_0^{}+s^{})/\sqrt{2},`$ (7)
has $`\sigma =N`$ and is an exact zero energy eigenstate of $`H_2`$. Since $`H_2`$ is rotational invariant, states of good angular momentum $`L`$ projected from $`|c;N`$ are also zero-energy eigenstates of $`H_2`$ with good $`O(6)`$ symmetry, and form the ground band of $`H_2`$. These projected states do not have good $`O(5)`$ symmetry and their known wave functions contain a mixture of components with different $`\tau `$. For example, the expansions of the ground state $`L=0_{K=0_1}^+`$ and first excited state ($`L=2_{K=0_1}^+`$) of $`H_2`$ in the $`O(6)`$ basis $`|[N],\sigma ,\tau ,L`$ have the form

$`|0_{K=0_1}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}a_n|[N],N,3n,0,`$ (8)
$`|2_{K=0_1}^+`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left\{b_n|[N],N,3n+1,2+c_n|[N],N,3n+2,2\right\}.`$ (9)
Here $`𝒩`$ and $`𝒩^{}`$ are normalization coefficients and the amplitudes $`a_n,b_n,c_n`$ $`(n=0,1,\mathrm{})`$ are given by $`a_n=(1)^n\sqrt{\frac{2n+1}{(N3n)!(N+3n+3)!}}`$, $`b_n=(1)^n\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{(N3n1)!(N+3n+4)!}}`$ and $`c_n=(1)^{n+1}\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{(N3n2)!(N+3n+5)!}}`$. It follows that $`H_2`$ has a subset of solvable states with good $`O(6)`$ symmetry ($`\sigma =N`$), which is not preserved by other states. All eigenstates of $`H_2`$ break the $`O(5)`$ symmetry but preserve the $`O(3)`$ symmetry. These are precisely the required features of a generalized PDS as defined above for the chain of Eq. (2).

In Fig. 1 we show the experimental spectrum of 162Dy and compare with the calculated spectra of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. The spectra display rotational bands of an axially-deformed nucleus, in particular, a ground band $`(K=0_1)`$ and excited $`K=2_1`$ and $`K=0_2`$ bands. An $`L^2`$ term is added to both Hamiltonians, which contributes to the rotational splitting but has no effect on wave functions. The parameters are chosen to reproduce the excitation energies of the $`2_{K=0_1}^+`$, $`2_{K=2_1}^+`$, and $`0_{K=0_2}^+`$ levels. The $`O(6)`$ decomposition of selected bands is shown in Fig. 2. For $`H_2`$, the solvable $`K=0_1`$ ground band has $`\sigma =N`$ and exhibits an exact $`L(L+1)`$ splitting. The $`K=2_1`$ band is almost pure with only $`0.15\%`$ admixture of $`\sigma =N2`$ into the dominant $`\sigma =N`$ component. The $`K=0_2`$ band has components with $`\sigma =N`$ $`(85.50\%)`$, $`\sigma =N2`$ $`(14.45\%)`$, and $`\sigma =N4`$ $`(0.05\%)`$. These are the admixtures for the $`K=2_1`$ and $`K=0_2`$ bandheads; they do not vary much throughout the bands as long as the spin is not too high. Higher bands exhibit stronger mixing, e.g., the $`L=3^+`$ member of the $`K=2_3`$ band shown in Fig. 2, has components with $`\sigma =N`$ $`(50.36\%)`$, $`\sigma =N2(49.25\%)`$, $`\sigma =N4(0.38\%)`$ and $`\sigma =N6(0.01\%)`$. The $`O(6)`$ mixing in excited bands of $`H_2`$ depends critically on the ratio $`h_2/h_0`$ in Eq. (4) or equivalently on the ratio of the $`K=0_2`$ and $`K=2_1`$ bandhead energies. In contrast, all bands of $`H_1`$ are pure with respect to $`O(6)`$. Specifically, the $`K=0_1,2_1,2_3`$ bands shown in Fig. 2 have $`\sigma =N`$ and the $`K=0_2`$ band has $`\sigma =N2`$. (Note that, alternatively, for a different ratio $`\kappa _0/\kappa _2`$, the $`K=0_2`$ band also can have $`\sigma =N`$ character as in .) In this case the diagonal $`\kappa _0`$ term in Eq. (3) simply shifts each band as a whole in accord with its $`\sigma `$ assignment. All eigenstates of both $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are mixed with respect to $`O(5)`$. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3 for the $`L=0,2`$ members of the respective ground bands. The observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\pm 1,\pm 3`$ mixing is generated by the $`\kappa _2`$ term in $`H_1`$ (3), and by the $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}(d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}`$ term in $`H_2`$ (6), which are both $`(3,0)`$ tensors with respect to $`O(5)`$. The combined results of Figs. 2 and 3 constitute a direct proof that $`H_2`$ possesses a generalized $`O(6)`$ PDS which is distinct from the PDS of $`H_1`$.

