text:
# Phenomenological studies of inclusive ep scattering at low momentum transfer 𝑄²

## 1 Introduction

The measurement of the proton structure function $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$ at HERA has attracted lots of interest and attention in recent years. The H1 and ZEUS Collaborations have measured $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$ with high precision using various experimental techniques. This allowed to study the behavior of $`F_2`$ in the transition from the deep-inelastic scattering region ($`Q^21`$GeV2) to the photoproduction region ($`Q^20`$GeV2).

At low $`Q^2`$ a perturbative QCD (pQCD) approach based on NLO DGLAP fits is expected to lose its validity for fundamental reason. This is due to the underlying non-Abelian nature of the QCD field theory and its corresponding behavior of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ to be large at large distances which therefore does not permit a perturbative approach. Thus other non-perturbative QCD concepts have to be considered such as Regge phenomenology, Generalized Vector Dominance (GVD) and Color Dipole Picture (CDP) model approaches to name only the most prominent.

It has been shown that a pQCD analysis based on NLO DGLAP fits allow to describe the behavior of $`F_2`$ down to approximately $`Q^21`$GeV2 . Although the quality of those fits are still acceptable down to $`Q^21`$GeV2, various expectations on the behavior of the underlying parton distributions at high $`Q^2`$ are no longer valid at low $`Q^2`$, e.g. the behavior of the gluon distribution. This gave rise to several theoretical debates on the validity of NLO DGLAP fits at low $`Q^2`$ indicating that the limits of a pQCD approach are reached earlier than simply given by the quality of the NLO DGLAP fits. Putting it in other words, the application of a partonic picture such as pQCD based on NLO DGLAP fits cannot necessarily be pushed down to $`Q^21`$GeV2 without loosing its physical interpretation. At low $`Q^2`$ and in particular in the limit of $`Q^20`$ \- which is a well known fact - a hadronic behavior becomes important which can be well accounted for by Regge phenomenology.

It has recently been shown that the GVD/CDP model approach provides at low $`x`$ a successful description of $`F_2`$ from the deep-inelastic scattering region ($`Q^21`$GeV2) to the photoproduction region ($`Q^20`$GeV2). It still remains to be shown how these findings can be interpreted based on a microscopic picture of quark and gluon dynamics. Such an attempt has recently been published in .

The next section will provide an overview of various $`F_2`$ results showing the $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ dependence of $`F_2`$ as well as the $`Q^2`$ and $`W^2`$ dependence of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ which is in particular important when approaching the photoproduction limit ($`Q^20`$).

To quantify the behavior of $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$, the derivatives $`d\mathrm{ln}(F_2)/d\mathrm{ln}(x)`$ for fixed $`Q^2`$ and $`dF_2/d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)`$ for fixed $`x`$ have been determined and compared to expectations within the framework of perturbative and non-perturbative QCD. Furthermore, the derivatives were compared to results of the total inclusive diffractive cross-section and vector-meson production. Those results will be shown in section 3.

An attempt is made in section 4 to interpret the HERA inclusive ep scattering results in the framework of the GVD/CDP model approach. It will be shown that a universal hadronic behavior of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section is reached not only in the limit of $`Q^20`$ for fixed $`W^2`$ which is seen at HERA but also - without experimental verification yet - in the limit of $`x0`$ for fixed $`Q^2`$, i.e. $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}`$.

## 2 Overview plots of $`F_2`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$

Figure 1 shows the kinematic coverage in the $`Q^2x`$ plane for various fixed-target experiments and the HERA collider experiments H1  and ZEUS . Access to the low $`Q^2`$ region was made possible using various experimental techniques. A dedicated detector to measure the scattered electron under very small angles and thus to provide acceptance at low $`Q^2`$ has been installed within the ZEUS experiment. This effort allowed to measure $`F_2`$ over a wide range in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ with high precision (ZEUS BPT 1997). Dedicated HERA runs with a shifted event vertex compared to the nominal interaction vertex have been used at H1 and ZEUS to effectively gain acceptance at low $`Q^2`$ (H1 SVX 1995 and ZEUS SVX 1995). Preliminary results on a measurement of $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$ using initial-state radiation events thus using events with a lower center-of-mass energy and thereby gaining acceptance at low $`Q^2`$ has been reported by the H1 Collaboration (H1 ISR).

Those measurements allowed an experimental basis to examine the behavior of $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$ over a wide range in $`x`$. Taking all these measurements together overview plots of the $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ dependence of $`F_2`$ as well as the $`Q^2`$ and $`W^2`$ dependence of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ are shown in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Figure 2 shows the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section as a function of $`Q^2`$ for different values of $`W`$. Also shown is the measurement of the total photoproduction cross-section by the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations. A steady decrease of $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ with increasing $`Q^2`$ for $`Q^2>1`$GeV2 can be seen which is well accounted for by NLO DGLAP-fits  (H1 97). Going towards lower values of $`Q^2`$ a characteristic change of $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ is visible at around $`Q^21`$GeV2. The region of $`Q^2<1`$GeV2 can be well represented by a Regge/VDM-fit  (ZEUS BPT 1997). A GVD/CDP-model approach using the ansatz by  allows to describe $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ for $`Q^2<100`$GeV2 and $`x<0.01`$.

Figure 3 shows the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section as a function of $`W^2`$ for different values of $`Q^2`$. $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ is seen to increase more strongly with $`W^2`$ for larger values of $`Q^2`$ which is well described by NLO DGLAP-fits  (H1 97). At low $`Q^2`$ and thus towards the photoproduction limit the milder increase of $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ can be represented by a Regge/VDM-fit  (ZEUS BPT 1997). For $`x<0.01`$ and $`Q^2<100`$GeV2 the GVD/CDP-model approach  provides a good description of the $`W^2`$ dependence.

Figure 4 shows $`F_2`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$ for different values of $`x`$. $`F_2`$ diminishes towards low $`Q^2`$ like $`F_2Q^20`$ for $`Q^20`$. The rise of $`F_2`$ with $`Q^2`$ increases in the low $`x`$ region which is larger at high $`Q^2`$ and smaller at low $`Q^2`$. The region of $`Q^2<1`$GeV2 can be well described by a Regge/VDM-fit  (ZEUS BPT 1997) whereas the region for $`Q^2>1`$GeV2 can be well accounted for by NLO-DGLAP fits  (H1 97). For $`x<0.01`$ and $`Q^2<100`$GeV2 the GVD/CDP-model approach  provides a good description of the $`Q^2`$ dependence.

Figure 5 shows $`F_2`$ as a function of $`x`$ for different values of $`Q^2`$. The rise of $`F_2`$ diminishes towards low $`Q^2`$ and reaches the expected $`x`$-dependence which is well accounted for by a Regge/VDM-description  (ZEUS BPT 1997) based on a soft Pomeron ansatz. Towards larger values of $`Q^2`$ NLO DGLAP-fits  (H1 97) successfully describe the $`x`$-dependence of $`F_2`$. For $`x<0.01`$ and $`Q^2<100`$GeV2 the GVD/CDP-model approach  provides a good description of the $`x`$ dependence.

## 3 Phenomenological studies on the $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence

Both, the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations have carried out phenomenological studies to quantify the observed behavior of $`F_2`$ at low $`Q^2`$ which was discussed in the last section. The derivatives $`d\mathrm{ln}(F_2)/d\mathrm{ln}(x)`$ for fixed $`Q^2`$ and $`dF_2/d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)`$ for fixed $`x`$ have been determined and compared to expectations within the framework of perturbative and non-perturbative QCD.

The H1 Collaboration extracted for the first time the derivative $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}F_2(x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}x}\right)_{Q^2}\lambda (x,Q^2)`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ . As can be seen from Figure 6, the derivative $`\lambda (x,Q^2)`$ is found to be independent of $`x`$ for $`x<0.01`$. This implies that the $`x`$ dependence of $`F_2`$ at low $`x`$ is consistent with a power-law behavior, $`F_2x^\lambda `$, for fixed values of $`Q^2`$. Furthermore the rise of $`F_2`$ at low $`x`$ which was one of the first observations at HERA, is found to be proportional to $`F_2/x`$. Thus, there is no evidence for a change in this behavior in the measured kinematical region. The observed behavior at low $`x`$ is consistent with the result of a pQCD fit.

These findings justify that the behavior of $`F_2`$ can be simply quantified as $`F_2=C(Q^2)x^{\lambda (Q^2)}`$. Figure 7 shows the exponent $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$. $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ is seen to rise linearly with $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$. The extracted coefficient $`C(Q^2)`$ is found to be independent of $`Q^2`$ within experimental uncertainties.

