text:
# Contents

## 1 New Landmarks and Challenges

Since ICHEP98 new landmarks have been reached:

* Direct CP violation has been established experimentally – a discovery of the first rank irrespective of theoretical interpretations.
* We are on the brink of observing CP violation in $`B`$ decays.
* We are reaching fertile ground for finding New Physics in $`D^0`$ oscillations and CP violation.

On the theory side we are learning lessons of humility, increasing the sophistication of our theoretical technologies, and pushing back new frontiers.

All of this leads to new challenges for theory, namely to regain theoretical control over $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$; to develop reliable quantitative predictions for CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays and to refine them into precise ones; to establish theoretical control over $`D^0`$ oscillations and CP violation and finally, to develop comprehensive strategies to not only establish the intervention of New Physics, but also identify its salient features.

A major part of my talk will address extracting numerical values of CKM parameters; I will discuss possible limitations to quark-hadron duality and refer to the lifetimes of charm and beauty hadrons as validation studies before describing new attempts to describe exclusive nonleptonic $`B`$ decays; I will sketch the difficulties inherent in predicting $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ before addressing CP violation in $`B`$ decays; I will comment on future searches for New Physics based on CKM trigonometry and the nature of theoretical uncertainties before describing ‘exotic’ searches for transverse polarization of muons in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays, electric dipole moments and CP violation in charm transitions.

## 2 The Charged Current Dynamics of Quarks

### 2.1 The ‘unreasonable’ Success of the CKM Description

The observation of the ‘long’ $`B`$ lifetime of about 1 psec together with the dominance of $`bc`$ over $`bu`$ revealed a hierarchical structure in the KM matrix that is expressed in the Wolfenstein representation in powers of $`\lambda =\mathrm{tg}\theta _C`$. We often see plots of the CKM unitarity triangle where the constraints coming from various observables appear as broad bands . While the latter is often bemoaned, it obscures a more fundamental point: the fact that these constraints can be represented in such plots at all is quite amazing! Let me illustrate that by an analogy first: plotting the daily locations of the about 1000 high energy physicists attending this meeting on a city map of Osaka produces fairly broad bands. Yet the remarkable thing is that these 1000 people are in Osaka rather than spread over the world. On a map of Japan (let alone the world) these bands shrink to a point showing that the whereabouts of these phycisists follow an a priori highly unlikely distribution for which there must be a good reason. Likewise one should look at the bigger picture of flavour dynamics. The quark box without GIM subtraction yields a value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ exceeding the experimental number by more than a factor of thousend; it is the GIM mechanism that brings it down to within a factor of two or so of experiment. The GIM subtracted quark box for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ coincides with the data again within a factor of two. Yet if the beauty lifetime were of order $`10^{14}`$ sec while $`m_t180`$ GeV it would exceed it by an order of magnitude; on the other hand it would undershoot by an order of magnitude if $`m_t40`$ GeV were used with $`\tau (B)10^{12}`$ sec; i.e., the observed value can be accommodated because a tiny value of $`|V(td)V(ts)|`$ is offset by a large $`m_t`$.

This amazing success is repeated with $`ϵ`$. Over the last 25 years it could always be accommodated (apart from some very short periods of grumbling mostly off the record) whether the correct set \[$`m_t=180`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|\lambda ^3`$, $`|V(ts)|\lambda ^2`$\] or the wrong one \[$`m_t=40`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|\lambda ^2`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda `$\] were used. Yet both $`m_t=180`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|=\lambda ^2`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda `$ as well as $`m_t=40`$ GeV with $`|V(td)|=\lambda ^3`$, $`|V(ts)|=\lambda ^2`$ would have lead to a clear inconsistency!

Thus the phenomenological success of the CKM description has to be seen as highly nontrivial or ‘unreasonable’. This cannot have come about by accident – there must be a good reason.

### 2.2 Extracting CKM Parameters

A crucial element in extracting CKM parameters defined for the quark degrees of freedom from data involving hadrons is the quality of our theoretical technologies to deal with the strong forces. For strange mesons with $`m_s<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ one invokes chiral perturbation theory, for beauty hadrons with $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ the heavy quark expansion (HQE) which might be extended to charm hadrons in a semiquantitative fashion ($`m_c>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) 222The situation is qualitatively different for top states: with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$ top quarks decay before they can hadronize and they are therefore controlled by perturbative QCD . . Lattice QCD on the other hand deals with the nonperturbative dynamics of all quark flavours.

Both HQE and lattice QCD (to be discussed in Kenway’s lecture ) represent mature technologies with large common ground (both operate in Euklidean space) that are complementary to each other. There has already been fruitful feedback between the two on the conceptual as well as numerical level; this interaction is about to intensify. While quark models no longer represent state-of-the-art, they still serve useful purposes in the diagnostics of our results if employed properly.

The main tool for numerical results so far have been the HQE. The last few years have seen a conceptual covergence among its practitioners: most of them accept the argument that HQE allow to describe in principle nonleptonic as well as semileptonic beauty decays as long as an operator product expansion can be relied upon. At the same time one fully expects the numerical accuracy to decrease when going from $`Bl\nu q\overline{q}^{}`$ to $`Bc\overline{u}d\overline{q}^{}`$ and on to $`Bc\overline{c}s\overline{q}^{}`$ for fundamental as well practical reasons (the latter meaning that the energy release is lowest for $`bc\overline{c}s`$.). Considerable progress has been achieved also in the numerical value of basic quantities the most important one being the beauty quark mass. Last year three groups extending earlier work by Voloshin  have presented new extractions from data, which – when expressed in terms of the socalled ‘kinetic’ mass – read as follows:

$$m_b^{\mathrm{kin}}(1\mathrm{GeV})=4.56\pm 0.06\mathrm{GeV}\text{[6]},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.57}\pm 0.04\mathrm{GeV}\text{[7]},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.59}\pm 0.06\mathrm{GeV}\text{[8]}$$
(1)
The error estimates of 1 - 1.5 % might be overly optimistic (as it often happens), but not foolish. Since all three analyses use basically the same input from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ region, they could suffer from a common systematic uncertainty, though. This can be checked by analysing the shape of the lepton spectrum in $`Bl\nu X`$. More concretely one forms two moments both of the lepton and of the hadron energies ; each set yields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_Bm_b`$ as $`m_b\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2B|\overline{b}(iD)^2b|B/2M_B`$. Comparing those two sets of values with each other and with the $`m_b`$ values listed above represents a crucial self-consistency check. An early CLEO analysis appeared to yield inconsistent values. It is being redone now, and I eagerly await their results; yet I do that with considerable confidence, in particular since a recent lattice study  has yielded numbers that are in agreement with those inferred from the SV sum rules .

Two methods exist with excellent theoretical credentials for determining $`V(cb)`$:

(i) Extrapolating the rate of $`Bl\nu D^{}`$ to zero recoil one extracts $`V(cb)F_D^{}(0)`$. The form factor $`F_D^{}(0)`$ has the nice features that it is normalized to unity in the infinite mass limit and that the leading nonperturbative correction is of order $`1/m_Q^2`$. Unfortunately it is $`m_c`$ that sets the scale here rather than $`m_b`$, and that is one of the challenges in evaluating it. Three estimates provide representative numbers:

$$F_D^{}(0)=0.89\pm 0.08\text{[13]},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.913}\pm 0.042\text{[14]},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.935}\pm 0.03\text{[15]}$$
(2)
I will use here

$$F_D^{}(0)=0.90\pm 0.05$$
(3)
as a convenient reference point. CLEO has presented a new analysis that yields a considerably larger number than before :

$$|V(cb)F_D^{}(0)|=(42.4\pm 1.8|_{stat}\pm 1.9|_{syst})\times 10^3$$
(4)
The updated LEP number on the other hand has hardly changed :

$$|V(cb)F_D^{}(0)|=(34.9\pm 0.7|_{stat}\pm 1.6|_{syst})\times 10^3$$
(5)
There is now about a 20% difference between the two central values, which means that ‘stuff happens’. With Eq.(3) one gets:

$`|V(cb)|_{excl,CLEO}`$ $`=`$ $`(47.1\pm 2.0|_{stat}\pm 2.1|_{syst}\pm 2.1_{th})\times 10^3`$ (6)
$`|V(cb)|_{excl,LEP}`$ $`=`$ $`(38.8\pm 0.8|_{stat}\pm 1.8|_{syst}\pm 1.7_{th})\times 10^3`$ (7)
I view a theoretical error of 5% as on the optimistic side, and I am skeptical about being able to reduce it below this level.

(ii) The inclusive semileptonic width of $`B`$ mesons can be calculated in the HQE: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(B)m_b^5(1+𝒪(1/m_b^2)+𝒪(\alpha _S))`$. Again there is no correction $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$. The advantage over the previous case is that the expansion parameter is effectively the inverse energy release $`(m_bm_c)^1`$ rather than the larger $`1/m_c`$; the challenge is provided by the fact that the leading term depends on the fifth power of the $`b`$ quark mass. It was only the great conceptual and technical progress in HQE that made this method competitive.

LEP has updated its analysis and finds:

$$|V(cb)|_{incl}=(40.76\pm 0.41|_{stat}\pm 2.0_{th})\times 10^3$$
(8)
The theoretical error has been evaluated in a fairly careful way ; I am quite optimistic that it can be cut in half in the foreseeable future; but even then it would appear to represent the limiting factor. Yet it is mandatory to check the small overall experimental error. CLEO has amassed a huge amount of data on tape; I am most eager to see their findings.

