text:
# Level Dynamics and Universality of Spectral Fluctuations

##

Most quantum systems whose classical limit is chaotic display universal spectral fluctuations . Such universality was first observed in nuclear spectra, but is by now well supported by atomic and molecular spectroscopy. Somewhat surprisingly at first came support from microwave resonators and later even from elastic vibrations of crystals, i. e. classical waves for which the ray limit is chaotic. Such experimental as well as numerical findings suggest that discrete spectra of non-integrable quantum or classical waves display universal fluctuations.

The universal fluctuations in question can be roughly characterized as level repulsion. They are also met with in spectra of random Hermitian or unitary matrices drawn from the Gaussian or circular ensembles of random-matrix theory  pioneered by Wigner and Dyson. They contrast to the spectral fluctuations of integrable systems with two or more freedoms where we find level clustering, just as if the levels followed one another like the events in a Poissonian random process.

The general rule just sketched is not without exceptions, some of which will concern us below. It is widely accepted, though, that hyperbolic classical dynamics can fail to being faithful to random-matrix theory (in their level-spacing distribution as well as low-order correlation functions of the level density) only due to either quantum or Anderson localization or to slight perversity, like symmetries relevant for quantum spectra but not coming with classical constants of the motion . Faithfulness to random-matrix theory even prevails for dynamics with mixed phase spaces, as long as islands of regular motion remain smaller than Planck cells.

Theoretical attempts to explain the applicability of random-matrix theory to quantum and wave chaos have been based on treating the parametric dependence of spectra with the methods of statistical mechanics  and, more recently, on extending ideas from the theory of disordered systems to dynamical systems . Building on the first of these strategies we here propose to put forth arguments which could lead to clarifying the issue.

Parametric level dynamics was related by Pechukas  and Yukawa  to the classical Hamiltonian motion of a one dimensional gas, the Pechukas-Yukawa gas (PYG). Different PYG’s arise  for Hamiltonians depending on a parameter $`\tau `$ as $`H(\tau )=H_0+\tau H_1`$ or $`H(\tau )=H_0\mathrm{cos}\tau +H_1\mathrm{sin}\tau `$ or $`H(t,\tau )=H_0+\tau H_1_{i=1,2,\mathrm{}}\delta (ti)`$. The latter involves periodic kicks; the time evolution over one period is described by unitary Floquet operators of the form $`F=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}H_0}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tau H_1}`$ whose quasienergies $`\phi _m`$ are defined by $`F|m,\tau =\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi _m}|m,\tau `$. Note that we have taken the liberty to absorb a unit of time as well as Planck’s constant in the Hamiltonians so as to make them as well as the perturbation strength $`\tau `$ dimensionless.

We find it convenient to base the following arguments on the PYG for periodically kicked systems (but we shall occasionally draw in illustrations for autonomous systems as well). The quasienergies $`\phi _m(\tau )`$ with $`m=1\mathrm{}N`$ appear as the coordinates of particles changing as the “time” $`\tau `$ elapses. The role of conjugate momenta is taken up by $`p_m(\tau )=m,\tau |H_1|m,\tau `$. The Hamiltonian function comprises a kinetic term and a pair interaction ,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_m^2+\frac{1}{8}\underset{mn}{}\frac{|l_{mn}|^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi _m\phi _n}{2}}.$$
(1)
As the only unusual feature of that Hamiltonian we encounter coupling strengths $`l_{mn}`$ which are themselves dynamical variables, related to the off-diagonal elements of the perturbation as $`l_{mn}=\mathrm{i}m,\tau |H_1|n,\tau (\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\phi _m\phi _n)}1)`$. If time reversal invariance holds for the quantum dynamics (for the other universality classes similar considerations apply), the initial $`l_{mn}(0)`$ can be chosen to form a real antisymmetric matrix with $`N(N1)/2`$ independent elements, $`l_{mn}=l_{nm}=l_{mn}^{}`$, and the dynamics of the gas preserves that property. To extract Hamiltonian equations of motion for the $`\phi _m,p_m,l_{mn}`$ we need to employ the familiar Poisson brackets for canonical pairs $`\{p_m,\phi _n\}=\delta _{mn}`$; the $`l_{mn}`$, on the other hand, Poisson commute with the $`\phi _m,p_m`$ and between themselves obey $`\{l_{mn},l_{ij}\}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{mj}l_{ni}+\delta _{ni}l_{mj}\delta _{nj}l_{mi}\delta _{mi}l_{nj})`$. The latter Poisson brackets happen to be the ones for generators of rotations in $`N`$-dimensional real vector spaces. The number of variables is $`D=2N+N(N1)/2`$. Incidentally, if we were to solve the resulting Hamilton equations through a power series in the “time” $`\tau `$ we would recover perturbation theory.

Prior to appearing as a concise formulation of parametric level dynamics or perturbation theory, the PYG Hamiltonian had been known to mathematicians  and noted for being integrable, in spite of the non-trivial two-body interaction. It is easy to see that the PYG moves on an $`N`$-torus in its $`D`$-dimensional phase space: In the eigenrepresentation of the perturbation, $`H_1|r=\omega _r|r`$, the Floquet matrix takes the form $`F_{rs}=(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}H_0})_{rs}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tau \omega _s}`$. The $`\tau `$-dependence thus lies in the $`N`$ exponentials $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tau \omega _s}`$ which define an $`N`$-torus. Going from the $`H_1`$-representation to the $`F`$-representation amounts to a reparametrization of phase space by a canonical transformation which can deform but not topologically destroy the torus. If the $`N`$ eigenvalues $`\omega _r`$ are incommensurate the $`N`$-torus will be covered ergodically as the “time” $`\tau `$ elapses.

When applying equilibrium statistical mechanics to the PYG we must resist the temptation to employ the canonical ensemble $`\rho (\phi ,p,l)\mathrm{e}^\beta `$ since that ensemble allows the PYG to visit everywhere on the $`(D1)`$-dimensional energy shell with uniform probability while only the much smaller $`N`$-torus mentioned is accessible. It was nevertheless an important observation  that $`\mathrm{e}^\beta `$ gives precisely the eigenphase density of random-matrix theory, $`\rho (\phi )=d^Npd^{N(N1)/2}l\mathrm{e}^\beta _{m<n}|\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi _m}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi _n}|`$, as is easily checked by doing the Gaussian integrals over the $`p`$’s and $`l`$’s. The appropriate ensemble to use for the PYG is the generalized canonical ensemble

$$\rho (\phi ,p,l)\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{\mu =1}^{DN}\beta _\mu C_\mu \right\};$$
(2)
the accessible $`N`$-torus is thus nailed down by fixing $`DN`$ suitable constants of the motion $`C_\mu `$ in the ensemble mean with the help of Lagrange parameters $`\beta _\mu `$; one of these $`C_\mu `$ should be the Hamiltonian $``$. That ensemble has been shown  to have the distribution of level spacings as well as low-order correlation functions of the level density in common with random-matrix theory, to within corrections of order $`1/N`$. A good step towards explaining the universality of spectral fluctuations was thus taken, but several more steps are still ahead of us.

As the phase-space trajectory of the fictitious gas winds around the $`N`$-torus, the original Floquet matrix $`F(\tau )`$ changes within a one-parameter family. It is that family rather than a single dynamical system (which has a fixed value of $`\tau `$) which is assigned random-matrix type spectral fluctuations. Indeed, ergodicity on the $`N`$-torus implies that $`\tau `$ averages of spectral characteristics like the spacing distribution $`P(S,\tau )`$ equal ensemble averages, but the instantaneous form of $`P(S,\tau )`$ is thus not specified. To improve the status of equilibrium statistical mechanics we inquire about the minimal time window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ needed for time and ensemble averages to become equal. One might demand $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \mathrm{}`$. Such generous a provision would allow to accommodate and render weightless equilibration processes originating from initial conditons far out of equilibrium. As illustrated in Fig. 1, equilibration does in fact take place in the spectrum of $`F(\tau )=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}H_0}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tau H_1}`$ if $`H_0`$ is integrable and chaos develops only as the perturbation is switched on; beyond a certain “relaxation time” the phase space regions of regular motion have shrunk to relatively negligible weight. If, on the other hand, $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ are both non-integrable (and from the same universality class) the initial state of the fictitious gas is already close to equilibrium, and then the window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ in question need not be much larger than the collision time $`\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}`$ of the gas, i. e. the mean distance of avoided crossings for a pair of neighboring levels.

We now propose to argue that $`\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}`$ scales with the number of levels $`N`$ and thus, due to Weyl’s law, with Planck’s constant like a power,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}N^\nu \mathrm{}^{f\nu },\nu >0,$$
(3)
where $`f`$ is the number of degrees of freedom. A $`\tau `$-average for the PYG over a window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \tau _{\mathrm{coll}}`$ thus involves a family of Floquet operators $`F(\tau )`$ which all yield identical classical dynamics in the limit $`\mathrm{}N^{\frac{1}{f}}0`$. That insight grew out of an idea put forward in Ref..

The following estimates support the power law (3) and reveal the exponent $`\nu `$ as non-universal. First, consider a Hamiltonian $`H(\tau )=H_0\mathrm{cos}\tau +H_1\mathrm{sin}\tau H_0+\tau H_1`$ and let $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ be independent random $`N\times N`$ matrices drawn from the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble. Both should have zero mean, $`\overline{H_{0ij}}=\overline{H_{1ij}}=0`$, and the same variance, $`\overline{|H_{0ij}|^2}=\overline{|H_{1ij}|^2}=1/N`$. The mean level spacing then is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{E_{i+1}E_i}=𝒪(\frac{1}{N})`$. The level velocity vanishes in the ensemble mean, $`\overline{H_{1ii}}=0`$, and has the variance $`p^2\overline{H_{1ii}^2}=𝒪(\frac{1}{N})`$. The estimate $`\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}\mathrm{\Delta }/pN^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ thus yields the exponent $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$. The same value results for Floquet operators $`F(\tau )=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}H_0}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tau H_1}`$ with $`H_0,H_1`$ random as before.

