text:
# A relativistic variant of the Wigner function

## 1 Introduction

The Wigner function is a *quasi*probability density over phase space (for reviews, see Lee, Cohen, or Hillery et al.; a *quasi*probability is generally not positive semi-definite), so in a quantum field theory setting it is not manifestly Lorentz covariant. Quasiprobabilities are conceptually interesting partly because Arthurs-Kelly type interpretations of positive definite Husimi functions derived by smoothing from Wigner functions are available, but the lack of manifest Lorentz covariance in the quantum field theory setting makes Wigner functions, in this respect, a poor relation to Feynman path integrals.

A relativistic variant of the Wigner function that *is* manifestly Lorentz covariant in a quantum field theory setting is introduced in section 2, as a quasiprobability density over *trajectories* instead of over phase space. As a formalism, the relativistic variant Wigner function is conceptually similar to the Feynman integral in its use of trajectories, but is conceptually different in its use of quasiprobabilities instead of phase integrals. A helpful alternative name for the “relativistic variant Wigner function” is the “trajectory Wigner function”, just because it is a quasiprobability density over trajectories instead of over phase space. The emphasis on trajectories here can be compared with the phase space approach to quantum field theory of Zachos and Curtright.

The relativistic variant Wigner function is discussed for the specific case of the quantized real Klein-Gordon field (called here QKG) in section 3. It turns out that the relativistic variant Wigner function does not exist for QKG, prompting the introduction of a modified quantized real Klein-Gordon field (mQKG). QKG is a singular limit of mQKG. The emphasis on QKG as a *field* theory (instead of as a second quantized particle theory, for example as in \[3, §2.5\] and references therein) allows a nonlocality that is present in QKG to be characterized clearly in terms of the concepts of classical statistical field theory, and also allows a clear characterization of both the similarity and the group theoretic difference between quantum fluctuations and classical thermal fluctuations. The extension of the relativistic variant Wigner function to other non-interacting fields is discussed in section 4.

## 2 The relativistic variant Wigner function in general

The conventional Wigner function can be presented in non-relativistic quantum mechanics as the inverse fourier transform of

$$\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{x}\theta +i\widehat{p}\omega }\right|\psi ,\mathrm{that}\mathrm{is},\mathrm{as}d\theta d\omega e^{ix\theta ip\omega }\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{x}\theta +i\widehat{p}\omega }\right|\psi ;$$
(1)
the Wigner function is a quasiprobability density. For quantum field theory the Wigner function is the inverse fourier transform of

$$\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f+i\widehat{\pi }_g}\right|\psi ,$$
(2)
where

$$\widehat{\varphi }_f=_S\widehat{\varphi }(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{and}\widehat{\pi }_f=_S\widehat{\pi }(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}^3x$$
(3)
are smeared field operators on a hypersurface $`S`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }(x)`$ are operator-valued distributions. The emphasis on phase space is inappropriate for relativistic quantum field theory because a phase space approach is not manifestly covariant, so we will instead consider the inverse fourier transform of the c-number functional

$$Q_\psi [f]=\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f}\right|\psi $$
(4)
as the starting point for this paper, where $`\widehat{\varphi }_f`$ is now associated with all of space-time,

$$\widehat{\varphi }_f=\widehat{\varphi }(x)f(x)\mathrm{d}^4x.$$
(5)
We can then construct our relativistic variant of the Wigner function as

$$\chi _\psi [w]=\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}Q_\psi [f]=\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f}\right|\psi $$
(6)
(the fourier transform functional measure $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f`$ includes a factor $`(2\pi )^1`$ for each of the infinite number of degrees of freedom that is fourier transformed). This definition is equally applicable for interacting and for non-interacting fields.

When $`\chi _\psi [w]`$ exists, a set of marginal density functionals can be constructed from it by averaging over degrees of freedom, which includes probability density functionals that can be constructed from mutually commuting sets of field observables $`\widehat{\varphi }_f`$. A paradigm case of a set of mutually commuting field observables is obtained when we restrict functions $`f^{}`$ to be defined on a space-like hyperplane $`S`$. Then,

$$\rho _\psi ^S[v|_S]=\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f^{}}\right|\psi $$
(7)
is manifestly a probability density functional, since $`\{\widehat{\varphi }_f^{}\}`$ is effectively a set of classical commuting observables. Straightforwardly, but heuristically,

$`\rho _\psi ^S[v|_S]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}\psi \left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f^{}}\right|\psi }`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}\psi \left|e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle (\widehat{\varphi }(x)v(x))f^{}(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}\right|\psi }`$ (9)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}`$ $`\psi \left|{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}\delta (\widehat{\varphi }(x)v(x))\right|\psi `$ (10)
$``$ $`0,`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}`$ represents equality up to normalization.

## 3 The relativistic variant Wigner function for mQKG

For QKG, the algebraic structure of the field is specified by the commutation relation $`[a_g,a_f^{}]=(f,g)`$, where $`a_f^{}`$ and $`a_f`$ are smeared creation and annihilation components of the QKG field, $`\widehat{\varphi }_f=a_f^{}+a_f`$, and $`(f,g)`$ is a Lorentz invariant positive semi-definite inner product,

$`(f,g)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(k)}{2\sqrt{k^2+m^2}}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2\pi \delta (k_\mu k^\mu m^2)\theta (k_0)\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(k)}.`$ (13)
Together, $`\widehat{\varphi }_f=a_f^{}+a_f`$, $`[a_g,a_f^{}]=(f,g)`$, and the action of annihilation operators on the vacuum, $`a_g|0=0`$, fix all the Wightman functions of the vacuum sector of QKG, so they are equivalent to other specifications of QKG, including specifications that require, in part, that $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation.

A 3-dimensional inverse functional fourier transform for the QKG vacuum does exist,

$`\rho _0^S[v|_S]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}0\left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f^{}}\right|0}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}0\left|e^{ia_f^{}^{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(f^{},f^{})}e^{ia_f^{}}\right|0}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(f^{},f^{})}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}f^{}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f^{}(x)v(x)\mathrm{d}^3x}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(k)}{2\sqrt{k^2+m^2}}\right]}`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{v}^{}(k)\sqrt{k^2+m^2}\stackrel{~}{v}(k)}\right],`$ (18)
where the inversion of the factor $`\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$ at the last line is the standard consequence of the Fourier transform of a Gaussian. The fourier-mode kernel $`\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$ is nonlocal; $`\rho _0^S[v|_S]`$ can be converted to a nonlocal real-space description,

$$\rho _0^S[v|_S]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}d^3xd^3yv(x)\frac{m^2K_2(m|xy|)}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}|xy|^2}v(y)\right],$$
(19)
where $`K_2(m|xy|)`$ is a modified Bessel function. In terms of the concepts of classical statistical field theory, this probability density functional characterizes a nonlocality that is present in QKG. The dynamical nonlocality is manifest in the appearance of the fourier mode operator $`\stackrel{~}{f}(k)\sqrt{k^2+m^2}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)`$, the nonlocality of which is described by Segal and Goodman. This nonlocality is qualitatively the same as the nonlocality of the heat equation in classical physics, in that it has exponentially reducing effects at increasing space-like separation, so it should be understood to be similar to Hegerfeldt-type nonlocality, rather than similar to Bell-type nonlocality, which can be a significant effect at arbitrary space-like separation. Faster-than-light signals cannot be sent using this nonlocality, as always in quantum field theory, as long as we insist that measurement operators commute at space-like separation, which can be understood to be because the initial states that would allow signals to be sent would require infinite energy to set up. The quantum fluctuations of the QKG field vacuum state described by equation (14) are compared with the thermal fluctuations of a classical Klein-Gordon field at equilibrium in Appendix A.

Unfortunately, a 4-dimensional inverse functional fourier transform for the QKG vacuum is not obviously well-defined, because of the appearance of a delta function in a denominator,

$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}0\left|e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f}\right|0}={\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(f,f)}}`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{w}(k)}{2\pi \delta (k_\mu k^\mu m^2)\theta (k_0)}}\right],`$ (21)
which is undefined if the delta function is understood in a distributional sense. To construct a modified quantized real Klein-Gordon field (mQKG), for which the relativistic variant Wigner function is well-defined, in contrast to QKG, we replace $`\delta (k_\mu k^\mu m^2)`$ by $`F(k_\mu k^\mu )`$, a positive semi-definite function (that is, no longer a distribution) of measure 1, where $`F(x)>0`$ only if $`x0`$. mQKG111mQKG still satisfies the Wightman axioms. In addition, it conforms to the requirements of the cluster decomposition theorem\[11, §4.4\], since the algebraic and Lorentzian structure and the Hamiltonian of the theory are all unchanged, so that the S-matrix satisfies the cluster decomposition principle. is defined by the Lorentz invariant inner product

$$(f,g)=\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(k);$$
(22)
then for the mQKG vacuum, we obtain a well-defined relativistic variant Wigner function,

$$\chi _0[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{w}(k)}{2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)}\right]$$
(23)
(or, rather, see appendix B and appendix C for how it can be made well-defined).

QKG is in this approach a singular, and not obviously well-defined, limit of mQKG, in which the function $`F(k_\mu k^\mu )`$ approaches $`\delta (k_\mu k^\mu m^2)`$. If we regard QKG as only an effective field theory, we can equally effectively describe a system using mQKG, provided $`F()`$ is as small off mass-shell as is necessary to reproduce results of experiments. In general, quantum field theories that are delta-function concentrated to on mass-shell will be singular limits of quantum field theories like mQKG, as far as the relativistic variant Wigner function discussed in this paper is concerned. Taking trajectories to be sharply confined to a smooth classical dynamics is not consistent with a measure-theoretic approach to fields defined on space-time (in contrast, for phase space methods trajectories *have* to be confined to a single classical dynamics).

