text:
# Four Partially Baked Results

## 1. Introduction

My topic was to be Thermal Emission as a Test for Hidden AGN in Radio Galaxies, work in collaboration with, and in fact largely carried out by UCSB graduate student Dave Whysong. As I will explain, we are attempting to determine which FRII radio galaxies in the 3C catalog are likely to have hidden quasars by the consequent reradiation of energy by warm dust. The answer is far from all, and the dependence on optical spectrum, radio size, etc is essential for the Unified Model, and for black hole accretion mechanisms and demographic studies. Since our data set is insufficiently complete, I will emphasize instead some nearby individual objects of interest. These latter are discussed in astro-ph/0207385, a manuscript submitted to ApJ.

Four partially baked (about half actually) results together must suffice for one fully baked one. Therefore I’ve added some information on a recent discovery by Makoto Kishimoto, Omer Blaes and myself, which reveals the spectral shape of the Big Blue Bump for the first time in the important region of the Balmer edge. Next I show some results on the quasar reddening curve, which are startling, and very important, or else wrong. The authors there are Martin Gaskell, Rene Goosmann, David Whysong, and myself. Finally I preview some adaptive optics work from Keck on Cygnus A and NGC6240, courtesy of collaborators Claire Max, Gabriella Canalizo, David Whysong, Bruce Macintosh, and Alan Stockton.

This paper is obviously not a review but just a compact story that cites a negligible fraction of the relevant literature.

## 2. Thermal Emission as a Test for Hidden Quasars in Radio Galaxy Nuclei

Supermassive black holes, or something that behaves a lot like them, lie at the heart of radio galaxies, quasars, and other AGN. However, they manifest themselves in a (formerly) bewildering variety of ways. In particular, quasars are powerful optical/UV emitters, and this emission is thought to arise somehow in matter radiating as it approaches the hole’s horizon. As far as I know this ”Big Blue Bump” relatively quiescent and low polarization continuum component is always accompanied by commensurate broad emission lines. Powerful radio galaxies and radio quasars also have jets and lobes. It’s been known or suspected for 20 years that the most powerful radio galaxies actually contain quasars hidden from our direct view, hidden by something that acts like a geometrically thick torus oriented perpendicular to the radio jets.

My strong impression is that this is almost universally true at the very top end of the radio galaxy luminosity function, where giant bipolar reflection nebulae are seen whose polarized spectra show the quasar-like broad emission lines. Figures 1 and 2 in Singal 1993 (compare Barthel 1989) show that the $`Z>0.5`$ radio galaxies in the culled 3C catalog bear the expected relationship to the quasars in space density and projected linear size of the radio sources for this simple picture. (The “culled” catalog is pretty cleanly those with enough isotropic flux to satisfy the minimum catalog flux requirement.) At low Z (which may simply mean lower luminosity) the simplest and most charitable thing that can be said is that perhaps there are many radio galaxies of a new type present, which do not have hidden quasars, and which spoil the statistical relationships of the quasars to the radio galaxies. This speculation was made by many of us early on.

However a paper appeared soon after Singal’s which taught me that I have no critical faculty; that all the statistics are just as expected if more powerful nuclei tend to have larger torus opening angles, and if in addition radio sources tend to fade over time (Gopal-Krishna et al 1996). In Singal’s low redshift/luminosity bin our eyes are then comparing old quasars to younger radio galaxies. Clearly this idea can’t be tested against the idea of a new population of small “true” radio galaxies by reason alone. Spectropolarimetry affords a robust detection of a hidden quasar in favorable cases, but if the opening angle is small or zero, or if insufficient scattering material is visible, it simply returns a false negative answer. But if the initial Big Blue Bump radiation is even roughly isotropic, and if the reradiation by the torus is even roughly isotropic (there are good arguments for both of these), then the “waste heat” from the hidden nucleus must appear as thermal emission from warm dust. Experience and theory show that the mid-IR provides the best combination of isotropy and contrast relative to any cooler dust heated by a starburst component.

Our initial results on special targets were presented in a conference in 2000, and made public in Mar 2001 as astro-ph/0103048 (Antonucci 2002); Whysong and Antonucci 2001 (astro-ph/0106381, June 2001); and Whysong and Antonucci 2002 (astro-ph/0207385, sub to ApJ). I’m specific here because of some puzzling subsequent statements by other authors. Perlman et al (2001) discussed our result showing the lack of an energetically significant hidden Big Blue Bump in M87, refined it slightly, and then with Gemini Observatory issued a press release strongly suggesting it was theirs.111The Perlman et al. data have somewhat lower spatial resolution but much better surface brightness sensitivity to off nuclear emission when compared with ours. The authors argue that the latter gives them better limits on nuclear reradiated emission, but at these luminosity levels the reradiated mid-IR would be spatially unresolved. Radomski et al (2002) use our Cygnus A photometry in their paper, but publish and analyze their image without reference to our similar image and brief analysis in the paper of ours which they cite.

Very briefly our conclusions on the nearby objects are 1) M87 shows a point source of 13 mJy at 11.7 microns, consistent with synchrotron emission from the radio core. Any reradiated thermal mid-infrared emission is several orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic power. Arguably this is the first near-proof of the existence of a “nonthermal AGN,” i.e. an AGN with a negligible fraction of its total power output as optical/UV emission. Cygnus A on the other hand has a fairly powerful and extended infrared source, as expected for this object in which a hidden quasar has been detected via spectropolarimetry (Ogle et al 1997).

We found that Cen A has a point source at wavelengths 11.7 and 17.7 microns for which the slope and spectrum is suggestive of thermal reradiation from a hidden Big Blue Bump. In this case there is supportive but not definitive polarimetric evidence for a hidden low-luminosity quasar (Marconi et al 2000). Also our point source flux at 0.3” resolution flux matches that measured by ISO in a 4” aperture; the ISO spectrum, which thus is also a spectrum of our point source, has strong dust absorption features, and pretty convincing dust emission features as well (Mirabel et al 1999). Comparing M87 to Cen A, a key conclusion is that some FR I radio galaxies have the hidden Big Blue Bump and some do not!222A pet peeve of mine is the constant refrain in the literature stating that BL Lacs are beamed FR1 radio sources; as has been known for a decade or two, depending on how you count it, this is not true of the ones which have FR2 diffuse radio emission. Similarly I read now that FR1s are generically nonthermal (no hidden Big Blue Bump). This is in fact true for all of them except the ones that are thermal and do have a visible or hidden BBB.

## 3. All Quasars are Blue

I have undergone a religious conversion regarding quasar reddening. With the zeal of a convert, I believe that most quasars are reddened in the optical, and absorbed but not reddened in the UV. Despite my zeal, I still have some doubts, but they can be addressed robustly in the near future.

As usual there are many prescient papers on this subject333Early examples include Osterbrock, Koski and Phillips 1976 for radio galaxies’ broad line regions and continua, and de Zotti and Gaskell 1985 for dust in the host galaxy planes of Seyferts. Some especially telling later work on radio galaxies includes Hill, Goodrich and dePoy 1996 and Hines et al 1999, but again these comprise a small fraction of the literature., but I’ll again feature just a few landmarks from my personal reading odyssey. J Baker and colleagues wrote a series of papers a few years back on the radio and optical properties of the Molonglo radio survey quasars, a sample selected at low frequencies and with very good completeness and follow-up of the optical identifications. Most relevant here are Baker and Hunstead 1995, Baker 1997, and Baker et al 1999.

For the 13 objects with broad line Balmer decrements available, the quasars showed a good correlation between that parameter and the optical slope (Baker 1997, Fig 16). The authors interpreted this indicative of reddening. The consequences were profound and perhaps not widely appreciated. Such a general effect should have major implications for modeling of the Big Blue Bump, the energetically dominant continuum component. In particular, it implies that almost all these radio loud quasars are intrinsically quite blue in the optical, and theorists should feel no obligation to model the steeper ones. On the other hand, it means that observed trends in optical slope, e.g. correlations with luminosity, can not be interpreted with confidence as effects of changing luminosity or Eddington ratio.

The impact is equally profound for quasar and black hole demographic studies: such studies universally assume that broad line object luminosities are just about what we observe them to be. If the optical slopes generally have a non-negligible signature of reddening, then even with the reddening law we discuss below, Most of the optical/UV luminosity is absorbed by dust. Thus both their luminosities and the luminosities of the hidden ones must be revised upward substantially.

I suggested in Antonucci 2002 (most easily accessed as astro-ph/0103048) that the optical slopes could not in fact be so influenced by reddening without seeing the sharp characteristic curvature of foreground reddening at the short wavelength end of the published spectra444It’s common for intermixed stars and gas to show optical reddening without an exponential UV cutoff, but it’s quite novel for the case of a point source and foreground absorption. I thought using the single line pair broad H-alpha/broad H-beta was risky, and that that particular pair might be influenced by ionization parameter effect. After discussing this in detail with Martin Gaskell and Rene Goosman, those workers showed me that all broad line ratios agree with the reddening notion, and that it’s possible to derive nearly identical continuum and emission line reddening curves using all six well measured emission lines. Physically, this simply means that the small grains are efficiently destroyed; there are many independent arguments for that. Our “universal” (radio loud) quasar reddening curve is shown in Fig 1 of Gaskell et al 2002.

The beauty of all this is that absorption of this magnitude can be readily recognized by the concommitent infrared luminosity, which almost necessarily accompanies it. We are gathering data on this now.

