text:
# The cosmic rate of supernovae and the range of stars ending as Type Ia SNe

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of intermediate and low–mass stars in binary systems is a complex subject that has, however, enormous importance in astrophysics. Of their way to the final end, a bulk of information is available from observations on the processes undergone by binaries as they evolve, i.e. common–envelope phases, accretion, outburst.

A relevant new piece of information comes from the consideration of the number of Type Ia supernova explosions (SNeIa) that occur per unit mass spent in forming stars in different environments. So far, the exploration of the issue was restricted to nearby galaxies, where the combination of SNeIa statistics with star formation rate (SFR) history is poorly known.

The approach explored here is to take the average of star formation history in redshift space and use the information on cosmic SNeIa rate to infer how many stars in binaries from low to intermediate mass end up as SNeIa. This indirect approach started a few years ago (Ruiz–Lapuente, Burkert, & Canal 1995; Ruiz–Lapuente, Canal, & Burkert 1997; see also Madau, Della Valle, & Panagia 1998; Sadat et al. 1998; Ruiz–Lapuente & Canal 1998; Yungelson & Livio 1998, 2000; Kobayashi et al. 1998; Dahlen & Fransson 1999; Ruiz–Lapuente, Cassé, & Vangioni–Flam 2000) and it can help us to determine the nature of the progenitors of SNeIa.

We evaluate the number of SNeIa exploding per unit comoving volume, in redshift space, and relative to the mass going into forming stars in the Universe. Despite the uncertainties still involved, the last years have nevertheless brought some crucial information.

As we will see, if the efficiency of binaries in ending as SNeIa is 6% of the stars between $`39M\mathrm{}`$, no other alternative than the single degenerate scenario appears as a reasonable candidate to explain those explosions. The modeling on which that conclusion is based stands comparison with the statistics of the white dwarf (WD) pairs actually observed.

## 2 The star formation rate and the SNeIa production efficiency

In the last few years we have started to learn about the cosmic history of the star formation process, and several groups (Madau et al. 1996; Steidel et al. 1998; Hughes et al. 1998; Madau, Pozzetti, & Dickinson 1998; Blain et al. 1999) have begun to derive the global star formation rate $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$. At the same time, the first measurements of the global SNeIa rates, $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$, are being performed (Pain et al. 1996; Hardin et al. 2000; Hamilton 1999; Hamuy & Pinto 1999; Pain et al. 2000). The SNeIa rate is doubly related to the SFR: through the time delay between formation of the SNeIa progenitor systems and explosion, and through the fraction of stars (binaries in this case) that give rise to SNeIa. The comparison between $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$ thus contains key information on the nature of the so far elusive SNeIa progenitors.

The work of Madau et al. (1996), based on the UV luminosities of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field, complemented that of Lilly et al. (1995, 1996) at optical wavelengths in showing that the star formation activity steadily increases with $`z`$ from the local, present–day Universe, up to $`z1.5`$. The original claim that $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ peaks there to fall again at higher $`z`$ has later been revised, in particular on basis to data at long wavelengths that would indicate that the star formation regions at high $`z`$ are enshrouded in dust (see Hughes et al. 1998, for instance). $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ would level–off beyond $`z1.52`$, up to much higher redshifts. Observations in the submillimeter range (Blain et al. 1999), ISO measurements of the extragalactic background light (Rowan–Robinson et al. 1997; Flores et al. 1998; Elbaz et al. 1999), and the FIRAS and DIRBE experiments on board of COBE (Dwek et al. 1998; Fixsen et al. 1998), do in principle lift the veil on the star formation activity in dust–obscured regions, but there is no redshift identification of the emission detected. Measurement of the SN rates at high $`z`$ then would help to trace the star formation history. SNeIa are the most luminous ones. Thus, knowledge of the characteristic time delays between formation of their progenitor systems and explosion is most relevant.

The measurements of the cosmic evolution of the SNeIa rate now extend up to $`z0.55`$, and there are already preliminary results for $`z1.1`$. Current results are summarized in Table 1. By combining our knowledge of $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$ with that of $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$, we can now gain new insight on the nature of the SNeIa progenitor systems. We introduce for that the “efficiency” $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ of SNeIa production referred to the SFR, both per unit of comoving volume:

$$_{SNeIa}(z)=\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)yr^1Mpc^3/\dot{\rho }_{}(z)M_{}yr^1Mpc^3$$
$`(1)`$
The quantity $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ (given in the fourth column of Table 1) is thus just the number of SNeIa per unit mass spent in forming stars at a given $`z`$, and it is independent from the cosmological model assumed. This efficiency reflects the evolutionary time scale (from birth to explosion) of the progenitor systems and the range of initial conditions leading to SNeIa explosions, together with other possible evolutionary effects (such as dependence on initial metallicity). The dependence on the time scale is illustrated in Figure 1 for the two main types of progenitor systems so far proposed, and for three different $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$. The systems labelled CLS(W) have evolutionary time scales of the order of a few Gyr whereas those labelled DD have time scales of the order of a few hundred million years only. The “flat” evolution of the efficiency for the DD systems for decreasing $`z`$ is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$ closely follows $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$. Instead, $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ significantly increases towards lower $`z`$ for the CLS(W) systems because the systems now exploding are a fixed fraction of the stars formed a few Gyr ago, when $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ was higher. The flattening of $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ at larger $`z`$ corresponds to a similar flattening of the $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ considered. The absolute values of $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ reflect the abundance of progenitor systems (and thus the range of initial conditions leading to SNeIa), and they will be discussed below.

The two types of systems whose $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ is shown in Figure 1 have emerged in the last years as the main candidates to SNeIa progenitors. The DD systems are binaries made of a couple of CO WDs with a total mass exceeding the Chandrasekhar mass, and close enough to merge due to emission of gravitational waves in less than a Hubble time (Webbink 1984; Iben and Tutukov 1984). The CLS(W) systems consist of a CO WD plus a subgiant or red–giant companion that is overfilling its Roche lobe and transferring matter from its envelope to the WD (cataclysmic–like system or Algol–type binary that might be observed as a supersoft X–ray source). This scenario was originally proposed by Whelan & Iben (1973) and recently refined by Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto (1996), who introduce the effects of a strong wind emitted by the accreting WD to stabilize mass transfer. That would allow the WD to reach the Chandrasekhar mass by steadily burning H into He and then He into CO (see also Nomoto, Iwamoto, & Kishimoto 1997). General discussions of the possible SNeIa progenitor systems can be found in Ruiz–Lapuente, Canal, & Burkert (1997).

The $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ values in Table 1 are based on $`\dot{\rho }_{}=2.01_{0.18}^{+0.18}\times 10^2h_{65}M_{}Mpc^3yr^1`$ (Gronwall 1999) for the local SFR. For higher $`z`$, we give the average of the values calculated for each of the three different $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ referred to in Figure 1. The low–redshift efficiencies correspond to 1 SNeIa per $`900M_{}`$ going into star formation. As we see, $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ is of the same order up to $`z0.55`$. Ongoing searches will soon yield the efficiency at $`z1`$. If we assume that all stars with initial masses $`M\stackrel{>}{}10M_{}`$ produce SNeII + SNeIb/c (gravitational–collapse SN), then $`\mathrm{}_{II+Ib/c}(z)0.0054\times \dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$, for a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) with $`x=1.35`$, extending from 0.1 M up to 100 M. With the above values, that gives about 5 gravitational–collapse SN for every SNeIa in the local Universe (see Table1), in good agreement with the observations.

We can relate $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ to the fraction $`\eta `$ of stars in the $`3M_{}\stackrel{<}{}M\stackrel{<}{}9M_{}`$ initial mass range that should produce SNeIa if $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$ closely followed $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$, since we would then have:

$$_{SNeIa}(z)=\eta \times \frac{_3^9\mathrm{\Phi }(M)𝑑M}{_{0.1}^{100}M\mathrm{\Phi }(M)𝑑M}$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$ is the IMF. For the same IMF as above, we would have $`_{SNeIa}(z)=0.02304\times \eta `$, which would mean $`\eta 0.06`$ for the $`_{SNeIa}`$ given below. Some $`6\%`$ of the stars in the above mass range (making the approximation that all stars were born in binaries) should thus give rise to SNeIa. Given the strong selection that any initial population of binaries with primaries in that mass range undergoes in any scenario, at different evolutionary steps, until becoming a SNeIa candidate, the figure looks high if there is no help from the fact that most systems now exploding were formed at an epoch when $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ was considerably higher than at the redshifts considered here, and it confirms the impression carried by Figure 1 that the DD systems, with their short evolutionary timescales adding to the strong evolutionary constraints, do fail to account for the bulk of observed SNeIa. We will see in the next Section that modeling of the Galactic DD population reinforces this conclusion. Comparing the measured $`_{SNeIa}`$ with that predicted from the DD scenario, at $`z0.55`$ for instance, one sees that the prediction ($`_{SNeIa}=1.80\times 10^4M_{}^1`$) is more than $`2.95\sigma `$ below the measurement ($`_{SNeIa}=1.42_{0.42}^{+0.45}\times 10^3M_{}^1`$). The $`\chi ^2`$ test gives a probability $`P<0.006`$ that the two efficiencies were the same. Even allowing for a sytematic error by a factor of 2 in the theoretical prediction of the rates and taking then the upper limit, the prediction would still be more than $`2.5\sigma `$ below the observational value ($`P<0.012`$). If we refer to average values over the interval $`0z0.55`$, then we have, from observations, $`_{SNeIa}=1.41_{0.31}^{+0.40}\times 10^3M_{}^1`$ whereas the DD prediction is $`2.17\times 10^4M_{}^1`$, more than $`3.8\sigma `$ below ($`P<0.004`$).

Precise enough measurements of $`\mathrm{}_{Ia}(z)`$ at $`z\stackrel{>}{}1`$ would in turn test the prediction that at those redshifts the decrease in metallicity should inhibit the strong wind mechanism in the CLS(W) systems (Kobayashi et al. 1998). A decrease in $`_{SNeIa}(z)`$ should be observed, even if SNeIa do not completely disappear thanks to the early metal enrichment of elliptical galaxies.