The first direct evidence for $`V(ub)0`$ came from the endpoint spectrum in inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays. Such studies yielded $`|V(ub)|_{end}=(3.2\pm 0.8)\times 10^3`$ with a heavy reliance on theoretical models which makes both the central value and the error estimate suspect. Yet with huge new data sets becoming available, this avenue should be re-visited due to the following two observations:

* The $`AC^2M^2`$ model constitutes a good implementation of QCD, in particular for $`bu`$ transitions . The main caveat is that one should not determine the two model parameters $`p_F`$ and $`m_{sp}`$ from the $`bc`$ spectrum and then apply it blindly to $`bu`$ decays. With sufficient statistics one can fit it directly to the $`bu`$ spectrum even over the very limited kinematical regime where it can be cleanly separated from $`bc`$.
* A few years ago it has been suggested  to extract the required shape function for $`bu`$ from the measured photon spectrum in $`B\gamma X`$. This might become a feasible procedure with future data. Some more theoretical work is needed, though, a point I will return to.

From the exclusive channels $`Bl\nu \pi `$ and $`Bl\nu \rho `$ one has inferred

$$|V(ub)|_{excl}=(3.25\pm 0.14|_{stat.}\pm 0.27|_{syst.}\pm 0.55|_{th})\times 10^3$$
(9)
There is a very strong model dependance, and it is quite unclear to me whether the theoretical uncertainty has been evaluated in a reliable fashion by comparing the findings from various quark models and QCD sum rules. One hopes that lattice QCD will provide the next step forward.

LEP groups have made the heroic effort to extract the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_bl\nu X_{nocharm})`$. Their findings read as follows :

$$|V(ub)|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}}=(4.04\pm 0.44|_{stat}\pm 0.46|_{bc,syst}\pm 0.25|_{bu,syst}\pm 0.02|_{\tau _b}\pm 0.19|_{HQE})\times 10^3$$
(10)
The theoretical uncertainties in this fully integrated width are under good control ; however it is an experimental tour de force, as already indicated by the errors, with the uncertainty in the modelling for $`bc`$ the central one.

The main drawback in using the charged lepton energy as a kinematical discriminator is its low efficiency: about 90% of the $`bu`$ events are buried under the huge $`bc`$ background. The hadronic recoil mass spectrum $`\frac{d}{dM_X}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bl\nu X)`$ provides a much more efficient filter with only about 10% of $`bu`$ being swamped by $`bc`$ as first suggested within a parton model description . Using HQE methodology it has been shown that the theoretical description can be based more directly on QCD . Furthermore the fraction of $`bu`$ events below $`M_X1.6`$ GeV appears to be fairly stable. The predicted $`M_X`$ spectrum can be compared with data – if one ‘smears’ the latter over energy intervals $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Refinements of these ideas are under active theoretical study .

(i) $`|V(td)|`$ can be inferred from $`B_s`$ oscillations 333The 3-family unitarity constraint $`|V(ts)||V(cb)|`$ is assumed throughout this talk unless stated otherwise.

$$\frac{x_d}{x_s}\frac{|V(td)|^2}{|V(ts)|^2}\frac{Bf^2(B_d)}{Bf^2(B_s)},$$
(11)
although even the relative size of $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ oscillations could be affected significantly by New Physics. (ii) Another approach is to compare exclusive radiative decays $`B\gamma \rho /\omega `$ vs. $`B\gamma K^{}`$. Yet one has to keep in mind here that long distance physics could affect $`B\gamma \rho `$ much more than $`B\gamma K^{}`$. (iii) The cleanest way theoretically is provided by the width for $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$. With the hadronic matrix element inferred from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^0l^+\nu )`$ the contributions from intermediate charm quarks provide the irreducible theoretical uncertainty estimated to be around several percent. With the present loose bounds on $`|V(td)|`$ one expects

$$\mathrm{BR}(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=(0.82\pm 0.32)10^{10}$$
(12)
One candidate has been observed by E787 at BNL corresponding to

$$\mathrm{BR}(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=(1.5_{1.2}^{+3.4})10^{10}$$
(13)
The single event sensitivity is supposed to go down to $`0.710^{10}`$; the successor experiment E949 hopes for a sensitivity of $`10^{11}`$.

In summary:

* There are two ways for extracting $`|V(cb)|`$ from semileptonic $`B`$ decays where the theoretical uncertainty has been reduced to about 5% with a further reduction appearing feasible. This theoretical confidence cannot be put to the test yet due to a divergence in the available data.
* PDG2K quotes a $`40`$ % error on $`V(ub)`$. The situation will improve qualitatively as well as quantitatively: reducing uncertainties down to the 10% level seems feasible, and in the long run one can dream to go even beyond that!
* Observing $`B_s`$ oscillations and $`B\gamma \rho /\omega `$ would elevate our knowledge of $`|V(td)|`$ to a new level: in particular the former should yield a value with an error not exceeding 10 %, although it could be affected very significantly by New Physics; an intriguing long term prospect is provided by $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$.

### 2.3 Quark-Hadron Duality – a New Frontier

When extracting the value of CKM parameters with few percent errors only, one has to be concerned about several sources of systematic uncertainties, prominent among them theoretical ones. A fundamental one is the assumption of quark-hadron duality (QHDu) that enters at various stages of the theoretical reasoning. When calculating a rate on the quark-gluon level QHDu is invoked to equate the result with what one should get for the corresponding process expressed in hadronic quantities.

QHDu cannot be exact: it is an approximation the quality of which is process-dependant – it should work better for semileptonic than nonleptonic transitions – and increases with the amount of averaging or ‘smearing’ over hadronic channels. There is a lot of folklore that leads to several useful concepts – but no theory. That is not surprising: for QHDu can be addressed in a quantitative fashion only after nonperturbative effects have been brought under control, and that has happened only relatively recently in beauty decays.

Developing such a theory for QHDu thus represents a new frontier requiring the use of new tools. Considerable insight exists into the physical origins of QHDu violations: (i) They are caused by the exact location of hadronic thresholds that are notoriously hard to evaluate. Such effects are implemented through ‘oscillating terms’; i.e., the fact that innocuous, since suppressed contributions $`\mathrm{exp}(m_Q/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in Euclidean space turn into dangerous while unsuppressed sin$`(m_Q/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ terms in Minkowski space. (ii) There is bound to be some sensitivity to ‘distant cuts’ . (iii) The validity of the $`1/m_c`$ expansion arising in the description of $`Bl\nu D^{}`$ is far from guaranteed.

The OPE per se is insensitive to QHDu violations (although it provides some indirect qualitative insights). One can probe QHDu in exactly solvable model field theories among which the ’t Hooft model – QCD in 1+1 dimensions with $`N_C\mathrm{}`$ – has gained significant consideration. It had been suggested , based on a numerical analysis, that nonleptonic transitions exhibit significant or even large QHDu violations; yet analytical studies revealed such violations to be tiny only , even in spectra .

A more convincing probe for QHDu violations would be based on a procedure familiar from experimental analyses: one employs different methods to determine the same basic quantity. I have already listed one example, namely to extract $`m_b`$ from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ spectroscopy as well as the leptonic and hadronic moments in $`B`$ decays. One very telling implementation of such a program would be to determine CKM parameters in $`B_s`$ decays and compare the results with the findings in $`B_{u,d}`$ decays. For practical reasons one would probably be limited to compare the leptonic and hadronic moments in semileptonic $`B_s`$ decays and to infer $`|V(bc)|`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(B_s)`$ and $`B_sl\nu D_s^{}`$. Comparing $`B_s`$ with $`B`$ results is much more revealing than comparing $`B_d`$ with $`B_u`$ decays. For a likely source of QHDu violations in $`bc`$ is provided by the presence of a ‘near-by’ resonance with appropriate quantum numbers. If $`B_d`$ decays are affected, so will be those of $`B_u`$ and by the same amount, but not $`B_s`$. Likewise a resonance near the $`B_s`$ could affect its transitions, but not those of $`B_{u,d}`$. Nature had to be truly malicious to place one resonance next to $`B_{u,d}`$ and a second one next to the $`B_s`$. Barring that a comparison of the values of $`|V(cb)|`$ obtained from $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decays would allow us to gauge QHDu violations in those transitions. The situation is more complex for $`bu`$, though, as already alluded to. An isoscalar or isovector resonance would affect $`B_u`$ and $`B_d`$ modes differently.

### 2.4 Lifetimes as Validation Studies

Among the many several important lessons to be derived from the lifetimes of charm and beauty hadrons I will emphasize just one aspect: with QHDu violations expected to be larger in nonleptonic than semileptonic decays, one can view studies of lifetimes as validation studies. The new measurements reported on $`D^0`$, $`D^+`$, $`D_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ are in line with previous mesasurements and do not change the overall picture : (i) The $`D^0`$-$`D^+`$ lifetime difference is given mainly by Pauli intereference yielding a ratio of $`2(f_D/200\mathrm{MeV})^2`$. (ii) Weak annihilation should contribute in mesons on the 10 - 20 % level. (iii) The ratio $`\tau (D_s)/\tau (D^0)`$ is fully consistent with such a semiquantitative picture. (iv) What is missing for a full evaluation are more accurate $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$ lifetimes: measurements of $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{0,+})`$ with 10 - 15 % accuracy are needed for this purpose.