We can construct $`\chi _\psi [w]`$ straightforwardly for arbitrary mQKG states in a Fock space generated from the vacuum. For the mQKG state $`a_g^{}|0`$, for example, we obtain, by applying the commutation relations and the action of the annihilation operators on the vacuum,

$`\chi _1[w]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}\frac{0\left|a_ge^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f}a_g^{}\right|0}{(g,g)}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}\left[1\frac{|(g,f)|^2}{(g,g)}\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}(f,f)}}`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}`$ $`\left[(g,g)+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k\mathrm{Supp}[F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{w}(k)\right|^2\right]\chi _0[w]`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\left[(g,g)+|((g,w))|^2\right]\chi _0[w],`$ (27)
where we have written $`((g,w))`$ for the neutral inner product. For a superposition $`(v+ua_g^{})|0`$ of the vacuum with $`a_g^{}|0`$, we obtain

$$\chi _{01}[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\left[|u|^2(g,g)+|v+u((g,w))|^2\right]\chi _0[w],$$
(28)
while for the state $`a_{g_1}^{}a_{g_2}^{}|0`$, we obtain

$$\chi _2[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}(g_1,g_2)(g_2,g_1)+(g_1,g_1)(g_2,g_2)\hfill \\ \\ |((g_1,w))|^2(g_2,g_2)((g_1,w))((w,g_2))(g_2,g_1)\hfill \\ \\ ((g_2,w))((w,g_1))(g_1,g_2)|((g_2,w))|^2(g_1,g_1)\hfill \\ \\ +|((g_1,w))|^2|((g_2,w))|^2\hfill \end{array}\right)\chi _0[w];$$
(29)
when $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are orthogonal, $`(g_1,g_2)=0`$, this reduces to

$$[(g_1,g_1)+|((g_1,w))|^2][(g_2,g_2)+|((g_2,w))|^2]\chi _0[w];$$
(30)
when $`g_1=g_2=g`$, it reduces to

$$[(2+\sqrt{2})(g,g)+|((g,w))|^2][(2\sqrt{2})(g,g)+|((g,w))|^2]\chi _0[w].$$
(31)
$`\chi _1[w]`$, $`\chi _{01}[w]`$, and $`\chi _2[w]`$ are not positive semi-definite, as we expect for such a close variant of the Wigner function. For the coherent state $`e^{a_g^{}}|0`$, we obtain

$$\chi _c[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}e^{((g,w))+((w,g))}\chi _0[w],$$
(32)
which is positive semi-definite, as the conventional Wigner function also is for coherent states. For arbitrary mixtures of coherent states we obtain positive semi-definite relativistic variant Wigner functions, but for a superposition $`(c_1e^{a_{g_1}^{}}+c_2e^{a_{g_2}^{}})|0`$ of coherent states we obtain

$$\chi _{sc}[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1^{}c_1e^{((g_1,w))+((w,g_1))(g_1,g_1)}+c_2^{}c_2e^{((g_2,w))+((w,g_2))(g_2,g_2)}+\hfill \\ \\ c_1^{}c_2e^{((g_1,w))+((w,g_2))(g_1,g_2)}+c_2^{}c_1e^{((g_2,w))+((w,g_1))(g_2,g_1)}\hfill \end{array}\right)\chi _0[w],$$
(33)
which again is not positive semi-definite (unless it is trivial, $`g_1=g_2`$). Note that all these relativistic variant Wigner functions are finite order multinomials in the field $`w`$ times $`\chi _0[w]`$, with a closure induced by the Fock space norm that includes $`\chi _c[w]`$ and $`\chi _{sc}[w]`$.

We can also present a thermal state as a positive semi-definite relativistic Wigner function, invariant under the little group of a unit time-like 4-vector $`𝒯^\mu `$ (see Appendix D),

$`\chi _T[w]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒟}fe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle f(x)w(x)\mathrm{d}^4x}}\frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\beta \widehat{H}}e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_f}\right]}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\beta \widehat{H}}\right]}}`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}k_\mu 𝒯^\mu }{2𝗄T}\right)\frac{\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{w}(k)}{2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)}}\right].`$ (35)
This presentation of a thermal quantum field state clarifies its relationship to the vacuum quantum field state in relatively elementary, albeit also relatively intractable, terms. A Hilbert space norm is mathematically effective largely because it is a tight constraint on theory, but the constraint is tight enough that the vacuum state and a thermal state cannot be presented in the same Hilbert space. If we instead use a function space that does not have a separable Hilbert space structure, the vacuum state and a thermal state can be presented in a uniform way. It should also be possible to present the vacuum of an interacting quantum field in the same function space formalism, by evaluating equation (6).

There are no particles as such in this field approach, but there is a countable basis for the Fock space, which can lead to the conventional particle interpretation. A particle interpretation for quantum field theory is not possible in general, however, when not only Fock space representations are considered.

## 4 Other quantum fields

For real interaction-free spin-1 quantum fields, relativistic variant Wigner functions over real classical spin-1 fields are identical to the results in section 3 — the only change is in the inner product, between real classical spin-1 test functions, representing the commutation bracket between smeared operator valued distributions as a c-number. We can introduce, for example,

$`[a_g,a_f^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`(f,g)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}^\mu (k)\frac{k^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^{}(k)k_\nu \stackrel{~}{g}^\nu (k)}{k_\alpha k^\alpha }\right]}.`$ (37)
It will be interesting to see whether the development given for spin-0 quantum fields can also be extended to spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields. For spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields we are of course faced with the additional difficulty of anticommutation relations, but we have several choices in considering them:

* we can consider fermion fields to be an essentially formal way to describe a perturbation of boson fields;
* we can try to develop a bosonization approach in 1+3 dimensions;
* we can take fermion fields to satisfy commutation relations instead of anticommutation relations, but modify interactions with the gauge fields to make the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields stable nonetheless.

Once we represent quantum field theory in terms of quasiprobability densities over trajectories, we can use different fields as coordinates in our classical description of trajectories — so we are free to eliminate some variables in favour of others — where the more formal structure of other representations discourages such freedom. There may of course be other ways of approaching the question of fermion fields. If we adopt the last choice above, of commutation relations for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields, there is an obvious vacuum probability density functional over trajectories of a classical Dirac field $`\zeta (x)`$,

$$P_0[\zeta ]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(k)}\left[k_\mu \gamma ^\mu +\sqrt{k_\mu k^\mu }\right]^1\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(k)}{2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)}\right].$$
(38)
The requirement for anticommutation relations for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields can be understood to be relative to a requirement for positive energy, which is only needed for stability when interactions are introduced. We can ensure stability even if we adopt commutation relations for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum fields, provided we introduce interactions in such a way that the Feynman diagrams in the new description are as they would have been if we had made the usual choice of anticommutation relations for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fields.

It will also be interesting to see whether relativistic variant Wigner function representations of vacuum states of interacting relativistic quantum field theories can be constructed as relativistically invariant modifications of relativistic variant Wigner functions for the vacuum states of non-interacting quantum fields. If we can construct a vacuum state $`I[w,\zeta ]`$ of an interacting theory as a positive semi-definite relativistically invariant modification of a product $`\chi _0[w]P_0[\zeta ]`$ of non-interacting QKG and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ vacuums, for example, then other coherent-like states can immediately be written as $`P(w,\zeta )I[w,\zeta ]`$, where $`P(w,\zeta )`$ is an arbitrary positive semi-definite multinomial in components of the fields $`w`$ and $`\zeta `$.

## 5 Conclusion

We have constructed a relativistic variant of the Wigner function for quantum field states, which is conceptually preferable to the conventional Wigner function. In particular, as a Lorentz covariant formalism, the relativistic variant Wigner function is an alternative to the Feynman path integral formalism. We have seen some of the properties of the relativistic variant Wigner function for the quantized real Klein-Gordon field, or at least we have for the slightly modified theory, mQKG, and also for other quantum fields. The distinction between QKG and mQKG is not very great, but the fact that QKG is singular in terms of the relativistic variant Wigner function is interesting in itself.

The striking similarity between quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations in a Wigner function formulation of quantum field theory in terms of fields (whether in the conventional phase space formulation or in the relativistic variant formulation), and the clarity with which the difference can be identified, suggests a description of quantum measurement in which quantum fluctuations are described explicitly. Equally striking is the nonlocal kernel that in classical statistical field theory terms is necessary to reproduce the QKG vacuum state.

I am indebted to David Wallace in Oxford for decisive help, given many times, and to Sheldon Goldstein at Rutgers. I am also grateful to Chris Isham for comments at a seminar at Imperial college, and to Stephen Adler and Roderich Tumulka for conversations in Princeton and at Rutgers, and finally to two anonymous referees.

## Appendix A Quantum and classical thermal fluctuations

In contrast to equation (14), the probability density for the classical Klein-Gordon field at equilibrium on a hyperplane $`S`$ is

$$\rho _{CKG_E}^S[v|_S]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{𝗄T}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{v}^{}(k)(k^2+m^2)\stackrel{~}{v}(k)\right],$$
(39)
where the fourier-mode kernel $`(k^2+m^2)`$ is local. Both quantum and classical probability densities restrict non-zero probability to solutions of the classical Klein-Gordon equation, but with different densities. The probability density for the QKG vacuum state is Poincaré invariant, in contrast to the Galilean invariance of the probability density for the classical Klein-Gordon equilibrium state.

Despite the difference in units and associated functional forms, Planck’s constant of action plays a very similar role in $`\chi _0[w]`$ to the role played by the Boltzmann energy $`𝗄T`$ in a Gibbs probability density $`\mathrm{exp}[H[v]/𝗄T]`$. Both determine the amplitude of fluctuations. We have to be careful to remember the difference between the 3-dimensional Galilean symmetry of an equilibrium state and the (3+1)-dimensional Poincaré symmetry of the quantum field theory vacuum, but the Boltzmann energy and Planck’s constant are nonetheless closely analogous in their effect.

The *difference* between the functional forms of quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations is critical for understanding quantum measurement. Although quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations are both just fluctuations, we are apparently unable to reduce the “q-temperature” of a measurement device below $`\mathrm{}`$ to reduce the effects of quantum fluctuations on measurement, whereas we routinely reduce the temperature of measurement devices to reduce the effects of thermal fluctuations. That we *cannot* reduce the q-temperature of a measurement device *at all* is an empirical principle at the heart of quantum theory, without which the distinction that quantum theory makes *in principle* between quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations becomes tendentious: if we could in practice reduce quantum fluctuations even a little, we would have to admit the possibility that quantum fluctuations can be reduced arbitrariliy close to zero, just as we admit for thermal fluctuations. Even without a present possibility of actually reducing quantum fluctuations, however, we can nonetheless formulate a description of quantum measurement in which quantum fluctuations of a measurement device are explicitly described, just as we explicitly describe thermal fluctuations of a measurement device. Note that it is only because quantum fluctuations cannot be eliminated that measurements using different devices have to be represented by noncommuting operators in quantum theory.

## Appendix B Inverse functional fourier transform of a positive semi-definite Gaussian

In a finite dimensional case, it is well-defined to take the inverse fourier transform of a Gaussian $`e^{q(x)}`$, where $`q(x)`$ is a positive semi-definite quadratic form, since $`q(x)`$ splits the space $`Xx`$ into orthogonal subspaces $`X_0,q(x_0)=0,`$ and $`X_1,q(x_1)>0`$. For the inverse fourier transform we have

$$_Xe^{iy.x}e^{q(x)}=_{X_0}e^{iy_0.x_0}_{X_1}e^{iy_1.x_1}e^{q(x_1)}\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\delta (y_0)e^{q^1(y_1)},$$
(40)
where the inverse quadratic form $`q^1`$ exists on $`X_1`$. This simple method extends to mQKG, but, given only a definition of $`\delta (x)`$ as a distribution, it does not extend to QKG. If we define $`\delta (x)`$ as a Colombeau generalized function, this simple method may possibly extend to QKG.