### 2.1 The local density of double degenerate binaries

The accuracy of model predictions of the SNeIa rates expected from the merging of two CO WDs (the DD scenario) cannot just be tested against the actually measured rates, since the observed SNeIa can arise from a different evolutionary pathway. Only predicted rates much in excess of the measured ones would prove the modeling wrong. Since we find the efficency of SNeIa production in the DD scenario to be too low as compared with that observed, some extra test of the general binary evolution model is required. Such a test is provided by the measured space density of binary systems consisting of a pair of WDs (DD systems). In the DD scenario, a fraction of those systems (close CO WD pairs with a total mass exceeding the Chandrasekhar mass and close enough to merge in less than a Hubble time) would be the SNeIa progenitors.

From existing surveys, no clear SNeIa progenitor candidate has been found among the detected DD systems, but aside from the role played by not too well controlled selection effects, the fact does not automatically validate model predictions that the space density of possible progenitors should be low enough for them to have escaped detection up to now. A better test is provided by the comparison of model predictions with the sample of DD systems already detected, even if no SNeIa candidate has yet been found. We have thus calculated, with the same Monte Carlo scenario code used to predict the SNeIa rates for different evolutionary scenarios (see Ruiz–Lapuente, Canal, & Burkert 1997, for instance), the numbers of different types of DD binaries (He WD + He WD, CO WD + He WD, and CO WD + CO WD) that would form at times following an instantaneous burst of star formation. The formation of WD + MS pairs is also followed. That is later convolved with a SFR appropriate for the Solar neighbourhood (constant rate, $`1M_{}yr^1`$ for the whole Galactic disk), which gives us the number density of DD systems existing at the present time. Since WD pairs older than $`10^8yr`$ should haved cooled below detection limits, the local SFR history is not really important when comparing the model with the observations. We find that the space density of WDs with ages below $`10^9yr`$ (wich roughly corresponds to $`M_V12.75`$) should be $`2.5\times 10^3pc^3`$, which agrees well with the observational estimates of Liebert, Dahn, & Monet (1988) ($`3\times 10^3pc^3`$).

In Table 2 (first line) we give the predicted fractions of close DD and close WD + MS pairs versus all WDs (single plus both wide and close pairs). We also give the fraction corresponding to the predicted SNeIa candidates. In the second line is shown the current birth rate of the three types of systems, and in the third one the numbers of systems with ages below $`10^8yr`$. In the calculations we have adopted a value of the common envelope parameter $`\alpha _{CE}=1`$. Our results compare well with the observed samples (Saffer, Livio, & Yungelson 1998; Maxted & Marsh 1999). The predicted DD period and mass distributions do also agree (see Figure 2), especially if we take into account the observational biases against detection of systems with very low mass primaries (taken here to be the brightest, and thus the more recently formed members of the DD systems), and of binaries with either the longest or the shortest periods. Therefore, our modeling of the possible DD progenitors of SNeIa can be considered as being tested against all the currently available observational data, and our conclusion as to the low efficiency of the DD scenario in producing possible SNeIa progenitors, as compared with the measurements of the cosmic evolution of the SNeIa rates, appears robust.

## 3 Discussion and conclusions

We have shown how, by using a cosmic approach, the topic of which stars end their evolution as SNeIa can be enlightened. About 6% of the binary stars in the range $`39M\mathrm{}`$ end their lives as SNeIa. This fraction is unattainable from the merging of C+O WD pairs, since only about 1% of binaries with masses in that range have a final total mass which is above the Chandrasekhar mass. The high production efficiency of SNeIa out of the star formation process found from $`z0`$ to $`z0.5`$ and beyond suggests that the single degenerate scenario best explains Type Ia explosions.

The above conclusion can be avoided if

1. The star formation rate is understestimated by a factor of 6 even in the reconstructions from $`z0`$ till $`z0.5`$ which give the highest estimates, while the rate of SNeIa is not underestimated. This situation seems unlikely as it would imply that the real SFR history is inconsistent with a dozen of empirical determination using very different methods. In addition, such extremely high SFRs would be in conflict with all we know about extragalactic background light. More especifically, at $`z=0.55`$ there is just a discrepancy by a factor $`\stackrel{<}{}1.5`$ among the SFRs in Figure 1. The bulk of DD systems merging at that $`z`$ were formed at $`z0.62`$, where the range of possible SFRs is not any broader.

2. We have overestimated by a factor of 6 the empirical rates of SNeIa from $`z0`$ till $`z0.5`$. The possibility of having overestimated the SNeIa rate is unlikely since critical aspects such as obscuration by dust, or undetectability of SNeIa near galactic nuclei, should produce the opposite effect.

Tables


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

AP thanks the Theory Group of Argonne National Laboratory for its warm hospitality while part of the work was being done. M.C. and C.W. would like to thank T. Junk for useful discussions. Work supported in part by the US Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38.


text:
# Longitudinal Momentum Fraction 𝑋_𝐿 for Two High 𝑃_𝑡 Protons in pp→ppX Reaction

## Abstract

We present an analysis of new data from Experiment E850 at BNL. We have characterized the inclusive cross section near the endpoint for pp exclusive scattering in Hydrogen and in Carbon with incident beam energy of 6 GeV. We select events with a pair of back-to-back hadrons at large transverse momentum. These cross sections are parameterized with a form $`\frac{d\sigma }{dX_L}`$ $`(1X_L)^p`$, where $`X_L`$ is the ratio of the longitudinal momentum of the observed pair to the total incident beam momentum. Small value of $`p`$ may suggest that the number of partons participating in the reaction is large and reaction has a strong dependence on the center-of-mass energy. We also discuss nuclear effects observed in our kinematic region.

There are two main questions which can be addressed in the study of the Longitudinal Momentum Fraction carried by a pair of large $`P_t`$ final state particles in the pp$``$ppX reactions. We learn first something about the number of partons involved in the interaction. Concluding, as we will, that the number of partons involved is large, we discuss a mechanism for picking up a momentum boost from the spectator nucleus in events where the observed momentum fraction is equal and larger than the incoming momentum.

We defined the Longitudinal Momentum Fraction variable $`X_L`$ as:

$$X_L=\frac{P_{L_1}+P_{L_2}}{P_{L_{inc}}}.$$
(1)
Here $`P_{L_{inc}}`$ is the momentum of the beam coming along the Z-axis, $`P_{L_1}`$ and $`P_{L_2}`$ are the longitudinal components of the two detected out-going particles having large transverse momenta. We have argued that the two detected out-going particles in the pp$``$ppX reaction are protons malkiprl . We then expect the shape of the cross section, as $`X_L`$ approaches unity, to reflect the number of partons participating in the collision. If the cross section is parameterized as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dX_L}(1X_L)^p$$
(2)
then a large $`p`$ is expected for single parton collisions, reflecting the endpoint behavior of structure functions and fragmentation functions brodsk95 . As the number of participating partons increases, we expect the power $`p`$ to be reduced.

In the experiment discussed here, we measure $`p`$ for selected classes of two track events. Our result, that $`p`$ is in the range of 1-2, indicates that many partons are participating in the hard process. It can be expected that the cross section may be falling very rapidly with center-of-mass (cm) energy for these events, perhaps similar to the pp elastic energy dependence.

The cm energy dependence of the underlying pp$``$ppX cross section is affected by the number of partons participating in the interaction. The underlying cross section falls with energy as a power of energy, and that power increases as the number of partons increases. It is known that for exclusive scattering, the cross section has a dependence on the cm energy given by (s is a Mandelstam variable) $`\sigma s^m,m=(n_1+n_2+n_3+n_42)`$ for a process with $`n_1+n_2`$ partons $``$ $`n_3+n_4`$ partons farrar73 .

With this observation about the nature of the selected pp$``$ppX events, we can further conclude that interesting nuclear effects would also be expected. The nucleus can change the cm energy of the incident proton and the nuclear proton by virtue of nuclear fermi momentum. If the nucleus contributes a target proton which is moving in the direction of the beam particle, the cm energy is reduced. Because the increase in cross section associated with a reduction in cm energy is very large, we can expect a strong bias for the nucleus to contribute momentum to the scattering process in the forward direction. The typical magnitude of this nuclear contribution to the final state momentum may be much larger than typical fermi momentum seen in other processes.

Since the nucleus tends to add positive momentum to the two final state particles, in some sense, the stopping power for these events is apparently negative. When one compares the same pp$``$ppX processes measured in nuclear matter with that measured in Hydrogen, the effect of the nucleus is to move strength in the $`X_L`$ distribution to larger $`X_L`$. If a ratio, like a transparency ratio of the cross section in nuclear matter to that measured in Hydrogen is calculated, the ratio will be artificially enhanced.

The data used for this analysis was collected on two targets $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ and $`CH_2`$ using the EVA Spectrometer (E850 Exp., BNL, AGS ). The $`CH_2`$ target enabled us to extract cross sections for free proton (Hydrogen) scattering. The acceptance of the detector for two high $`P_t`$ tracks in the r-z plane was centered around the opening angle for elastic pp$``$pp scattering at $`90^{}`$ in the cm frame leksanov00 . Charged particle acceptance in the azimuthal angle was nearly 2$`\pi `$.

In Fig. 1, we present the $`X_L`$ distribution for Carbon and Hydrogen. In one case we applied a ’semi-elastic’ cut (two and only two charged tracks in our charged track acceptance) which allowed us to look at the $`X_L`$ distribution for pp$``$pp events with a background of pp$``$pp+$`X^0`$ and pp$``$pp+$`X^{charged}`$. The quasi-elastic signals have been extensively analyzed elsewhere leksanov00 ; carroll88 .

Secondly, we select a more inclusive data set made up of events with two high $`P_t`$ tracks but any number of additional lower momentum charged tracks in the pp$``$ppX process.

We have fitted $`X_L`$ distribution with a form (here A and p are the fit constants):

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dX_L}=A(1X_L)^p+Gaussian$$
(3)
The polynomial part of the fit was restricted for $`X_L<`$1 while the Gaussian is included to account for the quasi-elastic contributions near $`X_L1`$.

The peak corresponding to the Gaussian part of the fit is actually shifted for Carbon events from $`X_L=1`$ towards larger $`X_L`$ because of the $`s^{10}`$ dependence of the pp$``$pp reaction’s cross section.

We have determined the power of the polynomial in the fit to be in the range 1.1-1.8 depending on the tightness of the cuts around the region of the elastic kinematics. According to our interpretation, we conclude that the number of quarks participating in the process is large. Consequently, the power m of $`s^m`$ dependence of the cross section would be expected to be large as well.

