text:
# 𝐺-Matrix Equation in the Resonating-Group Method

## 1 Introduction

The $`G`$-matrix formalism is one of the best known frameworks to study the effective baryon-baryon interaction in a nuclear medium.  When the free baryon-baryon scattering is described by the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with a simple local potential, the derivation of the $`G`$-matrix equation is straightforward even for the most general off-shell $`G`$-matrix used in the many-body calculations. This is not the case if the basic baryon-baryon interaction is formulated as a composite-particle interaction in the framework of the resonating-group method (RGM).  It is well known that the relative wave-function between clusters has a different normalization property from the wave-function of the ordinary Schrödinger equation, owing to the antisymmetrization of constituent quarks ($`q`$).  It is, therefore, claimed that the quark-model potential derived from the $`(3q)`$-$`(3q)`$ RGM  should be defined by rewriting the original RGM equation to the Schrödinger-type equation. One of the merits of this method is that it is possible to eliminate the explicit energy dependence of the quark-exchange kernel, which inherently appears in the RGM equation. The essential point of this procedure is to renormalize the RGM relative wave-function $`\chi (𝒓)`$ by the exchange normalization kernel $`K`$ as $`\psi (𝒓)=\sqrt{1K}\chi (𝒓)`$. This decent prescription, however, needs a special care when a complete Pauli-forbidden state exists.

In this paper, we discuss roles of the Pauli-forbidden state in the formulation of the $`G`$-matrix equation for the RGM. It is shown that the direct use of the quark-exchange kernel for the driving term of the $`G`$-matrix or $`T`$-matrix equation is the simplest and the most natural procedure in the sense that the orthogonality condition  to the complete Pauli-forbidden state is automatically incorporated in the structure of the exchange kernel. The concept of the orthogonality need not be applied only to the relative wave-function, but could also be applied to any other physical quantities appearing in the $`T`$-matrix formulation of the scattering in a nuclear medium. The energy dependence involved in the normalization exchange kernel is not an unfavorable feature, but is essential to represent the effect of the compositeness of the nucleon clusters. To show these, we use a simplest version of the Saito’s orthogonality condition model (OCM)  with no $`q`$-$`q`$ interaction. In this case, the exact solution of the complete off-shell $`T`$-matrix is analytically given. If we solve this problem in the Noyes  and Kowalski  method, it is easy to see what kind of condition is necessary to guarantee the existence of the solution of the basic Lippmann-Schwinger-type equation. In the general RGM equation, this condition is automatically satisfied. When we need to modify the exchange kernel, the modification should be made in such a way that this condition is still satisfied. An example of this kind of modification is the correction of the reduced masses and a small readjustment of the threshold energies in the coupled-channel RGM (CCRGM). One can preserve a realistic kinematics of the baryon-baryon scatterings even in a very rigorous framework of the CCRGM.

In the next section, we first briefly illustrate the RGM formalism to show the notation used in this paper. An orthogonality condition model is introduced as a simplified version of the RGM. The analytic solution of the $`T`$-matrix equation is given in a heuristic way. Next we consider the basic equations for the most general $`T`$-matrix in the Noyes and Kowalski method. The orthogonality relations to the Pauli-forbidden state are analyzed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 with respect to the simplest version of the OCM. The modification of the exchange kernel of the RGM equation is discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4. The final section is devoted to discussion and a brief summary.

## 2 Formulation

### 2.1 RGM equation

The RGM equation for the relative-motion wave-function $`\chi (𝒓)`$ is usually formulated from the variational equation

$$\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|EH|𝒜\{\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}\chi \}=0,$$
(1)
where $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ is an appropriate internal cluster function and the total Hamiltonian consists of

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}t_iT_G+\underset{i<j}{\overset{6}{}}v_{ij}.$$
(2)
Here we particularly consider $`(3q)`$-$`(3q)`$ RGM  for the baryon-baryon interaction. The normalization kernel $`N`$ stands for

$$N=\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|𝒜|\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}=1K,$$
(3)
where the exchange normalization kernel $`K`$ sometimes allows a complete Pauli-forbidden state $`|u`$ satisfying

$$K|u=|u\text{and}𝒜\{\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}u\}=0.$$
(4)
We use a common notation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1|uu|`$, to denote the projection operator on the Pauli-allowed space.  For the direct term, we express $`H`$ as

$$H=H_{\mathrm{int}}+H_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{j=4}{\overset{6}{}}v_{ij},$$
(5)
and define the internal-energy term $`E_{\mathrm{int}}`$ and the direct potential $`V_\mathrm{D}`$ by

$`\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|H_{\mathrm{int}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}=E_{\mathrm{int}}=E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{K}+E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{V},`$
$`\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=4}{\overset{6}{}}}v_{ij}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}=V_\mathrm{D}.`$ (6)
For the exchange term, we use the notation

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`G^\mathrm{K}+G^\mathrm{V},`$
$`G^\mathrm{K}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}t_iT_G)(𝒜1)|\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}+E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{K}K,`$
$`G^\mathrm{V}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}|({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{6}{}}}v_{ij})(𝒜1)|\varphi ^{\mathrm{int}}+E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{V}K,`$ (7)
The exchange kinetic-energy kernel $`G^\mathrm{K}`$ is symmetric, since $`E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{K}`$ is common for all channels,111Here we use the simplest center-of-mass coordinate $`𝑿=(𝒙_1+𝒙_2+𝒙_3)/3`$ for the $`(3q)`$ clusters and assume that the effect of the flavor symmetry breaking is respected only in the original Hamiltonian $`H`$. while $`G^\mathrm{V}+E_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{V}K`$ is symmetric for the exchange interaction kernel. Using these notations, Eq. (1) is converted into the usual RGM equation:

$`(\epsilon H_0V_{\mathrm{RGM}})\chi =0,`$ (8)
with $`\epsilon =EE_{\mathrm{int}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}=V_\mathrm{D}+G+\epsilon K`$.

The essential feature of the RGM equation, Eq. (8), is the existence of the trivial solution $`\chi =u`$; namely, we can write Eq. (8) as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon H_0V_{\mathrm{RGM}})\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi =0.$$
(9)
This equation is rewritten as

$$(\epsilon H_0V)\chi =0,$$
(10)
with

$`V=V(\epsilon )+v,`$
$`V(\epsilon )=(\epsilon H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }V_{\mathrm{RGM}}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\mathrm{D}+G+\epsilon K)\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (11)
We note simple relations, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Actually, $`v`$ also has a weak $`\epsilon `$ dependence. If the effect of the Pauli principle has a simple structure such as in the deuteron-deuteron system, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term exactly vanishes. In this particular case, we can also show that $`G^\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }H_0\mathrm{\Lambda }H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }G^\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. This implies that $`V(\epsilon )`$ term in Eq. (11) stands for the dominant part of $`G^\mathrm{K}+\epsilon K`$ in the original RGM kernel $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}`$, and $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\mathrm{D}+G^\mathrm{V})\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

From these observations, we can conclude that the most essential part of the Pauli principle of the RGM equation is already retained in a simple OCM-type equation

$$(\epsilon H_0)\psi =V(\epsilon )\psi ,$$
(12)
and the general RGM equation, Eq. (8), can be obtained by adding to $`V(\epsilon )`$ the potential term $`v`$ having the property $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will consider the $`T`$-matrix of Eq. (12) in the next subsection.

### 2.2 $`T`$-matrix of the simple OCM equation

In this subsection we derive a complete off-shell $`T`$-matrix for the simple OCM equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi =0,$$
(13)
which is equivalent to Eq. (12).222The on-shell $`T`$-matrix for more general OCM equations than Eq. (13) with local potentials has been extensively studied by many authors. See, for example, Refs. , ,  and . Since the solution of Eq. (13) has an ambiguity of $`u`$, we first consider a more general equation

$$(\omega H_0)\psi =V(\epsilon )\psi \text{with}\omega \epsilon ,$$
(14)
and take the limit $`\omega \epsilon `$ in the final expression. One can formulate this in two ways. The first method is to consider the solution of

$$(\omega H_0)\psi =V(\epsilon )\psi \text{with}(\omega H_0)|\omega =0,$$
(15)
and the second method is to use

$$(\omega H_0)(\psi \varphi )=V(\epsilon )\psi \text{with}(\epsilon H_0)|\varphi =0.$$
(16)
The latter equation is motivated by the correlation function technique for the $`G`$-matrix, for which $`\chi =\varphi \psi `$ corresponds to the so-called defect function. In this case, the starting energy $`\omega `$ is usually negative. For $`\omega \epsilon `$ one can easily prove $`u|\psi =0`$ for the solution of Eq. (15) and $`u|\chi =0`$ for the solution of Eq. (16).

Both equations, Eqs. (15) and (16), lead to the same definition for the $`T`$-matrix, given by

$`T(\omega ,\epsilon )=V(\epsilon )+V(\epsilon )G_0^{(+)}(\omega )T(\omega ,\epsilon )`$
$`\text{with}G_0^{(+)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega H_0+i0}}.`$ (17)
The solution of Eq. (17) is derived as follows. We first define the free Green function in the allowed space by

$`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )=G_0^{(+)}(\omega )G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}}u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega ),`$ (18)
which satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )=G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (19)
The Green function for $`\omega H_0V(\epsilon )`$ can be easily found to be

$`G(\omega ,\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega H_0V(\epsilon )}}=G_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )+|u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \epsilon }}u|.`$ (20)
Since this $`G(\omega ,\epsilon )`$ is the formal solution of

$`G(\omega ,\epsilon )=G_0^{(+)}(\omega )+G_0^{(+)}(\omega )V(\epsilon )G(\omega ,\epsilon ),`$ (21)
the $`T`$-matrix solution of Eq. (17) is derived from

$`G(\omega ,\epsilon )=G_0^{(+)}(\omega )+G_0^{(+)}(\omega )T(\omega ,\epsilon )G_0^{(+)}(\omega ).`$ (22)
We find

$`T(\omega ,\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{|uu|}{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}}+(\omega H_0)|u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \epsilon }}u|(\omega H_0).`$ (23)
This expression has seemingly a singularity at $`\omega =\epsilon `$ in the second term. There is, however, no such singularity for the initial state $`|\omega `$ or $`|\varphi `$:

$`T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{|uu|\omega }{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}},`$
$`T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{|uu|\varphi }{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}}+(\omega H_0)|uu|\varphi .`$ (24)
In particular, the on-shell $`T`$-matrix given by

$`\omega |T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega |uu|\omega }{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}},`$ (25)
has no $`\epsilon `$-dependence. The $`T`$-matrix elements we need in a nuclear medium is

$`\varphi ^{}|T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}|uu|\varphi }{u|G_0^{(+)}(\omega )|u}}+(\omega \epsilon ^{})\varphi ^{}|uu|\varphi ,`$ (26)
where

$$(\epsilon ^{}H_0)|\varphi ^{}=0.$$
(27)
Summarizing this subsection, we find that, to define the complete off-shell $`T`$-matrix, it is convenient to start with Eq. (16), which is similar to the Schrödinger-type equation for the defect function in the $`G`$-matrix formalism.  The energy $`\epsilon `$ in $`V(\epsilon )`$ is the relative energy for the initial two-particle state, and should not be mixed up with the energy $`\omega `$ in the free Green function. The energy $`\omega `$ is usually negative and sometimes referred as the starting energy in $`G`$-matrix calculations for ground state properties. In the former equation Eq. (15) the orthogonality is imposed on $`\psi `$, while the defect function $`\chi =\psi \varphi `$ respects the orthogonality to the Pauli forbidden state $`u`$.