## Appendix C Regularization of Gaussian integrals

For the functional

$$\rho _D[w]\stackrel{\mathrm{N}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(k)D(k)\stackrel{~}{w}(k)\right],$$
(41)
where $`D(k)`$ determines the dynamics of a classical statistical field theory, the functional integral $`𝒟w\rho _D[w]`$ only exists in general if we restrict the range of the functional integration to functions that are smooth below a chosen scale (for a straightforward discussion, see \[13, §8.1 and Appendix L\]). This integral must be finite for us to regard $`\rho _D[w]`$ as a probability density functional (implicitly assuming normalization), as must the moments of the distribution. A simple way to ensure finiteness is to introduce a wave number cutoff, $`|k|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for some Euclidean metric on $`k`$.

The Gaussian model of classical statistical field theory takes $`D(k)=|k|^2+m^2`$, which progressively reduces the probability of higher frequency components of $`\stackrel{~}{w}(k)`$ (but not sufficiently to give a finite functional integral when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ except for one dimensional systems). In contrast, mQKG takes $`D(k)=[2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)]^1`$, where $`F(k_\mu k^\mu )`$ has support, say, only for $`m^2<k_\mu k^\mu <m^2+\delta `$, near the hyperboloid $`k_\mu k^\mu =m^2`$, so the functional integrals of mQKG are already constrained to functions $`\stackrel{~}{w}(k)`$ having support only where $`k_\mu `$ is in the support of $`F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)`$. mQKG can be treated in the same way as the well-understood Gaussian model, and the functional integral $`𝒟w\rho _D[w]`$ and the moments of the probability density are all finite for $`|k|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (but not for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$). One difficulty is that this regularization breaks Lorentz invariance, but this is always a difficulty for simple regularizations of relativistic quantum field theory.

## Appendix D Thermal state characteristic function

For the characteristic function of a thermal state of a simple harmonic oscillator, we have:

$`Q_T[z]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}e^{i(a^{}z^{}+az)}\right]}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}e^{ia^{}z^{}}e^{iaz}\right]e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha |z|^2}}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]}};`$ (43)
where we will suppose that $`[a,a^{}]=\alpha `$. Then

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]=\frac{1}{1e^{\lambda \alpha }},$$
(44)
and

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}e^{ia^{}z^{}}e^{iaz}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2a^{}a}{1!^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^4a^2a^2}{2!^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^6a^3a^3}{3!^2}}+\mathrm{}\right)e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2a^{}a}{1^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2(a^{}a\alpha )}{2^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2(a^{}a2\alpha )}{3^2}}\left[\mathrm{}\right]\right]\right]\right)e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2}{1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2}{2^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }}+\alpha )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^2}{3^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }}+2\alpha )\left[\mathrm{}\right]\right]\right]\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\lambda a^{}a}\right]`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{\lambda \alpha }}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha |z|^2e^{\lambda \alpha }}{1!(1e^{\lambda \alpha })}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2|z|^4e^{2\lambda \alpha }}{2!(1e^{\lambda \alpha })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3|z|^6e^{3\lambda \alpha }}{3!(1e^{\lambda \alpha })^3}}+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{\lambda \alpha }}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha |z|^2e^{\lambda \alpha }}{1e^{\lambda \alpha }}}\right],`$ (49)
where we have used

$$\mathrm{and}\begin{array}{c}a^na^n=a^{}a(a^{}a\alpha )(a^{}a2\alpha )\mathrm{}(a^{}a(n1)\alpha )\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{Tr}[(a^{}a)^ne^{\lambda a^{}a}]=(1)^n\frac{\mathrm{d}^n}{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^n}\mathrm{Tr}[e^{\lambda a^{}a}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
so that

$$Q_T[z]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha |z|^2}{2\mathrm{tanh}\lambda \alpha }\right].$$
(51)
For mQKG, we take

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{a^{}(k)a(k)k_\mu 𝒯^\mu }{2\pi F(k_\mu k^\mu )\theta (k_0)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}$$
(52)
to obtain equation 35.


format: text

text:
# Phenomenology and Theory of Possible Light Higgs Bosons

## Abstract

We study the implications of the absence of a direct discovery of a Higgs boson at LEP. First we exhibit 15 physically different ways in which one or more Higgs bosons lighter than the LEP limit could still exist. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) all of these, as well as the cases where $`m_h115\mathrm{GeV}`$, seem fine-tuned. We examine some interpretations of the fine tuning in high scale theories. The least fine-tuned MSSM outcome will have $`m_h115\mathrm{GeV}`$, while approaches that extend the MSSM at the weak scale can naturally have larger $`m_h`$.

preprint: MCTP-03-16

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is defined as the simplest supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (SM). Every SM particle has a superpartner, the basic Lagrangian is supersymmetric, and the gauge group is the same $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ as that of the SM. The full supersymmetry is softly broken by certain dimension two and three operators. There is considerable indirect evidence that this theory is likely to be part of the description of nature. If it is, a Higgs boson with mass less than about $`130\mathrm{GeV}`$ must exist, and superpartners must be found with masses not too much larger than those of the W, Z and top quark. This theory has three neutral Higgs boson physical states (denoted h, H, and A in the simplest CP conserving case) and a charged Higgs pair H<sup>±</sup>. Of course it could be an extension of the MSSM that describes nature at the weak scale, but most extensions behave similarly to the MSSM at low energies.

While the Higgs boson mass can be as heavy as $`130\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the MSSM, it has been known for some time that most models imply a lighter state, usually below about $`110\mathrm{GeV}`$, when constraints from non-observation of superpartners (real or virtual) are imposed, and including the constraint that the indirect arguments for supersymmetry are valid without fine-tuning. Even allowing that perhaps LEP has seen a Higgs boson with $`m_h=115\mathrm{GeV}`$, there is some fine-tuning present because the tree level Higgs mass is bounded by $`M_Z`$ so the one loop corrections have to supply about $`\delta m_h^2(70\mathrm{GeV})^2`$ when added in quadrature. That is possible but requires some parameters to be larger than naively expected. Of course, discussing an issue such as fine-tuning can only be done in the context of a theory. Fine tuning in the low scale theory could be a clue to a natural structure of the high scale theory. Or it could be a clue that the low scale theory is effectively excluded. If the MSSM is extended to have a larger gauge group in such a way that new scalars mix significantly with the MSSM scalars then the tree level mass of the lightest Higgs can be larger than $`M_Z`$ and no fine tuning is needed to have a heavier Higgs spectrum.

It is interesting to ask if the Higgs sector of the MSSM could be such that LEP would not have found a signal because of reduced Higgs production cross sections there, or reduced branching ratios. In the following we present in Table 1 15 physically different scenarios where that is indeed the case, plus the minimal scenario with $`m_h=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ (No. 10), and the case with all Higgs heavier than about $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ (No. 17). All are allowed by other data. All are detectable at the Fermilab Tevatron collider with sufficient luminosity. All satisfy the constraints for electroweak symmetry breaking, though sometimes in unconventional ways. Having found these we can then ask if any of them seem to be less fine-tuned, and thus may point towards an underlying theory.

The ranges of masses in Table 1 are representative ones since we think more detailed study is not appropriate at this stage. In some cases there could be two or even three light Higgs. LEP groups have reported as many as three possible signals (each about $`2\sigma `$LHWG01 ; LHWG02 , so for simplicity we identify possible signals as the masses where the reported LEP hints occur. We emphasize that we are not in any way claiming LEP signals exist – we are simply using these points to illustrate the opportunities. If there were observable light Higgs bosons, they are more likely to have masses where tentative signals have been recorded. We group the models according to whether three, two, one or none of the light states could have given a signal at LEP. We assume that if they did give a signal it was at one of the $`2\sigma `$ reported masses $`98\mathrm{GeV}`$ or $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ for one of the two CP-even eigenstates, or where the sum of two masses $`m_h+m_A=187\mathrm{GeV}`$ So02a ; So02b . Three of the 16 light Higgs cases have parameters that can exist in the unified minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) paradigm; the others do not. Some require complex soft terms. We also give low-scale parameters for some cases.

Because the one loop top/stop radiative correction to the Higgs potential is rather large, a large phase (specifically the relative phase of $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$) can enter, and lead to a relative phase between the Higgs vevs at the minimum of the potential. This phase is physical and cannot be rotated away. It leads to mixing between the mass eigenstates, and affects the production rates and decay branching ratios BrKa98 ; KaWa00 ; CaElPiWa00 ; CaElPiWa02 ; CaElMrPiWa02 . The column headed by $`\varphi `$ has a Y if a non-trivial phase (not zero or $`\pi `$) plays a role for a given model. When CP is conserved we call the states by the usual names h, H and A; one can show here that $`m_h`$ is always less than $`\mathrm{max}(M_Z,m_A)`$, even allowing one-loop corrections for $`m_h`$, so any model with $`m_A`$ and $`M_Z<m_h`$ requires a non-trivial phase. This conclusion does not include loop effects for $`m_A`$, so one can have $`m_A`$ a few GeV less than $`m_h`$ for certain parameters if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. The column headed by $`\mu `$ has a Y if $`\mu `$ is very large, say well above several hundred GeV; this is particularly relevant because of the question of fine-tuning needed to obtain electroweak symmetry breaking.

In most cases the charged Higgs mass $`m_{H^\pm }`$ is less than the top quark mass, so the decay $`tb+H^\pm `$ is allowed. Existing data from D0 excludes $`m_{H^\pm }`$ below about $`125\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ larger than about 50 with mild model dependence, so no model is fully excluded – though parts of the parameter range of some models are probably excluded by non-observation of $`H^\pm `$. With more and better data from Run II the $`H^\pm `$ of most of these models could be observed or excluded Dzero . These small values for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ can also exceed limits from $`\mathrm{Br}(bs\gamma )`$, but using light chargino and gluino contributions provides significant flexibility. However, cases 8 and 16 exceed the limits on $`\mathrm{Br}(bs\gamma )`$ by more than a factor of two and are thus likely to be excluded, though we should note that this is based on using a unified mSUGRA model for these cases and may not hold when departures from universality are entertained.