In Fig. 1, the effective ratio for scattering in Carbon vs Hydrogen is shown. While the ratio is well in excess of Glauber levels, our interpretation is that the Carbon distribution is enhanced due to the strong energy dependence of the cross section.

A recent study of neutron correlations from this experiment (E850 collaboration at BNL) has shown an anomalously large yield of neutrons going into the backward hemisphere in pp$``$ppX reactions compared to the yields reported by other experiments malkiprl ; malki00 . This result was observed with a data sample similar to the one described above. A possible interpretation of this phenomenon is that strong s-dependence of the cross-section for this class of events may select events with large positive fermi momentum. The nucleus must balance this momentum by some kind of recoil in the backward direction. The idea that most of the recoil momentum is absorbed by a single recoiling neutron leads to the prediction of enhanced backward neutron production frankfurt77 . Since a large yield of backward neutrons has been observed in the pp$``$ppX data set described here, the picture seems to have merit.

Keeping this in mind, we looked at the $`X_L`$ distribution for Carbon and Hydrogen (Fig. 1). In the case of exclusive events with two high $`P_t`$ particles, we can clearly see the shift in the position of the Gaussian peak in the Carbon sample. This effect is known to be caused by the $`s^{10}`$ dependence of the cross section. We have compared the more inclusive data set distributions for Carbon and Hydrogen for pp$``$ppX and interpreted the enhanced ratio as evidence for a similar shift in the Carbon distribution with respect to the Hydrogen for this more inclusive sample as well.


text:
# Dual Nature of the Electronic Structure of the Stripe Phase

## Abstract

High resolution angle$``$resolved photoemission measurements have been carried out on (La1.4-xNd0.6Srx)CuO4, a model system with static stripes, and (La1.85Sr0.15)CuO4, a high temperature superconductor (Tc=40K) with dynamic stripes. In addition to the straight segments near ($`\pi `$, 0) and (0, $`\pi `$) antinodal regions, we have identified the existence of nodal spectral weight and its associated Fermi surface in the electronic structure of both systems. The ARPES spectra in the nodal region show well$``$defined Fermi cut-off, indicating a metallic character of this charge$``$ordered state. This observation of nodal spectral weight, together with the straight segments near antinodal regions, reveals dual nature of the electronic structure of stripes due to the competition of order and disorder.

The existence and origin of self$``$organized charge stripe and its implication to high temperature superconductivity are at the heart of a great debate in physics. Static stripe formation in cuprates was first observed in (La2-x-yNdySrx)CuO4 (Nd$``$LSCO) system from neutron scattering, with complimentary evidence from other techniques. Similar signatures identified in (La2-xSrx)CuO4 (LSCO) and other high temperature superconductors point to the possible existence of stripes in these systems, albeit of dynamic nature. A key issue about this new electronic state of matter concerns whether the stripe phase is intrinsically metallic or insulating, given its spin and charge ordered nature, and more significantly, whether it is responsible for high temperature superconductivity. Understanding the electronic structure of the stripe phase is a prerequisite for addressing these issues and angle$``$resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) proves to be a powerful tool to provide these essential information. In this paper, we report detailed ARPES results on the electronic structure of (La1.4-xNd0.6Srx)CuO4 with static stripes and a related superconductor La1.85Sr0.15CuO4 (Tc=40K) with dynamic stripes. With high resolution ARPES spectra densely collected under various measurement geometries, we have identified the existence of nodal spectral weight and its associated Fermi surface in the electronic structure of both stripe systems, indicating a metallic nature of this charge$``$ordered state. The observation of nodal spectral weight, combined with the straight segments near ($`\pi `$,0) and (0,$`\pi `$) antinodal regions, provides a complete view of the dual nature of the electronic structure of the stripe phase, revealing the competition of order and disorder in these systems.

The experiment was carried out at beamline 10.0.1.1 of the Advanced Light Source. The angular mode of the Scienta analyzer (SES$``$200) allows us to measure an angle of $``$14 degrees in parallel (denoted as $`\varphi `$$``$scan hereafter), corresponding to $``$1.1$`\pi `$ in the momentum space for the 55eV photon energy we used (the unit of momentum is defined as 1/a with a being the lattice constant). The momentum resolution is 0.02$`\pi `$ and the energy resolution is 16$``$20 meV. To check for possible polarization dependence and matrix element effect, and particularly to map different k$``$space regions of interest, we used various measurement geometries. (1). The sample was pre$``$oriented so that the $`\varphi `$$``$scan is along the crystal axis a (Cu$``$O bonding direction) and the mapping is realized by rotating the sample to change the polar angle (denoted as $`\theta `$$``$scan hereafter) (Fig. 1). (2). The sample is oriented so that the $`\varphi `$$``$scan spans the diagonal direction. But in this case, the mapping is realized by rotating the analyzer to change the polar angle while keeping the sample fixed (Fig. 2). In the first configuration, the electrical field vector $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ of the incident light is nearly normal to the sample surface, while for the second configuration, it is parallel to the sample surface. The k$``$space sampling is highly dense; the maps reported here are constructed from nearly 10,000 energy distribution curves (EDCs). The (La1.4-xNd0.6Srx)CuO4 (x=0.10 and 0.15) and (La2-xSrx)CuO4 (x=0.15, Tc=38K) single crystals were grown using the traveling floating zone method. The sample was cleaved in situ in vacuum and measured at 15 K with a base pressure of 2$``$5$`\times `$10-11 Torr.

Fig. 1 shows the spectral weight of the Nd$``$LSCO (x=0.10 and 0.15) samples. The data for the x=0.12 sample, taken under the same experimental condition, were previously reported. The integration windows are set at 30 meV and 300 meV from the Fermi level, which approximately represent the Fermi level feature A(k, EF) and the momentum distribution function n(k), respectively, modified by the photoionization matrix element. The low energy spectral weight for both samples (Fig. 1(a) and (c)) is confined near the ($`\pi `$,0) and (0,$`\pi `$) regions. Upon increasing the energy integration window, the spectral weight extends to the center of the Brillouin zone ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point) (Fig. 1(b) and (d)). In both cases, the spectral weight is confined within the boundaries defined by $``$kx$``$=$`\pi `$/4 and $``$ky$``$=$`\pi `$/4 (white dashed lines in Fig. 1). It is noted that, while the boundary of the spectral weight confinement for the x=0.10 sample is very straight, it shows a small wavy character for the x=0.15 sample (Fig. 1(d)), which is related to another intensity maximum clearly discernable near kx=0.5$`\pi `$. Similar results have also been observed for the x=0.12 sample and this wavy effect appears to get stronger with doping.

The data in Fig. 1 is difficult to reconcile with the band structure calculations where the LDA calculated Fermi surface runs more or less diagonally (\[1,-1\] direction) (see Fig. 1(e)). We have done a matrix element simulation for this measurement geometry and found that the spectral weight near ($`\pi `$/2,$`\pi `$/2) nodal region is suppressed compared with the ($`\pi `$,0) and (0,$`\pi `$) antinodal regions. Nevertheless, it is still impossible to reproduce the observed spectral weight confinement with straight boundaries parallel to  or  direction, even by considering matrix element effects as well as the $`k_z`$ effect. On the other hand, a simple stripe picture seems to capture the main characteristics of the data in Fig. 1 if one considers the low energy signal as mainly being from metallic stripes. The momentum distribution function n(k) (Fig. 1(b) and (d)) then suggests two sets of Fermi surfaces, defined by the $``$kx$``$=$`\pi `$/4 and $``$ky$``$=$`\pi `$/4 lines, which can be understood as a superposition of two one$``$dimensional (1D) Fermi surfaces originating from two perpendicularly orientated stripe domains. The $`\pi `$/4 boundary lines are related to the fact that the stripes are approximately quarter$``$filled in the charge stripes.

However, the above rigid stripe model also leaves many questions unanswered. A prominent one relates to the fast dispersion seen along (0,0) to ($`\pi `$,0) direction within the 200 meV of the Fermi level, which implies a charge motion perpendicular to vertical stripes. The concomitant carrier motion along stripes and transverse to stripes points to the possible existence of a nodal state along the  diagonal direction which has zero superconducting gap in d$``$wave pairing symmetry. However, as seen from Fig. 1, as well as previous measurements for underdoped samples, there is little spectral weight observed near the nodal region.

To gain more insight into the issue of nodal state, we focused our measurements on the nodal regions by covering along the diagonal direction (Fig. 2). We also extended the measurement to the second zone by considering possible different matrix element for different zones, as well as sharpening of spectral line in the second zone due to the negative dispersion velocity involved. In order to enhance the signal from the nodal region, the in$``$plane electric field is maximized by fixing the $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ vector parallel to the sample surface; the measurement was fulfilled by rotating the analyzer, thus avoiding the complications of varying polarization. Our matrix element simulations show spectral weight enhancement in the nodal region for this measurement geometry. Fig. 2 shows the low energy excitations for both Nd$``$LSCO (x=0.15) and La1.85Sr0.15CuO4 samples, measured under such a geometry. One sees the similar straight segments near (0,$`\pi `$) and ($`\pi `$,0) as seen in Fig. 1 even though the a-b plane of the samples were rotated 45 degrees with respect to each other. More importantly, it is possible to see the spectral weight near d$``$wave nodal region for both samples, although the signal in the first zone is weaker than that in the second zone. The EDC spectra near the nodal regions show a well$``$defined Fermi cut$``$off (Fig. 2(c) and (d)), indicating the metallic nature of these systems.

As seen from Fig. 1 and 2, there are two aspects involved in the electronic structure of the stripe phase. The first is the straight segment near the ($`\pi `$,0) and (0,$`\pi `$) antinodal regions. This feature is very robust as it is seen under different measurement geometries, which appears to be a measure of the ordered nature of stripes. The second feature is the nodal state seen in Fig. 2, which is sensitive to doping and measurement geometry. This feature is likely a measure of the deviation from ideal stripe case, which may be due to disorder or dynamic fluctuations. We note here that we have observed similar two features in Nd$``$LSCO with x=0.10 and in LSCO with doping level as low as x=0.07. The nodal signal appears to get stronger with increasing Sr doping for both Nd$``$LSCO and LSCO, and for a given Sr doping level, it is stronger in Nd$``$free LSCO than in Nd$``$LSCO samples. As seen from Fig. 2(a) and (b), near the ($`\pi `$,0) region in the second zone, the maximum intensity contour extends all the way from the nodal region and intersects with the ($`\pi `$,0)$``$(2$`\pi `$,0) line, suggesting an electron$``$like Fermi surface. Interestingly, this Fermi surface is reminiscent of that from the LDA calculation (Fig. 1(e)).

