text:
# New Results from the Muon 𝑔-2 Experiment

## I Introduction

The magnetic moment $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ of a particle with charge $`e`$, mass $`m`$, and spin $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=\frac{e}{2mc}g\stackrel{}{s}$$
(1)
in which $`g`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. For point particles with spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, Dirac theory predicts $`g=2`$.

Precision measurements of the $`g`$ values of leptons and baryons have historically played an important role in the development of particle theory. The $`g`$ value of the proton, for example, is found to differ sizeably from $`2`$, which provides evidence for a rich internal proton (spin) structure. The lepton $`g`$ values deviate from $`2`$ only by about one part in a thousand, consistent with current evidence that leptons are point particles with spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$. The anomalous magnetic $`g`$ value of the electron, $`a_e=(g_e2)/2`$, is among the most accurately measured quantities in physics, and is presently known with an uncertainty of about four parts per billion (ppb) Van Dyck et al. (1987). The value of $`a_e`$ is described in terms of standard model (SM) field interactions, in which it has a leading order contribution of $`\alpha /(2\pi )`$ from the so-called Schwinger term. Nearly all of the measured value is contributed by QED processes involving virtual electrons, positrons, and photons. Particles more massive than the electron contribute only at the level of the present experimental uncertainty.

The anomalous magnetic $`g`$ value of the muon, $`a_\mu `$, is more sensitive than $`a_e`$ to processes involving particles more massive than the electron, typically by a factor $`(m_\mu /m_e)^2410^4.`$ A series of three experiments at CERN Charpak et al. (1962); Bailey et al. (1972, 1979) measured $`a_\mu `$ to a final uncertainty of about 7 parts per million (ppm), which is predominantly of statistical origin. The CERN generation of experiments thus tested electron-muon universality and established the existence of a $`59`$ ppm hadronic contribution to $`a_\mu `$. Electroweak processes are expected to contribute to $`a_\mu `$ at the level of 1.3 ppm, as are many speculative extensions of the SM.

The present muon $`g2`$ experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has determined $`a_{\mu ^+}`$ of the positive muon with an uncertainty of 0.7 ppm from data collected in the year 2000, and aims for a similar uncertainty on $`a_\mu ^{}`$ of the negative muon from measurements in 2001. The continuation of the experiment by a single running period, if funded, should bring the design goal precision of 0.4 ppm within reach.

## II Experiment

The concept of the experiment at BNL is the same as that of the last of the CERN experiments Charpak et al. (1962); Bailey et al. (1972, 1979) and involves the study of the orbital and spin motions of polarized muons in a magnetic storage ring.

The present experiment (Fig. 1) is situated at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), which in the year 2000 delivered up to $`60\times 10^{12}`$ protons in twelve 50 ns (FWHM) bunches over its 3 s cycle. The 24 GeV protons from the AGS were directed onto a rotating, water-cooled nickel target. Pions with energies of 3.1 GeV emitted from the target were captured into a 72 m straight section of focusing-defocusing magnetic quadrupoles, which transported the parent beam and naturally polarized muons from forward pion decays. At the end of the straight section, the beam was momentum-selected and injected into the 14.2 m diameter storage ring magnet Danby et al. (2001) through a field-free inflector Yamamoto et al. (2002) region in the magnet yoke. A pulsed magnetic kicker Efstathiadis et al. (2003) located at approximately one quarter turn from the inflector region produced a 10 mrad deflection which placed the muons onto stored orbits. Pulsed electrostatic quadrupoles Semertzidis et al. (2003) provided vertical focusing. The magnetic dipole field of about 1.45 T was measured with an NMR system Prigl et al. (1996) relative to the free proton NMR frequency $`\omega _p`$ over most of the 9 cm diameter circular storage aperture. Twenty-four electromagnetic calorimeters Sedykh et al. (2000) read out by 400 MHz custom waveform digitizers (WFD) were used on the open, inner side of the C-shaped ring magnet to measure muon decay positrons. The decay violates parity, which leads to a relation between the muon spin direction and the positron energy spectrum in the laboratory frame. For positrons above an energy threshold $`E`$, the muon-decay time-spectrum

$$N(t)=N_0(E)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{\gamma \tau }\right)\left[1+A(E)\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega _at+\varphi (E)\right)\right],$$
(2)
in which $`N_0`$ is a normalization, $`\gamma \tau 64\mu \mathrm{s}`$ is the dilated muon lifetime, $`A`$ an asymmetry factor, $`\varphi `$ a phase, and $`\omega _a`$ the angular difference frequency of muon spin precession and momentum rotation. In our measurements, the NMR and WFD clocks were phase-locked to the same LORAN-C Superintendent of Documents (1992) frequency signal.

The muon anomalous magnetic $`g`$ value is evaluated from the ratio of the measured frequencies, $`R=\omega _a/\omega _p`$, according to:

$$a_\mu =\frac{R}{\lambda R},$$
(3)
in which $`\lambda =\mu _\mu /\mu _p`$ is the ratio the muon and proton magnetic moments. The value with smallest stated uncertainty, $`\lambda =\mu _\mu /\mu _p=\mathrm{3.183\hspace{0.17em}345\hspace{0.17em}39}(10)`$ Groom et al. (2000), results from measurements of the microwave spectrum of ground state muonium Liu et al. (1999) and theory Kinoshita (1998); Kinoshita and Nio (1998).

Important improvements made since our preceding measurement Brown et al. (2001) include: the operation of the AGS with 12 beam bunches, which contributed to a 4-fold increase in the data collected; a new superconducting inflector magnet, which greatly improved the homogeneity of the magnetic field in the muon storage region; a sweeper magnet in the beamline, which reduced AGS background; additional muon loss detectors, which improved the study of time dependence; and further refined analyses, in particular of coherent betatron oscillations.

## III Data Analysis

The analysis of $`a_\mu `$ follows, naturally, the separation of the measurement in the frequencies $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _a`$. Both frequencies were analyzed independently by several groups within the collaboration. The magnetic field frequencies measured during the running period were weighted by the distribution of analyzed muons, both in time and over the storage region. The frequency fitted from the positron time spectra was corrected by +0.76(3) ppm for the net contribution to the muon spin precession and momentum rotation caused by vertical beam oscillations and, for muons with $`\gamma 29.3`$, by horizontal electric fields Farley and Picasso (1990). The values of $`R=\omega _a/\omega _p`$ and $`a_\mu `$ were evaluated only after each of the frequency analyses had been finalized; at no earlier stage were the absolute values of both frequencies, $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _a`$, known to any of the collaborators.

### III.1 The frequency $`\omega _p`$

The analysis of the magnetic field data starts with the calibration of the 17 NMR probes in the field trolley using dedicated measurements taken during and at the end of the data collection period. In these calibration measurements, the field in the storage region was tuned to very good homogeneity at two specific calibration locations. The field was then measured with the NMR probes mounted in the trolley shell, as well as with a single probe plunged into the storage vacuum and positioned to measure the field values in the corresponding locations. Drifts of the field during the calibration measurements were determined by remeasuring the field with the trolley after the measurements with the plunging probe were completed, and in addition by interpolation of the readings from nearby NMR probes in the outer top and bottom walls of the vacuum chamber. The difference of the trolley and plunging probe readings forms a calibration of the trolley probes with respect to the plunging probe, and hence with respect to each other. The plunging probe, as well as a subset of the trolley probes, were calibrated with respect to a standard probe Fei et al. (1997) at the end of the running period in a similar sequence of measurements in the storage region, which was opened to air for that purpose. The leading uncertainties in the calibration procedure result from the residual inhomogeneity of the field at the calibration locations, and from position uncertainties in the active volumes of the NMR probes. These uncertainties were evaluated from measurements in which the trolley shell was purposely displaced and known field gradients were applied using the so-called surface and dipole correction coils of the ring magnet. The size of these uncertainties is estimated to be 0.15 ppm, as listed in Table 1. The uncertainty in the absolute calibration of the standard probe amounts to 0.05 ppm Fei et al. (1997). The dependencies of the trolley NMR readings on the supply voltage and on other parameters were measured to be small in the range of operation. An uncertainty of 0.10 ppm (”Others” in Table 1) is assigned, which includes also the measured effects from the transient kicker field caused by eddy currents and from AGS stray fields.

The magnetic field inside the storage region was measured 22 times with the field trolley during the data collection from January to March 2000. Fig. 2a shows the field value measured in the storage ring with the center trolley probe versus the azimuthal angle. The field is seen to be uniform to within about $`\pm 50`$ppm of its average value over the full azimuthal range, including the region near $`350^{}`$ where the inflector magnet is located. Non-linearities in the determination of the trolley position during the measurements — from the measured cable lengths and from perturbations on the readings from fixed probes as the trolley passes — are estimated to affect the azimuthal average of the field at the level of 0.10 ppm. Fig. 2b shows a 2-dimensional multipole expansion of the azimuthally averaged readings from the trolley probes,

$`B_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_nr^n\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_nr^n\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi ),`$ (4)
$`B_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_nr^n\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_nr^n\mathrm{cos}(n\varphi ),`$ (5)
where the coefficients $`C_n`$ and $`D_n`$ are the normal and skew multipoles, and $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ denote the polar coordinates in the storage region. The multipole expansion was truncated in the analysis after the decupoles. Measurements with probes extending to larger radii show that the neglect of higher multipoles is at most 0.03 ppm in terms of the average field encountered by the stored muons, in agreement with magnet design calculations. The field averaged over azimuth is seen to be uniform to within 1.5 ppm of its value.