For completeness we exhibit a set of low-energy parameters that determine the resulting Higgs sector of the model for three entries in Table 1; in a longer paper we will provide this information for all of them and give more details on the ranges future . Entry No. 1 has $`m_h=98\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_H=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_h+m_A=187\mathrm{GeV}`$. Its parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$, $`|\mu |=1700`$, $`|A_t|=|A_b|=400`$, $`\varphi _\mu =130^o`$, $`M_1=100`$, $`M_2=200`$, $`M_3=600`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=500`$, with all parameters in GeV. This gives $`m_{H^\pm }=120\mathrm{GeV}`$. The masses of the three mass eigenstates are $`m_1=89.1`$, $`m_2=97.4`$, and $`m_3=115.0\mathrm{GeV}`$, with $`C_i^2`$ respectively of 0.024, 0.229, and 0.747. All three states have $`\mathrm{BR}(\phi _ib\overline{b})0.91`$. These give about $`2\sigma `$ signals at 98 and 115 GeV. Since $`m_AM_Z`$ the $`Zh`$ and $`Ah`$ channels add to give an apparent $`187\mathrm{GeV}`$ signal.

Entry No. 8 has $`m_H=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ with the other neutral Higgs states having smaller masses. Its parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =46.9`$, $`\mu =540`$, $`A_t=758`$, $`A_b=882`$, $`M_1=188`$, $`M_2=351`$, $`M_3=1015`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3}=860`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=848`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=776`$, with all masses in GeV. This gives $`m_{H^\pm }=113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$. The masses of the three mass eigenstates are $`m_h=82.7`$, $`m_A=86.2`$ and $`m_H=114.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, with $`C_i^2`$ respectively of 0.013, 0 and 0.987. All three states have $`\mathrm{BR}(\phi _ib\overline{b})0.934`$ which yields an apparent $`2\sigma `$ signal at $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Entry No. 15 has no signal at LEP and a lightest Higgs boson mass below $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$. Its parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.4`$, $`\mu =190`$, $`A_t=A_b=4000`$, $`M_1=55`$, $`M_2=250`$, $`M_3=700`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=2000`$, with all masses in GeV. This gives $`m_{H^\pm }=505\mathrm{GeV}`$. The masses of the three mass eigenstates are $`m_h=111.2`$, $`m_A=499.6`$ and $`m_H=504.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, with $`C_i^2`$ respectively of 0.999, 0 and 0.001. The branching ratios of the lightest state are $`\mathrm{BR}(hb\overline{b})=0.296`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(h\stackrel{~}{N}_1\stackrel{~}{N}_1)=0.621`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ is the stable lightest superpartner and is a good candidate for the cold dark matter of the universe. In the case presented here, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}=43.5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

It would be very nice if one or more of the models pointed to a simple high scale model which we could then study and perhaps motivate. Unfortunately, this does not seem to occur. The low energy values given above do not completely specify the MSSM soft Lagrangian. Thus, translating these values to a high energy boundary condition scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{uv}}`$ through renormalization group (RG) evolution will involve some arbitrariness – for example, in choosing the low-energy values of slepton and second-generation squark masses. In some instances, such as entry No. 8 described above, the necessary low scale values could be obtained from a unified mSUGRA model at the high scale. For the remaining cases we have chosen representative points in the low-energy allowed parameter space and evolved them from the bottom upwards. Some subset of these results for the soft terms at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{uv}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{gut}}=1.9\times 10^{16}`$ are given in Table 2, including those of Entries 1, 8 and 15.

Naturally, entries such as Nos. 8 and 16 which can be identified with a point in the mSUGRA parameter space have a simple appearance at the high scale. By contrast, those models which have no mapping to a unified-mass model show no discernable pattern in the soft Lagrangian. While some small degree of improvement may be possible by varying those parameters left unspecified at the low scale by the Higgs sector, we have found no instances where the patterns of severe hierarchies and negative scalar mass-squareds can be alleviated. Note that these non-universal cases are particularly perverse in that both charge and color symmetries are radiatively restored in these models as the parameters are evolved towards the electroweak scale.

Even allowing for the possibility that some of the high-scale values in Table 2 which appear similar can, in fact, be made to unify with the appropriate adjustment of low scale values, we are still confronted with a large number of unrelated parameters in the soft Lagrangian. Most models of supersymmetry breaking (such as mSUGRA) are studied for their simplicity; they tend to involve very few free parameters. The traditional models of minimal gravity, minimal gauge and minimal anomaly mediation, as studied in the Snowmass Points and Slopes Snowmass ; DeHeSuWe03  have too few parameters to possibly describe these nonuniversal cases even when all three are combined in arbitrary amounts. Nor do string-based models generally provide sufficient flexibility, whether they be heterotic based bench  or intersecting brane constructions such as Type IIB orientifold models IbMuRi99 . While having sufficient free parameters in the model is, strictly speaking, neither necessary nor sufficient to potentially generate one of the entries in Table 1, we feel it is a good indication of the theoretical challenge faced by models that cannot come from mSUGRA or other simple benchmark models. This is particularly true when the number of free parameters within, say, the scalar sector and the number of hierarchies in the soft Lagrangian are considered.

That many of the entries in Table 1 imply high scale soft supersymmetry breaking patterns with such unattractive features (and no discernable theoretical structure) can be considered one element of the fine-tuning in such cases. In Table 3 we have counted the number of apparent free parameters for these sample cases, allowing for a generous interpretation of which parameters could be made to unify. It is not an automatic corollary, however, that the models that admit a unified explanation are necessarily less fine-tuned. In Table 3 we also provide two additional quantitative measures of the fine-tuning in these same cases. We have also included entry No. 10 from Table 1 for comparison, with high scale input values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =25`$, $`m_0=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=750\mathrm{GeV}`$ and positive $`\mu `$ term. The numbers $`\delta _Z`$ and $`\delta _A`$ are the sensitivities of $`M_Z`$ and $`m_A`$, respectively, to small changes in the values of the independent high-scale values $`a_i`$; i.e. $`\delta =\sqrt{(\delta _i)^2}`$ where $`\delta _i=|(a_i/m)\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Delta }a_i|`$ BaGi88 . In order to treat unified and non-unified models equally we have used the average scalar mass squared, gaugino mass and trilinear coupling as free variables in computing these sensitivities.

As far as we can see, all models with $`m_Am_h`$, or equivalently $`C_H1`$ are significantly fine-tuned. This is not clear from the low-scale parameters, but seems to emerge when one examines the high-scale models that give rise to small $`m_A`$. Models which require specifying multiple soft parameters quite precisely also imply additional tuning costs relative to the mSUGRA models. This should be seen as evidence of the difficulty in finding areas of the low-energy parameter space capable of producing many of the entries in Table 1. While the fine-tuning “price” of the LEP results for the MSSM has been often discussed ChElOlPo99 , it is apparent from Table 3 that the least fine-tuned result continues to be the case with $`m_h115\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Yet even this outcome tends to require some superpartner masses heavier that one might naively expect, in order to obtain the $`(75\mathrm{GeV})^2`$ radiative correction. In the standard mSUGRA-based studies ElHeOlWe03 ; ElNaOl02  one typically needs here either squarks or gluinos in excess of $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ in mass at the low energy scale, with the latter being a much more serious problem for fine-tuning than the former KaKi99 ; KaLyNeWa02 . Most of these studies assume vanishing trilinear A-terms, however. The degree of tuning can be reduced substantially if the so-called “maximal mixing” scenario can work CaHeWaWe99 . In this case, the need for large superpartner masses is mitigated by maximizing the loop correction to the lightest Higgs boson mass from the $`m_{\mathrm{LR}}^2`$ entry of the stop mass matrix. In models whose scalar sector is well approximated by an overall universal scalar mass $`m_0`$, this tends to occur when $`A_t2m_0`$ at the GUT scale KaKiWa01 . In models with small departures from universality this relation remains approximately correct.

This relation is therefore an alluring goal for high-energy models, though few well-motivated models seem to naturally predict this relation without simultaneously re-introducing some heavy superpartners, and often the hierarchies or negative mass-squareds mentioned above still occur here. Minimal supergravity and minimal anomaly mediation effectively treat both trilinears and scalar masses as independent variables so no such relation is predicted. Minimal gauge mediation predicts trilinears which are small relative to scalar masses. In string-based examples some similar relations are predicted. For example, the dilaton domination model with tree-level Kähler potential BrIbMu94  for the dilaton provides a relation $`A_0=\sqrt{3}m_01.7m_0`$ at the SUSY breaking scale. On the other hand, since $`M_{1/2}=A_0`$ in this model a sufficiently heavy Higgs state will require a gluino mass that is also rather large. In the generalized dilaton domination scenario Ca96 ; BiGaWu97a ; bench  gauginos masses are parametrically small relative to scalars, but so too are the trilinears. Allowing some coupling of the Higgs fields to the Green-Schwarz counterterm in such theories can help generate larger A-terms, but generally suffer from light moduli problems GaNe00a ; GaGi00 .

In heterotic models where moduli fields participate in supersymmetry breaking the tree-level trilinear A-terms vanish in the limit where the Yukawa couplings are independent of the moduli (as in the case with universal modular weights $`n=1`$BrIbMu94 . The relation $`Am_0`$ can be obtained by taking larger (negative) modular weights, but this introduces tachyonic scalar masses for at least some of the fields. While non-negative modular weights are possible in string-derived heterotic orbifold models IbLu92 , which could generate $`Am_0`$ with positive scalar mass-squareds, such outcomes are hardly generic and require very special conditions on the oscillator numbers of the fields involved.

Models based on intersecting D-brane configurations IbMuRi99  relate compactification moduli to the dilaton through various duality symmetries. Thus a “weight” can be assigned to all moduli fields, including the dilaton. While the soft trilinear A-terms continue to be given by the same supergravity-derived expression, the effective weights of the MSSM fields need no longer be integers. Depending on the brane assignments of the Standard Model fields, relations such as $`A_t=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, -$`\sqrt{2}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`A_t=\sqrt{3}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ can be obtained, with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ being the typical squark mass at the high scale. Non-integer and non-negative effective modular weights have recently been shown to be possible in weakly-coupled heterotic constructions as well, whenever MSSM fields are charged under an anomalous $`U(1)`$ factor and fields which get large vevs to cancel the Fayet-Iliopolous term are integrated out in a modular invariant manner GaGi02b . Thus we see that the ability to imply a result like $`A_02m_0`$ may be a significant discriminant among string-based models and mechanisms of transmitting supersymmetry breaking. A further analysis of many of these string-based approached to achieving a large Higgs mass without fine-tuning will be presented elsewhere future .