A complete description of the electronic structure of the stripe phase needs to take both of the above two aspects into account: the straight segment near the antinodal region and the spectral weight near the nodal region with its associated Fermi surface. Fig. 3 highlights these two features in the first Brillouin zone for the Nd$``$LSCO (x=0.15) and LSCO (x=0.15) samples, which are also schematically depicted in Fig. 3(c) (upper$``$left panel). While it seems to be straightforward to associate the straight segments with stripes because of their 1D nature, the detection of spectral weight near the nodal region in the static stripe phase poses a new challenge to our understanding of this charge ordered state because the nodal spectral weight is usually expected to be suppressed in a simple stripe picture. The experimental question regarding the origin is whether they originate from another distinct phase or they are intrinsic properties of the same stripe phase. In the case of phase separation, this would mean that, besides stripes, there is another non$``$stripe metallic phase with a much higher carrier concentration, as estimated from the Luttinger volume of the diamond$``$shaped Fermi surface (Fig. 3). As far as we know, there is little evidence of such a phase separation in Nd$``$LSCO and LSCO systems at the doping level discussed here, although it has been observed in a related La2CuO4+δ system.

The detection of nodal spectral intensity in the stripe system provides a clear distinction of the stripe physics from the ordinary 1D charge motion in a rigid one$``$dimensional system. In the stripe context, the nodal Fermi surface may arise from disorder or fluctuation of stripes where the holes leak into the antiferromagnetic region. Here disorder also induces the effect that the antiferromagnetic region may not be fully gapped when it becomes very narrow. The measured spectral weight in Fig. 3 for Nd$``$LSCO and LSCO is similar to the one calculated based on such a disordered stripe picture (Fig. 3(c), upper$``$right panel). This also seems to be consistent with the trend that in LSCO the nodal spectral weight is more intense than that in Nd-LSCO because the stripes in the former are dynamic while they are static in the latter. Note that, in this picture, the nodal Fermi surface is actually a superposition of Fermi surface features from two perpendicular stripe domains; for an individual stripe domain, this Fermi surface feature can be discrete.

An alternative scenario to understand the two features in the stripe context is a possible coexistence of site$``$ and bond$``$centered stripes. Both types of stripes are compatible with neutron experiments, and are close in energy as indicated by various calculations. As shown in Fig. 3(c), the calculated A(k,EF) patterns for the site$``$centered (lower$``$left panel) and bond$``$centered stripes (lower$``$right panel) bear a clear resemblance to the data in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively. It is therefore tempting to associate the 1D straight segment to site$``$centered stripes and the nodal Fermi surface feature to bond$``$centered stripes. Since these two types of stripes are different in their wave functions, it may also help explain why they show different behaviors under different measurement conditions. Moreover, the sudden slope change (or ”kink”) of the dispersion along the nodal direction for both Nd$``$LSCO and LSCO (Fig. 3(d)) is also consistent with this scenario. If this picture proves to be true, it would imply that, with increasing doping, bond$``$centered stripes are produced at the expense of site$``$centered stripes, and more bond$``$centered stripes may be generated as the stripes become more dynamic (Fig. 3). This seems to further suggest that the bond$``$centered stripes are more favorable for superconductivity than the site$``$centered stripes, a possibility remains to be investigated further. We note that the above scenarios can be closely related to each other. Stripe disorder or fluctuation may naturally give rise to hole$``$rich and hole$``$poor regions as in phase separation case, particularly with the possible existence of stripe dislocations in the system. In the case of stripe fluctuation, the randomness in the stripe separations may necessarily give rise to a mixture of site$``$centered and bond$``$centered stripes.

We thank J. Denlinger and J. Bozek for technical support, S. Kivelson, J. Tranquda, A. Balatsky, W. Hanke, M. Zacher and M. Salkola for helpful discussions. The experiment was performed at the Advanced Light Source of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is operated by the DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Material Science, with contract DE-AC03- 76SF00098. The division also provided support for the work at SSRL. The work at Stanford was supported by NSF grant through the Stanford MRSEC grant and NSF grant DMR-9705210.


text:
# 1 .The m_{1/2},m₀ plane for the CMSSM with tanβ=10, A=-m_{1/2}, and (a) μ>0, (b) μ<0, showing the region preferred by the cosmological relic density constraint 0.1≤Ω_χh²≤0.3 (medium, green shading), the excluded region where m_τ̃<m_χ (dark, brown shading), and the region disallowed by our b→sγ analysis (light shading) []. Also shown as a near-vertical line is the contour mₕ=113 GeV for mₜ=175 GeV. For comparison, we also exhibit the reaches of LEP 2 searches for charginos χ^± and selectrons ẽ, as well as the estimated reach of the Fermilab Tevatron collider for sparticle production [].

At the time of writing, the LEP experiments are not yet able to exclude the possibility that the Higgs boson might weigh about 114 to 115 GeV, and there are several candidate events  for its production in association with a $`Z`$ boson , that may be appearing above the Standard Model background. It is hoped that the high-energy LEP luminosity used for the presentations  may be increased substantially before the accelerator is closed by the end of this year, enabling the possible signal to be either strengthened or diluted significantly. However, it is unlikely that LEP will be able to answer definitively the question whether there exists a Higgs boson weighing about 114 to 115 GeV. Indeed, a definitive answer may not be available for several years, until either the Fermilab Tevatron collider accumulates enough luminosity  and/or the LHC starts up .

Even in these circumstances, it is tempting to speculate on the interpretation of a possible discovery of a Higgs boson weighing around 114 to 115 GeV. This might even serve the useful purpose of suggesting other signatures that could be correlated with the existence of such a Higgs boson, whose appearance (absence) might help to confirm (cast doubt upon) any evidence for its existence.

The first clear statement that can be made is that if the Higgs boson weighs about 114 to 115 GeV, there must be new physics at an energy scale $`M_P`$. This is because of the renormalization of the effective Higgs potential by the Higgs-top interaction $`\lambda _t\overline{t}t\varphi `$ (related to the known value of $`m_t`$) and the Higgs self-interaction $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ (related to the putative value of $`m_H`$). It is well known that, if either $`\lambda _t`$ and/or $`\lambda `$ is too large, the renormalization-group equations (RGEs) may cause the couplings to blow up, becoming non-perturbative or even infinite at some energy scale below $`M_P`$ . Alternatively, the desired electroweak vacuum may become unstable if $`\lambda `$ is too small, since $`\lambda _t`$ tends to drive the effective Higgs potential $`V(\varphi )`$ negative at large $`|\varphi |`$ . Self-renormalization by $`\lambda `$ tries to counteract this effect of $`\lambda _t`$, but is overcome if $`\lambda `$ is too small. Requiring the absence of a second, undesirable minimum of the effective Higgs potential for any value $`|\varphi |\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ therefore provides a lower limit on $`\lambda `$, and hence $`m_H`$, that depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda },m_t`$ and (via higher orders in the RGEs) the strong gauge coupling $`\alpha _s`$. Conversely, given $`m_H`$, and hence $`\lambda `$, one has an upper limit on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ up to which the Standard Model Higgs potential may remain stable, which depends relatively on the precise values of $`m_t`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. If indeed $`m_H=115`$ GeV, one finds that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^6\mathrm{GeV}$$
(1)
for the default values $`m_t=175`$ GeV and $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.118`$ 111The upper limit (1) increases (decreases) by about an order of magnitude for $`m_t=170(180)`$ GeV, while being less sensitive to $`\alpha _s(m_Z)`$ in the range 0.115 - 0.121.. Therefore, there must be new physics at some scale $`<10^6`$ GeV that averts this instability of the Standard Model Higgs potential.

It has often been suggested that new physics should be expected at some scale $`<1`$ TeV, in order to stabilize the gauge hierarchy. Prominent among early suggestions was that of technicolour, new strong interactions that would generate a composite scalar particle weighing about 1 TeV . One generally expects composite models to predict Higgs bosons much heavier than whatever LEP might be seeing, and technicolour bears this out. Technicolour models generally also include light pseudoscalar particles, but these would not be produced copiously in association with a $`Z`$ boson . Another class of composite Higgs models invokes $`\overline{t}t`$ condensation, but these models also predict  a Higgs boson that would be heavier than what LEP might be seeing. In the absence of any viable composite Higgs model, we pursue the hypothesis that the Higgs is elementary, as generally expected for small $`m_h`$, in which case the most plausible new TeV-scale physics is supersymmetry .

Circumstantial evidence for supersymmetry around this scale has already been provided by the possible grand unification of the gauge couplings, which works fine if sparticles weighing around 1 TeV are included in their RGEs . Moreover, the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) predicts the existence of at least one neutral Higgs boson weighing $`<130`$ GeV , perfectly consistent with the possible direct LEP observation  and with indirect indications from precision electroweak data of a relatively light Higgs boson : $`m_h=62_{30}^{+53}`$ GeV, with the one-sided 95% confidence-level upper limit $`m_h<170`$ GeV 222The central value may be increased by $`30`$ GeV if new data from BES are used to evaluate $`\alpha _{em}(M_Z)`$ : see also .. Therefore, in the rest of this paper we concentrate on supersymmetric interpretations of the possible LEP observation of a Higgs boson weighing 114 to 115 GeV. We assume the conservation of $`R`$ parity, so that the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ may constitute the cold dark matter postulated by astrophysicists and cosmologists . We assume also CP conservation for the tree-level MSSM parameters, simplifying calculations of the Higgs masses  and dark matter properties .

As we show in this paper, the possible observation of a Higgs boson weighing 114 to 115 GeV would constrain significantly the sparticle spectrum in such models 333We phrase our discussion optimistically in terms of the observation of such a Higgs boson: our lower limits on the sparticle spectrum also apply if LEP only establishes a lower limit $`m_h114`$ GeV., and hence the prospects for sparticle detection. The principal uncertainty in predicting the sparticle mass spectrum is due to the lack of precision in the measurement of $`m_t`$, which is also manifest in our discussion of the potential of an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider to discover supersymmetry.