The measurements with the trolley relate the readings of 370 NMR fixed probes in the outer top and bottom walls of the storage vacuum chamber to the field values in the beam region. The fixed NMR probes are used to interpolate the field when the field trolley is ’parked’ in the storage vacuum just outside the beam region, and muons circulate in the storage ring. Since the relationship between the field value in the storage region and the fixed probe readings may change during the course of the data collection period, the field mappings with the trolley were repeated typically two to three times per week, and whenever ramping of the magnet or a change in settings required such. The uncertainty associated with the interpolation of the magnetic field between trolley measurements is estimated from the spread of the difference between the dipole moments evaluated from the fixed probe measurements and from the trolley probe measurements in periods of constant magnet settings and powering. It is found to be 0.10 ppm.

Since the field is highly uniform, the field integral encountered by the (analyzed) muons is rather insensitive to the exact location of the beam. As in earlier works Brown et al. (2001, 2000), the radial equilibrium beam position was determined from the debunching of the beam following injection and the vertical position from the distribution of counts in scintillation counters mounted on the front faces of the positron calorimeters. The position uncertainty amounts to 1 – 2 mm, which contributes 0.03 ppm uncertainty to the field integral.

The result for field frequency $`\omega _p`$ weighted by the muon distribution is found to be,

$$\omega _p/(2\pi )=\mathrm{61\hspace{0.17em}791\hspace{0.17em}595}(15)\mathrm{Hz}\text{(0.2\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(6)
where the uncertainty has a leading contribution from the calibration of the trolley probes and is thus predominantly systematic. A second analysis of the field has been performed using additional calibration data, a different selection of fixed NMR probes, and a different method to relate the trolley and fixed probe readings. The results from these analyses are found to agree to within a fraction of the total uncertainty on $`\omega _p`$.

### III.2 The frequency $`\omega _a`$

The event sample available for analysis from data collection in the year 2000 amounts to about $`410^9`$ positrons reconstructed with energies greater than 2 GeV and times between 50 $`\mu `$s and 600 $`\mu `$s following the injection of a beam bunch. Fig. 3a shows the time spectrum corrected for the bunched time structure of the beam and for overlapping calorimeter pulses, so called pile-up Brown et al. (2001).

The leading characteristics of the time spectrum are those of muon decay and spin precession (cf. Eq. 2). Additional effects exist, as seen from the Fourier spectrum in Fig. 3b, and require careful consideration in the analysis. These effects include detector gain and time instability, muon losses, and oscillations of the beam as a whole, so-called coherent betatron oscillations (CBO).

Numerically most relevant to the determination of $`\omega _a`$ are CBO in the horizontal plane. CBO are caused by injecting the beam through the relatively narrow $`18(\mathrm{w})\times 57(\mathrm{h})\mathrm{mm}^2`$ aperture of the 1.7 m long inflector channel into the 90 mm diameter aperture of the storage region, and have been observed directly with fiber harp monitors plunged into the beam region for this purpose. The CBO frequency is determined by the focusing index of the storage ring, and is numerically close to twice the frequency $`\omega _a`$ for the quadrupole settings employed in most measurements so far. Since the calorimeter acceptances vary with the radial muon decay position in the storage ring and with the momentum of the decay positron, the time and energy spectra of the observed positrions are modulated with the CBO frequency. These modulations affect the normalization $`N_0`$, the asymmetry $`A`$, and the phase $`\varphi `$ in Eq. 2 at the level of 1%, 0.1%, and 1 mrad at beam injection. When not accounted for in the function fitted to the data, the modulations of the asymmetry and phase with a frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}2\times \omega _a`$ may manifest themselves as artificial shifts of up to 4 ppm in the frequency values $`\omega _a`$ determined from individual calorimeter spectra. The circular symmetry of the experiment design results in a strong cancellation of such shifts in the joined calorimeter spectrum.

Several approaches have been pursued in the analysis of $`\omega _a`$. In one approach, the time spectra from individual positron calorimeters was fitted in narrow energy intervals using a fit function as in Eq. 2 extended by the number, asymmetry, and phase modulations. Other approaches made use of the cancellation in the joined calorimeter spectra and either fitted for the residual of the leading effects, or accounted for their neglect in a contribution to the systematic uncertainty. The results are found to agree, on $`\omega _a`$ to within the expected 0.5 ppm statistical variation resulting from the slightly different selection and treatment of the data in the respective analyses. The combined result is found to be,

$$\omega _a/(2\pi )=\mathrm{229\hspace{0.17em}074\hspace{0.17em}11}(14)(7)\mathrm{Hz}\text{(0.7\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(7)
in which the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The combined systematic uncertainty is broken down by source in Table 2.

## IV Results and Discussion

The value of $`a_\mu `$ was evaluated after the analyses of $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _a`$ had been finalized,

$$a_{\mu ^+}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}204}(7)(5)\times 10^{10}\text{(0.7\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(8)
where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. This new result is in good agreement with the previous measurements Bailey et al. (1979); Brown et al. (2001, 2000); Carey et al. (1999) and drives the present world average,

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}203}(8)\times 10^{10}\text{(0.7\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(9)
in which the uncertainty accounts for known correlations between the systematic uncertainties in the measurements. Fig. 4 shows our recent measurements of $`a_{\mu ^+}`$, together with two SM evaluations discussed below.

In the SM, the value of $`a_\mu `$ receives contributions from QED, hadronic, and electroweak processes, $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})+a_\mu (\mathrm{had})+a_\mu (\mathrm{weak})`$. The QED and weak contributions can, unlike the hadronic contribution, be evaluated perturbatively, $`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}658\hspace{0.17em}470.57}(29)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ Mohr and Taylor (2000) and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{weak})=15.1(4)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ Czarnecki and Marciano (2001). The hadronic contribution is, in lowest order, related by dispersion theory to the hadron production cross sections measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions and, under additional assumptions, to hadronic $`\tau `$-decay. Clearly, the hadronic contribution has a long history of values as new data appeared and analyses were refined.

Shortly before the SPIN-2002 conference, Davier and co-workers released a new and detailed evaluation Davier et al. (2002), which now incorporates the high precision $`e^+e^{}`$ data Akhmetshin et al. (2002) in the region of the $`\rho `$ resonance from CMD-2 at Novosibirsk, more accurate $`e^+e^{}`$ measurements Bai et al. (2000, 2002) in the 2–5 GeV energy region from BES in Beijing, preliminary results from the final ALEPH analysis ALEPH Collaboration (2002) of hadronic $`\tau `$-decay at LEP1, as well as additional CLEO data Anderson et al. (2000); Edwards et al. (2000). The authors note discrepancies between the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$ data at the present levels of precision, and obtain separate predictions for the contribution to $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ from lowest order hadronic vacuum polarization, $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},1)=685(7)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ from $`e^+e^{}`$ data and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},1)=702(6)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ from $`\tau `$ data. Higher order contributions include higher order hadronic vacuum polarization Krause (1997); Alemany et al. (1998) and hadronic light-by-light scattering Hayakawa and Kinoshita (2001); Bijnens et al. (2002); Knecht and Nyffeler (2002); Knecht et al. (2002); Blokland et al. (2002).

Open questions concern the SM value of $`a_\mu `$, in particular the hadronic contribution, and the experimental value of $`a_\mu ^{}`$ at sub-ppm precision. The former should benefit from further theoretical scrutiny, e.g. Refs. Kinoshita and Nio (2002); Czarnecki et al. (2002); Hagiwara et al. (2002); Erler (2002), from radiative-return measurements at $`e^+e^{}`$ factories, e.g. Refs. Venanzoni et al. (2002); Solodov et al. (2001), and possibly from latice calculation Blum (2002). We are currently analyzing a sample of about $`3\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9`$ decay electrons from $`a_\mu ^{}`$ data collected in the year 2001. Stay tuned!

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. National Computational Science Alliance, the German Bundesminister für Bildung und Forschung, the Russian Ministry of Science, and the U.S.-Japan Agreement in High Energy Physics.


format: text

text:
# New Physics and novel Higgs signals

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of the Higgs boson is certainly one of the most cherished goals of present and future high-energy experiments. In fact, the reported bounds on the Higgs boson mass hsmradc , together with data on neutrinos superkam  and CP-violation with B-mesons nirtalk , can be considered some of the most important recent results in Particle Physics, and are already helping us to shape our understanding of flavor physics and electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking. The Higgs boson mass is constrained by radiative corrections to lay in the range 110-185 GeV at 95 % c.l. hsmradc ; such a light Higgs boson ($`h`$)is consistent with the prediction of weak scale SUSY, which has become on of the preferred extensions of the SM susyrev .

The characteristic Higgs boson couplings determine the strategies employed for its search at present and future colliders hixhunter . For instance, the Higgs-fermion couplings can be studied by open production of $`t\overline{t}h,b\overline{b}h`$ at hadron colliders or NLC. However, the possible presence of heavy particles associated with physics beyond the SM, can induce corrections to such couplings, which can modify the SM predictions for Higgs production or decays. Heavy particles can also induce tree-level corrections, as it occurs in scenarios with large extra-dimensions, where the KK modes can contribute to the associated production of Higgs with Z boson at NLC, as it will be discussed next.

