text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supertube is a tubular D2-brane that preserves 1/4 of supersymmetry . This requires presence of D0 and fundamental string charge, both realized as electromagnetic field on the D2 worldvolume. Alternatively, it may be considered as blow-up of F1-D0 composites obtained via angular momentum. One unusual characteristic of supertube is that, as classical solution, they come with huge degeneracy and can take many different form . For instance, the cross section of a supertube need not be circular and in fact can even be noncompact .

The simplest of such supertubes involves a cylinder of D2 with uniform magnetic field $`B`$ and uniform electric field $`E`$ directed along the length of the cylinder . Let us consider the field strength of type,

$$F=BRd\theta dz+Edtdz,$$
(1.1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the cylinder while $`\theta `$ is of period $`2\pi `$. With Born-Infeld action, the physical electric flux, along $`z`$ direction and per unit $`\theta `$, is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_z=R\frac{E}{\sqrt{1E^2+B^2}},$$
(1.2)
and the energy density per unit $`z`$ and unit $`\theta `$ is

$$=R\frac{1+B^2}{\sqrt{1E^2+B^2}}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Pi }_z^2+R^2)(1+B^2)}.$$
(1.3)
Note that the total electric flux is $`2\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_z`$ while the net magnetic flux per unit $`z`$ is $`2\pi RB`$.

This configuration is known to become 1/4 supersymmetric when the electric field $`E`$ is taken to the critical value $`E=1`$. Upon this, we have an inverse relationship between magnetic field and flux density,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_z=R\frac{1}{B},$$
(1.4)
and the energy density decomposes into two pieces nicely

$$=R\left(\frac{1}{B}+B\right).$$
(1.5)
In this last expression, the first term represents the energy of fundamental strings and the second represents D0 energy. Tension of D2 itself disappeared completely.

One aspect of this state particularly relevant for this note is that one can reduce size of the supertube without affecting the fundamental string charge. Let us fix the total electric flux

$$n_{\mathrm{F1}}=2\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_z=\frac{2\pi R}{B},$$
(1.6)
and take the small radius limit, where the energy per unit length becomes

$$2\pi =n_{\mathrm{F1}}+\frac{(2\pi R)^2}{n_{\mathrm{F1}}}=n_{\mathrm{F1}}+n_{\mathrm{F1}}B^2.$$
(1.7)
So as we decrease amount of magnetic flux on D2, the cylindrical configuration collapses to infinitesimal tubular configuration which entirely consists of the fundamental string charge.

It was recently suggested that in the system of unstable D$`p`$-brane decay, fundamental string may be realized as a limiting configuration of tubular D$`(p1)`$-branes with electric flux on it . Question of fundamental strings remains one of more puzzling aspect in the study of unstable D-brane decay , and very recently possible roles of topological defects in this question began to be addressed . Approaching it from low energy dynamics, several nontrivial interaction between topological defects were isolated, and it was found that tachyonic kink configurations tend to attract nearby and parallel electric flux lines  forming a bound state of D$`(p1)`$ brane and fundamental strings. The idea is to curl up such a bound state into a cylindrical configuration with only one noncompact direction and let the compact part shrink away to zero size.

Specific form of such tubular solution was obtained from lifting  the Callan-Maldacena solution of D$`(p1)`$ brane  to that of tachyon effective action on unstable D$`p`$-brane and concentrating on the spike part of the configuration. Such a combination involves vanishing radius of the tube, which makes it fairly singular. In this note, we consider the case of unstable D3 brane and consider a family of solutions representing supertube. These may be regarded as a thickened version of such tubular fundamental string charge carrier and may be used as regulated and stabilized solution.

The D$`(p1)`$ branes are also typically represented by infinitesimally thin domain wall solutions . Nevertheless, smooth kink solutions are known and, in the theory of tachyon, are represented by an infinite array of kinks and anti-kinks to be interpreted as D-brane-anti-$`\mathrm{D}`$-brane pairs . When the tachyon couples to Born-Infeld gauge field, spectra of regular extended objects become rich . Some of these smooth solutions are interpreted as thickened D-branes or bound states of D-brane and F1. Topological kink solution with orthogonal and uniform critical electric flux appears to enjoy BPS properties. For infinite array of kinks-anti-kinks and a topological kink with orthogonal and uniform electric flux, exact boundary states were also found . Naturally, this prompts us to ask whether there exists a regulated and thickened version of supertube-like solutions, which of course should reproduce genuine supertube configurations in the zero thickness limit.

Section 2 will introduce the setup and solve for supertube-like configuration with “critical” electric field. With a specific choice of potential, we find an analytic and smooth solutions of coaxial array of tubes with D0 and fundamental string charge. Surprisingly, this family of solutions seemingly saturate a BPS-like energy formula, and behave much like supertubes, except the D2 worldvolume is thickened. Taking an infinitesimally thin limit of this solution, we find singular supertube solutions of arbitrary radius which match up with expected properties of supertubes precisely. We close the section with brief comments on relevance of these solutions in the context of fundamental string formation.

Section 3 addresses the question of turning on more electric fields and point out that boosting the tubular solution lengthwise will tilt the flux such that fundamental string appears winding helically along the tube. Section 4 considers a different class of ansatz involving Dirac monopole in gauge sector. We show that the only static solution of such kind involves strict vacuum $`T=\mathrm{}`$ so that the monopole-like configuration cannot lead to any physical effect. The appendix explores supertube ansatz with noncritical $`E<1`$ case. We close with summary.111As this work was finished, a related work discussing singular supertube solution appeared on the net .

## 2 Supertubes from Unstable D3-Brane

We begin this section with introducing effective tachyon action for unstable D3-brane

$$S=𝒯_3d^4xV(T)\sqrt{det(g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T+F_{\mu \nu })}.$$
(2.1)
This sort of behavior with potential multiplying the kinetic term seems generic and in particular predicted by boundary string field theory approach . For most of this note, we will adopt a convenient form of $`V(T)`$ , which has been derived from open string theory  recently,

$$V(T)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(T/T_0\right)},$$
(2.2)
where $`T_0`$ is $`\sqrt{2}`$ for the non-BPS D-brane in the superstring and 2 for the bosonic string, in the string unit.

We are interested in tubular configurations embedded in flat D3-brane, and will work in the cylindrical coordinate system,

$$x^\mu =(t,x^i)=(t,z,r,\theta ),ds^2=dt^2+dz^2+dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2.$$
(2.3)
Both the tachyon field and the electromagnetic fields are assumed to depend only on the radial coordinate $`r`$, and we employ ansatz for the electromagnetic fields consistent with supertube solution

$`T=T(r),`$ (2.4)
$`F_{0r}=F_{0\theta }=F_{r\theta }=F_{zr}=0.`$ (2.5)
With the assumption of time independence, behavior of $`E_z`$ and $`F_{\theta z}`$ is determined entirely by the Bianchi identity, which gives

$$E_z=E,F_{\theta z}/r=B(r)=\alpha /r,$$
(2.6)
with constant $`E`$ and $`\alpha `$.222This ansatz fails Bianchi identity $`B=0`$ at origin. Since we have

$`Xdet(g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T+F_{\mu \nu })=\left[(1E^2)r^2+\alpha ^2\right](1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (2.7)
the low energy effective action simplifies drastically

$$𝒯_3𝑑t𝑑z𝑑\theta 𝑑rV(T)\sqrt{(1E^2)r^2+\alpha ^2}\sqrt{1+T^2},$$
(2.8)
where the prime  denotes differentiation with respect to the radial coordinate $`r`$.

### 2.1 Tachyon Tube

Since we are primarily concerned with supertube-like solutions, we may as well take $`E=1`$ for start and work with the action

$$\alpha 𝒯_3𝑑t𝑑z𝑑\theta 𝑑rV(T)\sqrt{1+T^2}.$$
(2.9)
We will come back in later part of the note for more general solution. Then the effective action above maps to that of a simple mechanical system with conserved “energy” by imagining $`r`$ as “time”, which immediately gives us the following integral of motion,

$$\frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1+T^2}}=\beta \alpha /𝒯_3,$$
(2.10)
where we introduced an arbitrary integration constant $`\beta `$. Equivalently this integral of motion can be obtained from the energy-momentum conservation of the full action. Eq. (2.10) may be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2}T^2+U(T)=\frac{1}{2},$$
(2.11)
with

$$U(T)=\frac{1}{2(\alpha \beta )^2}\left[𝒯_3V(T)\right]^2.$$
(2.12)
Note that, in the limit of vanishing magnetic field $`\alpha =0`$, the equation becomes $`V(T)=0`$ and it allows only trivial vacuum solution $`T(r)=\pm \mathrm{}`$.