### 2.3 Noyes-Kowalski equation

The Lippmann-Schwinger-type equations in the momentum representation are nicely solved by the techniques developed by Noyes  and Kowalski . For details of this method, the original papers should be referred to. Here we recapitulate only minimum equations necessary for the following discussion. Let us consider the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the wave-function

$`|\psi ^{(+)}=|\varphi +G_0^{(+)}(E)V|\psi ^{(+)}\text{with}(EH_0)|\varphi =0,`$ (28)
or the $`T`$-matrix equation

$`T(E)=V+VG_0^{(+)}(E)T(E).`$ (29)
We assume that the partial-wave decomposition is already made, and write the free Green function as

$`G_0^{(+)}(E)=𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EH_0}}i\pi \delta (EH_0)=𝒫G_0(E)i\pi |\varphi \varphi |.`$ (30)
Then, it is convenient to deal with the $`K`$-matrix equation

$`R(E)|\varphi =V|\varphi +V𝒫G_0^{(+)}(E)R(E)|\varphi ,`$ (31)
instead of $`T(E)|\varphi `$, which is obtained from

$`R(E)|\varphi =T(E)|\varphi [1i\pi \varphi |T(E)|\varphi ]^1.`$ (32)
The essential point of the Noyes-Kowalski formalism is to use

$`W=VV|\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi |V|\varphi }}\varphi |V,`$ (33)
satisfying $`\varphi |W=0`$ and $`W|\varphi =0`$. The solution of Eq. (31) is factorized as

$`R(E)|\varphi =f|\varphi \varphi |R(E)|\varphi .`$ (34)
Then the square integrable function $`|f=f|\varphi \varphi |V|\varphi `$ should satisfy the basic equation

$`|f=V|\varphi +WG_0(E)|f.`$ (35)
Note that $`WG_0(E)`$ with $`G_0(z)=1/(zH_0)`$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt kernel, and the solution of Eq. (35) satisfies a trivial relationship $`\varphi |f|\varphi =1`$. The on-shell $`T`$-matrix is calculated from

$`\varphi |R(E)|\varphi =[1\varphi |V𝒫G_0(E)f|\varphi ]^1\varphi |V|\varphi ,`$ (36)
and

$`\varphi |T(E)|\varphi =[1+i\pi \varphi |R(E)|\varphi ]^1\varphi |R(E)|\varphi .`$ (37)
The half off-shell $`T`$-matrix is given by

$`T(E)|\varphi =f|\varphi \varphi |T(E)|\varphi .`$ (38)
In order to obtain the complete off-shell $`T`$-matrix, we should generalize Eq. (35) as

$`f=V\varphi |V|\varphi ^1+WG_0(E)f,`$ (39)
and its transpose

$`\stackrel{~}{f}=\varphi |V|\varphi ^1V+\stackrel{~}{f}G_0(E)W.`$ (40)
The full $`T`$-matrix is given by

$`T(E)=f|\varphi \varphi |T(E)|\varphi \varphi |\stackrel{~}{f}+\left\{\begin{array}{c}f\varphi |V|\varphi f|\varphi \varphi |V\\ \varphi |V|\varphi \stackrel{~}{f}V|\varphi \varphi |\stackrel{~}{f}\end{array}\right\}.`$ (43)
Let us discuss the condition for which the solution of Eq. (35) exists. From the Fredholm’s alternative theorem, it is essential to examine if there exist square integrable functions $`\psi |`$ for the conjugate homogeneous equation

$`\psi |(1WG_0(E))=0.`$ (44)
If there exist such solutions, the necessary and sufficient condition for the unique solution of Eq. (35) is

$`\psi |V|\varphi =0,`$ (45)
for all $`\psi `$. Suppose there exists only one $`\psi `$ for Eq. (44), and Eq. (35) has a special solution $`|f_0`$. Then the general solution of Eq. (35) is given by

$`|f=|f_0+C(EH_0)|\psi `$ (46)
for any arbitrary constant $`C`$. If $`\psi `$ does not satisfy Eq. (45), Eq. (35) is unsolvable. We can also rewrite the integral equation Eq. (44) to the form of the differential equation

$`(EH_0W)|\psi =0,`$ (47)
with the proper boundary condition. The plane wave $`|\varphi `$ fulfills Eq. (47), but is not a solution of Eq. (44) since it is not square integrable. Unfortunately, we can not prove or disprove the existence of the positive-energy bound state for $`W`$ in Eq. (47), even for the standard potential $`V`$. In the following, we assume that there is no such solution which satisfied Eq. (44) for the standard potentials $`V`$.

When we apply the present formalism to the simple OCM equation Eq. (12) or to the RGM equation Eq. (8), we find an apparent solution $`|\psi =|u`$. In fact, for $`(\epsilon H_0)|\varphi =0`$, we find that $`W=W(\epsilon )`$ for $`V=V(\epsilon )`$ is given by

$`W(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon H_0)|uu|(\epsilon H_0)}{\epsilon \epsilon _0}}\text{with}\epsilon _0=u|H_0|u.`$ (48)
This $`W(\epsilon )`$ satisfies

$`W(\epsilon )|u=(\epsilon H_0)|u\text{and}u|W(\epsilon )=u|(\epsilon H_0),`$ (49)
which is similar to

$`V(\epsilon )|u=(\epsilon H_0)|u\text{and}u|V(\epsilon )=u|(\epsilon H_0).`$ (50)
Thus we can easily see that $`|\psi =|u`$ is a solution of Eq. (47); i.e., $`(\epsilon H_0W(\epsilon ))|u=0`$, and satisfies $`u|V(\epsilon )|\varphi =0`$. When we apply the present formulation to the RGM equation Eq. (10), $`W`$ for $`V=V(\epsilon )+v`$ is no more simple like Eq. (48), but the basic relationship Eq. (49) for $`W(\epsilon )W`$ and $`V(\epsilon )V`$ is still valid owing to the property $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We assume that there is no other solution $`\psi `$ for Eq. (44).

Let us rederive the $`T`$-matrix of $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.2 for the simple OCM. For the on-shell and the half off-shell $`T`$-matrix, the direct use of Eq. (48) in Eq. (35) allows the solution

$$|f_0=(\epsilon _0H_0)|uu|\varphi ,C=\frac{1}{\epsilon \epsilon _0}u|f.$$
(51)
Here $`f_0`$ is a special solution which satisfies $`u|f_0=0`$. Using this solution, we can easily derive

$`\varphi |R(\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi |uu|\varphi }{u|𝒫G_0(\epsilon )|u}},\varphi |T(\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi |uu|\varphi }{u|G_0^{(+)}(\epsilon )|u}}.`$ (52)
For the complete off-shell $`T`$-matrix, we again need to assume $`\omega \epsilon `$, since otherwise Eq. (48) applied to Eq. (39) leads to the condition $`u|(\epsilon H_0)=0`$, which is apparently not satisfied for a general $`\epsilon `$. The decomposition of $`V(\epsilon )`$ with respect to $`(\omega H_0)|\omega =0`$ leads to the result

$`W(\omega ,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`V(\epsilon )V(\epsilon )|\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |V|\omega }}\omega |V(\epsilon )`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega H_0)|uu|(\omega H_0)}{2\omega \epsilon \epsilon _0}}.`$
After some calculations, the solution of Eq. (39) with $`E`$, $`|\varphi `$, $`V`$ and $`W`$, being replaced with $`\omega `$, $`|\omega `$, $`V(\epsilon )`$ and $`W(\omega ,\epsilon )`$, respectively, is found to be

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |uu|\omega }}\left\{|uu|{\displaystyle \frac{(2\omega \epsilon H_0)|uu|(\omega H_0)}{(2\omega \epsilon \epsilon _0)(\omega \epsilon )}}\right\}.`$ (54)
This expression leads to some simple relations

$`f|\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{|u}{\omega |u}},\omega |f|\omega =1,`$
$`u|f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |uu|\omega }}\left\{u|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \epsilon }}u|(\omega H_0)\right\},`$
$`u|f|\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |u}}.`$ (55)
Similarly, the solution of Eq. (40) is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{f}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |uu|\omega }}\left\{|uu|{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega H_0)|uu|(2\omega \epsilon H_0)}{(\omega \epsilon )(2\omega \epsilon \epsilon _0)}}\right\},`$ (56)
and

$`\omega |\stackrel{~}{f}={\displaystyle \frac{u|}{u|\omega }},\omega |\stackrel{~}{f}|\omega =1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}|u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega |uu|\omega }}\left\{|u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \epsilon }}(\omega H_0)|u\right\},`$
$`\omega |\stackrel{~}{f}|u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u|\omega }}.`$ (57)
Finally, we use Eqs. (43) with $`|\varphi |\omega `$, (25), and (54) $``$ (57), to reconstruct $`T(\omega ,\epsilon )`$. The final result is, of course, equal to Eq. (23).