We assume a minimal supergravity-inspired model of soft supersymmetry breaking, namely the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) or minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), in which universal gaugino masses $`m_{1/2}`$, scalar masses $`m_0`$ (including those of the Higgs multiplets) and trilinear supersymmetry breaking parameters $`A`$ are input at the supersymmetric grand unification scale 444It would be an interesting exercise to make a similar analysis in the context of gauge- or anomaly-mediated models , but this lies beyond the scope of our work.. In this framework, the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ can be derived from the other MSSM parameters by imposing the electroweak vacuum conditions for any given value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Many ingredients in our analysis are apparent from Fig. 1, including the range of $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ where the relic neutralino density is in the range of cosmological interest: $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$, the excluded region at low $`m_0`$ and large $`m_{1/2}`$ where the lightest sparticle is a charged $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, and a region at low $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mu <0`$ that is excluded  by the experimental value of $`bs\gamma `$ decay  We recall that the mass of the lightest neutralino $`m_\chi 0.4\times m_{1/2}`$ over most of the gaugino parameter region of interest. As discussed in , there are important regions of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane where the present electroweak vacuum is at best metastable against decay into a vacuum where charge and colour are broken (CCB) . We do not address here the question of the lifetime of the vacuum, which is much longer than that in the Standard Model for light Higgs mass. However, we do note that there are regions at large $`m_0`$ and/or $`m_{1/2}`$ that are completely stable against decay into a CCB vacuum .

Through radiative corrections , the mass $`m_h`$ of the lightest Higgs boson depends strongly on $`m_{1/2}`$, but is almost independent of $`m_0`$, at least over the range of $`m_0`$ allowed by the upper limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ on the relic neutralino density, as can also be seen in Fig. 1. The Higgs mass $`m_h`$ also depends significantly on $`m_t`$, varying typically by $`\pm 3`$ GeV, as $`m_t`$ is varied by $`\pm 5`$ GeV around its nominal value $`m_t=175`$ GeV. The uncertainty in $`m_t`$ carries through to our final bounds on the sparticle spectrum 555On the other hand, the dark matter density calculations are relatively insensitive to $`m_t`$., as discussed later. There are believed to be similar uncertainties in $`m_h`$ associated with the treatment of higher-order QCD corrections to $`m_t`$ . Other uncertainties, associated for example with higher-order electroweak effects, are believed to be $`𝒪(1)`$ GeV. We recall that the preferred range of $`m_h`$ suggested by LEP is from $`114`$ to $`115`$ GeV . We derive our lower (upper) limits on the sparticle spectrum by finding the values of $`m_{1/2}`$ required to give $`m_h113(116)`$ GeV for $`m_t=170,175`$ and $`180`$ GeV, so as to include some allowance for these uncertainties.

The most important remaining uncertainty is that in $`A`$. For definiteness, henceforth we use as default value $`A=0`$ at the input scale, motivated theoretically by no-scale supergravity models , discussing later the effect of varying $`A`$ over a range of a few units in $`m_{1/2}`$. Panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 2 show, for $`\mu <0`$ and $`>0`$, contours of the values of $`m_{1/2}`$ (vertical axis) required to obtain any given value of $`m_h`$ (horizontal axis) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,5`$ and $`20`$ (from left to right) and $`m_t=170,175,180`$ GeV (also from left to right). We have truncated the vertical axis at $`m_{1/2}=1400`$ GeV, which corresponds approximately to the maximum value of $`m_\chi `$ allowed by cosmology, which is attained when $`m_\chi =m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2=0.3`$, including coannihilation effects . Since the curves for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,20`$ are rather similar, for clarity we do not plot any curves for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, nor for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$. We note also that the high-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ curves are relatively insensitive to the sign of $`\mu `$. On the other hand, the curves are quite different for smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, particularly $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$. The vertical bands in Fig. 2 correspond to $`113\mathrm{GeV}m_h116\mathrm{GeV}`$, including the ‘observed’ range of $`114`$ to $`115`$ GeV, combined with a theoretical error as discussed above. Requiring $`m_h113`$ GeV clearly imposes a non-trivial lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ and hence the sparticle masses, as we discuss in more detail below.

Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of varying $`A`$. We see that, for given values of $`m_{1/2},\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of $`\mu `$, slightly lower values of $`m_h`$ are found for $`A=m_{1/2}`$ than for $`A=0`$. Conversely, somewhat higher values of $`m_h`$ are found for $`A=+2m_{1/2}`$ 666We have also studied the case $`A/m_{1/2}=4`$, for which the trend to higher $`m_h`$ continues. This is near the maximum value of $`A`$ possible for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ or 5, and is disallowed for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, because of troubles with a light or tachyonic $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ . We note that the differences in $`m_h`$ for these different values of $`A`$ and $`m_t=175`$ GeV are typically less than those found by fixing $`A`$ and increasing (decreasing) $`m_t`$ to $`180(170)`$ GeV. Therefore, in the following we restrict our attention to the value $`A=0`$ that we prefer on theoretical grounds , varying $`m_t`$ between 170 and 180 GeV.

It is apparent from Fig. 1 that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ the LEP ‘value’ of $`m_h`$ pushes $`m_{1/2}`$ up into the $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ coannihilation region, which extends up to $`m_{1/2}1400`$ GeV . The necessity of including coannihilation effects is even more pronounced for lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, since then the LEP ‘value’ of $`m_h`$ pushes $`m_{1/2}`$ even higher. The $`m_h`$ constraint is more relaxed for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, but then, for $`\mu <0`$, the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint also pushes $`m_{1/2}`$ into the coannihilation region 777There has recently been a suggestion  that the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ may be more important for $`\mu >0`$, but this is not supported by a recent NLO analysis ..

We show in Fig. 4(a) the lower bounds on $`m_{1/2}`$ obtained assuming $`m_h113`$ GeV, for $`\mu >0`$ (solid, red lines) and $`\mu <0`$ (dashed, blue lines), and $`m_t=170,175`$ and $`180`$ GeV (from bottom to top). We note immediately a lower bound

$$m_{1/2}>240\mathrm{GeV},$$
(2)
corresponding to a lower limit on the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ of

$$m_\chi >95\mathrm{GeV},$$
(3)
which is saturated for $`\mu >0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$, and $`m_t=180`$ GeV. With the nominal value $`m_t=175`$ GeV we would obtain $`m_{1/2}>310`$ GeV ($`m_\chi >125`$ GeV). The lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ is not very sensitive to the sign of $`\mu `$, particulary at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as can be discerned from Fig. 4(a). On the other hand, the lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ rises steeply for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <10`$, where it depends more on the sign of $`\mu `$. Recalling that $`m_{1/2}1400`$ GeV is the maximum value of $`m_\chi `$ allowed by cosmology , we infer a lower bound

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta >3$$
(4)
attained again for $`\mu >0`$ and $`m_t=180`$ GeV. The corresponding lower limit for the nominal $`m_t=175`$ GeV would be $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >4`$. For $`\mu <0`$, the correspong limits are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >4(5)`$ for $`m_t=180(175)`$.

As we see in Fig. 4(b), it is also possible in some cases to derive an upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$, obtained by requiring $`m_h116`$ GeV. The upper bound is relatively insensitive to the sign of $`\mu `$ at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and more sensitive at lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, its greatest sensitivity is to the value of $`m_t`$, as seen in Fig. 4(b) for the cases $`m_t=175`$ and $`180`$ GeV: the corresponding maximum values of $`m_{1/2}`$ are $`650`$ and 400 GeV for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, respectively. If $`m_t=170`$ GeV, the upper limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ in fact exceeds the upper value $`1400`$ GeV allowed by the cosmological relic density, so this case is not shown in Fig. 4(b).

The Tevatron collider may well be able to confirm at the 3-$`\sigma `$ level or refute the LEP ‘observation’ of a Higgs boson with about $`3fb^1`$ of luminosity in each of CDF and D0 . On the other hand, the lower bound (2) does not offer much encouragement for $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ searches at the Tevatron collider , since one expects

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}>600\mathrm{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>700\mathrm{GeV}$$
(5)
for $`m_{1/2}>240`$ GeV 888The third-generation squarks might be somewhat lighter, because of mixing.. The search for associated production of charginos and neutralinos may offer brighter prospects , but a definite conclusion on this would require a more detailed study than is currently available. Examples of the estimated Tevatron sensitivity in this channel are shown in Fig. 1 . We see that, in these particular cases, the chargino/neutralino process is also expected to be unobservable 999Less glamorously, an improved measurement of $`m_t`$ from the Tevatron would be a significant contribution to pinning down the interpretation of the LEP Higgs ‘signal’.. However, ATLAS and CMS at the LHC should be able to detect both the Higgs boson and sparticles with high significance .

A Higgs boson weighing 114 to 115 GeV would be a bonanza for a sub-TeV linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (LC), which would produce it copiously and study its properties in detail . However, its prospects for detecting supersymmetry would depend on the threshold for producing sparticle pairs , for which the best prospects may be sleptons:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R}^2m_0^2+0.15m_{1/2}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2m_0^2+0.52m_{1/2}^2.$$
(6)
and charginos $`\chi ^\pm `$. The upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ imposed by the cold dark matter constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$ was used previously to estimate the maximum energy required by a LC to be sure of seeing supersymmetry, namely $`E_{cm}1.25`$ TeV . Looking back at Fig. 1, in the context of our analysis we see that the conservative way to bound sparticle production from above is first to take the lowest possible value of $`m_{1/2}`$. Then one should choose the lowest value of $`m_0`$ for this value of $`m_{1/2}`$, allowing the relic density to fall below $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2=0.1`$, as could occur if there is another source of cold dark matter. Generically, this absolute lower bound $`m_0^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is found by requiring $`m_\chi m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_r}`$, so as to avoid charged dark matter, but in some cases this is not a constraint, and $`m_0=0`$ is allowed.

We show in Fig. 5 as thick lines the conservative upper limits on the sum of the production cross sections for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ and chargino pairs found in this way. The kinks in the curves reflect the different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{L,R}`$ and $`\chi _i^\pm `$ thresholds. There are in general three lines for each choice of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the sign of $`\mu `$ and $`m_t`$, corresponding to the values of $`m_0`$ that yield $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2=0.3`$ and $`0.1`$, and the lowest value $`m_0^{\mathrm{min}}`$, disregarding the relic density. The latter generally gives the largest cross sections of all. We see in panel (a) of Fig. 5, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and $`\mu >0`$, that in this case a LC with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV would be well placed to discover supersymmetry, if $`m_{1/2}`$ is close to its minimum value, whatever the value of $`m_t`$. Although panel (b) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and $`\mu <0`$ is qualitatively similar, we see that in this case the discovery of supersymmetry might be possible only if $`m_t175`$ GeV. Panel (c) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`\mu >0`$ is an example where the discovery of supersymmetry might be possible with a $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV LC only if $`m_t=180`$ GeV, and panel (c) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`\mu <0`$ is an example where discovery would not be possible for any of the values of $`m_t`$ studied.