The situation of beauty lifetimes has changed in one respect: the world average for the $`B^+`$-$`B_d`$ lifetime ratio now shows a significant excess over unity in agreement with a prediction using factorization:

$$\frac{\tau (B^{})}{\tau (B_d)}=1.07\pm 0.02\mathrm{exp}.\text{[1]}vs\mathrm{.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}+0.05\left(\frac{f_B}{200\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^2\mathrm{theor}.\text{[28]}$$
(14)
The discrepancy for $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)`$ has remained basically the same:

$$\frac{\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)}{\tau (B_d)}=0.794\pm 0.053\mathrm{exp}.\text{[1]}vs\mathrm{.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.88}1.0\mathrm{theor}.\text{[28]}$$
(15)
While this could signal a significant limitation to QHDu, I like to reserve my judgement till CDF and D0 measure $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)`$ & $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_b^{0,})`$ in the next run.

The most striking success has been the apparently correct prediction of the $`B_c`$ lifetime: $`\tau (B_c)0.5`$ psec  vs. the CDF findings $`0.46\pm 0.17`$ psec with $`\tau (B_c)/\tau (B_d)1/3`$: the absence of a $`1/m_Q`$ correction is essential here. The $`B_s`$ lifetime deserves further dedicated scrutiny since theoretically one expects with confidence $`\overline{\tau }(B_s)/\tau (B_d)=1\pm 𝒪(0.01)`$ vs. the experimental value of $`0.945\pm 0.039`$.

### 2.5 Exclusive Nonleptonic $`B`$ Decays – another New Frontier

In describing nonleptonic two-body modes $`BM_1M_2`$ valuable guidance has been provided by symmetry considerations based on $`SU(2)`$ and to a lesser degree $`SU(3)`$. Phenomenological models have played an important role; more often than not they involve factorization as a central assumption. Such models still play an important role in widening our horizon when used with common sense . Yet the bar has been raised for them by the emergence of a new theoretical framework for dealing with these decays. The essential pre-condition for this framwork is the large energy release, and it invokes concepts like ‘colour transparency’ ; while those have been around for a while, only now they are put into a comprehensive framework. Two groups have presented results on this . The common feature in their approaches is that the decay amplitude is described by a kernel containing the ‘hard’ interaction given by a perturbatively evaluated effective Hamiltonion folded with form factors, decay constants and ligh-cone distributions into which the long distance effects are lumped; this factorization is symbolically denoted by

$$M_1M_2|H|B=f_{BM_1}f_{M_2}T^H\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}+\mathrm{}$$
(16)
The two groups differ in their dealings with the soft part: BBNS regularize the divergent IR integrals they encounter at the price of introducing low energy parameters. KLS on the other hand invoke Sudakov form factors to shield them against IR singularities. It is not surprising that the two groups arrive at different conclusions: while BBNS infer final state interactions to be mostly small in $`B\pi \pi ,K\pi `$ with weak annihilation being suppressed, KLS argue for weak annihilation to be important with final state interactions not always small.

The trend of these results have certainly the ring of truth for me: e.g., while factorization represents the leading effect in most cases (including $`BD\pi `$), it is not of universal quality. One should also note that the non-factorizable contributions move the predictions for branching ratios towards the data – a feature one could not count on a priori. It is not clear to me yet whether the two approaches are complementary or irreconcilable. Secondly one should view these predictions as preliminary: a clear disagreement with future data should be taken as an opportunity for learning rather than for discarding the whole approach. This is connected with a third point: there are corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$ which are beyond our computational powers. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ might be as large as 0.5 - 1 GeV, they could be sizeable.

### 2.6 Radiative $`B`$ Decays

The transition $`B\gamma X`$ has been the first correctly predicted penguin footprint. The CLEO number is still the most accurate one, but the BELLE result is not far behind

$`\mathrm{BR}(B\gamma X_{nocharm})`$ $`=`$ $`(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)10^4\mathrm{CLEO}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{BR}(B\gamma X_{nocharm})`$ $`=`$ $`(3.34\pm 0.5\pm 0.35\pm 0.28)10^4\mathrm{BELLE}`$ (18)
The SM prediction as summarized in an illuminating talk by Misiak reads

$$\mathrm{BR}(B\gamma X_{nocharm})|_{\mathrm{SM}}=(3.29\pm 0.33)10^4$$
(19)
While the central value and the uncertainty have hardly changed over the last four years, an impressive theoretical machinery has been developed resulting in many new calculations – with the result that new contributions largely cancel. Careful analysis of the photon spectrum is under way, which is necessary to determine the branching ratio even more precisely and to determine the shape function needed to extract $`|V(ub)|`$ from the lepton endpoint spectrum .

The results and caveats for $`Bl^+l^{}X`$ have been updated. One should note that New Physics in general impacts $`B\gamma X`$ and $`Bl^+l^{}X`$ quite differently.

## 3 CP Violation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S,\mathrm{\Delta }B0`$

The quantity $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ describes the difference in CP violation between $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0`$:

$$\mathrm{Re}\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ}=\frac{1}{6}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}1\right]$$
(20)
Within the KM ansatz direct CP violation has to exist, yet it is suppressed by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule and the large top mass: $`0<ϵ^{}/ϵ1/20`$. A guesstimate suggests $`ϵ^{}/ϵ𝒪(10^3)`$ . The effective CP odd $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ Lagrangian has been calculated with high accuracy on the quark level ; eight operators emerge. Evaluating their hadronic matrix elements with the available techniques one finds four positive and four negative contributions of roughly comparable size giving rise to large cancellations and thus enhanced uncertainties with central values typically below $`10^3`$. While such studies found sizeable $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancements they fell well short of the observed size; various rationalizations were given for this failure, and overcoming it was left as a homework assignment for lattice QCD. However there were dissenting voices arguing for a more phenomenological approach where reproducing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule is imposed as a goal. Not surprisingly this required the enhancement of some operators more than others thus reducing the aforementioned cancellations and increasing the prediction for $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ . The first KTeV data gave considerable respectability to this approach and lead to re-evaluations of other studies leading to somewhat larger predictions, as discussed at this conference .

This illustrates that theoretical uncertainties are very hard to estimate reliably, although in fairness two things should be pointed out: (i) Due to the large number on contributions with different signs one is facing an unusually complex situation. (ii) While there is no doubt that $`ϵ^{}0`$ holds, its exact size is still uncertain:

$$\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ^{}}\right)=(2.80\pm 0.41)10^3\mathrm{KTeV},(1.40\pm 0.43)10^3\mathrm{NA48};$$
(21)
some of the earlier theoretical expectations might experience some vindication still. In any case we are eagerly awaiting the new results from KTeV.

Our interpretation of the data is thus still in limbo: it might represent another striking success for the KM scheme with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule explained in one fell swoop – or it might be dominated by New Physics. I am not very confident that analytical methods can decide this issue, although some interesting new angles have been put forward on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1/2`$ rule . One has to hope for lattice QCD to come through, yet it has to go beyond the quenched approximation, which will require more time.

Although CP violation implies T violation due to the CPT theorem, I consider it highly significant that more direct evidence has been obtained through the ‘Kabir test’: CPLEAR has found

$$A_T\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^0\overline{K}^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{K}^0K^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^0\overline{K}^0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{K}^0K^0)}=(6.6\pm 1.3\pm 1.0)10^3$$
(22)
versus the value $`(6.54\pm 0.24)10^3`$ inferred from $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Of course, some assumptions still have to be made, namely that semileptonic $`K`$ decays obey CPT or that the Bell-Steinberger relation is satisfied with known decay channels only. Avoiding both assumptions one can write down an admittedly contrived scheme where the CPLEAR data are reproduced without T violation; the price one pays is a large CPT asymmetry $`𝒪(10^3)`$ in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ .

KTeV and NA48 have analyzed the rare decay $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ and found a large T-odd correlation between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ planes in full agreement with predictions . Let me add just two comments here: (i) This agreement cannot be seen as a success for the KM ansatz. Any scheme reproducing $`\eta _+`$ will do the same. (ii) The argument that strong final state interactions (which are needed to generate a T odd correlation above 1% with T invariant dynamics) cannot affect the relative orientation of the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ planes fails on the quantum level .

One often hears that observing a CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ is no big deal since it is confidently expected – unless it clearly falls outside the predicted range – and likewise in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ since it cannot be interpreted cleanly due to Penguin ‘pollution’ and the value of its asymmetry is hardly constrained. Such sentiments, however, miss the paradigmatic character of such observations: (a) An asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ would be the first one observed outside $`K_L`$ decays, it would have to be big to be established in the near future and it would establish the KM ansatz as a major agent. (b) Likewise an asymmetry in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ again would have to be big, and it would probably reveal direct CP violation to be big as well in beauty decays.