To gain more insight into the underlying band structure of $`H_2`$ we perform a band-mixing calculation by taking its matrix elements between large-$`N`$ intrinsic states. The latter are obtained in the usual way by replacing a condensate boson in $`|c;N`$ (7) with orthogonal bosons $`b_\beta ^{}=(d_0^{}s^{})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`d_{\pm 2}^{}`$ representing $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ excitations, respectively. By construction, the intrinsic state for the ground band of $`H_2`$, $`|K=0_1=|c;N`$, is decoupled. For the lowest excited bands we find

$`|K=0_2`$ $`=`$ $`A_\beta |\beta +A_{\gamma ^2}|\gamma _{K=0}^2+A_{\beta ^2}|\beta ^2,`$ (10)
$`|K=2_1`$ $`=`$ $`A_\gamma |\gamma +A_{\beta \gamma }|\beta \gamma .`$ (11)
Using the parameters of $`H_2`$ relevant to 162Dy (see Fig. 1), we obtain that the $`K=0_2`$ band is composed of $`36.29\%`$ $`\beta `$, $`63.68\%`$ $`\gamma _{K=0}^2`$, and $`0.03\%`$ $`\beta ^2`$ modes, i.e., it is dominantly a double-gamma phonon excitation with significant single-$`\beta `$ phonon admixture. The $`K=2_1`$ band is composed of $`99.85\%`$ $`\gamma `$ and $`0.15\%`$ $`\beta \gamma `$ modes, i.e., it is an almost pure single-gamma phonon band. An $`O(6)`$ decomposition of the intrinsic states in Eq. (11) shows that the $`K=0_2`$ intrinsic state has components with $`\sigma =N(86.72\%)`$, $`\sigma =N2(13.26\%)`$, and $`\sigma =N4(0.02\%)`$. The $`K=2_1`$ intrinsic state has $`\sigma =N`$ $`(99.88\%)`$ and $`\sigma =N2`$ $`(0.12\%)`$. These estimates are in good agreement with the exact results mentioned above in relation to Fig. 2.

In Table I we compare the presently known experimental $`B(E2)`$ values for transitions in 162Dy with the values predicted by $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ using the $`E2`$ operator