## 3 The orthogonality in the $`T`$-matrix for the simple OCM equation

We can use the full expression of the $`T`$-matrix derived in the preceding section, to investigate how the idea of the orthogonality to the Pauli-forbidden state is preserved in the simple OCM. Let us first consider the $`\omega \epsilon `$ limit in the two expressions in Eq. (24). These two expressions correspond to the wave-function of the ordinary scattering problem Eq. (15) (with $`\epsilon `$ being a simple parameter) and to the off-shell $`T`$-matrix in the $`G`$-matrix formalism in Eq. (26), respectively. We find

$`\underset{\omega \epsilon }{lim}T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\omega \underset{\omega \epsilon }{lim}T(\omega ,\epsilon )|\varphi .`$ (58)
In the left-hand side of Eq. (58) the wave-function is orthogonal to the Pauli-forbidden state $`|u`$, while in the right-hand side, the portion corresponding to the defect function of the $`G`$-matrix is orthogonal. When $`\omega =\epsilon `$, the solution of Eq. (13) has the ambiguity for any admixture of the $`|u`$ component, which resolves the discrepancy of the two different half off-shell $`T`$-matrices in Eq. (58). In order to see this, we assume $`\omega =\epsilon `$ and derive the wave-function, leaving the ambiguity of $`|u`$. The solution Eq. (46) with Eq. (51) immediately gives

$`f|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[(\epsilon _0H_0)|uu|\varphi +(\epsilon H_0)|uC\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon _0\epsilon )\varphi |uu|\varphi }}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|u}{\varphi |u}}+(\epsilon H_0)|uc,`$
The new parameter $`c`$ is related to $`C`$ through

$`c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon _0\epsilon )\varphi |uu|\varphi }}\left[u|\varphi +C\right].`$ (60)
On the other hand, the wave-function is derived from

$`|\psi ^{(+)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G_0^{(+)}(\epsilon )T(\epsilon )|\varphi =G_0^{(+)}(\epsilon )f|\varphi \varphi |T(\epsilon )|\varphi ,`$
$`|\psi _R|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`𝒫G_0(\epsilon )R(\epsilon )|\varphi =𝒫G_0(\epsilon )f|\varphi \varphi |R(\epsilon )|\varphi ,`$ (61)
where $`|\psi _R`$ is the standing-wave solution for $`𝒫G_0(\epsilon )`$. For simplicity, we use the shorthand notation

$`D(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`u|𝒫G_0(\epsilon )|u,`$
$`D^{(+)}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`u|G_0^{(+)}(\epsilon )|u=D(\epsilon )i\pi u|\varphi \varphi |u,`$ (62)
and express the on-shell $`T`$-matrix as

$`\varphi |R(\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi |uu|\varphi }{D(\epsilon )}},\varphi |T(\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi |uu|\varphi }{D^{(+)}(\epsilon )}}.`$
(63)
From Eq. (59), $`T(\epsilon )|\varphi `$ etc. are obtained as

$`T(\epsilon )|\varphi =f|\varphi \varphi |T(\epsilon )|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{|uu|\varphi }{D^{(+)}(\epsilon )}}+(\epsilon H_0)|uu|\varphi B,`$ (64)
where the third parameterization of the $`|u`$ component, $`B`$, is given by

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi |u}{D^{(+)}(\epsilon )}}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon _0\epsilon )D^{(+)}(\epsilon )u|\varphi }}\left[u|\varphi +C\right].`$
We have various orthogonalities, as shown in Table I, depending on what values we take for the arbitrary $`C`$, $`c`$ or $`B`$. These half off-shell $`T`$-matrices have all equal qualifications for the solution of Eq. (12).

Summarizing this section, we have found that the Lippmann-Schwinger equation Eq. (17) is a very general equation describing not only the free scattering but also the correlation for the scattering in a nuclear medium. For the simple OCM Eq. (13), the solution of the half off-shell $`T`$-matrix depends on how the model is formulated from the more general equation in which the Pauli-forbidden state does not exist. The second method in Eq. (16) seems to be more natural than Eq. (15), since it has a direct physical meaning of summing up all the ladder diagrams in the $`G`$-matrix formulation. In this case, the orthogonality to the Pauli-forbidden state is represented with respect to the correlation function, instead of the wave-function itself.

## 4 Modification of the RGM kernel

The uniqueness of the solution for the Noyes-Kowalski equation Eq. (35) is derived from the structure $`V(\epsilon )=(\epsilon H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon H_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`(\epsilon H_0)|\varphi =0`$ and the relationship $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It does not depend on the explicit form $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }V_{\mathrm{RGM}}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\mathrm{D}+G+\epsilon K)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can modify the internal-energy part and reduced masses of the CCRGM kernel, by using this property. Namely, we leave $`\epsilon `$ in $`v`$ as it is, and set up the RGM equation as

$`\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)\chi =\left(V^{\mathrm{exp}}(\epsilon )+v\right)\chi ,`$
$`V^{\mathrm{exp}}(\epsilon )=\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (66)
where

$$\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}=EE_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{exp}},H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}}\left(\frac{}{𝒓}\right)^2=\frac{\mu }{\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}}H_0$$
(67)
are the empirical relative energies and free kinetic-energy operators, respectively. We denote the modification of these quantities by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{int}}=E_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{exp}}E_{\mathrm{int}},\mathrm{\Delta }H_0=H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0=\left(\frac{\mu }{\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}}1\right)H_0,$$
(68)
and use the notation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{int}}+\mathrm{\Delta }H_0\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{int}}+\mathrm{\Delta }H_0\right).$$
(69)
The new RGM equation Eq. (66) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}V_{\mathrm{RGM}})\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi =0,$$
(70)
if we use $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }V_{\mathrm{RGM}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This implies that we have replaced $`\epsilon `$ and $`H_0`$ in the direct term as

$$\epsilon \epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}},H_0H_0^{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(71)
in the allowed model space, without changing $`\epsilon `$ in $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }V_{\mathrm{RGM}}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(V_\mathrm{D}+G+\epsilon K)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the original form of the RGM equation Eq. (8), it is easy to see that Eq. (8) should be modified to

$$(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}}V_{\mathrm{RGM}}\mathrm{\Delta }G)\chi =0.$$
(72)
This equation indicates that an extra modification of adding $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is required, in addition to the modification Eq. (71) of the direct term.

As an example, let us consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }N(I=1/2)`$ CCRGM. The scattering problem of this system is solved in Ref. , using Lippmann-Schwinger RGM (LS-RGM) formalism. Since this system involves a complete Pauli-forbidden state in the $`(11)_s`$ $`SU_3`$ representation for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state,  we need a special care for the treatment of the Pauli principle. In our previous publications, the realistic treatment of the reduced mass in the direct term, using the empirical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ masses, needed some modification of the exchange kinetic-energy kernel. The procedure adopted in Ref. , multiplying the exchange kinetic-energy kernel $`G^\mathrm{K}`$ by the factor $`\sqrt{\mu _\alpha /\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{exp}}}`$ from the bra and ket sides, as $`\sqrt{\mu _\alpha /\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{exp}}}G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^\mathrm{K}\sqrt{\mu _\alpha ^{}/\mu _\alpha ^{}^{\mathrm{exp}}}`$, is not actually accurate for the coupled-channel problems. As the result, the previous calculation has given a catastrophic resonance behavior for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift in the low-momentum region around $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }100\text{MeV}/c`$, if we take too many mesh points for the momentum discretization. We, therefore, use the following two-step modification for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ reduced masses. We fist multiply all the channels by the common $`\mu _{\alpha =1}/\mu _{\alpha =1}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ factor for the incident baryon channel, just as done for the single-channel problem (see Ref. ). This process is necessary to reduce too strong effect of the momentum-dependent Darwin term involved in the Fermi-Breit interaction. The Pauli principle is exactly preserved at this stage with respect to the kinetic-energy term. Next we introduce a small modification for the reduced mass of the second baryon channel with respect to the direct term. The modification of the exchange term is carried out by using $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ in Eq. (69). Since the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0`$ term is at most a few MeV, the error caused by this approximate treatment of the exchange term should be more than one order smaller in comparison with the ”exact” value of the exchange kernel (even if it is possible to evaluate). In practice, we augment the exchange kernel $`G(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$ with the $`S`$-wave Born kernel

$`\mathrm{\Delta }G^\mathrm{K}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}\right)f{\displaystyle \frac{9}{100}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{9}{4b^2}& \frac{10}{3}q_i^2+\frac{27}{4b^2}\\ \frac{10}{3}q_f^2+\frac{27}{4b^2}& 10(q_f^2+q_i^2)+\frac{81}{4b^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }G^\mathrm{K}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}\right)f{\displaystyle \frac{9}{100}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{9}{4b^2}& \frac{10}{3}q_i^2+\frac{3}{4b^2}\\ \frac{10}{3}q_f^2+\frac{3}{4b^2}& \frac{10}{9}(q_f^2+q_i^2)+\frac{1}{4b^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (78)
(79)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-incident and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$-incident scatterings, respectively. Here we have defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2/2\mu =\mathrm{}^2/2\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}^{\mathrm{exp}}\mathrm{}^2/2\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, $`b`$ is the harmonic-oscillator width parameter, and the $`S`$-wave spatial function $`f`$ is given by

$$f=f(q_f,q_i)=\left(\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{3}}b\right)^3\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{3}b^2(q_f^2+q_i^2)\right\}.$$
(80)
The condition $`u|V_{\mathrm{RGM}}+\mathrm{\Delta }G|\varphi =0`$ for the Pauli-forbidden state $`|u`$ and $`|\varphi `$ satisfying $`(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{exp}}H_0^{\mathrm{exp}})|\varphi =0`$ guarantees the existence of the solution of Eq. (72). If we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=0`$ in Eq. (72), we obtain the expression

$$u|V_{\mathrm{RGM}}|\varphi =u|\mathrm{\Delta }G|\varphi =u|\mathrm{\Delta }(E_{\mathrm{int}}+H_0)|\varphi .$$
(81)
This expression is actually 0 if the incident momentum of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is below the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ threshold. This is because the plane wave solution $`|\varphi `$ has the non-zero component only for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ channel and the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_{\mathrm{int}}+H_0)`$ has a non-zero component only for the second diagonal channel. In this particular case, neglecting $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ in the second step is harmless, even if we modify only the direct term.