These CP asymmetries are described in terms of the angles of the usual unitarity triangle. An ecumenical message in PDG2000 endorses two different notations, namely

$$\varphi _1\beta =\pi \mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}\right),\varphi _2\alpha =\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}\right),\varphi _3\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}\right).$$
(23)
From CP insensitive rates one can deduce the sides of this triangle and from CP asymmetries the angles: e.g., from $`ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }m(B_d)`$ one can infer sin$`2\varphi _1`$. A whole new industry has sprung up for doing these fits. Typical examples are (I will discuss caveats below):

$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`0.716\pm 0.070\text{[2]}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.7}\pm 0.1\text{[44]}`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`0.26\pm 0.28\text{[2]}0.25\pm 0.6\text{[44]}`$ (25)
The first results from the asymmetric $`B`$ factories leave us in limbo:

$`\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`0.45_{0.440.09}^{+0.43+0.07}\mathrm{BELLE}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{sin2}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`0.12\pm 0.37\pm 0.09\mathrm{BaBar}`$ (27)
Nevertheless one can raise the question what we would learn from a ‘Michelson-Morley outcome’, if, say, $`|\mathrm{sin2}\varphi _1|<0.1`$ were established? Firstly, we would know that the KM ansatz would be ruled out as a major player in $`K_L\pi \pi `$ – there would be no plausible deniability! Secondly, one would have to raise the basic question why the CKM phase is so suppressed, unless there is a finely tuned cancellation between KM and New Physics forces in $`B\psi K_S`$; this would shift then the CP asymmetry in $`B\pi \pi ,\pi \rho `$.

## 4 Probing for New Physics

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1,2`$ dynamics have provided several examples of revealing the intervention of features that represented New Physics at that time; it thus has been instrumental in the evolution of the SM. This happened through the observation of ‘qualitative’ discrepencies; i.e., rates that were expected to vanish did not, or rates were found to be smaller than expected by several orders of magnitude. Such an indirect search for New Physics can be characterised as a ‘King Kong’ scenario: one might be unlikely to encounter King Kong; yet once it happens there can be no doubt that one has come across someting out of the ordinary. Such a situation can be realized for charm and $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays and EDMs.

### 4.1 $`D^0`$ Oscillations & CP Violation

It is often stated that $`D^0`$ oscillations are slow and CP asymmetries tiny within the SM and that therefore their analysis provides us with zero-background searches for New Physics.

Oscillations are described by the normalized mass and width differences: $`x_D\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_D}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_D}`$, $`y_D\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_D}`$. A conservative SM estimate yields $`x_D`$, $`y_D`$ $`𝒪(0.01)`$. Stronger bounds have appeared in the literature, namely that the OPE contributions are completely insignificant and that long distance contributions beyond the OPE provide the dominant effects yielding $`x_D^{SM}`$, $`y_D^{SM}`$ $`𝒪(10^410^3)`$. A recent detailed analysis  revealed that a proper OPE treatment reproduces also such long distance contributions with

$$x_D^{SM}|_{OPE},y_D^{SM}|_{OPE}𝒪(10^3)$$
(28)
and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is generated from on-shell contributions, is – in contrast to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ – insensitive to New Physics while on the other hand more susceptible to violations of QHDu.

Four experiments have reported new data on $`y_D`$ :

$`y_D=(0.8\pm 2.9\pm 1.0)\%\mathrm{E791}`$ , $`(3.42\pm 1.39\pm 0.74)\%\mathrm{FOCUS}`$ (29)
$`y_D=(1.0_{3.52.1}^{+3.8+1.1})\%\mathrm{BELLE}`$ , $`y_D^{}=(2.5_{1.6}^{+1.4}\pm 0.3)\%\mathrm{CLEO}`$ (30)
E 791 and FOCUS compare the lifetimes for two different channels, whereas CLEO fits a general lifetime evolution to $`D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}`$; its $`y_D^{}`$ depends on the strong rescattering phase between $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and therefore could differ substantially from $`y_D`$ – even in sign  – if that phase were sufficiently large. The FOCUS data contain a suggestion that the lifetime difference in the $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ complex might be as large as $`𝒪(1\%)`$. If $`y_D`$ indeed were $`0.01`$, two scenarios could arise for the mass difference. If $`x_D\mathrm{few}\times 10^3`$ were found, one would infer that the $`1/m_c`$ expansion yields a correct semiquantitative result while blaming the large value for $`y_D`$ on a sizeable and not totally surprising violation of QHDu. If on the other hand $`x_D0.01`$ would emerge, we would face a theoretical conundrum: an interpretation ascribing this to New Physics would hardly be convincing since $`x_Dy_D`$. A more sober interpretation would be to blame it on QHDu violation or on the $`1/m_c`$ expansion being numerically unreliable. Observing $`D^0`$ oscillations then would not constitute a ‘King Kong’ scenario.

Searching for direct CP violation in Cabibbo suppressed $`D`$ decays as a sign for New Physics would also represent a very complex challenge: within the KM description one expects to find some asymmetries of order 0.1 %; yet it would be hard to conclusively rule out some more or less accidental enhancement due to a resonance etc. raising an asymmetry to the 1% level.

The only clean environment is provided by CP violation involving $`D^0`$ oscillations, like in $`D^0(t)K^+K^{}`$ and/or $`D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}`$. For the asymmetry would depend on the product sin$`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Dt)\mathrm{Im}[T(\overline{D}f)/T(D\overline{f})]`$: with both factors being $`𝒪(10^3)`$ in the SM one predicts a practically zero effect.

### 4.2 $`P_{}(\mu )`$ in $`K^+\mu ^+\pi ^0\nu `$

The muon polarization transverse to the decay plane in $`K^+\mu ^+\pi ^0\nu `$ represents a T-odd correlation $`P_{}(\mu )=\stackrel{}{s}(\mu )(\stackrel{}{p}(\mu )\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi ))/|\stackrel{}{p}(\mu )\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi )|`$, which in this case could not be faked realistically by final-state interactions and would reveal genuine T violation. With $`P_{}(\mu )10^6`$ in the SM, it would also reveal New Physics that has to involve chirality breaking weak couplings: $`P_{}(\mu )\mathrm{Im}\xi `$, where $`\xi f_{}/f_+`$ with $`f_{}[f_+]`$ denoting the chirality violating \[conserving\] decay amplitude. There are ‘ancient’ data yielding

$$\mathrm{Im}\xi =0.01\pm 0.019P_{}(\mu )=(1.85\pm 3.6)10^3$$
(31)
A new preliminary result from the ongoing experiment was reported here:

$$\mathrm{Im}\xi =0.013\pm 0.016\pm 0.003.$$
(32)
### 4.3 EDM’s

Electric dipole moments $`d`$ of non-degenerate systems represent direct evidence for T violation. The present bounds read:

$`d_{neutron}`$ $`<`$ $`9.710^{26}ecm`$ (33)
$`d_{electron}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.3\pm 0.8)10^{26}ecm`$ (34)
With the KM scheme predicting unobservably tiny effects (with the only exception being the ‘strong CP’ problem), and many New Physics scenarios yielding $`d_{neutron}`$, $`d_{electron}`$ $`10^{27}`$ ecm, this is truly a promising zero background search for New Physics!

### 4.4 KM Trigonometry

There certainly exists the potential for a ‘qualitative’ discrepancy in the CP asymmetries for $`B`$ decays. The cleanest case is given by the CP asymmetry in $`B_s(t)\psi \eta `$ or $`B_s(t)\psi \varphi `$, which is Cabibbo suppressed  and thus below 4% due to three-family unitarity.

Yet otherwise the situation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1,2`$ is more complex meaning it provides more opportunites, yet also more challenges. For one will be looking for quantitative discrepancies between predictions and the data that cannot amount to orders of magnitude.

With three families there are actually six unitarity triangles. They contain three types of angles:

1. Angles of order unity like $`\varphi _{1,2,3}`$; they differ from each other in order $`\lambda ^2`$.
2. Angles that themselves are of order $`\lambda ^2`$; the most accessible representative is an angle in the $`bs`$ triangle often referred to as $`\chi `$:

$$\chi =\varphi _1^{bs}=\pi +\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}}{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}\right)\lambda ^2\eta $$
(35)
which controls the aforementioned asymmetry in $`B_s(t)\psi \varphi ,\psi \eta `$ .
3. Angles $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$, the least unaccessible one being in the $`cu`$ triangle often referred to as $`\chi ^{}`$

$$\chi ^{}=\varphi _3^{cu}=\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{ud}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{us}^{}V_{cs}}\right)\lambda ^4A^2\eta ;$$
(36)
it controls CP asymmetries in $`D`$ decays .

A comprehensive program will have to undertake three steps:

* measure the large angles $`\varphi _{1,2,3}`$ (and their ‘cousins’) and check their correlations with the sides of the triangle;
* check whether the small \[tiny\] angle $`\chi `$ \[$`\chi ^{}`$\] is indeed small \[tiny\];
* attempt to measure the $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ differences between $`\varphi _{1,2,3}`$ and their cousins.

All of these represent searches for New Physics with in particular the last item probing features of such New Physics beyond its ‘mere’ existence.

With many of the SM effects being large or at least sizeable, one is looking for deviations from expectations that are mostly of order unity. A typical scenario would be that an asymmetry of, say, 40 % is expected, yet 80% is observed; how confident could we be in claiming New Physics? What about 40% vs. 60% or even 50%? The situation is thus qualitatively different from $`K`$ decays where original expectations and data differed by orders of magnitude! Therefore we have to be very conscious of three scourges: (i) Systematic experimental uncertainties; (ii) experiments could be wrong – an issue addressed by the ‘combiner’ program ; (iii) theoretical uncertainties!

### 4.5 On Theoretical Uncertainties

While considerable experience and awareness exists concerning the quantitative aspects of experimental shortcomings, this is not so with respect to theoretical uncertainties. My understanding behind quoting the latter is the following: ”I would be very surprised if the true value would fall outside the stated range.” Such a statement is obviously hard to quantify.