$`T^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`e_B\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}+\chi (d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}\right].`$ (12)
Absolute $`B(E2)`$ values are known for transitions within the $`K=0_1`$ ground band . The experimental values for the $`K=2_1K=0_1`$ transitions are deduced from measured branching ratios together with the assumption of equal intrinsic quadrupole moments of the two bands . The latter assumption is satisfied by the calculated $`E2`$ rates to within about 10%. The parameters $`e_B`$ and $`\chi `$ in Eq. (12) are fixed for each Hamiltonian from the empirical $`2_{K=0_1}^+0_{K=0_1}^+`$ and $`2_{K=2_1}^+0_{K=0_1}^+`$ $`E2`$ rates. The $`B(E2)`$ values predicted by $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ for $`K=0_1K=0_1`$ and $`K=2_1K=0_1`$ transitions are very similar and agree well with the measured values. On the other hand, their predictions for interband transitions from the $`K=0_2`$ band are very different. For $`H_1`$, the $`K=0_2K=0_1`$ and $`K=0_2K=2_1`$ transitions are comparable and weaker than $`K=2_1K=0_1`$. This can be understood if we recall the $`O(6)`$ assignments for the bands of $`H_1`$ \[$`K=0_1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1`$: $`\sigma =N`$; $`K=0_2`$: $`\sigma =N2`$\] and the $`E2`$ selection rules of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0)`$ and $`(d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0,\pm 2)`$, which imply that in this case only the $`(d^{}\stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}`$ term contributes to interband transitions from the $`K=0_2`$ band. In contrast, for $`H_2`$, $`K=0_2K=2_1`$ and $`K=2_1K=0_1`$ transitions are comparable and stronger than $`K=0_2K=0_1`$. This behavior is a consequence of the underlying band structure discussed above, and the fact that $`K=0_2|\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{(2)}|K=0_1=0`$, while both terms in Eq. (12) contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=2`$ interband $`E2`$ intrinsic matrix elements. Recently, the $`B(E2)`$ ratios $`R_1=\frac{B(E2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_{K=0_2}^+2_{K=2_1}^+)}{B(E2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_{K=0_2}^+2_{K=0_1}^+)}=10(5)`$ and $`R_2=\frac{B(E2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_{K=0_2}^+4_{K=0_1}^+)}{B(E2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_{K=0_2}^+0_{K=0_1}^+)}=65(28)`$ have been measured . The corresponding predictions are $`R_1=0.90`$, $`R_2=3.76`$ for $`H_1`$ and $`R_1=75.09`$, $`R_2=3.77`$ for $`H_2`$, and are at variance with the observations. However, as noted in , the empirical value of $`R_2`$ deviates ‘beyond reasonable expectations’ from the Alaga rules value $`R_2=2.57`$. A measurement of absolute $`B(E2)`$ values for these transitions is highly desirable to clarify the origin of these discrepancies.

To summarize, we have introduced the concept of a generalized partial dynamical symmetry. An illustration was given for the interacting boson model by introducing Hamiltonians that are not invariant under $`O(6)`$ but have a subset of solvable eigenstates with good $`O(6)`$ symmetry, while other states are mixed. None of the states conserves the $`O(5)`$ symmetry. This novel intermediate-symmetry structure has features relevant to axially deformed nuclei whose $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=2`$ interband transitions from the $`K=2_1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_2`$ bands are stronger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=0`$ interband transitions from the $`K=0_2`$ band to the ground band.

This work was supported in part (A.L.) by the Israel Science Foundation.


text:
# Liquid-gas phase transition in a two-components isospin lattice gas model for asymmetric nuclear matter

## A Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Fundation of China under constract No. 19975010, 10047005, 19947001.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

The isotherms for fixed $`\alpha =0.50`$ and different temperatures $`T=6.00,6.90,7.95,8.58`$ and $`8.70MeV`$ respectively.

Chemical potentials for proton and neutron as a function of $`\alpha `$ at $`p=1.12MeV`$ and $`T=7.50MeV`$.

The section of binodal surface for $`T=7.50MeV`$.

Entropy per baryon vs. pressure for asymmetric parameter $`\alpha =0.0,\alpha =0.6,\alpha =0.8`$ and $`\alpha =1.0`$ at $`T=7.5MeV`$.


text:
# The NuTeV Anomaly, Neutrino Mixing, and a Heavy Higgs Boson

## I Introduction

The Neutrinos at the Tevatron (NuTeV) experiment Zeller:2001hh  at Fermilab has measured the ratios of neutral to charged current events in muon (anti)neutrino – nucleon scattering:

$`R_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\nu _\mu N\nu _\mu X)}{\sigma (\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}X)}}=g_L^2+rg_R^2,`$ (1)
$`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\overline{\nu }_\mu N\overline{\nu }_\mu X)}{\sigma (\overline{\nu }_\mu N\mu ^+X)}}=g_L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{r}},`$ (2)
where

$$r=\frac{\sigma (\overline{\nu }_\mu N\mu ^+X)}{\sigma (\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}X)}\frac{1}{2},$$
(3)
and has determined the parameters $`g_L^2`$ and $`g_R^2`$ LlewellynSmith:ie  to be

$`g_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.30005\pm 0.00137,`$ (4)
$`g_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.03076\pm 0.00110.`$ (5)
The Standard Model (SM) predictions of these parameters based on a global fit to non-NuTeV data, cited as $`[g_L^2]_{\mathrm{SM}}=0.3042`$ and $`[g_R^2]_{\mathrm{SM}}=0.0301`$ in Ref. Zeller:2001hh , differ from the NuTeV result by $`3\sigma `$ in $`g_L^2`$. This disagreement between NuTeV and the SM (as determined by non-NuTeV data) is sometimes referred to as the NuTeV ‘anomaly’ Davidson:2001ji .

