text:
# Hadronic production of light color-triplet Higgs bosons: an alternative signature for GUT

## I Introduction

The doublet-triplet splitting problem is one of the most serious problems in supersymmetric (SUSY) grand unified theories (GUT) susy-gut . In SUSY-GUT, the weak-doublet Higgs fields which are responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking belong to the 5 and $`\overline{\text{5}}`$ representations of SU(5). They are composed of, in addition to the weak doublet, the color-triplet under the gauge group of the standard model (SM). After the SU(5) symmetry breaking, the weak doublets would still be massless while the color-triplets have to be decoupled from physics below the GUT scale, $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, otherwise they may induce the proton decay in an experimentally unacceptable level through the Yukawa interactions to quarks or leptons in the SM. Most attempts to the doublet-triplet problem in the literatures have been focused on how to naturally explain the hierarchy between the weak doublet and the color-triplet Higgs boson masses after the GUT symmetry breaking DT-splitting .

An alternative approach to the doublet-triplet splitting problem, instead of requiring the triplet to have a mass of GUT scale, is to suppress the Yukawa couplings of the color-triplet Higgs fields to the SM quarks or leptons in order to preserve the proton longevity. Thus, no mass splitting between the weak-doublet and color-triplet Higgs fields is required. The natural scale of the color-triplet Higgs mass in this approach is the electroweak scale, say $`O(100\mathrm{GeV})O(1\mathrm{TeV})`$. Suppression of the Yukawa couplings of the triplet is possible via the following mechanisms.

* The SM fermion masses are generated from a higher dimensional operators involving the GUT Higgs field in the adjoint representation, the VEV of which can be arranged such that the Yukawa couplings of the doublets get the usual values while the Yukawa couplings of the triplets are zero Dvali:1995hp .
* The overlap of the wave-functions of the color-triplet Higgs fields with the SM fermions in extra dimensions are sufficiently small Haba:2002if .
* Another type of models is based on orbifolding in AdS space. By assigning different spatial parities to various components of the Higgs multiplet, the wave-function of the color-triplet Higgs fields are zero at the Planck brane, on which the matter fermions reside nomura . Thus, the excessive proton decay via the the colored Higgs boson is highly suppressed. In addition, the mass of the color-triplet fields is given by the warp factor of the AdS and naturally of a TeV scale.

We shall describe these models in some details in the next section.

The generic feature of these models to the doublet-triplet problem is the presence of colored Higgs bosons in TeV scale. In fact, this is an alternative novel signature to the conventional signature of proton decay, and can be tested in the upcoming LHC. It is then worthwhile to investigate the phenomenology of the TeV colored Higgs bosons in collider experiments at high energy frontier. In hadronic collisions, the colored Higgs bosons are produced via the glue-glue fusion and the $`s`$-channel $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation. On the other hand, it is also possible to produce pairs of colored Higgs bosons at TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders and $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders via the U(1)Y gauge boson exchange, but the production rates are suppressed relative to hadronic production because of the small U(1)Y coupling.

In this paper, we calculate the production and describe the detection of the TeV colored Higgs bosons in hadron colliders. As we already mentioned, the colored Higgs bosons do not have sizable Yukawa couplings to the SM fermions in order to suppress the fast proton decay. Thus, the only allowed production channels of the colored Higgs bosons in hadronic collisions are via the SU(3)C invariant interactions. The colored Higgs bosons have a distinctive feature that gives rise to a novel signature like a “heavy muon”. Since they have no Yukawa couplings and can only pair-wise couple to gluons, the colored Higgs bosons cannot decay into the SM particles directly. They may be able to decay into a gluino and a colored higgsino through the gaugino-matter interactions only if it is kinematically allowed, though. However, in our analysis, we assume that the colored Higgs boson has a mass less than the sum of gluino and colored higgsino masses so that such a decay channel is forbidden. This is a reasonable assumption because we expect the colored higgsino to have a mass scale as heavy as the colored Higgs boson. Therefore, the colored Higgs bosons produced in hadron colliders are stable, and will be hadronized into color-neutral massive particles by combining with gluons or light quarks. Statistically, we also assume that half of the time the colored Higgs boson will be an electrically-charged particle after hadronization. 111 The probability of hadronizing into a charged particle depends on the spectrum of the bound states of the colored Higgs boson with the light degrees of freedom. However, there does not exist any realistic calculations of the spectrum, and so we take the probability to be $`1/2`$. This is the reason why it will behave like a “heavy muon” in the detector. The novel signature will then be an observable charged track in the central tracking chamber and/or the silicon vertex detector and a penetration to the outer muon chamber – heavy muon. Taking into account of all these properties, we study the discovery potential of the colored Higgs bosons in the upcoming hadron colliders, the LHC and the VLHC.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly describe the three models mentioned above that allow light color-triplet Higgs fields. In Sec. III, we review the interactions of colored Higgs bosons and briefly discuss the indirect constraints. In Sec. IV, we discuss the conditions to detect the colored Higgs bosons. The hadronic production of the colored Higgs bosons and their detectability in collider experiments will be discussed in Sec. V. The last section will be devoted to a summary and discussion.

## II Models of TeV color-triplet

In this section, we highlight on three models that allow light (TeV) color-triplet Higgs bosons by Dvali Dvali:1995hp , by Haba and Maru Haba:2002if , and by Goldberger, Nomura and Smith nomura .

In supersymmetric GUT models, the Higgs doublets that give Yukawa couplings to fermions are accompanied by the color-triplet in the same multiplet. The color-triplet couples to fermions with the same Yukawa couplings as the doublet before the GUT symmetry is broken. That is why the color-triplet has to be extremely heavy in order to avoid the proton decay. However, the proton decay problem can also be solved if the Yukawa couplings of the color-triplet are suppressed relative to the doublet by a ratio $`M_W/M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, and thus the color-triplet needs not to be heavy and can be as light as the doublet. Imposing a specific discrete symmetry to forbid the lowest order Yukawa term $`\text{16}^\alpha \text{16}^\beta \text{10}`$, the Yukawa couplings of the doublet have to be generated via higher dimensional terms. Dvali Dvali:1995hp  constructed a higher dimensional SO(10) invariant operator

$$\frac{Y_{\alpha \beta }}{M}\text{10}_i\text{45}_{ik}\text{16}^\alpha \gamma _k\text{16}^\beta $$

where $`MM_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, the matter fermions reside in the 16, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are family indices, $`\text{10}_i`$ consists of color-triplets ($`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$) and doublets ($`i=7,\mathrm{},10`$), and 45 is the GUT Higgs in the adjoint representation of SO(10). This term can arise from tree-level exchanges of heavier states at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Taking a VEV for the 45 as

$$\text{45}_{ik}=diag(0,0,0,A,A)ϵ$$

where $`AM_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and $`ϵ`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ antisymmetric matrix, and substituting into the above operator, it is easy to see that the doublet gets a Yukawa coupling $`Y_{\alpha \beta }A/M`$ while the color-triplet has zero Yukawa couplings. In this case, the color-triplet would not cause any proton decay and thus can be as light as the doublet. Of course, the usual $`\text{16}^\alpha \text{16}^\beta \text{10}`$ Yukawa term is absent because of a specific discrete symmetry. Dvali was using a $`Z_2\times Z_3`$ Dvali:1995hp .