An extensive literature on how to evaluate them has emerged over the last two years in particular (see, for example, ). It seems to me that the passion of the debate has overshadowed the fact that a lot of learning has happened. For example it is increasingly understood that any value within a stated range has to be viewed as equally likely. While concerns are legitimate that some actors might be overly aggressive in stating constraints on the KM triangle, it would be unfair to characterize them as silly. I also view it as counterproductive to bless one approach while anathematizing all others ‘ex cathedra’. I believe many different paths should be pursued since ”good decisions come from experience that often is learnt from bad decisions”.

Our most powerful weapon for controlling theoretical uncertainties will again be overdetermining basic quantities by extracting their values from more than one independant measurement. In this respect the situation is actually more favourable in $`B`$ than in $`K`$ decays since there are fewer free parameters relative to the number of available decay modes. Once the investment has been made to collect the huge number of decays required to obtain a sufficient number of the transitions of primary interest – say $`B_d\psi K_S(l^+l^{})_\psi (\pi ^+\pi ^{})_{K_S}`$ – then we have also a slew of many other channels that can act as cross checks or provide us with information about hadronization effects etc. Finally one should clearly distinguish the goal one has in mind: does one want to state the most likely expectation – or does one want to infer the presence of New Physics from a discrepancy between expectations and data? The latter goal is of course much more ambitious where for once being conservative is a virtue!

### 4.6 Looking into the Crystal Ball

I expect various large CP asymmetries to be found in $`B`$ decays – including direct CP violation – over the next 15 years that agree with the KM expectations to first order, yet exhibit smallish, though definite deviations thus revealing the intervention of New Physics. However it is conceivable that the whole future beauty phenomenology can be accommodated in the CKM ansatz. Would that mean our efforts will have been wasted?

My answer is an emphatic no! The pattern in the Yukawa couplings often referred to as ‘textures’ is presumably determined by very high scale dynamics. They provide the seeds for the quark mass matrix arising when Higgs fields develop vacuum expectation values at much lower scales. The quark mass matrix yields the quark masses and the CKM angles and phase. My conjecture is that such textures follow a simple pattern yielding ‘special’ CKM parameters. From the observed values of CKM quantities one can thus infer information on the dynamics at very high scales.

Yet what is a manifestly simple pattern at very high energies will look quite different at the electroweak scales that can be probed: renormalization will tend to wash out striking features. This again calls for precise extractions of these fundamental parameters.

## 5 Conclusions & Outlook

We have reached an exciting and even decisive phase in flavour dynamics.

* Since the phenomenological success of the CKM description is a priori quite surprising, it must contain a deep, albeit hidden message.
* New (sub)paradigms have been established or are about to be established: direct CP violation has been found, intriguing hints for the first CP asymmetry outside $`K_L`$ decays have emerged and the CKM predictions for CP violation in $`B`$ decays are about to be tested. These represent high sensitivity probes of dynamics and contain many possible portals to New Physics.
* Basic quantities have become known with good accuracy and the promise for even more: the beauty quark mass is known to within about 1.5 % – the most precise quark mass; the top mass is known to within 3% \[10 %\] due to direct observation \[radiative corrections\]; $`|V_{cb}|`$ has been extracted with about 5 % or so accuracy with a reduction down to $`2`$ % appearing feasible; the error on $`|V_{ub}|`$ of presently about 40 % should be reduced to the 10% level with 5% not appearing to be impossible in the long run; for $`|V_{td}|`$ with its present uncertainty $`60`$ % a reduction down to 10 % again might not be impossible. Thus $`B`$ physics will develop into a high precision probe for New Pghysics as well.
* These developments have been made possible by practical theoretical technologies having been greatly improved: there has been increasing sophistication in treating semileptonic and radiative $`B`$ decays; a new frontier has emerged in treating exclusive nonleptonic $`B`$ decays with intriguing classification schemes truly based on QCD that might allow us to calculate these transitions in the real world.
* Theoretical uncertainties constitute mostly systematic uncertainties with hidden correlations. They can reliably be evaluated only through overconstraints. Prior to that they should be considered preliminary; in that context I would like to appeal to the community to accord us theorists the same professional courtesies that is granted to experimental analyses.
* To make good use of such developments we need experimental programs that allow precise measurements in a comprehensive way rather than just one or two precise ones. It will be an exciting adventure to find out how far such a program can be pushed. In this context I applaud the managements of CERN and FNAL for their wisdom in approving LHC-b and BTeV.
* There are other areas that might well contain portals to New Physics: dedicated searches for CP violation in charm decays, EDMs and transverse muon polarization in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays are an absolute must since any improvement in experimental sensitivity might reveal an effect. This is even more so in light of recent efforts to explain baryogenesis as being driven by leptogenesis in the Universe.
* We have heard of mounting evidence for neutrino oscillations, which require neutrino masses to be nondegenerate implying lepton flavour eigenstates to differ from lepton mass eigenstates; the saw-see mechanism provides an attractive framework for explaining the smallness of neutrino masses. There are intriguing connections between the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and between the solar neutrino anomaly and $`\mu e\gamma `$ in the context of SUSY GUTs .

In future meeting there will be detailed discussions of the lepton analogue to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata  matrix indicating that leptons after all are ‘exactly like quarks – only different!’.

Acknowledgements

The organizers deserve thanks for their smooth organization of this conference in the lively city of Osaka. I have benefitted from discussions with A. Golutvin, M. Beneke and A. Sanda. This work has been supported by the NSF under the grant PHY 96-05080.


format: text

text:
# Spontaneous breaking of axial symmetry for Schrödinger’s equation in the presence of a magnetic field

\[

## Abstract

For appropriate parameters, the ground state for the Schrödinger and Ampère coupled equations in a cylindric domain does not have axial symmetry.

\]

Symmetry breaking — a situation in which the solution of a problem has lower symmetry than the problem itself — is usually a room for interesting physics (e.g. ). It is therefore gratifying to note that symmetry breaking is found in one of the most common problems we encounter: that of a condensate of particles interacting with a magnetic field, in a time independent state.

Our model is as follows. We define a “thermodynamic potential” density

$$g=|\times 𝐀_\mathrm{i}|^2+|(i𝐀_\mathrm{i}br\widehat{\theta })\psi |^2,$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ is a wave function, $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ the magnetic potential induced by $`\psi `$, $`b`$ is the external magnetic field, which is taken as uniform, and $`r,\theta `$ are cylindrical coordinates, with the $`z`$-axis parallel to the field. $`b`$ and $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ are normalized so that no coefficients are required in (1). The sample in which electrical currents can exist will be an infinitely long cylinder, and therefore $`\times 𝐀_\mathrm{i}=0`$ outside of the sample. The first term in (1) gives the contribution of the magnetic field to the thermodynamic potential, subject to the constraint of a fixed external field; the second term may be associated to the kinetic energy and provides for the interaction between the magnetic field and the particles described by $`\psi `$. Our model has 2 fixed parameters: $`b`$ and the average density of particles, which is defined by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\pi }|\psi |^2𝑑S,$$
(2)
where $`𝑑S`$ denotes the integral over the cross section of the cylindrical sample; this cross section will be taken as a disk and its radius as the unit of length. (If the radius is denoted by $`R`$, $`\psi `$ and $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ scale as $`R^1`$, $`b`$ and $`\mu `$ as $`R^2`$, and $`\rho `$ as $`R^0`$.)

Our problem is to find the fields $`\psi `$ and $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ which minimize the thermodynamic potential $`g𝑑S`$ for given $`b`$ and $`\rho `$. For this purpose we minimize $`(g\mu |\psi |^2)𝑑S`$, where $`\mu `$ is a Lagrange multiplier. Variation of $`\psi `$ gives

$$(i𝐀_\mathrm{i}br\widehat{\theta })^2\psi =\mu \psi ,$$
(3)
which is the usual time independent equation for a charged particle in a magnetic field. Here, instead of a single particle we consider a “condensate”; by this we mean that instead of a single particle there are $`\rho `$ particles per unit volume, but they don’t interact among themselves and they are all in the same state. The condensate obeys the same equation as a single particle, but its current and magnetic influence will be proportional to $`\rho `$. In the limit $`\rho 0`$, the thermodynamic potential approaches $`\pi \mu \rho `$ and Eq. (3) reduces to the Landau problem .

Variation of $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ gives

$$\times \times 𝐀_\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{R}e[\overline{\psi }(i𝐀_\mathrm{i}br\widehat{\theta })\psi ],$$
(4)
where the bar denotes complex conjugation. This is just Ampère’s law. If $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ (resp. $`\psi `$) is fixed, then Eq. (3) (resp. (4)) is linear, but the system of both equations is nonlinear due to their mutual interaction. We choose a gauge such that $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ is parallel to $`\widehat{\theta }`$. The boundary condition for $`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ is continuity of $`\times 𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$. For $`\psi `$ we will take the natural condition that its normal derivative vanishes at the boundary.

There are solutions of the system (3)-(4) with the axial symmetry of the problem. These have the form

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`_m(r)e^{mi\theta },`$ (5)
$`𝐀_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_m(r)\widehat{\theta },`$ (6)
where $`m`$ is an integer. For this form, (3)-(4) reduces to a system of ordinary differential equations. The value of $`m`$ has to be chosen such that the minimum value of the thermodynamic potential is obtained. This value of $`m`$ is an increasing function of $`b`$. Due to continuity, $`\psi `$ has to vanish along the axis of the sample for $`m0`$.