Various suggestions have been forwarded as the cause of this discrepancy Babu:1991ny ; DeGouvea:2001mz ; Giunti:2002nh ; Barshay:2002hu ; Ma:2001tb ; Miller:2002xh ; Kovalenko:2002xe ; Kumano:2002ra . These include theoretical uncertainties due to QCD effects, tree level and loop effects resulting from new physics, and nuclear physics effects. We refer the reader to Ref. Davidson:2001ji  for a comprehensive review. In this paper, we investigate one explanation which is particularly attractive in its simplicity and economy.

Note that the NuTeV value of $`g_L^2`$ is smaller than the SM prediction. This is because the ratios $`R_\nu `$ and $`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ were both smaller than expected, i.e. the neutral current events were not as numerous as predicted by the SM when compared to the charged current events. In addition, the invisible width of the $`Z`$ measured at the CERN/SLAC $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders LEP/SLC is also known to be $`2\sigma `$ below the SM prediction LEP/SLC:2002 . Both observations suggest that the couplings of the neutrinos to the $`Z`$ boson are suppressed with respect to the SM.

Suppression of the $`Z\nu \nu `$ couplings occurs naturally in models which mix the neutrinos with heavy gauge singlet states Babu:1991ny ; DeGouvea:2001mz ; Gronau:ct ; Bernabeu:gr ; Chang:1994hz ; Marciano:1999ih . For instance, if the $`SU(2)_L`$ active neutrino $`\nu _L`$ is a linear combination of two mass eigenstates with mixing angle $`\theta `$,

$$\nu _L=(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\nu _{\mathrm{light}}+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )\nu _{\mathrm{heavy}},$$
(6)
then the $`Z\nu \nu `$ coupling will be suppressed by a factor of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ if the heavy state is too massive to be created in the interaction. Note that the $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ coupling will also be suppressed by a factor of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

In general, if the $`Z\nu \nu `$ coupling of a particular neutrino flavor is suppressed by a factor of $`(1\epsilon )`$, then the $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ coupling of the same flavor will be suppressed by a factor of $`(1\epsilon /2)`$. For simplicity, and to preserve lepton universality, assume that the suppression parameter $`\epsilon `$ is common to all three generations. The theoretical values of $`R_\nu `$ and $`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ are reduced by a factor of $`(1\epsilon )`$, since their numerators are suppressed over their denominators, and the invisible width of the $`Z`$ is reduced by a factor of $`(12\epsilon )`$. At first glance, then, it seems that neutrino mixing may explain both the NuTeV and invisible width discrepancies.

However, more careful consideration appears to veto this possibility. One of the inputs used in calculating the SM predictions is the Fermi constant $`G_F`$, which is extracted from the muon decay constant $`G_\mu `$. Suppression of the $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ couplings leads to the correction Babu:1991ny ; Gronau:ct ; Bernabeu:gr ; Chang:1994hz

$$G_F=G_\mu (1+\epsilon ),$$
(7)
which will affect all SM predictions. Ref. Davidson:2001ji  concludes that a value of $`\epsilon `$ large enough to explain the NuTeV anomaly would affect the predictions of the SM (with a conventional light Higgs scalar) to an extent that the excellent agreement between the SM and $`Z`$-pole observables would be lost.

Notice, though, that the Fermi constant $`G_F`$ always appears multiplied by the $`\rho `$-parameter in neutral current amplitudes. Thus, the predictions for $`Z`$-pole observables will be undisturbed if a shift in $`G_F`$ is compensated by a shift in $`\rho `$. Such shifts can arise via oblique corrections due to new physics Peskin:1990zt .

In the following, we perform a fit to the $`Z`$-pole and NuTeV data with the oblique correction parameters $`S`$ and $`T`$ as well as the $`Z\nu \nu `$ suppression parameter $`\epsilon `$. Oblique corrections alone cannot explain the NuTeV and invisible width discrepancies. However, fits involving the parameter $`\epsilon `$ show excellent agreement with both the $`Z`$-pole and NuTeV data.