Another example is provided by the kicked top  of Fig. 1 for which the operators $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ are functions of an angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{J}^2=j(j+1)`$ is conserved; for fixed $`j`$ the dimension of the Floquet matrix is $`N=2j+1`$. If we choose the perturbation as a torsion, $`H_1=J_z^2/(2j+1)`$, the mean level velocity is $`\overline{v}\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^NH_{1ii}=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}H_1=\frac{N}{12}(1+𝒪(\frac{1}{N}))`$; this gives a common drift of all levels irrelevant for collisions. A typical relative velocity $`p`$ may be found from the variance $`p^2=\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^N(H_{1ii}\overline{v})^2`$, where the matrix elements are meant in the eigenrepresentation of $`F(\tau )`$; but in that representation the perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{H_1}=H_1\overline{v}`$ will, for chaotic dynamics, look like a full matrix with $`_i\stackrel{~}{H}_{1ii}0`$ and $`_i\stackrel{~}{H}_{1ii}^2\frac{1}{N}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij}^2=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{H}_1^2=\frac{N^2}{180}(1+𝒪(\frac{1}{N}))`$; we conclude $`pN^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The mean level spacing $`\frac{2\pi }{N}`$ yields the collision time $`N^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ and the exponent $`\nu =\frac{3}{2}`$; we have confirmed the latter value by numerically following level dynamics for $`10<j<160`$.

Somewhat daring but interesting are the following estimates for some classes of Hamiltonians with $`f`$ freedoms. It is not untypical to find $`H`$ represented by a sparse banded $`N\times N`$ matrix with a zebra-like structure of non-vanishing elements. An example for such a Hamiltonian is given by a finite cubic lattice with $`N=M^f`$ sites and nearest and next-to-nearest neighbor interactions. Non-vanishing matrix elements then only exist in approximate distances $`M^0,M^1,\mathrm{},M^{f1}`$ from the diagonal. The overall bandwidth is thus $`M^{f1}=N^{(f1)/f}`$. For similar Hamiltonians we have numerically studied the collision time, choosing $`H(\tau )=H_0\mathrm{cos}\tau +H_1\mathrm{sin}\tau `$ as functions of $`SU(3)`$ generators, like the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick Hamiltonian known from the nuclear shell model . Such $`SU(3)`$ dynamics can also arise for collections of identical three-level atoms collectively interacting with (nearly) resonant modes of a microwave or optical cavity , and such realizations could even access the (semi)classical limit as the number of atoms grows large. That limit can, for a given Hamiltonian, lead to classical motion with either $`f=2`$ or $`f=3`$, depending on the representation the initial state belongs to. We have chosen a Hamiltonian yielding global chaos in both cases and numerically followed level dynamics over two decades of $`N`$ (see Fig. 2). The collision time exponents $`\nu `$ were measured using $`\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}=\mathrm{\Delta }/p`$ and were found as $`0.737`$ in the two-freedom case and $`0.677`$ for $`f=3`$. These numerical results lead us to conjecture that the collision time for this class of Hamiltonians has the exponent $`\nu _f=\frac{f+1}{2f}`$. The limit $`f1`$ corresponds to the above estimate $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ for full random matrices.

We now turn to integrable dynamics and their PYG’s. The Hamiltonian (1) still applies. Only the initial conditions for $`\varphi ,p,l`$, i.e. the matrices $`H_0,H_1`$, tell the PYG that the classical variant of $`F(\tau )`$ is integrable. We propose to show that the PYG then tends to behave like a near ideal gas. Assuming $`f`$ freedoms and the Hamiltonian expressed in terms of action variables $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_f`$ the semiclassical Einstein-Brillouin-Keller (EBK) approximation for the spectrum results from letting each action run through integer or half integer multiples of Planck’s constant, $`I_i=\mathrm{}(n_i+\mu _i/4)`$, with $`n_i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu _i`$ the Maslov index. A multiplet of levels arises as one of the $`f`$ quantum numbers runs while all others are fixed. EBK levels of different multiplets have no reason not to cross as a control parameter $`\tau `$ is varied. The exact levels will also cross, provided there are $`f1`$ independent operators commuting mutually and with the Hamiltonian. Assuming such quantum integrability, we may treat intra-multiplet level dynamics for $`f=1`$.

To elucidate the level dynamics for a single-freedom system we may first look at a non-symmetric double-well potential with a finite barrier separating the wells; there will be a single eight-shaped separatrix in the phase space, with the energy of the top of the barrier. For energies above the ($`\tau `$-dependent) barrier, all classical orbits lie outside the separatrix and the function $`H(I,\tau )`$ is single valued and monotonic. Variation of $`\tau `$ cannot bring about crossings of quantum levels, exact or semiclassical, which stay above the barrier. On the other hand, for energies below the barrier, separate classical orbits exist within each loop of the separatrix and for the quantum energy eigenfunctions are similarly localized. The function $`H(I)`$ now has two branches each giving a different action for a given energy. Neighboring EBK levels whose eigenfunctions live in different wells can be steered through a crossing by varying $`\tau `$; only tunneling corrections turn such crossings into avoided ones. The closest-approach spacing in an avoided crossing is determined by the (modulus of the imaginary) action $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=𝑑x\sqrt{2m(EV(x))}`$ across the barrier as $`\mathrm{e}^{|\mathrm{\Delta }I|/\mathrm{}}`$; that spacing may be unresolvably small for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|/\mathrm{}1`$. In the language of the fictitious gas we could speak of extremely weak repulsion or near ideal-gas behavior. A few EBK crossings can become, by tunneling, strongly avoided, with closest approaches of the order of the mean spacing; these appear for levels near the top of the barrier where $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/\mathrm{}`$ is of order unity.

Fig. 3 displays the level dynamics of a single-freedom system with finite $`N`$ and illustrates the foregoing discussion. For $`\tau `$ below a certain critical value nothing like a crossing occurs since $`H(I,\tau )`$ remains monotonic and single valued in $`I`$. For $`\tau >\tau _c`$ very narrowly avoided crossings appear which on the scale of the plot look like crossings. In the neighborhood of a curve $`E=E_{\mathrm{sep}}(\tau )`$ giving the energy of the separatrix, not drawn in the graph but clearly visible nonetheless, we see strongly avoided crossings. Inasmuch as a finite fraction of all $`N`$ levels can hit the curve $`E_{\mathrm{sep}}(\tau )`$ we may argue that the number of strongly avoided crossings is linear in $`N`$ while the number of unresolved anticrossings is $`N^2`$. Of course, the behavior just sketched pertains to Hamiltonians with a single separatrix. We could easily construct a Hamiltonian with so many separatrices and consequently so many strongly avoided crossings that its level dynamics for fixed matrix dimension $`N`$ would look rather like what we usually find for chaotic systems; but such a Hamiltonian would at once be revealed as an impostor by decreasing the effective value of $`\mathrm{}`$, i. e. going to matrix representations of larger dimension $`N`$; the very mechanism making more or less all crossings well avoided for some sufficiently small $`N`$ would cast them into negligible minority as $`N\mathrm{}`$ or, equivalently, $`\mathrm{}0`$.

We wish to sum up our findings. Under conditions of chaos the mean parametric distance of avoided level crossings goes to zero in the semiclassical limit like a power of $`\mathrm{}`$. Consequently, an average over a classically vanishing control parameter interval reveals universal spectral fluctuations. For classically integrable dynamics, on the other hand, level repulsion is non-generic.

Open to further study is the question as to which, if any, equilibrium ensembles of the PYG apply to classically integrable dynamics and to chaotic dynamics not faithful to random-matrix theory, like those with (Anderson) localization, quantum symmetries without classical counterpart  or otherwise intermediate statistics . To specify such ensembles we would need a better understanding of the (infinity of) constants of the motion of the PYG.

We have enjoyed discussions with Joachim Weber, Yan Fyodorov, Jon Keating, Hans-Jürgen Stöckmann , and Martin Zirnbauer, as well as support by the Sonderforschungsbereich “Unordnung und Große Fluktutionen” der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft and Polish KBN Grant No 2 P03B 023 17.


format: text

text:
# A Predictive Minimal Model for Neutrino Masses and Mixings

## I Introduction

Recent experiments give strong evidence that neutrinos oscillate and have finite masses ,. These experiments provide the first conclusive evidence for physics beyond the standard model. Good candidates for a corresponding extension of the standard model are supersymmetric or non-supersymmetric grand unified theories . For recent summaries in which many models are discussed and for further literature see . Detailed grand unification models need many assumptions about numerous new particles and their representations, Higgs potentials and couplings. One obtains interesting relations, but it is often hard to see to what extent the many assumptions are really necessary and decisive for the light neutrino sector. In this article I will formulate a model in which the heavy neutrinos get masses several orders of magnitude below the scale of grand unification. The possibility exists that these masses are generated dynamically in some analogy to the generation of light neutrino masses in the Zee model . Only few particle properties at the unification scale are then directly relevant for the neutrino problem. The minimal model obtained in this way provides an example in which the significance of the assumptions are obvious and the neutrino properties can be calculated in all details. A disadvantage compared to an explicit treatment of a specific grand unified theory is that there are no immediate additional predictions about new physics at the unification scale.

Oscillations involving 3 light neutrinosIn this article the possibility of the existence of light sterile neutrinos is not discussed even though they are needed in a general analysis, in particular, if the finding of the LNSD group  are included. can be described in terms of 6 parameters: 2 parameters for the difference between the square of the neutrino masses and 4 parameters for the unitary matrix $`U`$ which relates – in a basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal – the flavor eigenstates $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ with the mass eigenstates $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _i$$
(1)
The theoretical understanding of neutrino physics and of these parameters in particular requires, however, the consideration of many more – a priori unknown – quantities. An appealing way to extent the standard model is to add to the 3 two-component fields new two-component fields $`\widehat{\nu }_e,\widehat{\nu }_\mu ,\widehat{\nu }_\tau `$, which are singlets with respect to the standard model gauge group and acquire large masses corresponding to the scale of the new physics involved. The well-known see-saw mechanism then provides for the observed smallness of the light neutrino masses .