## 4. Se Raser la Barbe

A completely frustrating aspect of the quasar spectrum is that the underlying continuum with its diagnostic features is very heavily contaminated by overlying atomic emission from the broad emission line region. There is a way to get rid of it however! At least a few quasars have a small wavelength-independent polarization in the bits which are thought to be uncontaminated by atomic emission. At the same time, these objects have undetectably low polarization of the broad emission lines. Because of the latter feature, a plot of polarized flux acts to shave off all the atomic emission as one can shave off a beard with a razor blade. Note that the cause of the polarization needn’t be known; I think of it as the stinky stuff they add to natural gas to make it noticeable. It’s worth noting however that the polarization angle is parallel to the radio structure axis, suggestive of light both generated and scattered within a thin disk; it is not consistent with light scattered in a photosphere above a glowing thin disk (Stockman, Angel and Miley 1979).

Of particular interest is the Balmer edge region. Kolykhalov and Sunyaev (1984) on the theoretical side, and our group on the observational side (Antonucci, Kinney and Ford 1989), started a cottage industry trying to use the Ly edge feature (or lack of it) to diagnose the Big Blue Bump emission mechanism. However, in a thermal model such as a thin accretion disk, the Ly edge region can be substantially affected by relativisitic broadening and shifting effects; it’s also sensitive to the non-LTE conditions thought to prevail in the innermost regions; and it depends on the physics in a region subject to various classical instabilities. All these problems are much mitigated for the case of the Ba edge. It hasn’t been possible to study the Big Blue Bump Balmer edge region observationally however, because of an enormous relatively localized atomic feature called the Small Blue Bump. But we can shave that off with the polarized flux method.

Several quasars are known to have continuum polarization, but little or no polarization in their broad emission lines and Small Blue Bump features (data of Miller and Goodrich in Antonucci 1988; Antonucci et al 1996; Schmidt and Smith 2000). Using the Keck and VLT observatories we can now get more detailed data and our fearless leader M. Kishimoto (these proceedings) shows that the quasar Ton 202 has an unpolarized Small Blue Bump. More importantly, the data reveal that the underlying Big Blue Bump continuum component has a break at the exact same wavelength that the Small Blue Bump arises, namely around 4000A in the rest frame! This probably means that the former is thermal and optically thick.

A consequence is that the Small Blue Bump, which is already quite problematically huge to explain with the usual Balmer line + Fe II interpretation, is even huger since it lies in a region deficient in underlying continuum flux. This last conclusion would be affected though if the deficit in polarized flux derives from localized diminished percent polarization in the Big Bump rather than diminished flux. Theoretical discussions of the wavelength-dependence of accretion disk polarization can be found in for example Laor, Netzer and Piran 1990, with the state of the art being Agol, Blaes and Ionescu-Zanetti 1998.

Note that the data do not indicate any particular physics for the Big Bump however; at this point we can only say they probably indicate an origin in optically thick thermal matter. Of course this new information does not negate the many really damning arguments against the Shakura-Sunyaev disk and some of its simple variants (e.g. Antonucci 1999).

## 5. V Better than Hubble? Keck Adaptive Optics Observations of Cygnus A and NGC6240

This section refers to work by Claire Max - the captain of this enterprise, G Canalizo, D Whysong, B Macintosh, and myself, and by Claire with other collaborators (see author lists).

Is a big ground-based telescope sharper for imaging and spectroscopy than the Hubble? The answer is of course yes if the same wavelength (and A.O.) is used; however, the dynamic range and the field size are both lower. Fig 1 shows the core region of Cygnus A imaged at 2 microns by HST and by Keck, using a fortuitously placed natural guide star. Clearly the Keck data are at considerably higher resolution as well as taken with good sampling, yet our restoration is still necessarily very conservative relative to the diffraction limit. There is a published Abstract on this: Max et al 2001; and much more and sharper data are in hand!

To my biased eye, this and some published images (for example Jackson et al 1998, Tadhunter et al 1999, Fosbury et al 1999) look like you can reach right out and touch Cygnus, and in particular it looks like various parts of the Humunculus nebula associated with eta Carinae. Our data also include high-resolution spectra, but I am truly running out of space, so I’ll just close with a mention of the spectrum of NGC6240.

This is another prototypical object by which the good gods have placed a natural guide star. NGC6240 is a prototype ULIRG double galaxy with powerful AGN and starburst activity. Lacking room to show the images and slit spectra, I’ll just have to note that they show the $`H_2`$ thermal line, and also Fe II characteristic of Liners in exquisite detail. A little more information is available in Max et al 2000 and Bogdanovic et al 2001; a paper is in preparation.

### Acknowledgments.

Thanks are due to R Barvainis for commenting on an earlier verion of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Collision statistics of driven granular materials

## I Introduction

Granular material represent a type of matter not well defined by conventional means. Although each granular particle is obviously solid, an assemblage of these particles show distinctly non-solid behavior when subjected to external forces Jaeger et al. (1996). In the rapid flow regime, the interaction between the grains is collisional and the system resembles a dense granular gas. Indeed, the kinetic theory for dense gases formulated by Chapman and Enskog Chapman and Cowling (1970) have been modified to include the dissipative nature of the collisions Jenkins and Savage (1983); Haff (1983). However, a number of approximations have to be made in any calculation that can be only validated by experiments. Furthermore, even if key assumptions such as equipartition breakdown McNamara and Young (1992); Grossman et al. (1997); Kadanoff (1999), it is important to have a measure of the failure to guide further development.

Energy has to be constantly supplied from an external source to observe a steady state in granular gas systems. Therefore, model experiments consist of granular particles inside a container where energy is continuously injected at a side-wall Warr et al. (1994); Kudrolli et al. (1997); Olafsen and Urbach (1998). Thus gradients are present in experimental granular systems, which implies that care must be taken when comparing results to non-equilibrium kinetic theory van Noije and Ernst (1998); Goldhirsch et al. (1993); Puglisi et al. (1998). With advances in high speed image acquisition, it is now possible to obtain positions of particles several times between collisions. However, particle positions and velocities can be obtained accurately only in two dimensions by direct imaging thus forcing certain constraints on the geometry of the system.

One of the first such experiments to investigate velocity distribution functions (VDFs) utilized an apparatus in which particles are vibrated vertically inside a narrow transparent box Warr et al. (1994, 1995); Warr and Huntley (1995). Maxwellian statistics were reported for the vertical and horizontal velocity components of the particles parallel to the plane of the transparent side-walls. Additional interactions in these systems arise due to collisions between particles and the side-walls Warr et al. (1995). Following this work, Wildman et al. Wildman et al. (1999) were able to do long time particle tracking to measure diffusion constants by interpreting mean square displacement data over a very broad range of density. More recently, in a similar apparatus, Rouyer and Menon Rouyer and Menon (2000) report that their VDFs have a universal form that can be parameterized by a single variable, the granular temperature. A different method of energy injection utilizes large flat container that is vibrated vertically to excite a sub mono-layer of particles Olafsen and Urbach (1998, 1999); Losert et al. (1999). The velocity of the particles in the horizontal plane are measured and are found to follow a non-Gaussian distribution. However, the impact of the velocity gradient in the vertical direction on the observed distributions are not taken in to account because these components cannot be measured.

Our experiment is a variation of the vertically vibrated apparatus. Spherical particles are constrained to roll on an inclined two dimensional surface. This geometry allows for a direct investigation of the interplay between energy injected at the side-wall and the dissipation through inelastic collisions. In addition, the inclination reduces the effects of gravity, therefore minimizing shock waves. This system has been used to demonstrate clustering and collapse when the inter-particle collision frequency is much greater than particle-driving wall collision frequency Kudrolli et al. (1997). Recent works have explored a full range VDFs, from very near Gaussian behavior to highly non-Gaussian distribution functions, as well as velocity correlations Kudrolli and Henry (2000); Blair and Kudrolli (2001).

In addition to analytical techniques and experiments, several groups have utilized computer simulations of inelastic hard spheres with both Molecular Dynamics Goldhirsch et al. (1993); van Noije et al. (1999); Moon et al. (2001); Pagonabarraga et al. (2002); van Zon and MacKintosh (2002); Paolotti et al. (2002); Brey and Ruiz-Montero (2002) and Direct Simulation Monte-Carlo Puglisi et al. (1999); Brey et al. (1999); Baldassarri et al. (2001a); Morgado and Mucciolo ; Baldassarri et al. (2001b) techniques to investigate the statistical properties of granular gases. Using DSMC simulations, Baldassarri et al. Puglisi et al. (1999) have found velocity and density distributions that are qualitatively similar to our previous experimental results Blair and Kudrolli (2001). Recent work by Brey and Ruiz-Montero Brey and Ruiz-Montero (2002) investigate how the second and fourth moments of the VDFs scale as a function of distance from the driving wall, which until now, have not been experimentally tested.

In this paper, we report on the statistical properties of a gas of inelastic particles constrained to two-dimensions. An inclined geometry reduces the gravitational acceleration acting on each particle which results in lower mean velocities. The combination of slow dynamics and high speed imaging allows us to accurately identify the particle trajectories and collision events. By using velocities before and after a collision event, we measure the normal coefficient of restitution. We find that these quantities are found to be broadly distributed for the same impact parameters. By calculating the distance and time between collision events we measure the distributions of free paths and times. We find that these distributions do not follow the result found from kinetic theory. The path and time distributions have an overpopulation of short distance and time bins, demonstrating the inherent clustering present in granular gases. We propose an empirical form that captures the distributions, which is then used to calculate the mean free path and free time as a function of density. The particle trajectories are also used to measure the mean square displacement, velocity auto-correlation, and diffusion rates. The distribution of particle velocities are measured with a variation in density of an order of magnitude and show distinctly non-Gaussian behavior with no apparent universal form. We compare our results to recent experiments, as well as theoretical and simulation treatments of equivalent systems.

The paper has the following structure. In Section II we present the experimental apparatus and imaging methods. Section III provides the overall system characteristics such as the density distributions and coefficients of restitution and inelasticities. We then present our analysis of the trajectories of the particles in Sec. IV. Finally, in Sec. V we summarize our results in the context of granular kinetic theory and simulations.