Flavor violation is another phenomena that could be tested in the Higgs sector. The most widely studied scenarios for Higgs searches, assume that the Flavor-Conserving (FC) Higgs-fermion couplings only depend on the diagonalized fermion mass matrices, while flavor-violating (FV) Higgs transitions are absent or highly suppressed Krawczyk:1998ru . Indeed, within the SM the Higgs boson-fermion couplings are only sensitive to the fermion mass eigenvalues. However, if one considers extensions of the SM, it is possible to induce new flavored Higgs interactions. These new interactions could be tested through the lepton-flavour violating (LFV) Higgs decays, such as $`h\tau \mu /\tau e`$ myhixLFV , which can reach detectable levels in several models that will be discussed next; similarly, these FV scalar interactions can also be tested with the rare decays of the top quark.

## 2 Deviations of the Higgs couplings and heavy particles

Within the minimal standard model (SM), a light Higgs boson mass is favored by present data hsmradc . However one can show that the effect of new physics can modify the Higgs couplings with gauge bosons, in a manner that cancels the (virtual) Higgs contribution that appears in the analysis of EW radiative corrections, and thus allow heavier Higgs masses, up to about 600 GeV, that still could be accessible at future colliders. This was first proved using a model-independent effective lagrangian approach in Refs. Meandthem . Nevertheless, even after a Higgs signal will be seen, probably at the Tevatron and/or LHC, it will become crucial to measure its mass, spin and couplings, to elucidate its nature. In particular, the Higgs coupling to light fermions ($`b\overline{b},c\overline{c},\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$) could be measured at next-linear collider (NLC) with a precision of a few percent hixcoupl , which can be used to constrain physics beyond the SM. For instance, higher-dimensional operators of the type $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{Q}_L\mathrm{\Phi }b_R`$ involving the third family, will generate corrections to the coupling $`h\overline{b}b`$, which in turn will modify the dominant decay of the light Higgs, as well as the associated production of the Higgs with b-quark pairs. This effect was studied within the minimal SUSY SM (MSSM), and found to be detectable in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime ourhixbb ; carena . The Higgs sector of the MSSM includes two Higgs doublets, and the light Higgs boson (with mass bound $`m_h125`$ GeV), is perhaps the strongest prediction of the model.

Any additional heavy particle that receives its mass from the SM Higgs mechanism, will also contribute to the 1-loop vertices, an effect that can be tested through Higgs production , such as the loop-induced gluon fusion production of Higgs bosons at hadron colliders, or through the decay into photon pairs ($`h\gamma \gamma `$). However, such heavy particles will also induce non-decoupling corrections to the tree vertices $`hf\overline{f}`$, $`hWW`$ and $`hZZ`$, which can affect the decay rate of detectable signatures myhixm .

Heavy particles can also induce tree-level corrections, as it occurs in scenarios with large extra-dimensions, which were proposed as an alternative solution to the hierarchy problem newexd . The location of the Higgs can be studied within the context of a model with two-Higgs doublets, one living in the brane, while the other penetrates the bulk. Due to this assignment, new vertices of the type $`hZZ_{KK}`$ between the higgs (h), the Z boson and its KK resonances ($`Z_{KK}`$), arise in the model. These vertices in turn affect the Higgs phenomenology. For instance we found that the KK states contribute to the associated production of Higgs with Z boson, in a manner that suppresses the Higgs rates at LEP and Tevatron, while giving large enhancements on the cross-section at the future LHC and NLC ourhixdm .

## 3 Flavor-violating Higgs couplings

New flavored Higgs interactions can be induced when one considers extensions of the SM, which either present a significant new source of flavor-changing transition or are aimed precisely to explain the pattern of masses and mixing angles of the quarks and leptons. Namely, when additional fields that have non-aligned couplings to the SM fermions, i.e. which are not diagonalized by the same rotations that diagonalize the fermion mass matrices, and also couple to the Higgs boson, then such fields could be responsible for transmitting the structure of the flavor sector to the Higgs bosons, thereby producing a more flavored Higgs boson myMFHB . Depending on the nature of such new physics, we can identify two possibilities for flavor-Higgs mediation, namely:

* RADIATIVE MEDIATION. In this case the Higgs sector has diagonal couplings to the fermions at tree-level. However, the presence of new particles associated with extended flavor physics, which couple both to the Higgs and to the SM fermions, will induce corrections to the Yukawa couplings and/or new FCNC process at loop levels. Within the MSSM, it can be shown that flavor-Higgs mediation is of radiative type, and it communicates the non-trivial flavor structure of the soft-breaking sector to the Higgs bosons through gaugino-sfermion loops.

1. As an illustration of the SUSY case, we have evaluated the slepton-gaugino contributions to the LFV Higgs-lepton vertices, with slepton mixing originating from the trilinear $`A_l`$-terms. The slepton mixing is constrained by the low-energy data, but it mainly suppress the FV’s associated with the first two family sleptons, and still allows the flavor-mixings between the second- and third-family sleptons, to be as large as $`O(1)`$. Thus, the general $`6\times 6`$ slepton-mass-matrix can be reduced down to a $`4\times 4`$ matrix, involving only the smuon and stau sectors. Such pattern of large slepton mixing, and the resulting $`h\tau \mu `$ coupling can also be motivated by the large neutrino mixing observed with atmospheric neutrinos superkam . For this pattern of large trilinear A-terms, we find that bounds on $`\tau \mu `$ transitions, allow the decay mode $`h\tau \mu `$, to reach a B.R. of the order $`10^4`$, which enters into the domain of detectable signals prihmutau .
    2. This reduction of sfermion mass matrices was discussed first for the squarks in ref. oursqmix . Similar mixing between the stop and scharm squarks, can be tested through the rare decays of the top quark mytcgama ; for instance one finds that the decay $`tch`$ reaches branching ratios of the order $`10^310^4`$, which could be detected at future hadron colliders, such as LHC.
* MIXING MEDIATION. Modifications to the Higgs-flavor structure can also arise when additional particles (bosons or fermions) mix with the SM ones. These new interactions could then be transmitted to the Higgs sector, either through scalar-Higgs mixing or through mixing of SM fermions with exotic ones. Some models where this flavor-violating Higgs interactions appear are:

1. In the general Two-Higgs doublet model (THDM-III) hifcnc ; mythdiiia , where large FV Higgs couplings are allowed, we obtain $`B.R.(H\tau \mu /\tau e)10^1`$ myhixLFV , which can be detected at Tevatron Run-II and LHC prihmutau .
    2. Along these lines we have also considered a multi-Higgs $`E_6`$inpired model, supplemented with an abelian flavor symmetry, where similar rates for $`h\tau \mu `$ are obtained myMFHB .
    3. We have also consider mixing between SM and exotic fermions, within the context of a LR model with mirror fermions hlfvLRMM  as a source of LFV , when this is transmitted to the Higgs sector, it induces the decay $`h\tau \mu `$ at detectable rates.

Thus, as a consequence of the presence of LFV Higgs interactions, the decay $`h\tau \mu `$ can be induced at rates that could be detected at future colliders, such as Tevatron and LHC. Large LFV Higgs couplings could be the manifestation of a deeper link between the Higgs and flavor sectors.

## Acknowledgements

This work was presented at the X Mexican School of particles and fields, dedicated to my professors and friends, Augusto Garcia and Arnulfo Zepeda, pioneers of the field in Mexico and Latinamerica. Work supported by CONACYT-SNI (Mexico).


text:
# Surface State Stark Shift in a Scanning Tunneling Microscope

## Abstract

We report a quantitative low-temperature Scanning Tunneling Spectroscopy (STS) study on the Ag(111) surface state over an unprecedented range of currents ($`50`$ pA to $`6`$ $`\mu `$A) through which we can tune the electric field in the tunnel junction of the microscope. We show that in STS a sizeable Stark effect causes a shift of the surface state binding energy $`E_0`$. Data taken are reproduced by a one-dimensional potential model calculation, and are found to yield a Stark-free energy $`E_0`$ in agreement with recent state-of-the-art Photoemission Spectroscopy measurements.

Surface states have been investigated intensely for over two decades of surface science. These states, which are trapped between the surface barrier potential and a band gap in the crystal, are an experimental realization of a quasi-two-dimensional electron gas with a characteristic dispersion of $`E(k)E_0k^2`$, where $`E_0`$ is the lower edge of the energy band. Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) and Spectroscopy (STS) have provided a new way to study surface states through local measurements performed on the atomic scale. The first imaging of Shockley surface states on the (111) facet of the noble metals Ag, Cu and Au Crommie Hasegawa , has motivated a great deal of STM and STS studies on these systems. Since then, many aspects have been elucidated such as surface-state-mediated interactions ssinteractions , and lateral confinement to nano-cavities ssconfinement . The lifetime $`\tau `$ of these states at $`E_0`$, as determined by STS Joerg ; LifetimeB ; LifetimeK , also agree remarkably well with recent state-of-the-art angle-resolved Photoemission Spectroscopy (PES) measurements Reinert . Despite this success, a worrying discrepancy between STS and PES still subsists in noble metals concerning $`E_0`$, as $`E_0`$(STS) is found to lie lower than $`E_0`$(PES) typically by $`5`$ to $`20`$ meV Joerg ; Reinert .