A nontrivial solution exists for $`(\alpha \beta /𝒯_3)^2<1`$ and is a coaxial array of tubular configuration where $`T`$ oscillates as function of $`r`$. For instance, under the specific form of tachyon potential (2.2), we have an exact solution

$$T(r)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{\left(\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha \beta }\right)^21}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{r+r_0}{T_0}\right)\right].$$
(2.13)
Note that this represents a coaxial array of tubular D2 and anti-D2 since the solution involves kink and anti-kink pair along every $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=2\pi T`$ . For the moment, we shall impose regularity of $`T`$ field at origin by requiring $`r_0=m\pi T_0`$ where $`m`$ is an integer. Note that the periodicity of the solution, $`2\pi T_0`$, is independent of the value of $`(\alpha \beta /𝒯_3)^2`$. This is a consequence of the particular form of the potential (2.2) we adopted.

For the obtained tubular objects, the following physical momenta vanish,

$$T_{0z}=0,T_{0r}=0,$$
(2.14)
and all off-diagonal components of stress-tensor vanish as would be expected of a stationary solution. All nonvanishing conserved densities are dictated by a single quantity

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha }V(T)\sqrt{1+T^2}=\beta (1+T^2)$$
(2.15)
which, for the particular form of the potential (2.2), has an explicit expression

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\beta \left\{1+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(r/T_0)}{\left[(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^21\right]^1+\mathrm{cos}^2(r/T_0)}\right\}.$$
(2.16)
The energy and the electric flux in infinitesimal $`rdrd\theta `$ are written as

$`drd\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(r^2+\alpha ^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)drd\theta ,`$ (2.17)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }drd\theta `$ $`=`$ $`r^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)drd\theta ,`$ (2.18)
per unit length along $`z`$. For these quantities, we can see that the period along $`r`$ is actually half of that of $`T(r)`$. This can be understood by realizing that solution represents a coaxial array of tubular D2 and anti-D2 branes with worldvolume gauge fields turned on. While a single isolated D2 in vacuum is given by singular kink, it is also known that modification of boundary condition may thicken the kink into a smooth thickened solution . Each period of $`T`$ contains a pair of tubular domain wall and anti-domain wall, while the above conserved quantities are insensitive on orientation of the wall. Distinction between D2 and anti-D2 can be seen from gradient of $`T`$ which generates RR charge of D2 branes .

In order to identify the obtained tubular objects in each half period $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\pi T_0`$, we compute the energy (tube tension) per unit tube length

$$_2^{(n)}=2\pi _{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r=2\pi \beta _{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r\frac{(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^2(r^2+\alpha ^2)}{1+\left[(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^21\right]\mathrm{cos}^2(r/T_0)},$$
(2.19)
and string charge per unit length

$$Q_{\mathrm{F1}}^{(n)}=2\pi _{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r\mathrm{\Pi }=2\pi \beta _{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r\frac{(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^2r^2}{1+\left[(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^21\right]\mathrm{cos}^2(r/T_0)}.$$
(2.20)
In addition, each unit tube (or antitube) carries angular momentum per unit length

$$L^{(n)}=2\pi \alpha \beta _{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r\frac{(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^2r^2}{1+\left[(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^21\right]\mathrm{cos}^2(r/T_0)}.$$
(2.21)
A salient point is that the difference $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is quite simple and can be identified as D0-brane charge. In terms of formulae above, we define $`Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}`$ as

$$_2^{(n)}=Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}+Q_{\mathrm{F1}}^{(n)}.$$
(2.22)
For the specific form of the tachyon potential (2.2), it coincides exactly with the D0-brane charge before introducing tachyon profile

$$Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}=2\pi \beta \alpha ^2_{(n1)\pi T_0}^{n\pi T_0}𝑑r\frac{(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^2}{1+\left[(𝒯_3/\alpha \beta )^21\right]\mathrm{cos}^2(r/T_0)}=2\pi ^2\alpha T_0𝒯_3,$$
(2.23)
regardless of value of $`\beta `$. Thus, much like the case of supertube we introduced earlier, the tension of unit tachyon tube (or antitube) system decomposes linearly into two additive pieces.

Furthermore $`Q_{\mathrm{D0}}`$, as the notation suggests, happens to be the energy density expected of D0-branes. To see this, we need to note that

$$𝒯_2=\pi T_0𝒯_3$$
(2.24)
is the quantity that becomes tension of the D2-brane in this low energy theory. On the other hand, $`2\pi \alpha `$ is the net magnetic flux on the D2 per unit $`z`$ length. Product of the two generates D0 charge in spacetime .

However, we must caution the reader against taking this fact too seriously. Most likely, this miracle happened only because of the particular form of the potential (2.2) adopted above, which is justified only in certain limit . A priori, there seems to be no rationale why the integral that defines $`Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}`$ (2.23) must be independent of $`\beta `$, for more general form of potential. Dependence on $`\beta `$ will result in an anomalous dependence on the electric flux density and ruin the BPS-like energy formula. In such general case, one must take the limit of infinitesimal thickness of the domain wall to find such a simple behavior, which is the subject of next part. Nevertheless, as long as we are working with such a particular potential, this gives an interesting option for handling supertube-like configurations.

### 2.2 Thin Supertube

When we take a limit of $`\beta 0`$, the configuration gets squeezed near $`r=(n1/2)\pi T_0`$ for each positive integer $`n`$. Every localized piece becomes sharply peaked at each site of the tachyon tube (or antitube) so that

$$\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\beta (1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\frac{\pi 𝒯_3T_0}{\alpha }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta \left(r(n1/2)\pi T_0\right),$$
(2.25)
as shown in Fig. 2.

This singular form of solution also implies that value of $`T`$ lies at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ away from these centers, and neither the value of $`T^{}`$ nor $`B`$ enters the dynamics directly except for discrete positions of tube (antitube). In such limit, we have no reason whatsoever to insist upon regularity at the origin. We thus have more general singular solution such that

$$\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\beta (1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\frac{\pi 𝒯_3T_0}{\alpha }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta \left(r+r_0(n1/2)\pi T_0\right).$$
(2.26)
Without loss of generality we may consider values of $`r_0`$ such that $`\pi T_0/2>r_00`$. Correspondingly, we have

$`_2^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha }}\left[\left((n1/2)\pi T_0r_0\right)^2+\alpha ^2\right]\times \pi 𝒯_3T_0,`$ (2.27)
$`Q_{\mathrm{F1}}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha }}\left((n1/2)\pi T_0r_0\right)^2\times \pi 𝒯_3T_0,`$ (2.28)
$`Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha \times \pi 𝒯_3T_0,`$ (2.29)
and the accompanying angular momenta,

$$L^{(n)}=2\pi \left((n1/2)\pi T_0r_0\right)^2\times \pi 𝒯_3T_0.$$
(2.30)
Though distribution of the D0 charge and its magnetic field profile are singular, induced energy contribution is finite as shown in Eq. (2.27). Note that Eq. (2.22) and Eq. (2.28) satisfy the relation between radial size of $`n`$-th tube $`R_n=(n1/2)\pi T_0r_0`$ and charges such as $`R_n=\sqrt{Q_{\mathrm{F1}}^{(n)}Q_{\mathrm{D0}}^{(n)}}/2\pi ^2T_0𝒯_3`$.

Different choice of the tachyon potential will modify the universal function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$, but the limiting form will again involve delta-functions. For the following discussion we will consider more general form of the potential, and retains the requirement that the potential decays exponentially $`e^{|T|}`$ asymptotically. Other requirements are that $`V(T)`$ is monotonically decreasing in $`|T|`$ and that $`V(0)=1`$.