## II Experimental Methods

The experimental configuration \[Fig. 1\], consists of a $`100`$ $`\sigma `$ x 60 $`\sigma `$ glass plane that is inclined at an angle $`\beta `$ with the horizontal. The particles are stainless steel with diameter $`\sigma =3.175`$ mm and a high degree of sphericity ($`\delta \sigma /\sigma =10^4`$). The number of particles, measured in number of mono-layers $`N_l`$ across the driving wall, is varied between $`N_l=`$ 1–5 in steps of one layer, (viz. from $`N_p=100500`$ in steps of 100, where $`N_p`$ is the number of particles). The energy source is an oscillating side-wall, driven by a solenoid, that is located as shown in Fig. 1(a). The driving signal is a 10 Hz pulse with a velocity during each pulse of $`40`$ cm s<sup>-1</sup>. The driving frequency and amplitude were chosen to ensure that no phase dependence on the center of mass is observed (at frequencies below 2 Hz the particle positions are phase-locked with the driving). The signal is produced with a computer interfaced Aglient Technologies 33120-A wave-form generator that is and subsequently amplified by an HP 6824A Amplifier. The inclination of the plane can be varied between $`\beta =0^{}8^{}`$, for our experiments the angle was fixed at $`\beta =2^{}\pm 0.1^{}`$ or $`4^{}\pm 0.1^{}`$. In the extreme case of $`\beta 1^{}`$, the particles essentially cease to interact with the energy source and cluster at the side opposite of the driving.

The particles are imaged using a Kodak MotionCorder SR1000 high speed digital camera. We measure the positions of all particles contained in the apparatus for 1365 frames at $`250`$ frames per second at full spatial resolution of $`512\times 480`$ pixels. These digital images are then transfered to a computer and analyzed using a centroid method that allows us to resolve each particle to sub-pixel accuracy. After each particle is located the positions are then connected in time to form continuous trajectories for 5.46 s. Our coordinate system is such that the $`x,y`$ axes are parallel and perpendicular to the driving respectively \[see Fig. 1\]. A typical particle trajectory is shown in Fig. 2(a). Multiple collision events can be distinguished with nearly straight paths between each event. A particle that freely rolls on the inclined plane will follow a parabolic trajectory \[see Fig. 2(b)\]. The particle trajectory is given by

$$y(x)=\frac{5}{7}\frac{x^2}{2v_x^2}g\mathrm{sin}(\beta ),$$
(1)
where, $`g`$ is the acceleration due to gravity, $`v_x`$ is measured from the width of the parabola, and the $`\frac{5}{7}`$ factor is due to the moment of inertia for a solid sphere.

## III System Characteristics

### III.1 Density Distributions

The results presented will be given in terms of the number of single layers across the cell, $`N_l`$ and the angle of inclination $`\beta `$, which the determine the area fraction $`\varphi `$ \[see Table 1\]. We measure $`\varphi `$ by defining a region of interest (ROI) that is centered about the peak in $`\rho (y)`$, \[Fig 3(b)\] whose extent in the $`y`$-direction is limited to $`\pm 10\%\text{ of }\rho (y)`$. The ROI scheme excludes all particles that are within 3$`\sigma `$ of the side walls to ensure that clustering due to the side-walls does not affect our results \[see Fig. 3(a)\]. The over-plotted box in Fig. 1(b) demonstrates the ROI definition for $`\varphi =0.13`$. A more stringent division of the system in the $`y`$-direction will be used when the behavior of the temperature, pressure and kurtosis are discussed in Sec IV. The form of the density in the $`y`$-direction is similar to that found in Refs. Luding et al. (1994); Warr et al. (1995) however, we find that the form of the tails of $`\rho (y)`$ at higher values of $`N_l\beta `$ deviate from Boltzmann distribution. This implies that the law of isothermal atmospheres breaks down for granular systems as we shall also see when we discuss the scaling of the granular temperature in Sec. IV.5.

### III.2 Particle Collisions

We identify collision events from the trajectories by using the following algorithm. Velocities are constructed as finite differences $`𝐯_j=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱=𝐱(t_j)𝐱(t_i)`$ and the subscripts $`i,j`$ represent positions separated by the time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=4`$ms. All velocity vectors are compared sequentially to find direction changes given by

$$\psi =\mathrm{cos}^1(\widehat{𝐯}_i\widehat{𝐯}_j),$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{𝐯}=𝐯/|𝐯|`$ the unit vector of the calculated velocity. If $`20^{}\psi 180^o`$ the proximity of all particles at the same time instant is checked. If a particle is found within a radius $`\sigma +\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$, whose velocity also satisfy Eq. (2) it is considered as a candidate for a collision. To assure that re-collisions are not occurring, we maintain a record of the identity of the previous collision partner. We then ensure that those particles can re-collide if and only if the partner particle has undergone a collision with yet a third particle. If particles pass these requirements then a collision has occurred. To extend the algorithm to include collisions with the boundary walls we first check if Eq. (2) is satisfied. We then check if the particle’s center is within $`\sigma +\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ of a boundary and it’s velocity component perpendicular to the wall is reversed.

### III.3 Coefficient of Restitution

The loss of energy in a collision is given by the coefficient of restitution. Two particles that undergo an inelastic collision with a relative velocity between particles $`𝐯_{12}=𝐯_1𝐯_2`$, will obey the reflection law $`𝐯_{12}^{}\widehat{\sigma }=\alpha 𝐯_{12}\widehat{\sigma }`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the normal component of the restitution coefficient and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is the unit vector connecting the centers of the particles.

Having an efficient method for collision identification, we are able to measure the relative velocities of two particles before and after collision events. The coefficient of normal restitution during a binary collision is given by

$$\alpha =\frac{(\overline{𝐯}_{12}^{}\widehat{\sigma })}{(\overline{𝐯}_{12}\widehat{\sigma })},$$
(3)
where the over-bar denotes average over three pre/post-collisional velocities measured in the ROI described above \[see Fig. 1(b)\]. The angle between the relative velocities of two colliding particles is given by

$$\theta =\mathrm{cos}^1(\overline{𝐯}_{12}\overline{𝐯}_{12}^{}).$$
(4)
Thus we can characterize the coefficient of restitution as a function of $`\theta `$. The probability distributions $`P(\alpha )`$ for $`60^{}\theta 180^{}`$ for each $`N_l\beta `$, are shown in Fig. 4(a–f). Data for $`\theta <60^{}`$ suffers from a lack of statistics and therefore is not included. Each graph represents the probability of the inelasticity having a value $`\alpha `$ for a range of $`\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =2^{}`$. $`P(\alpha )`$ follows a very broad distribution of values over all $`\theta `$, and have a decreasing mean value as function of $`\varphi `$ \[see Fig. 5(a)\]. Thus we find that the coefficient of restitution can have a broad distribution of values for the same impact angle.

We also measured the energy loss due to a collision as a function of $`N_l\beta `$. The ratio of the magnitudes of the relative velocities before and after a collision,

$$\eta =\frac{|\overline{𝐯}_{12}^{}|}{|\overline{𝐯}_{12}|},$$
(5)
determines the energy restitution coefficient, ($`\eta ^2=\alpha ^2`$ if all $`\theta `$ are averaged). Figure 5(b) shows the distributions of measured values of $`\eta `$ shifted for clarity. We find that a peak exists at a value that is consistent with $`\alpha ^2`$. Furthermore there exists a power law tail for values of $`\eta >1`$, which has been interpreted as a random inelasticity Barrat and Trizac (2002a). The appearance of a tail at high $`\eta `$ implies that the rotational degrees of freedom are actively transferring energy to translational motion during a collision.

## IV Results

### IV.1 Distributions of Paths and Times

We measure the distribution of paths lengths from the the geometric distance between collision events defined in our ROI at each $`N_l\beta `$ \[Fig. 6(a–f)\]. By basic kinetic theory arguments Hecht (1998), the distribution of path lengths for an elastic hard-sphere gas (and by a similar treatment the distribution of free times) is given by,

$$P(l)=(2\sqrt{2}\varphi )e^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi l}.$$
(6)
The distribution therefore should follow a simple exponential form depending only on the density. However it is clear from the dashed lines in Fig. 6(a–f) that the simple form given by Eq. (6) does not describe the behavior over all $`l`$.

The distributions of times between collisions $`P(\tau )`$ \[Fig. 7(a–f)\] is also measured and shows similar behavior to that of the path length distributions, that is an overpopulation of the short time bins. This should be expected from the simple relationship between the displacement and the time. However, it is noteworthy to mention that the ratio of $`l/\tau `$ versus the path length $`l`$, is not a constant over all values of $`l`$, implying that the average speed of the system depends on the distance or time between collisions.

Elastic hard spheres will have a mean free path that is simply $`\overline{l}=\overline{v}\overline{\tau }`$, where $`\overline{v}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }`$ are the average speed and collision time respectively. Also, the mean free path can be derived directly from the distribution of path lengths, $`\overline{l}=_0^{\mathrm{}}lP(l)𝑑l`$, where $`P(l)`$ is given by Eq. 6. Grossman et al. Grossman et al. (1997) have interpolated how the mean free path for a granular system should be modified to account for higher collision rates due to increased density. Although the interpolation gives a qualitatively accurate correction for passing between the high and low density limits, the actual distribution of path lengths has not been measured or calculated for a granular gas.

We have found an empirical form that well describes the measured distributions of path lengths and free times,

$`P(l)`$ $`=`$ $`a(l)^be^{cl}`$ (7a)
$`P(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`a(\tau )^be^{c\tau }`$ (7b)
where $`a,b,c`$ for the path lengths and free times are shown in Table 2 for all $`N_l\beta `$. This form appears to capture both the short $`l`$ and $`\tau `$ power-law behavior. In the dilute case the form returns to the theoretical prediction for larger path lengths.