This last point is still an open question. A possible explanation would be that unlike STS, where the local character of the measurement allows to access a defect-free region of the surface, a PES measurement is defect-sensitive as it integrates over a large sample area of about 1 mm2. And defects should, in principle, shift $`E_0`$(PES) upwards in energy PESDefects . However defects also broaden the PES line width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$(PES)$`=\mathrm{}/\tau `$), and the recent agreement found for $`\tau `$ between STS and PES appears to invalidate this scenario.

In this Letter, we present STS measurements on the surface state of Ag(111) which elucidate this discrepancy. The presence of an electric field between the STM tip and the sample surface is known to produce a Stark shift in the STS spectra of field emission resonance states Binnig , or a more dramatic effect such as band bending in semiconductors BandBending . With this in mind, we have tracked down the influence of the electric field on the STS spectrum of the Ag(111) surface state. The tunneling current $`I`$ in a STM junction can be written as

$$I\text{exp}(1.025\sqrt{\varphi }d)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the apparent barrier height and $`d`$ the tip-surface distance, hence the electric field ($`1/d`$) can be conveniently tuned through $`I`$. By spanning $`I`$ over $`50`$ pA$``$$`6`$ $`\mu `$A and recording concomitantly the surface state spectrum, we establish on an experimental basis the existence of a downward Stark shift in $`E_0`$(STS). We also provide a one-dimensional model which describes the Stark contribution. We extract the Stark-shift-free energy $`E_0`$ of Ag(111) and find it to agree with the PES value (where no electric field is present).

The Ag(111) surface was cleaned by Ar+ sputter/anneal cycles, and the measurements were performed in a custom-built ultrahigh vacuum STM operating at a temperature of $`4.6`$ K, using electrochemically etched W tips, further treated in-situ by indentations into the surface. Spectroscopy of the differential conductance $`dI/dV`$ versus the sample voltage $`V`$ was performed by opening the feedback loop at $`V=100`$ mV in the center of impurity- and step-free regions of the surface ($`400`$ nm2). A lock-in detection amplifier was employed to record the $`dI/dV`$ (AC voltage modulation was $`1`$ mV rms and $`110`$ kHz, and a single spectrum was acquired in $`310`$ s). The dependency of the $`dI/dV`$ spectrum on $`d`$ is probed through Eq. 1 by varying $`I`$.

Figure 1 summarizes the essential experimental findings. The sharp step-like rise of the conductance shown in Fig. 1a for $`I=1`$ nA allows to determine the low edge of the energy band of the Ag(111) surface state $``$ at $`E_0=66.7(5)`$ meV in Fig. 1a, in agreement with previous STS studies Joerg , but lower than $`E_0`$(PES)$`=63(1)`$ meV Reinert . In contrast, from the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the onset we extract $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$(STS)$`=6.4(5)`$ meV LifetimeB , in agreement with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$(PES)$`=6.0(5)`$. When increasing $`I`$, a sizeable shift of $`E_0`$ occurs. In typical $`dI/dV`$ spectra (Fig. 1b) the surface state onset shifts downward in energy with no appreciable broadening as $`I`$ increases from a pA-range to a $`\mu `$A-range. At $`I=6`$ $`\mu `$A, the highest current where we could perform reliable spectroscopy, $`E_0`$ has shifted by $`20\%`$ with respect to $`I=50`$ pA. The dependence of $`E_0`$ on $`I`$, i.e. on the tip-surface distance, is the major finding of this Letter.

Figure 2 presents a quantitative evaluation of $`E_0`$ for all tunneling currents investigated. Two distinct regimes are found for the band edge shift $``$ also directly visible on the spectra of Fig. 1b: typically $`50`$ pA$`I1`$ $`\mu `$A over which $`E_0`$ decreases by $`4`$ meV, and $`2`$ $`\mu `$A$`<I6`$ $`\mu `$A where the shift of $`E_0`$ is more pronounced ($`10`$ meV).

Care was taken to systematically survey the tip and the surface status during spectrum acquisition. We proceeded as follows: (i) for a given tip preparation a $`I=1`$ nA spectrum is acquired and $`E_0`$ is evaluated following the geometrical analysis detailed in Fig. 1a, (ii) $`I`$ is then set to the value of interest and a spectrum is recorded, (iii) the tip and the surface status are checked through a final $`1`$ nA spectrum. To minimize errors in the evaluation of the shift, each spectrum acquired in step (ii) was fitted to the 1 nA spectrum of step (i) in order to determine $`E_0`$. For all the data reported in this Letter, no change was discernable in the spectra acquired in step (i) and in step (iii), meaning that neither a tip modification nor a tip-induced damage of the surface occurred when acquiring spectra in the $`50`$ pA $``$ $`6`$ $`\mu `$A range. This conclusion also agrees with the absence of any modification in the surface images acquired before step (i) and after step (iii).

Before going any further, a remark concerning the experimental setup is necessary. Given the unusually wide range of the tunneling resistances $`R`$ employed in this study (from $`20`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`2`$ G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), the possibility of a voltage drop at the input impedance $`R_{in}`$ of the current preamplifier has to be considered. It would decrease the bias voltage at the tunneling junction by $`(1+R_{in}/R)^1`$ thus producing a sizeable $`R`$-dependent, i.e. $`I`$-dependent, shift of the spectrum when $`RR_{in}`$. With the variable gain current preamplifier employed this does not occur, since $`R_{in}/R0.3\%`$ at most (this condition is met for both DC and AC signals at the modulation frequencies used). To highlight this point, Fig. 3a displays two spectra acquired at $`10`$ nA but with gains of $`10^7`$ and $`10^8`$ V/A for which $`R_{in}/R=0.02\%`$ and $`R_{in}/R=0.1\%`$ respectively. As expected, their difference is a flat line over the entire voltage range (Fig. 3b), even in the onset region where a shift artifact would produce a spike. This is also true for pairs of spectra acquired at 1 nA, 100 nA and 1$`\mu `$A at different gains. In conclusion, no relevant voltage drop is present in our setup at the tunneling currents of interest.

In order to express the dependency of $`E_0`$ on the tip-surface distance, we measured the variation of $`I`$ while approaching, with the feedback loop open, the tip towards the surface by $`6`$ Å. The recorded currents which cover $`20`$ pA $``$ $`6`$ $`\mu `$A follow an exponential behavior up to $`2`$ $`\mu `$A, from which we extract through Eq. 1 an apparent barrier height of $`\varphi =4.0(2)`$ eV, typical for noble metals Besenbacher . In contrast, for $`I2`$ $`\mu `$A, $`I`$ increases faster than expected. It is well known from break junction experiments Krans , that this signals that the junction is no longer in a tunneling regime, rather in a contact regime where, as we discuss below, important modifications of the tip and the surface morphologies occur.

Our results are summarized in Fig. 4, where $`E_0`$ is now plotted versus the tip-surface displacement. As shown, the negative Stark shift of $`E_0`$ can be tuned by approaching or retracting the tip from the surface. To gain further insight, we propose a model which describes the experimental data and enables extrapolation to the zero-field properties of the surface state. We first detail some aspects of the model and then discuss the calculation in the light of our data.

The Ag(111) surface state electrons are modeled with the one-dimensional potential proposed by Chulkov et al. Chulkov . This potential is periodic in the bulk ($`z<0`$), has a potential well just outside the surface ($`0<z<z_1`$), then decays exponentially towards the vacuum ($`z_1<z<z_{\mathrm{im}}`$) to finally cross over to a long-range image potential ($`z>z_{\mathrm{im}}`$). To take into account the presence of the tip at $`zz_{\mathrm{tip}}`$, we added to the potential the linear contribution of the voltage bias $`V`$ between tip and surface, as well as the difference between the work functions of the tip ($`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}`$) and the surface ($`\varphi _{\mathrm{samp}}`$) to include the contact potential. Furthermore, we modified the shape of the image potential to account for multiple images in the tip and the surface. This yields

$`V(z)=2V_{111}\mathrm{cos}gz,z<0`$
$`V(z)=V_{20}+V_2\mathrm{cos}\beta z,0<z<z_1`$
$`V(z)=V_{\mathrm{lin}}(z)+V_3e^{\alpha (zz_1)},z_1<z<z_{\mathrm{im}}`$
$`V(z)=V_{\mathrm{lin}}(z)V_{\mathrm{im}}(z),z_{\mathrm{im}}<z<z_{\mathrm{tip}}`$
where

$$V_{\mathrm{lin}}(z)=E_F+s(eV+\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}})+(1s)\varphi _{\mathrm{samp}}$$

where $`E_F`$ is the surface Fermi energy, $`s=(zz_1)/(z_{\mathrm{tip}}z_1)`$, and

$$V_{\mathrm{im}}(z)=[1e^{\lambda (zz_{\mathrm{im}})}]\frac{e^2[2\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\mathrm{\Psi }(\zeta )\mathrm{\Psi }(1\zeta )]}{16\pi ϵ_0(z_{\mathrm{im}}^{\mathrm{tip}}z_{\mathrm{im}})},$$

with $`\zeta =(zz_{\mathrm{im}})/(z_{\mathrm{im}}^{\mathrm{tip}}z_{\mathrm{im}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the digamma function. The parameters $`V_{111}`$, $`g`$, $`V_{20}`$, $`V_2`$, $`\beta `$, and $`z_1=5\pi /(4\beta )`$ describing the potential in the absence of the tip are fixed to their corresponding values of Ref. Chulkov, . The remaining parameters $`V_3`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\lambda `$, and $`z_{\mathrm{im}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{im}}^{\mathrm{tip}}`$ that account for the tip contribution, were fixed by requiring the potential and its derivative to be continuous everywhere, except at $`z=z_{\mathrm{tip}}`$ for the derivative. The energy of the surface state at a given tip-surface distance was calculated by searching for the corresponding maximum in the transmission probability for electrons tunneling from the tip to the surface (a small imaginary part was introduced in the potential between $`0zz_1`$ to mimic the inelastic scattering).