The question then, is: “What physics would account for the values of $`S`$ and $`T`$ that allow for a non-zero $`\epsilon `$?” A simple (though perhaps not unique) solution is the SM itself with a heavy Higgs boson. Indeed, we show that if the Higgs boson mass is allowed to be large, then the $`Z`$-pole and NuTeV data can be fit by $`\epsilon `$ alone.

The preferred value of $`\epsilon `$ suggests large mixing angles between the active neutrinos and the heavy sterile states. This may rule out the seesaw mechanism seesaw  as the explanation of the smallness of neutrino masses.

If the $`W`$ mass is included in the fit, we must also introduce the oblique correction parameter $`U`$. The preferred value of $`U`$ is virtually independent of the reference Higgs boson mass and cannot be supplied within the SM. We discuss what type of new physics may generate the required value of $`U`$.

## II The Data

We begin by listing the data which we will use in our analysis.

The $`Z`$ lineshape parameters from LEP/SLC assuming lepton universality are (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , page 8)

$`M_Z`$ $`=`$ $`91.1875\pm 0.0021\mathrm{GeV},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ $`=`$ $`2.4952\pm 0.0023\mathrm{GeV},`$ (9)
$`\sigma _\mathrm{h}^0`$ $`=`$ $`41.540\pm 0.037\mathrm{nb},`$ (10)
$`R_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ $`=`$ $`20.767\pm 0.025,`$ (11)
$`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{0,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0171\pm 0.0010,`$ (12)
with the correlation matrix shown in Table 1. Of these parameters, $`M_Z`$ is used as input to calculate the SM predictions, and $`R_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is used to fix the QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$. The remaining three are equivalent to (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , pages 8, 9, and 146)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}`$ $`=`$ $`83.984\pm 0.086\mathrm{MeV},`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.942\pm 0.016,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.23099\pm 0.00053.`$ (15)
There is a correlation of $`0.17`$ between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}`$ while other correlations are negligible. The SM prediction for the $`Z`$ invisible width is (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , page 9)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}=5.9736\pm 0.0036.$$
(16)
As mentioned in the introduction, this is $`2\sigma `$ above the experimental value.

The remaining observables from LEP and SLC, i.e. various asymmetries and ratios of partial widths, can be interpreted as measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ in the absence of vertex corrections from new physics Takeuchi:1994zh . The average of the values obtained from $`\tau `$ polarization, $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{0,b}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{0,c}`$, and $`Q_{\mathrm{FB}}`$, and that obtained from $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{0,\mathrm{}}`$ above, is (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , page 146)

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}=0.23148\pm 0.00017.$$
(17)
It should be noted that the agreement among the values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ obtained from the six observables is not good. The $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.`$ associated with the average is $`10.2/5`$. However, since neither oblique corrections nor neutrino mixing has any effect on the quality of the agreement, we will just use the average value, Eq. (17), as representative of these measurements. The observables not included in this average, such as $`R_b`$ and $`R_c`$, depend only weakly on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ and carry little statistical significance RbComment . Indeed, we have also performed an analysis with all the asymmetries and heavy flavor data, together with their correlations, included separately and have confirmed that doing so does not change the conclusions of this paper.

For $`g_L^2`$ and $`g_R^2`$, we take the values in the 1998 Particle Data Book PDB:1998 , which are based on all experiments prior to NuTeV,

$`g_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.3009\pm 0.0028,`$ (18)
$`g_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.0328\pm 0.0030,`$ (19)
and average them with the NuTeV values, Eq. (5). We obtain,

$`g_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.3002\pm 0.0012,`$ (20)
$`g_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.0310\pm 0.0010.`$ (21)
The correlation is negligible.

We will also use the $`W`$ mass later in the analysis. The world average from $`p\overline{p}`$ experiments and LEP2 is (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , page 150)

$$M_W=80.449\pm 0.034\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(22)
The SM predictions are calculated with ZFITTER v6.36 ZFITTER:2001  and the formulae in Ref. Marciano:pb . The inputs to ZFITTER are the $`Z`$ mass from Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , listed in Eq. (12), the top mass from Ref. CDF/D0:2000 ,

$$M_{\mathrm{top}}=174.3\pm 5.1\mathrm{GeV},$$
(23)
and the hadronic contribution to the running of the QED coupling constant from Ref. Burkhardt:2001xp ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02761\pm 0.00036.$$
(24)
The QCD coupling constant is chosen to be

$$\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.119.$$
(25)
All our observables are either purely leptonic, hence QCD corrections only enter at the two loop level, or ratios of cross sections in which the leading order QCD corrections cancel. Consequently, the results of the fits depend only very weakly on this choice. Finally, the Higgs mass is varied from 115 GeV, the lower bound from direct searches PDB:2002 , up to 1000 GeV.