From the distribution of path lengths and free times, we calculate the mean free path and time by utilizing the fitting form and it’s parameters. The ratio of the mean free path to the mean collision time should determine the average speed $`\overline{v}`$ in the ROI where the distributions are measured. We have taken the ratios of the integrated distributions,

$$\overline{v}=\frac{\overline{l}}{\overline{\tau }}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}lP(l)𝑑l}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\tau P(\tau )𝑑\tau },$$
(8)
and compared that to the average of the speed distribution $`v_{x,y}`$ in the same ROI. Figure 8 the both measurements for all $`N_l\beta `$. The agreement is within $`10\%`$ over the entire range of $`N_l\beta `$ indicating that the proposed forms in Eqs. (7a,b) quantitatively capture the behavior of the distributions.

### IV.2 Velocity Autocorrelation

The velocity autocorrelation function (VAF) is computed for the $`x`$ components of the velocities within an ROI by using the following Allen and Tildesley (1996):

$$C_v(t)=\frac{1}{N_pN_st_{max}}\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{N_p,N_s}{}}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t=1}{\overset{t_{max}}{}}𝐯_{ij}(t_o)𝐯_{ij}(t_o+\mathrm{\Delta }t)$$
(9)
where, $`N_s`$ is the total number of data sets, $`N_p`$ is the number of particles and $`t_{max}`$ is the total number of time origins. Figure 9(a), shows the measured values of the VAF normalized by $`𝐯(0)^2`$ in our system.

In simulations of hard sphere fluids, Alder and Wainwright Wainwright (1967) first found that the form for the VAF was strongly depended on the density of the system. For very low densities the the characteristic form of the correlation function was given simply by

$$C_v(t)=𝐯(0)^2e^{t/\tau _E},$$
(10)
where $`\tau _E`$ is the Enskog collision time. If the density of the system is increased however, the form of Eq. (10) breaks down and $`C_v(t)`$ can become negative with long range tails due to the caging of particles by their neighbors. We find, that the lowest density case becomes, and remains negatively correlated after the decay from $`𝐯(0)^2`$ \[Fig 9(a)\]. This appears to be in contradiction with Ref. Wainwright (1967) but is due to a finite size effect. That is, the particles are interacting frequently with the side-walls at low densities, which reverse the sign of velocity vectors, thus leading to the observed anti-correlation. The predominance of the sidewall interactions are screened for the intermediate densities due to the increased number of particle-particle collisions, therefore no anti-correlations are observed.

### IV.3 Mean Square Displacement

To determine the mean square displacement of the $`x`$-component of the particle positions \[Fig 9(b)\], by using the sequential time zeros for each trajectory Allen and Tildesley (1996) given by

$$C_{x^2}(t)=\frac{1}{N_pN_st_{max}}\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{N_p,N_s}{}}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t=1}{\overset{t_{max}}{}}|𝐱_{ij}(t_o)𝐱_{ij}(t_o+\mathrm{\Delta }t)|^2.$$
(11)
Where $`N_s`$ is the total number of data sets, $`N_p`$ is the number of particles and $`t_{max}`$ is the total number of time origins. For these measurements, the ROI is allowed to increases in size along the $`y`$-direction as $`N_l`$ decreases. We have chosen to make this increase to ensure that particles at low $`N_l`$ have had the opportunity to undergo a collision while under consideration.

The long time behavior of $`C_{x^2}`$ for each $`N_l\beta `$ \[Fig. 9(b)\], displays linear dependence on time, indicating diffusive behavior. However for $`N_l=1`$, $`C_{x^2}`$ clearly shows a crossing from one linear regime to another, which may be a possible indication of finite system size for low density. For short times, \[Fig. 9(b)Inset\] the behavior is ballistic as indicated by the quadratic increase of $`C_{x^2}`$ in time. As $`N_l`$ is increased, the range of the ballistic regime dramatically decreases indicating a decrease in the Enskog collision time $`\tau _E`$. The ballistic and diffusive regimes are consistent with what is expected for kinetic theory of elastic, finite-sized particles.

### IV.4 Self-Diffusion

The self diffusion constant $`D`$, can be determined for a system of particles by either evaluating the time integral of the velocity autocorrelation function,

$$D=_0^{\mathrm{}}C_v(t)𝑑t,$$
(12)
or using the relationship between the mean square displacement of the particles and time over long times,

$$D=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2dt}C_{x^2}(t),$$
(13)
where $`d`$ is spatial dimension. From kinetic theory Hecht (1998), the diffusion constant of a two dimensional gas is calculated as:

$$D=\frac{\sigma }{8\varphi g(\sigma )}\left(\frac{\pi T}{m}\right)^{1/2}$$
(14)
where, $`g(\sigma )`$ is the radial correlation function at contact Henderson (1975) given by,

$$g(r=\sigma )=\frac{167\varphi }{16(1\varphi )^2}.$$
(15)
By numerically integrating the curves in Fig. 9(a), and performing a least squares fit to the data in Fig. 9(b) after the ballistic regime, we obtain the self-diffusion constant \[see Fig. 9(c)\]. We find that the values for the self-diffusion from Eqs. (12,13) are self consistent. The solid line in Fig. 9(c) shows the form of Eq. (14) with the temperature $`T`$ given by the granular temperature. The granular temperature is defined by

$$T_{x,y}=\frac{1}{2}m[v_x^2+v_y^2],$$
(16)
where, $`m`$ is the mass of the particles and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote averages over the component distributions \[see Sec. IV.5\]. The other constants in Eq. 14 are determined from system parameters. The theory for the diffusion of elastic particles, given by Eq. (14) closely matches our results all $`\varphi `$. Thus we show that the effects of inelasticity on the self-diffusion are small.

### IV.5 Velocity Distributions

The distribution of the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-components of the particle velocities are plotted in Figs. 1012(a–f). The distributions correspond to velocities that are measured within a region of interest. The ROI is defined by making a narrow slice across the $`y`$-direction that is centered upon the peak in $`\rho (y)`$ while excluding particles lying within a distance of $`3\sigma `$ from the side walls. We utilize this ROI to ensure that large gradients in $`\rho (y)`$, and the clustering produced by the side-walls, do not affect the measured VDFs. Each distribution correspond to $`2\times 10^6`$ unique velocities that are found within our ROI.

The velocities of elastic particles follow a distribution given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann form,

$$P(𝐯)=(2\pi k_BT)^{d/2}e^{𝐯^2/2k_BT}$$
(17)
where, $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system and $`T`$ is the temperature of the heat bath that the system is in contact with. Hence, if a system of particles is at equilibrium, its temperature determined by the width of the distribution of particle velocities. Equation (17) is fit to the data for the $`x`$-components of the velocities, and is shown on both linear and logarithmic scales \[Fig. 10,11\]. We observe that the form given by Eq. (17) displays deviations both at low and high velocities. The distributions of velocities are normally displayed in a log-linear fashion to accentuate the tails of the VDF, however this suppresses the deviations at low velocities. By plotting the distributions on a linear scale we display the more statistically significant deviations from Eq. (17).

In a recent experimental work Rouyer and Menon (2000), a two dimensional collection of particles is driven into a steady state. Using analysis techniques that are similar to ours, the authors proposed a governing form for the VDF given by

$$R(𝐯)=Ae^{B|𝐯_x/T_x|^{1.5}},$$
(18)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants and $`T_x`$ is the $`x`$-component of the granular temperature defined in Eq. (16). They claim to have seen a universal VDF which they parameterized by a single value, regardless of the system density or the value of the inelasticity of the particles. From our VDFs, whose corresponding densities range over an order of magnitude and where the average inelasticity varies by nearly a factor of two, we cannot find any single parameter fit that describes the overall form.

The VDFs for the $`y`$ components, $`P(𝐯_y)`$ versus $`𝐯_y`$ for each $`N_l\beta `$ in our ROI are also measured \[see Fig. 12(a–f)\]. The VDFs are highly skewed by the asymmetry in the driving against the direction of gravity. To identify the effects that the asymmetry in $`P(𝐯_y)`$ has upon $`P(𝐯_x)`$, we have separated the $`𝐯_x`$ distributions by the sign of $`𝐯_y`$, i.e. $`P(𝐯_x|+𝐯_y;𝐯_y)`$. We have found that the form for these conditional distributions are not affected by the sign of $`𝐯_y`$, however we do note that their widths differ, with $`𝐯_x_{+𝐯_y}<𝐯_x_{𝐯_y}`$.

We also measure the $`x`$-component of the granular temperature $`T_x`$ \[see Eq. (16)\], to probe the scaling behavior of the velocity distributions. Figure 13(a) shows the measured granular temperature as a function of distance from the driving wall. At low densities ($`N_l2`$), $`T_x(y)`$ initially increases and then decays. In contrast, for ($`N_l3`$), $`T_x(y)`$ has a distinct minimum. We note that $`T_x(y)`$ never reaches a constant value and the minimum (maximum) does not correspond to the peak in $`\rho (y)`$.

To further show the non-universality of the VDFs, we plot the kurtosis as a function of distance from the driving wall. The kurtosis is obtained by the following:

$$\gamma =\frac{v_x^4}{v_x^2^2}.$$
(19)
If the velocity distribution is a Gaussian then $`\gamma =3`$, shown by the solid line in Figure 13(b), and if the distribution is given by Eq. (18) then $`\gamma =3.576`$. We find that the the measured values for $`\gamma `$ exceed the value for a Gaussian and also vary as a function of distance from the driving. This analysis is consistent with our previous results Blair and Kudrolli (2001) and recent MD simulations of Brey and Ruiz-Montero Brey and Ruiz-Montero (2002) that closely mimic our experiment.