We now ask whether there exist situations such that the minimizer of $`g𝑑S`$ is not in the family (6). In the following, we will no longer consider $`\rho `$ and $`b`$ as independent parameters, but will focus on the value of the magnetic field for which the lowest value of $`g𝑑S`$ among the solutions in the family (6) is shared by the winding numbers $`m=0`$ and $`m=1`$. For $`\rho 10`$, it is found numerically that this approximately occurs at $`b=1.924+0.171\rho +0.00104\rho ^20.000036\rho ^3`$. We solve the problem in two stages: in the first stage we perform a variation in which $`\psi `$ has the form $`p+qr(1r/2)e^{i\theta }`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{i}\theta }=a_0(r2r^2/3)+a_1(r^23r^3/4)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. This variation can be performed analytically, enabling us to obtain a qualitative picture of the minima and saddle points of $`g𝑑S`$. After we know what to look for, the system (3)-(4) is solved numerically.

Besides the symmetric solutions with $`m=0`$ or $`m=1`$, we always find a nonsymmetric solution, but this has a higher value of $`g𝑑S`$. (By “a solution”, we mean a class of equivalent solutions.) However, for $`\rho \mathrm{}>2.7`$, a bifurcation occurs from the symmetric solution with $`m=1`$. This bifurcation is characterized by a migration of the nodal line away from the axis of the sample (Fig. 1). This behavior reminds of a transition numerically found for mesoscopic superconducting disks , except that in the present situation there is a single nodal line.

We find that this nonsymmetric solution has lower thermodynamical potential than any couple of fields in the family (6) (Fig. 2). This means that the minimizer of $`g𝑑S`$ is not in the symmetric family (6), thus giving rise to symmetry breaking.

One might suspect that the solutions of (3)-(4) we have found are not those with the lowest thermodynamical potential. This is unlikely. For $`\rho 0`$, our symmetric solutions approach well known analytic results; for $`\rho =10`$ we have solved (3)-(4) for initial symmetric configurations in a broad range, and none of the trials lead to a lower potential. We might have missed a non-symmetric solution with lower potential, but this possibility would only strengthen our conclusion that axial symmetry is broken.


text:
# Magnetotunneling in a Two-Dimensional Electron-Hole System Near Equilibrium

## Abstract

We have measured the zero-bias differential tunneling conductance of InAs/AlSb/GaSb/AlSb/InAs heterostructures at low temperatures (1.7 K $`<`$ T $`<`$ 60 K) and under a magnetic field at various angles with the heterostructure’s interfaces. Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations in the magnetoconductance reveal the two-dimensional (2D) character of the electrons accumulated at the InAs interfaces and yield their number in each of them. The temperature dependence of the oscillations suggests the formation of a field-induced energy gap at the Fermi level, similar to that observed before in simpler 2D-2D tunneling systems. A calculation of the magnetoconductance that considers different 2D densities in the two InAs electrodes agrees with the main observations, but fails to explain features that might be related to the presence of 2D holes in the GaSb region.

Heterostructures based on the InAs-AlSb-GaSb system are at the heart of low-dimensionality interband tunneling diodes. This system is also attractive from the point of view of basic physics because the unusual ordering of the InAs and GaSb energy bands allows to study the tunneling properties of combined two-dimensional electron and hole gases (2DEG and 2DHG, respectively).

Two alternative arrangements are usually considered: GaSb/AlSb/InAs/AlSb/GaSb (type A) and InAs/AlSb/GaSb/AlSb/InAs (type B), in both of which electrons and holes accumulate at the InAs and GaSb interfaces, respectively. In type A, when the InAs layer is thin, a quasi-square InAs quantum well (QW) for electrons is created between AlSb barriers, and GaSb electrodes behave as sources of holes. In type B, a thin GaSb central layer forms a quasi-square QW for holes, whereas the InAs end layers act as electron sources. In either combination, when a voltage (V) is applied between the electrodes, negative differential resistance (NDR) appears when the bandgap of GaSb starts blocking the tunneling of electrons from the conduction band of InAs into adjacent layers.

Until now, the emphasis has been on the study of the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics, often in connection with the materials properties of the heterostructures or with the details of their band structure.  The wealth of information available on the InAs-AlSb-GaSb system under an external bias constrasts with the limited knowledge about the details of the tunneling mechanism when the system is in quasi-equilibrium, that is, in the zero-voltage limit. Since carriers accumulate in quasi-triangular wells at the interfaces, the fact that tunneling ideally occurs between quantized 2D states at the electrodes should be reflected in the conductance behavior.  Moreover, since in both types of heterostructures vertical transport involves confined valence band states (holes in GaSb) and conduction band states (electrons in InAs), one could envision tunneling taking place via a 2DH(E)G $``$ 2DE(H)G $``$ 2DH(E)G mechanism, with its own signature.

The 2D nature of the electronic states at the central region, whether it is InAs or GaSb, is unquestioned, but the small confinement energy at the electrodes in type A heterostructures reduces (if not eliminates altogether) the 2D character of the holes.  In type B structures, however, electrons in the quasi-triangular accumulation layers at the InAs electrodes are much more confined, and in a magnetic field their cyclotron energy is large enough to yield a distinct zero-dimensionality Landau-level spectrum. These properties make InAs-GaSb-InAs based heterojunctions suitable to explore 2DEG $``$ 2DHG $``$ 2DEG tunneling, which is the objective of this work.

We have measured the zero-bias differential magnetoconductance (G) of InAs/AlSb/GaSb/AlSb/InAs heterostructures grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on $`p^+`$ GaSb substrates. The thickness of the undoped GaSb layer was 60 Å and that of each AlSb barrier was 34 Å. Each electrode consisted of an 800 Å thick undoped InAs region (residual $`n^{}`$ type doping estimated to be 1 to $`3\times 10^{17}cm^3`$) adjacent to AlSb, followed by a thick (3000 Å near the surface, 1 $`\mu m`$ next to the substrate) $`n^+`$ InAs ($`N_d`$ = $`2\times 10^{18}cm^3`$) layer.

Figure 1 shows the potential energy profile of the heterostructure along the growth direction, $`z`$. The overlap between the top of the GaSb valence band and the bottom of the InAs conduction band produces a self-limiting transfer of electrons from GaSb to InAs. As a result, an accumulation layer is formed at each InAs/AlSb interface and holes are left behind in the GaSb quantum well. Ideally the total number of holes is twice that of electrons per interface. The number of transferred electrons increases with increasing overlap energy and with decreasing barrier thickness. In the figure, $`E_0`$ indicates the ground-state energy for 2D electrons, $`E_F`$ is the Fermi level of the system, and $`H_0`$ represents the heavy-hole ground-state energy of the GaSb quantum well. The energy values have been calculated by solving Poisson and Schrödinger equations self-consistently.

The best evidence for the presence of holes in the central well is the observation (even at room temperature) of NDR features in the I-V characteristics.  As the voltage between electrodes is increased, electrons from the emitter tunnel to the collector through the two barriers via the small energy window defined by $`E_F`$ and $`H_0`$. The tunneling process continues until the voltage is such that $`H_0`$ is below the emitter’s $`E_0`$ level, at which point the tunnel current ceases and NDR appears. The shape of the I-V curves and the current-onset voltage depend on whether the in-plane momentum, $`k_{}`$, is conserved in the tunneling process. A detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between 2DEG $``$ 2DEG and 2DEG $``$ 2DHG is postponed for a future publication. However, it is important to mention now that, in sharp contrast with the former case, tunelling of momentum-conserving 2D electrons into 2D hole states is possible for all voltages in the range between the threshold (which depends on the difference between the number of 2D electrons and holes) and NDR voltages.

We focus here on the quasi-equilibrium conductance, that is, the slope of the I-V characteristics in the V $``$ 0 limit. The measurements were done at low temperature (1.7 K $`<`$ T $`<`$ 60 K) by applying a small ac modulation voltage (200 $`\mu V`$) between the electrodes of mesa-defined diodes with dimensions of 100 $`\mu m`$ $`\times `$ 100 $`\mu m`$, and a magnetic field B, up to 11 T, forming an angle $`\phi `$ with the plane of the interfaces.

In Fig. 2(a) we show G(B) for $`\phi `$ = $`90^o`$ up to B = 11 T. The oscillations in G(B), discernible even below 0.5T, exhibit the characteristic $`B^1`$ periodicity of Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations. They resemble those previously observed in similar measurements on type A heterostructures, which were explained in terms of the Landau levels formed in the InAs quantum well.  However, there are some notable differences between the oscillations observed in both types of heterostructures. While at low magnetic fields (B $`<`$ 1 T) the amplitude of the oscillations in type A increases monotonically with increasing field, that of the oscillations in Fig. 2(a) is modulated in a way similar to that observable in a two-subband system. Besides, a second set of oscillations is apparent in Fig. 2(a) at intermediate fields (1 T $`<`$ B $`<`$ 4 T), quite different from the spin-splitting doublets that appear at larger fields in type A. Finally, the oscillations in Fig. 2(a) have an unusual shape at high B (B $`>`$ 4 T).