## III The Corrections

We now consider the effect of the oblique correction parameters $`S`$, $`T`$, $`U`$, and the $`Z\nu \nu `$ coupling suppression parameter $`\epsilon `$ on the electroweak observables. The dependence of the observables on the oblique correction parameters was obtained in Ref. Peskin:1990zt  so we will not reproduce it here. To obtain the dependence on $`\epsilon `$, we note that the tree-level relation between $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and the input parameters $`\alpha `$, $`G_F`$, and $`M_Z`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}2\theta =\left[\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(26)
Thus, a shift in $`G_F`$, Eq. (7), will shift $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ (be it $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell})}`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$) by

$$\delta s^2=\frac{s^2c^2}{c^2s^2}\left[\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }\frac{\delta G_F}{G_F}\frac{\delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\right]=\left(\frac{s^2c^2}{c^2s^2}\right)\epsilon .$$
(27)
Combining with the oblique corrections, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}=\frac{\alpha S}{4\left(c^2s^2\right)}\frac{s^2c^2}{c^2s^2}\left(\alpha T+\epsilon \right),\hfill \\ \frac{\delta M_W}{M_W}=\frac{\alpha S}{4\left(c^2s^2\right)}+\frac{c^2}{2\left(c^2s^2\right)}\left(\alpha T+\frac{s^2}{c^2}\epsilon \right)+\frac{\alpha U}{8s^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
The $`Z`$ widths are proportional to the product $`\rho G_FM_Z^3`$ Rosner:1993rj  and it is easy to see that

$$\frac{\delta (\rho G_FM_Z^3)}{\rho G_FM_Z^3}=\alpha T+\epsilon .$$
(29)
From Eqs. (28) and (29) we see that all $`Z`$-pole observables, except for the invisible width, depend on $`\epsilon `$ only through the combination $`(\alpha T+\epsilon )`$. Consequently, any shift in the $`Z`$-pole observables due to a non-zero $`\epsilon `$ could be compensated by a shift in the $`T`$ parameter with the result that the observables remain unchanged. Finally, the $`Z`$ invisible width must be corrected by a factor of $`(12\epsilon )`$ and the NuTeV parameters $`g_L^2`$ and $`g_R^2`$ by a factor of $`(1\epsilon )`$.

Numerically, the observables are corrected as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`10.0021S+0.0093T+1.2\epsilon ,`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+0.0021S0.0015T2.2\epsilon ,`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}}{[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+0.016S0.011T1.4\epsilon ,`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L^2}{[g_L^2]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`10.0090S+0.022T0.17\epsilon ,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{[g_R^2]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+0.031S0.0067T3.9\epsilon ,`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_W}{[M_W]_{\mathrm{SM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`10.0036S+0.0056T`$ (36)
$`+0.0042U+0.22\epsilon .`$
Here, $`[]_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is the usual SM prediction of the observable $``$ using $`G_\mu `$ as input. Note that the coefficient of $`\epsilon `$ in $`g_L^2`$ is small. This means that the dependence of $`g_L^2`$ on $`\epsilon `$ due to the suppression of the $`Z\nu \nu `$ and $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ couplings is almost canceled by the dependence of the SM prediction through $`G_\mu `$. Ironically, although the original motivation for introducing the parameter $`\epsilon `$ was to fit $`g_L^2`$, it turns out that $`g_L^2`$ is the least sensitive to $`\epsilon `$ of all the observables considered.

## IV The Fits

Using the data and formulae from the previous sections, we perform several fits. Initially, we exclude the $`W`$ mass and perform a fit to the remaining five observables only since including the $`W`$ mass serves only to determine the $`U`$ parameter and does not affect the values of the other fit parameters.