### IV.6 Equation of State

The equation of state for ideal gases relates the pressure to the temperature and the density,

$$P=nk_BT,$$
(20)
where $`n`$ is the number density and $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. If we assume that kinetic theory is valid for a granular gas, we can immediately relate the average squared speed, $`v^2`$ of the particles to the temperature,

$$mv^2=k_BT,$$
(21)
for each degree of freedom. Figure 14(a) shows the pressure, $`P=\frac{nm}{2}v_y^2`$ as a function of distance from the driving wall. Due to the effects of gravity on the particles, the density should follow the well known atmospheric law,

$$\rho (y)=\rho _0e^{mgy/T_y},$$
(22)
which assumes a constant temperature. We find that the temperature is not constant for any $`N_l\beta `$ \[see Fig. 13\]. This is also consistent with our observations of the density distributions in Sec. III.1 where $`\rho (y)`$ deviates from the form of Eq. (22).

Momentum balance implies that the gradient of the pressure is related to $`n`$ by the following equation:

$$\frac{dP}{dy}=nmg$$
(23)
where, $`m`$ is the mass of a particle and $`g`$ is the acceleration of gravity. Due to the non-vanishing gradient of temperature the general form of the pressure gradient must be taken into account

$$\frac{dP}{dy}=T_y\frac{dn}{dy}+n\frac{dT_y}{dy}.$$
(24)
We find that Eq. (24) is indistinguishable from the numerical derivative of $`d(nT_y)/dy`$.

We have measured the pressure gradient acting on a particle held at a particular $`y`$ by evaluating,

$$\left(\frac{T_y}{nm}\right)\frac{d(nT_y)}{dy}=g^{},$$
(25)
where $`g^{}=\frac{5}{7}g\mathrm{sin}(\beta )`$. Figure 14(b) shows the LHS of Eq. (25) for $`\beta =2`$, and Fig. 14(c) for $`\beta =4`$. The solid lines correspond to the values of $`g^{}`$ with $`\beta =2,4`$ found by utilizing Eq. (1) and the data in Fig. 2(b). We find that the measured values systematically overestimate the actual values for $`g^{}`$ in the region where the density reaches it’s maximum. Our interpretation assumes a dilute gas, therefore the deviations near the peak in $`\rho (y)`$ are not surprising.

To incorporate the effects due to increased density, we have obtained the pressure from the interpolated equation of state derived by Grossman et al. Grossman et al. (1997):

$$P=nT_y\frac{n_c+n}{n_cn}$$
(26)
where, $`n_c`$ is the close packing number density. Utilizing Eq. 26 to calculate the gradient of the pressure \[Eq. (23)\]. However, we find that the disagreement persists between the LHS of Eq. (25) and the measured value of $`g^{}`$ near the peak in $`\rho (y)`$.

## V Summary and conclusion

In this paper we have presented a statistical analysis of an inelastic gas that is constrained to two dimensions. Utilizing high speed digital image processing we perform long time tracking over a broad range of densities. Not surprisingly, we observe that the statistical properties of inelastic gases deviate from expectations of the kinetic theory for smooth elastic particles. The most apparent discrepancies are found in the distribution of free paths and times and the distribution of particle velocities.

To characterize our system we measure the effective coefficient of restitution from the relative pre- and post-collision velocities of particles undergoing binary collisions. We find that the normal component of restitution and the energy inelasticity are not single-valued, but have a distribution of values even for the same impact parameters. The mean value of the normal components of restitution systematically decreases with the system density. We also find that the energy inelasticity can take on values greater than unity, demonstrating a transference of energy from the rotational to linear degrees of freedom. In a recent numerical work Barrat and Trizac have measured the projected one-dimensional coefficient of restitution Ref. Barrat and Trizac (2002a, b) and the energy inelasticity. Their interpretation is that the coefficient of restitution and the energy restitution are random variables that characterize collisions, consistent with our findings.

The distribution of path lengths and free times are shown to have an overpopulation of the short distance and time bins. We have proposed an empirical form in Equations (7 a,b) which capture the overall behavior of the observed distributions of paths and times. By integrating these distribution functions, we are able to measure the mean free path and mean time. The average speed obtained from the speed distribution and from the mean free path and time are in close agreement. Inspired by these finding, Paolotti et al. Paolotti et al. (2002) have reported similar results for the mean free time in a simulation that mimics our system.

Particle diffusion constants are measured from two independent long time averaged correlation functions. The mean square displacement and the velocity autocorrelation function are calculated. By then performing least squares fitting and numerical integration to these quantities respectively, the self diffusion over a broad range in density is calculated. We find that the diffusion constants are similar to that of a two dimensional gas over this density regime. Therefore, long-time averaged correlation functions seem to accurately capture the diffusive properties of granular gases.

We find that the distribution of particle velocities perpendicular to the direction of driving does not have a universal form, but depends on both the density and the inelasticity. In addition, we find a distinct asymmetry in the VDFs parallel to the driving direction. We measure the granular temperature as a function of distance from the driving source and find non-monotonic behavior. For low densities, the granular temperature has a distinct maximum and for high densities there exists a distinct minimum. The temperature inversion at higher densities has recently been described via granular hydrodynamics by Ramírez and Soto Ramírez and Soto (2002). However, the crossover from $`T(y)`$ having a maximum (for low densities), to $`T(y)`$ with a minimum at high densities has not been discussed in any kinetic or hydrodynamic models.

By using kinetic theory and simple hydrodynamics we have tested the force balance between the gradient of the pressure exerted by a granular gas on a particle and the force due to gravity \[Eq. (23)\]. We find strong deviations in the regions of high density. A simple hydrodynamic form, that describes the behavior over all densities, is not yet available.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with H. Gould, J. Tobochnik, and A. Puglisi. This work was supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-9983659, and by the donors of the Petroleum Research Fund.


text:
# Evidence of Non-Zero Mass Features for the Neutrinos Emitted at Supernova LMC-’87A

## 1 Introduction

The explosion of a faraway supernova is an event quite suitable for understanding some of the most important physical features of neutrinos. After being produced, neutrinos pass through dense matter and therefore both their initial flavors and masses might considerably change. However, in their subsequent long journey through a good vacuum towards the Earth, no further interaction will practically occur, and their mass states will not change. If the masses of the three kinds of neutrinos are not zero and differ from each other more than order of eV, the wave packet of each mass state will separate from the others much more than the Earth dimension and there would be almost no interference between states of different masses. The detector can see all the three flavors for each separate mass group provided the neutrino energy is high enough. Therefore a complete knowledge of the basic features of neutrinos, i.e. the mass values and the mixing angles to all the flavor states from each separated mass state, could be obtained without too big uncertainty.

The explosion of Supernova LMC-’87A has been a lucky event, since it occurred at a distance of $``$ 200,000 light-years and the produced neutrinos arrived on the Earth in 1987, when three huge detectors, able to observe neutrino interactions, were already operative. Moreover, the distance is large enough to separate the neutrino mass states (provided these differ more than order of eV) and, at the same time, is not so large to make the statistics of the observed events too poor for a quantitative analysis.

The observations made at Kamiokande II , IMB  and Baksam  show an apparent disagreement with the theory: the number of the observed events is roughly one order of magnitude smaller, while the spread in the arrival times is about one order of magnitude larger than the values, both comparing to the values expected on a theoretical ground . Thus, the first disagreement indicates an explosion smaller than the predicted one, while the second indicates a bigger. This contradiction disappears if neutrinos are massive particles. In this case, a massive neutrino with a lower energy travels more slowly than a higher energy one and will arrive on the Earth appreciably later than the latter due to long distance the neutrinos must go through. In this way, the large spread observed in the arrival times could be easily understood. A further consequence of the assumption that neutrinos are massive particles is the fact that the plot of the arrival time of each neutrino versus the reciprocal of the square of the observed energy must show a grouping of the points along three different straight lines, whose slopes are proportional to the squared mass of each kind of neutrino (see sect. 5). The plot is given in Fig.3. It shows only two linear groupings indicating the mass values $`3.4\pm 0.6`$ and $`22.7\pm 3.7`$ eV. One could speculate on the reasons hiding the third mass value (or the third linear grouping). This mass could be close to one of the two observed mass values or the electronic flavor of the third neutrino could be so small to yield visible events. In the latter case its mass value is completely unknown and any positive value, including zero, is possible.

## 2 Discrepancy between expectation and observation by Kamiokande II

Due to the fact that the neutrinos arriving from Supernova LMC-’87A do not have a very high energy, their observation was made possible by detecting the electrons produced by the neutrino charged current interactions in the detector. The observed electron energy gives a good estimate of the primary neutrino energy while the neutrinos’ arrival times are measured with a precision higher than a millisecond. Therefore we have two well observed quantities for each event: the neutrino energy and the arrival time.

According to theoretical predictions, the Kamiokande II detector in Japan (3 kilo tons of water) should have observed, within a few seconds or less, nearly 50 events with energy higher than 10 MeV, with an average energy of $`1015`$ MeV. The real events observed at Kamiokande II were in total 12 with an average energy of 14.6 MeV, and only 7 of these had an energy higher than 10 MeV. Further, the total time spread between the first and the last observed events was found to be equal to 12.44 seconds.

Considering the lowest energy value (6.3 MeV) of the observed events as the detector’s threshold energy and the fact that around this energy the detector efficiency is still rather low, the real average energy should be lower than 14.6 MeV. It could likely be about 10 MeV, or even lower. The observed small number of events with energy greater than 10 MeV, where the detector’s efficiency should already be fairly good, indicates that the real supernova explosion was energetically less powerful than theoretically expected. On the contrary, the wide time spread of the observed events appears to indicate that the real explosion was much bigger, so as to have a longer emission of neutrinos. In fact, according to estimations, the majority of events were expected to occur within one second and only a negligible fraction was expected after a few of seconds (see Fig.1) .