The thinner lines in Fig. 5 correspond to the maximum values of $`m_{1/2}`$ discussed earlier, corresponding to $`m_h<116`$ GeV. In panels (a) and (b) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, only the case $`m_t=175`$ GeV is shown: the thresholds for $`m_t=170`$ GeV are beyond $`\sqrt{s}=1200`$ GeV, and those for $`m_t=180`$ GeV are similar to the curves for minimal $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_t=175`$ GeV. Discovery of supersymmetry with a $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV LC could be ‘guaranteed’ only if $`m_t=180`$ GeV, not for $`m_t175`$ GeV. In panels (c) and (d) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, we see that the discovery of supersymmetry cannot be ‘guaranteed’ for any value of $`m_t`$. In panel (c), the cross sections for the maximum value of $`m_{1/2}`$ when $`m_t=175`$ GeV are similar to those for the minimum value of $`m_{1/2}`$ when $`m_t=180`$ GeV.

This analysis is not conclusive, but it does suggest that a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV has a chance of discovering supersymmetric particles. However, its prospects depend on unknowns such as $`m_t,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of $`\mu `$, and the ‘measurement’ of $`m_h`$ does not guarantee success.

We now discuss the impact of combining the ‘observed’ value of $`m_h`$ with the measured rate  for $`bs\gamma `$ decay . For either sign of $`\mu `$, the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint excludes a region of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane that extends to larger $`m_{1/2}`$ as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases, as exemplified in Fig. 1(b) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu <0`$. On the other hand, the value of $`m_{1/2}`$ required to allow $`m_h116`$ GeV decreases as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases. Comparing the two constraints, we find for $`m_t=175`$ GeV that

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta <25$$
(7)
for $`\mu <0`$, and for $`m_t=180`$ GeV that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <13(33)`$ for $`\mu <0(>0)`$. On the other hand, there is no reasonable upper limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`m_t=170`$ GeV, or for $`m_t=175`$ GeV and $`\mu >0`$, since the upper bound imposed on $`m_{1/2}`$ is beyond the reach of the constraints from $`bs\gamma `$.

We comment finally on the prospects for direct detection of cold dark matter by elastic scattering, within the CMSSM. The lower limit on the lightest neutralino mass suggested by our analysis is $`m_\chi >95`$ GeV. This is considerably stronger than was quoted in , essentially for two reasons. One is that the sensitivity of the LEP experiments to MSSM Higgs bosons has exceeded our prognostications. More significantly, here we estimate the $`m_h`$ sensitivity of the LEP experiments by calculating for each CMSSM parameter choice the corresponding $`ZZh`$ coupling strength, whereas previously we (too) conservatively used the prospective LEP limits based on the maximal mixing scenario . In this scenario, the $`ZH`$ production cross section may be suppressed by a factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha \beta )1`$, which we do not find in the CMSSM.

The strengthened lower limit on $`m_\chi `$ has the immediate effect of decreasing the maximum elastic scattering cross section attainable in the CMSSM , from $`10^4`$ pb to $`10^5`$ pb in the spin-dependent case and $`10^7`$ pb to $`10^8`$ pb in the spin-independent case. However, we emphasize that these upper limits apply for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$. For larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the scalar elastic scattering cross sections may be an order of magnitude larger  (though we note that the scalar cross section is most sensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`\mu <0`$ where the constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ are most restricitive). Larger cross sections may also be obtained if our CMSSM assumption of universal scalar masses at the GUT scale is relaxed .

We have shown in this paper how a measurement of the mass of the Higgs boson may provide much valuable information, at least in a particular theoretical context. We re-emphasize that there may well not be a Higgs boson weighing around 115 GeV, that supersymmetry may not exist, that our model-dependent assumptions within the MSSM may be unjustified, that the cold dark matter may not consist of neutralinos, etc. Nevertheless, we hope this paper serves a useful purpose in helping to focus attention on ways in which any Higgs signal might be corroborated by other experiments, in particular those looking for sparticle production at colliders. Even if we must wait several years for the truth about a possible Higgs boson weighing around 115 GeV to emerge, experiments at the Tevatron and elsewhere may aid in the interpretation of the possible ‘signal’.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank P. Gambino and especially T. Falk for useful discussions. The work of D.V.N. was partially supported by DOE grant DE-F-G03-95-ER-40917, and that of K.A.O. by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.


text:
# Untitled Document

Systèmes dynamiques/Dynamical systems
Équations différentielles/Ordinary Differential Equations

La non–intégrabilité méromorphe du problème plan des trois corps

Tsygvintsev Alexei

Laboratoire de Mathématiques Emile Picard, C.N.R.S.– UMR 5580, Université Paul Sabatier, 118, route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cédex 4, France
Courriel : tsygvin@picard.ups-tlse.fr

et Section de Mathématiques, Université de Genève, 2-4, rue du Lièvre, Case postale 240, CH-1211 Genève 24, Suisse
Courriel : Alexei.Tsygvintsev@math.unige.ch

Résumé. Nous considérons le problème des trois corps dans le plan et montrons que ce problème ne possède pas de système complet d’intégrales premières méromorphes à un voisinage de la solution particulière de Lagrange.

The meromorphic non–integrability of the planar three–body problem

Abstract.We study the planar three-body problem and prove the absence of a complete set of complex meromorphic first integrals in a neighborhood of the Lagrangian solution.

1. Introduction et résultats

Considérons trois corps $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ sur le plan avec des masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$ qui s’attirent conformément à la loi de Newton. Soient $`(x_1,x_2)`$ les coordonnées de $`P_1`$, $`(x_3,x_4)`$ les coordonnées de $`P_2`$, $`(x_5,x_6)`$ les coordonnées de $`P_3`$. Notons $`y_r=m_k{\displaystyle \frac{dx_r}{dt}}`$$`k`$ est la partie entière de $`(r+1)/2`$.

Les équations de Hamilton du mouvement des corps prennent la forme

$$\frac{dx_r}{dt}=\frac{H_1}{y_r},\frac{dy_r}{dt}=\frac{H_1}{x_r},(r=1,2,\mathrm{},6),$$
$`(1.1)`$
avec l’Hamiltonien

$$\begin{array}{cc}H_1=\frac{1}{2m_1}(y_1^2+y_2^2)+\frac{1}{2m_2}(y_3^2+y_4^2)+\frac{1}{2m_3}(y_5^2+y_6^2)m_3m_2\{(x_3x_5)^2+(x_4x_6)^2\}^{1/2}\hfill & \\ m_3m_1\{(x_5x_1)^2+(x_6x_2)^2\}^{1/2}m_1m_2\{(x_1x_3)^2+(x_2x_4)^2\}^{1/2}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Ce problème peut être illustré par l’attraction mutuelle de la terre, de la lune et du soleil.

Les intégrales premières connues du système (1.1) sont

$`F_1=H_1`$ – l’énergie,
$`F_2=y_1+y_3+y_5,`$ $`F_3=y_2+y_4+y_6`$ – les intégrales du mouvement du centre de gravité,
$`F_4=y_1x_2+y_3x_4+y_5x_6x_1y_2x_3y_4x_5y_6=k`$ – l’intégrale des aires.

En supposant que le centre de gravité est fixe, c’est-à-dire que $`F_2=F_3=0`$, et en utilisant l’intégrale des aires $`F_4`$, le système (1.1) peut être ramené à $`3`$ degrés de liberté

$$\frac{dq_r}{dt}=\frac{H}{p_r},\frac{dp_r}{dt}=\frac{H}{q_r},(r=1,2,3),$$
$`(1.2)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}H=\frac{M_1}{2}\left\{p_1^2+\frac{1}{q_1^2}P^2\right\}+\frac{M_2}{2}(p_2^2+p_3^2)+\frac{1}{m_3}\left\{p_1p_2\frac{p_3}{q_1}P\right\}\frac{m_1m_3}{r_1}\frac{m_3m_2}{r_2}\frac{m_1m_2}{r_3},\hfill & \\ P=p_3q_2p_2q_3k,\hfill & \end{array}$$

et

$$r_1=q_1,r_2=\sqrt{q_2^2+q_3^2},r_3=\sqrt{(q_1q_2)^2+q_3^2},$$

sont les distances mutuelles des corps.

Nous appellerons le système (1.2) le problème plan des trois corps.

D’après Bruns  le problème (1.1) et donc le problème (1.2) n’admet pas d’intégrale première algébrique, autre que les intégrales premières déja connues.

Poincaré  a démontré en 1892 que si la troisième masse $`m_3=\mu `$ est infiniment petite et est attireé par les deux premières masses $`m_1`$ et $`m_2`$, alors le problème (1.2) n’admet pas d’intégrale première holomorphe en $`\mu `$ autre que celle de l’énergie.

Il est bien connu (Lagrange ) que ce problème possède une solution particulière dans laquelle les trois corps forment un triangle équilatéral et décrivent chacun une conique. Notons $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ celle qui correspond au cas parabolique.

Nous considérons dans cette Note la question de l’existence de deux intégrales premières supplementaires méromorphes et fonctionnellement indépendantes autres que celle de l’énergie au voisinage de la solution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Notre résultat principal est le suivant:

THÉORÈME 1.1– Le problème plan des trois corps n’admet pas deux intégrales premières supplementaires méromorphes par rapport aux variables $`q_i`$, $`p_j`$, $`r_k`$ et fonctionnellement indépendantes au voisinage de la solution particulière de Lagrange $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

COROLLAIRE 1.2– Le problème plan des trois corps n’est pas complètement méromorphiquement intégrable au voisinage de la solution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

La preuve est basée sur la théorie de Ziglin  qui donne une condition nécessaire de non–intégrabilité.

Dans le cas de masses égales, le même résultat a été obtenu par D. Boucher à l’aide du théorème de non–intégrabilité de Moralis-Ramis .