Another interesting solution to the doublet-triplet problem was recently proposed by Haba and Maru Haba:2002if . Although it is of similar spirit, the setup is however entirely different. Basically, in the setup of extra dimensions the proton stability is maintained by suppressing the Yukawa couplings of the color-triplet to matter fermions through the small overlap of wave-functions in the extra dimensions. They started with a SU(5) model in 5 dimensions with the Higgs doublets and triplets in 5 and $`\overline{\text{5}}`$, the usual SU(5) GUT adjoint Higgs field being assumed to localize on the brane at $`y=0`$ ($`y`$ is the coordinate in the extra dimension), and a pair of bulk fields in 24. Through interactions with the bulk fields (very similar to the idea of domain-wall fermions), the zeroth mode of the Higgs doublets are localized in a position close to the brane at $`y=0`$, where the matter fermions are confined, while the color-triplet Higgs fields are localized at a further distance from the brane at $`y=0`$. By varying the distance between the doublets and triplets, the Yukawa couplings of the triplets can be sufficiently suppressed to avoid the proton decay while the doublets can generate the usual Yukawa couplings to the matter fermions. Therefore, the color-triplets need not be heavy and can be as light as the weak doublets.

The third type of models is based on orbifolding. By assignment of different spatial parities (or boundary conditions) to various components of a multiplet, the component fields can have very different properties at the fixed points. Thus, it is possible to break a symmetry or to achieve the doublet-triplet splitting by the boundary conditions. In the model by Goldberger et al. nomura , they started from the Randall-Sundrum scenario randall : a slice of AdS space with two branes (the Planck brane and the TeV brane) at both ends. The extra dimension is compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. The hierarchy of scales is generated by the AdS warp factor $`k`$, which is of order of the five-dimensional Planck scale $`M_5`$, such that the 4D Planck scale is given by $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2M_5^3/k`$. The fundamental scale on the Planck brane is $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ while the fundamental scale on the TeV brane is rescaled to TeV by the warp factor: $`Tke^{\pi kR}`$, where $`R`$ is the size of the extra dimension. The model is a 5D supersymmetric SU(5) gauge theory compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ in the AdS space. The boundary conditions break the SU(5) symmetry and provide a natural mechanism for the Higgs doublet-triplet splitting and suppress the proton decay. The Planck brane respects the SM gauge symmetry while the TeV brane respects the SU(5) symmetry. The matter fermions reside on the Planck brane. By the boundary conditions the wave-function of the color-triplet Higgs fields are automatically zero at the Planck brane, on which the matter fermions reside, while the doublet Higgs fields are nonzero at the Planck brane and give Yukawa couplings to the matter fermions. Thus, the excessive proton decay via the color-triplet Higgs fields is highly suppressed, and the doublet-triplet splitting is therefore natural by the boundary conditions. The mass of the color-triplet fields (and the XY guage bosons) is given by the warp factor and is of a TeV scale, the same as the KK states of other fields in the setup. This model is very similar, in spirit, to the second model in suppressing the proton decay by a very small or zero overlap of the wave-functions, but the mechanism is more natural in this model. In addition, the mass of the color-triplet is also naturally given by the warp factor in the TeV scale.

## III Review of light colored Higgs boson

The two Higgs fields in the SUSY-GUT, $`H(\text{5})`$ and $`H(\overline{\text{5}})`$, are composed of the weak doublet and the color triplet as follows:

$`H(\text{5})`$ $`=`$ $`(H_C,H_u),`$ (1)
$`H(\overline{\text{5}})`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{H}_C,H_d),`$ (2)
where the weak doublets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are responsible for the up- and the down-type quark (lepton) masses, respectively. The color-triplets $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ could be as light as $`O(\mathrm{TeV})`$ via the mechanisms that we have described above. The price for the TeV colored Higgs bosons is the absence of the Yukawa interactions of $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ to the SM fermions. The colored Higgs boson couples to the gluon $`A_\mu ^a`$ through the following interactions:

$``$ $`=`$ $`ig_sH_C^{}\stackrel{}{}_\mu H_CT^aA^{a\mu }+g_s^2T^aT^bH_C^{}H_CA_\mu ^aA^{b\mu },`$ (3)
where $`T^a`$ is the generator of SU(3), and $`A\stackrel{}{}_\mu BA(_\mu B)(_\mu A)B`$. The interactions for $`\overline{H}_C`$ is the same as $`H_C`$ in Eq. (3). The production of the colored Higgs bosons in the lowest order is via the $`s`$-channel $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation and the glue-glue fusion, shown by the Feynman diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2.

In addition to Eq. (3) the colored Higgs boson also interacts with the colored higgsino $`\stackrel{~}{h}_C`$ and the gluino $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_s\left(H_C^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}^a}T^a\stackrel{~}{h}_C+\overline{\stackrel{~}{h}_C}\stackrel{~}{g}^aT^aH_C\right).`$ (4)
However, as we already mentioned, we have assumed that the colored Higgs bosons do not decay into colored higgsinos and gluinos because it is not allowed kinematically.

Is there any indirect constraints on the colored Higgs bosons from the high-energy experiments? Let us consider the $`Z`$-pole experiments at LEP1 and SLC where the radiative corrections to the gauge boson propagators and the $`Zf\overline{f}`$ ($`f`$ denotes quarks or leptons) vertices are severely constrained. The contributions to the gauge boson propagators are summarized by the $`S,T,U`$ parameters Peskin . It is well known that the SU(2)L singlet scalars do not contribute to the $`S,T,U`$ parameters Cho:1999km  such that the colored Higgs boson is free from the constraints. Since the Yukawa interactions of $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ to the quarks and leptons are highly suppressed, they do not contribute to the $`Zf\overline{f}`$ processes. By the same reason, there is no constraint on the colored Higgs bosons from flavor physics experiments. We, therefore, conclude that no indirect constraints are implied for the colored Higgs mass from current experiments.