The modification of the internal-energy term is not necessary in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ coupled-channel problem in the isospin basis, since the model parameters are usually fixed to reproduce the mass difference of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in our previous models, FSS and RGM-H.  This is, however, no more valid in the particle-basis calculation  to study the charge symmetry breaking, since a consistent description of the baryon-mass splitting in terms of the up-down quark mass difference and the Coulomb energies is not always successful. It may, therefore, be useful to present a general expression of the extra Born kernel Eq. (69) in the following:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\mathrm{int}}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)+\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^\mathrm{K}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\mathrm{int}}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$ $`=`$ $`c_\alpha c_\alpha ^{}f\left[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha ^{\mathrm{int}}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha ^{}^{\mathrm{int}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}{}}c_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{int}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^\mathrm{K}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$ $`=`$ $`c_\alpha c_\alpha ^{}f\left[\left(q_f^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _\alpha }}+q_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _\alpha ^{}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}{}}c_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}}}\right],`$
where $`f`$ is given in Eq. (80) and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_\alpha ^{\mathrm{int}}=\left(E_\alpha ^{\mathrm{int}}\right)^{\mathrm{exp}}\left(E_\alpha ^{\mathrm{int}}\right)^{\mathrm{cal}},\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _\alpha }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{exp}}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{\alpha =1}^{\mathrm{exp}}}.$$
(83)
The normalized eigenvector $`c_\alpha `$ of the Pauli-forbidden state in the flavor space is obtained from the eigenvalue equation

$$\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}\left(\lambda \delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}+\left(X_N\right)_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\right)c_\alpha ^{}=0\text{with}\lambda =1,$$
(84)
by using the spin-flavor-color factors of the exchange normalization kernel $`X_N`$. The result of Eq. (79) is obtained if one uses $`c_1=1/\sqrt{10},c_2=3/\sqrt{10}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-incident channel and $`c_1=3/\sqrt{10},c_2=1/\sqrt{10}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-incident channel. This formula can also be used for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Xi }N`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ CCRGM with the strangeness $`S=2`$.

## 5 Discussion and summary

In this paper we have discussed what kind of equation we should solve for the off-shell $`T`$-matrix derived from the $`(3q)`$-$`(3q)`$ resonating-group method (RGM) for the baryon-baryon interaction. This is an important issue since the present-day quark-model description for the nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) and the hyperon-nucleon ($`YN`$) interactions is very accurate, and the realistic calculation of the hypertriton and baryonic matter etc. using directly the quark-exchange kernel of these interactions is feasible to investigate the important off-shell effect and intricate behavior of the short-range correlations.333For the $`G`$-matrix calculation of the $`NN`$ and $`YN`$ systems, using the model FSS and RGM-H, see Refs.  and

The off-shell $`T`$-matrix in RGM requires a rather involved formulation when the complete Pauli-forbidden state exists. Since the relative wave-function can contain an arbitrary admixture of the redundant components, the half off-shell $`T`$-matrix should be defined as a limit of some definite $`T`$-matrix equation without this ambiguity. As a possible choice of such equation, we have proposed a standard $`G`$-matrix equation which uses the quark-exchange kernel $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}=V_\mathrm{D}+G+\epsilon K`$ directly as the driving term for the infinite sum of all the ladder diagrams. The relative energy $`\epsilon `$ should be taken with respect to the initial two-particle state.555In this sense, the prescription to neglect the $`\epsilon K`$ term in $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}`$, as in Ref. , is not correct. By using a simplified version of Saito’s orthogonality condition model (OCM),  we have argued that this inherent energy-dependence of the Born kernel is essential to preserve the major role of the Pauli principle, which is sometimes represented in the form of the orthogonality condition to the Pauli-forbidden state. In the ordinary formulation of OCM this orthogonality condition is applied to the relative wave-function,  while in the present $`G`$-matrix formulation the defect-function part of the correlation function is orthogonal. We can also start from the OCM-type RGM equation like Eq. (9), and derive a different type of $`G`$-matrix equation for the quark-model interaction. But such a formulation needs a careful treatment of the Pauli forbidden state, which is represented by $`V(\epsilon )`$ in Eq. (11) in this paper. The present method is the simplest and the most natural in the sense that such a term is automatically incorporated in the structure of the exchange kernel for the normalization and kinetic-energy terms.

We have also clarified the condition for which the the integral equation derived by Noyes  and Kowalski  is solvable and has a unique solution for the most general off-shell $`T`$-matrix. For the on-shell and half off-shell $`T`$-matrices, the conjugate homogeneous equation has a trivial solution if the Pauli-forbidden state $`|u`$ exists. The condition $`u|V_{\mathrm{RGM}}|\varphi =0`$ is automatically satisfied for the plane-wave solution $`|\varphi `$ in the initial channel, as long as the energy $`\epsilon `$ in $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}`$ is fixed to the energy of $`|\varphi `$. We can use this relationship to test if the exchange kernel is correctly calculated. When one needs to modify the exchange kernel, the modification should be made such a way that this condition is still satisfied. An example of this kind of modification is the correction of the reduced masses and a small readjustment of the threshold energies in the coupled-channel RGM (CCRGM). In the rigorous framework of the RGM, it is sometimes difficult to reproduce correct reduced masses and internal energies starting from a unique Hamiltonian. In particular, the baryon masses for the inertia mass and the rest mass are sometimes inconsistent in the framework of the non-relativistic quark model, due to the residual $`qq`$ interaction. On the other hand, the correct kinematics is mandatory for the realistic description of the baryon-baryon interaction. We have shown that, if one uses the empirical reduced masses and threshold energies, an additional exchange term $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$ should be added in general to the Born amplitude $`V_{\mathrm{RGM}}(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$. We have given the explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(𝒒_f,𝒒_i)`$, which can be used for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Xi }N`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ CCRGM.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Professor K. Yazaki for motivating this work. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (No. 12640265).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The BLEIS (BLazars $`+`$ EIS) project is a search for blazars from the faint optical images of the ESO Imaging Survey Wide (EIS Wide). The aim of the project is to select a complete sample to understand the physics and evolutive properties of blazar and to select interesting sources for VLT. This will be the first blazar sample selected from optical images and colors at such faint fluxes (B=24.6, V=24.4 and I=23.7, 80% completness).

## 2 The EIS Wide

We used for our project the EIS Wide, a survey covering 4 regions of the southern sky for a total of $`16`$ deg2 in two/three colors. It was planned with the goal of generating a unique publicy available database for the ESO community to prepare the widest possible range of programs for the first two years of operation of VLT (e.g. Renzini & Da Costa 1997). Table 1 summarizes the positions and the sky coverage for each filter.
EIS wide consists of a mosaic of overlapping EMMI-NTT frames ($`9\times 9`$ arcmin) with each position of the sky being sampled twice for a total integration time of 300 s (Da Costa et al. 1999).

## 3 Sources selection

We started our analyis from Patch B, being the region covered with all the 3 filters. We cross-correlated each EIS Patch B filter catalog with the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS, Condon et al. 1998) sources. The NVSS is a radio survey that covers the sky north of J2000 $`\delta =40^{}`$ (82% of the sky) at 1.4 GHz. The flux limit is $`2.5`$ mJy and the rms uncertainties in right ascension and declination vary from $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ for the sources brighter than 15 mJy to $`7^{\prime \prime }`$ at the survey limit. For a first preliminary cross-correlation we used a conservative radius of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ and then performed a more accurate cross-correlation using as radii both the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ errors associated with the position of each radio source. We then excluded all the optical sources fainter than the catalogs 80% completness limits and cut at two different radio fluxes: 2.5 mJy (the NVSS limit) and 5 mJy. We considered only the radio sources with a counterpart in all the 3 filters whose optical positions lie within $`0.8^{\prime \prime }`$ one from each other.

Cutting at 5 mJy, we find 5 radio sources with at least one optical counterpart within the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty on the radio position and 15 within $`2\sigma `$; at 2.5 mJy we have 22 sources within $`1\sigma `$ and we expect about 60 sources within $`2\sigma `$. Hereafter we will focus on the 15 sources found within $`2\sigma `$ with a cut at 5mJy.

Tab. 1 - EIS Wide sky coverage

## 4 Optical classification

We used the classification based on optical colors presented in Zaggia et al. (1999) and found that $`3`$ sources fall in the region occupied by the high redshift quasars ($`z>3.5`$), 5 sources in the low redshift quasar region ($`z<3`$) and 5 in an unclassified region. The colors of 3 of these 5 sources are compatible with those of BL Lacertae objects found by Moles et al. (1985).

## 5 $`\alpha _{RO}`$ distribution

By extrapolating the NVSS flux (assuming a flat slope to 5 GHz) and using the V magnitudes we calculated the $`\alpha _{RO}`$ distribution for our sources and compared it to various classes of sources. Figure 1 shows the BLEIS sources compared to, from top to bottom:
\- the X-ray selected BL Lacertae objects of the Einstein slew survey (Elvis et al. 1992);
\- the radio selected BL Lacs of the 1Jy sample (Stickel, Meisenheimer & Kuhr, 1994);
\- the radio galaxies of the 3CR sample, whose flux was extrapolated to 5GHz assuming an average slope for the radio spectrum of $`\alpha =0.7`$;
\- the FSRQ sample selected by Padovani & Urry (1992) from the ‘2Jy sample’ of Wall & Peacock (1985).
As shown in Figure 1, the BLEIS sources properties are compatible with those of radio selected BL Lacs and FSRQ.

## 6 Future work

We plan to extend the analysis to the other patches: Patch A has V and I data only and there is no NVSS for it, but it will soon be covered by the Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey (SUMSS, e.g. Hunstead et al 1998) planned to have the same positional uncertainty and flux limit of the NVSS. Patches C and D have I band images only and NVSS data. We will ask VLA time to obtain good positions ($`1^{\prime \prime }`$), faint flux limits ($`1`$ mJy) and two estimate of the radio flux at different wavelengths to be able to select in a confident way fainter sources and have a slope for their radio spectra. We will also apply for VLA time for a spectroscopic identification of the interesting sources and a possible estimate of their redshift. This would enable us to estimate a luminosity function, a redshift distribution and compare the results with the predictions of the unified models. The immediate goal is to determine the counts of blazars at low fluxes and compare them with the predictions of evolutive and beaming models.


text:
# Completion of a Rational Function Sequence of Carlitz

## 1 Introduction.

In , Carlitz expressed $`_{n1}n^{nm}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$ for $`1m`$ as a rational function of $`\lambda (=T(z))=_{n1}n^{n1}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$. The coefficients in this rational function (written in lowest terms with factored parts) are positive integers which had previously appeared in  and were subsequently given combinatorial interpretations in  and . These numbers are now known as “second-order Eulerian numbers” (cf. ).

