text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up and not slowing down  has presented cosmologists and particle physicists with a profound (and wonderful) puzzle. In the context of general relativity this surprising result can be accounted for by the existence of a smooth component of energy with large negative pressure ($`wp/\rho \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1/2`$), dubbed dark energy, which accounts for about 2/3 of the critical density .

A number of suggestions for the dark energy have been discussed including quantum vacuum energy (cosmological constant), a very light and slowly evolving scalar field, and a frustrated network of topological defects. None is compelling and all have serious conceptual problems .

Another logical possibility is that the phenomenon of accelerated expansion is actually a sign of a breakdown of the standard Friedmann equation which governs the expansion rate, which is the idea we explore here.

The high degree of isotropy and large-scale homogeneity observed in the Universe implies that the metric of our 4-d spacetime can be written in the Robertson – Walker form with a single function – the cosmic scale factor $`R(t)`$ – describing the large-scale dynamics of the Universe. The issue then is the equation(s) that govern the evolution of the cosmic scale factor.

It should be noted that the kinematics of the expansion – acceleration or deceleration – can be discussed without regard to dynamics, and further, that the current type Ia supernova (SNIa) data indicate a recent period of acceleration ($`\ddot{R}/HR^2>0`$ for $`z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$) preceded by an earlier period of deceleration ($`\ddot{R}/H^2R<0`$ for $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$) . Thus, simply allowing for modified dynamics cannot eliminate the puzzling phenomenon of accelerated expansion.

In this paper, we investigate the addition to the Friedmann equation of a term, $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)H^\alpha /H_0^{\alpha 2}`$, which can arise with theories with extra dimensions . We know that at early times the Friedmann equation is a good approximation and this fact constrains $`\alpha `$ to be $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$. We further show that such a modification has an equivalent description as dark energy with time varying equation-of-state $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)`$. Finally, we show that future supernova measurements envisioned with SNAP  can constrain $`\alpha `$ to a precision of about half that of $`w`$, i.e., $`\sigma _\alpha 2\sigma _w`$, or about $`\sigma _\alpha 0.1`$.

In the next Section we discuss some theoretical motivations for a modification to the Friedmann equation, and in the following Section we discuss the cosmological phenomenology of “$`\alpha `$ dark energy.” We end with a brief summary.

## 2 Motivations

Both the hierarchy  and cosmological constant  problems motivate theories with large extra dimensions. Extra dimensions that are either compact or have finite volume manifest themselves exclusively at high energies, above the compactification scale. Such theories modify laws of gravity only at short distances, below the size of the extra dimensions. Consequently, all long-distance physics, including the late-time cosmological evolution of the Universe, is very close to the standard picture .

In contrast, theories with infinite volume extra dimensions  modify the laws of gravity in the far infrared, and at short distances (or early times) the gravitational dynamics is very close to that of the 4-dimensional Einstein gravity. Consequently the cosmological evolution is very close to the standard FRW picture at early times, but gets modified at late times. This modification can account for the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe without dark energy; that is, the modified gravitational dynamics leads to a “self-accelerated” Universe .

For simplicity, we describe a model with a single extra dimension. The effective, low-energy action takes the following form

$$S=\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{r_c}d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g^{(5)}}+d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2R+_{\mathrm{SM}}\right).$$
(1)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=1/8\pi G`$, $`g_{AB}^{(5)}`$ is $`5`$-dimensional metric $`(A,B=0,1,2,\mathrm{},4)`$, and $`y`$ is the extra spatial coordinate. The first term in Eq. (1) is the bulk $`5`$-dimensional Einstein action, and the second term is the $`4`$-dimensional Einstein localized on the brane (at $`y=0`$). For simplicity we do not consider brane fluctuations. The induced metric on the brane is given by

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x)g_{\mu \nu }^{(5)}(x,y=0).$$
(2)
The quantity $`r_c`$ is the crossover scale, the single new parameter. It sets the scale beyond which the laws of 4-d gravity breakdown and become 5-dimensional.

The existence of late-time, self-accelerated solutions can be seen from Einstein’s equations, obtained by the variation of Eq. (1) with an arbitrary 4-d matter source $`T_{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\frac{1}{r_c}𝒢_𝒜+\delta (y)\delta _A^\mu \delta _B^\nu \left(G_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi GT_{\mu \nu }\right)=0.$$
(3)
Here $`𝒢_𝒜`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are the 5-d and 4-d Einstein tensors respectively. Without the first term, Eq. (3) would be the standard Einstein equations for the induced 4-d metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. If we exclude the matter source ($`T_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$), then the only maximally-symmetric solutions to Eq. (3) are flat. However, the presence of the first term modifies this equation, though the modification becomes significant only for very small values of the 4-d curvature. Consider the maximally symmetric FRW ansatz,

$$ds_5^2=f(y,H)ds_4^2dy^2,$$
(4)
where $`ds_4^2`$ is the 4-dimensional maximally-symmetric metric, and $`H`$ is the 4-d Hubble parameter, the second term in Eq. (3) takes the standard form $`G_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }H^2`$.

In the first term the $`y`$-derivatives of the warp-factor $`f(y,H)`$ must take care of the $`\delta (y)`$-function, which leads to an effective 4-d equation for $`H`$. From simple dimensional arguments it follows that the first term must scale as $`\sqrt{H^2}`$. A calculation leads to Friedmann equation for arbitrary 4-d brane-localized matter source $`\rho _M(t)`$ :

$$H^2\pm \frac{H}{r_c}=\frac{8\pi G\rho _M}{3}$$
(5)
These general features persist for the arbitrary number of dimensions.

The basic point is that the higher-dimensional action is suppressed relative to 4-dimensional one by an inverse power of the crossover scale. As a result, the scaling arguments suggest that for the maximally symmetric ansatz the higher-dimensional contribution should scale as a lower power of $`H^2`$, and thus be important at late times (small $`H`$). This argument suggests that infinite-volume extra-dimensional theories have the potential to explain cosmic acceleration with dark energy.

Before proceeding, let us make a few important points. Naively, it appears that as far as dark energy is concerned the self-accelerated solutions of higher-dimensional theory have the same number of new parameters as the simplest model of dark energy, a cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is replaced by the crossover scale $`r_c`$. However, from the quantum field theory point of view there is a crucial difference, the crossover scale $`r_c`$ is stable under quantum corrections.

There is an interesting coincidence, which also motivates the Hubble-scale value of $`r_c`$ and is unrelated to dark energy. The scale $`r_c`$ also sets the distance at which corrections (coming from higher-dimensional gravity) to the usual metric for a gravitating source become important. In particular, there are corrections to the Schwarzschild metric , which effect planetary motions. The existing phenomenological bounds on such deviations demand that the crossover scale be large. For instance, for Eq. (1) the most stringent bound comes from lunar laser ranging experiments that monitor the moon’s perihelion precession with a great accuracy and imply a lower bound for $`r_c`$ which is close to the present cosmological horizon $`H_0^1`$ .

In the present paper we shall take a more radical and generic attitude. We shall use the notion of infinite extra dimensions to motivate the modification of Friedmann equation at late times. In that spirit, we shall assume that the physics that modifies Friedmann equation satisfies the following simple requirements:

* There is a single crossover scale $`r_c`$
* To leading order, the corrections to Friedmann equation can be parameterized a single term, $`H^\alpha `$

These two assumptions fix the form of the modified Friedmann equation:

$$H^2\frac{H^\alpha }{r_c^{2\alpha }}=\frac{8\pi G\rho _M}{3}$$
(6)
In order to eliminate the need for dark energy, this term must specifically be: $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)H^\alpha /H_0^{\alpha 2}`$, which implies that $`r_c=(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)^{\frac{1}{\alpha 2}}H_0^1`$.