For convenience, take a half period of $`T(r)`$ that solves

$$T^{}(r)=\sqrt{(𝒯_3V(T)/\beta \alpha )^21}.$$
(2.31)
$`T^{}(r)`$ then starts out with value zero and begins to increase slowly as long as $`V(T)`$ value remains exponentially small in $`T`$. Conversely when $`T^{}`$ remains small $`V(T)`$ value must remain small also. Let us take any of one of half period such that $`T(r)`$ starts at large negative value $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`V(\pm T_{\mathrm{max}})=\beta \alpha /𝒯_3`$ for the rest of discussion. So the half period is determined by the integral

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\mathrm{half}}=_{T_{\mathrm{max}}}^{T_{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{dT}{\sqrt{(𝒯_3V(T)/\beta \alpha )^21}}.$$
(2.32)
At some points near the middle of this half period, $`T`$ begins to approach $`𝖳_0`$ where $`𝖳_0`$ now refers to characteristic scale where $`V(T)`$ is of order 1. In this region $`T^{}(r)`$ is very large, achieving a maximum value at $`r=R`$ such that $`T(R)=0`$. This means that the interval in $`r`$ where $`T`$ is comparable to $`𝖳_0`$ is very short.

Recall that the function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha }V(T)\sqrt{1+T^2}.$$
(2.33)
We wish to approximate this expression by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha }V(T)T^{},$$
(2.34)
for monotonic and increasing $`T(r)`$. Of course this is possible only if $`T^{}`$ is very large. In the region where $`T^{}`$ is of order one, the equation for $`T`$ above tells us that we also must have,

$$𝒯_3V(T)/\beta \alpha 1,$$
(2.35)
meaning that $`V(T)`$ is still of order $`\beta `$. Since we are taking the limit of $`\beta 0`$, this allows us to use the approximate formula $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ in place of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Within this half period, assuming that the latter is finite, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$ reduces to

$$\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\frac{1}{\alpha }\times \left(𝒯_3V(T)𝑑T\right)\times \delta (rR).$$
(2.36)
We have used the fact that the support of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, more precisely the region of $`r`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ remains larger than, say, $`\beta ^{1/3}`$ vanishes rapidly as $`\beta ^{1/3}`$ when we take $`\beta 0`$.

The quantity in the parenthesis is to be identified with ordinary BPS D2-brane tension $`𝒯_2`$ . With this, D0 charge and F1 charge are respectively,

$`Q_{\mathrm{D0}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha 𝒯_2,`$ (2.37)
$`Q_{\mathrm{F1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R^2}{\alpha }}𝒯_2,`$ (2.38)
and the energy is the sum of the two

$$_2=Q_{\mathrm{D0}}+Q_{\mathrm{F1}}.$$
(2.39)
In order to compare this to ordinary supertube, we need to restore the factor of D2-brane tension, $`𝒯_2`$, in energy formulae of section 1 and identify $`\alpha `$ with $`BR`$.

Therefore, the supertube can be understood as that in singular zero-thickness limit of the obtained unit tachyon tube (or antitube) solution. The whole configuration we obtained is interpreted as coaxial array of tube-antitube. Once we take $`\beta =0`$ limit, on the other hand, each and every tube becomes a complete solution on its own.

### 2.3 Tachyon Tube and Tubular Fundamental String

As we saw earlier in this note, supertube provides an interesting method of blowing up a long fundamental string. While this is not much of advantage in ordinary supersymmetric string theory context, it may prove more useful when we consider how fundamental string forms from decay of unstable D-branes.

One of more intriguing scenarios that emerged recently involve string flux sitting at top of tachyon potential. However, no such stable solution exists and one must take a double scaling limit of cylindrical domain wall to reach such a state. That is, take an infinitely thin domain wall with fluxes on it and then take infinitesimal radius limit of a cylinder thereof. The string flux is imagined to be embedded in this infinitesimal cylinder. Because of such a double scaling limit, the object is a bit difficult to handle.

A priori, it is not obvious whether, in the absence of D$`(p1)`$ branes nearby, there is really any tangible difference between such configurations and a tight collection of string fluid  sitting at some homogeneous vacuum. As was point out in Ref. , the dynamics of the two will follow exactly the same, Nambu-Goto-like, equation of motion  away from D$`(p1)`$ brane. One motivation for the current work is to provide a setting where more precise question about such stringy configurations can be asked.

By adding magnetic field to the tubular configuration, we essentially obviated one of the two scalings, and found a stable string-like configuration of small but finite tubular radius. Magnetic field strength necessary scales with the radius of the tube, so one can take smaller and smaller size tube by taking small magnetic field limit. For specific form of the potential, furthermore, the unit tachyon tube before taking thin supertube limit provides additional control, given that it also satisfies a BPS-type relation (2.22) and is given by exact and smooth solution (2.13). Existence of such a static and smooth profile in closed form may come in handy, at least for the purpose of having a set of solutions that approaches infinitesimally small tubular solution.333This is not to say that these are a degenerate one-parameter family of solutions associated with a supertube. For smooth tube solution, the net electric flux in each unit tube depends on the parameter $`\beta `$ while the D0 charge remains unchanged for the particular form of the potential. What remains unchanged is that the energy gets contribution from that of fundamental strings and D0’s only.

While we concentrated on cylinders with circular cross section, it is well known that a supertube can be deformed to have an arbitrary cross section . In the present context, this results in huge degeneracy which gives at best arbitrarily shaped distribution of fundamental string charges, much as in the case of string fluid in real vacuum. As was also pointed out previously, therefore, this alternate picture of fundamental string is so far unable to resolve the usual degeneracy problem , or equivalently the lack of confinement mechanism, at the level of classical effective theory. It remains to be seen how and at what level this degeneracy is lifted .

## 3 Boosted Tachyon Tube with Helical String Flux

One might ask whether more general ansatz leads to new kind of tubular solutions. One of more obvious variation we can try is to turn on more electromagnetic field. In fact there is a simple generalization of the ansatz that brings us back to an equally simple integrable equation for $`T`$. Consider turning on $`E_\theta `$ in addition to $`E_z`$

$$F=E_zdtdz+E_\theta dtd\theta +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }d\theta dz.$$
(3.1)
With static field strength of $`r`$ dependence alone, Bianchi identity demands that both $`E_\theta `$ and $`E_z`$ are constants.

Note that $`E_\theta 0`$ will generate fundamental string charge along angular direction in addition to the one along $`z`$ direction, so the electric flux will have a helical shape along the tube. More precisely, the electric flux along $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ directions has a relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta =\frac{E_\theta }{E_z}\mathrm{\Pi }_z,$$
(3.2)
where we define $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\theta \delta S/\delta E_\theta =\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta /r^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^z\delta S/\delta E_z`$ in $`A_0=0`$ gauge. The effective action for the tachyon field $`T=T(r)`$ becomes

$$𝒯_3𝑑t𝑑z𝑑\theta 𝑑rV(T)\sqrt{(1E_z^2)r^2+\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2E_\theta ^2\right)}\sqrt{1+T^2}.$$
(3.3)
As before, this becomes integrable once we impose the condition of critical electric field, $`E_z^2=1`$, since the Lagrangian will then have no explicit $`r`$-dependence. Furthermore it is easy to show that, within cylindrical symmetry ansatz, this is the only case where simple first order integral of motion is possible.

In fact, the form of the action is identical to the case with $`E_\theta =0`$ above if we identify

$$\sqrt{\alpha ^2}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2E_\theta ^2}.$$
(3.4)
Note in particular that sensible solution will appear only if $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2>E_\theta ^2`$. One can understand this by realizing that the two cases are in fact related by a Lorentz boost along $`z`$ direction. Starting with the simplest case,

$$F=E_zdtdz+\alpha d\theta dz,$$
(3.5)
one may boost this field strength along $`z`$ with velocity $`v`$,

$$F=E_zdtdz+\frac{\alpha v}{\sqrt{1v^2}}dtd\theta +\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{1v^2}}d\theta dz.$$
(3.6)
We then may identify

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{1v^2}}},E_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha v}{\sqrt{1v^2}}},`$ (3.7)
which also gives Eq. (3.4) completing the assertion that turning on $`E_\theta `$ is equivalent to boosting and appropriate rescaling of $`B`$. Of course $`T`$ is a scalar field and so $`T^{}`$ is also invariant under the Lorentz boost along $`z`$ direction.

Emergence of winding electric flux on D2, or equivalently winding fundamental string charge, upon a boost may be surprising. After all, the same will happen even if the D2-brane were wound on a topological circle, which seems to say that boosting generated net conserved string charge along the topological circle direction. This unexpected effect may be understood once we realize that worldvolume magnetic field also couples NS-NS field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. Although it does not generate net string charge, the worldvolume magnetic field generates a spacelike current associated with string charge.444We thank Kimyeong Lee on this point. All that happen is that the Lorentz boost tilts this spacelike current toward time direction a bit, which effectively generates density of string charge.