2. Les équations normales variationnelles le long de la solution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

Dans le cas parabolique la solution de Lagrange peut être écrite sous la forme suivante

$$(q_1,q_2,q_3)=(q,\frac{q}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}q}{2}),(p_1,p_2,p_3)=(p,\alpha p+\frac{\beta }{q},\gamma p+\frac{\delta }{q}),$$

$`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\delta `$ sont les constantes.

Pour $`q(t)`$, $`p(t)`$ on a

$$q=P(w),p=\frac{w}{P(w)},P(w)=e_1w^2+e_2w+e_3,$$

avec les constantes $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$, $`e_3`$.

Nous avons donc la paramétrisation de la solution de Lagrange

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{q_i(w),p_i(w)w\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^\mathrm{𝟏}\}.$$

A partir de cette solution particulière, on peut calculer les équations normales variationnelles (voir ) qui prennent la forme d’un système fuchsien

$$\frac{dx}{d\tau }=\left(\frac{A}{\tau \tau _0}+\frac{B}{\tau \tau _1}+\frac{C}{\tau \tau _2}\right)x,x𝐂^\mathrm{𝟒},$$
$`(2.1)`$
$`\tau _0`$, $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2𝐂`$ sont les singularités et $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ sont les $`4\times 4`$ matrices constantes dépendantes sur des masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$.

3. Le groupe de monodromie des équations (2.1)

Soit $`G`$ le groupe de monodromie des équations (2.1).

Nous désignons $`T_i`$, $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`i=0,1,2`$ les générateurs de $`G`$ correspondants respectivement aux groupes de monodromie locaux autour les singularités $`\tau _i`$, $`i=0,1,2`$ et $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$.

LEMME 3.1
a) $`T_0=I`$ – est l’élément neutre de $`G`$.

b) Les générateurs $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ ont la même forme de Jordan

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

c) Le générateur $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ a les valeurs propres suivantes

$$\mathrm{S}pectre(T_{\mathrm{}})=\{e^{2\pi i\lambda _1},e^{2\pi i\lambda _2},e^{2\pi i\lambda _1},e^{2\pi i\lambda _2}\},$$

$$\lambda _1=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{13+\sqrt{\theta }},\lambda _2=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{13\sqrt{\theta }},$$

et

$$\theta =144\left(13\frac{S_2}{S_1^2}\right),S_1=m_1+m_2+m_3,S_2=m_1m_2+m_3m_2+m_1m_3.$$

COROLLAIRE 3.2

$$T_1T_2=T_{\mathrm{}}^1.$$

COROLLAIRE 3.3– On aura toujours

$$\mathrm{S}pectre(T_{\mathrm{}})\{1,1,1,1\}.$$

Esquisse de démonstration.– Pour tout les singularités $`\tau _i`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$, $`i=0,1,2`$ on peut calculer des solution formelles locales du système (2.1) et trouver donc les générateurs de $`G`$ dans chaque point singulier.

4. Esquisse de la démonstration du théorème 1.1

Notre démonstration est inspirée par Ziglin . Supposons que le problème plan des trois corps (1.2) possède deux intégrales premières supplementaires méromorphes par rapport aux variables $`q_i`$, $`p_j`$, $`r_k`$ et fonctionnellement indépendantes au voisinage de la solution particulière de Lagrange $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Nous en déduisons le lemme suivant

LEMME 4.1 (Ziglin )–Le groupe de monodromie $`G`$ des équations normales variationnelles (2.1) a deux invariants rationnels et fonctionnellement indépendantes $`J_1(x)`$, $`J_2(x)`$.

En vertu du lemme 3.1 on peut supposer sans perte de généralité que

$$T_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)=I+D,$$

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

On aura pour la matrice $`T_2`$

$$T_2=I+R,$$

$$R=V^1DV=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_1& a_2& a_3& a_4\\ b_1& b_2& b_3& b_4\\ c_1& c_2& c_3& c_4\\ d_1& d_2& d_3& d_4\end{array}\right),$$

avec une matrice $`V`$, $`det(V)0`$ et les constantes inconnues $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$, $`c_i`$, $`d_i𝐂.`$

Remarque 4.2. La matrice étant nilpotente,

$$\mathrm{S}pectre(R)=\{0,0,0,0\}.$$
$`(4.1)`$
LEMME 4.3– Soit $`J`$ l’invariant rationnel de $`G`$, alors

$$\delta J=0,\mathrm{\Delta }J=0,$$

$`\delta =x_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}+x_4{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}},\mathrm{\Delta }=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_ix_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}+\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}b_ix_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}+\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}c_ix_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}}+\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}d_ix_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_4}}.`$

Démonstration du lemme 4.3.– Pour un arbitraire $`n𝐍`$ nous avons $`T_1^n=I+nD`$. Par conséquent

$$J\left(T_1^nx\right)=J(x+nDx)=J(x)+n\delta J(x)+\underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^ir_i(x)=J(x),$$

Il résulte de là que $`\delta J=0`$. La preuve de l’identité $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ s’effectue de la même manière. $`\mathrm{}`$

On obtient donc

$$\delta J_i=\mathrm{\Delta }J_i=0,i=1,2.$$

Ces équations nous permettent de trouver les restrictions sur les paramètres $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$, $`c_i`$, $`d_i`$ qui s’écrivent sous la forme d’un systéme d’équations algébriques

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_1(a,b,c,d)=0,\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ P_m(a,b,c,d)=0,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
avec les polynômes $`P_1\mathrm{}P_m`$, $`m𝐍.`$

Par ailleurs, la condition 4.1 nous donne un autre système d’équations sur les mêmes
paramètres

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_1(a,b,c,d)=0,\hfill & & \\ \hfill & & \\ L_n(a,b,c,d)=0,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.3)`$
avec les polynômes $`L_1\mathrm{}L_n`$, $`n𝐍.`$

On peut vérifier par un calcul direct, que pour $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$, $`c_i`$, $`d_i`$ satisfaisant aux systèmes (4.2) et (4.3) on aura toujours

$$Spectr(T_1T_2)=\{1,1,1,1\},$$

d’où, en utilisant le corollaire 3.2

$$Spectr(T_{\mathrm{}})=\{1,1,1,1\}.$$

Or cela est contraire au corollaire 3.3. Ceci achève la démonstration du théorème 1.1.

Remerciements

Je remercie L. Gavrilov and V. Kozlov pour m’avoir proposé le sujet de ce travail et ses suggestions. Je veux également remercier J.–P. Ramis, J.–A. Weil et D. Bucher pour l’intérêt qu’ils ont porté à ce travail.

Références bibliographiques

 H. Bruns, Ueberdie Integrale des vierk$`\ddot{o}`$rper Problems, Acta Math. 11, p. 25-96, 1887.

 J.L. Lagrange, Oeuvres. Vol. 6, 272-292, Paris, 1873.

 J.J. Morales-Ruiz, J.P. Ramis, Galosian Obstructions to integrability of Hamiltonian Systems, Preprint, 1998.

 H. Poincaré, Les méthodes novelles de la mécanique céleste, vol. 1, chap. 5, Paris,1892.

 A. Tsygvintsev, On the variational equations of three–body problem near Lagrangian solutions, Prépublication 150 du Laboratoire de Mathématiques E. Picard, Université Toulouse III, 1999.

 E.T. Whittaker, A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of particles and Rigid Bodies, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1970.

 S.L. Ziglin, Branching of solutions and non-existence of first integrals in Hamiltonian Mechanics I, Func. Anal. Appl. 16, 1982.


text:
# ADC common noise correction and zero suppression in the PIBETA detector

## 1 Introduction

Experimental areas in particle accelerator facilities are notoriously noisy places due to beamline elements like magnets, slits, pumps, power supplies, and fans as well as other assorted electronics equipment that either runs continuously or is intermittently turning on and off. All of the above may cause voltage ripples that significantly compromise photomultiplier tube (PMT) current pulses digitized by analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The problem is compounded especially in analysis of data from segmented detectors where total energy and/or direction of each measured particle are derived from smeared ADC values of several adjacent detector modules. An experimenter might try to follow the recipes for reduction of pedestal noise couplings by designing recommended magnetic shielding and applying proper electrical grounding principles . But such efforts are in practice usually met with only limited success.

In order to minimize the electronic noise arising from “dirty” electrical grounds and from cross-talk between adjacent detector ADC channels, quality coaxial cables are used for connecting PMT anode outputs with inputs of fast electronics units. This arrangement though does not protect against stray magnetic fields at low frequencies that cause the so-called “ground loops”.

While a low frequency noise component can be removed by using isolation transformers and capacitor-coupled inputs to the ADCs, that approach is not an option in high-rate environments where AC-coupled devices would produce unacceptable signal distortions and rate-dependent baseline shifts.

Custom electronic circuits developed to address the problem of low frequency voltage ripples are described in Refs. . They are designed to provide a correspondence between a simple saw-tooth waveform and an experimental AC-power cycle, digitizing that information and passing it to the data stream for an offline noise correction.

Another method that uses one or more “blackened PMTs” (bPMTs) in parallel with the detector active PMTs is described and compared with active AC-noise synchronization circuits in Ref. . The bPMTs are dummy phototubes under high voltage but with no attached detector modules, whose signals are digitized in exactly the same way as those of the active detectors. A drawback/disadvantage of the method is that for complicated experimental layouts operating in noisy environments and with multiple local grounds prevailing in the areas close to beamlines, more than a handful of the bPMTs would be necessary to account properly for the correlated noise. Moreover, because bPMTs should be mechanically and electrically a part of a detector and should be physically close the active PMTs, they could be affected by, for example, Cherenkov radiation caused by relativistic minimum ionizing particles in photocathode glass windows, destroying the noise correlations.

In the analysis that follows we take advantage of the fact that our apparatus, the PIBETA detector at PSI, consists of individual detectors that are optically isolated from each other. Therefore, one particular physics trigger will not excite more than a handful of active detectors and the role of a “blackened PMT” can be played by different active detector lines in different events. We call our procedure “the second pedestal noise correction”.

## 2 Experimental layout

The PIBETA apparatus  is a large acceptance 3$`\pi `$sr non-magnetic detector optimized for measurements of electrons and photons in the energy range of 10–100 MeV. The heart of the detector is a spherical 240-module pure CsI calorimeter that is supplemented with a segmented 9-piece active plastic target, a pair of conventional cylindrical MWPCs, and a cylindrical 20-counter plastic hodoscope for charged particle tracking and identification.