In the examples discussed above this stability of $`r_cH_0^1`$ is manifest (in contrast to the choice of a small vacuum energy). It should remain true in our generalized analysis: Since corrections to standard Einstein gravity are non-analytic in $`H^2`$, they cannot be generated perturbatively in the limit $`1/r_c^{2\alpha }0`$. Thus, the value of $`1/r_c`$ can only be renormalized through itself and cannot be UV sensitive. In other words, $`1/r_cH_0^1`$ plays the role of an infrared cut-off for standard gravity, below which it is replaced by a modified theory.

Finally, we would like to stress that we do not attempt to solve the cosmological constant problem, i.e., the smallness of vacuum energy. We simply postulate that it is zero due for whatever reason, and study how the observed accelerated expansion could result from a modification of the Friedmann equation in far infrared. In this respect our approach is different (and complementary) to the idea of solving cosmological constant problem by long-distance modification of gravity . In Refs.  such modification ensures that the vacuum energy (no matter how large) gravitates extremely weakly, so that its over-all effect is reduced to the one of a small cosmological constant at all times. Thus, the resulting cosmology is indistinguishable from the standard FRW picture with a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term, as opposed to the present case.

## 3 Phenomenology of $`\alpha `$ Dark Energy

Suppose that the effects of extra dimensions manifest themselves as a modification to the Friedmann equation of the form

$$H^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)\frac{H^\alpha }{H_0^{\alpha 2}}=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3},$$
(7)
where a flat universe has been assumed, $`\rho `$ is the total energy density (today dominated by matter with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.33`$) and $`H_0`$ is the present value of the Hubble constant ($`72\pm 7\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$). The coefficient of the new term is fixed by requiring that it eliminates the need for dark energy.

In the distant future, cosmic scale factor $`R1`$,

$$H(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}H_0,$$

corresponding to asymptotic deSitter expansion. For $`\alpha =0`$ the new term always behaves just like a cosmological constant, while for $`\alpha =2`$, the additional term corresponds to a “renormalization” of the Friedmann equation.

Equation (7) can be recast in a more suggestive form

$$\left(\frac{H}{H_0}\right)^2=(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)\left(\frac{H}{H_0}\right)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3.$$
(8)
Provided $`\alpha <2`$ (see below), the matter term will dominate the r.h.s. for $`10^4\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}z1`$, in which case $`H(1+z)^{3/2}`$. This implies that during the matter-dominated era the $`\alpha `$ term varies as $`(1+z)^{3\alpha /2}`$, which corresponds to an effective equation-of-state

$$w_{\mathrm{eff}}=1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{for}10^4\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}z1.$$

\[Recall, for constant equation-of-state $`wp/\rho `$, the energy density varies as $`(1+z)^{3(1+w)}`$.\] During the earlier radiation-dominated epoch ($`z10^4`$), where $`\rho (1+z)^4`$ and $`H(1+z)^2`$, $`\alpha `$ dark energy has an effective equation of state $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}=1+\frac{2\alpha }{3}`$ for $`z10^4`$.

To summarize, the effective equation-of-state of $`\alpha `$ dark energy varies from $`1+\frac{2\alpha }{3}`$ during the radiation-dominated era to $`1+\frac{\alpha }{2}`$ during the matter-dominated era to $`1`$ in the distant future (see Fig. 1). The change in the effective equation-of-state is largest around $`z01`$, with $`dw/dz0.2`$. This happens to be where SNe measurements of the expansion rate are most sensitive to a variation in $`w`$ and a variation of this size may well be detectable . It may be of some interest that for $`\alpha <0`$, the effective equation-of-state can be more negative than $`w=1`$, without violating the weak-energy condition.

To eliminate the need for dark energy, today the “$`\alpha `$-term” must be about twice the matter term; however, to avoid interfering with the successful predictions of the standard Friedmann equation, the $`\alpha `$ term must have been smaller in the past. In particular, the successful predictions of big-bang nucleosynthesis set a limit to any new forms of energy density in the Universe at $`z10^{10}`$ of less than a few percent of the standard value (usually stated as limit to the number of neutrino species) . This in turn imposes an upper bound to $`\alpha `$:

$$\alpha \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1.95.$$

A more stringent bound follows from requiring that the $`\alpha `$ term not interfere with the formation of large-scale structure: To achieve the structure seen today from the primeval fluctuations whose imprint was left on the cosmic microwave background requires a long matter-dominated epoch . In terms of $`w`$ this bound is: $`w\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\frac{1}{2}`$. Requiring $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\frac{1}{2}`$ during the matter dominated era leads to the bound:

$$\alpha \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1.$$

We remind the reader that these bounds apply only to modifications of the Friedmann equation that aspire to explain dark energy, i.e., where the corrections are significant today. In finite-volume, extra-dimensional models it is expected that $`\alpha `$ is larger than 2 so that the corrections are most important at early times. For example, in many brane-world scenarios the modifications effectively correspond to $`\alpha =4`$ .

An expansion history (i.e., $`H(z)`$ vs. $`z`$) may be obtained by picking a value for $`H/H_0`$ and solving for $`z`$. From this, the comoving distance as function of redshift $`z`$, $`r(z)=_0^z𝑑z/H(z)`$, can be computed. Distance vs. redshift diagrams \[$`r(z)`$ vs. $`z`$\] are shown in Fig. 2 (and in more detail in Fig. 3) for $`\alpha =1,0,1,2,3`$. Also shown are distance vs. redshift diagrams for constant-$`w`$ dark-energy models. From redshift $`z=0`$ to $`z=2`$ $`\alpha `$ dark energy can be described approximately by a constant equation-of-state model with

$$w_{\mathrm{eff}}1+0.3\alpha .$$

An $`\alpha `$ dark energy model is completely described by two parameters – $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ – and so it is straightforward to address precisely the power of supernovae observations to test it. To this end, we have constructed the Fisher matrix for a set of 2500 supernovae observations spanning $`z=0.21.7`$ (like those that might be made by SNAP ):

$`F_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _k^2}}w_i(z_k)w_j(z_k),`$
$`w_i(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(z)}{p_i}},`$ (9)
where $`m(z)5\mathrm{log}[r(z)]`$ is the expected apparent magnitude of a SNIa at redshift $`z`$, $`\sigma _k`$ is the expected measurement accuracy (here assumed to be 0.15 mag), and the parameters $`p_i=\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. From the Fisher matrix we “forecast” the $`1\sigma `$ error ellipses in the usual way.

Figure 4 compares the error ellipse in the $`\alpha `$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ plane with that in the $`w`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ plane for constant-$`w`$ dark-energy models with $`w=1.3,1,0.7`$. What is most relevant is the relative sizes of the error ellipses since the exact size will depend upon details of the supernovae survey. While the $`\alpha =1`$ model ellipse aligns approximately with $`w=0.7`$ as expected, it is only about twice as large (not quite as large as expected from the rough relationship between $`w`$ and $`\alpha `$). Assuming that SNAP can determine $`w`$ to around $`\pm 0.05`$, the same observations could constrain $`\alpha `$ to around $`\pm 0.1`$, sufficiently well to distinguish integer values of $`\alpha `$.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

We have argued that dark energy may actually be a modification to the standard Friedmann equation arising from new physics (e.g., infinite-volume extra dimensions). Writing the modification as $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)H^\alpha /H_0^{\alpha 2}`$, the cosmological phenomenology can be summarized by:

* The effective equation-of-state of $`\alpha `$ dark energy evolves from $`1+\frac{2\alpha }{3}`$ ($`z10^4`$) to $`1+\frac{\alpha }{2}`$ $`(10^4\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}z1)`$ and asymptotically to $`1`$ in the distant future ($`R\mathrm{}`$ or $`z1`$).
* The maximal change in $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ occurs recently, $`z01`$, with $`(dw/dz)_{z0.5}0.2`$. This is where measurements by a future experiment like SNAP are most sensitive and could probably detect a variation of this magnitude.
* For $`\alpha <0`$, the effective equation-of-state $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be less than $`1`$ without violating the weak-energy condition.
* Around $`z02`$, an $`\alpha `$ dark-energy model can be described approximately by constant $`w`$ with $`w1+0.3\alpha `$.
* If SNAP can measure $`w`$ to a precision $`\sigma _w0.05`$, it could determine $`\alpha `$ to about twice that, $`\sigma _\alpha 2\sigma _w0.1`$.