The two discrepancies between the observed and predicted number of events and the observed and predicted spread of their arrival times appear to be contradictory. But, as already anticipated, this inconsistency is only apparent since it reflects the fact that neutrinos are massive particles, as it will appear clear in the following. In fact, while massless neutrinos propagate with the light speed and their time distribution does not change whatever the distance they go through, for massive neutrinos the time spread in the arrival times does no longer depend only on the spread in their production times but also on the time delay for traveling the distance Supernova-Earth. Thus, for each neutrino, this arrival time depends both on its mass and its energy, since the velocity of a massive particle depends on these two quantities.

## 3 Comparison of the Kamiokande data with that of the IMB and the Baksam

The Kamiokande II data can be compared with those observed by the IMB detector in USA and the Baksan detector in Caucasus, which have different threshold energies, because the time distribution of events does neither depend on the detectors’ working mechanism nor on their dimensions, responsible only of their statistical efficiency. The correlation between the spread time (i.e. the time difference between the first and the last arrived events) and the lowest energy of the observed events (related to the detector’s threshold) is shown in the following table and in Fig.2.

|  |  | The lowest energy(MeV) |  | Spread time (s) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kamiokande II |  | 6.3 |  | 12.4 |
| Baksan |  | 12.0 |  | 9.1 |
| IMB |  | 20.0 |  | 5.6 |

In Fig.2, for each detector the error bars were obtained using the differences between the observed lowest energy values and between the observed latest arrival times, respectively. The figure shows that the observed time spreads depend almost linearly on the threshold energies of the detectors.

Even if the neutrinos with lower energies were produced at the tail of the explosion interval, this fact could not explain such a big difference in the time spread due to the sharp fall off of events. The spread of the arrival times in the IMB detector, which cannot observe neutrino energy lower than 20 MeV, is nearly 6 seconds, nearly half of the value observed at Kamiokande II, but still much longer than the expected duration of the supernova explosion. Furthermore, in spite of its lower statistics, the Baksan data, collected with a threshold energy about halfway between the IMB and the Kamiokande II ones, give a time spread about halfway between the values obtained by the last two laboratories.

In the next sections, it will be shown that also this smooth change of the time spreads with the detectors’ thresholds is an effect related to the non-zero masses of the neutrinos arriving on the Earth.

## 4 Time delay of massive neutrino

Let us look now at the time delay in the arrival time of a non-zero mass neutrino in comparison to that of a massless one. If the mass is exactly zero, the time of flight for arriving on the Earth from the Supernova is the same for all the neutrinos. It is

$$T_0=L_{SN}/c=1.710^5years$$

where $`L_{SN}`$ is the distance of the Supernova from the Earth, and c is the light speed in vacuum. However if the mass m is not zero, then the time of flight is

$$T_m=\frac{L_{SN}}{c\sqrt{1(m/E)^2}}\frac{L_{SN}}{c}\{1+1/2(m/E)^2\}$$

The difference of these two values, i.e. the delay in the arrival of a neutrino with mass m in comparison to a massless one, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_m=T_mT_01/2T_0m^2/E^2$$

Numerically, a neutrino of energy 5 MeV should delay about one second if the mass is 3 eV and about 10 seconds if the mass is 10 eV.

## 5  Data plotted in the diagram: $`𝚫𝑻`$ vs. $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

The best way to see if such a mass effect exists at all consists in plotting $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, the arrival time delay of each event, versus $`1/E^2`$, the reciprocal of the observed squared energy. Before doing that, it is noted that the supernova explosion takes a finite (non zero) time. Thus the delay in the arrival time of the nth observed event reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_n=\tau _n+T_0m_\alpha ^2/2E_n^2,$$

where index $`\alpha `$ specifies the kind of the arrived neutrino and $`\tau _n`$ denotes the time when the neutrino was produced since the start of the supernova explosion. It should be observed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_n`$ increases with n and that it depends on the observed energy $`E_n`$ as well as on the mass - for the moment unknown - of the n th observed neutrino. Assuming that the distribution of the emission time $`\tau _n`$ is narrow, from the previous equation it follows that, in a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ versus $`1/E^2`$, the data points ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T_n,1/E_n^2`$) should clearly form a straight line with a positive and finite slope, if the neutrinos have a non-zero mass. In fact, the slope is simply proportional to the squared mass value of the neutrino. Moreover, if there are more than one mass state, in the diagram one should observe as many straight lines as the number of the different masses not equal to zero. If the supernova explosion takes a finite time, then the points ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T_n,1/E_n^2`$), relevant to neutrinos with mass $`m_\alpha `$, must lie inside a stripe delimited by two parallel straight lines with slope equal to $`T_0m_\alpha ^2/2`$. Noting that the $`\tau _n`$ distribution is the same for each mass group, because the explosion is the same for each mass state, and the intersection of each stripe with the time axis will also be the same.

In Fig.3 we report all the data observed by the three laboratories mentioned above. This procedure is quite legitimate. In fact, the different location of the laboratories on the Earth is at most responsible for a delay of a tenth of second, while the uncertainty in the time zero among the different detectors can be estimated in less than 2 tenths of second from the time separation in the arrival times of the first events at each detector. (Of course, these two uncertainties disappear if we confine ourselves to consider the data collected by a single laboratory.) It should be also noted that Fig.3 was obtained by setting the origin of the time axis at the arrival time delay of the first observed event. As a consequence of this choice, assuming the explosion instantaneous, each straight line will intersect the time axis slightly before the origin. Fig.3 clearly shows two well separated grouping of the observed events. Moreover, each group obeys the conditions required by the massive nature of neutrinos, namely:

1) a less energetic event arrives later than a more energetic one within experimental errors,

2) the events are well distributed inside a narrow strip close to a straight line,

3) the slope of this line is positive and is proportional to the squared mass of the corresponding neutrino,

4) the straight line intersects the time axis just before the arriving time delay of the first event,

5) the linear course grained distributions of the points inside each strip are similar for the two strips, and the intersections of the strip with the time axis are roughly less than 1 s.

The linear fits of the two grouping of the only Kamiokande II data, characterized by a lower energy threshold and a lower experimental error, yield the following two mass values

$$m_1=3.4\pm 0.6eV$$

and

$$m_2=22.\pm 4.eV$$

The data plot in this diagram two separated linear mass groups are very clearly visible. The order statistics applied to the relation between order of arriving time and that of its energy of the events, for the first and the second mass group separately, gives us both more than 90% confidence. However this statistics tests only monotone relation between two orders without discriminating two opposite sense of relations; in our case, physically good sense or nonsense (lower energy event arrives later or earlier). Adding this effect the above obtained value becomes as more than 95%. Furthermore taking into account the other physically necessary conditions; 1) not only monotonous relation in good sense but also the linear form in this diagram, further 2) the fact that this line should hit a little bit before the arriving time of the first event, and also 3) the consistency with all the other data obtained by independent apparatus, the confidence level should be very high.

Very rough time distribution of the neutrino emission at the Supernova can be easily obtained and shown in Fig.4 both $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ separately. The distribution for $`m_2`$ comes out very much wider. But two events far from the center of the explosion corresponding to a little before the time zero, one at about the beginning and the other twards the ending, have the time errors of several seconds due to the large observation error of low energy and also due to the large slope of the mass-fit line. Both events are the last arriving in the detector of KAM II. Taking into account this effect, the both emission time distribution are consistent as the same.

## 6 Discussion

The previous plot and the mass values obtained by its analysis deserve some remarks:

1) It should be noted the usefulness of plotting the delay in the arrival times of neutrinos versus the reciprocal squared energy. It is this plot that clearly shows the separation of the observed events into two groups. The precise determination of the arrival times and the $`1030`$% errors on the energies of the observed neutrinos allows us to fit the separate groups of events with two straight half lines which intersect the vertical axis near the origin. In this respect, the assumption that neutrinos are massive particles plays the fundamental role. On the one hand, it explains the separate groupings of the events. On the other hand, it also explains the rather large spread in the arrival times. Moreover, the energy distributions in the two groups of events look similar (see Fig.5 in Ref.).

2) For each group of events, consider now the deviation, along the time axis, of each event from the best-fitted straight line. The distributions of these deviations, that correspond to $`\tau _n`$ of the preceeding section, are also quite similar between the two groups and narrower than one second. The similarity of the distributions of energy and time deviation for the two groups of events is consistent with the fact that the neutrino of each event, produced during the supernova explosion with a well defined flavor state, generates well separated mass states after its long journey towards the Earth. Last but not least, the best fit of the two almost linear groupings allows us to determine the masses of at least two neutrinos (for the third neutrino mass, see the discussion in the next section) and not simply their mass difference.

3) It is important to combine in a single plot all the data collected by the three laboratories. It has already been explained the reason why this is legitimate. We stress now the usefulness of this procedure. The data collected by the IMB apparatus refer to rather energetic neutrinos owing to the high energy threshold of the detector. Thus, no wonder that the IMB data show only one grouping of these events so as to make the observation of two masses impossible. The data collected by the Baksam apparatus refer to neutrinos of lower energy. But, due to the small size of this detector, the total number (only 5) of the detected events is too small to make any mass effect clearly visible. However, this effect becomes clearly visible in the plot including Kamiokande II data. In fact, the Kamiokande II detector performed much better thanks to its larger size and to the enormous efforts made to purify the water of the apparatus so as to ensure a very good transparency to faint light (the Kamioka underground mine has a wonderful water spring that produces excellent pure water in enormous quantity, but this is only a small part of the excellent function of this detector) and it has a much lower energy threshold. In this way, the low-energy events detected by the Kamiokande II apparatus make the separation of the events into two groups quite evident.

4) The previous findings no longer require to assume that the duration of the supernova explosion is longer than predicted in order to explain the wide spread observed in the arrival times, and that a large fraction of low energy neutrinos is produced toward the end of the supernova’s explosion. Furthermore, an explosion of 10 s or more would make it difficult to explain the reason why the observed events lie within two different strips. On the contrary, the small time spread of the two bunches of straight lines in the plot indicates that the explosion lasted less than 1 s. A shorter explosion also agrees with the observation that only 7 events, instead of the expected 50 ones, have energy higher than 10 MeV.