A similar analysis extracting $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ as a function of $`x`$ has been carried out by the ZEUS Collaboration. The result of this preliminary analysis is shown in Figure 8. The extracted values for $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ extend to lower values in $`Q^2`$. The results agree with the ZEUS QCD01 parameterization down to $`Q^2=2.5`$GeV2. For $`Q^2<0.6`$GeV2, $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ is consistent with a constant value of $`0.1`$ as expected from the assumption of a single soft Pomeron exchange within the framework of Regge phenomenology. Thus the slope in $`F_2`$ at low $`x`$ and very low $`Q^2`$ is found to be independent of $`Q^2`$ within experimental uncertainties. This behavior can be also inferred from Figure 2. The $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section at fixed values of $`W^2`$ saturates for $`Q^20`$.

An attempt was made to compare the energy dependence of the inclusive $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section which is equivalent to the above studies on the $`x`$ dependence of $`F_2`$, to the energy dependence of the total inclusive diffractive cross-section (Diff) , vector meson production (VM) and deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) at HERA. The total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section can be related to the elastic vector meson cross-section using the Optical Theorem which implies that $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ varies with $`W^2`$ as $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2)^ϵ`$ whereas the elastic vector meson cross-section varies with $`W^2`$ as $`\sigma _{el}(\gamma ^{}pVp)(W^2)^{2ϵ}`$.

Figure 9 shows a compilation of various slope analyses from the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations. The inclusive results which were discussed earlier are found to be consistent within experimental uncertainties. The vector meson analysis indicated that the equivalent slope, $`\lambda _{VM}`$, scales with $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ where $`M_{VM}`$ is the vector meson mass. The extracted values for $`\lambda _{Diff}`$, $`\lambda _{VM}`$ and $`\lambda _{DVCS}`$ are multiplied by a factor $`1/2`$ in the comparison to the inclusive results.

The naive expectations of $`\lambda _{VM}/2=\lambda `$ is approximately true. $`\lambda _{Diff}/2`$ is somewhat below the inclusive result indicating that the inclusive and inclusive diffractive cross-sections have the same $`W`$ dependence contrary to the case of elastic vector-meson production.

The large uncertainties however do not permit to draw any further conclusions yet.

Both, the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations, extracted besides the $`x`$ slope of $`F_2`$ also the $`Q^2`$ slope, i.e. $`(F_2/\mathrm{log}Q^2)_x`$. Those results are shown in Figure 10  (H1 97) and 11. A consistent picture of the H1 and ZEUS analysis is obtained on the $`Q^2`$ slope of $`F_2`$ as a function of $`x`$. At low $`Q^2`$, the slope of $`F_2`$ increases only slowly towards low values of $`x`$ whereas at high $`Q^2`$ it increases rather strongly. This behavior can be also inferred from Figure 4 which is in agreement with pQCD predictions as shown in Figure 10.

## 4 Interpretation of HERA data

The $`W^2`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section has been discussed in detail in the last section.

To summarize, the steep rise of the inclusive $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section with increasing $`W^2`$ which is equivalent to the steep rise of $`F_2`$ towards low $`x`$, diminishes for $`Q^20`$ and reaches the energy dependence of the total $`\gamma p`$ cross-section. At low $`Q^2`$, the cross-section behavior of the total inclusive $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section can be well accounted for by Regge phenomenology whereas at high $`Q^2`$, pQCD based on a NLO DGLAP analysis allows to describe the observed behavior.

At low $`x`$ and $`Q^2<100`$GeV2 it was shown that a GVD/CDP-model approach allows to describe the observed cross-section behavior.

In the formulation of the above model by , it has been shown that virtual as well as real photon cross-sections show a scaling behavior of the form $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{()}p}(W^2,Q^2)=\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{()}p}(\eta )`$ with $`\eta =(Q^2+m_0^2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2)`$. For related approaches compare .

The scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ turned out to be an increasing function of $`W^2`$ and my be represented by a power law ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)=C_1(W^2+W_0^2)_2^C`$) or logarithmic ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)=C_1^{^{}}\mathrm{ln}(W^2/W_0^2+C_2^{^{}})`$) function of $`W^2`$. The threshold mass $`m_0^2`$ as well as the other three parameters of the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(W^2)`$ have been constrained by the data itself. The result of this analysis can be seen in Figure 12. It has been shown that this scaling behavior improves with decreasing $`x`$. The HERA data on DIS in the low $`x`$ diffraction region, including photoproduction, find a natural interpretation in the GVD/CDP picture that rests on the generic structure of two-gluon exchange from QCD.

If one assumes that this behavior continues at extremely low $`x`$ or large values of $`W^2`$ one is faced to conclude that $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ reaches the energy behavior of the total photoproduction cross-section for any value of $`Q^2`$. Thus there are two limits which allows the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section to saturate. First, for fixed values of $`W^2`$, one finds $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}`$ which has been clearly seen at HERA (Figure 2). The second limit of $`x0`$ or equivalently of $`W^2\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`Q^2`$ can be inferred from the above findings within the GVD/CDP picture. The total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section reaches for $`W^2\mathrm{}`$ the total photoproduction cross-section limit for any fixed values of $`Q^2`$. The second limit however has not been experimentally confirmed so far and it will be rather difficult in the future to do so. Figure 13 shows expectations for the behavior of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross-section at large $`W^2`$ using the derived analytical expression for $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$ by . This demonstrates clearly the asymptotic behavior $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}/\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}1`$ for $`W^2\mathrm{}`$. The kinematical region of HERA is also shown which is far from the second limit described above.

In summary, one is led to conclude based on the findings within the GVD/CDP picture that the real and virtual photons on protons become identical in the limit of infinite energy.


format: text

text:
# References

Symmetries, Variational Principles and Quantum Dynamics

J.Manjavidze
Institute of Physics, Tbilisi, Georgia $`\&`$ JINR, Dubna, Russia, e-mail: joseph@nusun.jinr.ru,

A.Sissakian
JINR, Dubna, Russia, e-mail: sisakian@jinr.ru

## Abstract

The role of symmetries in formation of quantum dynamics is discussed. A quantum version of the d’Alambert’s principle is proposed to take into account symmetry constrains for quantum case. It is noted that in this approach one can find, in four space-time dimensions, the free of divergences quantum field theory.

1. The problem of ”book-keeping” of the quantum degrees of freedom looks till now as a primary task for any modern field theory. The point is that the non-Abelian gauge theory of Yang and Mills, or Einstein gravity, both obey high symmetry and the symmetry itself signifies an existence of a connection among various degrees of freedom, i.e. hence the symmetry reduces the number of dynamical degrees of freedom. So, the ”book-keeping” means the procedure of counting of the $`independent`$ degrees of freedom.

This question has a fundamental background. It is known that the symmetry may improve solvability of the quantum problem. The hidden $`O(4)`$ symmetry solves the Coulomb problem  and, therefore, the semiclassical Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rules are exact for this problem. Another example is the $`SL(2C)`$ symmetry which solves the 2-dimensional sin-Gordon field theory so that the semiclassical approximation becomes exact . More examples one can find in . So, the symmetry actually reduces the quantum degrees of freedom.

We should keep in mind this marvelous phenomenon although it is hard to hope that we always deal with such simple ”completely integrable systems” , in which there is enough number of symmetry constrains to prevent perturbations. However, we have to keep in mind such a possibility. What if, e.g., the Einstein gravity is the purely classical theory because of its highest space-time symmetry. Sure, this assumption looks curiously, though, it is most likely that Einstein was thinking it is so. But there is also another side of the ”book-keeping” problem.

To note is that general quantum field, due to the constrains, can not be treated always as the dispersive medium, unlike the electromagnetic fields which are described as one, two, and more photon states. In this case the quantum electrodynamics fundamental method of spectral analysis can not be applied. An example is the soliton quantization problem, where ordinary methods are not effective .

One needs other formalism, which takes into account the symmetry constrains.

2. The modern quantum theories practically are based on the classical Hamiltonian variational principle. It can be built into the quantum theories keeping in mind the Bohr’s ”correspondence principle”. Formally, this becomes possible thanks to an outstanding result of Dirac that the action $`S(u)`$ is a generator of displacements along the $`u(t)`$ trajectory. Then the transition amplitude of initial state, $`|in>`$, into the final one, $`|out>`$, is an exponent: $`<in|out>\mathrm{exp}\{iS(u)\}`$. The wave nature of quantum dynamics is realized then as a sum over all trajectories $`u(t)`$.

The simplest way of definition of this sum is based on the Ferma’s principle and uses the basis of geometrical optics. A generalization represents an equivalent to the Hamiltonian variational principle. In this frame the dynamics is realized on the actions extremum, i.e. it is supposed that the $`physical`$ trajectory $`u_c(t)`$ is a solution of:

$$\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(t)}=0.$$
(1)
This approach of ”book-keeping” of deviations from $`u_c`$ is known as the WKB method .