If the phenomenon of dark energy is associated with corrections to the Friedmann equations from new physics and involves corrections like $`H^\alpha `$, it seems likely that future supernova measurements could test this hypothesis and determine $`\alpha `$ to a precision of order 10%. Thus, $`\alpha `$ dark energy is not only intriguing, but it is also testable.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the DoE (at Chicago and at Fermilab), by the NASA (at Fermilab by grant NAG 5-7092), by GD’s David and Lucille Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engineering Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship, and by the NSF (grant PHY-0070787 at NYU).


format: text

text:
# The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and the Standard Model

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A precision measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$, tests the standard model to the extent that both theory and experiment are well understood. The BNL E821 experiment has steadily increased the precision with which $`a_\mu `$ is known . The result, published  in August 2002 dominates the new world average of $`a_\mu (exp)=11659203(8)\times 10^{10}`$ (0.7 ppm). This includes the complete analysis of all of the positive muon data obtained to date by the E821 group. Another (somewhat smaller) sample of negative muon data is presently being analyzed, and a final run to complete the experiment is planned. Figure 1 illustrates the progression of precision in the measurements of $`a_\mu `$ including the CERN-III  and present BNL results.

The standard model (SM) expectation for $`a_\mu `$ is based on QED, the weak interaction, and hadronic loops. All must be computed at the sub-ppm level in order to be compared meaningfully with experiment. Of these contributions, both the QED and weak terms are believed to be known to sufficient precision (see Czarnecki and Marciano ), even withstanding a recent examination of eighth-order QED terms, which uncovered a negligible mistake , and considerations of hadronic contributions to higher-order weak terms . The need to consider such subtle contributions has reached increased importance because the BNL experimental precision is better than 1 ppm, additional data is being analyzed, and Collaboration discussions have begun to consider an even more precise experiment, either at BNL or the JHF. Many standard model extensions manifest themselves in additional contributions to $`a_\mu `$ at the ppm level, so the relevance of the current studies, in advance of the LHC direct-discovery potential, is quite important.

This paper briefly summarizes the experiment, the analysis of the 2000 data, and the up-to-date theory (i.e., through Nov. 2002). The reader is strongly encouraged to consult the original published papers where appropriate.

### 1.1 Principle of the Experiment

The experiment measures directly $`(g2)`$ and not $`g`$, where $`(g2)/2`$ is approximately $`\alpha /2\pi 1/860`$. The muon anomaly is determined from the difference between the cyclotron and spin precession frequencies for muons contained in a magnetic storage ring, namely

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_a=\frac{e}{m}\left[a_\mu \stackrel{}{B}\left(a_\mu \frac{1}{\gamma ^21}\right)\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{E}\right].$$
(1)
Because electric quadrupoles are used to provide vertical focussing in the storage ring, the $`\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ term is necessary and illustrates the sensitivity of the spin motion to a radial electric field. This term conveniently vanishes for the “magic” momentum of 3.094 GeV/$`c`$ when $`\gamma =29.3`$. The experiment is therefore built around the principle of production and storage of muons centered at this momentum in order to minimize the electric field effect. Because of the finite momentum spread of the stored muons, a 0.3 ppm correction to the observed precession frequency is made to account for the muons above or below the magic momentum. Vertical betatron oscillations induced by the focussing electric field imply that the plane of the muon precession has a time-dependent pitch. Accounting for both of these electric-field related effects introduces a $`+0.76(3)`$ ppm correction to the precession frequency in the 2000 data.

Muons exhibit circular motion in the storage ring and their spins precess until the time of decay ($`\gamma \tau _\mu 64.4\mu s`$). The net spin precession depends on the integrated magnetic field experienced along the path of the muon. Parity violation leads to a preference for the highest-energy decay electrons (in the muon rest frame) to be emitted in the direction of the muon spin. Therefore, a snapshot of the muon spin direction at time $`t`$ after injection into the storage ring is obtained, again on average, by the selection of decay electrons in the upper part of the Lorentz-boosted Michel spectrum ($`E_{max}3.1`$ GeV). The number of electrons above a selected energy threshold is modulated at frequency $`\omega _a`$ with a threshold-dependent asymmetry $`A=A(E_{th})`$. The decay electron distribution is described by

$$N(t)=N_0\mathrm{exp}(t/\gamma \tau _\mu )\left[1+A\mathrm{cos}(\omega _at+\varphi )\right],$$
(2)
where $`N_0`$, the normalization, $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ are all dependent on the energy threshold $`E_{th}`$. For $`E_{th}=2.0`$ GeV, $`A0.4`$.

In summary, the experiment involves the measurement of the time-averaged quantities $`\omega _a`$ and $`B`$ in Eq. 1. Here $`B`$ implies the azimuthially-averaged magnetic field, folded with the muon distribution, the latter being determined from the debunching rate of the initial beam burst and from a tracking simulation. The field strength is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in units of the free proton precession frequency, $`\omega _p`$. The muon anomaly is computed from

$$a_\mu =\frac{\omega _a/\omega _p}{\lambda \omega _a/\omega _p},$$
(3)
where $`\lambda `$ is the measured  magnetic moment ratio $`\mu _\mu /\mu _p=3.18334539(10)`$.

Just like in the analysis of our 1999 data, four independent teams evaluated $`\omega _a`$ and two studied $`\omega _p`$. During the analysis period, the $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _p`$ teams maintained separate, secret offsets to their measured frequencies. The offsets were removed and $`a_\mu `$ was computed only after all analyses were complete.

## 2 EXPERIMENT

### 2.1 Storage Ring and Magnetic Field Measurement

The Brookhaven muon storage ring  is a superferric “C”-shaped magnet, 7.11 m in radius, and open on the inside. Three superconducting coils provide a central field of approximately 1.45 T. Passive and active shimming elements have been improved and optimized since the inception of the experiment.

The magnetic field is measured using pulsed NMR on protons in water- or Vaseline-filled probes . The proton precession frequency is proportional to the local field strength and is measured with respect to the same clock system employed in the determination of $`\omega _a`$. The absolute field is, in turn, determined by comparison with a precision measurement of $`\omega _p`$ in a spherical water sample  to a relative precision of better than $`10^7`$. A subset of the 360 “fixed” probes is used to continuously monitor the field during data taking. These probes are embedded in machined grooves in the outer upper and lower plates of the aluminum vacuum chamber and consequently measure the field just outside of the actual storage volume. Constant field strength is maintained using 36 of the probes in a feedback loop with the main magnet power supply.

The determination of the field inside the storage volume is made by use of a unique non-magnetic trolley which can travel in vacuum through the muon storage volume. The trolley carries 17 NMR probes on a grid appropriate to determine the local multipolarity of the field versus azimuth. Trolley field maps are made every few days and take several hours to complete. Figure 2 shows the contours superimposed on a 9 cm diameter circle, which represents the storage aperature.

### 2.2 Creating and Storing Muons

A highly polarized ($`95\%`$) muon sample is created from the decay of 3.15 GeV/$`c`$ pions in a 72 m long decay channel. The last dipole in this channel is tuned to a momentum approximately 1.7 percent lower than the central pion momentum in order to enhance the muon fraction in the beam, compared to pions, at the entrance to the storage ring. The approximately 1:1 $`\pi `$ to $`\mu `$ mix passes through a superconducting inflector magnet , which provides a field-free channel in the back of the ring’s iron yoke. A set of three pulsed “kicker” magnets  provides a 10 mrad transverse deflection to the muon bunch during the first two turns in the ring and thus places the muons on a central orbit at the magic momentum.