The temperature and angular dependence of the low-field oscillations in Fig. 2(a) have elucidated their origin. The temperature dependence of the oscillations’ amplitudes (see Fig. 3) yields effective mass values between 0.025-0.028 $`m_0`$ ($`m_0`$ is the free-electron mass). The angular dependence reveals that the positions of the oscillations extrema are determined not by the total magnetic field but by its perpendicular component $`B_{}`$, thus proving the 2D character of the charges involved in magnetotunneling. The low-field amplitude modulation and the doublets at intermediate fields indicate two different Landau-level ladders, each of them with its own $`B^1`$ periodicity and associated 2D carrier density. From the periods of the two oscillations, a simple estimate yields $`N_1`$ = $`5.13\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ and $`N_2`$ = $`5.07\times 10^{11}cm^2`$.

These results are consistent with the magneto-conductance oscillations being due to tunneling between Landau levels of the 2D electron gases formed at the InAs electrodes. In this picture $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ represent the 2D electron densities of those electrodes; the small difference between the two indicates that the two interfaces are almost identical and, therefore, that the subband energies, $`E_{01}`$ and $`E_{02}`$, are almost the same. Instead, it would be possible to interpret $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ as the carrier densities of two electron subbands of the same electrode, let us say the emitter. But if this were the case, the two densities should be quite different; indeed, our self-consistent calculations indicate that a second subband would be only marginally occupied.

The above picture—2D electrons tunneling from occupied Landau levels in the emitter to equivalent empty states in the collector—is supported by the agreement found between the experimental results of Fig. 2(a) and the calculated tunneling magnetoconductance shown in Fig. 2(b). The calculation is similar to that by Lyo  for the conductance between two 2D electron gases in a perpendicular field $`B_{}`$,

$$G_{zz}(B_{})g(B_{})\underset{n_1,n_2}{}\theta _{n_1,n_2}(u)^2\rho _{n_1}(\mu )\rho _{n_2}(\mu \mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(1)
where $`g(B_{})`$ = $`eB_{}/\pi \mathrm{}`$ is the Landau-level degeneracy; $`\theta _{n_1,n_2}(u)`$ is an “overlap” function between Landau levels $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ of the electrodes, which, if the Landau-level index is conserved, is 1 when $`n_1`$ = $`n_2`$ and zero otherwise; $`\rho _{n_i}`$ is the density of states (DOS) for the Landau level of index $`n_i`$; and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the difference between the subband energies of the two electrodes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = $`|E_{01}E_{02}|`$). We have used the approximation that only Landau levels at the Fermi energy $`\mu `$ contribute significantly to $`G_{zz}(B_{})`$, thus reducing the double sum on $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ to $`n_1`$ = $`n_{1F}`$ and $`n_2`$ = $`n_{2F}`$. We have also assumed that the value of the overlap function is 1 because since the carrier densities in the two InAs layers are almost the same, in practice, at the Fermi energy the indices of the Landau levels of the two electrodes are the same. For the DOS we have used a Gaussian distribution,

$$\rho _n(\mu )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }}exp\left[\frac{(\mu \epsilon _n)^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right],$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon _n`$ = $`\mathrm{}\omega _c(n+1/2)`$ is the energy of the n Landau level and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the level damping (or broadening), given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = $`0.5\eta \mathrm{}\omega _c/B_{}^{1/2}`$ ($`\eta `$ is a sample-dependent parameter). The Fermi energy, which depends on magnetic field, was determined from the condition that the total number of carriers, $`2N_0`$ = $`N_1`$ \+ $`N_2`$, be constant:

$$2N_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}D^{2D}(E)f(E,\mu ,T)𝑑E,$$
(3)
where $`f(E,\mu ,T)`$ is the Fermi distribution function, and $`D^{2D}(E)`$ is the total density of states, which includes the DOS of each accumulation layer. Since the experimental results used for comparison were obtained at 1.7 K, in calculating $`\mu `$ from Eq. (3) we assumed that T = 0 K.

As seen in Fig. 2(b), this simple model reproduces well the peak positions throughout the entire field range. Our intention has not been to find systematically a “best” set of parameters but rather to illustrate how a set of reasonable values can explain the observed magnetoconductance oscillations. The following set has been used in the calculation of Fig. 2(b): 0.027 $`m_0`$ for the electron effective mass, $`\eta `$ = 0.8 $`T^{1/2}`$ for the parameter related with the broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`N_0`$ = $`5.7\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 4 meV for the missalignement between the two energy subbands, $`E_{01}`$ and $`E_{02}`$. The value used for the effective mass is consistent with that determined from the temperature dependence of the low-field Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations. The subband energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is less than 10% of any of the two energies; in other words, the difference between $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ is quite small when compared to the average density in each electrode. The values of this difference and of the sum ($`2N_0`$), although somewhat larger than those estimated from the Shubnikov-de Haas periods, were chosen so that the calculated G(B) “fitted” well the experimental G(B) for the entire magnetic-field range. The small discrepancy may be due to our assumption that $`N_0`$ is independent of B, an assumption that is especially questionable at high fields, given the physical origin of the 2D electrons (the transfer from the GaSb central well).

The different carrier densities of the two (nominally identical) accumulation layers suggest an asymmetry in the two AlSb barriers, a fact confirmed by the asymmetry observed between the two polarities of the diodes’ I-V characteristics. If one barrier were thicker or higher than the other, then the intrinsic transfer of electrons from GaSb to each InAs interface would be different. In practice, barrier asymmetry can happen for a number of reasons; for instance, Ga segregation during the epitaxial growth of the heterostructures would lead to an Ga-rich AlGaSb layer, which has a smaller bandgap than AlSb and would present a smaller tunneling barrier. This segregation process is known to be the more significant the higher the substrate temperature.  Since our heterostructures were prepared at 500 $`{}_{}{}^{o}C`$—a relatively high temperature for these materials—it would not be surprising that the barrier asymmetry is caused by that mechanism.

In spite of the overall good agreement between the experiment and the calculation, at high magnetic fields the measured conductance behaves in a way for which the model cannot account. In Fig. 2(a) there are three peaks (marked by “A”, “B”, and “C”) that do not have a counterpart in Fig. 2(b). Although the fact that they were clearly resolved only at the lowest temperatures (see Fig. 3) might suggest spin splitting effects, the inclusion of spin in the calculation (not shown in Fig. 2(b)) failed to explain both the number of peaks and the fields at which they occur.

The temperature dependence of the broader Shubnikov -de Haas oscillations underlying peaks A, B, and C also warrants a comment. As T increases, the amplitude of the oscillations increases a bit before it decreases at high temperatures (see Fig. 3), suggesting a thermally activated behavior followed by the usual T-induced weakening of quantum effects, when $`k_BT`$ becomes comparable to the cyclotron energy and the scattering time is comparable to the cyclotron time. Although the low-temperature range investigated here is too limited to draw any conclusion, it is quite possible that the activated behavior is a consequence of the fomation of a field-induced energy gap at the Fermi level. Such a gap has been proposed to explain a similar temperature dependence of the 2DEG $``$ 2DEG conductance in GaAs-GaAlAs heterostructures.  Calculations have shown that the gap appears as a result of the additional energy cost required to extract an electron from the emitter Fermi sea (creating a “vacancy”) and to inject it into the collector one (creating an “interstitial”) when many-body effects (for example, Coulomb interactions) become sizeable.

The quasi-equilibrium magnetoconductance experiments presented here show unambiguously the participation of 2D electrons in the 2DEG $``$ 2DHG $``$ 2DEG tunneling process, but do not reveal the role of the 2D holes in it. Whether the unaccounted low-temperature peaks (A, B and C) are evidence of the holes we do not know. However, it is worth pointing that, based on their shape and the temperature range in which they are most visible, those peaks resemble the features found in the in-plane magnetoresistance of InAs-GaSb heterostructures in which 2D electrons and holes coexist.  Although these features remain unexplained, their connection with 2D holes is well established, since they disappear when the 2D holes are eliminated by the application of hydrostatic pressure.  It is then reasonable to imagine that the extra peaks in Fig. 3 are somehow related to the quantized holes in the GaSb quantum well, but more work, both theoretical and experimental, is needed to set this possible correspondence on a firmer ground.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dr. A. Sacedon for her participation in the early stages of this work, Dr.W. I. Wang for contributing the heterostructures used in it, and Dr. Aleiner for useful discussions. The support of the US Army Research Office and of a NATO postdoctoral fellowship (to E. M. G.) have made this work possible.


text:
# 𝐽/𝜓 suppression: gluonic dissociation vs. colour screening

## Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Dipali Pal for collaboration during the early phases of this work and Prof. Helmut Satz for useful comments. We also thank Prof. Joseph Kapusta for useful correspondence.


text:
# Quantum chaos and chiral symmetry at the QCD and QED phase transition

## 1 Quantum chaos

The eigenvalues of the Dirac operator are of great interest for the universality of important features of QCD and QED. On the one hand, the accumulation of small eigenvalues is, via the Banks-Casher formula , related to the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. On the other hand, the fluctuation properties of the eigenvalues in the bulk of the spectrum can be described by random matrix theory (RMT), see Ref. . For example, the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution $`P(s)`$, i.e., the distribution of spacings $`s`$ between adjacent eigenvalues on the unfolded scale, agrees with the Wigner surmise of RMT. According to the Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit conjecture , quantum systems whose classical counterparts are chaotic  have a nearest-neighbor spacing distribution given by RMT whereas systems whose classical counterparts are integrable obey a Poisson distribution, $`P_\mathrm{P}(s)=e^s`$. Therefore, the specific form of $`P(s)`$ is often taken as a criterion for the presence or absence of “quantum chaos”.