All parts of the detector are mounted at the center of a 2.5 m$`\times `$5.6 m steel platform that also carries high voltage power supplies, a detector cooling system, coiled coaxial delay cables on the one side, and fast trigger electronics on the opposite side of the platform. Therefore, the PIBETA detector is a compact self-contained assembly that can be moved easily from its parking place into a chosen experimental area as a single unit and made operational within a day. Due to the detector’s proximity to elements of the beamline, our fast electronics are exposed to a significant contaminating electronic hum. Fig. 1 shows a typical baseline of an analog signal that is to be digitized in an ADC device, captured on a Tektronix TDS 744 digital oscilloscope. A snapshot displays ground-loop noise with frequencies of $``$50 Hz and $``$300 Hz in a 20$`\mu `$s interval. Typical peak-to-peak noise amplitude is $`<`$5 mV.

PIBETA PMT signal outputs are split either directly at the PMT voltage dividers or at passive custom-made analog signal splitters. One branch of a calorimeter analog signal is delayed $``$380 ns in coaxial cables and then split again to provide inputs for FASTBUS ADC units and discriminators/TDCs/scalers. The other branch of the PMT signal is connected to analog summing and discriminator modules of the fast trigger electronics. The master trigger outputs are delayed and subsequently used to provide ADC gates and TDC start/stop signals. Metal frames of the PMT high voltage supplies on one end of the platform and the detector conductive support structure in the center are connected with 10 mm/20 mm thick copper cables to fast trigger electronics grounding points in order to decrease the noise arising from the ground loops. Voltage differences between different parts of the detector are measured with a digital voltmeter and after the grounding connections are put in place are reduced to less than 4 mV.

For digitizing fast PMT pulses we have used a LeCroy ADC model 1882F unit, a high-density FASTBUS converter with 96 current-integrating negative inputs . The 1885F unit provided a wide dynamic range with 12-bit data for the resolution of 0.05 pC/count and less than 1 % quantization error. Raw pedestals are set at about 200-300 channels and in our particular experimental environment had the average root-mean-square (rms) widths of $``$15-20 channels.

Fig. 2 presents an analog signal of a single CsI calorimeter detector on 2 mV/division and 100 ns/division scale taken in 6 sec persistence mode. Clearly, with an ADC gate width set to 100 ns, the ADC unit will integrate variable amounts of the noise current. A 70 MeV electron or photon will produce a current pulse with an amplitude of $``$0.25 V and a $``$30 ns FWHM width. This current pulse into 50$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will integrate to a charge of about 150 pC, placing it at 3/4 of the full scale. A common noise with an amplitude 5 mV present on the baseline will integrate in a 100 ns gate to a 10 pC charge, or almost 7% of an actual particle signal. As the energies and/or directions of measured particles are deduced from ADCs of a centrally hit calorimeter module and on average two nearest neighbors hit, the resulting uncertainty in energy (direction) could add up to 20%.

## 3 Random (Pedestal) Trigger

A 190$`\times `$20$`\times `$8 mm3 plastic scintillator counter (BC-400) is placed horizontally above the electronics racks, about 3 m away from the main PIBETA detector. By virtue of its position, the counter is shielded from the experimental radiation area by a 5 cm thick lead brick wall as well as by a 50 cm wide concrete wall. Operating with a high discriminator threshold it is counting only random cosmic muons at about 1-2 Hz frequency, having a stable counting rate for both beam-on and beam-off periods.

The discriminated signals from that scintillator counter define our random trigger. The main PIBETA detector trigger is defined dynamically in a programmable logic unit. In practice, the master trigger is a logic OR of up to 12 individual triggers. High rate physics triggers in the mix are prescaled, with prescaling factors depending on the trigger type and the beam stopping rate. The random trigger is connected to the trigger mix logic unit and in production runs it is always included among the enabled triggers. A single production run is limited to 200,000 events, yielding typically $``$104 random triggers per run interspersed among the physics triggers.

We note parenthetically that in an off-line analysis ADC values for all detectors in random events are written out to a text file. These data sets are used in a GEANT  detector simulation, enabling us to account rigorously for residual ADC noise and accidental event pile-ups in the energy spectra.

## 4 Common Noise Groups

In a pre-production calibration run data are first collected in so-called “pedestal mode” with the beam off and with only random trigger enabled in the trigger mix. Raw pedestals are automatically calculated at the end of the calibration run. Namely, the pedestal histograms are filled with the random trigger events $`R_{ni}`$ expressed in ADC channel numbers, where a subscript $`n`$ labels a detector and an index $`i`$ represents an event number. At the end of the run these histograms are analyzed for the mean pedestal positions $`P_n`$. The mean pedestal positions and widths are saved in the data acquisition database residing completely in shared memory to allow for fast access. “Calibrated ADC values” $`C_i`$ in the subsequent production runs would then be differences between raw ADC readings $`R_{ni}`$ and the pedestal values $`P_n`$ retrieved from the database:

$$C_{ni}=R_{ni}P_n.$$
(1)
The analyzer calibration program also calculates the correlation coefficients $`r_{nm}`$ among all possible detector pairs “$`nm`$” that belong to the same detector group, e.g., for 240 calorimeter detectors, 40 plastic veto hodoscope counters, etc. The expression used for calculating the correlation coefficient $`r_{nm}`$ is :

$$r_{nm}=\frac{N\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{ni}C_{mi}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{ni}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{mi}}{\sqrt{N_{i=1}^N(C_{ni})^2(_{i=1}^NC_{ni})^2}\sqrt{N_{i=1}^N(C_{mi})^2(_{i=1}^NC_{mi})^2}},$$
(2)
where sums extend over all pedestal events with calibrated ADC values $`C_{ni}`$ less than 20 channels and $`N`$ is the total number of such events. The 20 channel limit corresponds to the half-width at tenth-maximum of the typical noise distribution and discriminated against (very rare) cosmic events in our random data set that would smear up our correlation matrix.

The correlation coefficient matrix is saved in a text file that is analyzed by an offline computer program to identify the detector noise groups. The program user can select the maximum number of noise groups (default 10), minimum group size (default 8) and the minimum correlation coefficient (default 0.75) between the detectors in the same noise group. The offline code combines detectors into noise groups on a trial-and-error basis with the over-all goal of maximizing the average intergroup correlation coefficients, while keeping the number of groups as small as possible and the minimum number of channels in any group above a given limit. With a minimum group size of eight detectors the program generated 10 noise groups for the 240 CsI channels with an average intergroup correlation coefficient 0.90 and minimum correlation coefficient greater than 0.75.

The noise groups suggested by the program are subsequently hard-coded in the analyzer calibration program. An example of six plastic hodoscope (PV) noise groups is given below in a section of C code:

```
/* ADC groups for common noise suppression */

#define MAX_NOISE_GROUP 100
int adc_group[][MAX_NOISE_GROUP] = {

  /* Plastic Veto Detectors */

  {240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,
   249,250,251,252,253,254,255, -1},
  {256,257,258,259, -1},
  {260,261,262,263,264, -1},
  {265,266,267,268,269,270,271, -1},
  {272,273,274,275, -1},
  {276,277,278,279, -1},
  { -1 },                          };

```

where individual PV counters are identified by their signal indices. The value “$`1`$” at the end of each line follows the last detector in every noise group. Each detector is included in one and only one noise group. Detectors belonging to the same noise group are usually physically close and have their signal and high voltage cables bundled together.

The algorithm for calculating of noise-corrected and calibrated ADC values resides in the analyzer program with predefined noise groups. The algorithm loops over all ADC channels and for every event:

1. subtracts the raw pedestal values retrieved from the online database from raw ADC variables (“first pedestal correction”);
2. identifies the common noise group that the current detector belongs to;
3. finds the channel with the smallest ADC value in that group;
4. finds all the channels in the group under consideration which are within 15 counts above the minimum of the group and calculates their average ADC value;
5. subtracts that average value (“second pedestal correction”) from the ADC values of all other group members.

At the beginning of each run the pedestal histograms are reset and at the end of the run they are again analyzed by fitting lineshapes with a Gaussian function. The means of the distributions are updated in the database as new pedestal values $`P_n`$.

## 5 Results and Discussion

Fig. 3 shows a scatter plot of ADC values for two different CsI detectors acquired with a random trigger. Uncorrected ADC values are plotted in the top panel showing the correlation in an electronic noise: these two detectors are eventually assigned to the same electronics noise group. Using the secondary pedestal correction procedure described above, we obtained a scatter-plot of the corrected ADC values presented in the lower panel of Fig. 3.

Examples of one-dimensional ADC histograms for two different detector types, namely a plastic scintillator counter and one active target segment are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Top panels represent raw ADC spectra, bottom panels show the noise suppression in the corrected spectra.

In Fig. 4 a peak at channel number 6 is inserted by the fitting function in the analyzer program. Its position corresponds to 3 standard deviations of the corrected pedestal lineshape. In readout of the ADC modules all channels with the values below 3$`\sigma `$ are suppressed by being considered equal to zero and are not written to tape. This zero suppression criterion compresses the size of our data files by an order of magnitude.

A comparison between the smearing of raw pedestal data and the spectra obtained after the noise suppression for four different detector types is given in Table 1. The table summarizes the maximum and minimum noise group sizes, rms widths of raw and corrected pedestal histograms as well as an important equivalent energy deposition corresponding to the corrected pedestal rms values. We see that the energy equivalents of the rms widths range from 0.13 MeV in CsI detectors to 0.40 MeV in the segmented target. The target pedestals are more difficult to correct because of (a) the small number of target segments (9) that form a noise group, and (b) the high rate of physics triggers in the target, with up to 1 MHz stopping pions.

## 6 Conclusion

We have implemented correction of modular detector ADC readings for the correlated common noise using the method of common noise detector groups. The reduction in the pedestal width of up to a factor of five is achieved with the corrected pedestal rms values as narrow as 1.5 ADC channels. This improvement compares favorably with the active circuit noise suppression methods  where improvement factors are $``$5-6.

In a representative case of pure CsI calorimeter the procedure reduces the correlated noise contribution to the equivalent energy of 0.13 MeV per detector module. For the energy range of interest, 10–100 MeV, this value is smaller than the photoelectron statistics contribution of $`\sqrt{E/60}`$MeV  and is comparable with the PMT dark current noise that amounts to $``$0.1 MeV.

## 7 Acknowledgements

This work is supported and made possible by grants from the US National Science Foundation and the Paul Scherrer Institute.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5