Electric quadrupoles  are initially charged asymmetrically to scrape the beam against internal collimaters. After approximately 20 $`\mu `$s, the voltages are symmetrized at $`\pm `$24 kV corresponding to a weak-focussing field index $`n=0.137`$. Coherent horizontal and vertical betatron oscillations (CBO, i.e., oscillations of the beam as a whole), manifest themselves as additional frequencies in the data that must be accommodated (see below). The most important of these is the beating between the cyclotron and the horizontal betatron oscillations, determined as $`f_{CBO}=(1\sqrt{1n})f_c=466`$ kHz, where $`f_c`$ is the cyclotron frequency. Note that $`f_{CBO}`$ is close to twice the precession frequency, $`f_{g2}229`$ kHz, and thus, if ignored, will affect the extraction of $`\omega _a`$. This issue was handled in the 1999 data analysis by accounting for the modulation of the overall rate of events at the horizontal CBO frequency. However, for 2000, $`n`$ was adjusted slightly, placing $`f_{CBO}`$ closer to $`2f_{g2}`$ compared to 1999. This effect, coupled with significantly higher statistics in 2000, necessitated additional considerations. For example, not only was the overall event rate seen to be modulated, but also the asymmetry and even the phase. The four analyses approached this central problem differently.

### 2.3 Electron Detection and Pulse Fitting

The electron detection system consists of 24 lead-scintillating fiber electromagnetic calorimeters  located symmetrically around the inside of the storage ring and placed immediately adjacent to the vacuum chamber. The 23 cm long, radially-oriented fiber grid terminates on four lightguides which pipe the light to independent Hamamatsu R1828 2-inch PMTs. The PMT gains are carefully balanced because the four analog signals are added prior to sampling by a dual-phase 400 MHz waveform digitizer. At least 16 digitized samples (usually 24 or more), making “islands,” are recorded for each decay electron event exceeding a hardware threshold of approximately 1 GeV. Two examples of such samples are shown in Fig. 3. The left panel illustrates a simple, single pulse. Offline pulse-finding and fitting techniques are used to establish the electron energy and muon time of decay. Two quasi-independent implementations of an algorithm to extract these quantities formed the basis of two raw-data processing efforts. The methods differ in particular for events which feature multi-pulse pileup, as shown on the right panel in the figure. Here, two pulses are actually sufficiently well-separated that both pulse-finding algorithms can efficiently and accurately determine the correct energies and times (verified by Monte Carlo simulations).

The pulse-finding algorithms also identify the extra events on the tails of the recorded island of samples, which are then used to estimate the time-dependent pileup fraction. These “shadow pulses” are used to construct pileup-only event spectra, which can be subtracted (on average) from the data. This forms a “pileup-free” decay spectrum. Alternatively, the pileup-only spectrum can be fit to determine the parameters necessary to describe the distortion to the uncorrected decay spectrum.

## 3 ANALYSIS OF $`\omega _a`$

The data set for 2000 consisted of approximately four billion electrons with an energy above 2.0 GeV, recorded $`50\mu `$s or more after muon injection. These data came from a common set of good runs that avoided known hardware failures, glitches or calibration periods. Data obtained during systematic studies were also removed. The four independent analysis methods then treated the data quite differently after that.

A fit to the data using the five-parameter function given in Eq. 2 is poor owing to the CBO modulation mentioned above, the deviation from the pure exponential decay due to time-dependent muon losses, and slowly-varying effects such as detector gain or incomplete treatment of pileup. Figure 4 is a Fourier transform of the residuals from such a simple fit. It clearly illustrates the dominant horizontal CBO frequency and its sidebands at $`f_{CBO}\pm f_{g2}`$. Note that $`f_{g2}`$ has been removed in this representation because of the fit (the frequency is indicated by the dashed line); the small peak at $`f_{CBO}f_{g2}`$ is close to this dashed line and thus potentially interferes with the proper extraction of $`f_{g2}`$ or, equivalently, $`\omega _a`$.

Two analysis methods used independent implementations of an expanded conventional functional form applied to a pileup-free electron decay spectrum (pileup events were corrected for as described above). The data were summed for all detectors, which has the effect of reducing the CBO-related amplitudes significantly compared to fits to individual detector spectra. To account for the modulation of the normalization and the asymmetry, $`N_0N_0(t)`$ and $`AA(t)`$ in Eq. 2. The phase was left constant, relying instead on the cancellation of its effect from summing all detectors. The residual effect was included in the systematic uncertainty associated with the overall treatment of CBO.

A third analysis method started from a spectrum of the data where the exponential decay and other slowly-varying effects are absent, thus isolating the $`(g2)`$ oscillation as only identifiable feature. Events are sorted into four sets ($`A,B,C,`$ and $`D`$), with sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ time shifted by plus or minus one half of a $`g2`$ period, respectively, and sets $`C`$ and $`D`$ left unaffected. Recombined in the ratio $`(AB)/(C+D)`$, this spectrum exhibits an oscillation about zero at frequency $`\omega _a`$. It was then fit using a three-parameter function of the form $`r(t)A(E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(E))`$.

The fourth method divided the data into nine 0.2 GeV wide energy bins for each of the 22 included detectors, resulting in 198 independent data sets. The lowest-energy bin was centered at 1.5 GeV, which meant a significant amount of additional data was considered compared to those analyses described above. The lower-energy threshold also necessitated an extended pileup identification procedure to account for events below twice the hardware threshold. A pileup spectrum was built for each detector and energy bin and fit to extract the amplitude and phase. These parameters were then used in the fit function applied to the data, which was not corrected for pileup, contrary to the other methods. As in the first two methods, a slowly-varying muon loss function was incorporated into the fit. Finally the terms $`N_0,A,`$ and $`\varphi `$ in Eq. 2 are permitted to oscillate with the CBO frequency as $`1+A(t)_i\mathrm{sin}(\omega _{CBO}t+\varphi _i)`$, where $`A_i`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are the relative amplitude and phase of the modulation for $`N_0,A,`$ and $`\varphi `$. The modulation of these parameters has a time-dependent envelope, which is determined both from independent studies and from the fit itself. Each detector and energy bin was separately fit, with a start time determined from a $`\chi ^2`$ stability test.

Figure 5 illustrates the results on $`\omega _a`$ for the fourth method. It shows the fit results versus start time of the fit (upper left), energy bin (upper right), and detector station (lower left). The distribution of the 198 individual results with respect to the average is shown in the bottom right panel. All plots show the expected statistical fluctuations.

### 3.1 Experimental Results

Summarizing the four methods above involved accounting precisely for data overlap, then combining to form a proper average. Systematics were studied separately for each method. The final result for the 2000 precession frequency is $`\omega _a/(2\pi )=229074.11(14)(7)`$ Hz (0.7 ppm) where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. Combined with the field value, and weighing with earlier experimental results, the new result for the muon anomaly is $`a_\mu (exp)=11659203(8)\times 10^{10}`$.

### 3.2 Update on Theory

The SM prediction for $`a_\mu `$ has gone through several significant changes during the last year; at present there is no single quotable number. The QED  and weak contributions  are not controversial at the level of relevance required here giving, respectively, $`a_\mu `$(QED)$`=11658470.57(0.29)\times 10^{10}`$ (0.025 ppm) and $`a_\mu `$(weak)$`=15.1(0.4)\times 10^{10}`$ (0.03 ppm).

The first-order hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) contribution carries the largest uncertainty in the SM value. It has been updated in 2002 using new $`e^+e^{}`$ data from Novosibirsk and Beijing and additional hadronic tau decay data from LEP and CLEO. These data are used as input into the dispersion relation to compute $`a_\mu `$(HVP); see Ref. . Davier et al.  (DEHZ) recently released an updated evaluation, thus superseding their previous work and the compilations of others (which were sometimes based on preliminary data). The most important finding in DEHZ is that the $`e^+e^{}`$ and tau-based analyses do not agree with one another. The $`e^+e^{}`$ evaluation was performed independently  confirming the result of DEHZ, but the difference with the tau-based analysis appears to be more fundamental. For example, the $`\pi \pi `$ spectral functions are not consistent and the difference is shown to be energy dependent. Because the tau input requires invoking CVC and isospin corrections, suspicion first fell to it. These corrections are relatively small , and even expanding the uncertainty considerably would not put these data into agreement with the $`e^+e^{}`$-based result.