## 4 Is There a Magnetic Monopole in an Unstable D3?

With a minimal assumption on nontrivial field content, the effective action was shown above to be of the form,

$$𝑑rV(T)R(r)\sqrt{1+T^2}$$
(4.1)
with

$$R(r)=\sqrt{(1E^2)r^2+\alpha ^2}$$
(4.2)
for the supertube case with constant $`rB=\alpha `$. Reality of the Born-Infeld action requires, $`E^21`$, since otherwise the action will become purely imaginary at asymptotic region.

This sort of effective action can be used to explore another kind of configuration, namely a spherically symmetry magnetic monopole. The latter should have

$$F=Q\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi $$
(4.3)
which gives an effective action of the above form with

$$R(r)=\sqrt{r^4+Q^2}.$$
(4.4)
Of course $`r`$ in Eq. (4.4) is the radial coordinate of spherical coordinate system.

Unlike the case of Maxwell theory, the singularity of this Dirac monopole does not cost infinite amount of energy, and one might wonder if there exist a Dirac monopole-like solution of finite mass. Existence of such a solution is unlikely, given that no obvious stringy interpretation is available. Here we will confirm this expectation by showing that the above class of action does not possess a regular and isolated solution that approaches vacuum at large radius.

If there is an isolated solution with such charges, $`T(r)`$ must approach $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ at large $`r`$. Since the system is invariant under $`TT`$, take positive infinity for the asymptotic value of $`T`$. Far away from origin, then, the potential $`V`$ approaches $`e^T`$ exponentially fast, and we could ask whether there is a proper solution with $`V=e^T`$ and $`T(\mathrm{})=+\mathrm{}`$. Euler-Lagrange equation of motion reduces to

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{RT^{}}{\sqrt{1+T^2}}\right)+\frac{R}{\sqrt{1+T^2}}=0,$$
(4.5)
where we used $`_Te^T=e^T`$. Defining $`f`$ as

$$f(r)\frac{T^{}}{\sqrt{1+T^2}},$$
(4.6)
the equation of motion (4.5) is now

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left(Rf\right)+R\sqrt{1f^2}=0.$$
(4.7)
Because of the relative positive sign, this first order equation always drives $`f`$ toward $`1`$ from above as $`r\mathrm{}`$ for both choices of $`R(r)`$. Near $`r=\mathrm{}`$, we find

$$f=1+\frac{c}{2r^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(4.8)
where $`c=1`$ for supertube ansatz (4.2) and $`c=4`$ for monopole ansatz (4.4). The corresponding $`T`$ is, on the other hand,

$$T(r)=𝑑r\frac{f}{\sqrt{1f^2}}=𝑑r\frac{r}{\sqrt{c}}+\mathrm{}=\frac{r^2}{2\sqrt{c}}+\mathrm{}$$
(4.9)
which is inconsistent with original assumption $`T+\mathrm{}`$. Thus there exists no isolated supertube or monopole solution such that $`T`$ at finite $`r`$ is finite.

Thus only acceptable solutions that approach vacuum at infinity are singular. In case of supertube ansatz, it corresponds to any one of the coaxial tubes in $`\beta 0`$ limit in section 2. In case of monopole, it corresponds to $`T=\mathrm{}`$ everywhere with a Dirac monopole in the gauge sector. In the latter case, the Dirac monopole does not generate any measurable quantity, since all conserved quantum numbers we considered above vanish for this configuration. Only if there is an electric charge that couples to the gauge field directly (say, via minimal vector-current coupling), can there be physical consequence of this monopole solution. In the context of unstable D-brane, no such charged particle is known to exist.

## 5 Summary

In this note we considered static tubular solution in unstable D3-brane decay with an ansatz that involves both D0 charge and fundamental string charge. A series of both smooth and singular solutions are obtained and compared to supertube configuration of D2. While for a specific choice of potential there exists a smooth BPS-like solution, for generic choice of potential, one must take a singular limit to find supertube solution. After a brief comment on possible relevant of such solutions in study of fundamental string formation, we turned to other exotic solutions. Finally we show that magnetic monopole solution does not exist as a sensible finite energy solution.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank K. Hashimoto, and A. Sen for helpful discussions. Y.K. was indebted to the late Youngjai Kiem who introduced and taught the topic of supertube in spring, 2001. C.K. is supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant KRF-2002-070-C00025. This work is the result of research activities (Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC)) supported by Korea Science $`\&`$ Engineering Foundation(Y.K. and O.K.). P.Y. is supported in part by Korea Research Foundation (KRF) Grant KRF-2002-070-C00022.

## Appendix: Tachyon Tubes with Noncritical Electric Field

In the previous sections we dealt with tubular objects with critical value of the electric field $`E^2=1`$. In this appendix let us consider arbitrary value of the $`z`$-component of the electric field $`E^2<1`$ and investigate effect of it. As we saw above, isolated solution does not exist. Rather we shall find that the coaxial structure found in $`E^2=1`$ case still persist, but with some quantitative modification. Below we will study this case.

Finding solution is a matter of finding classical solution of the following reduced Lagrangian

$$V(T)\sqrt{(1E^2)r^2+\alpha ^2}\sqrt{1+T^2},$$
(A.1)
and we have the following second order equation to solve.

$$\frac{T^{\prime \prime }}{1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{(1E^2)rT^{}}{(1E^2)r^2+\alpha ^2}=\frac{1}{V}\frac{dV}{dT}.$$
(A.2)
Alternatively, we can get the same equation from $`r`$-component of energy-momentum conservation law, using

$`T_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_3{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}r}}\left[r^2(1E^2)+\alpha ^2\right],`$ (A.3)
$`T_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_3{\displaystyle \frac{Vr^3}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(1E^2).`$ (A.4)
Since we kept the orthogonality between electric and magnetic fields, physical electric flux is such that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_r=\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta =0,\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_z)=𝒯_3{\displaystyle \frac{Vr^2E}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (A.5)
where $`X`$ is given in Eq. (2.7). $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in Eq. (A.5) contains a factor of $`\sqrt{X}`$, so we can see that $`E^2`$ larger than 1 is not acceptable physically, if we wish to maintain reality of the action. Thus we will consider $`E^2<1`$ from now on.

With this, the second term of Eq. (A.2) gives always damping effect. A natural boundary condition at the origin is again to assume $`T^{}(0)=0`$. Then the damping term of Eq. (A.2) does not affect choice of boundary value of the tachyon field, so it can have any value similar to the free parameter $`\beta `$ in Eq. (2.10) for the case of $`E^2=1`$, say $`T(0)=\overline{T}`$. Since the tachyon profile should be nonsingular, power series expansion near the origin gives

$$T(r)\overline{T}+a_1r^2+a_1a_2r^4+𝒪(r^6)$$
(A.6)
with

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\overline{T}/T_0)}{2T_0}},`$ (A.7)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\overline{T}/T_0)}{2T_0}}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12T_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1E^2}{6\alpha ^2}}.`$ (A.8)
Since the coefficient of $`r^2`$ term is determined only by the tachyon potential and double derivative term of Eq. (A.2), it is independent of the electric and magnetic fields. Its signature is opposite to that of initial value $`\overline{T}`$, which is consistent with monotonically increasing (decreasing) behavior of tachyon tube (antitube). In the limit of infinite $`\overline{T}`$, both second and third terms in Eq. (A.6) remain finite and this implies possibility of zero thickness limit of the tachyon tube with keeping the period finite. As expected, electromagnetic contribution appears as decreased slope in the $`r^4`$ term (A.8) and it implies increment of the period (see Fig. 3). Even in the limit of vanishing $`\alpha ^2/(1E^2)`$ but not exactly zero, the coefficient of the second term of Eq. (A.2) has $`1/r`$ which decreases as $`r`$ increases. For sufficiently large $`r`$, the approximated equation does not afford the decaying solution to zero as $`1/r^p`$ form, so the critical or overdamping solution seems unlikely.