In this note, we consider $`m1`$ and find polynomials in $`\lambda `$. We show that the coefficients of these polynomials are the virtual Stirling Numbers of the First Kind studied by D. Loeb in . Previous tabulations and interpretations had appeared in  and elsewhere in the “finite differences” literature.

We introduce the variable $`\zeta =_{n1}n^n\frac{z^n}{n!}=\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda }`$ and investigate the coefficients in the rational functions of $`\zeta `$ equivalent to those in the above sequence. In the case $`m0`$ we find polynomials of degree $`2m+1`$ which, in factored form, display integer coefficients equal to the “associated Stirling Numbers of the second kind” studied by Riordan in . These have also been named “second-order Stirling Numbers” (in , for instance) and we show that easy manipulations produce new identities relating them to the second-order Eulerian numbers.

It remains to address the $`\zeta `$ expressions in the case $`m1`$. The rational functions, in lowest terms, are quotients of two polynomials each of degree $`|m|`$ in $`\zeta `$. While we obtain satisfactory results about the asymptotic behavior of the coefficients, the question of combinatorial interpretation is open.

## 2 An Integral Operator.

For integer values of $`m`$ we define the sequence $`G_m(\lambda ):=R_m(z):=_{n1}n^{nm}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$. Thus, as defined above, $`\lambda =G_1(\lambda )`$ and $`\zeta =G_0(\lambda )`$. We define the formal integral operator $`𝕀`$ by $`𝕀(F(\lambda ))=_0^\lambda F_m(\rho )\frac{1\rho }{\rho }𝑑\rho `$.

###### Theorem 1.

$`𝕀(G_m(\lambda ))=G_{m+1}(\lambda )`$.

Proof.

$$G_{m+1}(\lambda )=R_{m+1}(z)=_0^zR_m(u)\frac{du}{u}=_0^\lambda R_m(\rho e^\rho )\frac{1\rho }{\rho }𝑑\rho =_0^\lambda G_m(\rho )\frac{1\rho }{\rho }𝑑\rho \mathit{}$$

###### Corollary 1.

$`G_{m1}(\lambda )=\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda }G_m^{}(\lambda )`$.

###### Corollary 2.

If $`m>0`$, $`G_m(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial of degree $`m`$ without constant term (Appendix 1). If we write $`G_m(\lambda )=_{k=1}^m(1)^{k1}g(m,k)\lambda ^k`$, then, for $`m>1`$,

$$kg(m,k)=g(m1,k)+g(m1,k1).$$
(3)
We note that $`g(m,1)=1`$ and set $`g(m,k)=0`$ for $`k>m>0`$. These two boundary conditions, together with $`(3)`$, determine $`g(m,k)`$ for $`m,k1`$. A combinatorial interpretation of $`g(m,k)`$ is as follows: let $`N=mk+1`$ and consider the set of all $`k\times N`$ matrices such that each column is a permutation of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$. Then $`g(m,k)`$ is the probability that, in a randomly selected matrix from this set, no one number is below the number $`1`$ in every column. We note two previous appearances of the numbers $`g(m,k)`$ in the literature. In \[2, Appendix\], a definition of generalized Bernoulli numbers of negative degree is given in accordance with which $`g(m,k)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{k}\right)B_m^{(k)}`$. In , the Stirling numbers of the First Kind are generalized such that $`g(m,k)=(1)^ks(k,mk)`$. Many formulae for $`g(m,k)`$ may be found in these references and elsewhere (cf. Appendix 3).

## 3 Pullback by Fractional Linear Transform $`(m<0)`$

If $`\lambda `$ may be called the tree variable, then

$$\zeta =Z(z)=\underset{n1}{}n^n\frac{z^n}{n!}=\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda }$$

is the endofunction variable. When we express $`R_m(z)=G_m(\lambda )`$ in terms of $`\zeta `$ a beautiful phenomenon occurs: Carlitz’ rational functions ($`m`$ nonpositive) become polynomials in $`\zeta `$ with integer coefficients strongly related to numbers called “associated Stirling numbers of the second kind” by Riordan \[R2\] or “second-order Stirling numbers” (denoted $`\{\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\}\}`$) by Fekete\[F\]. We adopt the latter notation, in terms of which $`\left\{\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right\}\right\}=k\{\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{k}\}\}+(m1)\{\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m2}{k1}\}\}`$ is the defining 3-term recurrence relation.

###### Proposition 1.

For $`m`$,

$$G_m(\lambda )=(1+\zeta )^{m+1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left\{\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+k}{k}\right\}\right\}\zeta ^k:=H_m(\zeta ).$$
(4)
Proof. Making the substitution $`\lambda =\frac{\zeta }{1+\zeta }`$ in $`(1)`$, and writing the Carlitz differential operator as $`\zeta (1+\zeta )^2\frac{d}{d\zeta }`$, we calculate, with $`G_m(\lambda )=(1+\zeta )^{m+1}_{k=1}^ma(m,k)\zeta ^k`$ and Theorem 1, that $`a(m,k)=(m+k1)a(m1,k1)+ka(m1,k)`$, from which the result follows. These formal calculations have some pleasant concrete consequences.

###### Corollary 3.

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}(1+\zeta )^{mk1}\zeta ^k=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left\{\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+k}{k}\right\}\right\}\zeta ^{k1}$$
(5)
Summation identities are produced by specializing $`\zeta `$. A pure counting identity follows from the binomial theorem:

###### Corollary 4.

$$\left\{\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+q}{q}\right\}\right\}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ni1}{qi1}\right)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}.$$
(6)
This is completed to an inverse pair of identities (as in ) by

###### Corollary 5.

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{q}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{qi}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ni1}{qi}\right)\left\{\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+i+1}{i+1}\right\}\right\}$$
(7)
## 4 Pullback by Fractional Linear Transform $`(m>0)`$

The $`\zeta `$expressions for positive $`m`$ may be written $`H_m(\zeta )=(1+\zeta )^m_{k=1}^mh(m,k)\zeta ^k`$. The rational numbers $`h(m,k)`$ do not appear, to our knowledge, in the literature (see Appendix 2, top). In particular, combinatorial interpretation of $`h(m,k)`$ is unknown. It is possible, of course, to use our operators and the correlative properties of $`g(m,k)`$ to analyze these coefficients quantitatively. We state the basic facts without proof. First we note that these coefficients may be given by the formula

$$h(m,k)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{j1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mj}{kj}\right)g(m,j)$$
(8)
which may be combined with known formulas for $`g(m,k)`$. A better clue toward finding a combinatorial interpretation may come from the rather simple recurrence relation

$$kh(m,k)=h(m1,k)+(mk+1)h(m,k1).$$
(9)
Since $`g(m,k)`$ has an easy interpretation as a probability, one might hope to interpret $`h(m,k)`$ as an expected value in some finite problem. To this end we note that both $`1!2!\mathrm{}m!h(m,k)`$ and $`(1!2!\mathrm{}k!)^{mk+1}h(m,k)`$ are integral. We further state

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1)^{j1}h(m,j)=1/m!$$
(10)
These facts may be easily proved by induction. It is also easy to verify that

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}h(m,m)=1/e$$
(11)
The growth of $`h(m,k)`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$ for fixed $`k`$ is of interest. Experiment strongly suggests that $`(k1)!h(m,k)`$ is asymptotic to a polynomial $`p_k(m)`$ of degree $`k1`$ in $`m`$ with nonnegative integer coefficients.

## 5 Conclusion.

The variables $`\lambda =T(z)`$ and $`\zeta `$, as well as $`W:=T(z)`$ have been used extensively in analyses of random mappings and random graphs (se  for surveys) in which other $`R_m(z)`$ appear. The latter also occur naturally as exponential generating functions of tree-like structures. We hope that our very basic results may be useful to further such studies.

Appendix 1: The $`\lambda `$ Sequence

For $`\lambda (=T(z))=_{n1}n^{n1}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$ and integer values of $`m`$ we define the sequence $`G_m(\lambda ):=R_m(z):=_{n1}n^{nm}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$\frac{1}{720}\lambda ^6+\frac{137}{7200}\lambda ^5\frac{415}{3456}\lambda ^4+\frac{575}{1296}\lambda ^3\frac{31}{32}\lambda ^2+\lambda $$
$`G_6(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{1}{120}\lambda ^5\frac{25}{288}\lambda ^4+\frac{85}{216}\lambda ^3\frac{15}{16}\lambda ^2+\lambda $$
$`G_5(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{1}{24}\lambda ^4+\frac{11}{36}\lambda ^3\frac{7}{8}\lambda ^2+\lambda $$
$`G_4(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{1}{6}\lambda ^3\frac{3}{4}\lambda ^2+\lambda $$
$`G_3(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2+\lambda $$
$`G_2(\lambda )=`$
$$\lambda $$
$`G_1(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda }$$
$`G_0(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda }{(1\lambda )^3}$$
$`G_1(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda (1+2\lambda )}{(1\lambda )^5}$$
$`G_2(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda (1+8\lambda +6\lambda ^2)}{(1\lambda )^7}$$
$`G_3(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda (1+22\lambda +58\lambda ^2+24\lambda ^3)}{(1\lambda )^9}$$
$`G_4(\lambda )=`$
$$\frac{\lambda (1+52\lambda +328\lambda ^2+444\lambda ^3+120\lambda ^4)}{(1\lambda )^{11}}$$
$`G_5(\lambda )=`$
$$\mathrm{}$$