In RMT, one has to distinguish several universality classes which are determined by the symmetries of the system. For the case of the QCD Dirac operator, this classification was done in Ref. . Depending on the number of colors and the representation of the quarks, the Dirac operator is described by one of the three chiral ensembles of RMT. As far as the fluctuation properties in the bulk of the spectrum are concerned, the predictions of the chiral ensembles are identical to those of the ordinary ensembles . In Ref. , the Dirac matrix was studied for color-SU(2) using both staggered and Wilson fermions which correspond to the chiral symplectic (chSE) and orthogonal (chOE) ensemble, respectively. Here , we study SU(3) with staggered fermions which corresponds to the chiral unitary ensemble (chUE). The RMT result for the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution can be expressed in terms of so-called prolate spheroidal functions, see Ref. . A very good approximation to $`P(s)`$ is provided by the Wigner surmise for the unitary ensemble,

$$P_\mathrm{W}(s)=\frac{32}{\pi ^2}s^2e^{4s^2/\pi }.$$
(1)
We generated gauge field configurations using the standard Wilson plaquette action for SU(3) with and without dynamical fermions in the Kogut-Susskind prescription. We have worked on a $`6^3\times 4`$ lattice with various values of the inverse gauge coupling $`\beta =6/g^2`$ both in the confinement and deconfinement phase. We typically produced 10 independent equilibrium configurations for each $`\beta `$.

The Dirac operator, $`/D=/+ig/A`$, is anti-Hermitian so that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ of $`i/D`$ are real. Because of $`\{/D,\gamma _5\}=0`$ the nonzero $`\lambda _n`$ occur in pairs of opposite sign. All spectra were checked against the analytical sum rules $`_n\lambda _n=0`$ and $`_{\lambda _n>0}\lambda _n^2=3V`$, where V is the lattice volume. To construct the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution from the eigenvalues, one first has to “unfold” the spectra .

Figure 2 compares $`P(s)`$ of full QCD with $`N_f=3`$ flavors and quark mass $`ma=0.05`$ to the RMT result. In the confinement $`(\beta =5.2)`$ as well as in the deconfinement $`(\beta =5.4)`$ phase we observe agreement with RMT up to very high $`\beta `$ (not shown). The observation that $`P(s)`$ is not influenced by the presence of dynamical quarks is expected from the results of Ref. , which apply to the case of massless quarks. Our results, and those of Ref. , indicate that massive dynamical quarks do not affect $`P(s)`$ either.

We have also investigated the staggered Dirac spectrum of 4d U(1) gauge theory which corresponds to the chUE of RMT. At $`\beta _c1.01`$ U(1) gauge theory undergoes a phase transition between a confinement phase with mass gap and monopole excitations for $`\beta <\beta _c`$ and the Coulomb phase which exhibits a massless photon for $`\beta >\beta _c`$ . As for SU(2) and SU(3) gauge groups, we expect the confined phase to be described by RMT, whereas free fermions yield the Poisson distribution. The question arose whether the Coulomb phase would be described by RMT or by the Poisson distribution . The nearest-neighbor spacing distributions for an $`8^3\times 6`$ lattice at $`\beta =0.9`$ (confined phase) and at $`\beta =1.1`$ (Coulomb phase), averaged over 20 independent configurations, are depicted in Fig. 2. Both are well described by the chUE of RMT.

No signs for a transition to Poisson regularity are found. The deconfinement phase transition does not seem to coincide with a transition in the spacing distribution. For very large values of $`\beta `$ far into the deconfinement region, the eigenvalues start to approach the degenerate eigenvalues of the free theory, given by $`\lambda ^2=_{\mu =1}^4\mathrm{sin}^2(2\pi n_\mu /L_\mu )/a^2`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice constant, $`L_\mu `$ is the number of lattice sites in the $`\mu `$-direction, and $`n_\mu =0,\mathrm{},L_\mu 1`$. In this case, the spacing distribution is neither Wigner nor Poisson. It is possible to lift the degeneracies of the free eigenvalues using an asymmetric lattice where $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$, etc. are relative primes and, for large lattices, the distribution is then Poisson, $`P_\mathrm{P}(s)=e^s`$, see Fig. 3.

## 2 Chiral symmetry

We have continued our investigations with a study of the distribution of the small eigenvalues in the whole phase diagram. The Banks-Casher formula  relates the Dirac eigenvalue density $`\rho (\lambda )`$ at $`\lambda =0`$ to the chiral condensate, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|\overline{\psi }\psi |=lim_{\epsilon 0}lim_V\mathrm{}\pi \rho (\epsilon )/V`$. The microscopic spectral density, $`\rho _s(z)=lim_V\mathrm{}\rho \left(z/V\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)/V\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ should be given by the appropriate prediction of RMT , which also generates the Leutwyler-Smilga sum rules .

We present results in Fig. 6 for SU(3) theory and the staggered Dirac operator on a $`4^4`$ lattice from 5000 configurations for $`\beta =5.4`$ and 3000 configurations for $`\beta =5.6`$ and $`\beta =5.8`$ around the critical temperature $`\beta _c5.7`$. In the confinement phase, both the microscopic spectral density $`\rho _s(z)`$ and the distribution $`P(\lambda _{\mathrm{min}})`$ of the smallest eigenvalue agree with the RMT predictions of the chUE for topological charge $`\nu =0`$ .

Our analog presentation for U(1) theory is from 10000 configurations on a $`4^4`$ lattice around the critical coupling. In the left plot of Fig. 6 a comparison with RMT for the microscopic spectral density $`\rho _s(z)`$ yields again quite satisfactory agreement in the confinement. The analytical RMT result for the (quenched) chUE and $`\nu =0`$ is given by  $`\rho _s(z)=z[J_0^2(z)+J_1^2(z)]/2`$, where $`J`$ denotes the Bessel function. The chiral condensate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be obtained by extrapolating the histogram for $`\rho (\lambda )`$ to $`\lambda =0`$ and using the Banks-Casher relation . The right plot in Fig. 6 exhibits the distribution $`P(\lambda _{\mathrm{min}})`$ of the smallest eigenvalue, being in the chirally broken phase in accordance with the prediction of the (quenched) chUE of RMT for topological charge $`\nu =0`$, $`P(\lambda _{\mathrm{min}})=(V\mathrm{\Sigma })^2(\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}/2)\mathrm{exp}((V\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda _{\mathrm{min}})^2/4)`$.

The quasi-zero modes which are responsible for the chiral condensate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ build up when we cross from the deconfinement into the confined phase. Figures 6 and 6 demonstrate that both $`\rho (\lambda )`$ and $`P(\lambda _{min})`$ plotted with varying $`\beta `$ on identical scales, respectively, can serve as an indicator for the phase transition.

In Fig. 6 we turn to a discussion of the spectrum in the quark-gluon plasma and Coulomb phase. From RMT a functional form of $`\rho (\lambda )=C(\lambda \lambda _0)^{2m+1/2}`$ is expected at the onset of the eigenvalue density . A fit to the data in the regime up to $`\lambda =1`$ yields $`m=0.081(1)`$ for the non-Abelian and $`m=0.084(1)`$ for the Abelian theory, in agreement with recent studies . This suggests that both theories correspond to universality class $`m=0`$. For this class a microscopic level density involving the Airy function can be deduced from RMT . A rescaling of our data from the $`4^4`$ lattice to this functional form is not satisfactory for both theories . The reason might be (i) that the lowest eigenvalue is still influenced by quasi-zero modes from the confinement and (ii) that already the first eigenvalues lie above an analogue of the Thouless energy. With increasing lattice size these effects should decrease. Further, we checked that the high-end of the spectrum behaves similar to the low-end and thus deviates from the results of the ordinary UE of RMT . Again the question arises whether larger lattices possess spectral edges closer to the microscopic semi-circle universality.

## 3 Conclusions

The aim of this contribution was to work out two different types of universalities inherent in quantum field theories with a covariant derivative and their interpretation in terms of RMT. The first type concerns the bulk of the spectrum of the Dirac operator. The nearest-neighbor spacing distribution $`P(s)`$ agrees with the RMT result in both the confinement and the deconfinement phase of pure gauge theory and of full QCD, except for extremely large values of $`\beta `$ where the eigenvalues are known analytically. The nearest-neighbor spacing distribution of 4d U(1) quenched lattice gauge theory is described by the chUE of RMT in both the confinement and the Coulomb phase. Even in the deconfinement phase, gauge fields retain a considerable degree of randomness, which apparently gives rise to quantum chaos in these theories.

The second type of universality concerns the low-lying spectra of the Dirac operators of both QCD and QED. In all cases considered, one finds that in the phase in which chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken the distribution $`P(\lambda _{\mathrm{min}})`$ and the microscopic spectral density $`\rho _s(z)`$ are described by chiral RMT. When chiral symmetry is restored one has to rely on ordinary RMT with the related space-time symmetries, but one finds for our lattice size only universal behavior of the macroscopic density $`\rho (\lambda )`$.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported in part by FWF project P11456-PHY. We thank B.A. Berg, M.-P. Lombardo, and T. Wettig for collaborations .