Meanwhile, the first reports on a third method to determine HVP using the “radiative return” method have been presented . Fixed center-of-mass energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions are scanned for events having an initial-state radiated photon, thus lowering the effective collision energy. At one accelerator setting, the entire spectral function can be obtained. The reports are preliminary and use only a fraction of the data. However, the procedure looks promising and should be able to confirm or refute the $`e^+e^{}`$ Novosibirsk result. For now, DEHZ quote $`a_\mu `$(HVP,$`e^+e^{}`$)$`=684.7(7.0)`$ or $`a_\mu `$(HVP,tau)$`=701.9(6.2)`$, both $`\times 10^{10}`$ with comparable relative precisions of $`0.6`$ ppm. Because the dispersion relation is weighed heavily toward low energies, the true underlying difference in the input data exceeds the relative difference implied to $`a_\mu `$. One should not be tempted to take an average or to ascribe the problem to statistical fluctuations.

Higher-order hadronic contributions  give $`a_\mu `$(H-h.o.)$`=10.0(0.6)\times 10^{10}`$. The hadronic light-by-light contribution changed by $`200\%`$ following Knecht and Nyffeler’s demonstration  that this contribution must be positive, contrary to the existing literature  by others. Eventually mistakes in earlier work were found  and agreement exists on the sign (with confidence), the magnitude (essentially), but not necessarily the uncertainty (see, for example, Ref. ). A middle-ground value with a conservative uncertainty is $`a_\mu `$(H-LbL) $`=8.6(3.2)\times 10^{10}`$.

Summarizing the above, we obtain the standard model theory to date:

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{SM},\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{based})=11659169.0(7.7)(0.66\mathrm{ppm})\mathrm{or}$$

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{SM},\mathrm{tau}\mathrm{based})=11659186.2(7.0)(0.60\mathrm{ppm}).$$

Compared to the experiment there is either a 3.0 ($`e^+e^{}`$) or a 1.6 (tau) standard deviation difference, respectively, leading one to begin to draw very different conclusions (see Fig. 6).

The next year for $`(g2)`$ might turn out to be as interesting as the past year: a final data set will be analyzed from negative muons; new input from KLOE and possibly BaBar should resolve the HVP problem; and, finally, we hope to obtain the funds to complete the experiment at BNL and reach the systematic limit of the experiment. Perhaps at that time, we can more meaningfully explore the implications for physics beyond the standard model. At present, the story is clearly still unfolding.

## 4 Acknowledgments

The $`(g2)`$ experiment is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the German Bundesminister für Bildung und Forschung, the Russian Minsitry of Science, and the US-Japan Agreement in High Energy Physics. The author thanks his collaborators, and the organizers of PANIC’02 for an excellent meeting.


text:
# The Production and Decay of Heavy Dimesons

## I MOTIVATION

There is a strong motivation to understand the effective interaction between heavy quarks (and antiquarks) since it is expected to be “cleaner” than between light quarks. For heavy particles the nonrelativistic constituent quark model is more acceptable, the perturbative QCD contributions (such as one-gluon-exchange) is more adequate and chiral fields are less important.

While the effective interaction between a heavy quark and a heavy antiquark has been reasonably well studied and fitted by the charmonium and bottomium spectra, there is no free diquark to study the effective interaction between two heavy quarks. One has to dress the diquark in order to obtain a colour singlet object. Therefore, the double-heavy baryons ccq, bcq, and bbq (q=u,d, or s), as well as the double-heavy dimesons cc$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$, bc$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ and bb$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ (also called tetraquarks) can be considered as a laboratory to study the properties of the diquark. They have not yet been seen experimentally (except some tentative signals Selex ). The purpose of our study is to demonstrate, how important information for quark models they would offer, and to stimulate the experimentalists to invest due efforts to discover them in near future .

It is straightforward to extrapolate the one-gluon-exchange (OGE) interaction from Q$`\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ to QQ (Q= any quark). The charge conjugation changes the $`\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ antitriplet to Q triplet. Then the colour factor $`\lambda \lambda /4=4/3`$ for the Q$`\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ singlet changes to $`2/3`$ for the QQ antitriplet (the “$`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule”).

On the other hand, it is questionable whether the (linear) confining potential should also possess such a colour factor and obey the $`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule. The fact that the ground state energies and some excited states of light and heavy baryons are reasonably well reproduced with such a “universal” OGE + confining effective interaction is encouraging SB  but not conclusive. There may be other mechanisms for the $`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule. For example, the flux tubes in a “Mercedes” configuration can be mimicked by twice weaker two-body flux lines since the length of the arms of the “Mercedes” is approximately half the length of the circumference of the triangle. The colour singlet 3-quark system is insensitive to the features of the $`colourcolour`$ operator since it is just a constant in the 3-body singlet representation. To explore the colour structure of the effective interaction one has to go beyond mesons and baryons to dimesons and other exotics.

Moreover, there may be other contributions to the effective interaction. Regarding the short-range part, the important effect is the strong spin-spin splitting which can be due to OGE, pion exchange or some instanton effects, the relative importance of which is not yet clear. Light baryon spectra are better reproduced by the meson exchange interaction Graz  than by the OGE interaction but the extension to the heavy baryons and to mesons is still uncertain.

The study of double-heavy baryons and of double-heavy dimesons are complementary. They both refer to the colour triplet heavy diquark and try to determine the strength of the interaction and test the “$`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule”. The dimeson, however, possesses also a ($`6,\overline{6}`$) configuration with a sextet heavy diquark and antisextet cloud of two light antiquarks; configuration mixing offers the opportunity to test the colour structure of the interaction.

Furthermore, there are theoretical reasons for three-body and four-body forces. Three-body forces have been shown to be welcome to improve the absolute position of baryons with respect to mesons SB . The dimeson can give a better hint about the relative strength of the three-body interaction since there are 4 three-body contributions compared to just one in a baryon.

In next Section we give arguments why we expect the bb$`\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimeson to be strongly bound while the cc$`\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$, bc$`\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ and others are most likely unbound. In the third Section we estimate the chances to produce the bb$`\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimeson in LHC, and in the final Section we call for new ideas how to detect it.

## II BINDING ENERGIES

### II.1 With Two-Body Forces

We estimate the binding energy of the $`\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimeson assuming the $`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule and no three-body forces. If this prediction is falsified by the experiment a revision of the two-body QQ interaction and/or introduction of many-quark forces will be needed.

For the sake of clarity we present here a simplified derivation which makes three further assumptions: (i) that the spin-dependent interactions between heavy quarks are not important, (ii) that the configuration with both b quarks bound in a compact diquark with spin 1 and antitriplet colour dominates, and (iii) that the two light antiquarks in the dimeson behave equally as in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ baryon. We have, however, performed also a careful four-body calculation without such unnecessary assumptions JR  and the results were practically the same.

We want the result to be as little model dependent as possible. Therefore we consider any model which reproduces exactly the masses of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ baryon and several mesons. Then we can consider Nature as an ”analogue computer” and express the mass of the dimeson in terms of those experimental masses. Now we compare the following hadrons

$`M_{\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2M_\mathrm{b}+M_\mathrm{u}+M_\mathrm{d}+E_{\mathrm{bb}}+E_{\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}[\mathrm{bb}]}`$
$`M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`2M_\mathrm{b}+E_{\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\mathrm{b}+M_\mathrm{u}+M_\mathrm{d}+E_{\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}`$
where $`E_{\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}[\mathrm{bb}]}E_{\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}`$ is the potential plus kinetic energy contribution of the two light quarks in the field of a heavy diquark or quark, respectively, and it cancels in the difference. This would be exactly true in the limit where the mass of the b quark goes to infinity and the heavy diquark is point-like so that we can neglect the size of the heavy diquark in the dimeson.