The calculation performed with the Ag(111) work function $`\varphi _{\mathrm{samp}}=\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}=4.56`$ eV for both tip and surface (solid line in Fig. 4) reproduces the data up to $`I2`$ $`\mu `$A EF , where a strong discrepancy is observed. We first focus on the $`I2`$ $`\mu `$A region were the model works. To probe the influence of the contact potential, we performed calculations with different values for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}`$: for a pure W tip ($`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}=5.20`$ eV, short dashed line on Fig. 4), and for a Ag coated tip with a high density of surface defects ($`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}=4.36`$ eV, dotted line). The contact potential yields, in the former case, a Stark shift opposite to the one of the negative bias, whereas the latter increases the downward shift. As shown, neither of them reproducse the experimental behavior as well as the calculation with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{tip}}=4.56`$ eV does. Although we cannot fully exclude a contribution from the contact potential, from these considerations we conclude that, for the tips used, it must bear a negligible contribution to the Stark effect. We note also that since the data was obtained with a variety of tips, the highly reproducible shift observed indicates that our in-situ tip preparation must lead to similar tip apices. In conclusion, on the basis of our model, at the largest tip-surface distances shown, the Stark effect is mainly produced by the bias and by the lowering of the image potential compared with the case of an isolated surface, with a 2 to 1 ratio between the two. However, as tip-surface distance decreases the lowering of the image potential is increasingly stronger and eventually governs the Stark effect.

Now we discuss the asymptotic behavior of the Stark effect. As the tip is retracted, the Stark contribution decreases towards the non-perturbed $`E_0`$ binding energy which is calculated by suppressing the presence of the tip in our model. It yields a constant value (dashed line on Fig. 4) with tip-surface distance of $`E_0=64`$ meV, in agreement with the Stark-free PES value for Ag(111). Figure 4 shows that the Stark effect cannot be suppressed, as the tip would have to be retracted well beyond the lowest tunneling currents experimentally accessible, which are typically in the pA-range. For Ag(111) the Stark shift results then, at the best, in a $`45\%`$ error in the evaluation of $`E_0`$.

We now turn to the $`I2`$ $`\mu A`$ region where our model calculation no longer reproduces the experimental data. The comparison between the two indicates that the actual electric field in the junction is stronger than the one predicted in our model calculation. Since in the model the tip and surface morphologies are assumed to be constant at all tunneling currents, we hint that in the $`I2`$ $`\mu A`$ range, i.e. $`R50`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the tip and the surface deform to yield a stronger electric field. However, this deformation is reversible, since the spectra acquired at $`I=1`$ nA prior and after ramping the current to $`I2`$ $`\mu A`$ (three-step procedure described earlier) did not yield any substantial differences. This picture agrees with calculations performed for Au(100) Besenbacher , which indicate that the tip and the surface undergo an elastic deformation, i.e. they stretch towards each other, because of attractive adhesive forces acting at $`R100`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In particular, this is predicted to result in a deviation from the exponential behavior of Eq. 1, which we do indeed observe in the $`I`$ versus displacement measurements at $`I2`$ $`\mu A`$.

To summarize, in STS a downward shift of $`E_0`$ of the Ag(111) Shockley surface state occurs when decreasing tip-surface distance. A model calculation explains this observation in terms of a Stark shift produced by the bias and by the lowering of the image potential compared to an isolated surface. We extract a non-perturbed value of $`64`$ meV for the binding energy of the Ag(111) surface state. In light of the agreement with the PES measurements for Ag(111), we conclude that a possible positive shift of $`E_0`$ in the PES data of Ref. Reinert,  due to surface defects is negligible. Finally, for tunneling resistances $`R50`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an enhanced shift is observed, which we assign to an elastic deformation of the tip-surface morphology. These results, supported by our recent observation of a Stark effect for other noble metal surface states and for the Ag/Ag(111) adatom Kroeger , suggest that STS data require a thorough quantification of the Stark effect when striving for high energy resolution, especially for states whose wavefunctions have large decay lengths into vacuum.

We gratefully acknowledge G. Hoffmann whose results for Na/Cu($`111`$) motivated this work, and J. Kröger, J. Kuntze, and S. Crampin for fruitful discussions. L.L., T.M. and R.B. thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support, and P.J. the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (VR).


text:
# Final State Interaction Effects in ³(He)⃗(e⃗,e'p)

## Abstract

Asymmetries in quasi–elastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$ have been measured at a momentum transfer of 0.67 $`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$ and are compared to a calculation which takes into account relativistic kinematics in the final state and a relativistic one-body current operator. With an exact solution of the Faddeev equation for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$–ground state and an approximate treatment of final state interactions in the continuum good agreement is found with the experimental data.

Introduction: Investigations of the structure of the nuclear three-body system have recently attracted much interest. Modern three-body calculations allow for a quantitative description of this system not only of the ground state but also for the continuum states. Results of such calculations open the possibility to test our understanding of the three-body system, the role of three-body forces, and non–nucleonic degrees of freedom by using continuum observables, quantities that obviously have a much richer structure and contain additional information. These calculations have reached a high degree of sophistication, and several ”exact” calculations are available today .

Recently, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ became also important for studies of nucleon form factors. Due to the lack of free neutron targets, only neutrons bound in light nuclei can be studied. The main advantage of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ lies in the fact that for the major part of the ground state wave function the spins of the two protons are antiparallel so that spin dependent observables are dominated by the neutron .

When using $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ as a neutron target, nuclear structure effects such as final state interactions (FSI), meson exchange currents (MEC), and relativistic effects must be carefully considered . With the calculations available today such corrections can be performed quantitatively at low $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$ as was demonstrated in the recent electromagnetic form factor experiments by Becker et al. and Xu et al. . However, given that the calculations were performed in a non-relativistic framework, a “rigorous” treatment of these corrections at higher $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$ was not at hand. This represents a serious difficulty for experiments aiming at the electric neutron form factor, $`G_{en}`$.

The present paper reports about a new, less rigorous approach to correct for nuclear effects at high $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$. The theoretical results are compared with asymmetries measured in quasi-elastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$-scattering at $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$=0.67$`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$.

Theory: The calculation is based on an exact, but non–relativistic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ ground state wave function. To obtain the matrix elements relativistic kinematics and a relativistic single nucleon current operator are used. Thereby the final state includes re–scattering terms to first order in the nucleon-nucleon (NN) t–matrix. Results for the AV18 NN–potential  will be presented. The dependence on the NN–interaction is studied with a calculation which employs the CD–Bonn NN–potential . In order to provide insight into the importance of relativity additional calculations with a non–relativistic current or with non–relativistic kinematics are performed. All calculations use the parameterization by Höhler to describe the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleons .

As mentioned above, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{N})`$ at large $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$ does not allow for a rigorous treatment of FSI based on the Faddeev-like integral equation . When the center-of-mass energy of the three-nucleon (3N) system is well above the pion production threshold the usual potential approach is not valid. However, in quasi–elastic kinematics the focus is mostly on the region of phase space, where one of the nucleons is struck with a high energy and momentum and leaves the remaining two-nucleon system with a rather small internal energy. Thus, one may hope that approximations shown in figure 1 will be justified.

Let us first consider the three-body breakup of 3He. The amplitude $`A_1`$ takes a very simple form

$$A_1=\stackrel{}{p}_1m_1\nu _1\stackrel{}{p}_2m_2\nu _2\stackrel{}{p}_3m_3\nu _3j(\stackrel{}{Q},1)\mathrm{\Psi }_b\stackrel{}{P}MM_T,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ are the individual nucleon momenta and $`m_i`$ ($`\nu _i`$) their spin (isospin) projections. $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ is the total momentum and $`M`$ ($`M_T`$) the spin (isospin) magnetic quantum number of the initial 3He bound state. The single nucleon current $`j(\stackrel{}{Q},1)`$ acts only on nucleon 1. Choosing the laboratory frame $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$ and the standard representation of the 3N bound state in the basis of relative Jacobi momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ one gets

$`A_1=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{Q}){\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_2m_3\nu _1\nu _2\nu _3\mathrm{\Psi }_bMM_T,`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3)`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q}`$. Finally we use the partial wave decomposition of the bound state in the basis $`pq\alpha `$ (see ) and arrive at

$`A_1=\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{Q})\delta _{\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3,M_T}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ^{}}{}}C(j^{},I^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\mu ^{},M\mu ^{},M)C(l^{},s^{},j^{};\mu ^{}m_2m_3,m_2+m_3,\mu ^{})`$
$`C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},s^{};m_2,m_3,m_2+m_3)C(\lambda ^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},I^{};M\mu ^{}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},M\mu ^{})`$
$`C(t^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\nu _2+\nu _3,\nu _1,\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3)C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},t^{};\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _2+\nu _3)`$
$`Y_{l^{},\mu ^{}m_2m_3}(\widehat{p})Y_{\lambda ^{},M\mu ^{}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}(\widehat{q})pq\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_b.`$ (3)
The amplitude $`A_2`$ is given by

$$A_2=\stackrel{}{p}_1m_1\nu _1\stackrel{}{p}_2m_2\nu _2\stackrel{}{p}_3m_3\nu _3t_{23}G_0j(\stackrel{}{Q},1)\mathrm{\Psi }_b\stackrel{}{P}MM_T$$
(4)
and can be written as