A weak point of this variational principle, as it is known from classical mechanics, is that it demands a cumbersome way the (symmetry) $`constrains`$ are introduced into the formalism . The formal problem is to extract the dynamical, i.e. independent, degrees of freedom. In the quantum case this leads to implementation of the Faddeev-Popov $`ansatz`$  which separates the dynamical degrees of freedom from symmetrical ones. Unfortunately, this method is unacceptable for non-Abelian gauge theory (in case the corresponding Yang-Mills fields are sufficiently strong , e.g. if the soliton-like excitation is considered) and for gravitational field .

3. We propose to use the d’Alambert’s variational principle which easily ”absorbs” the constrains, as is known from the classics. For that reason, it is of a definite value for us.

Indeed, the d’Alambert’s variational principle means that the virtual deviation $`\epsilon (t)`$ does not produce any work $`F(u)\epsilon =\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ since the mechanical motion is time reversible. So, for mechanical systems $`F(u)\epsilon (t)=0`$ and, as soon as $`\epsilon (t)`$ is an arbitrary function, one gets a condition that sum of $`all`$ the forces should be equal zero, $`F(u)=0`$. This equality may be treated as the equation of motion for $`u(t)`$ since $`F(u)`$ includes also the ”force of inertia”, $`\ddot{u}(t)`$. If there are constrains in the system considered, then they have to be included along with other forces into $`F(u)`$ .

It should be noted here that, as follows from d’Alambert’s principle, the solution of equation of motion $`u_c`$ already ”absorbs” all the constrains. Therefore, it is enough to count all possible forms of $`u_c`$ which are fixed by the integration constants.

Therefore, the mechanics built on the d’Alambert’s variational principle seems to be most useful for us. The connection among various degrees of freedom, as well as constrains, are naturally included into the prescription that the $`mechanical`$ motion must be time reversible.

The time reversibility may be achieved in quantum theories, for instance, considering loop trajectory with the transition amplitude $`R=<in|in>`$. In the meantime, to define the integral over particle momentum unambiguously, one needs to implement the $`iϵ`$-prescription of Feynman.

In particle physics the $`iϵ`$-prescription has been chosen so that a wave must disappear in remote future. Note that only such definition conserves a total probability. But it is evident that such a wave process is not time reversible. Therefore, even the simple loop trajectory can not be considered as an example of time reversible wave motion: due to the $`iϵ`$-prescription the loop amplitude is complex, i.e. it is not a singlet of complex conjugation operator.

This example creates an impression that quantum mechanics is time irreversible and, therefore, the d’Alambert’s variational principle can not be claimed for it. But then one may ask where is the quantum correspondence principle?

The answer is in fact that the amplitude $`R`$ is not a measurable quantity while only the product

$$\rho (in,out)=<in|out><out|in>=<in|out><in|out>^{}=|<in|out>|^2$$

is measured experimentally, i.e. only it has to be time reversible quantity . Note here that to define the amplitude $`<in|out>`$ the $`(+iϵ)`$-prescription must be used, as well as for $`<out|in>=<in|out>^{}`$ the $`(iϵ)`$-prescription is applied. Therefore, just $`\rho (in,out)`$ describes the time reversible process and this removes the contradiction with correspondence principle. Let us consider now what this gives us.

4. Following Dirac, one writes:

$$\rho e^{iS(u_+)}e^{iS(u_{})}.$$

To note is that $`u_+`$ and $`u_{}`$ are two completely independent trajectories and, by definition, the total action $`\{S(u_+)S(u_{})\}`$ is defined so that it describes closed-path motion.

To introduce the d’Alambert’s variational principle one needs to distinguish between the $`physical`$ trajectory $`u(t)`$ and the $`virtual`$ deviation, $`\epsilon (t)`$, from it. Therefore, it is naturally that

$$u_\pm (t)=u(t)\pm \epsilon (t)$$

and the integrations over $`u(t)`$ and $`\epsilon (t)`$ are taken independently . Noticing that (i) the closed-path motion is already described and (ii) the end-points, $`(in,out)`$, can not varied, the integration over $`\epsilon (t)`$ must be performed with boundary conditions for initial, $`t_i`$, and final $`t_f`$, times: $`\epsilon (t_i)=\epsilon (t_f)=0.`$ Then, in the expanding in $`\epsilon (t)`$,

$$S(u+\epsilon )S(u\epsilon )=\left\{S(u+\epsilon )S(u\epsilon )\right\}|_{\epsilon =0}+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}_{t_i}^{t_f}𝑑t\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(t)}\epsilon (t)+U(u,\epsilon ),$$

one may omit for the moment higher $`\epsilon (t)`$-terms noted here by $`U(u,\epsilon )`$. The first term is important if the classical trajectory is a periodic function . The resulted integral over $`\epsilon (t)`$ gives the functional $`\delta `$-function:

$$\underset{t}{}d\epsilon (t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{2i\mathrm{Re}_{t_i}^{t_f}𝑑t\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(t)}\epsilon (t)\right\}=\underset{t}{}^{}\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(t)}\right).$$
(2)
This equality means that the continuum of contributions with $`\delta S(u)/\delta u(t)0`$ are canceled in the integral independently on the shape of the function $`u(t)`$. It is the result of destructive interference among divergent $`e^{+iS(u_+)}`$ and convergent $`e^{iS(u_{})}`$ waves. Note that this complete cancellation is actually a result of the time reversibility.

The dynamical equilibrium, when $`\delta S(u)/\delta u(t)=0`$, is the only surviving and in this case the integral (2) is infinite. This is expressed by $`\delta `$-function in (2). Therefore, integration over virtual deviation, $`\epsilon (t)`$, leads to the Dirac $`\delta `$-like measure and and the later defines the complete set of contributions in the integrals over the trajectory $`u(t)`$ .

Returning to the d’Alambert’s variational principle, one can notice that, formally, the product $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\epsilon \delta S(u)/\delta u`$ in the exponent in (2) represents ”virtual work”. But in the considered wave process case $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}0`$, i.e. the quantum virtual deviations can produce some work. However, as follows from (2), the ”physical” trajectory is defined by the classical Lagrange equation (1) and, therefore, is the trajectory, where dynamical equilibrium is achieved.

Thus, we get a quantum version of the d’Alambert’s variational principle. It relies on the general principle of quantum theories that only the time reversible amplitude module is a measurable quantity.

Furthermore, this formalism allows including external forces . Thus, if $`U(u,\epsilon )`$ takes into account the higher nonlinear in $`\epsilon (t)`$ terms, then the $`strict`$ path integral representation of $`\rho `$ is given by:

$$\rho =e^{i𝐊(j\epsilon )}\underset{t}{}^{}du(t)\delta \left(\frac{\delta S(u)}{\delta u(t)}+j(t)\right)e^{iU(u,\epsilon )},$$
(3)
where the operator,

$$2𝐊(j\epsilon )=\mathrm{Re}𝑑t\frac{\delta }{\delta j(t)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon (t)},$$
(4)
generates a quantum perturbation series. The interaction functional $`U(u,\epsilon )`$ can be easily discovered from the Lagrangian. At the very end one should take in (3) the auxiliary variables $`j`$ and $`\epsilon `$ to be equal to zero.

So, one can generate the quantum perturbations including the $`random`$ force $`j(t)`$ being external to the classical system. This is an authentic indication that our formulating of quantum wave mechanics resembles the classical mechanics built on the d’Alambert’s variational principle base.

5. A generalization of the representation (3) to the field theory case is straightforward. One should simply replace $`u(t)`$ by $`u(x,t)`$, where $`x`$ is the space coordinate and $`t`$ is the time . The formalism does not depends a type of field is considered.

It must be noticed first of all that the functional $`\delta `$-function in (3) establishes one to one correspondence among quantum and classical description : the quantum case introduces the random force $`j(x)`$ into the system influence via the Gaussian operator $`𝐊(j\epsilon )`$. Therefore, if we know the $`general`$ solution $`u_c0`$, then $`all`$ quantum states can be counted varying the integration constants as the dynamical variables.

This correspondence is extended so that allows involving such a powerful method of classical mechanics as the method of transformation of dynamical variables. It should be underlined that this method can not be adopted on the time irreversible quantum amplitudes level .

The most useful variables are the (action,angle)-type ones 111In definite sense this type of variables play the same role as the ”collective coordinates” of Bogolyubov .. In this terms the world line of classical system (with enough constrains) moves over (Arnold’s) hypertorus with radii being equal to the action variable and its location is defined by the angle variables. In the quantum case, the action of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐊\}`$ leads to the Gaussian thrilling of the hypertorus. This vibration may be described in terms of random fluctuation of the action and angle variables and so that quantum perturbation gets up not in the functional space of field $`u(x,t)`$.

A transformation to the special type variables, namely to a set of the integration constants, has been proposed in -. To note is that if there is not enough constrains, then the system leaves the hypertorus surface and any mapping becomes meaningless. Such a situation is realized, for example, in quantum electrodynamics, which is gauge invariant but this is not enough for the hypertorus formation. In this case ordinary method of the Faddeev-Popov $`ansatz`$ is effective.