We comment on the gauge coupling unification before closing this section. It is well known that the success of gauge coupling unification in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) could be preserved if complete multiplets of SU(5) (e.g., 5 or $`\text{10}\mathrm{}`$) are added to the spectrum of MSSM. When $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ are in TeV scale, there must be a vector pair of weak doublets in the same scale to form the 5 and $`\overline{\text{5}}`$ multiplets so that the gauge coupling unification is unaltered. The origin of the weak vector-like pair is discussed in both Refs. Dvali:1995hp  and Haba:2002if .

## IV Detection of Massive Charged Particles

The colored Higgs boson will hadronize into a massive stable particle, which is electrically either neutral or charged. Both the neutral and charged particles will undergo hadronic interactions with detector materials while the charged particle will also undergo ionization, through which the particle loses its kinetic energy (K.E.). Such a massive stable particle will have a high transverse momentum and a small velocity (or $`\beta =v/c`$). Furthermore, if it is charged it will penetrate detector materials like a muon.

First, we discuss the hadronic energy loss of a massive stable particle in the detector (both neutral and charged should have similar behavior.) Although it is strongly interacting, it penetrates the material with a very small loss of energy. This is because the energy loss in hadronic elastic scattering is negligible because of the small momentum transfer. In addition, the energy loss in elastic or inelastic scattering with nucleons is also small because of the huge mass difference between the massive particle (TeV) and the nucleon. Thus, the energy loss via hadronic collisions does not lead to detection of the massive particle. If the colored Higgs hadronizes into a neutral particle, it will escape the detector and undetected. The detection of colored Higgs bosons has to rely upon the charged state, which will be described next.

The energy loss $`dE/dx`$ due to ionization with the detector material is very standard pdg . Essentially, the penetrating particle loses energy by exciting the electrons of the material. The basic formula can be found in Eq. (26.1) in Particle Data Book (PDB) pdg . We shall ignore the small correction from the density effect. Ionization energy loss $`dE/dx`$ is a function of $`\beta \gamma `$ and the charge $`Q`$ of the penetrating particle. The dependence on the mass $`M`$ of the penetrating particle comes in through $`\beta \gamma `$ for a large mass $`M`$ and small $`\gamma `$ pdg . In other words, $`dE/dx`$ is the same for different masses if the $`\beta \gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ values of these particles are the same. In Fig. 3, we show $`dE/dx`$ for a wide mass range $`10^310^4`$ GeV as a function of $`\beta \gamma `$. For the range of $`\beta \gamma `$ between 0.1 and 1 that we are interested in, $`dE/dx`$ has almost no explicit dependence on the mass $`M`$ of the penetrating particle. Therefore, when $`dE/dx`$ is measured in an experiment, the $`\beta \gamma `$ can be deduced, which then gives the mass of the particle if the momentum $`p`$ is also measured. Hence, $`dE/dx`$ is a good tool for particle identification for massive stable charged particles.

In fact, the CDF Collaboration did a few searches for massive stable charged particles cdf1 ; cdf2 ; cdf3 . The CDF analyses require that the particle produces a track in the central tracking chamber and/or the silicon vertex detector, and at the same time penetrates to the outer muon chamber. The CDF detector has a central tracking chamber and a silicon vertex detector (the central tracking chamber has a slightly better resolution in this regard), which can measure the energy loss ($`dE/dx`$) of a particle via ionization, especially at low $`\beta \gamma <0.85`$ ($`\beta <0.65`$) where $`dE/dx1/\beta ^2`$. Once the $`dE/dx`$ is measured, the mass $`M`$ of the particle can be determined if the momentum $`p`$ is measured simultaneously. Furthermore, the particle is required to penetrate through the detector material and make it to the outer muon chamber, provided that it has an initial $`\beta >0.250.45`$ depending on the mass of the particle cdf1 . Therefore, the CDF requirement on $`\beta `$ or $`\beta \gamma `$ is

$$0.250.45\beta <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.65}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.26}0.50\beta \gamma <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.86}.$$
(5)
The lower limit is to make sure that the penetrating particle can make it to the outer muon chamber while the upper limit makes sure that the ionization loss in the tracking chamber is sufficient for a detection. We shall employ a similar requirement in our analysis that we shall illustrate next.

Here we verify that the lower limit on $`\beta \gamma `$ is valid for a 1 TeV charged particle with $`Q=1`$. We use the $`dE/dx`$ formula in PDB for Si (we choose the value $`I=2`$ eV for the illustration purpose.) We calculate the minimum value of $`\beta \gamma `$ for a singly-charged particle of mass $`M`$ to penetrate a silicon of a 5 m thickness (it is roughly equivalent to a 1.5 m of Fe because the density of Fe is 3.4 times of that of Si.) The calculation procedures are rather straightforward and described as follows. (i) The particle of mass $`M`$ starts with an initial $`\beta \gamma `$. (ii) Calculate the value of $`dE/dx`$ and let the particle penetrate for a step of 1 cm. (iii) Evaluate the remaining energy and calculate the corresponding $`\beta \gamma `$, which is then input to calculate the next $`dE/dx`$ in the next step (1 cm). (iv) Repeat until the $`\beta \gamma `$ goes to zero or the particle penetrates a distance of 5 m. If $`\beta \gamma `$ goes to zero before reaching 5 m, the particle does not have a complete penetration, else the particle completes the penetration. We show the minimum $`\beta \gamma `$ values for a complete penetration of a 5 m Si or equivalent vs the mass $`M`$ of the penetrating particle in Fig. 4. From the figure, the minimun $`\beta \gamma `$ for a particle of mass between $`50500`$ GeV is about $`0.180.44`$, which is consistent with the CDF requirement in Eq. (5). For a 1 TeV particle, the $`(\beta \gamma )_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is about $`0.14`$. Therefore, in our analysis we shall choose a conservative value of $`(\beta \gamma )_{\mathrm{min}}=0.25`$, and our final cut on $`\beta \gamma `$ is

$$0.25\beta \gamma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.85}.$$
(6)
Here we have chosen the upper limit very close to what CDF used cdf1 ; cdf2 ; cdf3 , because $`dE/dx`$ is almost independent of the mass of the penetrating particle in the range $`0.1<\beta \gamma <1`$ (see Fig. 3). Essentially, the upper limit ensures that the particle deposits a sufficient amount of energy in the central tracking system and the muon system for detection, beyond which the $`dE/dx`$ may be too small for detection.

Since the lower cut on $`\beta \gamma =p/M`$ is $`0.25`$, the momentum cut is $`250`$ GeV for a 1 TeV particle. Such a cut on momentum already makes it background free from $`\mu ^\pm ,\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm `$ together with the cut on $`\beta \gamma `$. Another configuration cut due to the detector (both CMS and Atlas) is

$$|\eta |<2.5.$$
(7)
We also assume an efficiency of 80% for each massive stable charged particle to be detected by the central tracking system and the outer muon system. This efficiency is in addition to the cuts on $`\eta `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$.