5) The mechanism that could show particle mass in the method is extremely simple and fundamental rule in physics: the relation between velocity and energy of a particle that depends on only one variable, its mass. It is clear that the method does not depend on the initial condition of the particle at leaving from the source, but only on the observation of the particle on the Earth. Also often physical value and character of a particle appears in several different independent modes. In this case each result of all the different mechanism should be physically important.

## 7 The third mass

Neutrinos are expected to have three mass states as well as three flavors. Then, one rightly wonders why only two mass values are clearly visible in the reported plot. We are therefore obliged to speculate on the possible reason hiding the appearance of a third mass value.

1) If the third mass is zero and it interacts in the electronic flavor channel, it cannot escape from observation. In this case, the associated events should concentrate in a narrow group around the time of the first arrived event. This group cannot experimentally get lost. Thus one concludes that the existence of a massless neutrino with electronic flavor is impossible.

2) If we assume that the third mass is very large, e.g. around 100 eV or bigger, the arrival times of these neutrinos would spread over a time range wide several minutes or more. Then, it would be quite awkward to distinguish the real supernova signals from the background events. However, if the mass is so large, it should easily be observed through decay processes of charged leptons or in neutrino oscillation phenomena. In conclusion, the existence of a quite large mass neutrino appears unlikely.

3) The missing mass state could have a mixing angle of nearly 90 with the electronic flavor state (i.e. a very small component of electronic flavor state). Thus such neutrinos could hardly produce a visible electronic event. Moreover, the highest energy value observed for the neutrinos, arrived from the supernova, is 40 MeV, and energies higher than this value are quite unlikely according to theoretical estimates of the explosion power . Thus, this kind of neutrinos would hardly have enough energy to produce other leptons as a muon (105.66 MeV) or a much heavier tauon (1784.2 MeV) via other flavor channels. Therefore, in this case, any value for the third mass is possible, including the zero value. Besides, if such a case were true, the nearly equal number of events in the two mass groups indicates that these two mass states have roughly the same mixing angles with the electronic flavor state and therefore the maximum mixing would be favored.

4) The mass value of the third neutrino is fairly close to one of the two observed values (within a few of eV). Thus, either

$$m_3m_1$$

or

$$m_3m_2$$

The second possibility is favored by the recent results on the atmospheric neutrino oscillations, observed at Super-Kamiokande  by comparing the neutrino behaviors over distances of the Earth diameter, since the observed squared mass difference turned out to be about $`10^3(eV)^2`$.

5) It is also mentioned that some theoretical models on neutrino mixing predict only two observable mass states .

## 8 Conclusion

Neutrinos emitted from a very distant supernova, once arrived on Earth, could reveal all their physical features, as masses and mixing angles among both mass- and flavor-states, if all the flavors can be observed by the detectors and if all the three mass states are well separated.

In the case of Supernova LMC-’87A, however, it was impossible to get this full information partly because the only electronic flavor could be observed due to the low energy of neutrinos and partly because two masses only are visibly separated. Even though no information about the mixing angles among mass and flavor states can be obtained, this explosion was an extremely important opportunity to prove the existence of at least two massive neutrino kinds and to get a reliable estimate of their masses. This was made possible by the plot of the time delay in the arrival times versus the reciprocal squared energy of the events. The plot also showed the full consistency of the data observed by the three laboratories. For the third neutrino mass, one can only say either that its value is close to one of the observed ones or that it is not visible because the neutrino has a very small electron flavor.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Prof. Salvino Ciccariello, Prof. Ferruccio Ferruglio and Dr. Marco Laveder for discussions, comments and interesting suggestions on this work.


text:
# 1 Fit Values of 22 Observables

UCRHEP-T350

December 2002

Gauge Model of Quark-Lepton Nonuniversality
Xiao-Yuan Lia and Ernest Mab
a Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
b Physics Department, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA

## Abstract

We propose a gauge model where quark-lepton universality is an accidental symmetry which is only approximate, in analogy to the well-accepted notion that strong isospin is accidental and approximate. This is a natural framework for explaining possible small deviations of quark-lepton universality which is applicable to the recently reported apparent nonunitarity of the quark mixing matrix. As a result, small departures from quark-lepton universality are expected in $`Z`$ decays as well as in the recent neutrino data of the NuTeV collaboration and in future low-energy experiments. New physics is predicted at the TeV scale.

In the standard model of particle interactions, left-handed (right-handed) quarks and leptons are doublets (singlets) under the same $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge group. This has three important implications: (1) the observed weak-interaction strength of quarks is equal to that of leptons, i.e. $`G_F^q=G_F^l`$, (2) the observed weak-interaction strength of each generation of quarks and leptons is equal to one another, i.e. $`G_F^e=G_F^\mu =G_F^\tau `$, and (3) the charged-current strength is equal to the neutral-current strength, i.e. $`G_F^{CC}=G_F^{NC}`$, if the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken only by scalar doublets.

Experimentally, all seem to be in very good agreement with data, but as more precision data become available, it is theoretically desirable to have a natural framework for describing any possible deviations. We should use what we have learned regarding the validity of strong isospin, which is now understood as an accidental approximate symmetry because of the mass-scale hierarchy $`m_u,m_d<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and not because $`m_u=m_d`$ (or more precisely $`|m_um_d|<<m_u+m_d`$) as previously thought. We are thus motivated to propose that quarks and leptons couple to different $`SU(2)`$’s and $`U(1)`$’s with different coupling strengths, but their effective low-energy weak-interaction strengths will turn out to be independent of the couplings, and are nearly equal because of a certain mass-scale hierarchy of scalar vacuum expectation values, i.e. $`G_F^qG_F^l`$. This remarkable result was first obtained over 20 years ago  and applied to generation nonuniversality . Just as this previous proposal required that the $`\tau `$ lifetime be longer than the standard-model prediction (which is no longer supported by present data), our new proposal of quark-lepton nonuniversality requires that the neutron lifetime be longer, which is exactly what has now been reported .

This recent measurement of the neutron $`\beta `$decay asymmetry has determined that

$$|V_{ud}|=0.9713(13),$$
(1)
which, together with  $`|V_{us}|=0.2196(23)`$ and $`|V_{ub}|=0.0036(9)`$, implies the apparent nonunitarity of the quark mixing matrix, i.e.

$$|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2=0.9917(28).$$
(2)
However, if the effective $`G_F^{CC}`$ measured in lepton-quark interactions is smaller than that measured in lepton-lepton interactions, i.e. $`\mu `$ decay, then the above is expected to be less than one.

Consider the gauge group $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_q\times SU(2)_l\times U(1)_q\times U(1)_l`$. This differs from our previous proposals by the additional extension of $`U(1)_Y`$ to $`U(1)_q\times U(1)_l`$. Quarks and leptons are assumed to transform as follows:

$`(u,d)_L(3,2,1,1/6,0),u_R(3,1,1,2/3,0),d_R(3,1,1,1/3,0);`$ (3)
$`(\nu ,e)_L(1,1,2,0,1/2),e_R(1,1,1,0,1).`$ (4)
The scalar sector consists of two doublets

$$(\varphi _1^+,\varphi _1^0)(1,2,1,1/2,0),(\varphi _2^+,\varphi _2^0)(1,1,2,0,1/2),$$
(5)
one singlet

$$\chi ^0(1,1,1,1/2,1/2),$$
(6)
and one self-dual bidoublet

$$\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta ^0& \eta ^+\\ \eta ^{}& \overline{\eta }^0\end{array}\right)(1,2,2,0,0),$$
(7)
such that $`\eta =\tau _2\eta ^{}\tau _2`$. Each column is a doublet under $`SU(2)_q`$ and each row is a doublet under $`SU(2)_l`$.

Let $`\varphi _{1,2}^0v_{1,2}`$, $`\chi ^0w`$, and $`\eta ^0u`$, then the effective charged-current four-fermion weak coupling strengths at low energy are given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_{ll}^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2+v_1^2}{(v_1^2+v_2^2)u^2+v_1^2v_2^2}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_\mu ,`$ (8)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_{lq}^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{(v_1^2+v_2^2)u^2+v_1^2v_2^2}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_\beta .`$ (9)
Note that these expressions are independent of the $`SU(2)_q`$ and $`SU(2)_l`$ couplings and quark-lepton universality is obtained in the limit $`v_{1,2}^2<<u^2`$. The effective $`G_F`$ measured in $`du+e+\overline{\nu }_e`$ must now be smaller than that in $`\mu \nu _\mu +e+\overline{\nu }_e`$ by the factor $`\xi ^1`$, where

$$\xi 1+\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}.$$
(10)
Thus the apparent unitarity violation of the quark mixing matrix \[Eq. (2)\] can be explained with

$$\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}=0.0042(14).$$
(11)
This potential effect was already pointed out over 10 years ago , in response to a proposed model  where $`\xi =1`$ exactly, in which case there is no such effect.

Consider now the effective neutral-current four-fermion weak coupling strengths. They are given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_{lq}^{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2w^2}{(v_1^2+v_2^2)u^2w^2+v_1^2v_2^2(u^2+w^2)}},`$ (12)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_{ll}^{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2w^2+v_1^2(u^2+w^2)}{(v_1^2+v_2^2)u^2w^2+v_1^2v_2^2(u^2+w^2)}}.`$ (13)
This shows that the effective neutral-current $`G_F`$ given in Eq. (12) measured in low-energy neutrino-quark scattering should be smaller than the corresponding charged-current $`G_F`$ given in Eq. (9) by the factor

$$\frac{(G_F)_{lq}^{NC}}{(G_F)_{lq}^{CC}}=\left(1+\frac{v_1^2v_2^2u^2}{w^2[(v_1^2+v_2^2)u^2+v_1^2v_2^2]}\right)^11\left(\frac{v_1^2v_2^2}{v_1^2+v_2^2}\right)\frac{1}{w^2}.$$
(14)
Similarly, the effective $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ will also be shifted. We thus expect small deviations from the Standard Model in precision low-energy neutrino-quark scattering experiments such as NuTeV . On the other hand, the size of these deviations is constrained by the structure of the gauge model and is not enough to explain the recent NuTeV result. We will come back to this after we consider the precision data at the $`Z`$ resonance.