It should be stressed that discussed formulating of the theory is necessary and sufficient as well. The necessity follows from the fact that, in the situation of general position, the dynamics should realized on the Arnold’s hypertorus . The sufficiency follows from the fact that the fluctuations are defined on the Gaussian measure and so they cover the (action, angle) phase space completely.

We call such perturbation theory the $`topological`$ theory. Indeed, the topological properties are crucial since if a trajectory on the hypertorus has definite winding number (topological charge), then the probability that after random quantum walking, the system returns to the same (or shifted on a constant winding number) position is equal to zero. Therefore, such systems have to be exactly semiclassical. The quantitative prove of this conclusion is given in .

In the case if there is not the topological charge, the system ”freely” moves along the hypertorus and can be quantum. It is indeed evident that the Yang-Mills theory in the real-time metric , and could be, may be the gravitation theory, are just such kind of theories.

The above described transformation to the (action, angle)-type variables reduces the field-theoretical problem to the quantum mechanical one. Generally, such a mapping is singular but it is possible to isolate these infinities (they look like divergent integrals) and remove them via the normalization. This observation is extremely important since as a result we get the quantum mechanics being theory which is free from divergences. One can mention that isolating the divergences and then canceling them the renormalization was already performed. This property is intriguing since finiteness of the theory was attained without introduction of new fields, e.g. supersymmetry partners.

It is understandable that there is not the necessity to distinguish between the symmetry and dynamical degrees of freedom in new formulation of theory. Indeed, the quantum fluctuations are realized in the (action, angle) factor space and this does not touch the action symmetry. As a result, the perturbation series consists of transparently invariant terms .

6. We would like to note the following fact being important from the cognition point of view. It is remarkable that restricting the problem and computing the module of amplitude, i.e. leaving the phase of amplitude undefined, the remarkable progress is shown to be achieved. So, we can say that, for instance, the Yang-Mills theory $`exists`$222See www.claymath.org/prizeproblems concerning more details for the question of $`existence`$ of the Yang-Mills theory. as the theory of observables since in this restricted frame (i) it is free from the divergences and (ii) there is no problems  with necessity to distinguish between the dynamical and the symmetry degrees of freedom.

However, finally, it must be admitted that one does not know, wether the time reversibility principle, i.e. the quantum d’Alambert’s principle, can be applied to the Einstein gravity? If yes, then no gravitational waves are expected to be observed despite the fact that the gravity would be the quantum theory and, moreover, such theory could be free from divergences. The point is that, most likely, the gravity does not represent the dispersive media. This follows from the fact that the equation for metrics has a nontrivial solution.


text:
# Predictive Schemes for Bimaximal Neutrino Mixings

## I Introduction

There appear to be persuasive arguments in favor of the possibility that both the solar and the atmospheric neutrino anomalies are explained by a specific pattern of neutrino mixings where both the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ as well as the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing angles are nearly maximal, while the $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ mixing angle is small . The $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mixing explains the solar neutrino deficit whereas the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing accounts successfully for the atmospheric neutrino data. This pattern has been called in the literature as bimaximal mixing. The best fit values for the mass difference squares for the atmospheric and solar data seem to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2(10^410^5)`$ eV2.

A major theoretical challenge is to provide an understanding of this pattern in reasonable extensions of the standard model (SM). There are many models in the literature , which provide ways to arrive at the bimaximal pattern starting with different assumptions. In this note, we suggest several simple scenarios which are quite predictive and therefore testable in the near future in ongoing and proposed neutrino oscillation experiments.

Before proceeding to present our schemes, we wish to motivate some special forms of the light neutrino mass matrix that lead to bimaximal mixings. These matrices are obtained under some restricted but well motivated set of assumptions, mindful of possible approximate symmetries that might be present in the lepton sector. Once identified, controlled breaking of these approximate symmetries can lead to very predictive schemes for neutrino mixings, as we shall demonstrate.

We work in a basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. We define the neutrino mixing matrix (the MNS matrix) $`U`$ as:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
where the states on the left and the right hand sides denote flavor and mass eigenstates. The light neutrino mass matrix $`_\nu `$ is given by the equation

$`_\nu =U_dU^T`$ (8)
where $`_d`$ is diagonal and has the form $`_d=Diag(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$. For the mass eigenvalues, there are essentially three different possibilities of physical interest: (a) hierarchical form where $`m_1m_2m_3`$; (b) inverted form where $`|m_1||m_2||m_3|`$ and (c) degenerate form where $`m_1=m;m_2=m+\delta _2;m_3=m+\delta _3`$, with $`\delta _{2,3}m`$. Since experiments indicate that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing angle is nearly maximal, and that $`U_{e3}`$ is very small, we choose the following approximate form for the mixing matrix $`U`$:

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& 0\\ \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (12)
Here $`s\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ is the solar neutrino oscillation angle, which is of order one, while the corresponding angle for atmospheric neutrino oscillation has been set to $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. In the exact bimaximal limit, we will have $`s=c=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

Consider case (a) in the exact bimaximal limit. Let us denote $`m_3=m`$, $`m_2=\delta `$ and set $`m_1=0`$. The matrix $`_\nu `$ is then give by

$`_\nu ^{(a)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta /2& \delta /(2\sqrt{2})& \delta /(2\sqrt{2})\\ \delta /(2\sqrt{2})& m/2+\delta /4& \delta /4m/2\\ \delta /(2\sqrt{2})& \delta /4m/2& \delta /4+m/2\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
For case (c), the form is the same as Eq. (4), except that there is an additional piece proportional to the unit matrix, $`Diag(1,1,1)m_0`$, with $`m_0`$ setting the overall scale for the degenerate mass. The relative hierarchy among the parameters in this case will be $`m_0m\delta `$.

For case (b) with the inverted spectrum, we get (choosing for simplicity the case $`c=s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`m_3=0,m_1=m=m_2+\delta `$),

$`_\nu ^{(b)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta /2& (2m\delta )/(2\sqrt{2})& (2m\delta )/(2\sqrt{2})\\ (2m\delta )/(2\sqrt{2})& \delta /4& \delta /4\\ (2m\delta )/(2\sqrt{2})& \delta /4& \delta /4\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
Of these forms, Eq. (5) is particularly interesting since if we set $`\delta =0`$ it reduces to

$`_\nu ^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m& m\\ m& 0& 0\\ m& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
with a redefined $`m`$. The mass matrix given in Eq. (6) has the interesting property that it has a global symmetry $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ ($`L_i`$ is the $`i`$th lepton number) along with a permutation symmetry $`S_2`$ acting on the $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ flavors. This new symmetry unraveled in the leptonic world is perhaps analogous to the local $`BL`$ symmetry that is revealed by the seesaw mechanism  for neutrino masses.

As it stands, $`_\nu ^{(0)}`$ of Eq. (6) cannot lead to solar neutrino oscillations since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=0`$. One needs to break the $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry in order to make the model realistic. Since the mass parameter $`m`$ in Eq. (6) is fixed by the atmospheric data i.e., $`m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$, the strength of the $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ breaking should be of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2(3\times 10^23\times 10^3)`$. The smallness of this symmetry breaking parameter suggests that $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ as well as $`S_2`$ symmetries are indeed approximately conserved.

In this paper, we attempt to seek realistic gauge models that realize Eq. (6) as the leading approximation of the light neutrino mass matrix. The correction terms to the mass matrix will involve very few parameters, so that there is a certain predictive power for neutrino mass difference squares as well as mixings. The hope is that such models can then be tested in future experiments and may shed light into the nature of new physics operating in the neutrino sector and perhaps more generally within quark lepton unified schemes. We present several examples of such models. First we show that global $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry, broken only by Planck scale effects, can give a rather good fit to the neutrino data. Then we present a scheme where the neutrino sector has only one parameter which is fixed by the atmospheric neutrino data. Radiative renormalization effects from the charged lepton sector then determines the rest of the parameters in the neutrino mass matrix, making the model extremely predictive. For instance, in this model, we obtain the relation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^24\sqrt{2}r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\tau }}}`$ (25)
where $`r`$ is a calculable parameter which depends only on the scale of new physics (e.g. seesaw scale) governing the smallness of $`m_\nu `$. In this model, the mixing parameter $`U_{e3}`$ is predicted to be $`U_{e3}\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\tau }}0.017`$. We also present a variation of this model with one more parameter, where $`U_{e3}`$ can be larger (even close to the present experimental upper limit of $`0.2`$). We present a second scenario which has two parameters. This model predicts bimaximal neutrino mixings with $`U_{e3}=0`$. Thus any evidence for nonzero $`U_{e3}`$ would rule out this scenario. Finally, we consider extensions of these schemes that may provide a simultaneous fit to solar, atmospheric as well as the LSND neutrino oscillation data. As is well known, this needs the introduction of a sterile neutrino. We achieve this in a manner that introduces only two more parameters into the theory by invoking the mirror matter models, where all new parameters (except the weak scale and possibly the QCD scale) are fixed by an exact mirror symmetry .