There were also some theoretical studies on search for massive stable charged particles, such as a light gluino as the LSP Baer:1998pg  and a scalar tau in the context of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking models Feng:1997zr .

## V Production at hadronic supercolliders

Pairs of colored Higgs bosons can be produced via $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ fusion. The color- and spin-averaged amplitude squared are given by

$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left|M(ggH_CH_C^{})\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^4}{128}}\left[24\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{t}_m\widehat{u}_m}{\widehat{s}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{s}m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{u}_m\widehat{t}_m}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{u}_m\widehat{t}_m}}\right)\right],`$ (8)
$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left|M(q\overline{q}H_CH_C^{})\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g_s^4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}m_{H_C}^4}{\widehat{s}^2}}.`$ (9)
In the above equations, we have defined

$`\widehat{t}_m`$ $``$ $`\widehat{t}m_{H_C}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (10)
$`\widehat{u}_m`$ $``$ $`\widehat{u}m_{H_C}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}}(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (11)
where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle and $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_{H_C}^2/\widehat{s}}`$ is the velocity of the outgoing Higgs bosons in the center-of-mass frame of the incoming partons.

The parton-level differential cross sections are then given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}(ggH_CH_C^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s^2\beta }{256\widehat{s}}}\left[24\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{t}_m\widehat{u}_m}{\widehat{s}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{s}m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{u}_m\widehat{t}_m}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{u}_m\widehat{t}_m}}\right)\right]`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}(q\overline{q}H_CH_C^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _s^2\beta }{9\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}m_{H_C}^4}{\widehat{s}^2}}`$ (13)
After integrating over the angle $`\theta `$, the parton-level cross sections are given by

$`\widehat{\sigma }(ggH_CH_C^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s^2}{\widehat{s}}}\left(\beta {\displaystyle \frac{5\widehat{s}+62m_{H_C}^2}{48\widehat{s}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_C}^2}{6\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{s}+m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{s}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}\right),`$ (14)
$`\widehat{\sigma }(q\overline{q}H_CH_C^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s^2\beta }{\widehat{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_C}^2}{\widehat{s}}}\right).`$ (15)
The above results agree with the cross sections of squark-pair production in Ref. Beenakker:1996ch  if only the $`s`$-channel process is taken into account in the $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation. Note that the expressions for the production cross sections of the $`\overline{H}_C\overline{H}_C^{}`$ pair are the same as the $`H_CH_C^{}`$ pair. If the mass of $`\overline{H}_C`$ is the same as $`H_C`$, the sum of the cross sections would be doubled. In the minimal SUSY SU(5), they have exactly the same mass. Even beyond the minimal model, since there is no particular reason why their masses should be very different, we simply take them to be equal and the results present in the following take into account both $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$.

In the calculation, we employ the parton distribution function of CTEQ v.5 (set L) Lai:1999wy  and the one-loop renormalized running strong coupling constant with $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.119`$. The total cross section at a center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ is obtained by convoluting the partonic cross sections in Eqs. (14) and (15) with the parton distribution functions:

$$\sigma (s)=_{4m_{H_C}^2/s}^1𝑑\tau _\tau ^1\frac{dx}{x}f(\tau /x)f(x)\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s}),$$
(16)
where $`\widehat{s}=\tau s`$ is square of the center-of-mass energy of the parton-parton scattering.

We show in Fig. 5 the production cross sections vs the mass $`m_{H_C}`$ of the colored Higgs boson at the 2 TeV Tevatron ($`p\overline{p}`$ collisions), at the LHC ($`pp`$ collisions), and in $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=50,200`$ TeV. The acceptance cut on the pseudo-rapidity in Eq. (7) has been applied. As explained above this acceptance is due to the coverage of the central tracking chamber. We have shown the cross sections at 50 and 200 TeV center-of-mass energies, which is, respectively, the lower and upper energy range of the VLHC. The VLHC (very large hadron collider) is another $`pp`$ accelerator under discussions vlhc  in the Snowmass 2001 snowmass . The preliminary plan is to have an initial stage of about 40–60 TeV center-of-mass energy, and later an increase up to 200 TeV. The targeted luminosity is $`(12)\times 10^{34}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

The next important distribution in our analysis is the $`\beta \gamma =p/M`$ distribution. We show the normalized differential cross section $`1/\sigma d\sigma /d(\beta \gamma )`$ vs $`\beta \gamma `$ for $`m_{H_C}=0.5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}`$ TeV at the LHC in Fig. 6. The majority of the cross section is below $`\beta \gamma 1.2`$ as the heavy colored Higgs bosons are produced not too far away from the threshold. Thus, the velocity of the Higgs bosons is not too large. It is obvious that the heavier the boson, the smaller is the average velocity $`\beta `$. We expect that when we apply the selection cut of Eq. (6) on the colored Higgs bosons, a majority of the cross section remains. We have verified that if we require at least one of the colored Higgs bosons for $`m_{H_C}=1`$ TeV satisfying the $`\beta \gamma `$ cut of Eq. (6), about 60% of the cross section remains.

Since we have assumed the detection efficiency of a track is 80% in addition to the acceptance cuts on $`\eta `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$, the combined efficiency to see two tracks would be $`(0.8)^2=0.64`$. In order to increase the efficiency we require to see only one of them, and the efficiency to detect at least one of them is then $`0.96`$. Therefore, if there is only one Higgs boson satisfying the $`\beta \gamma `$ cut in the final state, the detection efficiency would be 80%. While there are two Higgs bosons satisfying the $`\beta \gamma `$ cut in the final state, the detection efficiency for at least one of them would be 96%. Thus, the overall efficiency is more than 50%, which is sufficient for a sizable cross section. We show the final cross sections for various energies and mass $`m_{H_C}`$ with the selection cuts applied and efficiencies in Table 1. The number of observed events shown in Table 1 includes the following factors:

* a probability of $`1/2`$ that a colored Higgs boson will hadronize into an electrically charged particle;
* requiring at least one of the colored Higgs bosons satisfying the selection cuts on $`\eta `$ of Eq. (7) and on $`\beta \gamma `$ of Eq. (6);
* an efficiency factor of $`0.8`$ for each detected track (requiring to detect at least one track), and
* both channels of $`H_CH_C^{}`$ and $`\overline{H}_C\overline{H}_C^{}`$ production.

Since the search is background free, the discovery or evidence of existence for the colored Higgs bosons depends crucially on the number of observed events, which we choose to be 10 events. The run II with an integrated luminosity of 20 fb-1 at the Tevatron is sensitive up to about 400 GeV while the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 can probe up to about 1.5 TeV. The VLHC running at 50 TeV and 200 TeV is sensitive to a colored Higgs boson of mass up to 3.5 and 9 TeV, respectively.