Let $`g_{1,2,3,4}`$ be the gauge couplings of $`SU(2)_q`$, $`SU(2)_l`$, $`U(1)_q`$, $`U(1)_l`$ respectively and define $`g_{ij}^2g_i^2+g_j^2`$. The electromagnetic coupling $`e`$ is then given by

$$\frac{1}{e^2}=\frac{1}{g_1^2}+\frac{1}{g_2^2}+\frac{1}{g_3^2}+\frac{1}{g_4^2},$$
(15)
and the photon in the basis $`(W_q^0,W_l^0,B_q,B_l)`$ is

$$A=e(g_1^1,g_2^1,g_3^1,g_4^1).$$
(16)
We now consider the following 3 orthonormal states:

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`e(g_{12}g_{34}^1g_1^1,g_{12}g_{34}^1g_2^1,g_{34}g_{12}^1g_3^1,g_{34}g_{12}^1g_4^1),`$ (17)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{12}(g_2^1,g_1^1,0,0),`$ (18)
$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`g_{34}(0,0,g_4^1,g_3^1).`$ (19)
The resulting $`3\times 3`$ mass-squared matrix is then given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(g_{12}^2g_{34}^2/e^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2)& (g_{12}^2g_{34}/eg_1g_2)(g_1^2v_1^2g_2^2v_2^2)& (g_{12}g_{34}^2/eg_3g_4)(g_4^2v_2^2g_3^2v_1^2)\\ (g_{12}^2g_{34}/eg_1g_2)(g_1^2v_1^2g_2^2v_2^2)& (g_1^2g_2^2/g_{12}^2)u^2+𝒪(v^2)& 𝒪(v^2)\\ (g_{12}g_{34}^2/eg_3g_4)(g_4^2v_2^2g_3^2v_1^2)& 𝒪(v^2)& (g_3^2g_4^2/g_{34}^2)w^2+𝒪(v^2)\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
Whereas $`Z_1`$ couples universally to quarks and leptons, $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$ will distinguish between them. The observed $`Z`$ boson is mostly $`Z_1`$ with small mixtures of $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$ of order $`v^2/u^2`$ and $`v^2/w^2`$ respectively.

Define $`rv_2^2/v_1^2`$, $`yg_2^2/(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$, $`xg_4^2/(g_3^2+g_4^2)`$, and consider the leptonic decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=\frac{G_Fm_Z^3}{24\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(1+\frac{3\alpha }{4\pi }\right)\rho _l[1+(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l)^2]$$
(21)
with the analogous expression for quarks, then a straightforward analysis  yields

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _l`$ $`=`$ $`y^2(1+r){\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[1x^2(1+r)^2]}{1+r}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _l2[1y(1+r)]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}2[1x(1+r)]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^2y[1s^2y(1+r)]}{c^2s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2[1x(1+r)]}{(c^2s^2)(1+r)}}[s^2+c^2x(1+r)]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}},`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l+s^2[1y(1+r)]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}c^2[1x(1+r)]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}},`$ (25)
where $`c^2=1s^2`$ and $`s^2`$ may be taken to be any one of the several $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ values measured in various ways (because their differences would be of higher order in the correction). Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _q\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l`$ shift in the same direction from $`Z_1Z_3`$ mixing but in opposite directions from $`Z_1Z_2`$ mixing. This allows for the possibility that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _l`$ are equal, but $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l`$ are not, or vice versa. Using the above shifts and the method of Ref. , we may then write down the deviations expected from the standard model for all the precision measurements at the $`Z`$ resonance .

In low-energy neutrino-quark scattering, the effective neutral-current interaction is given by

$$_{int}=\left(\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\right)_{lq}^{NC}\frac{1}{2}\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu \left(\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}\right)\nu \left[j_{qL}^{(3)}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq}j_q^{em}\right]_\mu ,$$
(26)
where

$$(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq}=\frac{e^2}{g_{12}^2}+\frac{e^2}{g_2^2}\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}\frac{e^2}{g_4^2}\frac{v_1^2}{w^2}.$$
(27)
Using Eq. (20), we obtain

$$\frac{e^2}{g_{12}^2}=s_0^2\left[1+\frac{c^2}{(c^2s^2)}\frac{1}{1+r}\left[\left(1[1y(1+r)]^2\right)\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}[1x(1+r)]^2\frac{v_1^2}{w^2}\right]\right],$$
(28)
where $`s_0^2`$ is defined as usual by

$$s_0^2(1s_0^2)=\frac{\pi \alpha (M_Z)}{\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}.$$
(29)
Thus the shift of $`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq}`$ from the standard-model prediction using precision data at the $`Z`$ resonance is given by

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2c^2}{(c^2s^2)}}[2yy^2(1+r)]+s^2(1y)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}`$ (30)
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2c^2}{(c^2s^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{[1x(1+r)]^2}{1+r}}+c^2(1x)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}}.`$
Using Eq. (14), we then have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(g_L^{eff})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r}{1+r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}}(g_L^{eff})_{SM}^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{10s^2}{9}}\right)(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(g_R^{eff})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r}{1+r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}}(g_R^{eff})_{SM}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10s^2}{9}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq},`$ (32)
as deviations from the standard model appropriate for the NuTeV measurements.

Parity nonconservation in atomic transitions is governed by the same effective low-energy neutral-current interaction. The shift in the weak charge is given here by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q_W=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G_F}{G_F}\right)_{lq}^{NC}(Q_W)_{SM}4Z(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq},$$
(33)
where

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G_F}{G_F}\right)_{lq}^{NC}=\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}\left(\frac{r}{1+r}\right)\frac{v_1^2}{w^2},$$
(34)
which is of the same order of magnitude as the experimental accuracy.

For neutral-current leptonic process such as $`\nu _\mu e\nu _\mu e`$, we use Eqs. (8) and (13) to obtain

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G_F}{G_F}\right)_{ll}^{NC}=\left(\frac{1}{1+r}\right)\frac{v_1^2}{w^2},$$
(35)
and the analogs of Eqs. (27) and (30) are now

$$(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{ll}=\frac{e^2}{g_{12}^2}\frac{e^2}{g_1^2}\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}+\frac{e^2}{g_3^2}\frac{v_1^2}{w^2},$$
(36)
and

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{ll}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2c^2}{(c^2s^2)}}[2yy^2(1+r)]s^2y\right]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{u^2}}`$ (37)
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2c^2}{(c^2s^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{[1x(1+r)]^2}{1+r}}c^2x\right]{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{w^2}}.`$
We now perform a global fit to all available experimental observables (22 in number) and obtain the following best-fit values:

$$\frac{v_1^2}{u^2}=0.00489,\frac{v_1^2}{w^2}=0.00238,r=10.2,y=0.0955,x=0.135.$$
(38)
Our results are summarized in Table 1. Details will be given in a forthcoming comprehensive paper.

We see that we are able to explain the apparent nonunitarity  of the quark mixing matrix and reduce the NuTeV discrepancy  while maintaining excellent agreement with precision data at the $`Z`$ resonance, except for the $`b\overline{b}`$ forward-backward asymmetry measured at LEP, which is also not explained by the standard model. In fact, the shift of $`A_{fb}^{0,b}`$ is given in our model by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{fb}^{0,b}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(A_e\mathrm{\Delta }A_b+A_b\mathrm{\Delta }A_e)=0.07\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q5.57\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l.`$ (39)
Because of the dominant coefficient of the second term, it measures essentially the same quantity as $`A_l`$ and there is no realistic means of reconciling the discrepancy of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{eff}`$ at the $`Z`$ resonance using $`b\overline{b}`$ versus using leptons in the final state.

The new polarized $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}`$ experiment (E158)  at SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) is designed to measure the left-right asymmetry which is proportional to $`G_F(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)`$ to an accuracy of about 10%. Using Eq. (38) and the standard-model prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.238`$, our expectation is that the above measurement will shift by only $`2.2`$% from its standard-model prediction. The new polarized $`ep`$ elastic scattering experiment (Qweak)  at TJNAF (Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility) is designed to measure $`Q_W`$ of the proton, i.e.

$$Q_W^p=\left[1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G_F}{G_F}\right)_{lq}^{NC}\right](14s^2)_{SM}4(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{lq},$$
(40)
to an accuracy of about 4%. We expect a shift of only $`+3.0`$%. Using Eq. (38), we see also that the scale of new physics, i.e. $`u`$ and $`w`$, is at the TeV scale. Specifically, using the best-fit values of $`r`$, $`y`$, and $`x`$, we find $`m_{W_2}m_{Z_2}1.2`$ TeV, and $`m_{Z_3}0.8`$ TeV.

In conclusion, we have proposed a natural gauge model of quark-lepton nonuniversality as a foil against the standard model for comparison at present and future precision electroweak measurements at both high and low energies. The natural reduction of the effective $`G_F`$ in lepton-quark charged-current interactions versus that in lepton-lepton interactions explains the apparent nonunitarity of the quark mixing matrix. Resulting shifts in other electroweak parameters are nontrivial, but a good fit to all precision measurements at the $`Z`$ resonance is still obtained, with a small reduction in the observed discrepancy of low-energy neutrino-quark scattering data with the theoretical expectation. New physics at the TeV scale is mandatory in the form of one new charged gauge boson and two new neutral gauge bosons.

The work of X.L. was supported in part by the China National Natural Science Foundation under Grants No. 19835060 and No. 90103017. The work of E.M. was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.