There are then 3 mass matrices to considerA classification of three-neutrino models dealing with these mass matrices is provided in ref. . Ansätze related to the present approach can be found in ref. . I will closely follow and extend my previous publications  on this subject.: the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ which connects the old with the new two-component fields, the mass matrix for the charged leptons $`m_E`$ and the mass matrix of the singlet neutrinos $`M_R`$.

There is some freedom for choosing a basis for the 3 matrices: We may take the Dirac neutrino mass matrix diagonal and real which leaves us with 3 parameters for this matrix. Below the scale of new physics the charged lepton mass matrix can be taken hermitian. After a proper adjustment of the phases of the lepton fields this matrix contains 7 parameters. Finally, the symmetric mass matrix $`M_R`$ can be transformed to have real diagonal elements and contains, therefore, 9 parameters.

In the next sections we will restrict these 19 parameters using the ideas mentioned above and by suggesting connections with the known structure of the mass matrices of up and down quarks. The see-saw formula

$$m_\nu =m_\nu ^{Dirac}M_R^1(m_\nu ^{Dirac})^T$$
(2)
together with the mass matrix for charged leptons then allows to calculate all the properties of light neutrinos of interest here.

## II The Dirac neutrino and the up-quark mass matrices

Below the scale of new physics we are free to choose a basis in which the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ and the up-quark mass matrix $`m_U`$ are diagonal simultaneously. In grand unified theories (taking low Higgs representations) one finds that at the unification scale $`m_U`$ and $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ are closely related and could even be equal there . We will assume, therefore, that at the mass scale of the heavy neutrinos, which will turn out to be much lower than the unification scale, $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ and $`m_U`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously. In section 4 we will show that this mass scale which we denote by $`M_0`$ is of order $`10^{11}`$ GeV.

The observed hierarchical structure of charged fermion masses and mixings allows to express the corresponding mass matrices in terms of powers of a small quantity. Using for this parameter $`\sigma =(m_c/m_t)^{1/2}`$, the diagonal up-quark mass matrix can be written

$`m_U(M_0)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma ^4& 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_t(M_0)`$ (6)
$`\sigma =0.057.`$ (7)
With the help of the renormalization group equations Eq. (6) together with the down-quark and charged lepton mass matrices (see section 5) provides values for the masses of up, charm and top quarks at the scale of the vector boson $`Z`$ which agree with the known result

$`m_u(m_Z)=1.9\pm 0.4\mathrm{MeV},`$ $`m_c(m_Z)=0.61\pm 0.05\mathrm{GeV},`$ (8)
$`m_t(m_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`173\pm 5\mathrm{GeV},`$ (9)
$`m_d(m_Z)=3.4\pm 0.6\mathrm{MeV},`$ $`m_s(m_Z)=0.064\pm 12\mathrm{GeV},`$ (10)
$`m_b(m_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`2.90\pm 0.04\mathrm{GeV}`$ (11)
within the given error limits. For $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ at the scale $`M_0`$ we can write therefore

$$m_\nu ^{Dirac}(M_0)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}y\sigma ^4& 0& 0\\ 0& x\sigma ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_t(M_0)$$
(12)
with $`x=O(1),y=O(1)`$. There is no point in taking an additional $`O(1)`$ parameter for the 33 element. As can be seen below this would only affect the scale parameter $`M_0`$ which is a fit parameter in our model.

## III The mass matrix for the heavy singlet
neutrinos

In the absence of a detailed theory describing new physics beyond the standard model, one can only speculate about the mass matrix for the heavy neutrinos. However, one can hope that the small parameter $`\sigma `$ which governs the up and down quark mass matrices plays also here an important role . Because of the self-coupling of the heavy neutrinos the assignment of generation quantum numbers to those fields  gives additional restrictions for the powers of $`\sigma `$ occurring in this matrix. As an Ansatz for $`M_R`$ I will use here a matrix with only zero elements in its diagonal (see also ), in analogy to the matrix for the light neutrinos obtained in the Zee model . $`M_R`$ could have a similar origin, this time, however, involving the “right-handed” fields in a right-left symmetric theory such as $`SO(10)`$ or $`E6`$ at the grand unification scale $`M_0`$. The elements of a matrix of this form can easily be connected with the elements of the mass matrix $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ (and $`m_U`$) with the powers of $`\sigma `$ related to appropriate generation charges of the singlet neutrino fields. Therefore, I propose

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& x\sigma ^3& \sigma \\ x\sigma ^3& 0& a\\ \sigma & a& 0\end{array}\right)M_0$$
(13)
with $`a=O(1)`$. In this Ansatz, the ratio between $`(M_R)_{12}`$ and $`(M_R)_{13}`$, namely $`x\sigma ^2`$, has been taken to be identical to the ratio between the elements $`(m_\nu ^{Dirac})_{22}`$ and $`(m_\nu ^{Dirac})_{33}`$ in order to have a close relation with $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$. Since this ratio is a real number, all elements of $`M_R`$ can be taken to be real by a proper phase choice for the singlet neutrino fields. The powers of $`\sigma `$ occurring in (13) correspond to generation charges for the fields $`\widehat{\nu }_e,\widehat{\nu }_\mu ,\widehat{\nu }_\tau `$ equal to $`5/2,3/2,1/2`$, respectively, when setting the generation charge of the scalar field which produces the heavy masses equal to $`1`$.

$`M_R`$ can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix $`V_R`$ defined by

$$M_R=V_RM_R^{diagonal}V_R^T.$$
(14)
The two large eigenvalues of $`M_R`$ differ up to order $`\sigma ^2`$ only in sign (like the eigenvalues of a Dirac neutrino mass matrix) ($`\pm aM_0`$) while the third eigenvalue is smaller by the factor $`\sigma ^4`$. Because of the almost degeneracy of two eigenvalues it is interesting to look at the up-quark mass matrix when taken in a basis in which $`M_R`$ is diagonal. One finds – up to order $`\sigma ^2`$ – for $`x=1`$

$$V_Rm_UV_R^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\sigma ^2}{2a^2}& \frac{\sigma }{2a}& \frac{\sigma }{2a}\\ \frac{\sigma }{2a}& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}(1\frac{1}{a^2})& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}(1+\frac{1}{4a^2})\\ \frac{\sigma }{2a}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}(1+\frac{1}{4a^2})& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}\end{array}\right)m_t(M_0).$$
(15)
Obviously, to a very good approximation, this matrix is of the “democratic” form in the 2,3 sector.

## IV The see-saw neutrino mass matrix

The see-saw neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$ can now be obtained from Eq. (2) using (12) and (13). But before, we rescale the parameters $`a`$ and $`M_0`$ according to $`a\frac{x}{y}a,M_0yM_0`$. One then gets the same expression for the light neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$ as in the special case in which $`x`$ and $`y`$ in (12) and (13) are equal to 1:

$$m_\nu (M_0)=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2aM_0}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2\sigma ^2& a\sigma & a\sigma \\ a\sigma & 1& 1\\ a\sigma & 1& 1\end{array}\right)(m_t(M_0))^2$$
(16)
The basis chosen is still the basis in which $`m_U`$ and $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ are diagonal matrices. Thus, we are not yet in a basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. We also have to use the renormalization group equation to go from the scale $`M_0`$ down to the scale of the $`Z`$ boson. But one can calculate from (16) the eigenvalues of the light neutrinos at $`M_0`$. As we will see below, the pattern of these eigenvalues will not change on the way down.

The eigenvalues are

$`m_1(M_0)={\displaystyle \frac{(m_t(M_0))^2}{M_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^3}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a\sigma ^4}{4}}\right)`$ (17)
$`m_2(M_0)={\displaystyle \frac{(m_t(M_0))^2}{M_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^3}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a\sigma ^4}{4}}\right)`$ (18)
$`m_3(M_0)={\displaystyle \frac{(m_t^2(M_0))^2}{M_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\sigma ^2`$ (19)
One can now identify the mass differences $`m_3^2m_1^2m_3^2m_2^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ observed in atmospheric neutrino experiments. The Super-Kamiokande result  $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2310^3(\mathrm{eV})^2`$ gives for $`aM_0`$:

$$aM_0510^{11}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(20)
For the ratio of the difference of squared masses, one gets

$$\delta =\frac{m_2^2m_1^2}{m_3^2m_2^2}=\frac{a^3\sigma ^3}{\sqrt{2}}+O(\sigma ^5)$$
(21)
Thus, the mass difference $`m_2^2m_1^2`$ relevant for solar neutrino oscillations turns out to be

$$m_2^2m_1^2410^7a^3(\mathrm{eV})^2.$$
(22)
Interestingly, we are left with the single parameter $`a`$ only.

As long as the off-diagonal elements of the charged lepton mass matrix are not much larger in magnitude than the off-diagonal elements of the down-quark mass matrix (see the next section), the diagonalization of (16) provides already an estimate for the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$. The orthogonal matrix $`O_M`$ which diagonalizes $`m_\nu (M_0)`$ is

$$O_M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{a\sigma }{8}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{a\sigma }{8}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{a\sigma }{8\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{a\sigma }{8\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{a\sigma }{8\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\frac{a\sigma }{8\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)+O(\sigma ^2)$$
(23)
Because $`\sigma /8`$ is a very small number, one has the remarkable result that the neutrino mixing matrix is of the bimaximal type  and very little dependent on the mass difference of the 2 lightest neutrinos in the range acceptable for solar neutrino oscillations .

## V The charged lepton and the down-quark mass matrices

We know the eigenvalues of the charged lepton mass matrix from experiment but not its form in a basis in which the Dirac neutrino and the up-quark mass matrices are diagonal. The down-quark mass matrix on the other hand is known to a good extent from the measured down-quark masses and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing angles. In grand unified theories one obtains relations between $`m_E`$ and $`m_D`$ , , but the details depend on the Higgs representations and Yukawa couplings. The well-known relation obtained in $`SU(5)`$ ,

$$m_E^Tm_D$$
(24)
cannot be exact because of the different mass ratios in the quark and lepton sector. Below the scale $`M_0`$ both $`m_E`$ and $`m_D`$ can be taken to be hermitian matrices. In the model considered here this should still be possible when reaching the scale $`M_0`$, which is much smaller than the unification scale where right-handed vector bosons are effective. Otherwise we would have to introduce more structure and thereby more unknown parameters. From the relations in grand unified theories such as (24) one can then conclude that the mixing for charged leptons are similar to the mixing of quarks, i.e. not very large§§§In this respect the present approach differs decisively from models which use asymmetric matrices by proposing for the quark sector large “right-handed” mixings of physical relevance correlated with a large mixing in the “left-handed” lepton sector , .. The mixing matrix $`U`$ for neutrinos (at $`M_0`$) will then not much differ from $`O_M`$ given in (23).