$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{Q})\delta _{\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3,M_T}\delta _{\nu _1,\nu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}}\underset{m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},m_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}\underset{\nu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\nu _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}\delta _{\nu _2+\nu _3,\nu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\nu _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}\stackrel{}{p}m_2m_3\nu _2\nu _3t(z)\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}}m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE(p_1,p_{23},p^{})+iϵ}}\stackrel{}{p}^{^{}}\stackrel{}{q}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_bMM_T,`$
where $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{23}=\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{p}_3`$. The total energy $`E`$ of the 3N system can be expressed as

$`E=\omega +m_{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}=\sqrt{m_N^2+p_1^2}+\sqrt{4(m_N^2+p^2)+p_{23}^2}`$
$`\sqrt{m_N^2+p_1^2}+\sqrt{4m_N^2+p_{23}^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{m_N^2+\frac{1}{4}p_{23}^2}}}E(p_1,p_{23},p).`$ (6)
with $`m_N`$ the nucleon mass. In Eq. (6) $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the (relativistic) relative momentum between nucleons 2 and 3 calculated in the frame where the total momentum of the $`(23)`$ pair is zero. It agrees, however, to a good approximation with the standard (nonrelativistic) definition $`\stackrel{}{p}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3)`$. Consequently, the $`(23)`$ subsystem internal energy which enters in the nonrelativistic t-matrix calculation is taken as

$$z=E\sqrt{m_N^2+p_1^2}\sqrt{4m_N^2+p_{23}^2}$$
(7)
In a final step both the bound state wave function and the t-matrix are given in the partial wave basis, which yields

$`A_2=\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{Q})\delta _{\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3,M_T}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{lsj\mu t}{}}C(l,s,j;\mu m_2m_3,m_2+m_3,\mu )C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},s;m_2,m_3,m_2+m_3)`$
$`C(t,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\nu _2+\nu _3,\nu _1,\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3)C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},t;\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _2+\nu _3)`$
$`Y_{l,\mu m_2m_3}(\widehat{p}){\displaystyle \underset{\overline{l}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}}\delta _{l^{}\overline{l}}\delta _{s^{}s}\delta _{j^{}j}\delta _{t^{}t}C(j,I^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\mu ,M\mu ,M)`$
$`C(\lambda ^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},I^{};M\mu m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},M\mu )Y_{\lambda ^{},M\mu m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}(\widehat{q})`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑p^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{p^{}q\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_b}{EE(p_1,p_{23},p^{})+iϵ}p(ls)jtt(z)p^{}(l^{}s^{})jt}.`$ (8)
The amplitude for the two-body breakup of 3He, $`A_{pd}`$, is given as

$$A_{pd}=\stackrel{}{p}_1m_1\nu _1\varphi _d\stackrel{}{p}_dm_dj(\stackrel{}{Q},1)\mathrm{\Psi }_b\stackrel{}{P}MM_T,$$
(9)
where $`\varphi _d`$ is the deuteron state with the spin magnetic quantum number $`m_d`$ and laboratory momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_d`$. In the next step one gets

$`A_{pd}=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_d\stackrel{}{Q})\delta _{\nu _1M_T}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{}{q}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\nu _1\varphi _d\stackrel{}{p}_dm_d\mathrm{\Psi }_bMM_T,`$
where $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q}`$. Partial wave expansion of the deuteron and 3He bound state leads to

$`A_{pd}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_d\stackrel{}{Q})\delta _{\nu _1M_T}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{Q};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}}(\delta _{l^{}0}+\delta _{l^{}2})\delta _{s^{}1}\delta _{j^{}1}\delta _{t^{}0}C(j^{},I^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};m_d,Mm_d,M)`$
$`C(\lambda ^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},I^{};Mm_dm_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},Mm_d)Y_{\lambda ^{},Mm_dm_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}(\widehat{q})`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑p^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\phi _l^{}(p^{})p^{}q\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_b}.`$
The single nucleon current matrix elements $`j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1^{^{}};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{};\nu _1)`$ ($`\nu _1`$ decides whether the photon couples to the proton or to the deuteron) are taken completely relativistically, i.e.,

$`j(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1^{^{}};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})j^\mu (\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1^{^{}};m_1,m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (12)
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{\sqrt{m_N^2+p^2}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{\sqrt{m_N^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}}\overline{u}(pm_1)\left(F_1\gamma ^\mu +iF_2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(pp^{})_\nu \right)u(p^{}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$
In the case of $`A_{pd}`$ only the proton single nucleon current contributes ($`\nu _1=M_T=\frac{1}{2}`$). The amplitudes $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`A_{pd}`$ are used to calculate the response functions entering the cross sections and the polarization observables.

To simplify integrations over the unobserved parameters of the final 3N system we change the variables according to :

$$d^3p_1d^3p_2d^3p_3=d^3p_1d^3p_{23}d^3p,$$
(13)
with $`=\frac{4E_2E_3}{(E_2+E_3)\sqrt{(E_2+E_3)^2p_{23}^2}}`$ ($`E_i`$ is the total energy of the ith nucleon).

Experiment: Asymmetries of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$–reaction have been measured in quasi–elastic kinematics at a four momentum transfer of $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$=0.67$`(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^2`$. As the spin asymmetry of protons in $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ is very small  one can expect that the asymmetries of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$–reaction are very sensitive to FSI and provide a significant test of the calculations.

For an arbitrary direction of the target spin the asymmetry is given by

$$A(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})=\frac{1}{P_eP_t}\frac{N^+N^{}}{N^++N^{}}$$
(14)
with $`\theta ^{},\varphi ^{}`$ the polar and azimuthal angle of the target spin direction with respect to the three momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}`$. The polarizations of beam and target are given by $`P_e`$ and $`P_t`$ and the normalized $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$ events for positive (negative) electron helicity are $`N^+(N^{})`$. The two asymmetries $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ measured in the present work are $`A_{}=A(90^o,0^o)`$ and $`A_{}=A(0^o,0^o)`$ .

The setup of the experiment was very similar to the one described by Rohe et al. . A polarized continuous wave electron beam with an energy of 854.5 MeV was incident on a glass cell filled with polarized $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. Longitudinally polarized electrons of $``$80% polarization were produced with a strained layer GaAsP crystal at a typical current of $`10\mu A`$ . Spectrometer A with a solid angle of 28 msr and a momentum acceptance of 20%  was used to detect the scattered electron at a scattering angle of 78.6 deg. The struck protons were detected in coincidence with an array of plastic scintillator bars placed at 32.2 deg, the direction of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}`$ for an energy transfer $`\omega `$ of 368 MeV.

The $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}`$–target consisted of a spherical glass container with two cylindrical extensions. The beam enters and exits through 25$`\mu `$m Cu–windows. The cylindrical extensions allowed for an effective shielding of the background from the Cu–windows by positioning the windows outside of the acceptance of the spectrometer. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ gas was polarized by metastable optical pumping at pressures around 1 mbar and subsequently compressed by a two-stage titanium piston compressor to 4 bar. The target polarization achieved was approximately 50% .

The entire target was enclosed in a rectangular box of 2 mm thick $`\mu `$-metal and iron. The box served as an effective shield for the stray field of the magnetic spectrometers and provided a homogeneous magnetic guiding field of $`410^4`$ T produced by three independent pairs of coils. With additional correction coils a relative field gradient of less than $`510^4`$ cm-1 was achieved. The setup allowed for an independent rotation of the target spin in any desired direction by remote control. In order to reduce systematic errors, the spin of the target was circularly rotated in the scattering plane by 90o with respect to the direction of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}`$ at regular intervals, alternatively accumulating data for $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$.

The hadron detector consists of an array of four layers of five vertically placed plastic scintillator bars with dimensions $`50\times 10\times 10`$ cm3 preceded by two layers of 1 cm thick $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E detectors for particle identification. Every plastic bar was equipped with two Photo Multipliers (PM) on top and bottom. The detector was placed at 32.2o at a distance of 160 cm from the target which resulted in a solid angle of 100 msr. The entire detector was shielded with 10 cm Pb except for an opening towards the target where the Pb–shield was reduced to 2 cm.

As in the experiment by Rohe et al.  the product of target and beam polarization was monitored during the data taking via determination of the asymmetry for elastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}`$$`(\stackrel{}{e},e)`$–scattering. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$–form factors are accurately known  and the comparison of the calculated and measured asymmetry allows for a precise determination of the polarization product $`P_eP_t`$. The elastically scattered electrons were detected in spectrometer B at a scattering angle of $`\vartheta _e=25^o`$. This resulted in a polarization product of $`0.279\pm 0.010`$ for runs with $`A=A_{}`$ or –$`A_{}`$ and $`0.282\pm 0.003`$ for $`A=A_{}`$ or –$`A_{}`$. The difference of the error bar results from the different sensitivity of the measurement to the target spin direction.

In addition, the time dependence of the polarization of the target cell was continuously measured during the experiment by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, while the absolute polarization was measured by the method of Adiabatic Fast Passage . The mean target polarization from these measurements was $`0.356\pm 0.015`$. From the elastic scattering data and the target polarization measurements a beam polarization of $`P_e=0.788\pm 0.036`$ was determined which agreed well with the result from a Møller polarimeter ($`0.827\pm 0.017`$).