## II $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry and bimaximal mixing

Suppose that $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry is a global symmetry of the Lagrangian broken only by Planck scale induced terms. (Quantum gravity is expected to break all non gauge symmetries.) The Lagrangian in this case will have the general form:

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(aL_e\varphi L_\mu \varphi +bL_e\varphi L_\tau \varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\alpha \beta }}{M_P\mathrm{}}}(L_\alpha \varphi L_\beta \varphi )+h.c.`$ (26)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are flavor indices. Here $`\varphi `$ is the standard model Higgs doublet. $`M`$ is the seesaw scale, which can be near the GUT scale $`10^{15}`$ GeV, so the first set of terms in Eq. (8) will dominate over the last set. Note that the $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry is broken by the Planck scale induced terms. The leading contribution to $`_\nu `$ is of the form in Eq. (6), with the two nonzero entries unequal in general (denote them $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$). Upon diagonalizing, one obtains two nearly degenerate neutrino eigenstates with opposite CP parities with a common mass of $`m=\sqrt{m_1^2+m_2^2}`$. If $`M`$ is near the GUT scale, $`m0.03`$ eV can be explained quite naturally. A bimaximal pattern of neutrino mixings will also be induced, with $`U`$ given as in Eq. (3).

At this stage, we cannot account for solar neutrino oscillation since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=0`$ from Eq. (6). Once we include the Planck scale corrections from the last term of Eq. (8), one gets a mass matrix

$`_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta & m_1& m_2\\ m_1& ϵ_1& ϵ_2\\ m_2& ϵ_2& ϵ_3\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
with $`\delta ,ϵ_i2\times 10^5`$ eV. This leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^210^6`$ eV2, which is close to the required value for large mixing angle solar neutrino oscillation fit. It is encouraging that all the parameters are in the right range to fit solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation given the assumption that the seesaw scale $`M`$ is near the GUT scale. It should be noted that in this scenario, the solar oscillation angle is given by $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=1𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^2`$, which is very close to 1. Thus this scenario would prefer the LOW solution to the solar neutrino puzzle, although the LMA solution is not entirely excluded. As we shall see in the next section, small breaking of $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry in the charged lepton sector would make this scenario nicely consistent with the LMA solution.

We now turn to making this type of models more predictive.

## III  Radiatively induced solar neutrino oscillations

In this section, we present a single parameter model for neutrino masses where the solar neutrino oscillations are generated by radiative renormalization group effects. We will provide a gauge theoretic derivation of the model in section IV. Consider the following neutrino mass matrix defined at a (unification) scale much above the weak scale as in Eq. (6).

$`_\nu ^0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)m.`$ (28)
Let us assume that the charged lepton mass matrix in the same basis is of the form:

$`_\mathrm{}^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& x\\ 0& y& 0\\ x^{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_\tau .`$ (29)
For the most part we will take $`x^{}=x`$ so that $`|x|\sqrt{m_e/m_\tau }`$ and $`ym_\mu /m_\tau `$. We will also consider the possibility that $`xx^{}`$ (the right handed singlet leptons multiply the matrix in Eq. (11) on the right). In the case $`x=x^{}`$, note that there is only parameter ($`m`$ of Eq. (10)) in the leptonic sector (both the charged leptons and neutrinos). We will show that this model can lead to a realistic description of the neutrino oscillations.

Below the unification scale, through the renormalization of the effective $`d=5`$ neutrino mass operator the form of $`M_\nu ^0`$ will be modified. (Analogous corrections in $`M_\mathrm{}^+`$ is negligible.) The modified neutrino mass matrix at the weak scale is given by

$`_\nu _\nu ^0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(M_U/M_Z)\left(Y_{\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{}M_\nu ^0+M_\nu ^0(Y_{\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{})^T\right).`$ (30)
Here $`c=3/2`$ for SM while $`c=1`$ for SUSY, and $`Y_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the charged lepton Yukawa coupling matrix. We have absorbed the flavor–independent renormalization factor into the definition of $`m`$ in Eq. (10). Explicitly,

$`_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2rx& 1+r(x^2+y^2)& 1+r(1+2x^2)\\ 1+r(x^2+y^2)& 0& rx\\ 1+r(1+2x^2)& rx& 2rx\end{array}\right)m,`$ (31)
where

$$r\frac{c}{16\pi ^2}Y_\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}(M_U/M_Z).$$
(32)
Numerically, $`r3.7\times 10^5`$ in the SM, while it is $`r0.022(\mathrm{tan}\beta /30)^2`$ in SUSY. The parameters $`x0.017`$ and $`y0.059`$ are also much smaller than 1, facilitating an expansion in small $`[r,x,y]`$. Note that in the case of $`x^{}x`$, the numerical value of $`x`$ can be larger than $`0.017`$ by a factor even as large as 10. (The $`e\tau `$ mixing will be still small if $`x0.17`$, and will not upset the success of approximate $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry.)

The eigenvalues of $`M_\nu `$ to leading order in $`(r,x,y)`$ are (in units of $`m`$)

$`m_1`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}(4x+\sqrt{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{8}}\sqrt{2}`$ (33)
$`m_2`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}(4x+\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{8}}\sqrt{2}`$ (34)
$`m_3`$ $``$ $`r^2x,`$ (35)
where terms of order $`r^3,x^3,y^3`$ etc have been dropped.

The leptoninc mixing matrix $`U`$ is obtained from $`U=V_{\mathrm{}}V_\nu ^T`$, where $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ diagonalizes the charged lepton matrix and $`V_\nu `$ the neutrino mass matrix:

$`U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{x}{2}(1+\frac{r}{2})& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{x}{2}(1+\frac{r}{2})& \frac{rx}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}(1\frac{r}{2})\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{r}{4}(1+\sqrt{2}x)+\frac{r^2}{16}& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{r}{4}(1+\sqrt{2}x)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{r}{2\sqrt{2}}+\frac{3}{8\sqrt{2}}r^2\\ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{r}{4}(1+\sqrt{2}x)\frac{3}{16}r^2& \frac{1}{2}\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{r}{4}(1\sqrt{2}x)\frac{3}{16}r^2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{r}{2\sqrt{2}}+\frac{r^2}{8\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right].`$ (36)
$`U`$ has approximately the bimaximal form (compare Eq. (16) with Eq. (3)). Let us identify $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ to have masses of order 0.05 eV ($`\sqrt{2}m0.05`$eV) so that the atmospheric neutrino oscillation is explained via $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. The solar mass splitting is then given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=m_1^2m_2^28\sqrt{2}rxm^20.014rx`$ eV2. In the SM, this is equal to $`0.92\times 10^8`$ eV2 if $`x=x^{}`$. On the other hand, if $`x=10x^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^20.92\times 10^7`$ eV2, which is in the right range for LOW solution of the solar neutrino data. In SUSY, even with $`x=x^{}`$, we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^24.7\times 10^6`$ eV2 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, which is the right range for LMA solution. In the case of SUSY with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, if we choose $`x=0.2`$, so that $`U_{e3}0.15`$, which is near its experimental upper limit, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^25.5\times 10^5`$ eV2 and the solar mixing angle is given by $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}0.88`$. These values are nicely consistent with the large mixing angle MSW solution.

Neutrinoless double beta decay occurs in this model with an amplitude proportional to (see Eq. (16))

$$m_{\beta \beta 0\nu }^{\mathrm{effective}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{x}{2}\right)^2m_1+\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{x}{2}\right)^2m_2\sqrt{2}xm_10.05x\mathrm{eV}.$$
(37)
For $`x=x^{}0.017`$, this is $`10^3`$ eV, while for $`x=10x^{}`$, this is 0.01 eV.

## IV A gauge model

The model for neutrino masses described in the previous section can be derived by extending the standard model to include extra gauge singlets $`S_0(S_1,S_2)`$ which transform as a doublet under an $`S_3`$ permutation group . The left handed lepton doublets $`\stackrel{~}{L}(L_2,L_3)`$ of the second and third generation are assumed to transform also as doublets of $`S_3`$. The right handed lepton fields as well as all other standard model fields are assumed to be singlets under $`S_3`$. To obtain the desired charged lepton mass matrix we include two more pairs of standard model singlets, $`S_{u,d}`$ each transforming as a doublet under the $`S_3`$ group. We also assume a $`Z_2`$ symmetry under which $`S_d,\tau _R`$ are odd and all other fields are even.

The most general $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ and $`S_3`$ invariant coupling of leptons is given by:

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}L_e\varphi \stackrel{~}{L}\varphi S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{L}}\varphi S_d\tau _R+\overline{\stackrel{~}{L}}\varphi S_u\mu _R+h.c.`$ (38)
Here $`M`$ is a fundamental scale close to the GUT scale. The singlets $`S_0,S_u,S_d`$ all acquire VEVs of order $`M`$. The $`S_3`$ invariant potential for these fields will admit the following structure of VEVs: $`S_0=v_0(1,1),S_u=v_u(1,0)`$ and $`S_d=v_d(0,1)`$ . Such a VEV structure will lead to the charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices given in Eq. (10)-(11) except for the fact that $`x=x^{}=0`$. To induce $`x,x^{}0`$, we need to introduce singlet Higgs fields that break the $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry. This can also be done in simple ways.