To be more specific I will consider the hypothesis that at $`M_0`$, $`m_E^T`$ and $`m_D`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously. In other words, in our model both matrices, if put into hermitian forms, commute as do the matrices $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ and $`m_U`$ .

$$[m_E^T,m_D]=0.$$
(25)
On the one hand, this condition is weaker than (24) since the matrix elements of $`m_E^T`$ and $`m_D`$ do not need to be equal or nearly equal. On the other hand, it is more strict since (25) allows a complete calculation of $`m_E`$ from the lepton masses and $`m_D`$ (or the CKM matrix). Of course all this has to be done at $`M_0`$ and should then be scaled down by the renormalization group equations  to the weak scale, i.e. the scale of the $`Z`$-boson. For $`m_D(M_0)`$ we choose the matrix

$`m_D(M_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.7\sigma ^3& i1.54\sigma ^2& i\sigma ^2\\ i1.54\sigma ^2& \sigma /3& i0.8\sigma \\ i\sigma ^2& i0.8\sigma & 1\end{array}\right)m_b(M_0),`$ (29)
which together with $`m_U`$ of Eq. (6) leads to mass eigenvalues at the weak scale within the experimental uncertainties (8). It also gives at $`m_Z`$

$$|V_{ud}|=0.22,|V_{cb}|=0.039,|V_{ub}|=0.0032.$$
(30)
The phases chosen in (29) are such as to obtain “maximal” CP-violation  in the quark sector which may or may not be supported by ongoing experiments.

An important matrix depending on the off-diagonal elements of $`m_D`$ and which is relevant for the amount of CP violation in the quark sector, is the commutator

$$[m_U,m_D]=\frac{1}{i}C_q(M_0).$$
(31)
The analog commutator for leptons is

$$[m_\nu ^{Dirac},m_E^T]=\frac{1}{i}C_{\mathrm{}}(M_0).$$
(32)
As an alternative to (25) one can require that the off-diagonal elements of $`m_D`$ and $`m_E`$ have the same origin, i.e. arise from the same Higgs field:

$$C_{\mathrm{}}(M_0)=\frac{m_\tau (M_0)}{m_b(M_0)}C_q(M_0).$$
(33)
The condition (33), with $`x=1`$, $`m_D`$ from (29), and the known charged lepton masses allows another calculation of $`m_E(M_0)`$

$`m_E(M_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.66\sigma ^3& i1.54\sigma ^2& i\sigma ^2\\ i1.54\sigma ^2& \sigma & i0.8\sigma \\ i\sigma ^2& i0.8\sigma & 1\end{array}\right)m_\tau (M_0)`$ (37)
This matrix differs somewhat from the one obtained from (25) but leads again to small charged lepton mixing angles.

It would be interesting if another basis-independent relation between the mass matrices would exist, one which involves the lepton mass matrices only. Since $`M_R`$ has no diagonal elements in our model one could speculatively assume

$$[m_\nu ^{Dirac},m_E^T]=\frac{1}{i}\frac{m_t(M_0)m_\tau (M_0)}{M_0}\sigma M_R(M_0).$$
(38)
Also this relation could be used to calculate $`m_E`$. The result, although somewhat different from the one obtained for $`m_E`$ in (37) fixes the phases of $`m_E`$ and leads again to charged lepton mixing angles of similar small magnitudes.

## VI The calculation of the neutrino masses and the neutrino mixing angles

At the scale $`M_0`$ the mass matrix for light neutrinos is taken from Eq. (16). After the diagonalization of the mass matrix for charged leptons at this scale

$`m_E(M_0)=U_E(M_0)m_E^{diagonal}(M_0)U_E^{}(M_0),`$ (39)
$`m_\nu (M_0)`$ has to be transformed accordingly. The new neutrino mass matrix is then

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu (M_0)=(U_E(M_0))^Tm_\nu (M_0)U_E(M_0).$$
(40)
This new neutrino matrix has now complex elements and will lead therefore to CP-violation effects in neutrino processes. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu (M_0)`$ can now be scaled down to the weak scale by the corresponding renormalization group equation. The evolution equation according to the standard model is :

$`(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\stackrel{~}{m}_V`$ $`=`$ $`(3g_2^2+2\lambda )\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ (43)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{v^2}}\mathrm{Tr}[3m_Um_U^{}+3m_Dm_D^{}+m_Em_E^{}]\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}(\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu m_Em_E^{}+(m_Em_E^{})^T\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ).`$
$`\lambda =\lambda (t)`$ denotes the Higgs coupling constant related to the Higgs mass according to $`m_H^2=\lambda v^2`$ with $`v=246`$ GeV. We take $`m_H(m_Z)=150`$ GeV for the numerical calculation. Solving (43) allows to obtain the neutrino mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ at the scale of the standard model. The neutrino mixing matrix $`U=U(m_Z)`$ can then be obtained by diagonalizing the hermitian matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$:

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^{}(m_Z)\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu (m_Z)=U(\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu )^{diagonal}U^{}.$$
(44)
The diagonal matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^{diagonal}=U^T\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu (m_Z)U$$
(45)
then provides the (complex) neutrino mass eigenvalues. By introducing the diagonal phase matrix $`\varphi `$ which consists of the phase factors of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^{diagonal}`$ divided by 2, $`U`$ can be redefined $`UU\varphi `$. The phase factors in (45) cancel and the so obtained unitary matrix $`U`$ expresses the neutrino states $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ by the neutrino mass eigenstates according to Eq. (1).

The change of the mass matrices $`m_U,m_D,m_E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ between $`m_Z`$ and $`M_0`$ depends, of course, on the renormalization group equations. To find the expression (29) for $`m_D(M_0)`$ from the – approximate – knowledge of $`m_D(m_Z)`$ I used the renormalization group matrix equations of the standard model . It leads to a change of $`|V_{cb}|`$ by about 10%. When using the renormalization group equation of the minimal supersymmetry model , the main difference to the standard model case lies in the overall factors $`m_b(M)`$, $`m_t(M)`$, which can easily be adjusted. For $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu (M)`$ the formula (43) has to be replaced by the corresponding supersymmetry formula given by Babu et al. .

## VII Results and discussion

It is straightforward to calculate from (16),(25),(29),(39)-(45) the light neutrino masses and the unitary mixing matrix $`U`$ in terms of the parameters $`M_0`$ and $`a`$. In a very direct way these two parameters determine the 2 mass differences in the 3 neutrino scenario. For the evolution of the mass matrices $`m_U,m_D,m_E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ as a function of the scale we applied the renormalization group equations according to the standard model and according to the minimal supersymmetry model. It turned out that for fixed $`M_0`$ and $`a`$ there is no noticeable change in the ratio of the 3 eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu `$ when going from $`M_0`$ down to $`m_Z`$. Even when the squared mass difference of the two lightest neutrinos is taken to be very small their mass ratio remains unchanged. Since both masses have opposite signs as seen in (17), radiative corrections are ineffective as proved in ref. .

Interestingly, it also turned out that the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$ is practically independent of the scale parameter. Moreover, the model predicts $`U`$ to depend only very little on the difference of the neutrino masses. The reason is that in the mixing matrix (23) the parameter $`a`$ plays a minor role only. Because also the mixing angles of the charged leptons are small as described in section 5, the matrix $`U`$ of our model is of the bimaximal form  for all mass differences of interest in neutrino oscillation experimentsOne may note here that for a small value of $`a`$, $`a\sigma `$, which describes a mass squared difference between the lightest neutrinos of order $`10^{10}(\mathrm{eV})^2`$, $`m_\nu `$ in (16) takes a form not much different from the neutrino mass matrix suggested in  and gives similar results..

The deviations from bimaximal mixing are therefore almost exclusively due to the mixings of charged leptons in the basis in which $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ is diagonal. Using for $`m_E(M_0)`$ the result obtained from (25) and (29), one gets

$$Abs[U(m_Z)]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.69& 0.71& 0.15\\ 0.51& 0.51& 0.69\\ 0.51& 0.49& 0.71\end{array}\right)$$
(46)
i.e. nearly pure bimaximal mixing. The amount of CP violation depends evidently on the corresponding CP-violating phase in the quark sector. With the phase choice taken in (29), which at the weak scale provides an acceptable form of the conventional unitarity triangle for quarks, one obtains a neutrino unitarity triangle with angles:

$$\alpha _\nu 77^o,\beta _\nu 17^o,\gamma _\nu 86^o.$$
(47)
The form of this triangle is sensitive to the amount of CP violation in the quark sector. When using instead of (25) the condition (33) i.e. $`m_E(M_0)`$ from (37), (or from the condition (38)) the triangle becomes more flat ($`\alpha _\nu 83^o,\beta _\nu 6^o,\gamma _\nu 91^o`$) and $`|U_{e,3}|0.06`$.