Appendix 2: The $`\zeta `$ Sequence

For $`\zeta =_{n1}n^n\frac{z^n}{n!}`$ and integer values of $`m`$ we define the sequence $`H_m(\zeta ):=R_m(z):=_{n1}n^{nm}\frac{z^n}{n!}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$\frac{\zeta (1+\frac{129}{32}\zeta +\frac{8513}{1296}\zeta ^2+\frac{691}{128}\zeta ^3+\frac{96547}{43200}\zeta ^4+\frac{96547}{259200}\zeta ^5)}{(1+\zeta )^6}$$
$`H_6(\zeta )=`$
$$\frac{\zeta (1+\frac{49}{16}\zeta +\frac{1547}{432}\zeta ^2+\frac{1631}{864}\zeta ^3+\frac{1631}{4320}\zeta ^4)}{(1+\zeta )^5}$$
$`H_5(\zeta )=`$
$$\frac{\zeta (1+\frac{17}{8}\zeta +\frac{14}{9}\zeta ^2+\frac{7}{18}\zeta ^3)}{(1+\zeta )^4}$$
$`H_4(\zeta )=`$
$$\frac{\zeta (1+\frac{5}{4}\zeta +\frac{5}{12}\zeta ^2)}{(1+\zeta )^3}$$
$`H_3(\zeta )=`$
$$\frac{\zeta (1+\frac{1}{2}\zeta )}{(1+\zeta )^2}$$
$`H_2(\zeta )=`$
$$\frac{\zeta }{1+\zeta }$$
$`H_1(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta $$
$`H_0(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta (1+\zeta )^2$$
$`H_1(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta (1+\zeta )^3(1+3\zeta )$$
$`H_2(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta (1+\zeta )^4(1+10\zeta +15\zeta ^2)$$
$`H_3(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta (1+\zeta )^5(1+25\zeta +105\zeta ^2+105\zeta ^3)$$
$`H_4(\zeta )=`$
$$\zeta (1+\zeta )^6(1+56\zeta +490\zeta ^2+1260\zeta ^3+945\zeta ^4)$$
$`H_6(\zeta )=`$
$$\mathrm{}$$

Appendix 3: Extended Remark on $`g(m,k)`$

The tabulation of $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}`$ led Carlitz to ask for combinatorial interpretations. In contrast, the coefficients $`g(m,k)`$ are well known. In , a definition of generalized Bernoulli numbers of negative degree is given from which we see that $`g(m,k)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{k}\right)B_m^{(k)}`$. Also $`g(m,k)=(1)^ks(k,mk)`$, a virtual Stirling number as defined in .

Consider the recurrence relation

$$kg(m,k)=g(m1,k)+g(m1,k1)$$

for $`m,k1`$ where we initialize by $`g(m,k)=0`$ if $`k>m`$, and $`g(m,1)=1`$. Since this is our definition, the verification of the following formulas is routine. The unique solution may be expressed as a sum of Egyptian Fractions:

$$g(m,k)=\frac{1}{k!}\underset{1i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{mk}k}{}\frac{1}{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{mk}}$$

An alternative form is related to an iterated difference of $`f(x)=\frac{1}{x^{mk+1}}`$:

$$g(m,k)=\frac{1}{k1!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{j}\right)\frac{(1)^j}{(j+1)^{mk+1}}$$

From the recurrence for the $`g(m,k)`$’s also follow generating functions:

$$g(m,k)=[z^{mk}]\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{pz}$$

which may be written in a connection coefficient formula:

$$\frac{1}{(x+1)(x+2)\mathrm{}(x+k)}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^ng(k+n,k)x^n$$

(linking $`g(m,k)`$ with the signless Stirling cycle numbers).

An integral of a polynomial over the hypercube yields the same numbers:

$$g(m,k)=\frac{1}{(k1)!}_0^1_0^1\mathrm{}_0^1(1x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{mk+1})^{k1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{}𝑑x_{mk+1}$$

since it evaluates to the iterated difference form above after applying the binomial theorem.

The rational number $`g(m,k)`$ has the natural denominator $`(k!)^{mk+1}`$. The corresponding numerators $`N(m,k)`$ form a triangle of integers generated by

$$N(m,k)=[z^{mk}]\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{1\frac{k!}{p}z}$$

and previously tabulated and studied in David, Kendall, and Barton, Symmetric Function and Allied Tables, Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1966 (Table 5.4.1).

Web Resource

Some additional data on the questions raised in Section 4 may be found at

http://www.saturn.math.uaa.alaska.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$smiley/numbertriangle.html


text:
# Workshop Presentation and Hot Topics

## 1 Introduction

The advanced research course was held at Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University in October–December 1999; it was open to graduate students, senior researchers, and motivated under-graduate students with good background in physics and mathematics. The course covered several multi-disciplinary issues of modern research on astrophysical dynamics, and thus also of interest to physicists, mathematicians and engineers. The major topic was gas dynamics, viewed in context with stellar dynamics and plasma physics. The course was complemented by parallel seminars on hot topics given by experts in such fields, and open to a wide scientific audience. In particular, I gave a friendly introduction to *wavelets*, which are becoming an increasingly powerful tool not only for processing signals and images but also for analysing fractals and turbulence, and which promise to have important applications to dynamical modelling of disc galaxies. The course is presented in more detail in Sect. 2. The basic reference is Romeo (1999b); see also the references cited therein and in Sect. 2, and Romeo (1999a) for a discussion of my ideas about teaching (in a different context).

The workshop was held at Onsala Space Observatory on 12 and 13 January, and 1 March, 2000; it was open to a wide scientific audience. The workshop with published proceedings book was, as a matter of fact, the *innovative* form of exam that I proposed for the advanced research course. The contributions were refereed and their quality is high on average, exceptionally high in a few cases. The workshop is presented in more detail in Sect. 3.

The advanced research course and the workshop all together produced great enthusiasm in the students and welcomed the participation of a hundred different people, which means *an order of magnitude* more than an average graduate course at Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University. What else should I say? Enjoy reading the proceedings book!

## 2 The Advanced Research Course

### 2.1 Lectures

1. Basics about fluids (2 hours).
2. The equations of motion (4 hours).
3. Simple applications (4 hours).
4. Instabilities (4 hours).
5. Turbulences and fractals (2 hours).
6. Astrophysical fractals: interstellar medium and galaxies (1 hour).

* References: Combes (1999b).
7. Which thermal physics for gravitationally unstable media? (1 hour).

* References: Pfenniger (1998).
8. Shocks (4 hours).
9. Magnetic fields (4 hours).
10. Gas dynamics vs. stellar dynamics and plasma physics (2 hours).

References: Shu (1992), unless otherwise specified; see also van Dyke (1982), Shore (1992), Dyson & Williams (1997) and Choudhuri (1998).

### 2.2 Exercises

1. Birth, life (and death?) of a galaxy: a step-by-step problem (6 hours).

References: Padmanabhan (1996); see also Binney & Tremaine (1987) and Binney & Merrifield (1998).

### 2.3 Parallel Seminars on Hot Topics

1. ‘Wavelets: A Presentation for Scientists’ – Alessandro Romeo (2 hours).

* Multimedia: computer-projector show using the Matlab Wavelet Toolbox, running on a high-performance Linux machine; public computer lab.
    * References: Press et al. (1992), Vetterling et al. (1992), Misiti et al. (1997), Hubbard (1998), Mallat (1998), Bergh et al. (1999) and Wavelet Digest.
2. ‘Black-Hole Accretion Discs’ – Marek Abramowicz (2 hours).
3. ‘Wavelets at Work in Physics’ – Alessandro Romeo (2 hours).

* Multimedia: computer-projector show using the Matlab Wavelet Toolbox, running on a high-performance Linux machine; public computer lab.
    * References: Bowman & Newell (1998), Fang & Thews (1998), Goedecker (1998) and van den Berg (1999).
4. ‘Small-Scale Structure and Dynamics in the Interstellar Medium’ – John Black (2 hours).
5. ‘Wavelets at Work in Astrophysics’ – Alessandro Romeo (2 hours).

* Photographs: `http://www.mvd.chalmers.se/~pergus/alessandro/` .
    * Multimedia: computer-projector show using the Matlab Wavelet Toolbox, running on a high-performance Linux machine, and the documentation of the MR/1-MR/2 Software Packages; public computer lab.
    * References: Fang & Thews (1998), Starck et al. (1998) and van den Berg (1999).
6. ‘Magnetic Fields in Galaxies’ – Cathy Horellou (2 hours).
7. ‘Dynamical Modelling of Disc Galaxies: Multi-Scale Structures’ – Alessandro Romeo (2 hours).

* References: Romeo (1994), Friedli (1996), Zhang (1996), Masset & Tagger (1997), Romeo (1997, 1998a, b), Zhang (1998), Block & Puerari (1999), Combes (1999a), Erwin & Sparke (1999), Friedli (1999), Martini & Pogge (1999), Shlosman (1999), Zhang (1999), Combes (2000), Englmaier & Shlosman (2000), Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) and Shlosman (2000).

## 3 The Workshop

1. ‘Turbulence and Fractal Analysis Using Wavelets’ – Michael Försth (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: review paper.
    * Referees: Jöran Bergh, Cathy Horellou and Alessandro Romeo.
2. ‘Dark Matter and Cold Fractal Clouds’ – Achim Tappe (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: review paper.
    * Referees: John Black, Alessandro Romeo and Tommy Wiklind.
3. ‘Fractals and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe’ – Ǧirts Barinovs (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: paper.
    * Referees: Alessandro Romeo and Tommy Wiklind.
4. ‘Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence in Accretion Discs’ – Rim Turkmani (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: review paper.
    * Referees: Arto Heikkilä, Alessandro Romeo and Ulf Torkelsson.
5. ‘Galaxy Collisions’ – Nils Tarras-Wahlberg (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: abstract.
    * Referees: Alessandro Romeo.
6. ‘The Outflow-Disc Interaction in Young Stellar Objects’ – Michele Pestalozzi (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: review paper.
    * Referees: John Conway, Michael Olberg and Alessandro Romeo.
7. ‘Jets from Herbig-Haro Objects’ – Jiyune Yi (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: abstract.
    * Referees: Alessandro Romeo.
8. ‘Origin and Propagation of Extragalactic Jets’ – Alessandro Laudati (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: abstract.
    * Referees: Alessandro Romeo.
9. ‘Why Are Evolved-Stellar Atmospheres Clumped?’ – Liz Humphreys (cancelled).
10. ‘Ionization Fronts and Photo-Dissociation’ – Henrik Olofsson (1.5 hours).

* Proceedings: review paper.
    * Referees: John Black, Åke Hjalmarson and Alessandro Romeo.

## Acknowledgements

I would very much like to thank the following people for their invaluable help: the speakers of the parallel seminars on hot topics, the contributors to the workshop and the referees of the proceedings; Christer Andersson (guided visits), Per Gustafson (IT-project), Bert Hansson (transports), Håkan Håkansson (AV-service), Biörn Nilsson and Michael Olberg (computers), Michele Pestalozzi and Achim Tappe (support from A to Z!). Last but not least, I acknowledge the financial support of the Swedish Natural Science Research Council, of the local institutions and the further generous grants by the ‘Solveig och Karl G Eliassons Minnesfond’.