Given the above, the “best” answer for the MSSM remains that LEP did produce 115 GeV Higgs states, and that this mass was the result of some realization of what we will call the “constrained maximal mixing” scenario, with $`A_t2m_0`$ and $`M_3`$, $`\mu `$ small enough so that radiative electroweak symmetry breaking occurs without large cancellations KaLyNeWa02 . How to generate this constrained maximal mixing scenario in realistic high-scale theories is not clear, though some approaches may be good starting points. For instance, we find it interesting that the minimal SO(10) model of Raby et al. arrive at the same relationship between the A-terms and squark masses as a necessary condition for natural third-generation Yukawa unification Ra03 ; BlDeRa02 . Alternatively, perhaps the LEP results suggest that what is needed is an extension to the usual MSSM electroweak sector, such as an additional $`U(1)`$ sector whose associated scalars mix strongly with the MSSM Higgs sector CvLa96 ; LaWa98 ; BaHuKiRoVe00 . Such an extension must therefore arise at or near the weak scale. Perhaps the data is pointing us towards a still (relatively) unexplored, but crucial, region of theoretical parameter space whose theoretical simplicity we cannot yet see.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank S. King and J. D. Wells for helpful conversations and suggestions.


text:
# Elasticity-Driven Nanoscale Electronic Structure in Superconductors

0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt

(April 29, 2003)

## Abstract

The effects of long-range anisotropic elastic deformations on electronic structure in superconductors are analyzed within the framework of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations. Cases of twin boundaries and isolated defects are considered as illustrations. We find that the superconducting order parameter is depressed in the regions where pronounced lattice deformation occurs. The calculated local density of states suggests that the electronic structure is strongly modulated in response to lattice deformations, and propagates to longer distances. In particular, this allows the trapping of low-lying quasiparticle states around defects. Some of our predictions can be directly tested by STM experiments.

In many complex electronic materials such as cuprates, manganites, ferroelastic martensites, and titanates, unexpected and puzzling multiscale modulations of charge, spin, polarization, and strain variables have been revealed by high resolution microscopy Multi1 . The nonuniform textures found in these doped materials indicate that their origin is intrinsic: they arise from coupling between various degrees of freedom. The textures fundamentally affect local and mesoscopic electronic, magnetic and structural properties, which are central to the functionality of correlated electronic materials. There is ample evidence for significant coupling amongst the electronic degrees of freedom with the lattice distortion in cuprates and manganites. The charge carrier doping can act as a local stress to deform surrounding unit cells Multi1 ; Ahn02 . We might employ a Landau-Ginzburg (LG) theory to study the coupling between the electronic (Cooper pair) and lattice (strain tensor) degrees of freedom in superconductors. However, the LG theory can only describe the long wavelength behavior. The local electronic properties and lattice distortion necessitate a treatment at the atomic scale. Recently, we have developed an atomic scale theory for determining lattice distortions by using strain related variables and their constraint equations Ahn02 . This now enables a systematic study of the influence of strain on electronic wavefunctions. Here we apply a microscopic theory to study the order parameter and local quasiparticle properties in both $`s`$ and $`d`$-wave superconductors.

We consider the following model on a square lattice:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(ϵ_i\mu )c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}c_jc_i).`$
Here $`c_{i\sigma }`$ annihilates an electron of spin $`\sigma `$ on site $`i`$. The quantities $`ϵ_i`$ and $`\mu `$ are the on-site impurity potential (if any) and the chemical potential, respectively. The hopping integral $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}`$ is modified by the lattice distortion. The electron-lattice coupling is approximated by $`t_{ij}=t_{ij}^0[1\alpha ϵ_{ij}]`$, where $`t_{ij}^0`$ is the bare hopping integral, $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the lattice-distortion variable, and $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant. In our nearest neighbor realization, the bare hopping integral $`t_{ij}^0`$ is $`t`$ for nearest neighbor sites and zero otherwise. Specifically, we take the form of the lattice distortion to be: $`ϵ_{ij}=[|(𝐑_j+𝐝_j)(𝐑_i+𝐝_i)|/|𝐑_j𝐑_i|1]`$, where $`\{𝐑_i\}`$ are the undistorted lattice coordinates and $`\{𝐝_i\}`$ the lattice displacement vectors with respect to $`\{𝐑_i\}`$. We assume an effective superconducting gap function given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{U_{ij}}{2}c_ic_jc_ic_j`$, where $`U_{ij}=U\delta _{ij}`$ (i.e., attractive Hubbard-$`U`$ model) for $`s`$-wave superconductivity and $`U_{ij}=V\delta _{i+\gamma ,j}`$ (with $`\gamma `$ specifying the nearest neighbors to the $`i`$-th site) for $`d`$-wave superconductivity. By performing a Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation, we may diagonalize our Hamiltonian by solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equation deGennes89 :

$$\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{ij}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}& _{ij}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_j^n\\ v_j^n\end{array}\right)=E_n\left(\begin{array}{c}u_i^n\\ v_i^n\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
subject to the self-consistency conditions for the superconducting (SC) order parameter (OP):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{U_{ij}}{4}\underset{n}{}(u_i^nv_j^n+v_i^nu_j^n)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_n}{2k_BT}\right).$$
(3)
Here the single particle Hamiltonian reads $`_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{t}_{ij}+(ϵ_i\mu )\delta _{ij}`$. The quasiparticle wavefunction, corresponding to the eigenvalue $`E_n`$, consists of electron ($`u_i^n`$) and hole ($`v_i^n`$) amplitudes. The quasiparticle energy is measured with respect to the chemical potential.

We solve the BdG equations self-consistently by starting off with an initial gap function. After exactly diagonalizing Eq. (2), the obtained wavefunction is substituted into Eq. (3) to compute a new gap function. We then use this as an input to repeat the above procedure until a desired convergence is achieved. Below, we report our results for two types of local lattice distortions at zero temperature— a superlattice formed by twin boundaries and a single defect. We measure the length and energy in units of $`a_0`$ (the undistorted lattice constant) and $`t`$. The chemical potential $`\mu =0`$ and no extrinsic impurity scattering is introduced ($`ϵ_i=0`$). The pairing interaction for both the $`s`$-wave ($`U`$) and $`d`$-wave ($`V`$) superconductors is taken to be 3. The typical system size is $`N_L=32\times 32`$ and periodic boundary conditions are applied. When the local quasiparticle density of states (LDOS) is computed, we implement a much larger system using the above small system as a supercell. In the absence of distortions, Eq. (2) is readily solved by resorting to translational invariance: the resulting quasiparticle energy $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$ with $`\xi _𝐤=2(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)\mu `$, and the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_{s0}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{d0}}{2}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ for the $`s`$ or $`d`$-wave superconductor respectively. For the given parameter values, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s0}=0.85`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d0}=1.7`$. In both cases, the superconducting coherence length is $`2a_0`$. These values are exaggerated when compared to real materials: The choice of values is motivated by the desire to enhance the effect of the lattice distortions.

Before proceeding to the BdG calculation sketched above, we generate (following Ahn02 ) two atomic scale lattice distortions. These distortions arise from long-range anisotropic interactions between strains to maintain the compatibility constraints. The $`e_3`$ (square to rectangle) strain mode for a periodic twinned microscopic structure and the corresponding atomic displacements are depicted in Fig. 1(a-b). The domain consists of rectangular distortion (red and blue) separated by a domain wall where $`e_3=0`$. Note that similar but more “realistic” microstructures have also been obtained using Monte Carlo techniques Goldman95 . Similar quantities for a single defect are displayed in panels (c-d). Near the defect, four alternating distortions are formed in (clover leaf) “$`d`$-wave like” pattern.

In Fig. 2, we show the spatial variation of the SC OP induced by the deformation of Fig. 1(a) in both $`s`$ and $`d`$-wave superconductors. In both types of superconductors, the OP is lowered within the domain and is elevated at the domain wall (Fig. 2(a-b)). The magnitude of the OP is depressed in comparison to an undistorted square lattice since the lattice deformation changes the band structure, leading to a reduction in normal density of states at the Fermi energy. Even at the domain wall, where the strain induced deformation is weakest, the amplitude of the enhanced OP is smaller than its value in an undistorted square lattice. This is due to the confinement from the two neighboring domains. In an $`s`$-wave superconductor, the relative orbital motion between two paired electrons has an angular momentum $`l=0`$, which has the highest symmetry and generates no subdominant OPs with lower symmetries. However, for a $`d`$-wave superconductor, the relative motion between two paired electrons has the angular momentum $`l=2`$, which upon scattering from any inhomogeneity can generate a subdominant OP with symmetry not lower than that of $`l=2`$. The $`d`$-wave OP is defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(i)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{x}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{x}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{y}})/4`$, whereas the extended $`s`$-wave OP is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(i)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{x}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{x}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{y}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{y}})/4`$. In a twinned domain of a $`d`$-wave SC, a subdominant extended $`s`$-wave component is generated in a real combination $`d\pm s`$. Because the symmetries of two twinned domains are reflected into each other with respect to the twin boundary, the relative phase between the $`d`$\- and $`s`$-wave components switches by $`\pi `$ when a twin boundary is crossed (Fig. 2(c)). It has been argued phenomenologically Multi5  that a local time-reversal-symmetry-breaking state exists at a twin or grain boundary of YBa2Cu3O7-δ. Within numerical accuracy, our result shows a real admixture of the $`d`$-wave and $`s`$-wave components of the OP. A $`d+is`$ pairing state was also found at the $`\{110\}`$-oriented surface or interface of a $`d`$-wave superconductor in early work Multi2 . A crucial difference between the twin boundary of Fig. 2 and the $`\{110\}`$-oriented surface of earlier work is that the dominant $`d`$-wave component reaches a maximum at twin boundaries, whereas it is strongly suppressed at the $`\{110\}`$-oriented surface or interface. Experimentally, the existence of a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking pairing state in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates is the subject of current debate Multi3 .