In neutrino-less double $`\beta `$ decay experiments  one measures the neutrino mass averadge $`|<\stackrel{~}{m}>_{e,e}|`$. The model predicts the small value

$$|<\stackrel{~}{m}>_{e,e}|0.002eV.$$
(48)
As we have seen, the model presented here is predictive . Essentially, only the two mass differences between the 3 neutrinos can be choosen freely. It predicts the bimaximal mixing form for the neutrino mixing matrix independently of the mass difference responsible for the solar neutrino oscillations. It is a minimal model because the parameter which describes the hierarchy in the quark sector could be used also for the lepton mass matrices, in particular, for the heavy neutrino mass matrix, providing in this way for an intimate connection between quarks and leptons. It is a minimal model also because only the simplest assumptions are made for the connection between $`m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ and $`m_U`$ and between $`m_E`$ and $`m_D`$. The idea is that specific particles and interactions acting at the grand unification scale, besides producing the heavy neutrinos at $`M_0`$, may play a minor role at this lower scale. To give $`M_R`$ the form of a Zee matrix is, of course, a strong assumption but may seem not unreasonable for dynamically generated singlet neutrino masses 4 to 5 orders of magnitudes below unification. One obtains for the heavy neutrinos two almost degenerate mass eigenstates which are strongly mixed. Accordingly, in the special basis in which $`M_R`$ is diagonal, the matrices $`m_U,m_D,m_\nu ^{Dirac}`$ and $`m_E`$ are of a “democratic” form in the 2,3 sector (see Eq. (15)). In other words, in this specific frame the Higgs field acts with (almost) equal strength on the members of the second and third family. However, it is worth pointing out that one can relax the Zee ansatz by including a 33 element to $`M_R`$. Because the inverse of $`M_R`$ enters the see-saw formula even a very large 33 element (of order $`10^2`$) still leads to near bimaximal mixing as long as the ratio $`(M_R)_{12}/(M_R)_{13}`$ used in (13) is kept fixed. Thus, the oscillation properties of the light neutrinos cannot distinguish this strongly hierarchical mass matrix with small mixings of the heavy neutrinosThe possibility of having small mixings for the heavy neutrinos simultaneously with small mixings of the light leptons is discussed in . from the mass matrix of Eq. (13).

Acknowledgments

The author likes to thank Dmitri Melikhov for a useful discussion.


text:
# First Observations of the Magnetic Field Geometry in Pre-stellar Cores

## 1 Introduction

It has become increasingly clear that magnetic fields play an important role in the formation and evolution of molecular clouds and in the process by which stars are formed. Observations of the geometry of magnetic fields in molecular clouds appear therefore to be essential to a full understanding of the star formation process. Submillimetre polarimetry is one of the most direct methods of studying magnetic field geometries in star formation regions (e.g. Goodman 1996). Such observations should also allow one to assess the relative importance of the uniform and tangled fields. A high level of polarization, uniform in direction, indicates a well-ordered field that is not significantly tangled on scales smaller than the beam. Furthermore, the fact that the submm only traces the densest material means that observations do not sample long path-lengths of magnetic field between observer and object. One should therefore be able to test the geometrical predictions of theoretical models.

Virtually all observations of magnetic fields in dense molecular clouds to date have been toward regions of active star formation, including high-mass star formation sites with H II regions. Although column densities and temperatures of dust grains are higher in such regions, making mapping of the magnetic fields more feasible, there is the danger that star formation activity may have changed the initial geometry of the magnetic fields. It is therefore highly desirable to map magnetic field geometries in objects which are believed to be gravitationally bound, but have not yet formed a central hydrostatic protostar.

Myers and co-workers (see Benson & Myers 1989, and references therein) identified a large number of ammonia cores, which were shown to be sites of low-mass star formation. Beichman et al. (1986) separated the ammonia cores into those in which star formation had already commenced (those with IRAS sources) and the “starless” cores (those without IRAS sources). Ward-Thompson et al. (1994) observed the submillimetre continuum emission from starless cores to ascertain their morphologies and densities and named the most centrally condensed objects “pre-protostellar” (or “pre-stellar” for brevity) cores. André, Ward-Thompson & Motte (1996) carried out a detailed study of the pre-stellar core L1689B to compare it to the predictions of an ambipolar diffusion model and found some discrepancy with the magnetic field strength required by the model. Ward-Thompson, Motte, & André (1999) observed the millimetre continuum emission from a larger number of pre-stellar cores to ascertain their detailed radial density profiles, and confirmed the central flattening that had previously been observed by Ward-Thompson et al. (1994). A small number of cores are sufficiently bright at $`\lambda 850`$ $`\mu `$m for polarization mapping observations to be currently possible. In this paper we present the first published submm continuum polarization observations of pre-stellar cores, which were carried out to test the predictions of theoretical models.

## 2 Observations

Submillimetre continuum polarimetry observations at $`\lambda `$850 $`\mu `$m were carried out using the SCUBA (Submillimetre Common User Bolometer Array) camera on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT)111JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Center, Hawaii, on behalf of the UK PPARC, the Netherlands NWO, and the Canadian NRC. SCUBA was built at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. SCUBAPOL was built at Queen Mary & Westfield College, London. on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, on the mornings of 1999 March 15 (L183 & L43) and September 15 (L1544) from HST 01:30 to 09:30 (UT 11:30 to 19:30). SCUBA was used in conjunction with the polarimeter SCUBAPOL, in the 16-position jiggling mode to produce a fully sampled 2.3 arcmin image (Holland et al. 1998).

The observations were carried out while using the secondary mirror to chop 120 arcsec in azimuth at around 7 Hz and synchronously to detect the signal, thus rejecting ‘sky’ emission. The method of observing used was to make a full 16-point jiggle map (to produce a Nyquist sampled map), with an integration time of 1 second per point, in each of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ beams of the telescope (the two beams are produced by the chopping secondary). This process is repeated at each position of the polarimeter half-wave plate. Then the half-wave plate is rotated to the next position, in steps of 22.5. 16 such positions thus constitute a complete revolution of the half-wave plate, representing 512 seconds of on-source integration, which takes about 12 minutes, including overheads (see Greaves 1999, and Greaves et al. 2000, for a description of SCUBAPOL). This process was then repeated several times – 14 for L183, 15 for L43 and 9 for L1544. The instrumental polarization (IP) of each bolometer was measured on the planets Uranus and Saturn, and subtracted from the data before calculating the true source polarization. The mean IP was found to be 0.93$`\pm `$0.27%. The observations were repeated with a slight offset in each case so that the three bolometers with significantly above average noise could be removed without leaving areas of the map with no data. The atmospheric opacity at 225 GHz was monitored by the radiometer located at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory. The opacity at 225 GHz was 0.06 during the L43 and L183 observations, and 0.07 during the L1544 observations, typical of fairly good conditions at the site, and corresponding to a zenith atmospheric transmission at $`\lambda `$850 $`\mu `$m of about 80%.

Subsets of the data were reduced separately and it was seen that atmospheric stability, rather than purely transparency, was the limiting factor to the repeatability of the results obtained. Those data that were taken during unstable periods were seen to generate only noise, whereas all data taken during stable periods produced consistent results and were co-added to produce the maps shown here. During earlier observing runs with SCUBAPOL, when it was operating only in single-pixel mode, on 1998 February 13th & 14th, and March 2nd & 4th (UT), we observed the central peak positions of the same three sources. We found the current results agreed to within the errors with these previous measurements, confirming the repeatability of our results. Pointing and focussing were checked using the bright sources Uranus and IRAS16293 for L183 and L43, and CRL618 for L1544, and the pointing was found to be good to $``$1–2 arcsec throughout.

## 3 Results

Figures 1-3 present the results of our observations. In each case the Stokes I map of dust emission is shown as a grey-scale with contours overlaid. The direction of B in the plane of the sky is shown by a series of vectors at every position where a measurement of the polarized flux above the 2-$`\sigma `$ level was achieved. Most vectors have a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than this, up to a maximum of 12$`\sigma `$, with a mean of $``$5$`\sigma `$ across all three sources. The 2-$`\sigma `$ lower cutoff implies a maximum uncertainty in any given position angle of $`\pm `$14. Note that we refer to these as magnetic field vectors, but they are not true vectors because they have a 180 directional ambiguity. The plotted B-vectors are perpendicular to the direction of the polarization observed, in accord with all of the various paramagnetic relaxation mechanisms of grain alignment by interstellar magnetic fields (e.g. Purcell 1979), and the length of each B-vector is proportional to the percentage polarization. Hence we are making the assumption that the polarization we are mapping is tracing the magnetic field direction. Given this reasonable assumption, we deduce the field direction in each source. The scale is such that a vector of length 2 arcsec represents a percentage polarization of 1%. The vectors are plotted on a grid spacing equal to the diameter of the JCMT beam, so each vector is independent.

### 3.1 L1544

Figure 1 shows our observations of the L1544 core, where we follow the naming convention of Benson & Myers (1989) and refer to the only known pre-stellar core in the larger dark cloud L1544 as the L1544 core. Our $`\lambda 850`$ $`\mu `$m data give core full width at half maximum (FWHM) dimensions of $``$110$`\times `$60 arcsec, with the minor axis at a position angle of 52$`\pm `$5 (all angles are measured north through east). The core is at a distance of 140 pc, and we have previously measured its mass to be 3.2$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Ward-Thompson et al. 1999). Benson & Myers (1989) found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(NH_3)=0.3`$ km s-1, which implies a virial mass of $`1.7`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence this core appears to be gravitationally bound. Furthermore, recent spectroscopic observations show that the core appears to be contracting, although it is not apparently undergoing free-fall collapse (Tafalla et al., 1998). The weighted mean position angle of the magnetic field, averaged over the 8 positions, is 23$`\pm `$2. Hence we see that the mean magnetic field direction is not along the minor axis of the pre-stellar core, but at an angle of 29$`\pm `$6 to the minor axis, and the field appears to be fairly uniform. There is also some evidence that the percentage polarization decreases towards the peak of the source – this is discussed further in section 4 below.

There has been some recent debate about the nature of the physical processes which are currently determining the evolution of L1544. Ward-Thompson et al. (1999) showed that L1544 has a radial density profile which is consistent with that predicted by ambipolar diffusion theory, whilst noting some inconsistencies in the apparent time-scales. Williams et al. (1999) claimed a discrepancy between the observed infall motions and the predictions of ambipolar diffusion theory. Subsequently, Ciolek & Basu (2000) have shown that in fact the ambipolar diffusion model can be fine-tuned to explain these motions. However, this model still requires that the magnetic field lies parallel to the minor axis of the core and our observations disagree with this.