## VI Summary

The presence of light color-triplet Higgs fields in TeV mass scale is an alternative signature for GUT, instead of proton decay. This is made possible through some mechanisms to suppress the Yukawa couplings of the triplets to the matter fermions. We have reviewed three possible models by Dvali Dvali:1995hp , by Haba and Maru Haba:2002if , and by Goldberger, Nomura and Smith nomura . The former used a discrete symmetry while the latter two used a setup in extra dimensions to achieve the suppression.

The novel signature of these TeV colored Higgs bosons would be like massive stable charged particles, “heavy muons”, producing a track in the central tracking chamber and penetrating to the outer muon system. Such a signature is background free and the momentum can be measured, which enables determination of the mass of the particle via the ionization-energy loss spectrum. We have demonstrated in details that we employed a reasonably conservative requirement on $`\beta \gamma =p/M`$ cut on the massive charged particle such that it can penetrate to the outer muon system and produce a charged track in the central tracking chamber.

We have calculated the production cross sections and the number of signal events of the colored Higgs bosons. We have taken into account the fact that only half of the colored Higgs bosons would hadronize into charged particles and an efficiency of 80% to detect a track. The number of observable events is increased by relaxing the requirement to seeing both colored Higgs bosons to seeing at least one. The Tevatron Run IIb may be able to discover a colored Higgs boson up to about 400 GeV if an order of 10 events is required for discovery. The LHC with an accumulated luminosity of 100 fb-1 is sensitive to about 1.5 TeV. The VLHC running at 50 and 200 TeV is sensitive up to 3.5 and 9 TeV, respectively.

A few more comments are in order.

* In this work, we have assumed that the colored Higgs bosons are stable. An alternative is that the colored Higgs boson decays into a gluino and a colored higgsino if kinematically allowed. The colored higgsino is the supersymmetric partner of the colored Higgs boson. This decay would also be phenomenologically interesting because the colored higgsino would be likely to hadronize into a massive stable charged particle because there are no other lighter particles that it can decay to, and the gluino would decay into quarks and squarks producing jets and missing energies.
* Since the colored Higgs bosons are stable over cosmological time scale, they have a relic density since the early universe. Our preliminary estimate of the relic density of $`H_C`$ is of order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{H_C}h^20.010.05`$ for $`m_{H_C}=12`$ TeV future , which is an interesting fraction of the observed cold dark matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.12\pm 0.04`$ at 95 % C.L. Melchiorri:2002sw .

## Acknowledgments

G.C.C. thanks NCTS for warm hospitality during his visit. He is also grateful to N. Haba for discussion. The work of G.C.C. is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No.13740149). K.C. is supported the National Center for Theoretical Sciences under a grant from the National Science Council of Taiwan R.O.C.


format: text

text:
# Cosmic Structure Traced by Precision Measurements of the X-Ray Brightest Galaxy Clusters in the Sky

## Abstract

The current status of our efforts to trace cosmic structure with $`10^6`$ galaxies (2MASS), $`10^3`$ galaxy clusters (NORAS II cluster survey), and precision measurements for $`10^2`$ galaxy clusters (HIFLUGCS) is given. The latter is illustrated in more detail with results on the gas temperature and metal abundance structure for $`10^0`$ cluster (A1644) obtained with XMM-Newton.

Galaxy clusters have been very important tools to study cosmic structure and determine cosmological parameters. Even moderately sized samples yield competitive statistical constraints, e.g., HIFLUGCS (Fig. 1), Reiprich and Böhringer (2002). However, accuracy is currently limited by systematic uncertainties. Luckily major improvements are now feasible, e.g., by taking advantage of new multiwavelength data and especially Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observations. We’ve started a project to tackle systematic uncertainties in flux, temperature, gas and gravitational mass estimates by detailed analyses of the 63 X-ray brightest galaxy clusters in the sky (HIFLUGCS). Many of these clusters have already been observed by Chandra and XMM-Newton. Data are accumulating in the archives. The first out of further nine approved Chandra observations proposed by us is being carried out today (2002-12-16).

The NORAS II cluster survey contains about 800 X-ray selected galaxy clusters (Böhringer, Retzlaff et al., in prep.). In order to test for systematic effects caused by different selection techniques — which must be well understood to obtain precise cosmological constraints — we started correlating the NORAS II clusters with the 2MASS extended source catalog (the latter shown in Fig. 1, Jarrett et al. (2000)) and color selected point source catalog. Furthermore galaxy overdensities at cluster positions will be determined in order to estimate richness–mass relations and mass-to-light ratios.

In the following we illustrate possible improvements from the X-ray side on an especially tough example. XMM-Newton observations of A1644 show a very complicated surface brightness distribution on all scales (Reiprich et al., in prep.). A main clump and a smaller sub clump are easily identified. The emission surrounding both core regions is highly non-spherical. And the core region of the main clump itself contains a displaced core-within-a-core. How much do X-ray flux, gas, and gravitational mass estimates based on precision measurements differ from simple estimates where, e.g., the whole cluster is treated as a spherical cow as might be done if only ROSAT All-Sky Survey data were available? How much do mass estimates differ when only a broad beam overall gas temperature estimate is available?

The X-ray flux ($`f_X`$) ratio between the main and sub clump is about 3:1. This means instead of one cluster in a flux-limited sample with $`f_X4\times 10^{11}`$ erg/s/cm2 one actually has two clusters with about $`f_X3`$ and $`1\times 10^{11}`$ erg/s/cm2 each. This is quite an important difference, especially for construction of luminosity and mass functions!

The intraclucter gas temperature is a fundamental observable for a mass determination based on the hydrostatic assumption. One first step of refinement compared to broad beam temperature estimates is the construction of radial temperature profiles for the main and sub clump. To our surprise we found that each of the two temperature profiles appears very similar to temperature profiles of relaxed, apparently undisturbed clusters: a drop in the center to about 1/2 to 1/3 of the ambient gas temperature, an isothermal structure in the outer parts, and weak indications for a slight temperature drop in the very outermost regions accessible. This appears to be good news: this cluster may not be as complicated as it seemed, the temperature structure may not be affected by the interaction of the two sub clumps (which are located at about the same redshift). Note, however, that simple broad beam temperature estimates would still be biased low compared to the ambient gas temperature due to cool emission in the dense (high emissivity) centers. For instance, the temperature estimate in a large annulus around the main clump — taken as the ambient temperature — is a factor of 1.1–1.15 higher than a broad beam temperature estimate including both clumps. Since $`MT^{1.52.0}`$ (e.g., Finoguenov et al., 2001) this factor translates into a factor of 1.15–1.32 in a mass estimate!