As another example, we show in Fig. 3 the spatial variation of the superconducting OP around the single defect (Fig. 1(c)) in both the $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave superconductor cases. The OP is depressed at the center of the defect, and reaches its defect-free bulk value at the length scale $`\xi _0`$. Notice that for a lattice-deformation defect, which affects the local electron hopping integral, the OP has a minimum at four sites surrounding the defect center. It is different from the case of an externally substituted unitary impurity, where the minimum of OP is located only at the impurity site itself Zhu00 . The range of influence of such a defect can be very large depending on the strength of electron-lattice coupling— the elasticity propagates the electronic response. The $`d`$-wave energy gap has a sign change at the nodal directions of the essentially cylindrical Fermi surface, but the $`d`$-wave OP does not exhibit such a sign change in real space. When the defect is introduced, an extended $`s`$-wave component of the OP is induced when the dominant $`d`$-wave component is depressed at the defect. Strikingly, the induced $`s`$-wave component has a sign change across the diagonals of the square lattice, i.e., $`\text{sgn}[\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )]`$, where $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle with respect to the crystalline $`x`$ axis. This is a direct manifestation of the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry in real space. This feature can be understood from a phenomenological LG free-energy density functional with a two-component SC OP: $`=\alpha _s|\mathrm{\Delta }_s|^2+\alpha _d|\mathrm{\Delta }_d|^2+\beta _1|\mathrm{\Delta }_s|^4+\beta _2|\mathrm{\Delta }_d|^4+\beta _3|\mathrm{\Delta }_s|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_d|^2+\beta _4(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2)+\gamma _s|\mathrm{\Delta }_s|^2+\gamma _d|\mathrm{\Delta }_d|^2+\gamma _{sd}[_x\mathrm{\Delta }_s_x\mathrm{\Delta }_d^{}_y\mathrm{\Delta }_s_y\mathrm{\Delta }_d^{}+\text{c.c}]`$, where we take $`\alpha _s`$ to be always positive while $`\alpha _d=\alpha _{d0}(T/T_{d0}1)`$ such that there exists only a single transition into a $`d`$-wave pairing state in a homogeneous system. When a defect is introduced, the $`d`$-wave component is depressed. Since the $`s`$-wave component itself should be very small, the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2`$ is only a higher-order correction. Therefore, it is the mixed-gradient term that induces the $`s`$-wave component and also determines the relative phase to be $`0`$ or $`\pi `$. The sign change is also evident by exchanging the $`x`$ and $`y`$ components of the position coordinate in the mixed-gradient term.

Once the self-consistency for the order parameter is obtained, we calculate the LDOS:

$$\rho _i(E)=\underset{n}{}[|u_i^n|^2f^{}(EE_n)+|v_i^n|^2f^{}(E+E_n)],$$
(4)
where $`f^{}(E)`$ is the derivative of the Fermi distribution function with respect to the energy. The LDOS determines the differential tunneling conductance, measurable by STM experiments Pan00 . Figure 4 shows the LDOS at a domain wall for both types of superconductors, where the modulation of the superconducting OP forms a superlattice, with its maximum at the domain wall playing the role of an off-diagonal potential barrier ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ in Eq. (2)). For an $`s`$-wave superconductor, the quasiparticles are gapped away with their energy below the minimum SC OP. Outside the minimum of the pair potential, energy bands are formed by the quasiparticle scattering off the off-diagonal energy barriers at the domain walls. Except for the gap about the Fermi energy ($`E=0`$), this is reminiscent of the electronic structure in semiconductor superlattices (e.g., alternating GaAs/GaAlAs layers). Interestingly, the bottom of the oscillation pattern follows the LDOS (black line) of a system formed by a single rectangular domain. Similar oscillations are obtained for the $`d`$-wave superconductor. However, the bottom of the oscillations do not follow the single domain DOS (black line). In addition, weak subgap peaks (labeled by arrows in Fig. 4(b)) appear symmetrically in the LDOS on the domain wall but are absent in the single-domain LDOS. We speculate that these resonant states are due to the gradient of the $`s`$-wave gap component induced inside the domain.

As shown in Fig. 5, we have also calculated the LDOS near the center of a single defect. The depression of the SC OP at the defect makes a quantum-well-like profile of the energy gap. The size and depth of the well is determined by the electron-lattice coupling constant. Because of the difference between the $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave pairings, the $`s`$-wave potential well is closed everywhere, whereas the $`d`$-wave well has four slits along the diagonals of the square lattice. In the $`s`$-wave superconductor, the well is shallow and small for weak coupling, which cannot trap low-lying quasiparticle bound states; for strong coupling constants, the well is deep and large so that subgap quasiparticle bound states are induced (the red and blue lines of Fig. 5(a) and (c)). The energy of these low-lying states must be inbetween the bottom and edge of the well. Therefore, it is notable that the energy of these subgap states is shifted toward the Fermi surface as the electron-lattice coupling is increased (the blue line in Fig. 5(a) and (c)). The situation here is also different from an $`s`$-wave vortex core, where the OP at the core center must vanish such that the low-lying bound states are always trapped Multi4 . The electronic structure at the defect in a $`d`$-wave superconductor becomes even richer: For $`\alpha =3`$ (weak coupling as compared to the band width of the non-deformed square lattice), the lattice distortion plays the role of a weak defect for the quasiparticle scattering. In this case, a resonant peak with a dip exactly at the Fermi energy is seen (the red line in Fig. 5(b)). The overall peak comes from the scattering of quasiparticles off the single-particle off-diagonal potential (i.e., local change of the hopping integral as a response to the lattice deformation). This lattice-deformation induced resonance state also exhibits Friedel oscillations. Typically, the peak structure appears in the LDOS at (0,0) (We label the four sites surrounding the defect center by (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)) and (-2,-2). In contrast to the case of an extrinsic on-site potential-scattering impurity Balatsky95 , the LDOS spectrum is symmetric since even the local particle-hole symmetry is preserved here. For $`\alpha =10`$ (strong coupling), the $`d`$-wave OP is almost fully depressed (less than 0.03), while the maximum of the induced $`s`$-wave OP reaches 0.085. The local off-diagonal potential becomes more finite ranged, which causes a local change of the band width. The ‘resonant’ peaks are pushed to higher energies ($`\pm 0.3`$) (the blue line of Fig. 5(d)). Furthermore, small shoulders appear close to the Fermi energy (the blue lines of Fig. 5(b) and (d)), which are precursors of new Andreev resonance states. We have also computed the LDOS without imposing self-consistency on the OP and found that the double-peak structure is V-shaped with no existence of the shoulders. This leads us to speculate that the new Andreev resonance states come from the confinement of the induced $`s`$-wave OP. However, these states are still delocalized because the quasiparticles can leak out of the well through the slits along the diagonal directions where the induced $`s`$-wave component vanishes. All these features are unique to an elastic defect in a $`d`$-wave superconductor with short coherence length.

In conclusion, we studied the effects of elastic lattice deformation on the nanoscale electronic structure in superconductors. We have shown that the SC OP is depressed in the regions where the lattice deformation exists. The calculated LDOS suggests that the electronic structure is strongly modulated in response to the lattice deformation. In particular, it is possible to trap low-lying quasiparticle states around the defects. Images of these states will manifest the underlying long-range anisotropic lattice deformation. These predictions can be directly tested by STM experiments in new functional superconducting materials. Our approach is readily extended to other elastic textures and SC symmetries. Self-consistent coupling of the elastic and SC textures on an equal footing will be pursued elsewhere. It would also be interesting to study the electronic response by using Monte Carlo generated microstructures as input, which constitutes future work.

We thank A. Saxena and S. R. Shenoy for useful discussions. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy through the Los Alamos National Laboratory.


text:
# Telling the tale of the first stars

*Nature* 422 (2003), (issue 24 April)

HE 0107–5240 is a star in more than one sense of the word. Chemically, it is the most primitive object yet discovered, and it is at the centre of debate about the origins of the first elements in the Universe.

Late last year, discovery of the most iron-deficient star yet identified, HE 0107–5240, was announced. This star has a measured abundance of iron less than 1/200,000 that of the Sun\[¡1¿\]. Its significance is that it seems to be a relic from the early Universe, and astronomers are now busy considering how to interpret it.

In this issue, three groups – Bonifacio et al.\[¡2¿\], Umeda and Nomoto\[¡3¿\], and Schneider et al.\[¡4¿\] – present various interpretations of HE 0107–5240. Each of these contributions centres on whether this star exhibits properties that might reveal the likely range of mass that should be associated with the so-called population III stars – objects that are presumed to have formed shortly after the Big Bang, and which are thought to have produced the first elements heavier than H, He, and Li, as well as the ‘first light’ in the Universe. Population II stars are objects that formed after population III, and which incorporated the metals created by this previous generation. Our Sun, and other (younger) metal-rich stars in the Galactic disk, are referred to as population I objects.

To the astronomer, metals include all elements heavier than He, and they are thought to be produced only by nuclear reactions that take place during the lifetimes, or at the deaths, of stars. Stars such as our Sun have inherited the net production of metals by all of the previous generations that lived (and died) before it. Stars of the lowest observed abundance of heavy elements, such as HE 0107–5240, must therefore have been born before other stars, because the gas clouds from which they formed had only the slightest traces of these heavy elements. So, regardless of the outcome of debate about the nature of the very first stars, HE 0107–5240 remains the chemically most primitive object yet discovered, and is a crucial ‘laboratory’ for tests of the origins of the first elements in the Universe.

Despite the apparent simplicity of the composition of HE 0107–5240, which to date has yielded detections of nine elements (H, C, N, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, Fe, and Ni), the new papers2-4 present a dizzying array of possible explanations for their origin. By comparison, other extremely low-metallicity stars, with Fe abundances near 1/1,000 of the solar level, such as CS 22892–052 (ref. 5) and CS 31082–001 (refs 6, 7), show evidence of roughly 40–60 individual elements, most arising from the so-called rapid neutron-capture process, which accounts for the production of roughly half of all elements heavier than Fe. Beyond its Fe deficiency, the singular feature of HE 0107–5240 is that its measured abundance of C, relative to Fe, is about 10,000 times the observed ratio of these elements in the Sun, the largest such ‘over-abundance’ ratio ever seen. The N abundance ratio is also highly enhanced, though only by a factor of 200. The other detected elements exhibit ratios similar to those in previously identified metal-deficient stars.

Explanations put forward for the composition of HE 0107–5240 fall into three main categories. First, that it is indeed a low-mass, population III star that formed out of gas of zero-metallicity, and has had its present surface abundances altered. Possible mechanisms for changing the observed atmospheric abundances of HE 0107–5240 include internal mixing of elements produced by nuclear burning in the star itself, and the acquisition of metals produced by later generations of stars during its passage through an already enriched interstellar medium\[¡8¿\] or – as now seems more likely – even in the cloud of its birth, from the contribution of material from later supernovae\[¡9¿\].

The second possible explanation is that it is a low-mass population II star, of an extreme form, and that the observed elemental abundances directly reflect the yields of species from supernova explosions of massive (more than 200 times the solar mass) population III stars that were incorporated into the gas from which HE 0107–5240 formed.

Third, as above, except that the observed abundances reflect the yields of one or more supernova explosions of stars of population III stars of ‘normal’ mass (20–25 solar masses) that were present shortly before its birth.