Analysis: In the off–line analysis, protons are defined as events with a hit in two consecutive $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E detectors from the two $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E–detector planes. For the kinematics of the experiment the proton energies range from $``$280 MeV to $``$400 MeV. For this energy range protons reach at least the third bar layer. A correct mean time of at least three plastic bars is also required. For the combination of these cuts negligible background survives in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$ coincidence time peak. The segmentation of the hadron detector and the up–down PM readout allow for the determination of the direction of the protons. The resolution is $``$0.8o in both vertical and horizontal direction.

In order to study the effect of FSI on the asymmetries in different kinematic regions, the quasi–elastic peak is divided in two regions of $`\omega `$. One region covers the peak and therefore emphasizes low nucleon momenta whereas the other region covers the low $`\omega `$ tail sensitive preferentially to high nucleon momenta. Figure 2 shows the $`\omega `$ spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p})`$–events and indicates the two kinematic regions. The events in each of the two regions are summed over the entire acceptance of the out–of–plane angle of electron and proton and over the electron scattering angle in a range from 75.8o to 81.8o.

Results: The experimental results for $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are shown in figure 3 and 4 compared to the results of the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) and the calculation including the dominant FSI effect. As expected the asymmetries are small over the entire kinematic region so that FSI effects appear prominently. Compared to the statistical accuracy (0.02–0.03) the systematic errors are small (0.01). The error of the deviation of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{q}}`$ from its nominal direction, which is usually the dominant systematic error in electric form factor determinations , is negligible here mainly because $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are not very different from each other.

The hadron detector does not allow for a high–resolution determination of the proton energy. In particular, it is not possible to distinguish two- and three-body breakup events. Accordingly, the calculations have been integrated over the two-body and over the first 26 MeV of the three-body breakup channel. For the highest accepted missing energy of 26 MeV, the cross section is smaller by at least one order of magnitude compared to the cross section at threshold. Extending the integration limit has no effect on the results. In addition, the calculated results are integrated over the experimentally accepted out–of–plane proton angle and the relevant $`\omega `$ range (figure 2).

Conclusions: Figures 3 and 4 show that the PWIA calculations are in clear disagreement with the experimental results. The same holds for the calculation which does not account for relativistic kinematics. On the other hand, very good agreement between experiment and theory is found when including the $`A_2`$–term of figure 1 and accounting for relativistic kinematics. This applies also for the results using the CD–Bonn NN–potential with negligible differences. Small differences of the results are observed when the current is replaced by a non–relativistic version or when a relativistic $`(v/c)^2`$–correction is added. The results indicate that at high $`\mathrm{Q}^2`$, where complete non–relativistic calculations are not applicable anymore, a good description of the data can be achieved taking into account relativistic kinematics and an approximate treatment of FSI–effects. The use of a relativistic current operator is less relevant. The result is important for experiments aimed at extracting fundamental properties of the neutron from asymmetry measurements of inclusive $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{})`$ or exclusive $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{n})`$ reactions. The corrections for FSI–effects for these reactions can be reliably calculated within the approach presented here.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Schweizerische Nationalfonds, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, the Foundation for Polish Science and NSF grant #PHY 0070858. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray SV1 of the NIC, Jülich, Germany.


text:
# Radio / X-ray correlation in the low/hard state of GX 339–4

## 1 Introduction

Since its discovery in 1973 by the X-ray satellite OSO-7 (Markert et al. (1973)), the black hole candidate (BHC) GX 339$``$4 has been the subject of many extensive studies from the radio bands to the hard X-rays. Nevertheless, the physical processes involved in its broadband energy spectra have not been fully identified and understood. As the source has displayed a wide range of accretion rates – it is one of the rare sources that has been observed in all canonical black hole X-ray states – it is a prime target for studying the accretion-ejection processes of accreting black hole systems (persistent or transient). Among the canonical states, it is perhaps the low/hard state (LHS) that has attracted the most attention in recent years. Observations of various components in the LHS spectral energy distribution (SED) have highlighted analogies with the flat spectra of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (AGN) (Falcke & Biermann (1996)).

Radio emission from GX 339$``$4 during the LHS is characteristic of a self-absorbed compact jet (Corbel et al. (2000)), similar to that considered for flat spectrum AGNs (Blandford & K$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$nigl 1979). Regular radio observations have shown that the compact jet of GX 339$``$4 was quenched in the high/soft state (Fender et al. (1999); Corbel et al. (2000)). Similar properties have now been observed in a growing number of persistent and transient BHCs (the jet has even been resolved in Cyg X$``$1, Stirling et al. 2001), thus suggesting that compact jets are ubiquitous in BHCs during the LHS (Fender (2001)). In addition to being responsible for most of the emission in the radio regime, the compact jets may have a significant contribution in the infrared/optical bands (Corbel & Fender 2002) and could also be part of the processes involved in producing the X-ray emission (Markoff, Falcke, & Fender (2001)). In that case, it would imply that compact jets are very powerful and could dominate the entire SED of BHC during their low/hard states.

The other main components of the SED are a possible thermal contribution from the accretion disk, which extends from the near-infrared/optical to the soft X-rays, and the possible Comptonisation of accretion disk photons with a hot electron corona, which likely contribute mostly in soft and hard X-rays (Nowak, Wilms, & Dove (2002); Done (2002)). Despite not being observed, the companion star in the GX 339$``$4 system is likely an evolved low-mass star (Shahbaz, Fender, & Charles (2001); Chaty et al. (2002); Cowley et al. (2002)).

A good way to assess the contribution of jets at high energy is to perform a broadband study of these systems simultaneously at radio and X-ray frequencies, and in particular to study the correlation that could exist between these two emission domains. In fact, such a correlation has already been found for BHC in the LHS, e.g., GX 339$``$4 (Hannikainen et al. (1998); Corbel et al. (2000)) and Cyg X$``$1 (Brocksopp et al. (1999)) for BHC in the LHS. These radio/X-ray observations, however, only sampled a very limited range of X-ray and radio fluxes (or accretion rates). Most of these previous studies also suffered from the lack of sensitivity of the X-ray observations. A similar correlation also has been observed in the hard state of Cyg X$``$3 (McCollough et al. (1999); Choudhury et al. (2002)). A more complex relation, but still indicating a relation between radio emitting electrons and the hard X-ray power law dominated state (like that in the LHS of BHC), is found in GRS 1915$`+`$105 (Klein-Wolt et al. (2002)).

An interpretation for such a tight correlation is that it is the result of high energy synchrotron emission from the compact jet, as already has been proposed for XTE J1118$`+`$480 (Markoff, Falcke, & Fender (2001)). Alternatively, it possibly could be due to Compton scattering of photons from the companion star or the accretion flow off of the jet’s leptons (Georganopoulos, Aharonian, & Kirk (2002)). In this paper, we report the results of a long-term study of GX 339$``$4 performed simultaneously in radio and X-ray during the years 1997-2000, in order to investigate the radio/X-ray correlation over many orders of magnitude with sensitive observations. Evidence for evolution of this correlation with energy is also presented. We discuss these results in light of the jet model of Markoff et al. (2003).

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Radio observations

All radio observations were performed with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). The ATCA synthesis telescope is an east-west array consisting of six 22 m antennas. The 8.6 GHz data that we used is from Corbel et al. (2000); however, we re-analaysed all (five) observations for which the radio flux densities were weaker than 1 mJy. Further details concerning the ATCA and its data reduction can be found in Corbel et al. (2000). We also added the result of a series of three new ATCA observations, for a total duration of nearly 20 hours, performed on 2000 September 12, 15 and 18, during the recent off state. These observations provided a strong (99% confidence level) upper limit of 60 $`\mu `$Jy at 8.6 GHz, which is the best constraint we have for the level of radio emission originating from GX 339$``$4 during its off state.

### 2.2 X-ray observations

#### 2.2.1 RXTE

We used the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) to perform a number of observations of GX 339$``$4 from 1997-1999, most of which represent the LHS. Analysis of the brightest of these observations was previously presented (Nowak et al. 2002); here we also consider analyses of faint, “off state” observations from late 1999. All data extractions were performed in an identical manner as that described by Nowak et al. (2002). The flux in various energy bands was determined by fitting a model comprised of neutral hydrogen absorption ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was fixed to $`6\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), a multi-temperature disk blackbody (e.g., Mitsuda et al. (1984)) with peak temperature fixed at 0.25 keV, an exponentially cut-off broken power law with break energy at $`10`$ keV, and a (potentially) broad Gaussian line with peak energy fixed at 6.4 keV. The faintest observations were fit with a simpler absorbed, single power law, plus (fixed peak energy) line feature. Feng et al. (2001) found that the iron line is shifted to higher energies when GX 339$``$4 was observed at low X-ray fluxes. However, this shift is not intrinsic to GX 339$``$4, but is rather due to the Galactic diffuse emission (Wardzinski et al. (2003)). Note that due to differences between the two sets of instruments that comprise RXTE, the Proportional Counter Array (PCA, $`3`$-20 keV) and the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE, $`20`$-200 keV), a normalization constant between the PCA and HEXTE detectors was used, and all flux values are normalized to the PCA flux levels (for further descriptions of this process, see Wilms et al. 1999). The flux error bars were chosen to be the larger of the statistical error, or 1%, which is a reasonable estimate of the RXTE internal systematic error (e.g., Wilms et al. 1999). Short timescale ($``$ few seconds) X-ray variability is usually observed in the low-hard state of GX 339$``$4 (Smith & Liang (1999); Nowak, Wilms, & Dove (2002)). However, on a longer timescale (e.g. 10 minutes) the radio emission is steady (see Figure 3 in Corbel et al. 2000) and so also is the X-ray spectrum of GX 339$``$4 integrated on those timescales (i.e., there is almost no very low frequency power in the power spectral densities, Nowak et al. 2002 and references therein). Therefore the error bars used in Table 1 are likely not affected by the variability of the source (which is quite steady on timescales greater than 10 minutes). Note that in Table 1 we quote the absorbed flux level; however, as we only consider energies $`3`$ keV, this is at most a few percent different to the unabsorbed flux level.