## V A two parameter model from permutation symmetry

In this section, we will present a two parameter model that can also emerge from the model of the previous section if we allow for terms that break $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry. Consider the following Lagrangian:

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}L_e\varphi \stackrel{~}{L}\varphi S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(L_\mu \varphi L_\mu \varphi +L_\tau \varphi L_\tau \varphi )+\stackrel{~}{\overline{L}}\varphi S_d\tau _R+\stackrel{~}{\overline{L}}\varphi S_u\mu _R+h.c.`$ (39)
In this case, one obtains the Majorana neutrino mass matrix to be

$`_\nu ^0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& a& 0\\ 1& 0& a\end{array}\right)m.`$ (40)
The charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal here. This mass matrix can be diagonalized to give the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$, exactly as in Eq. (3). The solar neutrino oscillation is governed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^22m^2a`$. This model predicts $`U_{e3}=0`$ as can be seen from Eq. (3). Thus any evidence for nonzero $`U_{e3}`$ would rule out this model.

## VI Mirror neutrinos and an explanation of LSND experiment

So far we have ignored the LSND results in our discussion of the positive neutrino oscillation signals. In order to accommodate the LSND results, one will have to include an extra neutrino species that is a standard model singlet (a sterile neutrino). In the presence of a sterile neutrino, there are two ways to understand the observations: one is the so–called 2+2 scheme  and the other is the 3+1 scheme . The 2+2 scheme has the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ neutrinos with mass around an eV and $`\nu _{e,s}`$ with mass near $`10^3`$ eV, with the latter explaining the solar neutrino data, the former explaining the atmospheric neutrino data and the gap between the two pairs explaining the LSND results. Recent SNO data disfavors the original version of the 2+2 model where all the missing solar $`\nu _e`$’s are converted via a small angle MSW mechanism only to the sterile neutrinos. Mixed 2+2 scenarios where there is substantial mixing between the two sectors separated by a gap seem to be consistent with all data .

In the 3+1 picture, on the other hand, it is assumed that the three active neutrinos are bunched together at a small mass value (say around $`6\times 10^2`$ eV or so), with the sterile neutrino at a mass near an eV. The atmospheric and solar neutrino data is explained by the oscillations among active neutrinos whereas the LSND data is explained by indirect oscillations involving the sterile neutrino. The advantage of this picture in view of the SNO data is that the flat energy spectrum is explained by postulating bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern among the active neutrinos or the LOW solution, as discussed in previous sections of this paper. The question now is whether one can extend the model we analyzed to include one or more light sterile neutrinos and maintain at least some predictive power that we had in the three neutrino case.

One way to obtain light sterile neutrinos is to invoke a mirror sector for the particles and forces, as an exact replica of the standard model sector. One may then identify the neutrinos of the mirror sector as sterile neutrinos. The ultralightness of the sterile neutrinos is then explained in a simple way by a mirror version of the seesaw mechanism. In this picture, the two sectors are connected only by gravity or possibly by very heavy particles that decouple from low energy physics. The mixing between neutrinos then owes its origin either to gravity or to operators generated by the exchange of the heavy particles that connect the two sectors.

In such theories there are two possibilities for the weak scale for the mirror sector: (i) it is the same as in the familiar sector or (ii) it is different. In order to explain the LSND results in the 3+1 scenario, we need to work with the second scenario, where mirror weak scale $`v^{}v`$. We will consider a mirror embedding of the model discussed in section 2 which was based only on $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry. We will assume that there is an identical symmetry i.e., $`L_e^{}L_\mu ^{}L_\tau ^{}`$ in the mirror sector and as in sec. II we will further assume that only Planck scale effects break these two symmetries. They are also responsible for mixing between the two sectors. The Lagrangian including the Planck scale breaking terms can then be written as:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(aL_e\varphi L_\mu \varphi +bL_e\varphi L_\tau \varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\alpha \beta }}{M_P\mathrm{}}}(L_\alpha \varphi L_\beta \varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^{}}}(aL_e^{}\varphi ^{}L_\mu ^{}\varphi ^{}+bL_e^{}\varphi ^{}L_\mu ^{}\varphi ^{})`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\alpha \beta }^{}}{M_P\mathrm{}}}(L_\alpha ^{}\varphi ^{}L_\beta ^{}\varphi ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{M_P\mathrm{}}}(L_\alpha \varphi L_\beta ^{}\varphi ^{})+h.c.`$ (42)
As mentioned before, we work in a picture where the gauge symmetry breaking is not mirror symmetric. This then allows for the possibility that both the weak scale and the seesaw scale in the mirror sector are very different from those in the familiar sector. Suppose we assume that $`\varphi ^{}v^{}5\times 10^4`$ GeV and the mirror seesaw scale $`M^{}10^9`$ GeV or so. From Eq. (21) one sees that the two heavy neutrino states $`\nu _{1,2}^{}`$ can have masses easily of the order of 1-10 GeV and the lightest mirror neutrino has a mass of $``$ eV and can therefore be used to understand the LSND results. The off diagonal $`\nu \nu ^{}`$ mixing terms are of order $`vv^{}/M_P\mathrm{}0.01`$ eV, which is also of the right order for the purpose.

Upon integrating out the heavy neutrinos, one gets a 4$`\times `$4 matrix with the following generic structure (neglecting terms smaller than $`10^2`$ eV):

$`^{(4)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& m_1& m_2& ϵ_1\\ m_1& 0& 0& ϵ_2\\ m_2& 0& 0& ϵ_3\\ ϵ_1& ϵ_2& ϵ_3& \delta \end{array}\right).`$ (43)
For $`\delta ϵ_i,m_i`$, this matrix has one large eigenvalue $`\delta `$, which mixes with $`\nu _{e,\mu }`$ with a mixing angle of order $`ϵ_i/\delta `$; for $`ϵ_i0.02`$ eV and $`\delta 0.2`$ eV, the LSND results can be explained using indirect oscillation , with the probability given by $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )4|ϵ_1ϵ_2/\delta ^2|^2`$.

## VII Cosmological implications

The mirror sector scenario has several interesting cosmological implication. First of all, the two heavy ($``$ GeV) mirror neutrinos annihilate into the lightest mirror neutrino early on and disappear. As a result they do not contribute to the expansion of the universe during big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). The lightest mirror neutrino will however be in equilibrium during BBN. Thus, this model would predict one extra neutrino species at the BBN. In principle, this could be tested once the He4 and D2 abundances are known more precisely.

A second interesting implication is that due to the heavy mirror scale, the mirror QCD scale is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}7`$ GeV (for the nonsupersymmetric case). This is calculated as follows. Mirror symmetry guarantees that the two QCD couplings are the same at very high energies. As they evolve to lower scales, due to the heavier masses of the mirror quarks $`\alpha _s^{}`$ will develop a higher slope around $`10^5`$ GeV corresponding to $`t^{}`$ decoupling and become larger than $`\alpha _s`$; this effect gets further reinforced at the $`(b^{},c^{})`$ masses. A simple calculation using $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ 0.118 shows that $`\alpha _s^{}1`$ around 7 GeV. We define this as the mirror QCD scale. Thus from the neutrino oscillations we are able to predict the mirror QCD scale. Using the analogy with familiar QCD then one can predict that mirror proton mass is around 30-40 GeV.

The mirror electron mass is $`m_e^{}\frac{v^{}}{v}m_e500`$ MeV. This would make the mirror hydrogen Bohr radius 1000 times smaller than the familiar hydrogen atom, leading to a completely new profile for the mirror sector of the universe.

The mirror baryons, being stable, can now become the dark matter of the universe. This picture is very similar to the one advocated in Ref., with an important difference that here the mirror electron is about 10-30 times heavier. To see how this fits in with the dark matter picture , we note that in this scenario, to reconcile the presence of the mirror photon with the success of BBN, one needs to have the temperature of the mirror universe somewhat (say a factor of 2) lower than the temperature of the familiar sector . One can then write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{m_p^{}}{m_p}}.`$ (44)
For $`m_p^{}/m_p40`$ and $`T^{}/T0.5`$, we get $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_B5`$. If we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B0.05`$, this leads to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}25\%`$, consistent with the current thinking in the field of dark matter physics.