## References

Bergh J., Ekstedt F., Lindberg M., 1999, Wavelets. Studentlitteratur, Lund

Binney J., Merrifield M., 1998, Galactic Astronomy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (Errata in arXiv:astro-ph/9304010)

Block D.L., Puerari I., 1999, A&A 342, 627

Bowman C., Newell A.C., 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 289

Choudhuri A.R., 1998, The Physics of Fluids and Plasmas: An Introduction for Astrophysicists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Combes F., 1999a, ASP Conf. Ser. 187, 59

Combes F., 1999b, arXiv:astro-ph/9906477

Combes F., 2000, ASP Conf. Ser. 197, 15

Dyson J.E., Williams D.A., 1997, The Physics of the Interstellar Medium. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol

Englmaier P., Shlosman I., 2000, ApJ 528, 677

Erwin P., Sparke L.S., 1999, ApJ 521, L37

Fang L.-Z., Thews R.L. (Eds.), 1998, Wavelets in Physics. World Scientific, Singapore

Friedli D., 1996, ASP Conf. Ser. 91, 378

Friedli D., 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 187, 88

Goedecker S., 1998, Wavelets and Their Application for the Solution of Partial Differential Equations in Physics. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne

Hubbard B.B., 1998, The World According to Wavelets: The Story of a Mathematical Technique in the Making. Peters, Wellesley

Maciejewski W., Sparke L.S., 2000, MNRAS 313, 745

Mallat S., 1998, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing. Academic Press, San Diego

Martini P., Pogge R.W., 1999, AJ 118, 2646

Masset F., Tagger M., 1997, A&A 322, 442

Matlab Wavelet Toolbox: `http://www.mathworks.com/products/wavelet/`

Misiti M., Misiti Y., Oppenheim G., Poggi J.-M., 1997, Wavelet Toolbox for Use with Matlab: User’s Guide. The MathWorks, Natick

MR/1-MR/2 Software Packages: `http://www.multiresolution.com/`

Padmanabhan T., 1996, Cosmology and Astrophysics through Problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Pfenniger D., 1998, Mem. S.A.It. 69, 429

Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T., Flannery B.P., 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Romeo A.B., 1994, A&A 286, 799

Romeo A.B., 1997, A&A 324, 523

Romeo A.B., 1998a, A&A 335, 922

Romeo A.B., 1998b, $`N`$-Body Simulations of Disc Galaxies Can Shed Light on the Dark-Matter Problem. In: Salucci P. (ed.) Dark Matter. Studio Editoriale Fiorentino, Firenze, p. 177

Romeo A.B., 1999a, arXiv:physics/9906028

Romeo A.B., 1999b, Astrophysical Dynamics. Course Notes, Onsala Space Observatory (unpublished)

Shlosman I., 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 187, 100

Shlosman I., 2000, ASP Conf. Ser. 197, 23

Shore S.N., 1992, An Introduction to Astrophysical Hydrodynamics. Academic Press, San Diego

Shu F.H., 1992, The Physics of Astrophysics – Vol. II: Gas Dynamics. University Science Books, Sausalito

Starck J.-L., Murtagh F., Bijaoui A., 1998, Image Processing and Data Analysis: The Multiscale Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

van den Berg J.C. (Ed.), 1999, Wavelets in Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

van Dyke M., 1982, An Album of Fluid Motion. Parabolic Press, Stanford

Vetterling W.T., Teukolsky S.A., Press W.H., Flannery B.P., 1992, Numerical Recipes Example Book (Fortran). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Wavelet Digest: `http://www.wavelet.org/`

Zhang X., 1996, ApJ 457, 125

Zhang X., 1998, ApJ 499, 93

Zhang X., 1999, ApJ 518, 613


text:
# REFERENCES

DSF-20/2000

TALK ON FERMION MASSES AND MIXINGS ***Presented at the Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, May 2000

D. Falcone

Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli,

Complesso di Monte Sant’Angelo, Via Cintia, Napoli, Italy

e-mail: falcone@na.infn.it

## Abstract

Two topics are covered in this paper. In the first part the relation between quark mass matrices and observable quantities in gauge theories. In the second part neutrino masses and mixings in a seesaw framework.

This talk is divided in two parts: Part I deals with quark mass matrices and observable quantities and is based on three papers . Part II deals with neutrino masses and mixings in a seesaw framework and is based on another three papers .

Part I - Quarks

In the standard model (SM), which is a gauge theory with $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ as a symmetry group, let us consider the quark mass and charged weak current terms in the Lagrangian:

$$\overline{u}_LM_uu_R+\overline{d}_LM_dd_R+g\overline{u}_Ld_LW.$$
(1)
When we diagonalize both mass matrices by biunitary transformations, we get the terms

$$\overline{u}_LD_uu_R+\overline{d}_LD_dd_R+g\overline{u}_LV_{CKM}d_LW,$$
(2)
where $`V_{CKM}`$ is the quark mixing matrix . There is a clear hierarchy of quark masses: $`m_um_cm_t`$ and $`m_dm_sm_b`$ ($`m_bm_t`$). Moreover, $`V_{CKM}`$ is near the identity and $`V_{ub}V_{cb}V_{us}`$.

The following (unitary) transformations have no physical consequences, that is they do not change masses and mixings:

$$u_LUu_L,d_LUd_L$$
(3)
$$u_RV_uu_R,d_RV_dd_R.$$
(4)
As you see, the left-handed states transform in the same way, while the right-handed states may undergo different transformations. The two mass matrices $`M_u`$, $`M_d`$ have 36 real parameters while $`D_u`$, $`D_d`$, $`V_{CKM}`$ have 10 real parameters (observable quantities). By using transformations (3),(4) we can go to a basis where the mass matrices contain exactly 10 real parameters. This is called a minimal parameter basis (MPB).

However, by using transformations (3),(4) we can get also $`M_u`$, $`M_d`$ both hermitian , or $`M_u`$, $`M_d`$ both in the nearest neighbor interaction (NNI) form , or $`M_u`$ diagonal and $`M_d`$ hermitian or containing three zeros . In fact, we can diagonalize $`M_u`$ by a biunitary transformation, and use the freedom in $`V_d`$ to get $`M_d`$ hermitian or containing three zeros. There are 54 bases with three zeros, out of 84 possibilities. In this way $`M_u`$ has three real parameters and $`M_d`$ seven real parameters, six moduli and one phase (but keeping three phases preserves an arbitrary representation for $`V_{CKM}`$).

As an example of a MPB with $`M_u`$ diagonal and $`M_d`$ with three zeros, we can consider the one studied in ref., where

$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_dm_s}& 0\\ \sqrt{m_dm_s}& m_se^{i\phi }& m_s\\ 0& m_b/\sqrt{5}& 2m_b/\sqrt{5}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
There are three simple relations among its elements, and the mixings can be written in terms of down quark masses:

$`V_{us}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}`$ (6)
$`V_{cb}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}`$ (7)
$`V_{ub}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_dm_s}{m_b}}}.`$ (8)
Therefore on this basis we have seven independent real parameters (six masses and one phase), instead of ten. We can check also that $`V_{us}V_{cb}3V_{ub}`$. The relation $`|M_{d22}|M_{d23}`$ is due to the value $`\delta 75^{}`$ in $`V_{CKM}`$.

Other interesting bases, with $`M_u`$ diagonal and $`M_d`$ triangular, are in refs.. In particular, from ref. we get the form

$$|M_d|\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_d& m_sV_{us}& m_bV_{ub}\\ 0& m_s& m_bV_{cb}\\ 0& 0& m_b\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Non diagonal bases include hermitian matrices with no zeros on the diagonal . The physical content of such bases can be explained considering that, for example, solution 3 by Ramond, Roberts, Ross  is obtained setting $`M_{u11}=M_{d11}=0`$ in one of them. Moreover, we have also the basis with hermitian matrices and $`M_{u13}=M_{d13}=0`$ , or $`M_{u11}=M_{d11}=M_{d13}=0`$ , and the physical content is given by the ansatz with $`M_{11}=M_{13}=0`$ in both matrices (this is contraddicted in ref., where other hermitian mass matrices are studied and a non parallel structure is found).

Let us now turn to the left-right model (LRM), based on the symmetry $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$, and consider the part of the Lagrangian containing the quark mass terms and the charged currents:

$$\overline{u}_LM_uu_R+\overline{d}_LM_dd_R+g_L\overline{u}_Ld_LW_L+g_R\overline{u}_Rd_RW_R.$$
(10)
When we diagonalize the mass matrices we obtain

$$\overline{u}_LD_uu_R+\overline{d}_LD_dd_R+g_L\overline{u}_LV_Ld_LW_L+g_R\overline{u}_RV_Rd_RW_R,$$
(11)
with two mixing matrices $`V_L`$, $`V_R`$, and $`V_L=V_{CKM}`$. The transformations that do not change masses and mixings are now

$$u_LUu_L,d_LUd_L$$
(12)
$$u_RVu_R,d_RVd_R.$$
(13)
Thus, also the right-handed fields transform in the same way, and if we diagonalize $`M_u`$ by a biunitary transformation, then $`M_d`$ is fixed: The 54 bases of the SM become strong ansatze in the LRM. To select them we have to look at right-handed mixings .