### 3.2 L183

Figure 2 shows our observations of the L183 core, where we once again refer to the only known starless core in the L183 dark cloud simply as the L183 core (it should be noted, however, that the L183 cloud is sometimes also referred to as L134N). Our $`\lambda 850`$ $`\mu `$m data give core FWHM dimensions of $``$120$`\times `$60 arcsec (although this is not so clearly defined, since the overall source extent north-south is greater than the SCUBA field of view), with the minor axis at a position angle of 80$`\pm `$5. The core is at a distance of 150 pc, and we measured its mass to be $``$1.3 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Ward-Thompson et al. 1999). It has previously been seen that this core has $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(NH_3)=0.24`$ km s-1 (Benson & Myers, 1989), implying a virial mass of $``$1.2$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence this core also appears to be gravitationally bound.

The weighted mean position angle of the magnetic field, averaged over the 16 positions, is 46$`\pm `$2. Thus, the mean magnetic field is not parallel to the minor axis of the pre-stellar core, but at an angle 34$`\pm `$6 to it, very similar to the situation observed in L1544. Once again, the magnetic field direction is fairly constant, and all variations are consistent with measurement uncertainties. Here also there is some evidence for the percentage polarization to decrease at the highest intensities (see section 4).

### 3.3 L43

Figure 3 illustrates our observations of the starless core in the L43 dark cloud. The $`\lambda 850`$ $`\mu `$m data give the core FWHM dimensions to be $``$100$`\times `$60 arcsec, with its minor axis at position angle 37$`\pm `$5. It lies at a distance of 170 pc, and our separate SCUBA observations imply that its mass is $``$$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Benson & Myers (1989) found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.4`$ km s-1, which gives a virial mass of $``$2.1$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$, once again apparently showing that it is gravitationally bound. However, this is a more complicated region than the others. Figure 3 shows a second core at the western edge of the SCUBA field of view. There is a classical T Tauri star, RNO 91, embedded in this second core (Cohen, 1980), and a molecular outflow centred on this source (Mathieu et al., 1988).

Study of the pre-stellar core in the centre of the field shows a general area of roughly uniform polarization at position angle roughly 170 extending from the centre of the core to the north. However, to the south and west of the core centre there is an area of vectors with position angle roughly 140. Moving still further to the west, the B-field appears to turn smoothly through an angle of roughly 90 until it has a position angle of 233$`\pm `$4 (=53$`\pm `$4) at the position of RNO 91 at the western edge of the field.

We interpret this as follows: The outflow from RNO 91 is known to have cleared a cavity to the south of the source and the southern edge of the pre-stellar core forms part of the cavity wall (c.f. Bence et al. 1998). Hence we believe that the B-field we observe in the southern and western parts of the pre-stellar core has in all probability been affected by the interaction with the outflow, and lies roughly parallel to the cavity wall. However, away from the influence of the outflow, in the northern part of the pre-stellar core, the B-field we observe is more likely to represent the initial unperturbed field direction in the pre-stellar core. If this is the case, then the weighted mean B-field, averaged over these 9 vectors, has a position angle 173$`\pm `$2, and the angle between the B-field and the core minor axis is 44$`\pm `$6. This is similar to the angle offset we observe in each of the other two cores. However, some caution must be attached to this estimate, since at the core centre itself the percentage polarization is very low. In fact the L43 pre-stellar core shows the clearest evidence for depolarization towards the core peak (see next section for discussion).

We also note that the magnetic field we observe in the RNO 91 region is perpendicular to the elongation axis of the edge-on circumstellar disk around RNO 91 that was discovered by the optical polarimetry observations of Scarrott, Draper, & Tadhunter (1993). However, if this disk originally collimated the bipolar outflow from this source, then the outflow must have subsequently turned through almost 90 in breaking out of the cloud, as it is now seen to extend to large distances in an almost north-south direction (Bence et al., 1998).

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Theoretical models make predictions about the strength and geometry of magnetic fields that can be tested by observations. A crucial parameter in any theory or simulation of the structure and evolution of magnetic clouds is the ratio of thermal to magnetic pressures, $`\beta `$ (c.f. Ostriker et al. 1999; Crutcher 1999). For example, Ostriker et al. (1999) follow the evolution of an initially uniform medium for various values of $`\beta `$ subjected to perturbations. For $`\beta >1`$ turbulence dominates and the field lines become heavily tangled.

In the magnetically dominated case ($`\beta <<1`$), clouds form by material streaming along field lines, so that structures that are elongated preferentially perpendicular to the magnetic field are formed and the field geometry is uniform, without small-scale random variations. Most such models of the evolution of self-gravitating molecular cores supported by magnetic fields (e.g. Ciolek & Mouschovias 1994; Li & Shu 1996) predict that the cores should be oblate spheroids with minor axes parallel to the magnetic field direction.

The cores then evolve by the process of ambipolar diffusion, in which the neutral gas diffuses through the ionised component, which is held static by the magnetic field. However, simulations show that the magnetic field need not always be perpendicular to the elongation. If $`\beta =0.11`$, then significant deviations are often found (Ostriker et al., 1999), although the initially uniform magnetic field remains the dominant component.

We have mapped the $`\lambda `$850 $`\mu `$m polarization in three pre-stellar cores, L1544, L183 & L43, and used these measurements to infer the magnetic field geometries of these objects. In L1544 and L183, as well as in the region of L43 that we believe to be undisturbed by the nearby outflow, we see relatively uniform polarizations, leading us to infer a uniform magnetic field direction in each case. By comparison with the above-mentioned models, this suggests that those models which assume $`\beta 1`$ are applicable to these regions (e.g. Ciolek & Mouschovias 1994; Li & Shu 1996; Ciolek & Basu 2000). Our observation in each case of an offset between the position angle of the B-field and the minor axis of each core appears to suggest that $`\beta >0.1`$ (c.f. Ostriker et al. 1999).

Some level of depolarization is observed towards the peak of each pre-stellar core. A similar depolarization effect was seen in OMC-3 by Matthews & Wilson (2000). This may be indicating that the field has small scale structure below our resolution limit, causing the observed percentage polarization to decrease. If this is the case, then we can estimate the amount by which the random component diverges from the (larger) uniform component. Following Hildebrand & Dragovan (1995) we estimate that if the amount of depolarization is up to a factor of $``$2, as we observe, then the small scale random field could diverge from the ordered field by up to $``$35. However, given the relatively high levels of polarization that we still observe at the core peaks, we believe this is an upper limit. The alternative explanation for depolarization is that in denser regions the number of collisions increases and hence the grain alignment efficiency decreases. We favour the latter explanation because we do not see the polarization direction varying, suggesting that the uniform ordered B-field component is still dominant, in agreement with our above deduction that $`\beta <1`$.

Recent ISOCAM observations of pre-stellar cores seen in absorption at 7 & 15 $`\mu `$m, have found that a number of cores, including L1544, have very sharply defined edges (Bacmann et al. 2000). From comparison with various ambipolar diffusion models, Bacmann et al. concluded that only cloud cores which are highly magnetically subcritical initially can develop such sharp edges. For example, the best fit model to the ISOCAM data of L1544 has $`\beta `$0.08 initially (c.f. Ciolek & Mouschovias 1995), in apparent contradiction with the findings of this paper. On the other hand, the model of L1544 proposed by Ciolek & Basu (2000) which has an initial $`\beta `$0.2, in better agreement with our present conclusions, cannot explain the ISOCAM data. Similarly the models of Ostriker et al. (1999) cannot simultaneously explain the polarization data in this paper (requiring $`\beta >0.1`$) and the large density contrasts associated with pre-stellar cores (suggesting $`\beta <0.1`$).

Hence, our comparison of the observations and theoretical results leads us to conclude that no current model of magnetically regulated star formation can apparently account for all of the existing observations.

J.M.K. wishes to acknowledge PPARC for studentship support. R.M.C. is partially supported by National Science Foundation grant AST9820641 to the University of Illinois. We would also like to thank the JCMT telescope operators for their assistance during these observations, and Tim Jenness for assistance with the software.


text:
# A Natural Renormalization of the One-Loop Effective Action for Scalar Field in Curved Space-time

## 1 Introduction

In the previous papers, we have shown the necessity of keeping the negative norm states, for a fully covariant quantization of the minimally coupled scalar field in de Sitter space (“Krein” QFT) . We have also shown that the effect of these unphysical states appears in the physics of the problem by allowing an automatic renormalization of the theory in the one-loop approximation. We have also shown that, for the physical states (positive norm states), the energy is positive whereas for the negative norm states (called “unphysical” states) the energy is negative.

Consideration of the negative norm states was proposed by Dirac in 1942 . In 1950 Gupta applies the idea in QED . The presence of higher derivative in the Lagrangian also lead to ghosts, states with negative norm . Mathematically for preserving the covariant principle, the auxiliary negative norm states were presented. Their presence has also different consequences for example in QED the negative energy photon disappear , and in de Sitter the infrared divergence eliminated . The physical interpretation however is not yet clear and any further interpretation needs far more investigations .

In the usual QFT, the one-loop effective action for the scalar field in a general curved space is divergent . One way to remove this divergence is modifying the Einstein’s field equations. Precisely for this reason that one of the most important problems of quantum gravity appears: for every new loop expansion, new terms in the Einstein’s field equations are needed. This means that the theory is not renormalizable. In this paper we have proposed a method of field quantization for calculating of the one-loop effective action for the scalar field in a general curved space-time, which result in a finite one-loop effective action.