### IV.1 Oblique Corrections Only

First, we perform a fit with only the oblique correction parameters $`S`$ and $`T`$. Using $`M_{\mathrm{top}}=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ as the reference SM and fitting the expressions in Eq. (36) to the three $`Z`$-pole observables and the two NuTeV observables we obtain

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.09\pm 0.10,`$ (37)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`0.13\pm 0.12,`$ (38)
with a correlation of $`0.89`$. The quality of the fit is unimpressive: $`\chi ^2=11.3`$ for $`52=3`$ degrees of freedom. The preferred region on the $`S`$-$`T`$ plane is shown in Fig. 1. As is evident from the figure, there is no region where the $`1\sigma `$ bands for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lept}}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$, and $`g_L^2`$ overlap.

Fig. 1 also shows the preferred region if $`S`$ and $`T`$ are fit to the $`Z`$-pole observables only. Including the NuTeV data shifts both central values of $`S`$ and $`T`$ to the negative side. Though the $`g_L^2`$ band tries to pull $`S`$ and $`T`$ into the fourth quadrant (which corresponds to the SM with a larger Higgs mass), the narrow $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ band forces $`S`$ and $`T`$ to move along it into the third quadrant.

In conclusion, oblique corrections alone cannot explain the NuTeV anomaly and/or the invisible width discrepancy.

### IV.2 With Neutrino Mixing

Next, we perform a fit with $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`\epsilon `$. The reference SM is $`M_{\mathrm{top}}=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ as before. The result is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.03\pm 0.10,`$ (39)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`0.44\pm 0.15,`$ (40)
$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`0.0030\pm 0.0010.`$ (41)
The quality of the fit is improved dramatically to $`\chi ^2=1.17`$ for $`53=2`$ degrees of freedom. The correlations among the parameters are shown in Table 3. The preferred regions in the $`S`$-$`T`$, $`S`$-$`\epsilon `$, and $`T`$-$`\epsilon `$ planes are shown in Figs. 2 through 4. The central values have shifted somewhat from our preliminary report in Ref. Takeuchi:2002nn . This is partly due to our use of updated NuTeV numbers from the third reference of Zeller:2001hh , and partly due to our use of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02761`$ from Ref. Burkhardt:2001xp  instead of the ZFITTER default value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.02804`$.

Thus, by including both oblique corrections and $`\epsilon `$, we obtain an excellent fit to both the $`Z`$-pole and NuTeV data. But what kind of ‘new physics’ would provide such values of $`S`$ and $`T`$? While the limits on $`S`$ permit it to have either sign, $`T`$ is constrained to be negative by $`3\sigma `$. Few models of new physics are available which predict a negative $`T`$ Bertolini:1990ek .

Recall that the effect of a SM Higgs heavier than our reference value (here chosen to be $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$) is manifested as shifts in the oblique correction parameters. The approximate expressions for these shifts are Takeuchi:1991kf

$`S_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}/M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{\mathrm{ref}}\right),`$ (42)
$`T_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi c^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}/M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{\mathrm{ref}}\right),`$ (43)
$`U_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (44)
Notice that $`S_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ is positive while $`T_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ is negative for $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}>M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{\mathrm{ref}}`$. Thus increasing the Higgs mass will have the desired effect of providing a negative $`T`$. Can $`T`$ be made negative enough without making $`S`$ too large? The answer is provided in Fig. 5, in which we show a blow up of the central region of Fig. 2. The SM points fall comfortably within the 90% confidence contour when the Higgs mass is even moderately large.

### IV.3 Neutrino Mixing Only

To check that the SM itself is indeed compatible with the data (excluding the $`W`$ mass) we perform a fit with only $`\epsilon `$ as the fit parameter, and plot the dependence of $`\chi ^2`$ on the Higgs mass used to define the reference SM. The result is shown is Fig. 6. We also show the $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ dependence of the $`1\sigma `$ limits on $`\epsilon `$ in Fig. 7. The graphs demonstrate that the data are well fit by a SM with a heavy Higgs and a nonzero value of $`\epsilon `$.