We can estimate the diquark binding energy using the following trick. The binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{meson}}`$ of a quark and antiquark in the meson is a function of the reduced mass only (neglecting spin forces):

$$\left[\frac{p^2}{M_\mathrm{Q}}+V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}\right]\psi =E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{Q})\psi $$

For a diquark the Schrödinger equation is similar as for a meson, but with twice weaker interaction. To get the similarity, we mimic the kinetic energy with twice smaller reduced mass.

$$\left[\frac{p^2}{M_\mathrm{Q}}+V_{\mathrm{QQ}}\right]\psi =\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{p^2}{M_\mathrm{Q}/2}+V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}\right]\psi =\frac{1}{2}E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{Q}/2)\psi .$$

We obtain $`E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{b}/2)`$ by plotting the binding energies of mesons as a function of the reduced mass JR . We do that for different choices of constituent quark masses in order to estimate the uncertainty due to quark masses. The plot is very smooth and we estimate the binding energy of the heavy bb diquark $`E_{\mathrm{diquark}}(M_\mathrm{b})=\frac{1}{2}E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{b}/2)=390\pm 15`$ MeV, whereas for bottomium $`\frac{1}{2}E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{b})=560\pm 15`$ MeV.

This gives us the phenomenological estimate for the binding energy of the dimeson with respect to the BB threshold

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}+\left[M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{b})+E_{\mathrm{meson}}(M_\mathrm{b}/2)\right]/2M_\mathrm{B}M_\mathrm{B}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`130\pm 20\mathrm{MeV}.`$
This agrees well with our detailed calculation JR  and with some previous four body calculations SB  BS  in the constituent quark model.

An analogous calculation using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\mathrm{J}/\psi `$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ gives for the mass difference between the $`\mathrm{cc}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimeson and the DD threshold a value of +97 MeV which means a prediction, that this dimeson is definitely unbound.

### II.2 With Two- and Three-Body Forces

Nothing is definite. If a future experiment finds the bb dimeson unbound or the cc dimeson bound we shall have to revise our general ideas about the effective quark-quark interaction, and/or introduce many-quark forces.

The recent CDF experiment on double-heavy baryons in Fermilab Selex  has caused some confusion. The ccd candidate at 3520 MeV is somewhat low but still manageable with two-body interactions. One would need smaller constituent quark masses than SB . Why? Smaller quark masses need less negative (kinetic + potential) binding energies to fit the heavy mesons. Therefore, going from $`\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ to the QQ diquark using the $`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ rule one loses less binding and the ccd baryon becomes better bound. (Note that a phenomenological estimate similar to the one for the dimesons would give 3537 to 3560 MeV). The ccd candidate at 3783 seems, however, too light for an excited state and too heavy for the ground state.

On the other hand, the ccu baryon candidate at 3460 MeV is not believable due to its 60 MeV isospin splitting. If, however, correct, it would require help from many-body forces or some other mechanisms which would lead to an almost bound cc dimeson (our phenomenological estimate can then be written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{cc}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}}=M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{cc}}}+M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}}M_\mathrm{D}M_\mathrm{D}M_\mathrm{D}^{}=+3\mathrm{MeV}`$).

Some weak three-body terms have been introduced in ref.SB  in order to improve (lower) the absolute position of the baryon spectrum if the meson spectrum is fitted. We are exploring which colour structures could be used and whether the parametrisation could be stretched so as to bind cc dimeson or unbind the bb dimeson without spoiling the fit to mesons and baryons.

## III A MODEL FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF THE HEAVY DIMESON

The $`\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimesons have not been seen in the present machines. Anyway, estimates of the production and detection rate are very pessimistic and have for this reason not been published. Therefore we encourage to look for them at LHC. For the synthesis we propose a three-step model RJTF JRTF .

(i) First, two b-quarks are formed in the proton-proton collision by a double gluon-gluon fusion: $`(\mathrm{g}+\mathrm{g})+(\mathrm{g}+\mathrm{g})(\mathrm{b}+\overline{\mathrm{b}})+(\mathrm{b}+\overline{\mathrm{b}})`$. This was shown to be the dominant production mechanism FT . One might wonder why we need a TeV machine to produce GeV particles. The answer is simple. The two colliding protons can be considered as two packages of virtual gluons whose number is huge for low Bjorken-$`x`$. Only the number of gluons with $`x<0.001`$ might be sufficient to make dimesons detectable.

The forward detector LHCb will cover the pseudorapidity region $`1.8<\eta <4.9`$ and will detect the B and $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$ hadrons in the low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region. We are interested in double-b production in which the two b-quarks are close enough in phase space to synthesize a diquark. By requiring that the two b are produced with $`|p_1(j)p_2(j)|<\mathrm{\Delta },j=x,y,z`$, we get the cross section $`\sigma 0.4(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{GeV})^3`$ nb which is approximately proportional to the momentum volume up to 2 GeV: $`d\sigma /d^3p0.4\mathrm{nb}/\mathrm{GeV}^3.`$ At the expected luminosity $`L`$=0.1 events/(second nb) this corresponds to 144 interesting bb pairs per hour per GeV3.

(ii) In the second step, the two b quarks join into a diquark. We assume simultaneous production of two independent b quarks with momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2`$. Since they appear wherever within the nucleon volume, we modulate their wavefunctions with a Gaussian profile with the “oscillator parameter” $`B=\sqrt{2/3}\sqrt{<r^2>}=0.69`$ fm corresponding to the nucleon rms radius

$`𝒩_B`$ $`\mathrm{exp}`$ $`(\stackrel{}{r}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2B^2+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{r}_1)𝒩_B\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{r}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2B^2+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{r}_2)`$
$`𝒩_{B/\sqrt{2}}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}`$ $`(\stackrel{}{R}^2/2(B/\sqrt{2})^2+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{R})𝒩_{B\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2(B\sqrt{2})^2+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})`$
where the normalization factor $`𝒩_\beta =\pi ^{3/4}\beta ^{3/2}.`$

We make an impulse approximation that this two-quark state is instantaneously transformed in any of the eigenstates of the two-quark Hamiltonian. Then the amplitude of the diquark formation $`M`$ is equal to the overlap between the two free quarks and the diquark with the same centre-of-mass motion. By approximating the diquark wavefunction with a Gaussian with the oscillator parameter $`\beta =0.23`$ fm we get

$`M(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r𝒩_{B\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2(B\sqrt{2})^2\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})𝒩_\beta \mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/2\beta ^2)}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}B\beta }{2B^2+\beta ^2}}}^3\mathrm{exp}[(p^2/2)(2B^2\beta ^2/(2B^2+\beta ^2))]`$
For the production cross section we take into account that $`\beta <<B`$ and that $`d\sigma /d^3p`$ is practically constant and can be taken out of the integral

$$\sigma =d^3p\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}M^2(p)\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}}{B}\right)^3=0.15\mathrm{nb}$$

which corresponds to $`L\sigma =54`$ diquarks/hour.

(iii) In the third step, the diquark gets dressed. It either acquires one light quark to become the doubly-heavy baryon bbu, bbd or bbs, or two light antiquarks to become a dimeson.

We estimate the probabilities of dressing $`f_{\mathrm{dress}}`$ using the analogy with dressing a single quark (“fragmentation of a quark into hadrons”). We make use of experimental data obtained at Fermilab and at LEP experiments Fermi :

$$\overline{\mathrm{b}}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{u},\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{d},\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{s},\overline{\mathrm{b}}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}=0.37\pm 0.02,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.37}\pm 0.02,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.16}\pm 0.03,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.09}\pm 0.03.$$

Since a heavy diquark acts similarly as a heavy quark, we expect similar branching ratios:

$$\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{bbu},\mathrm{bbd},\mathrm{bbs},\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}0.37,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.37},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.16},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.09}.$$

This yields the production rate of the dimeson $`L\sigma f_{\mathrm{dress}}56`$ events/hour.