An important point here is that each of these options is consistent with the possibility that HE 0107–5240 has ‘locked up’ the elemental clues required for understanding the nature of population III. Astronomers have long debated the form of the so-called ‘initial mass function’ of these objects, although recent theory has favoured the notion that it was dominated by stars of between several hundred and one thousand times the mass of the Sun. Such massive stars have extremely short lifetimes, hence the elements they created provide one of the few lingering pieces of evidence that can be used to infer their properties.

Detailed observations of HE 0107–5240, now underway, should help to discriminate between the three options. On page 834, for instance, Bonifacio et al\[¡2¿\] propose that measurement of the element O may hold one key. They argue that this element should be detectable in the near-ultraviolet region of the spectrum of HE 0107–5240. If it turns out to show a ratio, with respect to Fe, of more than about 1,000, this may be associated with production from high-mass, zero-metallicity stars. A value of less than 1,000 would suggest an origin from zero- (or low-) metallicity, lower-mass stars.

Bonifacio et al. also suggest that the presently observed metals in HE 0107–5240 might have arisen from the yields of two supernovae explosions of zero-metallicity progenitors with quite different masses– the high-mass progenitor producing the light elements now observed in the star (but little or none of the Fe), and the low-mass progenitor contributing the elements Mg and heavier (including Fe). Similar ideas, calling for a combination of supernovae to explain the observed elemental abundances of metal-poor stars, have already been proposed\[¡10¿\].

Umeda and Nomoto (page 871)\[¡3¿\] argue that the observed abundance pattern in HE 0107–5240, including the large abundances of C and N, can be explained by the explosions of 20-130-solar-mass progenitors that underwent substantial ‘mixing and fallback.’ According to this view, most of the heavy elements (including Fe) that were created in the central regions of explosions were never ejected, but fell into the maw of a black hole that formed at the death of the progenitor. The lighter elements, such as C and N, which formed by pre-explosion nucleosynthesis in the progenitor, were ejected into the interstellar medium. Umeda and Nomoto also note that similar conditions might arise from aspherical supernovae explosions, where jets of explosive nucleosynthesis might have been produced by a rapidly rotating progenitor star. These ideas are supported by the existence of other C-, N- (and O-) rich, extremely metal-poor stars, which have abundance patterns that are in some ways like that of HE 0107–5240 and could be explained by a similar mechanism. Furthermore, the sort of low-luminosity supernova explosions envisaged by Umeda and Nomoto have already been observed – examples include SN1997D and SN1999br.

Both Umeda and Nomoto\[¡3¿\] and Schneider et al.\[¡4¿\] (page 869) point out that the great abundance of C, N (and presumably O) in HE 0107–5240 may indicate that the gas cloud from which it formed was already quite metal-rich (even though the Fe abundance is low, the total abundance of metals is dominated by the lighter elements). That would allow efficient formation of low-mass stars from the ‘cooling channels’ supplied by the lighter elements. But these authors also note that, even if the abundances of C, N and O in the cloud from which HE 0107–5240 formed were quite low, and were boosted only later from internal mixing processes, gas with metal abundance as low as that inferred from the Fe alone could still fractionate to form low-mass stars due to cooling from dust grains – if indeed such grains could have formed at sufficiently early times.

Schneider et al.\[¡4¿\] also argue that if the first population III stars had masses of 200–220 times the solar mass, their explosions might account for the abundances of the heavier elements in HE 0107–5240, though not the lighter ones. Schneider et al. agree with Umeda and Nomoto that another possibility is the explosion of progenitors with masses 20–25 times that of the Sun, and point out that improved upper limits on the abundance of Zn, or the presence (or lack) of elements created in the rapid neutron-capture process in HE 0107–5240, may be able to discriminate between the appropriate mass range of the progenitor object. From the data already in hand, however, Christlieb et al.\[¡1¿\] have argued that if the neutron-capture elements were indeed greatly enhanced, Ba and Sr might be expected to be detected in this star. But they are not.

Although we are left with a frustrating variety of possibilities, HE 0107–5240 should allow us to address many questions about the formation and evolution of the first generations of stars in the Universe. One line of attack, not explicitly mentioned in these three papers, is analysis of the metallicity distribution in stars with the lowest abundances of heavy elements\[¡9¿\]. If they apply in general, several of the explanations offered for the formation of a star with the observed properties of HE 0107–5240 will produce stars with characteristic metallicities – which, given a large enough sample, might be detected as deviations from a continuous distribution of stellar metallicities. Hence, numerous additional stars with extremely low Fe abundances will need to be discovered to fully ‘tell the tale’ of early star formation and the creation of the first metals in the Universe.


text:
# Faster Background Determination - a method for gaining time coverage and flux measurement accuracy with Cherenkov telescopes

## 1 Introduction

Since their first successful application in the late 1980s , Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (CTs) have developed rapidly from pioneer instruments to precision observatories for high-energy gamma radiation with a large user community. With four major new observatories under construction (CANGAROO III , HESS , MAGIC , VERITAS ), it is justified to revisit and optimise the standard CT data taking methods in terms of achieving the best possible scientific output given the limited observation time.

CTs can only observe at night (ideally moonless) and during good weather conditions. These constraints typically lead to a total yearly observation time for any one observatory site of roughly 1000 hours. Within this time, the observer must perform two tasks: the observation of the (known or suspected) gamma-ray source (“on-source” observation) and an auxiliary “off-source” observation to determine the background caused by hadronic cosmic rays contained in the on-source observation. Different schemes have been developed to perform the “off-source” observations. They are described in section 2. All schemes have in common that they either achieve less than optimal sensitivity or occupy a large fraction of the total observation time, roughly 50 %, which reduces the telescope’s ability to follow the light curves of rapidly variable sources.

In this article, I propose a new method to obtain off-source observations sacrificing a smaller fraction of the total observation time and avoiding increased systematic uncertainties. Section 2 summarizes the presently used background determination methods, section 3 describes the new method and section 4 discusses advantages and applications.

## 2 Traditional background determination

In order to better describe the advantages of the proposed new background measurement method, the methods which have been used so far are briefly summarized here.

There are essentially two traditional ways of obtaining an estimate of the number of background events in data from gamma-ray source observations with Cherenkov telescopes: true ON/OFF observations and separately taken OFF data.

### 2.1 ON/OFF observations

This was the first method ever employed in imaging atmospheric Cherenkov observations . The background is determined by performing a second observation immediately before or after the on-source observation (“ON run”). This second observation, the “OFF run”, has the same duration as the ON run and is made on a celestial position which is the same as the on-source position except that the Right Ascension is shifted by the duration of the ON-run increased by the slewing time.

The method achieves a perfect matching of the zenith angle distributions in ON and OFF run. Also the atmospheric conditions are nearly perfectly matched since the the runs are taken nearly at the same time. The only difference between ON and OFF run are (mostly small) variations in the star field and hence the night sky background noise. This is to a large extent eliminated by software padding, a method which uses added noise from a software random generator to equalize the noise conditions between ON and OFF . Field rotation spreads the star field differences over the field of view in the course of observations.

Given an observation time (duration of one of the runs) $`T`$, a gamma event rate $`R_\gamma `$ and a background rate $`R_b`$ (after trigger or arbitrary gamma-hadron separation), the significance $`S`$ of the event excess $`X=R_\gamma T`$ caused by the gamma-ray source in the on-source position is

$$S=\frac{R_\gamma \sqrt{T}}{\sqrt{2R_b+R_\gamma }}$$

In order to obtain the off-source observations, 50 % of the theoretically available on-source observation time has to be sacrificed. Since some OFF data can be taken while the source under investigation is below the minimum elevation for useful observations, the reduction in on-source observation time for that particular source may be somewhat less than 50%. But in any case, determining the hadronic background using ON/OFF observations decreases the total available observation time by 50%. Furthermore, it introduces large gaps in the time coverage thereby hampering variability studies.

### 2.2 Separately taken OFF data

Since the hadronic background is known to be isotropic and time-independent (to a good approximation at energies above several 10 GeV), it is in principle possible to measure the background by taking the OFF run long before or long after the ON run is taken. Also, to decrease the statistical error of the background measurement, more than one OFF run can be used. If the analysis is not testing for the presence of a new (weak) source, the same OFF run can also be used several times for different ON data. Hence, less than 50% of the total observation time has to be sacrificed for OFF data.

If a given observatory were to create a library of OFF source runs on a grid of all different declinations and zenith angles of interest, it could in principle - after the completion of the library - stop taking OFF data and re-use the data in the library for all future analysis (for new source discoveries, new OFF data may have to be taken for statistical reasons).

In reality, however, modifications and aging of the telescope hardware and the ever-changing general atmospheric conditions cause changes in the characteristics of the data which make an off-source data library obsolete within a few years - roughly the same time than it takes to compile the library.

In case the time coverage for a particular source is to be increased, exactly matching OFF data can theoretically be taken at a different time by observing at exactly the same Declination and zenith angle. This means sacrificing observation time of other sources and has the additional drawback that, due to the fact that the atmospheric conditions change on a timescale of a few hours, it is never possible to reach the near-perfect matching of the atmospheric conditions obtained in true ON/OFF observations.

To correct for the differences in atmospheric conditions between ON data and separately taken OFF data, one can use the fraction of the data at large ALPHA values (which certainly does not come from the source direction) to normalize the background rate $`R_b`$.111There are different names and prescriptions for this method, but all of them are equivalent. This can be done in an integral way for the whole gamma signal (e.g.  and references therein, ) or separately for different gamma energy ranges when a spectrum has to be derived (with or without assuming a correlation between the bins ). In both cases, larger systematic errors on the integral flux or spectral parameters respectively are the price for not taking true ON/OFF data.

### 2.3 “Wobble mode”

If the diameter of the CT’s field of view exceeds $`4^{}`$, on-source and off-source observations can be taken at the same time by observing the known or suspected source position off-axis by $`0.5^{}`$ and deriving the background from the analysis of events coming from the mirror position in the other half of the camera. This so-called “wobble mode” (see e.g. ) gives maximum time coverage but reduces the effective collection area for gamma-rays by truncating part of the field of view where the air-shower images from the source direction are expected. It also shifts the images of the shower maxima of the events of interest into a region of the field of view which has worse optical properties leading to a deterioration in the gamma-hadron separation.

The truncation effects become negligible when a camera with a field of view larger than $`5^{}`$ becomes available. Equipping telescopes with such large cameras, however, is often financially impossible.

In any case, the mirror position in the other half of the field of view does not provide the exact same zenith angle distribution as the on-source position leading to additional systematic errors in spectra. One way to compensate for this, at least approximately, is to alternate the angle by which the source position is shifted off-axis between e.g. $`+0.5^{}`$ and $`0.5^{}`$.