The next step we took is the subdivision of annuli into regular segments. Figure 2 shows selected regions as well as surface brightness contours overlaid onto a hardness ratio (HR) map. Preliminary temperature (metal abundance) estimates for the segments based on standard spectral model fits are shown in the left (right) hand side of Fig. 3. Now it becomes obvious that the apparently regular temperature profiles are misleading and only due to averaging over (too) large regions. The temperatures of the segments to the East of the main clump (R22, R24, and R26) are all significantly lower than almost all regions to the West (R27–R32). This may indicate that the gas in the regions between the two clumps has been heated up by adiabatic compression or even shocks.

Having found irregularities in the temperature structure a further step is to select regions based on the HR map to directly search for cool/metal rich trails (bright) or hot spots (dark). The significance of brightness fluctuations is again evaluated by direct spectral fits. Note that not all artifacts, e.g., inexact exposure correction close to CCD chip boundaries, have been removed in the HR map in Fig. 2. The spectral analysis, however, is not affected by this. The region to the South of the sub clump (R18) appears fairly bright and therefore soft, whereas a small region to the Southeast (R20) appears hard. The spectral fit results (Fig. 3) reveal that indeed the temperature estimate for R18 is significantly lower than the estimate for the rest of this annulus (R19) and especially than that for R20. Furthermore the metal abundance estimate for R18 appears enhanced. These findings together with the surface brightness structure might imply that to the South we see gas that has been removed from the cooler center of the sub clump possibly by the combined effect of some energy source related to the central galaxy of the sub clump (a radio source) and the movement through intracluster gas of the main clump. Should more detailed modeling confirm the significance of the abundance excess then other possibilities like cooling of intracluster gas onto the moving sub clump (as seen in A1795 on much smaller scales, Fabian et al. (2001)) would be more difficult to reconcile with the data.

In summary the temperature structure of A1644 shows that this system is quite complicated as indicated by the surface brightness structure. Interestingly no evidence for substructure has been found in optical and near-infrared observations Tustin et al. (2001). The next step is to attempt an improved mass estimate and compare it to more simple estimates as generally applied to clusters at higher redshift and in larger samples. Note that this detailed study required only 12 ks of good data. Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of the complete HIFLUGCS are quite cheap but offer a great opportunity for clusters in the era of precision cosmology. Comparison of cluster X-ray data to the wealth of new multiwavelength data, e.g., 2MASS, will also help to reduce systematic uncertainties.

We acknowledge the benefit from the dedicated work of the NORAS II and 2MASS teams. This work was supported by NASA XMM-Newton Grant NAG5-10075. THR acknowledges support by the Celerity Foundation through a Post-Doctoral Fellowship. The XMM-Newton project is an ESA Science Mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA). This publication makes use of data products from 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and IPAC/Caltech, funded by NASA and NSF.


text:
# Coexistence of ferro- and antiferromagnetic order in Mn-doped Ni2MnGa

## Abstract

Ni-Mn-Ga is interesting as a prototype of a magnetic shape-memory alloy showing large magnetic field induced strains. We present here results for the magnetic ordering of Mn-rich Ni-Mn-Ga alloys based on both experiments and theory. Experimental trends for the composition dependence of the magnetization are measured by a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) in magnetic fields of up to several tesla and at low temperatures. The saturation magnetization has a maximum near the stoichiometric composition and it decreases with increasing Mn content. This unexpected behaviour is interpreted via first-principles calculations within the density-functional theory. We show that extra Mn atoms are antiferromagnetically aligned to the other moments, which explains the dependence of the magnetization on composition. In addition, the effect of Mn doping on the stabilization of the structural phases and on the magnetic anisotropy energy is demonstrated.

Ni-Mn-Ga alloys have unique magnetoelastic and magnetoplastic properties, which make them highly interesting for many novel technological applications such as smart actuator materials nature ; aplications . The material properties are sensitive to the actual composition old . The best alloys to date are rich in Mn and poor in Ga with respect to the perfect Ni2MnGa stoichiometry. In particular, a shape memory alloy around Ni2Mn1.25Ga0.75 composition shows excellent magnetoelastic properties with strains of up to 10 % under moderate magnetic fields. Its recent discovery has aroused substantial experimental and theoretical activity interest . Typically these materials are produced by several techniques, such as directional solidification and Bridgman growth working , and one has also been able to grow them epitaxially on GaAs substrates substrate . Apart from the composition dependence, the ordering of the atoms in the different sublattices within the L21 structure, as depicted in Fig. 1, is not yet well understood. A thorough theoretical investigation of the phase equilibrium is also lacking, and many details about bonding and ordering in this system are not yet well understood ordering .

In order to facilitate a technological breakthrough, the magnetic properties of this material should be explored in detail. For the perfect stoichiometric case, experimental as well as theoretical works agree on the saturation magnetization of 4.1 $`\mu _B`$ per formula unit stoichiometry ; alloys ; variants . For Mn-rich alloys, it is expected that extra Mn atoms substitute Ga atoms in the Ga sublattice. The Mn atoms would contribute by 3.5 $`\mu _B`$ to the total magnetic moment as described in Refs. stoichiometry ; alloys ; variants . However, addition of Mn does not correlate with an increase in the overall magnetization, as shown in the experimental results below. Thus there is a serious difference between the experimental results and the expected trends. In this Letter we address this problem by a combined experimental and theoretical study.

Most of the alloys used to date have been developed with a metallurgical approach. In contrast, we use alloy theory in order to identify the phases variants , to understand the martensitic phase transition mechanism variants ; anisotropy+other , and to predict the possible candidates for future materials alloys . Here we show a nearly perfect agreement between theory and experiment considering magnetic order in alloying with Mn atoms. As a bonus we also provide a microscopic explanation for further stabilization of the martensite phases appearing at low temperature. Finally, we report the calculated magnetic anisotropy energy which deviates from the results based on the average electronic concentration.

The details of the experiments are the following. Various alloys with compositions close to stoichiometric Ni2MnGa were melted from pure elements and nearly single-crystal ingots were produced by a modified Bridgman method. The as-cast ingots were homogenized at 1000 C. The saturation magnetization is studied as a function of the composition. The chemical composition of the samples is determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). While the content of Ni remains as almost constant 50 %, the content of Mn spans the range between 19 % and 34 %. The magnetization curves are measured with a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) up to a field of 2T and with a SQUID magnetometer up to a 5T field. Measurements are made for several temperatures down to 10 K (see the inset in Fig 2). The spontaneous saturation magnetization is determined by extrapolation to the zero field limit from the magnetization measurements at 10 K.