### IV.4 The $`W`$ Mass

We have deliberately excluded the $`W`$ mass from our analysis since it cannot be fit with $`\epsilon `$ alone, or by $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`\epsilon `$. Eq. (28) suggests that the single parameter fit with $`\epsilon `$, which yields a positive value of $`\epsilon `$, may increase the $`W`$ mass prediction towards the experimental value Babu:1991ny . However, the coefficient of $`\epsilon `$, Eq. (36), is too small for it to significantly mitigate the discrepancy. A three parameter fit with $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`\epsilon `$ also fails to close the gap. In that case, note that the combination of $`T`$ and $`\epsilon `$ upon which $`M_W`$ depends is

$$\left(\alpha T+\frac{s^2}{c^2}\epsilon \right)=\left(\alpha T+\epsilon \right)\left(\frac{c^2s^2}{c^2}\right)\epsilon .$$
(45)
Since $`(\alpha T+\epsilon )`$ is pinned by the $`Z`$-pole observables, a non-zero $`\epsilon `$ would actually lead to a decrease in the $`W`$ mass prediction. Therefore, the $`U`$ parameter is necessary to fit $`M_W`$. The result of the four parameter fit to the reference SM of $`M_{\mathrm{top}}=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ is

$$U=0.62\pm 0.16,$$
(46)
and the correlations with the other parameters are shown in Table 3. The dependence of these limits on the reference Higgs mass $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ is weak, as implied by Eq. (44) and shown in Fig. 8.

## V Conclusions and Discussion

We conclude that neutrino mixing together with oblique corrections can reconcile the $`Z`$-pole and NuTeV data. The simplest model which provides the necessary values of $`S`$ and $`T`$ is the SM itself with a large Higgs boson mass.

We emphasize that there is nothing exotic about this solution. Neutrinos are known to mix from Super-Kamiokande SK , SNO SNO , K2K K2K , and other neutrino experiments. Neutrino mixing may have the added bonus of contributing negatively to both $`S`$ and $`T`$ Bertolini:1990ek .

The possibility that the Higgs boson is heavy has also been under scrutiny Peskin:2001rw ; Chanowitz:2001bv  since it has not been found in the $`80`$ GeV range preferred by the SM global fit (Ref. LEP/SLC:2002 , page 154). If the Higgs boson is indeed heavy as suggested by Fig. 6, it may favor a possible dynamical mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking while providing a challenge for supersymmetry SUSY .

The limits on the suppression parameter,

$$\epsilon =0.0030\pm 0.0010,$$
(47)
imply

$$\theta =0.055\pm 0.010,$$
(48)
as the mixing angle if the suppression is due to mixing with a single heavy sterile state. The heavy state into which the neutrino mixes must be at least as massive as the $`Z`$ so that the $`Z`$ does not decay into it. A naive seesaw model seesaw  does not permit such a large mixing angle since the angle is related to the ratio of masses. However, it can be shown that the required pattern of mixings and masses can be arranged when there exist inter-generational mixings Chang:1994hz . We will present explicit examples in Ref. LOTW2 .

The $`W`$ mass needs the $`U`$ parameter, so we cannot do without other new physics entirely. The Higgs mass dependence of the oblique correction parameters are shown in Fig. 8. What kind of new physics will be compatible with this? It has to predict a small $`T`$ while predicting a large $`U`$. One possibility is that the $`U`$ parameter can be enhanced by the formation of bound states at new particle thresholds. If one expresses $`T`$ and $`U`$ as dispersion integrals over spectral functions, one finds

$`T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{s_{\mathrm{thres}}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}\left[\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm (s)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0(s)\right],`$ (49)
$`U`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{s_{\mathrm{thres}}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}\left[\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm (s)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0(s)\right],`$ (50)
where we have used the notation of Ref. Takeuchi:1994ym . Due to the extra negative power of $`s`$ in the integrand of $`U`$, it is more sensitive to the enhancement of the threshold than $`T`$. Indeed, it has been shown in Ref. Takeuchi:1994ym  that threshold effects do not enhance the $`T`$ parameter. This could, again, mean that a theory that exhibits dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking is favored. This possibility will be investigated in a subsequent paper.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lay Nam Chang, Michael Chanowitz, Michio Hashimoto, Randy Johnson, Alex Kagan, Kevin McFarland, Mihoko Nojiri, Jogesh Pati, and Mike Shaevitz for helpful discussions and communications. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, grants DE–FG05–92ER40709, Task A (T.T. and N.O.), and DE-FG02-84ER40153 (L.C.R.W.).