RXTE has a broad $`1^{}`$ radius field of view, and therefore is potentially subject to contamination from faint background sources (or, in the case of GX 339$``$4, diffuse emission from the galactic ridge, Wardzinski et al. (2003)). Four of the RXTE observations, however, were performed simultaneously with the much narrower field of view ($`4`$ arcmin radius) Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA). Utilizing the same models described above, the 3-9 keV flux of the brightest two simultaneous observations determined by ASCA was 75-81% of that determined by the PCA – consistent with a well-known calibration offset between PCA and ASCA (see the discussion in Nowak et al. 2002). For the faintest two observations, the relative normalizations of the ASCA spectra substantially decreased with decreasing flux. This was taken as evidence for a faint background source or sources that lie within the field of view of the PCA, but not within the field of view of ASCA. The RXTE observation of 1999 July 29 is assumed to be heavily dominated by this contaminating source, and this spectrum, multiplied by 0.78, is subtracted as a “background correction” before model fitting and flux determination, from all RXTE observations occurring later than the observation of May 14 1999. With this additional background subtracted, the ASCA determined fluxes of the faintest two simultaneous observations become 73% and 83% of the corrected PCA 3-9 keV flux levels. Good agreement also is obtained between the ASCA and the corrected PCA spectra.

#### 2.2.2 BeppoSAX

During the recent off state of GX 339$``$4 we conducted an $``$ 50 ks X-ray observation with BeppoSAX on September 10 2000. GX 339$``$4 is detected in the 1 - 10 keV energy range with both LECS and MECS, and the spectrum can be fitted with a power-law with a photon index 2.22 $`\pm `$ 0.24 (90 % confidence level) with interstellar absorption fixed to 5.1 $`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 ($`\chi _0^2`$ = 0.74 for 35 degrees of freedom). The absorbed flux in the 3 - 9 keV energy range is 5.7 $`\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (relative to the MECS normalization). To within a few percent, the fluxes normalized to MECS are consistent with the ones normalized to PCA (e.g. Della Ceca et al. 2001). We also re-analysed the BeppoSAX observation performed on August 13 1999 by Kong et al. (2000), as it was close to the date of one of our radio observations. All measurements (radio and X-ray) are tabulated in Table 1.

## 3 An extremely strong correlation between radio and X-ray emissions during the low/hard state

In Figures 1 to 4, we utilize the results from Table 1 and display the radio flux density at 8.6 GHz versus the X-ray flux in different energy bands. It is apparent from these plots that a strong correlation exists between these two emission regimes in GX 339$``$4. As all these measurements have been taken during the low/hard state or during the transition to the off state (which appears to be a weak luminosity version of the low/hard state), we can further deduce that this correlation is a property of the low/hard state. We note that this strong correlation extends over more than three orders of magnitude in X-ray flux (e.g. the 3–9 keV band for which we have the best coverage). The correlation appears to hold for the entire four year period covered by the observations. Specifically, the 1997 measurements lie on the same line as the measurements performed during the transition to the off state in 1999 (Figs. 1 to 4), even though there was a transition to the soft state between these sets of observations (Belloni et al. (1999); Nowak, Wilms, & Dove (2002)).

In order to quantify the level of the correlation, we have calculated for each of the X-ray bands the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Barlow 1989) between the radio and X-ray fluxes (Table 2). For this calculation, all detections have been taken into account (i.e. including even the points which are not strictly simultaneous or affected by a small reflare in hard X-rays: 1999.08.17 and 1999.09.01). It is clear from this analysis that the relationship between the radio and the soft and hard X-ray fluxes is extremely strong (a Student’s t-test (Barlow 1989) shows the significance of the correlation is greater than 99.9 % for each of the energy bands). This points to a persistent coupling between the mechanism(s) of the origin of the radio and X-ray emissions while GX 339$``$4 is in the low/hard state. This is the strongest evidence to date for such a persistent relation.

It is possible to estimate a functional relationship between the flux densities in radio (e.g. 8.6 GHz) and in the various X-ray bands. A linear fit (on a log-log scale) is satisfactory for the four X-ray bands. If we denote FRad as the radio flux density (in mJy) at 8.64 GHz and FX as the X-ray flux (in units of 10$`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$) in a given energy band, the relation between these two fluxes can be expressed as $`F_{\mathrm{Rad}}=a\times F_\mathrm{X}^b`$, where a and b are the two constant coefficients given in Table 3. These relations are valid while GX 339$``$4 is in the standard low/hard state, as we recall that radio emission from GX 339$``$4 is quenched in the high/soft state (Fender et al. (1999); Corbel et al. (2000)).

As the same correlation appears to be maintained over this four year period, it could be realistic to estimate the level of radio emission from GX 339$``$4 by only measuring its X-ray flux. We note that little scatter is observed around the fitting function for our measurements. This also indicates that there is probably little time delay between the radio and X-ray emission. We also note the index $`b`$ apparently changes with X-ray energy band. This is consistent with previous X-ray observations that indicate that, with the hard state, the spectrum of GX 339$``$4 becomes spectrally harder as the source becomes fainter (e.g., Nowak, Wilms, & Dove (2002)).

## 4 Discussions

With this study, we showed that the previously observed correlation between X-ray and radio fluxes during the low-hard state of GX 339$``$4 (Hannikainen et al. (1998); Corbel et al. (2000)) extends over more than three decades in X-ray luminosity. The observations, spread over almost four years, indicated that the same fitting functions probably hold during these years, despite an intervening state transition. The radio emission in GX 339$``$4 is likely associated with the optically thick synchrotron emission from the compact jet (Corbel et al. (2000)). The very strong correlation of radio emission with X-ray flux indicates that synchrotron processes may also play a role at high energies.

It has already been pointed out for GX 339$``$4 that the near infrared/optical bands show a spectral break that may indicate that the X-ray spectrum is an extension of the optically thin synchrotron emission from the compact jet (Corbel & Fender (2002)). Specifically, the infrared points are consistent with an extrapolation of the slope from the radio, while the infrared/optical break extrapolates to the observed X-rays. The jet model, originally developed for AGN and previously applied to XTE J1118$`+`$480 (Markoff, Falcke, & Fender (2001)), has been further improved and also applied to these datasets (with additional optical data), and is discussed in a companion paper (Markoff et al. (2003)). Markoff et al. (2003) showed that the jet model can account for the broadband spectra of GX 339$``$4 radio through optical through X-ray, primarily by only changing two parameters: the jet power and the location of the acceleration zone. The fact that the correlation holds at very low X-ray luminosity indicates that a compact jet is also produced when the source is close to quiescence. Therefore, the broadband emission of the jets has to be taken into account when studying the bolometric luminosity of black hole in quiescence, e.g. Campana & Stella (2000) and Garcia et al. (2001).

It is interesting to note that the radio flux at 8.6 GHz is proportional to the X-ray flux as $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}F_\mathrm{X}^{+0.71}`$ (in the 3–9 and 9–20 keV bands) and that the same behaviour with the same index $`b`$ has recently been found to hold for the black hole transient V404 Cyg (Gallo, Fender, & Pooley (2002)). The jet model of Markoff et al. (2003) successfully explains this dependency analytically using the formalism developed in Falcke & Biermann (1996). Indeed, if the only varying parameter of the model is the power in the jet, then the X-ray flux is expected to vary as $`F_\mathrm{X}F_{\mathrm{rad}}^{+1.41}`$, i.e. $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}F_\mathrm{X}^{+0.71}`$, completely consistent with the behaviour of GX 339$``$4 and V404 Cyg. The current versions of the jet model, however, do not account for the evolution of the exponent, $`b`$, in $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}F_\mathrm{X}^b`$, for the higher energy X-ray bands, as is found for GX 339$``$4 (Table 3). If a jet is the underlying cause of the overall radio/X-ray correlation, the model may need to be further developed in order to explain this detailed behavior. However, it is important to point out that these higher energies include the canonical ”100 keV cutoff” region in the data, where one expects the X-rays to decrease in comparison to the radio emission. However, the simplified accretion disk model used by Markoff et al. (2003) currently does not include all spectral components, e.g., the contribution from reflection which are often observed in the hard state X-ray spectra of BHC (e.g., Done 2002). Studies like these clearly show, however, that including jet emission processes in any models of BHC spectra in their low/hard state is crucially important to fully understand the physical processes in these sources.

###### Acknowledgements.

The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonweath of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. We would like to thank Ben Chan and Richard Dodson for conducting the September 2000 ATCA observations.