Near $`r_c`$ with $`T(r_c)=0`$, power series solution of Eq. (A.2) is

$$T(r)b_0(rr_c)\left[1+b_1(rr_c)+b_2(rr_c)^2+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(A.9)
with

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_c(1+b_0^2)}{2\left(r_c^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{1E^2}\right)}},`$ (A.10)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+b_0^2}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_c^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{1E^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3r_c^2(1+b_0^2)}{\left(r_c^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{1E^2}\right)^2}}\right],`$ (A.11)
where $`b_0`$ and $`r_c`$ are determined by proper behavior near the origin. Existence of even order terms in Eq. (A.9), e.g., nonvanishing $`b_1`$ (A.10), breaks reflection symmetry about $`r_c`$ and stands for signal of the damping due to the noncritical electric field. In order to confirm the limit of step function for sufficiently large $`\alpha ^2/(1E^2)`$, let us compare the results (A.9) with the critical case (2.13). Expansion of $`T(r)`$ in Eq. (2.13) near $`r_{c0}=(2n\pm \frac{1}{2})\pi T_0`$:

$$T(r)\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha \beta }\right)^21}(rr_{c0})\left[1\frac{𝒯_3^2}{6T_0^2\alpha ^2\beta ^2}(rr_{c0})^2\right]+𝒪((rr_{c0})^5).$$
(A.12)
Taking the limit of critical electric field $`E^21`$ in Eq. (A.9) with assumption $`r_cr_{c0}`$, we observe as expected that

$$b_0\stackrel{E^21}{}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{𝒯_3}{\alpha \beta }\right)^21},b_0b_1\stackrel{E^21}{}0.$$
(A.13)
The limiting value of $`b_0b_2`$ consistently reproduces the cubic term in Eq. (A.12). Therefore, near the critical $`E`$, we can safely take zero thickness limit in a consistent way with $`\beta 0`$ limit. On the other hand, once we take $`b_0\mathrm{}`$ limit first with keeping $`\alpha ^2/(1E^2)`$ finite, then $`b_0b_1r_cb_0^3/\left[2(r_c^2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{1E^2})\right]`$ approaches $`\mathrm{}`$ as far as $`r_c`$ remains to be finite. Survival of even order terms implies asymmetry of $`T`$ in the vicinity of $`r_c`$ and then derivative term $`T^2`$ is not expressed purely by $`\delta `$-function.


format: text

text:
# Micro-Canonical Hadron Production in pp collisions

## 1 Introduction

In pp collisions at high energies a multitude of hadrons is produced. In contradistinction to the pp collisions at low energies even effective theories are not able to provide the matrix elements for these reactions and therefore a calculation of the cross section is beyond the present possibilities of particle physics. In addition, even at moderate energies, many different particles and resonances may be created and therefore the number of different final states becomes huge.

In this situation, statistical approaches may be of great help . It was Hagedorn who noticed that the transverse mass distributions in high energy hadron-hadron collisions show a common slope for all observed particles. This may be interpreted as a strong hint that it is not the individual matrix elements but phase space who governs the reaction. Therefore Hagedorn introduced statistical methods into the strong interaction physics in order to calculate the momentum spectra of the produced particles and the production of strange particles.

Later, after statistical models have been successfully applied to relativistic heavy ion collisions , Becattini and Heinz  came back to the statistical description of elementary $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ reactions and used a canonical model (in which the multiplicity of hadrons M is a function of volume and temperature M(V,T)) in order to figure out whether the particle multiplicities predicted by this approach are in agreement with the (in the meantime very detailed) experimental results. For a center of mass energy of around 20 GeV they found for non strange particles a very good agreement between statistical model predictions and data assuming that the particles are produced by a hadronic fireball with a temperature of T = 170 MeV. The strange particles, however, escaped from this systematics being suppressed by factors of the order of two to five. Becattini and Heinz coped with this situation by introducing a $`\gamma _S`$ factor into the partition sum which was adjusted to reproduce best the multiplicity of strange particles as well.

Statistical models are classified according to the implementation of conservation laws:

* microcanonical: both, material conservation laws ($`Q,`$ $`B`$, $`S,`$ $`C,`$ $`\mathrm{}`$) and motional conservation laws ($`E`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$,$`\stackrel{}{J}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$), hold exactly.
* canonical: material conservation laws hold exactly, but motional conservation laws hold on average (a temperature is introduced).
* grand-canonical: both material conservation laws and motional conservation laws hold on the average (temperature and chemical potentials introduced).

The intensive physical quantities such as particle density and average transverse momentum are independent of volume in the grand-canonical calculation , while they depend on volume in both canonical and microcanonical calculations. What one naively expects is that the microcanonical ensemble must be used for very small volumes, for intermediate volumes the canonical ensemble should be a good approximation, while for very large volumes the grand-canonical ensemble can be employed. A numerical study of volume effects in paper tells us how big the volumes need to be in order to make the grand-canonical ensembles applicable. The comparison between the microcanonical and the canonical treatment in paper shows a very good agreement in particle yields, when the same volume and energy density are used, and the strangeness suppression is canceled in the canonical calculation.

In this paper, first we ignore the fluctuations of microcanonical parameters and try to fix the microcanonical parameters, energy $`E`$ and volume $`V`$, from fitting $`4\pi `$ yields of protons, antiprotons and charged pions from pp collisions. The one-to-one relation between the collision energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and a pair of microcanonical parameters $`E`$ and $`V`$ makes a link between the pp experiments and the microcanonical approaches (or more generally, the statistical ensembles). One can easily judge if grand-canonical ensembles can describe pp collisions at any given energy; one can also transform the fitting results to the canonical case and find the corresponding temperature and volume of pp collisions at any energy.

Then we study the effect from the fluctuations of the microcanonical energy parameter at a collision energy of $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$, to check how reliable it is to fix microcanonical parameters without energy fluctuations.

Finally, we would like to make a comparison between statistical models and string models in describing pp collisions. This microcanonical model and this fitting work will provide us a bridge to compare the two classes of models and help us to understand the reaction dynamics. In principle, one can consider a string as an ensemble of fireballs, which may be considered as one effective fireball, when only total multiplicities are considered.

## 2 The approach

We consider the final state of a proton-proton collision as a “cluster” , “droplet” or “fireball” characterized by its volume $`V`$ (the sum of individual proper volumes), its energy $`E`$ (the sum of all the cluster masses) and the net flavour content $`Q=(N_uN_{\overline{u}},N_dN_{\overline{d}},N_sN_{\overline{s}})`$, decaying “statistically” according to phase space. More precisely, the probability of a cluster to hadronize into a configuration $`K=\{h_1,p_1;\mathrm{};h_n,p_n\}`$ of hadrons $`h_i`$ with four momenta $`p_i`$ is given by the micro-canonical partition function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(K)`$ of an ideal, relativistic gas of the $`n`$ hadrons ,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(K)=\frac{V^n}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{3n}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i\underset{\alpha 𝒮}{}\frac{1}{n_\alpha !}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d^3p_i\delta (E\mathrm{\Sigma }\epsilon _i)\delta (\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{}{p}_i)\delta _{Q,\mathrm{\Sigma }q_i},$$

with $`\epsilon _i=\sqrt{m_i^2+p_i^2}`$ being the energy, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ the 3-momentum of particle $`i`$. The term $`\delta _{Q,\mathrm{\Sigma }q_i}`$ ensures flavour conservation; $`q_i`$ is the flavour vector of hadron $`i`$. The symbol $`𝒮`$ represents the set of hadron species considered: we take $`𝒮`$ to contain the pseudoscalar and vector mesons $`(\pi ,K,\eta ,\eta ^{},\rho ,K^{},\omega ,\varphi )`$ and the lowest spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ and spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ baryons $`(N,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and the corresponding antibaryons. $`n_\alpha `$ is the number of hadrons of species $`\alpha `$, and $`g_i`$ is the degeneracy of particle $`i`$. We generate randomly configurations $`K`$ according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }(K)`$. For the details see ref. . The Monte Carlo technique allows to calculate mean values of observables as

$$\overline{A}=\underset{K}{}A(K)\mathrm{\Omega }(K)/\underset{K^{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(K^{}),$$

where $``$ means summation over all possible configurations and integration over the $`p_i`$ variables. $`A(K)`$ is some observable assigned to each configuration, as for example the number $`M_h(K)`$ of hadrons of species $`h`$ present in $`K`$. Since $`\overline{A}`$ depends on $`E`$ and $`V`$, we usually write $`\overline{A}(E,V)`$. $`Q`$ is not mentioned, since we only study $`pp`$ scattering here, therefore $`Q`$ is always $`(4,2,0)`$.