## 3 The new method

### 3.1 Description

The new background determination method proposed here is a generalized version of the traditional ON/OFF observations described above. Instead of having ON and OFF runs of equal duration, the observer chooses two parameters: the total duration $`T_t`$ of the two runs together and the fraction $`f`$ of $`T_t`$ which is used for the OFF observation. The ON observation time is then

$$T_{\mathrm{on}}=(1f)T_t$$
(1)
while the OFF observation time is

$$T_{\mathrm{off}}=fT_t$$
(2)
The ON observation is then performed with duration $`T_{\mathrm{on}}`$ as usual. The OFF observation, however, since it has in the general case a duration different from the ON observation, has to be performed at a different tracking speed in order to cover the same zenith angle range. The tracking speed is scaled by the ratio of the run durations $`c`$ where

$$c=\frac{1f}{f}$$
(3)
The correction of the tracking speed can simply be achieved by substituting the absolute time $`t`$ in the tracking calculations by a modified absolute time $`t^{}`$ given by

$$t^{}=t_{\mathrm{start}}+c(tt_{\mathrm{start}})$$
(4)
where $`t_{\mathrm{start}}`$ is the (unmodified) absolute time at the beginning of the OFF run.

This substitution has the effect that if $`f0.5`$, the tracking speed is faster ($`f<0.5`$) or slower ($`f>0.5`$) than normal. For example, if $`f`$ is chosen to be $`0.25`$ and $`T_t=60`$ minutes, then $`T_{\mathrm{on}}=45`$ minutes, $`T_{\mathrm{off}}=15`$ minutes and $`c=45/15=3`$. In this case, the telescope would be tracking three times faster during the OFF run. Figure 1 illustrates this example.

The RA/DEC coordinates used for the OFF run are the same as for the traditional ON/OFF case. If $`f`$ is chosen to be $`0.5`$, the observation is a traditional ON/OFF observation.

Given the number of events after arbitrary analysis stages for the ON and OFF run, $`N_{\mathrm{on}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{off}}`$, the number of excess events (“gammas”) $`X`$ is calculated as

$$X=N_{\mathrm{on}}cN_{\mathrm{off}}$$
(5)
and the significance $`S`$ of this signal is

$$S=\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Delta }X}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{on}}cN_{\mathrm{off}}}{\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{on}}+c^2N_{\mathrm{off}}}}$$
(6)
The error of $`c`$ is negligible since it is implemented by a comparatively very accurate time measurement.

As will be shown further below, $`f=1/(c+1)`$ should always be chosen to be $`0.5`$. The modified time $`t^{}`$ is therefore always faster than normal time. Hence the new method is named Faster Background Determination (FBD).

Note that the fact that the telescope is not tracking a fixed point in the sky during the OFF run (because it is moving faster than the Earth’s rotation) does not compromise the data quality. Field rotation leads to a changing starfield configuration anyway, also for the traditional ON/OFF case. A superimposed drift of the starfield (a few degrees within 15 minutes in the typical case) will not change this situation222Modern approaches to dealing with bright stars in the field of view either take the affected photomultiplier tubes out of the trigger logic or lower the high voltage on them but do not switch them off. This happens in a computer-controlled, reproducible fashion. Therefore there is no additional new precaution necessary to deal with a drifting starfield as opposed to a purely rotating one. The drift of the OFF starfield leads to an increase of the probability of having a bright star in the field of view by about a factor up to 3. See the discussion in section 4..

Depending on the angular diameter $`d_\gamma `$ of the part of the telescope’s field of view from which gamma-like shower images are accepted in the data analysis, a minimum OFF run duration has to be required to avoid overlap of the ON and OFF regions. The minimum duration $`T_{\mathrm{off},\mathrm{min}}`$ is given by

$$T_{\mathrm{off},\mathrm{min}}=\frac{d_\gamma }{\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{DEC})}4\mathrm{minutes}/\mathrm{degree}$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{DEC}`$ is the Declination of the ON source position. For a typical CT with $`d_\gamma =2.4^{}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{off},\mathrm{min}}`$ would be 9.6 min$`/\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{DEC})`$, i.e. between 9.6 min and 15 min for $`|\mathrm{DEC}|<50^{}`$.

### 3.2 Optimization

The new method (FBD) has two parameters which have to be chosen by the observer: total observation time $`T_t`$ for one ON/OFF run pair and the time fraction $`f`$ used for the OFF run.

The choice of $`T_t`$ is dictated by practical considerations, the timescale of changes in the atmospheric conditions and the field of view of the camera (Equation 7).

The optimal choice of $`f`$ is obviously independent of $`T_t`$, but it depends - as it turns out - on the intensity of the gamma-ray source. In order to see this, Equation 6 for the significance $`S`$ of the gamma signal is rewritten substituting

$$c=\frac{1f}{f},N_{\mathrm{on}}=(R_\gamma +R_b)(1f)T_t,N_{\mathrm{off}}=R_bfT_t$$

where $`R_\gamma `$ is the gamma event rate and $`R_b`$ is the background event rate. This gives

$$S=\frac{(R_\gamma +R_b)(1f)T_tR_bfT_t}{\sqrt{(R_\gamma +R_b)(1f)T_t+(\frac{1f}{f})^2R_bfT_t}}=\frac{R_\gamma \sqrt{(1f)T_t}}{\sqrt{R_\gamma +R_b+\frac{1f}{f}R_b}}$$
(8)
Choosing example values for $`R_\gamma `$, $`R_b`$ and $`T_t`$ , the significance $`S`$ can be plotted versus $`f`$ in order to investigate the dependence. This was done in Figure 2 for $`T_t=60`$ with $`R_b=10`$ and $`r=R_\gamma /R_b=0.01,0.1,1.0,10.0`$.

The remarkable result which becomes visible in Figure 2 is that as the signal to background ratio increases, the position $`f_0`$ of the maximum in the significance curve decreases.

The value $`f_0`$ for which the maximum significance is obtained, can be analytically calculated by determining the zeros of the derivative d$`S`$/d$`f`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\mathrm{d}f}=\frac{R_\gamma (R_b+2R_bf+f^2R_\gamma )T_t}{2f\sqrt{R_b/f+R_\gamma }(R_b+fR_\gamma )\sqrt{(1f)T_t}}=0$$
(9)
This is essentially a quadratic equation in f. One finds that one of the zeros is always negative and therefore not physical in this context. The remaining zero is

$`f_0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(R_b/R_\gamma )^2+R_b/R_\gamma }R_b/R_\gamma `$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$ (11)
where $`r=R_\gamma /R_b`$ is the signal/background ratio (not signal/noise!) as above. Figure 3 shows $`f_0`$ as a function of $`r`$. The figure and Equation 11 show an interesting property of the FBD scheme:

For each observation, there is a single optimal value of $`f`$ which depends only on the ratio $`r`$ of the gamma event rate and the background event rate. This value is always less than 0.5 but approaches 0.5 asymptotically with decreasing $`r`$.

In other words, the traditional value $`f=0.5`$ is only optimal for weak gamma sources. For stronger sources like the Blazar Mkn 421 during a flare, one obtains a more significant signal if one devotes more time to the ON than to the OFF observation, i.e. chooses $`f<0.5`$.

## 4 Discussion

The Faster Background Determination method will bring three major advantages:

1. Increased time coverage without increased systematic errors in the determination of flux and spectrum compared to normal ON/OFF observations.
2. Reduction of systematic errors and simplification of data analysis compared to methods using separately taken OFF data.
3. Moderate improvement of the statistical accuracy of flux and spectral measurements since the significance of the gamma signals is maximized for a given total observation time.

The most important are points 1 and 2.

Concerning point 3, one can show that the maximum possible increase in significance when using FBD instead of normal ON/OFF observations is only dependent on the signal to background ratio $`r=R_\gamma /R_b`$ and is described by the following formula:

$$\frac{S_{\mathrm{FBD}}}{S_{\mathrm{norm}}}=\sqrt{2(1+\frac{2}{r})\frac{1+r\sqrt{r+1}}{1+r+\sqrt{r+1}}}$$
(12)
where $`S_{\mathrm{FBD}}`$ is the significance obtained by making an ON/OFF observation in FBD mode using the optimal OFF time fraction $`f_0`$ (Equation 11) and $`S_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ is the significance when the OFF time fraction $`f=0.5`$ is used instead (normal ON/OFF run).

Figure 4 shows the ratio described by Equation 12. It is always larger than unity, i.e. FBD is always better than normal ON/OFF if the optimal OFF time fraction $`f_0`$ is used.

Of course, for unknown sources, the signal to background ratio is unknown and hence $`f_0`$ cannot be determined. However, as one can see from Figure 2, the maxima of the significance curves are broad and an approximate value for $`f`$ already gives good results. This also means that using FBD, the time coverage can be increased significantly in exchange for only a small decrease in sensitivity.

Generally, when in discovery mode where accuracy of flux measurements is not the primary concern, observations with separately taken OFF data or wobble mode observations may be an equally good way to find a new source. But as soon as the presence of the source is established and accurate flux and spectral measurements are of interest, FBD is the method of choice.

Due to the increase in the sky area covered by the OFF observation using FBD, the likelihood that bright stars occur in the OFF region increases by a factor up to $``$ 3 depending on the choice of the OFF run time fraction $`f`$. Figure 1 already shows the mildly extreme case with $`f=0.25`$. Near the galactic plane, CTs have traditionally had problems with their background determination due to the presence of many bright stars. The FBD method will only slightly worsen an already difficult problem. CTs have to work with low photomultiplier gain and the above mentioned dynamical lowering of high voltage values and modification of the trigger map to make progress here.

The value of the signal to background ratio $`r`$ depends on the gamma-hadron separation capability of the telescope and the state of the source. FBD seems to be particularly helpful for the observation of Blazars because (a) they reach the highest values of $`r`$, (b) they have unproblematic starfields surrounding them as most of them are sufficiently far away from the galactic plane, and (c) due to their variability, time-coverage is of interest. The observation schedules of all CT observatories have always made a special effort to dedicate large fractions of the observation time to flaring Blazars. For example, in 1997, when Mkn 501 showed an unprecedented flaring state of several months duration, observatories were dedicating more than 50 % of the available time to this source.

Finally, for very much the same reasons that FBD is beneficial for Blazar observations, it will also be beneficial for gamma-ray burst follow-up. Choosing $`f`$ very low (possibly as low as $`0.1`$), it will be possible to maximize the on-source time without compromising the quality of the background determination.

Table 1 summarizes the properties of FBD and the traditional background determination methods.