## 2 Usual QFT calculation

Recalling the usual QFT calculation for the one-loop effective action , the scalar field in a general curved space-time is defined by:

$$[\mathrm{}+m^2+\xi R(x)]\varphi (x)=0,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator in curved space-time and $`m`$ is the “mass” of the field quanta. $`R(x)`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature and $`\xi `$ is the coupling constant between the scalar field and the gravitational field. The adiabatic expansion of the Feynman propagator is defined by

$$G_F^p(x,x^{})(g(x))^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik.y}\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(x,x^{})(\frac{}{m^2})^j\right]\frac{1}{k^2m^2+iϵ},$$
(2)
where symbol $``$ indicates an asymptotic expansion and $`y`$ is the Reimann normal coordinates for the point $`x`$, with origin at point $`x^{}`$. In the semi classical theory the Einstein’s field equations are:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G<T_{\mu \nu }>,$$
(3)
where $`<T_{\mu \nu }>`$ is the quantum expectation value of the matter stress-tensor. The effective action ($`W`$) of the quantum matter field is defined by :

$$\frac{2}{(g)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\frac{\delta W}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}=<T_{\mu \nu }>.$$
(4)
In the one-loop approximation it is defined by

$$W=d^4x[g(x)]^{\frac{1}{2}}L_{eff}^p(x)=\frac{1}{2}id^4x[g(x)]^{\frac{1}{2}}<x\mathrm{ln}(G_F^p)x>,$$
(5)
where

$$<xG_F^px^{}>=G_F^p(x,x^{}).$$
(6)
We can also write the effective Lagrangian in the following form

$$L_{eff}^p(x)=\frac{1}{2}i<x\mathrm{ln}(G_F^p)x>=\frac{1}{2}i_{m^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^2G_F^p(x,x).$$
(7)
Replacing $`G_F^p(x,x)`$ from equation $`(2)`$ in equation $`(7)`$ we have

$$L_{eff}^p(x)\frac{i}{2}(g(x))^{\frac{1}{4}}_{m^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^2\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(x)(\frac{}{m^2})^j\right]\frac{1}{k^2m^2+iϵ}.$$
(8)
In this relation there are three terms which diverge. For eliminating these divergences the left-hand side of the Einstein’s field equation is changed and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$ are also redefined (renormalization procedure)

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+a^{(1)}H_{\mu \nu }+b^{(2)}H_{\mu \nu }.$$
(9)
A standard technique in QFT indicates that the terms involving higher derivatives of the metric are expected in view of divergence elimination.

Using following integral representation in $`(2)`$

$$\frac{1}{k^2m^2+iϵ}=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{is(k^2m^2+iϵ)},$$

permuting the $`d^4k`$ integration with $`ds`$ integration in $`(2)`$, and performing the former, the Green’s function can be written in terms of the Bessel functions

$$G_F^p(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}(x,x^{})\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(x,x^{})(\frac{}{m^2})^j\right]G_F^{p(M)}(x,x^{})$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Van Vleck determinant and $`G_F^{p(M)}(x,x^{})`$ is the Feynman Green function in the Minkowski space

$$G_F^{p(M)}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{8\pi }\delta (\sigma )+\frac{m^2}{8\pi }\theta (\sigma )\frac{J_1(\sqrt{2m^2\sigma })iN_1(\sqrt{2m^2\sigma })}{\sqrt{2m^2\sigma }}$$

$$\frac{im^2}{4\pi ^2}\theta (\sigma )\frac{K_1(\sqrt{2m^2\sigma })}{\sqrt{2m^2\sigma }},\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(xx^{})^2.$$

## 3 Krein QFT calculation

The origin of divergence lies in the singular character of Green’s function at short relative distances. It has been shown in  that if the unphysical negative norm states are taken into account in the field quantization, the time-ordered product of fields or the “Feynman” propagator

$$iG_T(x,x^{})=<0T\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})0>,$$
(10)
is defined by the following relation

$$G_T(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2}[G_F^p(x,x^{})+(G_F^p(x,x^{}))^{}],$$
(11)
where $`G_F^p(x,x^{})`$ is usual Feynman propagator. Similar to the quantization of the electromagnetic field in Minkowski space , insofar as only average values are observed, we see that the unphysical negative norm states disappeared when restricting ourselves to physical states although the Green’s function is changed due to presence of negative norm states.

In this method the time-ordered product two-point function is

$$G_T(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}(x,x^{})\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(x,x^{})(\frac{}{m^2})^j\right]\left[\frac{m^2}{8\pi }\theta (\sigma )\frac{J_1(\sqrt{2m^2\sigma })}{\sqrt{2m^2\sigma }}\frac{1}{8\pi }\delta (\sigma )\right]$$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}(x,x^{})\left(\frac{a_0}{8\pi }\delta (\sigma )+\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(x,x^{})(\frac{}{m^2})^j\right]\frac{m^2}{8\pi }\theta (\sigma )\frac{J_1(\sqrt{2m^2\sigma })}{\sqrt{2m^2\sigma }}\right).$$
(12)
This expression in the limit $`xx^{}`$ and $`\sigma >0`$, simplifies to

$$\underset{xx^{}}{lim}G_T(x,x^{})\frac{1}{16\pi }[a_0(x)m^2a_1(x)]_0^{\mathrm{}}se^s𝑑s,$$
(13)
where the integral $`_0^{\mathrm{}}se^s𝑑s=1`$ is presented in view of the following calculation of the effective action. The divergence of the delta function form $`(\delta (\sigma =0))`$, is ignored. This term produce a constant term in the effective action.

If we use eq. $`(13)`$ and the procedure which is used when only positive norm states are involved , the following expression for the effective Lagrangian is obtained

$$L_{eff}(x)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{xx^{}}{lim}<x\mathrm{ln}(G_T)x^{}>=\frac{i}{2}\underset{xx^{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}<xe^{iKs}x^{}>(is)^1i𝑑s,$$
(14)
where

$$\underset{xx^{}}{lim}<xe^{iKs}x^{}>\frac{i}{16\pi }[a_0(x)m^2a_1(x)]m^4se^{m^2s}.$$
(15)
Then the effective Lagrangian in the one-loop approximation reads:

$$L_{eff}(x)\frac{1}{32\pi }[a_0(x)m^2a_1(x)]m^4_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{m^2s}𝑑s=\frac{1}{32\pi }[a_0(x)m^2a_1(x)]m^2.$$
(16)
By using the following relations :

$$a_0(x)=1,a_1(x)=(\frac{1}{6}\xi )R(x),$$
(17)
the effective action give

$$L_{eff}(x)\frac{m^4}{32\pi }(\frac{1}{6}\xi )\frac{m^2}{32\pi }R(x).$$
(18)
One of the interesting issue of this calculation is that, in the one-loop approximation, the effective action is similar to the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant (de Sitter background).

## 4 Conclusion

’t Hooft and Veltman have shown that all one-loop divergencies of pure gravity can be absorbed in a field renormalization. However, in the case of interaction of gravity and scalar field, divergencies in physical quantities are not eliminated , unless new terms are introduced to the Einstein’s field equation . In this paper, it is proved that if the unphysical negative norm states are considered in QFT formalism, non-divergent one loop-approximation of the interaction of gravity with a scalar field can be archived i.e. the effective action for scalar field is naturally convergent. Thus the Einstein’s field equation is not altered. The quantum gravity in the one-loop approximation behaves in a non anomalous way.

Acknowlegements: The author would like to thank S. Rouhani for very useful discussions and D.G. Chakalov for their interest in this work. I would like to thank the referee for very useful suggestions.


text:
# Associative photoproduction of charmed particles near threshold

## Abstract

We calculate the cross section and the beam asymmetry for exclusive photoproduction of charmed particles near threshold ($`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$), in the framework of an effective Lagrangian model. We discuss the sensitivity of these observables to the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ baryon and of the coupling constant in the $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD`$ vertex. We show that exclusive measurements allow, in principle, to determine the magnetic moments of charmed baryons.

The purpose of this paper is to study the associative photoproduction of charmed particles on nucleon. Among the simplest reactions of open charm production, $`\gamma +N_c+\overline{D}`$, with $`_c=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$, the reaction $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ has the lowest threshold. The experimental data about charm photoproduction concern mainly inclusive production of $`D`$$`(D^{})`$-mesons or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c)`$\- baryons at high energies, very far from threshold. The lowest photon energy where charm production was observed is 20 GeV, at SLAC , with an indirect estimation of the corresponding cross section. Up to now no exclusive measurement exists. Photoproduction processes involving charmed particles are experimentally accessible with a photon beam of energy over 10 GeV. The possibility of a systematic study of these reactions in the treshold region at future machines as ELFE  or at the Jefferson Laboratory (JLab) electron accelerator, after the planned upgrade , makes this problem very actual.

The photon-gluon fusion, $`\gamma +gc+\overline{c}`$, is considered as the most probable mechanism of inclusive photoproduction of charmed particles at high energy. In its different versions (adding, for example, NLO contributions), the inclusive spectra of $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$-mesons  can be satisfactorily reproduced. However this mechanism predicts $`\overline{D}/D`$ as well as $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ symmetry, in contradiction with the experimental data . Open charm photoproduction can induce, at least partly, the observed asymmetry. The standard view of inclusive charm photoproduction, based on $`\gamma +g`$ fusion, with subsequent fragmentation of $`c+\overline{c}`$ into charmed particles can not be directly applied to the description of the exclusive reactions, in any kinematical conditions, and in particular in the threshold region. Also other approaches, based on VDM  or QCD , which may reproduce the total inclusive cross section, do not give a simple picture of exclusive processes.

We will use a formalism based on an effective Lagrangian approach (ELA), extrapolating a method which is well known in the domain of the photoproduction of $`\pi `$\- and $`K`$-mesons. We will consider the photoproduction of pions, $`\gamma +NN+\pi `$; of strange particles, $`\gamma +N\mathrm{\Lambda }+K`$; and of open charm, $`\gamma +N_c+\overline{D}`$, as the same class of reactions $`\gamma +N+𝒫`$ where $``$ is a baryon, with spin $`𝒥`$ and parity $`P`$ equal to $`𝒥^P=1/2^+`$, ($`=N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$) and $`𝒫`$ is the corresponding pseudoscalar meson ($`𝒫=\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`K`$, $`D`$). In our knowledge, there is no principal restriction on the mass of the $`𝒫`$-meson for the applicability of ELA. Note in this respect, an interesting scaling for the masses of pseudoscalar mesons: $`m_K/m_\pi m_D/m_K3.6`$.

The application of ELA to exclusive charm photoproduction has the following advantages:

* the transparent physical content of the considered mechanisms;
* limited number of parameters with a definite physical meaning: interaction constants and magnetic moments of charmed baryons;
* theoretical predictions for parameters such as magnetic moments of charmed baryons can be used in the numerical calculations;
* the outputs of the model are the absolute value of the differential cross section and all polarization observables, in the near threshold region.

Such approach has been recently used in the studies of diferent processes involving charm particles, as $`J/\psi +\pi (\rho )D+\overline{D}(D^{})`$. or $`J/\psi +N\mathrm{\Lambda }_C+\overline{D}`$ . The cross sections for these reactions have been calculated in the ELA formalism, considering the pole diagrams (with $`D`$, $`D^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C`$ exchanges), in relation with the study of the mechanisms responsible for the $`J/\psi `$ suppression in high energy nuclei collisions.