Let us consider the hadron multiplicity $`\overline{M}_h(E,V)`$. This quantity is used to determine the energy $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and the volume $`V(\sqrt{s})`$ which reproduces best the measured multiplicity of some selected hadrons in pp collisions at a given $`\sqrt{s}`$ . This is achieved by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$:

$$\chi ^2(E,V)=\frac{1}{\alpha }\underset{j=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{[\overline{M}_{\mathrm{exp},j}(\sqrt{s})\overline{M}_j(E,V)]^2}{\sigma _j^2}$$

where $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{exp},j}(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ are the experimentally measured multiplicity and its error of the particle species $`j`$ in pp collisions at an energy of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

We start out our investigation by taking as input the most copiously produced particles ($`j=p,\overline{p},\pi ^+,\pi ^{}`$). The data have been taken from . Whenever the data are not available, the extrapolation of multiplicities by Antinucci  is used. Fig.1 displays the results of our fit procedure in comparison with the experimental data. We observe that these 4 particle species can be quite well described by a common value of $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`V(\sqrt{s})`$.

Fig.2 shows $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`V(\sqrt{s})`$, and fig.3 the energy density $`ϵ(\sqrt{s})=E(\sqrt{s})/V(\sqrt{s})`$, which we obtain as the result of our fit. Both energy and volume increase with $`\sqrt{s}`$ but rather different, as the energy density shows. We parameterize the energy and volume dependence on the collision energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ in eq. (1).

$`E/\mathrm{G}eV`$ $`=`$ $`3.8+3.76\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{s}+6.4/\sqrt{s}`$
$`V/\mathrm{f}m^3`$ $`=`$ $`30.0376+14.93\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{s}0.013\sqrt{s}`$ (1)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is in unit GeV. Below $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 8 GeV the fit produces volumes below 2fm3 which cannot be interpreted physically. Above $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 8 GeV the volume increases very fast as compared to the energy giving rise to a decrease in the energy density until - around $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 200 GeV - the expected saturation sets in and the energy density becomes constant. In view of the large volume observed for these large energies the density of the different particles does not change anymore  and therefore the particle ratios stay constant above this energy.

The quality of the fit can be judged from fig.4 where we have plotted the $`\chi ^2`$ values obtained for different values of $`E`$ and $`V`$ and for $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 200 GeV. We see that the energy variation is quite small whereas the volume varies more. Nevertheless the energy density is rather well defined.

After having fitted the $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`V(\sqrt{s})`$ in using $`p,\overline{p},\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ data we can now use these fitted values to predict the multiplicity of other hadrons. This study we start in Fig. 5, where we present the multiplicity of $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\rho ^0`$. For these particles experimental data are available. We see that the absolute value as well as the trend of the experimental data is quite well reproduced. The result for those hadrons, for which no or only few data are available, is displayed in fig. 6. As one can see the overall agreement is remarkable. We would like to mention that we have as well made a $`\chi ^2`$ fit using as input the measured multiplicities of $`p,\overline{p}`$ and $`\rho ^0`$. The results for $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`V(\sqrt{s})`$ differ only marginally.

## 3 Strange particles

With the parameters $`E(\sqrt{s})`$ and $`V(\sqrt{s})`$ which we have obtained from the fit of the $`p,\overline{p},\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ multiplicities, we can as well calculate the multiplicity of strange particles or particles with hidden strangeness. The results of these fits are presented in Fig. 7. As we can see immediately the results for those particles are not at all in agreement with the data. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi `$ multiplicities are off by a factor of 3-5 roughly, for the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ the situation may be similar but the spread of the experimental data does not allow for a conclusion yet. Only the kaons come closer to the experimental values. Although at lower energies a part of this deviation may come from the fact that in our Monte Carlo procedure weak decays are neglected and therefore $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ are the particle states which are treated, at higher energies this is not of concern anymore. At $`\sqrt{s}=53\mathrm{GeV}`$, we find - as in experiment \- that $`K_L=K_S`$ and hence $`K^0=\overline{K}^0`$. Therefore, as in experiment, one finds that the strangeness contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ adds up to zero. The absolute numbers are, however, rather different: experimentally one finds .41 $`K^+`$, 0.29 $`K^{}`$ and 0.12 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ , whereas the fit yields 1.16 $`K^+`$, 0.66 $`K^{}`$ and 0.58 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

One is tempted to try to fit the strange particles separately. The result at large $`\sqrt{s}`$ is that, in contradiction to experiment, more $`K^0`$ then $`\overline{K}^0`$ are produced. Consequently, the strangeness in $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ does not add up to zero and the fit is far away from the data. Thus we have to conclude that the strange particle multiplicities cannot be described in a phase space approach using the parameters one obtains from the fit of non strange particles, and that there is no understanding presently why the suppression factor is rather different for the different hadrons.

As mentioned above, in the past there has been proposed to use an additional parameter, $`\gamma _s`$, in order to describe the strangeness suppression. This parameter has been interpreted as a hint that the volume in which strangeness neutrality has to be guaranteed is small as compared to the volume of the system. However, a detailed comparison of the multiplicity of all strange particles with the data shows  that one additional parameter alone is not sufficient to describe the measured multiplicities of the different strange particles in a phase space approach to pp collisions.

## 4 Transverse Momenta

Phase space calculations predict not only particle multiplicities but also the momenta of the produced particles. The average transverse momenta of the produced particle give a good check whether the energy density obtained in the fit can really be interpreted as the energy density of a hadron gas. Fig. 8 shows the average transverse momenta in comparison with the experimental data . We see that over the whole range of beam energies the average transverse momenta are in good agreement with the data. This confirms that the partition of the available energy into energy for particle production and kinetic energy is correctly reproduced in the phase space calculation. It is remarkable that the average transverse momenta of strange particles is correctly predicted.

## 5 Energy Fluctuations

Up to now we have assumed that for a given center of mass energy, the energy of the droplet $`E`$ has an unique value, given in fig. 2. This is of course not a realistic assumption. Most probably the energy varies from event to event but little is known about the form of this fluctuation. The only quantity for which data are available is the multiplicity distribution of charged particles, which has been the subject of an extensive discussion in the seventies due to the finding of a scaling law, called KNO scaling. Of course, one can try now to find an energy distribution which yields the experimental charge particle distribution but this relation is not unique and therefore little may be learnt.

It has also been suggested to replace the microcanonical ensemble calculation, presented here, in favor of a canonical ensemble or an ensemble where the pressure is the control parameter, however it is difficult to find a convincing argument. It is the dynamics of the reaction which determines which fraction of the energy goes into collective motion, and which fraction into particle production. This has nothing to do with a heat bath nor with constant pressure on the droplet. Consequently, the relation between the energy fluctuation, seen in a system with a fixed temperature, and the true energy fluctuation is all but evident.

Therefore, we use another approach to study the influence of energy fluctuations on the observables. We assume that the volume of the system remains unchanged in order not to have too many variables and that the energy fluctuates. For technical reasons, we use discrete distributions, using $`E_i=i\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=1`$GeV. For $`\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, we have $`E=16.15\mathrm{GeV}`$ from the above fitting work, and correspondingly we take $`<i>=16.15`$. We study three cases:
a) The energy distribution is Poissonian

$$\mathrm{Prob}(i)=\frac{i^i\mathrm{exp}(i)}{i!}$$

and
b) The energy distribution is Gaussian

$$\mathrm{Prob}(i)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{0.63}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{E_i\mu }{\sigma })^2\mathrm{when}E_i[2.5\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{})\\ 0\mathrm{otherwise}.\end{array}$$

where an energy threshold of $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ is taken for the proton-proton system. $`\mu =\sigma =14.01\mathrm{GeV}`$ to obtain $`i=16.15`$ and the factor 0.63 is used to normalize the energy distribution, and
c) The energy distribution is a negative binomial distribution

$$P^{\mathrm{NB}}(i;n,k)=\frac{k(k+1)\mathrm{}(k+i1)}{i!}\frac{n^ik^k}{(n+k)^{n+k}}.$$

The negative binomial distribution is well normalized, and $`<i>=n`$. So we take $`n=16.15`$. The parameter $`k=3`$ is chosen to get the best fit to multiplicity distribution data from UA5.

All the three types of energy fluctuations are displayed in fig. 9.

In Fig. 10, we display the influence of these fluctuations on the charged hadron multiplicity distributions. We compare the results from a fixed energy of 16.15 GeV, the energy with a fluctuation of the above-mentioned Poissonian, Gaussian and the NB type. We see that already for a fixed energy the fluctuation of the charged particle multiplicity is considerable. Different energy fluctuations give different multiplicity distributions. The NB energy fluctuation reproduces the UA5 data for non single diffractive events in antiproton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.