## VIII Conclusions

We have presented several simple and predictive three neutrino oscillation scenarios that can explain the solar and the atmospheric neutrino data with a bimaximal mixing pattern that seems to be favored by current data, especially from the flat energy distribution for solar neutrinos. The measurement of the mixing parameter $`U_{e3}`$ and evidence for inverted pattern of masses would constitute tests of these models. We have also presented a mirror extension of the schemes that can accommodate the LSND results as well. We find that in the simplest mirror extension, the mirror QCD scale is predicted to be around 5-7 GeV. This leads to a mirror baryon mass mass around 40 GeV, which can then become a viable candidate for dark matter of the universe.

## Acknowledgments

The work of KSB is supported by the DOE grant No. # DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation, and by DOE Grant # DE-FG02-01ER45684. The work of RNM is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant PHY-0099544.


text:
# Strange-quark Current in the Nucleon from Lattice QCD

## 1 Introduction

An important theme of contemporary Hadron Physics is the role of nonvalence degrees of freedom. In particular, the contribution of strange quarks to a variety of nucleon properties has been studied. For nucleon form factors the contribution of the strange-quark current can be extracted using information obtained from parity violation in polarized electron scattering. A number of experimental results have been reported and new measurements are planned. As well, there are numerous calculations using a number of different approaches.

In this work we focus on the calculation of the strange-quark current loop using lattice QCD. Calculations of these so-called disconnected current insertions have been reported previously. However, these calculations differ in the method used to analyze the results of their lattice simulations and also differ in their conclusions. Wilcox used a differential method to analyze the time dependence of the three-point function and no signal for the strange current was found. On the other hand, Dong and co-workers  used a summation of the current insertion over lattice times which requires a further identification and fitting of a linear time dependence. They claim to see a definite signal for the strangeness form factors.

We present preliminary results from a lattice QCD simulation of the strange-quark current loop using a Monte-Carlo sample of gauge field configurations about ten times larger than in previous studies. Both differential and cumulative time analyses are carried out on the simulation data. Comparisons of results obtained from a 100 configuration subsample (the same size used in previous work) with results from the full data set show quite clearly how large fluctuations, that could be interpreted as a signal in low-statistics data, disappear with improved statistics. Using our complete data set consistency between different analysis methods is achieved. By comparing different analysis methods and results using different sized gauge field samples, criteria for assessing the robustness of a strange quark current signal are presented. Using these criteria, no compelling signal for the strange quark current is observed.

## 2 Lattice Calculations

The standard methods of the path integral formulation of lattice QCD in Euclidean space are used. The Wilson action is used for both quark and gluon fields. We need two and three-point functions which describe, respectively, the propagation of nucleon states as a function of Euclidean lattice time and the strange quark current in the presence of a nucleon. The two-point function $`G^{(2)}(t;\stackrel{}{q})`$ correlates the excitation of a nucleon state with momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ at some initial time (called 0) and its annihilation at time t. For large Euclidean time t this quantity decreases exponentially like $`e^{E_qt}`$.

To calculate the three-point function $`G^{(3)}(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q})`$ an insertion of the strange-quark vector current is made at time $`t^{}`$. Since there are no strange valence quarks in the nucleon this insertion amounts to a correlation of a strange-quark current loop with the nucleon two-point function. The strange-quark current loop is calculated using a so-called noisy estimator with $`Z_2`$ noise. The noise and perturbative subtraction methods employed here are the same as those of Wilcox except that 60 noises are used instead of 30.

The three-point function also has an exponential time dependence but is more complicated due to the presence of two times. It can be shown that the exponential time factors can be cancelled by taking the ratio

$$R(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{G^{(3)}(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q})G^{(2)}(t^{};0)}{G^{(2)}(t;0)G^{(2)}(t^{};\stackrel{}{q})}.$$
(1)
It is these ratios R that are analyzed to get the final results.

Note that in writing the two and three-point functions, labels associated with the Dirac indices of the nucleon fields and the Lorentz index of the current have been suppressed. Also in writing Eq. (1) the necessary spin sums and projections are not shown, the expression is given schematically to show the time dependence of the various factors. The detailed calculations follow previous work.

The ratio R is usually summed in order to try to improve the signal. The differential method uses a difference of $`R(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q})`$ on neighbouring time slices. It can be shown that the quantity $`M(\overline{t},\stackrel{}{q})`$ given by

$$M(\overline{t},\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{t^{}=1}{\overset{t+1}{}}(R(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q})R(t1,t^{};\stackrel{}{q}))$$
(2)
is the current matrix element of interest.

An alternative is to simply sum R and then fit to a linear time dependence to get the matrix element. We use

$`S(t,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}=1}{\overset{t^{}=t}{}}}R(t,t^{};\stackrel{}{q}),`$ (3)
$``$ $`constant+tM(t,\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (4)
Summing current insertions up to $`t^{}=t`$ follows the suggestion of Viehoff et al. and helps to reduce the statistical noise. Dong and co-workers actually use a different upper limit ($`t^{}=t_{fixed},t_{fixed}>t`$).

## 3 Results

Calculations were carried out in quenched approximation at gauge field coupling of $`\beta =6.0`$. The lattice size was $`20^3\times 32`$. A total of 1050 gauge field configurations were generated using a pseudo-heat bath algorithm. Two thousand sweeps were used between saved configurations.

Since quenched lattice QCD does not provide a perfect description of hadrons, there is some ambiguity in fixing the parameters (overall scale and quark masses) in the calculations. In this work we use 0.152 as the hopping parameter for the strange quark. Using $`a^1=2GeV`$ and the $`\varphi `$-meson to fix the strange quark mass would suggest a hopping parameter closer to $`\kappa _s=`$0.153. On the other hand, using the scale of Dong and co-workers $`a^1=1.74GeV`$ gives $`\kappa _s`$ smaller than 0.152.

Results for electric matrix element with valence quark $`\kappa _v=`$0.152 calculated using the differential method Eq. (2) are shown in Fig. (1), averaging over two different time windows. The 100 configuration sample results are consistent with those obtained by Wilcox. No signal is seen when the gauge field sample size is increased to 1050. The summed ratio Eq. (3) is shown in Fig. (2) and (3) as a function of the nucleon sink time for different momentum transfers. It shows oscillations characteristic of lattice correlation function ratios. The magnitude of these oscillations decreases slowly as the configuration sample size is increased.

Results for the magnetic matrix element for different valence quark masses calculated using the differential method are plotted in Fig. (4) and (5). As in the electric case the results are consistent with zero.

Finally, the summed ratios for the magnetic current are given in Fig. (6) to Fig. (9). Note that a kinematic factor (see Eq. (3) in Ref.) of $`q/(E+M)`$ has been removed. The results for 100 configurations, Fig. (6) and (8), should be compared to Fig. (1) of Dong et al. and Fig. (2) of Mathur and Dong where calculations with the same statistics are reported. Then, comparing with Fig. (7) and (9), one sees that the kind of oscillations in the time range 10 to 15 which Dong and co-workers took to be their signal, have largely disappeared in the higher statistics results. Of course, fluctuations still persist at larger times but even higher statistics simulations will be necessary to establish if they go away or if indeed a strange quark current signal is hiding under them.

## 4 Conclusions

To get an estimate of the strange-quark current matrix elements requires the extraction of a small signal in the presence of large statistical fluctuations. The results presented here suggest a number of useful criteria that should be met before one can claim a credible signal:

* There should be consistency between different analysis methods.
* The signal should appear in the same lattice time region and its statistical significance should increase as the size of the Monte-Carlo sample of gauge fields is increased.
* The signal should appear in the same time window for different masses.

Not all of these criteria have been met at our present level of statistics. Work is continuing and it is hoped to have final results with an increased configuration sample size in the not too distant future.

## Acknowledgments

This is work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant 0070836 and in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank N. Mathur for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Casimir energy of a massive fermion field revisited

## 1 Introduction

The macroscopically observable vacuum energy shift associated with a quantum field is the regularised difference between the vacuum expectation value of the corresponding hamiltonian with and without the external conditions demanded by the particular physical situation at hand. At the one-loop level, when the external conditions are represented by boundary conditions this leads to the usual Casimir effect  – see Ref. for an updated review on the theoretical and experimental aspects of this remarkable effect.

In the context of the Casimir effect, some configurations which depend on the type of quantum field, type of spacetime manifold and its dimensionality, specific boundary condition imposed on the quantum field on certain surfaces, lead to relatively simple spectra, others lead to more complex ones. The heart of the matter here is the evaluation of the spectral sum that results from definition of the Casimir energy. This evaluation requires regularization and renormalization, and recipes for accomplishing this range from the relatively simple cutoff method employed by Casimir himself  to the powerful and elegant generalised zeta function techniques . Here, in the spirit of the representation of a spectral sum as a contour integral , we introduce a simple and effective way of evaluating the one-loop vacuum energy under external conditions based on well-known theorems of complex analysis, namely, the Cauchy integral formula and the Mittag-Leffler expansion theorem in one of its simplest versions. The method we present here is of sufficient generality so as to be successfully applied to a variety of cases. In this letter, however, we will limit ourselves to the example of a massive fermionic field under MIT boundary conditions and flat surface geometry, see Ref. and references therein. The massless case was first calculated by Johnson  and as far as the present authors are aware of there is only one evaluation of this example of a massive fermionic Casimir energy due to Mamaev and Trunov . This evaluation is only briefly sketched by these authors, therefore it seems interesting to test the method by providing an alternative derivation of this result.