The present analysis should be considered as a starting point in the discussion of the possible mechanisms which play the most important role in the threshold region . The predictive power of such approach should be useful in planning the possible future measurements of cross sections or polarization observables.

We found a large sensitivity of the observables to different fundamental parameters: as an example, the absolute value of the differential cross section depends mainly on the interaction constant in the vertex $`N_cD`$, while the magnetic moments of the charmed baryons mostly affect the beam asymmetry. The magnetic moments of charmed particles can be calculated in different approaches, from quark models to ChPT+HQET considerations, . In this respect the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is very interesting: the light quarks, here, are in a configuration with zero total spin, so the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ magnetic moment is due only to the the magnetic moment of the heavy $`c`$quark . There is no experimental information about the magnetic moments of the charmed baryons. The standard methods used for usual hyperons can not be applied here, due to the shorter time of life for $`_c`$. In principle the method of bending these particles in crystals can be used . The processes $`\gamma +N_c+\overline{D}`$ can be considered a parallel and independent way.

According to the lines given by a previous work , which we update and complete, we calculate the differential cross section and the excitation function for the process $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$. We calculate the beam asymmetry and discuss the sensitivity of the different observables to the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$.

The spin structure for the amplitude of the processes $`\gamma +N_c+\overline{D}`$ can be written in a general form (in the CMS of the considered reaction):

$$=i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{e}f_1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{e}f_2+i\stackrel{}{e}\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}f_3+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}\stackrel{}{e}\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}f_4,$$

where $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is the photon polarization three-vector, $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}`$ are the unit vectors along the three-momentum of $`\gamma `$ and $`\overline{D}`$. The differential cross section is given by:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{q}{k}(E_1+m)(E_2+M)\frac{B+A\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{128\pi ^2s}$$

with

$$A=|f_3|^2+|f_4|^2+2ef_2f_3^{}+2e(f_1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta f_3)f_4^{},$$

$$B=2\left(|f_1|^2+|f_2|^22\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ef_1f_2^{}\right),$$

where $`E_1(E_2)`$ and $`m(M)`$ are the energy and the mass of $`N(_c)`$, respectively, and $`\vartheta `$ is the center of mass angle of the $`D`$-meson production (with respect to the direction of the incident photon). In case of a linearly polarized photon beam, the beam asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be determinated as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{d\sigma _{}/d\mathrm{\Omega }d\sigma _{}/d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\sigma _{}/d\mathrm{\Omega }+d\sigma _{}/d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{A\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{B+A\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }.$$

The amplitudes $`f_i,i=14`$, have to be calculated in the framework of some model. We consider here the pole contributions in the $`s`$, $`t`$ and $`u`$channels (Fig. 1), so $`f_i=f_{i,s}+f_{i,t}+f_{i,u}`$.

A discussion of the ELA applied to charm particles, with broken SU(4) symmetry, can be found in literature . In the framework of this formalism, one obtains the following expressions for the matrix element, corresponding to the $`s`$, $`t`$ and $`u`$contributions (for the pseudoscalar meson-baryon vertex):

$$_s=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{sm^2}\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _5(\widehat{k}+\widehat{p}_1+m)\left[Q_N\widehat{ϵ}\frac{\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{k}}{2m}\kappa _N\right]u(p_1),$$

$$_u=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{um^2}\overline{u}(p_2)\left(Q_c\widehat{ϵ}\frac{\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{k}}{2M}\kappa _C\right)(\widehat{p}_2\widehat{k}+M)\gamma _5u(p_1),$$

$$_t=2eQ_D\frac{g_{N_cD}}{tM_D^2}\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{q}\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _5u(p_1),$$

where $`k`$, $`q`$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the four momenta of $`\gamma `$, $`D`$, $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`ϵ`$ $`(ϵk=0)`$ is the four vector of the photon polarization, $`s=(k+p_1)^2`$, $`u=(kp_2)^2`$, $`t=(kq)^2`$ are the Mandelstam variables, $`m`$ ($`Q_N`$), $`M`$ ($`Q_c`$) and $`M_D`$ ($`Q_D`$) are the masses (electric charges) of the nucleon, the charmed baryon and the $`D`$-meson, respectively, $`g_{N_cD}`$ is the coupling constant for the vertex of nucleon-charmed baryon-$`D`$ meson interaction; $`\kappa _N`$ and $`\kappa _c`$ are the nucleon and charmed baryon anomalous magnetic moment ($`\kappa _N=1.79`$ (-1.91) for $`p`$ ($`n`$)).

From these formulas we can derive the following expressions for the scalar amplitudes $`f_i`$.

s-channel:

$$f_{1,s}=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{W+m}\left[Q_N(Wm)\frac{\kappa _N}{2m}\right],$$

$$f_{2,s}=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{W+m}\left[Q_N(W+m)\frac{\kappa _N}{2m}\right]\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{E_2+M},$$

$$f_{3,s}=f_{4,s}=0,\frac{e^2}{4\pi }=\alpha \frac{1}{137},$$

where $`W=\sqrt{s}`$, is the total energy, related to the $`\gamma `$-energy in the laboratory system by $`s=m^2+2E_\gamma m`$.

u-channel:

$$f_{1,u}=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{uM^2}\left\{Q_c(WM)\frac{\kappa _c}{2M}\left[tM_D^2+(Wm)(W+m2M)\right]\right\},$$

$$f_{2,u}=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{uM^2}\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{E_2+M}\left\{Q_c(W+M)+\frac{\kappa _c}{2M}\left[tM_D^2+(W+m)(Wm+2M)\right]\right\}\frac{Wm}{W+m},$$

$$f_{3,u}=e\frac{g_{N_cD}}{uM^2}|\stackrel{}{q}|\frac{Wm}{W+m}\left[2Q_c+\kappa _c\frac{W+m}{M}\right],$$

$$f_{4,u}=\frac{g_{N_cDe}}{uM^2}(E_2M)\left[2Q_c+\kappa _c\frac{Wm}{M}\right],$$

t-channel:

$$f_{1,t}=f_{2,t}=0,$$

$$f_{3,t}=2eQ_D\frac{g_{N_cD}}{tM_D^2}|\stackrel{}{q}|\frac{Wm}{W+m},$$

$$f_{4,u}=2eQ_D\frac{g_{N_cD}}{tM_D^2}(E_2M).$$

The angular distribution and the beam asymmetry for the process $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ are reported on Fig. 2 as functions of $`\vartheta `$. The full line represents the sum of all contributions, the Born $`s`$-channel term is given by the dashed line and the Born $`u`$-channel term by the dotted line. The $`t`$ channel diagram does not play any role for this reaction in the present model, as $`Q_D=0`$. Even in the case when the contribution of one diagram is negligible its interference with the other terms can largely affect the total result: a large effect of the $`s`$-$`u`$ interference may appear in the differential cross section (Fig. 2).

The plotted differential cross section is divided by $`g_{ND\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2`$, for which we do not have (theoretical or experimental) precise indications.

The behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$asymmetry results from the difference in the spin structure of the $`s`$ and $`u`$ channel contributions to the matrix element for $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c+\overline{D_0}`$. The $`s`$ channel diagram (mainly characterized by s-wave $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD`$-production with a small off-mass shell admixture of p-wave) can not induce nonzero $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$asymmetry, contrary to the $`u`$channel contribution, which contains the majority of the multipole amplitudes, even in the threshold region, and is responsible for the positive value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, in the whole angular domain. However the final result is essentially driven by the $`su`$-interference, which is negative, compensating the positive $`u`$channel contribution.

In order to illustrate the sensitivity of this reaction to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ magnetic moments, in Fig. 3 we show, as a function of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$, the dependence of the , taken at $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$ and of the ratio of the differential cross section for $`\vartheta =\pi `$ and $`\vartheta =0`$ (backward-forward asymmetry). Both these quantities show a characteristic dependence on $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$, in the region $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}1`$, being almost independent on $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ for $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}1`$. The asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi /2)`$ changes sign, for $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}1`$.

The sensitivity of the absolute cross section to $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ appears explicitely at threshold, where only the amplitude $`f_1`$ is present and can be written as:

$$f_11\frac{Wm}{2M_D}\left(\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}1+\kappa _p\frac{M}{m}\right)1+0.46\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}.$$

The excitation functions for all the considered reactions, with magnetic moments as reported in the Table, are shown in Fig. 4: $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ (thick solid line), $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}+D^{}`$ (dashed line), $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ (dotted line), $`\gamma +n\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++D^{}`$ (dot-dashed line), $`\gamma +n\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^++D^{}`$ (solid line), $`\gamma +n\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0+\overline{D^0}`$ (thick dot-dashed line). The calculation for the reaction $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, using the magnetic moment suggested by  is reported as a thick dashed line.

These calculations reproduce satisfactorily the measurements at high energy (on proton target) but overestimate the measurement at the lowest energy, from . The interest of such a comparison with the experimental is to give an estimation of the upper limit of the constant $`g_{N_cD}`$, here taken as unity.

In the present model, the cross section for the process $`\gamma +n\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0+D^0`$ is larger when compared with the other processes, due to the fact that the magnetic moments of $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^0`$ contribute coherently in the $`s`$ and $`u`$ channel.

Note that the possible T-odd polarization observables have to be identically zero, in the framework of the considered model, in any kinematical conditions, for any reaction $`\gamma +N_c^++\overline{D}`$.

In conclusion, we have calculated the differential cross section and the beam asymmetry for the exclusive photoproduction of charmed particles near threshold, $`\gamma +N_c+\overline{D}`$. We have studied the effects of the magnetic moments of charmed baryons and of the coupling constant for the $`N_cD`$ vertex and discussed the possibility to determine these quantities, which are not known experimentally. We have shown that the absolute value of the cross section depends mainly on the interaction constant in the vertex $`N_cD`$. On the other hand, the angular dependence and even the sign of the beam asymmetry is largely affected by the value of the magnetic moment of the charmed baryon.