How does the multiplicity of identified hadrons fluctuate if the droplet energy fluctuates? This is studied in fig. 11, where we display the multiplicity distribution of the most copiously produced particles for fixed energy $`E=16.15\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for a Poissonian, Gaussian and NB energy distribution. We see here as well that already for a fixed droplet energy the multiplicity fluctuations are important. Though different energy fluctuations cause different multiplicity distribution, the energy fluctuation gives very little effect in the average multiplicities. So our approach, fixing microcanonical parameters by fitting the averager multiplicity data, is quite reliable.

There is also a correlation between the pion and kaon multiplicity in a given event, shown in table.1. The event averaged K/$`\pi `$ ratio is considerably different from the ratio of the average kaon and the pion multiplicity. The energy fluctuations change more the event averaged K/$`\pi `$ ratio than the ratio of the average kaon and the pion multiplicity.

## 6 Conclusion

We have presented a micro-canonical phase space calculation to obtain particle multiplicities and average transverse momenta of particles produced in pp collisions as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. Using the multiplicities of $`p,\overline{p},\pi ^+,\pi ^{}`$, we fit the two parameters of the phase space approach, the volume and the energy.

Using these two parameters, we calculate the multiplicities of all the other hadrons as well as their average transverse momenta. The calculated multiplicities agree quite well with experiment as far as non strange hadrons are concerned.

For the yields of strange hadrons (as well as those with hidden strangeness), the prediction is off by large factors. In canonical and grand-canonical approaches, strangeness suppression factor have been used to solve this problem.

The energy obtained by this fit is much smaller than the energy available in the center of mass system of the pp reaction, because part of the energy goes into collective motion in beam direction. Nevertheless, the average transverse momenta of the produced particles (not only non-strange but also strange) from this fitting agree quite well with experiment.

We learn that the volume of the pp collision system increases with the collision energy. However, it saturates at very high energy(with Antinnuci’s parameterization as input). The maximum value does not exceed $`100\mathrm{fm}^3`$. Together with the results from article , we conclude that the grand-canonical treatment cannot describe particle production in pp collisions even at high energy.

We study the effects from energy fluctuations and find that it is quite reliable to fix the microcanonical parameters without considering energy fluctuations.

Acknowledgement

F.M.L would like to thank H. Stöcker and the theory group in Frankfurt for the kind hospitality and F. Becattini for many helpful discussions.


text:
# Interband Recombination Dynamics in Resonantly-Excited Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

thanks: Author to whom correspondence should be addressed

## Abstract

Wavelength-dependent pump-probe spectroscopy of micelle-suspended single-walled carbon nanotubes reveals two-component dynamics. The slow component (5-20 ps), which has not been observed previously, is resonantly enhanced whenever the pump photon energy coincides with an absorption peak and we attribute it to interband carrier recombination, whereas we interpret the always-present fast component (0.3-1.2 ps) as intraband carrier relaxation in non-resonantly excited nanotubes. The slow component decreases drastically with decreasing pH (or increasing H+ doping), especially in large-diameter tubes. This can be explained as a consequence of the disappearance of absorption peaks at high doping due to the entrance of the Fermi energy into the valence band, i.e., a 1-D manifestation of the Burstein-Moss effect.

Optical properties of one-dimensional (1-D) systems have been the subject of numerous theoretical studies for many years loudon . Various 1-D systems have been investigated experimentally, but the distinct characters of 1-D excitons have not been revealed unambiguously. Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) dresselhaus01  provide a viable alternative for exploring 1-D exciton physics, and, in addition, they are expected to show a new class of optical phenomena that arise from their unique tubular structure. Linear and nonlinear optical coefficients are expected to be diameter- and chirality-dependent, and a magnetic field applied parallel to the tubes is expected to induce non-intuitive modifications on their electronic, magnetic, and optical properties via the Aharonov-Bohm phase ajikiJPSJ93 . Furthermore, high-order harmonic generation is expected to be extremely selective alonPRL00 .

However, these theoretical predictions are mostly unexplored experimentally. The main reason is that SWNTs easily form bundles (or ‘ropes’), consisting of different tube types, due to their strong van der Waals forces. This results in significant broadening, smearing out any chirality-dependent features katauraSM99 . Very recently, a new technique for producing individually-suspended SWNTs in solutions has been reported Science1 . It consists of separating tubes by vigorous sonication, followed by micelle wrapping of individual tubes to prevent bundling. These samples have revealed, for the first time, a number of clearly observable peaks in linear absorption and photoluminescence (PL) spectra, corresponding to interband transitions in different types of tubes. Subsequent photoluminescence-excitation (PLE) spectroscopy studies successfully provided detailed peak assignments Science2 ; Weisman03NL .

Here we report results of wavelength-dependent pump-probe spectroscopy on such micelle-suspended and chirality-assigned SWNTs. Unlike the bundled nanotubes used in previous pump-probe experiments PP1 ; PP2 ; PP3 ; PP4 , our samples show distinct interband absorption and PL peaks (see Fig. 1). By scanning the photon energy in a wide range, we were able to identify different types of relaxation processes. Specifically, we discovered two distinct relaxation regimes: fast (0.3-1.5 ps) and slow (5-20 ps). The slow component, which has not been observed previously, is resonantly enhanced whenever the pump photon energy coincides with an absorption peak, and we ascribe it to interband carrier recombination in resonantly-excited nanotubes. The fast component is always present, and we attribute it to intraband carrier relaxation in non-resonantly-excited nanotubes. Furthermore, the slow component decreases drastically with decreasing pH (or increasing H+ doping), especially in large-diameter tubes. We interpret this behavior as a consequence of the Burstein-Moss effect BM .

The SWNTs studied in the present work were dispersed in aqueous sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) surfactant, sonicated, and centrifuged. The sample preparation method was described in Science1 ; Science2 . Wavelength-dependent degenerate pump-probe measurements were performed using $``$150 fs pulses from an optical parametric amplifier (OPA) pumped by a chirped pulse amplifier (Clark-MXR CPA2010). The low pulse repetition rate (1 kHz) was ideal for reducing any thermal effects while keeping the pump fluence high. To record small photoinduced changes in probe transmission, we synchronously chopped the pump beam at 500 Hz and measured the transmission with ($`T`$) and without ($`T_0`$) the pump using two different gates of a box-car integrator.

Figure 1(a) shows an absorption spectrum, exhibiting three absorption bands: i) first subband (E1H1) transitions in semiconducting tubes, ii) second subband (E2H2) transitions in semiconducting tubes, and iii) lowest-energy transitions in metallic tubes. Figures 1(b) and 1(c) show absorption and PL in the E1H1 range. Three traces in (b) correspond to different pH values. It is seen that absorption peaks at long wavelengths diminish with decreasing pH, similar to a recent report StranoetAl03JPCB .

Figure 2(a) shows typical pump-probe data. Two traces were taken at 0.89 eV (1393 nm) and 1.60 eV (775 nm), corresponding to E1H1 and E2H2 transitions, respectively. Both show a positive change in transmission, i.e., photoinduced bleaching, consistent with state filling. An exponential fit reveals a fast, single decay time of 770 fs for the E2H2 transition, consistent with intraband relaxation towards the band edge PP4 . On the contrary, data in the range of E1H1 transitions exhibit double-exponential decays. The major decay happens in the first picosecond (with decay time $`\tau _1`$), which is followed by slower relaxation (with $`\tau _2`$). For the particular data in Fig. 2(a), we obtain $`\tau _2`$ $``$ 10 ps. This long decay time has not been reported previously in either photo-emission PP1  or pump-probe studies PP2 ; PP3 ; PP4 .

For both first and second subband transitions, the pump fluence dependence of the maximum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_0`$ reveals clear saturation at high fluences, as shown in Fig. 2(b). This implies that, in the saturation regime, most of the carrier states are filled and thus the sample absorption is nearly completely quenched. A careful analysis of the differential transmission decays for 0.89 eV showed that relaxation dynamics are not dependent on the pump fluence, including the saturation regime.