## IV DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DETECTION OF DIMESONS

We expect that the $`\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ dimeson will be stable against strong and electromagnetic decay and will decay only weakly, with a lifetime of about 1 ps (corresponding to the width of 1 meV). The main channel would be the independent decay of each b quark into c quark. This essentially means the independent decay of each B meson in the dimeson, for example $`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{anything}`$. However, such a channel will be difficult to distinguish from the decay of two unbound B mesons which will be the main background contribution. There are no good two-body decay channels of B mesons to allow the reconstruction of the total energy of the dimeson; moreover, each separate exclusive decay channel has a low branching ratio of up to a few percent.

Much more characteristic would be the simple two-body decay channel $`\mathrm{bb}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\overline{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\pi `$ with the kinetic energy 876 MeV of both mesons together (in the c.m. system). Of course there would be a crowd of other $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons, but few at this energy. The inspiration comes from the $`\mathrm{B}^0\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ oscillation which unfortunately is not feasible for bound $`B`$ mesons because the BB and B$`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$ states are not degenerate. The weak transition $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{u}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ is negligible because of the low CKM amplitudes.

Some hope is offered by the angular correlation of the b and c quarks after the decay of the first b$``$c, from which the original b-b correlation could be deduced. If a dimeson were formed, the correlation should be isotropic in the c.m. system of the dimeson since the two heavy quarks are expected to be in the relative 1s state. On the other hand, two independent b-quarks would tend to move more in the same direction.

We call for new ideas for the detection of doubly b dimesons!


text:
# NGC 4608 and NGC 5701: barred galaxies without disks?

## 1 Introduction

The most widely accepted mechanism to produce bars in galaxies is based on a global instability in cool stellar disks, where cool means rotationally supported (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine (1987)). However, it was already argued by Toomre (1981) that a high central density disk would not form a bar since an Inner Lindblad Resonance (ILR) would stop the bar instability (Sellwood, 2000). There are nevertheless several evidences for the presence of dense centres and ILR’s in galaxies, including barred ones (Sellwood, 2001). Recently, Sellwood & Moore (1999) have numerically confirmed that even dynamically cool disks can not develop a bar if it has the observed high central densities. Thus, how galaxies form bars remains a question to be properly answered. Possibilities are discussed in the papers by Sellwood cited above, but all are easily rejected in the same papers. The problem is even worse for lenticular galaxies, since these are not cool stellar systems and generally speaking have the most massive bulges among disk galaxies in the Hubble sequence. But the existence of barred lenticulars is indisputable! For instance, in the Revised Shapley–Ames Catalog (Sandage & Tammann, 1981), $`1/4`$ of the lenticular galaxies brighter than 14 in the B band are barred. A related issue concerns the role of halos in bar formation, which were once thought to stabilize disks against the formation of a bar. Recent results, however, indicate that, while producing smaller growth rates of bar-forming modes, halos can induce stronger bars (Athanassoula, 2002, and references therein). In this Letter, we will present results of a detailed structural analysis on two barred lenticulars, which indicate that either their disks have almost completely disappeared, probably by secular evolution processes, or that bars were formed without disks. Moreover, we present numerical simulations which show how the later possibility can be attained with non-spherical halos.

## 2 Structural Analysis

The two galaxies discussed in this Letter were observed in optical (B, V, R, I) and near-infrared (Ks) broadbands in the Steward Observatory 61” and Bok telescopes, respectively. After standard reduction procedures, the images were used in a 2D structural analysis algorithm developed by de Souza (1997). The algorithm was constructed in order to model the surface brightness profiles of galaxies using two components: a bulge obeying the Sérsic luminosity profile and an exponential disk. Besides of being thoroughly tested in model galaxies, the algorithm has been already applied in a sample of 39 Sbc galaxies (Gadotti, 1999; dos Anjos & Gadotti, 2003) and 51 ellipticals and lenticulars (de Souza et al., 2003) providing valuable structural information.

The reader is referred to the above cited references for details on the algorithm. Essentially, the galaxy images are transformed into a matrix in which each point represents a pixel value. The user provides initial values for the structural parameters of bulge and disk (e.g., effective surface brightness, ellipticity, Sérsic index etc.) and the algorithm then tries to fit the galaxy image with model images of bulge and disk, by varying their structural parameters, minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ deviation at each pixel until it reaches a convergence limit. A total of 11 parameters are needed to fully describe the model and these are obtained from the image fitting. Using the fitted parameters, one can build a model galaxy and construct a residual image which can be useful in showing hidden sub-structures.

An important point to clarify now is that, in the case of strongly barred galaxies, like those studied here, the code performs a decomposition in 2 components that may be thought as the bar/bulge and the disk. The reader should keep this in mind when we refer to “bulge” hereafter.

NGC 4608 is catalogued as a SB0 galaxy in the Revised Shapley–Ames Catalog (Sandage & Tammann, 1981) and by van den Bergh, Pierce & Tully (1990) with CCD images. Previous surface photometry analysis was done by Benedict (1976), with 1D fitting on shallow photographic plates, and by Wozniak & Pierce (1991), fitting ellipses to the isophotes on CCD frames. Both studies concluded that this galaxy presents a low surface brightness disk. NGC 5701 is described as having an intermediate morphological type between SB0 and SBa by a number of authors (see, e.g., Sandage & Tammann (1981)).

When applied to NGC 4608 and NGC 5701 the algorithm retrieves a very low surface brightness disk. The major component is indubitably represented by the bar/bulge. Thus one is left to conclude that there is practically no disk present in these galaxies. The presence of a large Freeman disk like the ones observed in spirals can be readily discarded. Figure 1 shows the 2 galaxies and their residual images after subtraction of the model images. The direct images at left have an isophotal map overlayed with 0.5 mag interval between each contour level. These images refer to the R broadband but similar results were obtained in all the other bands. It is worth noting that not even in Ks a disk was found, which could be a possibility if the disk was hidden by dust or contained mostly very old population stars. Our surface photometry reaches the level of about 26 mag/arcsec2 in B and 23 mag/arcsec2 in Ks, with comparable values reached in the other passbands. Thus our photometry is deep enough to indicate that the absence of a disk is real. Even a faint disk would be detected. If there is a disk in these galaxies it has to have a luminosity far lower than the one measured in normal S0’s. Moreover, we do detect disks in other galaxies with images taken during the same nights, with the same exposure times and applying the same analysis.

Looking at the images at left in Fig. 1, one can already notice what seems to be a somewhat empty region around the bar in both galaxies. These empty regions appear much clearer in the residual images at right. In the case of NGC 4608 the residual image shows clearly the bar and the lens. For NGC 5701, one is left with the bar, the outer ring and the inner ring, which is not visible in the direct image. The important point to stress here is that, after the subtraction of only a bulge model, there is no clear sign of the presence of a disk. We should remark that these objects are genuine S0 galaxies as many authors have argued and because the conspicuous bars should be a disk perturbation. Thus, one must face the possibility of formation and maintenance of a bar in the almost total absence of a disk!

Another possibility is that secular evolutionary processes induced by bars in their host galaxies (Gadotti & dos Anjos, 2001, and references therein) have disturbed the structure of an originally healthy normal disk. In principle, these strong bars could have transferred material from the initial disk to the bulge. Then, what seems now a lens in NGC 4608 could be the outer remains of the disk. The outer ring in NGC 5701 could also be the signature of a pre-existent disk. For this galaxy too, there is a hint of inner disk remaining in the residual image.