For modeling, we use the generalized-gradient-approximation another ; lsd  of spin-density-functional theory. For the total energy calculations, we use both a full-potential method (FLAPW) Wien97  and a pseudopotential scheme vasp ; newPAW . As shown in previous calculations, the Mn magnetic moment is high, and we have confirmed the pseudopotential validity by comparing full potential calculations with pseudopotentials calculations. In this particular case, the pseudopotential treatment is valid as concerns the magnetic ordering and accurate enough for dealing with the main features of the structural phase transitions in these materials. The details of these results will be discussed elsewhere jussi . The substitutional and magnetic alloying is treated by replacing one Ga atom with a Mn atom in the 16-atom L21 supercell (Fig. 1), resulting in the composition Ni2Mn1.25Ga0.75. The magnetic moment of the extra Mn atom is allowed to have both parallel and anti-parallel alignment with respect to the other Mn atoms, collinearly ordered, and the total energy is minimized with respect to each magnetic configuration.

Fig. 2 shows the magnetization measurements of Ni2Mn1+xGa1-x alloys as a function of the average electron concentration measured by the electron to atom ratio (e/a). The temperature dependence of the magnetization (see the inset in Fig 2) has been measured at the field H= 2 T, which is larger than the saturation field. The saturation magnetization shows a peak at 7.5 valence electrons/atom corresponding to the perfect stoichiometric Ni2MnGa alloy. The magnetic moment has a value of about 4 $`\mu _B`$ per formula unit which is in agreement with previous experimental data stoichiometry  on stoichiometric Ni2MnGa as well as with the first-principles calculations alloys ; variants . The experimental data show that the magnetic moment decreases when the electronic concentration increases over 7.5. This finding is in agreement with the data in Ref. jin  which have been collected from several sources and show smaller values for the magnetization since the saturation is not well guaranteed. This is because measurements are made with either a low field or at high temperatures.

In order to explain the experimental results above and to gain insight into the precise magnetic structure, we present the following theoretical results. As a first step, let us analyse the magnetic properties based on the average electron concentration within the rigid band approximation. It is found that the Mn moment remains constant but the Ni moment decreases linearly with increasing electron concentration. This picture cannot therefore explain the experimental decrease of the magnetization when lowering electron concentration below 7.5. Also, the decrease of the magnetic moment per Ni atom is only 0.1 $`\mu _B(e/a)^1`$ which is smaller than in the experiments. When the extra Mn atom is included explicitly in the calculation, the configuration with *anti-parallel* alignment of Mn moments is energetically favourable as seen in Fig. 3. An analysis of the local Mn magnetic moment gives a nearly constant value of around 3.5 $`\mu _B`$ regardless of the alignment, so that the total magnetic moment has a value of 5.0 $`\mu _B`$ for the ferromagnetic configuration, and a value of 3.6 $`\mu _B`$ for the antiferromagnetic one. The latter value is in good agreement with the experiments.

The variation of the magnetization with the composition can be estimated with a simple model. As the extra Mn atoms couple antiferromagnetically with the neighbouring Mn atoms, every additional Mn atom decreases the total magnetic moment by 3.5 $`\mu _B`$. The total magnetic moment of Ni2Mn1+xGa1-x is then given by $`\mu _{total}=2\mu _{Ni}+(1|x|)3.5\mu _B`$ where the Ni moment $`\mu _{Ni}`$ is varied around the stoichiometric value 0.3 $`\mu _B`$ with the electron concentration according to the rigid band results. One should note that the variation of the Ni moment affects only slightly the total moment whose variation is determined mostly by Mn.

The linear fit of the experimental data agrees well with the line predicted by the theory, assuming a constant 50 % content of Ni error . The reason for the peak of the saturation magnetization with electron concentration around 7.5 as well as the decreasing trend of the saturation magnetization is identified here in a natural way. We can conclude that the Mn atoms substituted at the Ga sites are antiferromagnetically coupled to the Mn atoms at Mn sites. This finding can be reasoned by the tendency of close Mn atoms to favor an antiferromagnetic alignment, typical for several Mn compounds kubler . The interesting new feature here is the coexistence of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic Mn-Mn interactions in the same alloy.

It should be pointed out that during cooling the alloys undergo martensitic transformations, in some cases actually several intermartensitic transformations from so called 5M to 7M and to non-modulated martensite Oleg . For instance, in the inset of Fig. 2, an abrupt jump in the curve indicates the austenite-martensite transformation at about 305 K. During the transformation the saturation magnetization can change 10%, but the low temperature moment remains nearly equal as shown in previous calculations variants . The antiferromagnetic alignment is energetically favourable also in the martensitic phase (Fig. 3), so that the phase transitions do not affect the above conclusions.

We next discuss the existence of martensitic phases for the desirable compositions. In the stoichiometric alloy total energy calculations show two energy minima with tetragonal structures $`c/a0.94`$ and $`c/a1.3`$ variants . However, when the Mn-doping is modeled with the rigid band approximation the energy minimum at $`c/a0.94`$ disappears. In Fig. 3 we present total energy calculations beyond the rigid band approximation where the additional Mn is explicitly included. There is now a stable structure at $`c/a0.94`$ both with parallel and anti-parallel alignments of the extra Mn, but the antiferromagnetic coupling clearly stabilizes the minimum over the ferromagnetic case. When taking into account also orthorhombic distortions with the antiferromagnetically aligned extra Mn, we find a new energy minimum with $`c/a0.93`$ and $`b/a0.97`$. The energy of this orthorhombic minimum is between the two tetragonal minima, so that the theoretical order of the phases agrees with the experimental findings Oleg . We can conclude that the structural and magnetic ordering beyond simple electronic averaging is important in stabilizing some of the phases.

Another key property in magnetism is the magnetic anisotropy energy. Previously the composition dependence of the magnetic anisotropy energy has been analyzed by taking into account only the average electron concentration anisotropy+other . It is shown in Ref. anisotropy+other,  that the magnetic anisotropy energy decreases with increasing electron concentration in agreement with experiments. Since the doping changes also the local structural and magnetic properties we refine here the analysis and calculate the magnetic anisotropy with the extra Mn explicitly included. With average electron concentration corresponding to Ni2Mn1.25Ga0.75 composition the anisotropy energy of the $`c/a=0.94`$ structure is 50 $`\mu eV`$ per formula unit. When including the extra Mn explicitly the magnetic anisotropy energy is 150 $`\mu eV`$ for the ferromagnetic alignment and 100 $`\mu eV`$ for the antiferromagnetic one, where the last value is in good agreement with the experimental one of 90 $`\mu eV`$ Oleg2 . It is seen that even though simple averaging of electrons can reproduce the correct trends, the structural and magnetic ordering is important for quantitative determination of the magnetic anisotropy energy.