As an example, consider the 2-generation case, where we have four SM bases, according to where we put the zero in $`M_d`$ (taking $`M_u=D_u`$, $`\lambda =0.22`$):

$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{m_dm_s}\\ \sqrt{m_dm_s}& m_s\end{array}\right),V_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \lambda \\ \lambda & 1\end{array}\right);$$
(14)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{m_dm_s}& 0\\ m_s& \sqrt{m_dm_s}\end{array}\right),V_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda & 1\\ 1& \lambda \end{array}\right);$$
(15)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_d& \sqrt{m_dm_s}\\ 0& m_s\end{array}\right),V_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right);$$
(16)
$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{m_dm_s}& m_d\\ m_s& 0\end{array}\right),V_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
In the 3-generation case we rely on the following considerations. A recent analysis, by T. Rizzo , of right-handed currents in B decay, within the LRM, suggests that $`V_{cb}^R`$ is large and perhaps near unity. From inclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons one has $`V_{cb}^R0.782`$. Moreover, if as suggested by Voloshin , right-handed currents can help to solve the B semileptonic branching fraction and charm counting problems, then $`V_{cb}^R0.908`$. We begin our selection by using $`V_{cb}^R0.750`$. Setting $`M_u=D_u`$, we denote elements in $`M_d`$ by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2& 3\\ 4& 5& 6\\ 7& 8& 9\end{array}\right).$$

There are 16 ansatze out of 54 that satisfy our bound. Ten of them are in the following table. We have excluded those giving the particular strange result that some element in $`M_d^{}M_d=V_RD_d^2V_R^{}`$ is exactly zero.

| zeros | 124 | 236 | 146 | 256 | 127 | 128 | 479 | 589 | 467 | 568 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`V_{cb}^R`$ | .896 | .896 | .789 | .789 | .914 | .914 | .999 | .999 | .871 | .871 |

We give now an example of a successful ansatz, namely 124, with

$$|M_d|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0.023\\ 0& 0.106& 0.104\\ 0.541& 2.687& 1.213\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
$$|V_R|\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & 2\lambda & 1\\ \lambda & 1& 2\lambda \end{array}\right).$$
(19)
Further constraints on the form of $`V_R`$ come from the $`K_LK_S`$ mass difference and $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing, reported in ref.. Models 128, 479, 589 are reliable, for example 128:

$$|M_d|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0.023\\ 0.103& 0.021& 0.104\\ 2.741& 0& 1.213\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
$$|V_R|\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & 1& 2\lambda \\ 2\lambda ^2& 2\lambda & 1\\ 1& \lambda & \lambda ^5\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Of course, other ansatze can be obtained starting from a diagonal $`M_d`$. We stress the simple result that, if $`V_{cb}^R`$ is really large, then hermitian or symmetric mass matrices are not reliable (remember: for hermitian or symmetric matrices $`|V_R|=|V_L|`$). Notice also that non symmetric mass matrices have important applications in the leptonic sector in connection with the large mixing of neutrinos .

By using transformations (12),(13) it is possible to change the structure of both $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$. Although such forms can be more interesting to discover an underlying theory of fermion masses and mixings, they lead to the same observable parameters in LRM, and we need other observable quantities to make a selection of such models with non diagonal mass matrices. These new physical parameters exist in extensions of the LRM (for example the $`SO(10)`$ model). We have here simply attempted to begin with a systematic study, within the LRM, of quark mass matrices which have a general form in the SM. For effects of right-handed mixings in $`SO(10)`$ and proton decay see ref..

Part II - Neutrinos

Let us start from the 1-generation seesaw, where the full neutrino mass matrix is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D\\ m_D& M_R\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
with $`m_D`$ the Dirac mass and $`M_R`$ the right-handed Majorana mass. Assuming $`m_DM_R`$, we get a small eigenvalue $`m_Lm_D^2/M_R`$ and a big one, $`m_RM_R`$. Usually $`M_Dm_q`$ or $`M_Dm_l`$, with $`m_q`$ a quark mass and $`m_l`$ a charged lepton mass. In the 3-generation seesaw, we have the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_D\\ M_D& M_R\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
with $`M_D`$ and $`M_R`$ $`3\times 3`$ matrices (we assume $`M_D`$ to be real symmetric), and an effective light neutrino mass matrix

$$M_LM_DM_R^1M_D$$
(24)
which can be inverted to give

$$M_RM_DM_L^1M_D.$$
(25)
We aim at calculating the scale and the form of $`M_R`$, because in unified models, where neutrino mass is most natural ($`SO(10)`$), this scale is intermediate (around $`10^{11}`$ GeV) in the non supersymmetric case and of unification ($`10^{16}`$ GeV) in the supersymmetric case .

We rely on quark-lepton symmetry, which in this context means that

$$M_D\frac{m_\tau }{m_b}\text{diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t),$$
(26)
and $`M_l`$, $`M_d`$, $`M_u`$ also nearly diagonal (see for example ref.). In such a case we can soon obtain $`M_L`$ from experimental data, by means of the formula

$$M_LUD_LU^T$$
(27)
with $`D_L=`$diag$`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ and the lepton mixing matrix $`U`$  given by

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& ϵ\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(s+cϵ)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(scϵ)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(scϵ)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(s+cϵ)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
where $`ϵ`$ is small ($`ϵ^20.03`$). This form includes the results by Chooz and SuperKamiokande. Since we do not know neutrino masses and mixing so well, our approximations can be considered good.

From neutrino oscillation data we have for solar neutrinos

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^210^6eV^2(SMAMSW)$$
(29)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^210^5eV^2(LMAMSW)$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^210^{10}eV^2(VO)$$
(31)
and for atmospheric neutrinos

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^210^3eV^2.$$
(32)
Then it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$. We can set

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=m_2^2m_1^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=m_3^2m_{1,2}^2$$
(33)
and assuming $`m_3>0`$ there are three possible spectra for light neutrinos :

$$m_3|m_2|,|m_1|(hierarchical)$$
(34)
$$|m_1||m_2|m_3(invertedhierarchy)$$
(35)
$$|m_1||m_2|m_3(nearlydegenerate).$$
(36)
We work in a CP conserving framework, but we allow for negative Majorana masses. In a more general approach, two phases in $`U`$ or $`D_L`$ connect among the relative signs (see for example ref.). For the sine $`s`$ of the solar mixing angle one has $`s0`$ in the SMA MSW and $`s1/\sqrt{2}`$ in the LMA MSW or VO.

$`Hierarchicalspectrum`$. If there was no mixing at all ($`U=I`$), the scale of $`M_R`$ would be

$$M_{R33}\frac{k^2m_t^2}{m_3},$$

with $`k=m_\tau /m_b`$. For $`s0`$, corresponding to the SMA solution, we get

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2m_2& 1/2m_2\\ 0& 1/2m_2& 1/2m_2\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
when $`ϵ^2m_3m_1`$, and the scale is given by

$$M_{R33}\frac{1}{2}\frac{k^2m_t^2}{m_2},$$
(38)
which is greater or equal to $`10^{15}`$ GeV, that is near the unification scale. The leading form for $`M_R`$ is

$$M_R\text{diag}(0,0,1),$$
(39)
similar to the leading form for $`M_D`$. However, if $`ϵ^2m_3m_1`$, then $`M_{R33}`$ goes to zero and we have a different structure for $`M_R`$. For $`s1/\sqrt{2}`$ we consider three subcases: $`|m_2||m_1|`$, $`m_2m_1`$ and $`m_2m_1`$.

1. If there is full hierarchy, we have

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2& 1/2\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2m_1}$$
(40)
and the scale is

$$M_{R33}\frac{1}{4}\frac{k^2m_t^2}{m_1}$$
(41)
which gives $`10^{16}`$ GeV or more in the LMA case and $`10^{18}`$ GeV or more in the VO case (towards the Planck scale). Again the leading form for $`M_R`$ is hierarchical and diagonal, reflecting the hierarchy of Dirac masses.

2. If $`m_2m_1`$, then

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2m_2},$$
(42)
assuming $`ϵ^2m_3m_2`$, and the scale is

$$M_{R33}\frac{1}{2}\frac{k^2m_t^2}{m_2},$$
(43)
which gives $`10^{15}`$ GeV or more, near or above the unification scale. The leading $`M_R`$ is hierarchical and diagonal, unless $`ϵ^2m_3m_2`$, when $`M_{R33}`$ goes to zero.

3. For $`m_2m_1`$ there are some possibilities:

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{2}/m_2& \sqrt{2}/m_2\\ \sqrt{2}/m_2& 1/2m_3& 1/2m_3\\ \sqrt{2}/m_2& 1/2m_3& 1/2m_3\end{array}\right),$$

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 0& 0\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 0& 2ϵ\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{m_2},$$

giving $`M_R`$ around the unification scale. An interesting case is $`ϵm_3m_2`$, when $`m_2<0`$, $`m_1,m_3>0`$, and

$$M_L^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 2ϵ& 0\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{m_2},$$
(44)
with the leading form

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
and a scale given by the element

$$M_{R13}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{k^2m_um_t}{m_2}$$
(46)
yielding $`10^{11}`$ GeV or above, near the intermediate scale of a $`SO(10)`$ model. This last form is similar to the one studied in ref.,

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sigma ^2& 1\\ \sigma ^2& \sigma ^2& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)M_0,$$
(47)
with $`\sigma ^2=m_c/m_t`$ and $`M_0=10^{12}`$ GeV. For other forms at the intermediate scale see refs..

For inverted hierarchy, generally we have

$$M_{R33}\frac{k^2m_t^2}{m_3}$$
(48)
and the hierarchical and diagonal leading form with a scale at the unification scale or above.

For nearly degenerate spectrum with $`m_02`$ eV, the scale is intermediate and depends on $`1/m_0`$. However, in this case there are instabilities with respect to small entries . Moreover, this spectrum is hard to obtain in the seesaw mechanism .

We give now a summary on neutrinos. There are few leading forms for $`M_R`$. The diagonal form

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(49)
leads to the unification scale or above; in particular, for the VO solution and full hierarchy we go near the Planck scale. The off-diagonal forms

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(50)
are consistent with the intermediate scale of non supersymmetric models. In such cases the structure of $`M_R`$ is very different from that of $`M_D`$diag$`(0,0,1)`$. From the point of view of the effective parameters $`m_i,ϵ`$ this is due to some suitable cancellations, but there could be an underlying theory. Of course, the relation $`M_DM_l`$ reduces scales by almost three orders , so the unification scale can become the intermediate scale.

We finish with a brief comment on neutrinos and dark matter. From inflation and CMB experiments  we can argue that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. The old paradigm about the content of the universe was $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B0.1`$ (baryons), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{HDM}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0.2`$ (hot dark matter), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0.7`$ (cold dark matter) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (vacuum energy). New results from high-z supernovae and other hints lead to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ . Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0.2`$ for structure formation and we are left with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0`$. Thus, we would like to stress that the hierarchical spectrum for light neutrinos leads just to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0`$, while the degenerate spectrum to the old position $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0.2`$ . Therefore, it seems that the new results support the hierarchical spectrum.

The author thanks the Instituto Superior Tecnico for hospitality.