## 2 The unregularised Casimir energy and a simple sum formula

Consider a quantum field in a $`3+1`$ dimensional flat spacetime under boundary conditions constraining the motion along one of the spatial directions, say, the $`𝒪𝒳_3`$-axis. At the one loop-level the (unregularised) Casimir energy will be given by

$$=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\underset{n}{}\frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_n,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless factor that depends on the internal degrees of freedom of the quantum field under consideration, $`p_{}=\sqrt{p_1^2+p_2^2}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n:=\sqrt{p_{}^2+\frac{\lambda _n^2}{\mathrm{}^2}+m^2},$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is the $`n`$-th real root of the transcendental equation determined by the boundary conditions, $`\mathrm{}`$ is a chararacteristic length along the $`𝒪𝒳_3`$ direction, and $`m`$ is the mass of an excitation of the quantum field. A simple integral representation of $`_n\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ can be written if we make use of Cauchy integral formula. In fact, it is easily seen that

$$\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_n=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{2q^2}{q^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2},$$
(3)
where in principle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Jordan curve on the $`q`$-complex plane with $`\mathrm{}q>0`$ consisting in a semicircle of infinitely large radius whose diameter is the entire real axis. Taking (3) into (1) we obtain

$$=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{2q^2}{q^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2}.$$
(4)
In order to proceed we must be able to perform (at least formally) the discrete sum in (4).

Consider a complex function $`G(z)`$ of a single complex variable $`z`$, symmetrical on the real axis such that its roots are simple, non-zero and symmetrical with respect to the origen of the complex plane. The assumption that the origen is not a root of $`G(z)`$ is not a restrictive one because if $`z=0`$ happens to be a root of $`G(z)`$ we can always divide $`G(z)`$ by some convenient power of $`z`$ in order to eliminate zero from the set of the roots without introducing a new singularity. Let us order and count the roots of $`G(z)`$ in such a way that

$$\lambda _n=\lambda _n,nZ\{0\}.$$
(5)
Now define the following function

$$J(z):=\underset{nZ\{0\}}{}\frac{1}{zi\lambda _n}.$$
(6)
The following properties of $`J(z)`$ are self-evident: (i) $`J(z)`$ has first order poles which are determined by the roots of $`G(iz)`$: (ii) the residua are all equal to unity. Taking into account property (5) we see that $`J(z)`$ can be rewritten in the form

$`J(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{nZ\{0\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zi\lambda _n}}+{\displaystyle \underset{nZ\{0\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z+i\lambda _n}}\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nN}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{z^2+\lambda _n^2}},`$
where $`Z`$ denotes the set of integers and $`N`$ the set of the natural integers. Let us consider now the function $`K(z):=G(iz)`$ and state the following equality

$$J(z)=\frac{K^{}(z)}{K(z)},$$
(8)
where the prime stands for the derivative with respect to $`z`$. In fact, the function $`K^{}(z)/K(z)`$ has the same simple poles as the originally defined $`J(z)`$ and the same residua, hence we can invoke the Mittag-Leffler theorem and state that (8) is true. It follows then that we can write

$$\frac{K^{}(z)}{K(z)}=\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{log}K(z)=\underset{nN}{}\frac{2z}{z^2+\lambda _n^2}.$$
(9)
In order to make use of (9) we first link the dimensionless complex variable $`z`$ to the auxiliary complex momentum variable $`q`$ through the relation

$$q^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2=\frac{z^2+\lambda _n^2}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(10)
hence

$$z=\mathrm{}\sqrt{q^2+p_{}^2+m^2},$$
(11)
and we can write

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{2q^2}{q^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}q^2}{z}\underset{n}{}\frac{2z}{z^2+\lambda _n^2}.$$
(12)
Upon changing variables ($`d/dz=(z/\mathrm{}q)d/dq`$), we obtain for the unregularised Casimir energy the following expression

$$=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }q\frac{d}{dq}\mathrm{log}K(z),$$
(13)
which can be integrated by parts to yield

$``$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }\frac{d}{dq}[q\mathrm{log}K(z)]}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}K(z)}.`$
Notice that the integration is now performed on an open curve which lies on the Riemann surface of the integrand the projection of which on the $`q`$-complex plane is the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The first term on the R.H.S of (14) contributes with a phase which cancels out with a phase coming from the second term since the final result is real. Hence, if we keep this in mind the first term can be put aside and the unregularised Casimir energy will be given by

$$=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dq}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}K(z).$$
(15)
Equation (15) is our main result. It is easily seen that it holds for arbitrary boundary conditions imposed on the field on flat surfaces perpendicular to the $`𝒪𝒳_3`$ axis. It also holds when the $`𝒪𝒳_3`$ direction is compactified by the imposition of topological conditions, periodic or antiperiodic, on the field along that direction.

## 3 The massive fermion field under MIT boundary conditions

As an example of the usefulness of (15) let us apply it to a massive fermion field under MIT boundary conditions imposed on field on the surface of an hypothetical bag consisting of two parallel square membranes perpendicular to the $`𝒪𝒳_3`$ axis whose side $`a`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{}`$, the distance between them. It can be shown that for this bag model the eigenvalues of $`p_3`$ are determined by the roots of the function $`F(zp_3\mathrm{})`$ defined by

$$F(p_3\mathrm{})=\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_3\mathrm{})+p_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}(p_3\mathrm{}),$$
(16)
where $`\mu :=m\mathrm{}`$. Therefore we can choose $`G(z)`$ as

$$G(z)=\mu \frac{\mathrm{sin}z}{z}+\mathrm{cos}z$$
(17)
where we have divided $`F(z)`$ by $`z`$ because $`z=0`$ is a root of $`F(z)`$. We can easily prove that the roots of $`G(z)`$ are all real. Now we construct $`K(z)`$ according to

$$K(z)=G(iz)=\mu \frac{\mathrm{sinh}z}{z}+\mathrm{cosh}z.$$
(18)
Taking into account that for a fermionic quantum field in $`3+1`$ dimensions $`\alpha =4`$, the vacuum energy is

$``$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}cL^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑q\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu }{z}+1\right)e^z\right]}`$ (19)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{}cL^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑q\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{z\mu }{z+\mu }e^z\right]},`$
where $`z`$ is defined by (11). It is clear that the first term on the R.H.S of (19) is divergent, however, we can easily see also that this term is spurious in the sense that it carries a contribution that does not depend on $`\mathrm{}`$, is proportional to $`L^2`$ and represents the self-energy of the bag, plus another contribution proportional to the volume $`L^2\mathrm{}`$ of the bag representing a constant energy density present even if the bag were not there. Hence, we will subtract this term from (19) and write the regularised contribution as

$`^{\text{(reg)}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}cL^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{z\mu }{z+\mu }e^{2z}\right]}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2\mathrm{ln}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{z\mu }{z+\mu }}e^{2z}\right].`$
Upon changing variables again the regularised Casimir energy can be rewritten as

$$^{\text{(reg)}}=\frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\sqrt{z^2\mu ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{z\mu }{z+\mu }e^{2z}\right],$$
(21)
where now we have written $`z^2=\mathrm{}^2(p^2+m^2)`$ with $`p^2=q^2+p_{}^2`$. This result is in agreement with the result obtained in . For the case of massless fermions we obtain

$`^{\text{(reg)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz^3\mathrm{ln}\left[1+e^{2z}\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^2\mathrm{}cL^2}{2880\mathrm{}^3}},`$
which is the result obtained in . Starting from (22) it is a straightforward matter to obtain the limits of the Casimir energy in the limits $`\mu 0`$ and $`\mu 1`$, see .

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have derived a general expression, equation (15), for the evaluation of the Casimir energy of a quantum field in a flat manifold under the influence of boundary conditions imposed on the field on flat surfaces or topological conditions constraining the motion along a particular spatial direction. The present authors verified explicitly that equation (15) works well in several instances, in particular, for Robin boundary conditions results agree with those obtained by Romeo and Saharian . This method can be extended and applied to cylindrical and spherical geometries embedded in $`d+1`$ dimensional spacetimes. Here we have chosen the massive fermion field under MIT boundary conditions as an example and were able to rederive its associated vacumm energy in a clear cut way. Presently, this approach is being extended to more complex Casimir type problems.

## Acknowledgments

One of the authors (A.C. Tort) wishes to acknowledge E. Elizalde and the hospitality of the Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC/CSIC) and Universitat de Barcelona, Departament d’Estrutura i Constituents de la Matèria where this work was completed, and the financial support of CAPES, the Brazilian agency for faculty improvement, Grant BExt 0168-01/2.