To test the evolutionary hypothesis, we may consider the question whether the stars we see today in the bar once belonged to a disk. Could the luminosity we detect in the bar make up a disk if distributed accordingly? To answer that, we have determined the luminosity in all bands within a radius equal to the bar length (that was determined examining the ellipticity and position angle radial profiles) for the direct and residual images. The difference between them corresponds to the bulge luminosity, while the luminosity in the residual images may be attributed to the assumed disk. Thus we calculated what would have been a bulge/disk luminosity ratio for these galaxies before the secular evolution processes took place. This ratio is $`2`$ and therefore it is compatible with the secular evolution hypothesis since the bulge/disk ratio for normal S0’s is around 2 (Binney & Merrifield, 1998).

While bar formation without disks seems to be a quite unusual possibility, it is not at all trivial that secular processes can be so strong as to destroy a disk almost completely. We suggest, in the next section, how bars could be formed in galaxies without disks.

## 3 N-Body Simulations

The idea of having a bar forming without a disk is very powerful given its simplicity. It is based on the assumption that non-spherical dark matter halos should exist. As noted by Frenk (1988) model dark halos are generally triaxial and may be prolate. Moreover, their axial ratios can be quite extreme, reaching values around 3, while a ratio of 2 is common. Given that these halos are large and massive, it is reasonable that they could exert a strong influence on the dynamics of a stellar system which is embedded in such a halo. We performed numerical simulations to check if such a configuration could make a spheroid turn into a bar, i.e., a triaxial (or prolate) eccentric structure.

Thus, we simulated the evolution of a Plummer sphere embedded in a rigid halo represented by a logarithmic potential, which produces flat rotation curves and can be used to easily modify the halo core radius, the mass within it and the halo ellipticity (Binney & Tremaine, 1987). The Plummer sphere has a characteristic radius of 2 kpc, extends to 17 kpc, and a total mass of $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$M. The halo parameters modified were the axial ratios (from 1 to 4, prolate and triaxial), the core radius (from 6 kpc to 10 kpc) and the core mass (from $`0.9\times 10^{11}`$M to $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$M). These values for the core properties are usually found in the literature (e.g., Begeman et al. (1991)).

The simulations were performed with the nemo package (Teuben, 1995) with $`10^5`$ particles, using Barnes & Hut (1986) algorithm. The softening parameter was $`0.03`$, and the opening angle was $`0.7`$. Energy and the center of mass were conserved better than 0.1%, typically.

Several experiments were performed varying the halo parameters. We noticed that: (i), the sphere is stable when the axial ratios are low, remaining approximately spherical for any typical values for the core radius and mass; (ii), oval distortions, weak and strong bars are formed when raising the axial ratios from $`2`$ to $`4`$, not depending substantially on the other core parameters; and (iii), these results do not depend whether the halo is prolate or triaxial. Figure 2 shows a clarifying example. It shows how a Plummer sphere can be transformed into a bar within the dynamical influence of a triaxial halo with axial ratio equals 3, after 1 Gyr. Comparing Fig. 2 with the left panels of Fig. 1, one can see that the bar formed in our simulations is a good representation of the bars in NGC 4608 and NGC 5701. Also, the size of the bars in these galaxies and in our simulations is similar ($``$ 10 kpc).

Our new bar formation mechanism needs halos with axial ratios around 3 and the results from cosmological simulations by Frenk (1988) indicate that at least some halos must have these high values for their axial ratios. More recent cosmological simulations by, e.g., Warren et al. (1992), show that the axial ratios of halos have a wide distribution going to values as high as 3, while the simulations of Bullock (2001) indicate a typical value of around 1.5, but with extreme values going as high as 5. Concerning observations, recent results indicate values ranging from 1.25–2 (Buote et al. (2002); Sackett (1999)) to more than 3 (Sackett & Sparke (1990)).

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

There are thus two possible scenarios that could explain the existence of bars in systems (almost) devoid of discs. The first one is that bars can form in diskless systems, as described in the previous section. The second one is that such systems are extreme examples of the evolutionary scenario proposed recently by Athanassoula (2003). A weak bar forms initially, and grows by losing angular momentum to the external disk and the halo, via resonant stars (see Athanassoula (2002); Athanassoula & Misiriotis (2002)). In extreme cases it could “consume” all or most of the disk material, so that the end product would be a bar in a halo, with very little, if any, disk left, i.e., what we have found for NGC 4608 and NGC 5701. Thus, these galaxies can well be extreme examples of this evolutionary scenario. With this mechanism, strong halos lead to strong bars, which is also the case.

Let us now evaluate the predictions of the Athanassoula’s model (ATH) and our model of bar formation without disk (GDS) and make a quantitative comparison with the results for NGC 4608 and NGC 5701. For that, snapshots of the final result from both models were scaled in size and intensity to allow for a meaningful comparison with the observed galaxies. Figure 3 shows radial profiles of the ellipticity of the two galaxies and of both models. One sees that GDS provides a very good fit to the galaxies in most of the profile, while ATH fits reasonably well only the last fifth part of it. Figure 4 presents intensity cuts along the major and minor axes of the bar in the models and the galaxies. One can see that these cuts are better predicted by the ATH model. Another strong point favouring the secular evolution hypothesis is the fact that a boxy–peanut shape develops in the ATH model when viewed edge–on, as we know is the case for many observed bars (e.g., Bureau & Freeman (1999)). This does not occur in the GDS model.

Another powerful quantitative comparison of the face–on shapes may be performed if one calculates the Fourier components of the intensity distribution projected onto the equatorial plane, like in, e.g., (Athanassoula & Misiriotis, 2002). Figure 5 shows the results of the Fourier analysis. An inclination angle of 15 degrees was assumed for both galaxies to be deprojected before the components were calculated, in agreement with values found in the literature (Jungwiert et al. (1997)) and from analysing single dish HI velocity measurements (Haynes et al. (1998)). The main difference between the behaviour of the Fourier components in the ATH and GDS models is that there is a maximum in the former but not in the later. Thus the data from NGC 4608 favours the ATH model. The position of the maximum is not relevant here since it varies considerably from one simulation to another, depending on the Q Toomre parameter (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine (1987)). The maximum is nearer to the center in dynamically cold systems (Athanassoula, private communication). However, NGC 5701 does not seem to have a maximum, which supports the GDS model, unless a maximum is found in a very deep image. The reader must bear in mind that both models are in no way a specific fit to the galaxies under study, but they show that extreme cases of barred galaxies with hardly any disc are possible. It is clear that a definite conclusion should not be taken at this stage. More data (including spectroscopy) are necessary on these two galaxies and S0’s in general. On the other hand, simulations may now be directed to address this question further.

Nonetheless, two not necessarily mutually exclusive conclusions can be tentatively postulated: (i) \- bars can be formed in spheroids through the dynamical effects of a sufficiently eccentric halo, without the need of a stellar disk, and (ii) \- secular evolution in barred galaxies can be strong enough to almost completely destroy their disks.

The first possibility puts some hope in our struggle to understand how bars form in galaxies, since other mechanisms have several serious drawbacks. Of course, this mechanism alone can not be responsible for all the observed bars, since it needs very eccentric halos (and there are disk galaxies!), but could be at least for some barred lenticulars. Also, it not excludes the possibility of other bar forming instabilities acting together and thus can be explored to overcome some of the difficulties. On the other hand, it is based on very simplistic numerical experiments. More realistic simulations can be performed, e.g., including a live halo and gas, which can then account for other observed sub-structures, like the rings in NGC 5701. However, the essential idea, we showed now, seems to be correct. The second possible conclusion shows how strong secular evolutionary processes may be and so how seriously they should be considered in models of galaxy formation and evolution.

We are indebted to the referee, Lia Athanassoula, for many suggestions and comments that helped to greatly improve our work, and for letting us use her results prior to publication. It is a pleasure to thank Ron Buta and Ivo Busko for help on deprojecting galaxy images and Fourier analysis. DAG would like to thank Peter Teuben for invaluable help on nemo. Financial support from FAPESP grant 99/07492-7 is acknowledged.