In conclusion, the magnetic properties of Mn-doped Ni2MnGa alloys are measured for several concentrations and calculated for those showing interesting magnetoelastic properties. Experimentally, we see that doping has a strong effect on the saturation magnetization. The computational results within the density-functional theory show that the extra Mn is antiferromagnetically aligned to the other atoms in the L21 lattice and a comparison of the experimental and the theoretical magnetizations confirms this picture. The ordering of the extra Mn is shown to affect also the appearance of the tetragonal and orthorhombic structures and the magnetic anisotropy energy. The main result of this work, the magnetic alignment of the extra Mn, could serve as an impetus for further works on the ordering issue. For example, the interaction of frustrated magnetic sublattices in Ni-Mn-Ga should be revealed by using sublattice-sensitive probes.

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland (Centers of Excellence Program 2000-2005), by the National Technology Agency of Finland (TEKES) and the consortium of Finnish companies (AdaptaMat Oy, Metso Oyj, Outokumpu Research Oy). O. Heczko thanks Miroslav Marysko and Milos Jirsa from Institute of Physics, Academy of Science, the Czech Republic for help with the magnetization measurements. Computer facilities of the Center for Scientific Computing (CSC) Finland are greatly acknowledged. We thank A. Foster for the careful and critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since 1928 up to now, following Ruark , who, for the first time, called the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ( HUR) a principle, HUR and it’s generalization, the Robertson- Schrödinger uncertainty relation ( RSUR), are commonly looked upon as the mathematical representatives of a general physical principle. This implies that these relations must be valid for all physical states. After a modern, resent ” which-way ” experiment in an atom interferometer of Durr, Nonn and Rempe in 1998  the discussion on the universality of the uncertainty principle is exploded again. Therefore, it is very useful to carefully reconsider the historical derivations of HUR and RSUR.

In this paper, it is presented the remarks, notes and conclusions after careful reconsidering all of the derivations of (i) Heisenberg equality ( Heisenberg 1927 , (ii) Pauli inequality ( Kennard 1927 , Weyl 1928 ), (iii) Heisenberg uncertainty relation for two hermitian operators ( Robertson 1929  ) and, (iv) Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation ( Robertson 1930 , Schrödinger 1930  ).

## 2 Theory

a) First, the following remarks must be emphasized:

1. HUR does not forbid two physical quantities, whose corresponding operators are even noncommutative, to have simultaneously exact eigenvalues. This is due to Condon  who remarked that in the Hydrogen atom states with orbital quantum number l=0 and azimuthal quantum number m=0, the x-, y- and z-projections of the orbital angular momentum may all be exact zeros at the same time, although their operators do not commute with each other.

2. Because of the speciality that their operators do not have any eigenfunction in L2 ( space of the square integrable functions), each of both position and momentum has no exact value, which is also the direct concequence of HUR . Hence, it is naturally redundant the statement that position and momentum cannot simultaneously have exact values, which often is looked upon as the uncertainty principle.
b) Second, we note that all the derivations implicitly contain superfine suppositions such as:

1. The physical operators are always hermitian.

2. In any normalized ( to 1) state the mean values of any physical operator are finite.

That is, namely, the necessary condition for the validity of the definition of the notion ”uncertainty”, introduced, for the first time, by Heisenberg for position and momentum in the Gauss wave packet case ( as a distance from the probability distribution maximum value to a value, at which the probability distribution decreases e times) and extended later by Weyl through the notion ”dispersion” in the probability theory.
c) Third, we point out some counter-examples which transparently show that 1. the physical operators are not always hermitian 2. the normalized state at which the mean value of the position operator is infinite and 3. the physical operators, whose mean values in the ground state of Hydrogen atom are infinite. They are following.

1. Consider a eigen-differential wave packet of a 1-D free particle. It is normalized to unity. Let it is acted by the operator ” position cubed ”. In acting on the obtained function the momentum operator is not hermitian.

2. Consider an eigen-differential wave packet of a 1-D electron in a constant homogeneous electric field. It is normalized to unity. At this state the mean value of the position operator is infinite. Hence, the uncertainty of the position cannot be defined. Then the statement (often called) of the uncertainty principle that the product of the position and momentum uncertainties much less than the certain (proportional to Planck ) constant, is meaningless.

3. At the ground state of Hydrogen atom, the momentum operators to the n-th power with n equal or greater 6, for example, have infinite mean values, therefore, their uncertainties cannot be defined .

While both the definition of the uncertainty notion and the derivations are valid for not-any physical state, RSUR and HUR cannot be recognized as a general physical principle; they might only be regarded as a ” directe anschauliche Erlauterung” (direct intuitive interpretation) of the commutative relation between the corresponding operators, which was the original Heisenberg’s point of view for the basic case of position and momentum .

While RSUR and HUR do not imply the principle, it is not surprised that the obtained results in the ” which-way” experiment of Durr, Nonn and Rempe have no relation with RSUR and HUR.
The above mentioned facts are explained by the theory of functional analysis as the following.

1. Since both position and momentum operators are unbounded, they can get out of L2 it’s vectors. Then the physical operators are not sure of being hermitian.

2. Since 1926, when Hilbert, in answering to a Heisenberg’s call, started investigating the mathematical foundations for quantum physics, after the half-century development of the functional analysis, the mathematicians obtained one of the most important results that is the following. The commonly defined expressions of mean value and dispersion of the hermitian operators are meaningful only with the condition that the mean value is finite. But, at vectors outside of Schwartz subspace of the Hilbert space the mean values are not sure of being finite .

## 3 Conclusion

1.RSUR and HUR are only two of the consequences of the current postulate ( axiom) systems in quantum mechanics, whose the foundation is the statistical-probability description. Namely, RSUR and HUR are consequences of the hermitian property of the physical operators and normalizability (to 1) of the wave function. RSUR and HUR cannot be recognized as a general physical principle because they are only meaningful for not whole physical states.
2. It is urgently necessary to make the following.

(i) To change the concept for the uncertainty notion and, consequently, the notion of the certain value, exactly measured value.

(ii) To improve the mathematical apparatus for quantum physics, namely, to use the rigged Hilbert space ( Gelfand triplet) taking into account the fact that both of the momentum and position operators are unbounded, the importance of which is emphasized by mathematician-physicists such as Mackey, Fadeev, Maslov, Bogoliubov, Logunov and Todorov etc…

(iii) To predict the new physical effects using the newly improved mathematics.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

The author would like to thank Profs. Y. S. Kim, Chu Hao, Nguyen Van Hieu and Nguyen Van Dao for their interest in the present research. This work is supported in part by Vietnamese basic scientific research program 4.1.1601.