To study resonant versus non-resonant excitations as well as chirality-dependent dynamics, we scanned the photon energy from 0.8 to 1.1 eV, covering the E1H1 transitions of 0.82-1.29 nm diameter tubes Science2 ; Weisman03NL . The fluence was kept at $``$1 mJ/cm2, below saturation \[Fig. 2(b)\]. Note that the probe photon energy was always the same as the pump photon energy (degenerate pump-probe spectroscopy). Figure 3(a) shows absorption, which indicates the photon energies at which we performed pump-probe measurements (labeled 1-16). Figure 3(b) shows the maximum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_0`$ vs. photon energy; it loosely follows the absorption in (a). Shown in Fig. 3(c) is the ratio of the slow component ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_0`$ at 5 ps) to the fast component ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_0`$ at 0 ps); it also follows the absorption in (a), indicating that the slow component is resonantly enhanced at absorption peaks. Examples are shown in Figs. 3(d)-3(g). The chosen photon energies correspond to 2, 3, 11, and 13 in (a). The slow component is clearly observable only at absorption peaks.

We also found that pump-probe dynamics are strongly dependent on the pH of the solution and the dependence is stronger at longer wavelengths (or larger tube diameters). Specifically, we observed that the slow component drastically diminishes as the pH is reduced. Examples are shown in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 1(b) and StranoetAl03JPCB , adding hydrogen ions, H+, to the solution (or, equivalently, decreasing the pH value) diminishes, and finally collapses, linear absorption peaks. This effect starts from the longer wavelength side, i.e., from larger diameter tubes. The corresponding reduction and disappearance of the slow component shows exactly the same trend (see Fig. 4).

We believe that the key to understanding the two-component decay is the co-existence of different types of tubes, i.e., sample inhomogeneity. Even when the pump photon energy resonates with one tube type, all the other tubes with smaller band gaps are non-resonantly excited at the same time. Thus, the pump-induced absorption bleaching due to state filling can relax in two different ways: i) intraband relaxation towards the band edge in the non-resonantly-excited tubes and ii) interband recombination in the resonantly-excited tubes. Process i) is fast (as evidenced in the E2H2 case and in PP2 ; PP3 ; PP4 ) and always exists, irrespective of the pump wavelength, unless we resonantly excite the smallest-bandgap tubes within the diameter distribution in the sample. In addition, it is likely that there is some coherent contribution to the pump-probe signal in the fast component. However, since we have not observed any four-wave mixing signal, we do not have an estimate on the dephasing time and thus the magnitude of this contribution. On the other hand, Process ii) is resonantly enhanced when the pump photon energy coincides with the absorption peak of one tube type since such resonantly created carriers occupy states at/near the band edge and do not have lower-energy intraband states to relax into.

There is an intimate relationship between PL and the slow decay component. In the previous work PP2 ; PP3 ; PP4  neither PL nor the slow component was observed whereas our sample exhibits PL peaks at the same energies as E1H1 absorption peaks. In addition, PL and absorption peaks diminish with decreasing pH with a concomitant abrupt disappearance of the slow decay (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and StranoetAl03JPCB ). These facts lead us to believe that our pump-probe dynamics probes radiative carrier recombination. The slow decay times $`\tau _2`$ should be viewed as the lower boundary of the possible range of the radiative lifetimes, $`\tau _r`$, of SWNTs. The upper limit of $`\tau _r`$ depends on the rates of non-radiative recombination. Although the ratio of radiative to non-radiative rates can in principle be estimated from the quantum yield $`\eta `$, there have been no definitive studies of $`\eta `$ in micelle-suspended SWNTs. The difficulty in determining $`\eta `$ comes from the simultaneous occurrence of absorption by different types of tubes for a given excitation photon energy. Furthermore, very recent work has demonstrated that $`\eta `$ strongly varies with the type of surfactants used Moore . Hence, precise determination of $`\tau _r`$ requires understanding of the co-existing non-radiative carrier recombination processes.

There are non-radiative processes that we can rule out: first, we are not seeing any pump-power-dependent decay times, which excludes nonlinear, non-radiative recombination, i.e., Auger recombination. Second, the contact and electronic coupling between different tubes could make the system “gapless”; carriers that are supposedly created in semiconducting tubes could then recombine through purely intraband relaxation pathways due to the existence of continuum states between the conduction and valence bands as a result of interaction with metallic tubes. However, tube-tube interaction is minimized in our SDS-suspended SWNTs as evidenced by many peaks in linear spectra (Fig. 1), so this can be excluded as well. Finally, recombination on the catalyst particles at the tube ends can be ruled out since cut tube samples still show the same PL properties. One possible scenario is non-radiative recombination via surface defects in incompletely-micelle-covered nanotubes; this is conceivable in view of the surfactant-dependent radiative efficiency Moore . It should be noted that SDS shows the most prominent pH dependence while other anionic surfactants do not show the same effect. In other words, the nature of the surfactant plays an important role in the surface chemistry, and thus could influence non-radiative recombination rates. Further investigations are necessary to elucidate the origins of non-radiative recombination.

Finally, we discuss the intriguing pH dependence. The main effect of a decreasing pH (or an increasing H+ concentration) on pump-probe data is to destroy the slow relaxation component. This process begins to occur at a larger pH for a longer wavelength (or a larger diameter tube). We attribute this to the entrance of the Fermi energy into the valence band. Adsorbed H+ ions act as acceptors, making the tubes $`p`$-type. When the density of such acceptors is high, the Fermi energy can go into the valence band, destroy the interband absorption peak, and thereby disable the mechanism for resonantly enhancing the slow relaxation component. This can be viewed as a 1-D manifestation of the well-known Burstein-Moss effect BM . It is important to note that wider tubes have smaller effective masses, and therefore smaller acceptor binding energies; this explains why larger-diameter tubes are more easily affected by a pH decrease.

In summary, we have observed novel two-component dynamics in pump-probe spectroscopy experiments of SDS-suspended SWNTs. We attribute the previously-unobserved slow component (5-20 ps) to interband carrier recombination, which is resonantly enhanced whenever the pump photon energy coincides with the absorption peak of one tube type. The fast component (0.3-1.2 ps) is always present and we attribute it to intraband relaxation in non-resonantly-excited tubes. The slow component diminishes drastically with decreasing pH, as a result of the Burstein-Moss effect.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Robert A. Welch Foundation (Grant No. C-1509), the Texas Advanced Technology Program (Project No. 003604-0001-2001), and the National Science Foundation CAREER Award (Grant No. DMR-0134058).


text:
# IFT - 20/2003hep-ph/July 2003 Measurement of the MSSM Higgs-bosons production in 𝛾𝛾→𝐴,𝐻→𝑏𝑏̄ at the Photon Collider at TESLA

## 1 Introduction

A photon collider option of the TESLA collider  offers a unique possibility to produce the Higgs boson as an $`s`$-channel resonance. The neutral Higgs boson couples to the photons through a loop with massive charged particles. This loop-induced higgs-$`\gamma \gamma `$ coupling is sensitive to contributions of new particles, which appear in various extensions of the Standard Model (SM). Besides precision measurements, a photon collider is a candidate for the discovery machine .

In case of Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM) the photon collider will be able to cover so called “LHC wedge” around intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 7`$, and for heavy neutral Higgs-bosons masses above 200 GeV, which will be inaccessible at LHC  and at the first stage of $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders.

In our analysis, we consider a SM-like scenario where the lightest Higgs boson $`h`$ has properties of the SM-Higgs boson, while heavy neutral Higgs bosons are degenerated in mass and have negligible couplings to the gauge bosons $`W/Z`$. We take MSSM parameters as in , i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =7,M_2=\mu =`$ 200 GeV, and consider the process $`\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b}`$ at the Photon Collider at TESLA for Higgs-boson masses $`M_A=`$ 200, 250, 300 and 350 GeV. The MSSM Higgs bosons $`A,H`$ with masses in this range are expected to decay into $`b\overline{b}`$ state with branching ratios from around 80% to 20%.

The preliminary results for the MSSM Higgs-bosons were presented in . In our previous works  we have considered a light SM Higgs-boson production at the Photon Collider at TESLA. The background treatment introduced in that analysis we apply now for the MSSM Higgs-bosons. Both, the signal and background events are generated according to a realistic photon–photon luminosity spectrum , parametrized by a CompAZ model . This study takes into account overlaying events $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons for which full simulated photon–photon luminosity spectra  are used. We simulate the detector response according to the program SIMDET  and perform a realistic $`b`$-tagging .

## 2 Photon–photon luminosity spectra

The Compton back-scattering of a laser light off the high-energy electron beams is considered as a source of the highly energetic, highly polarized photon beams . In photon–photon beams simulations for a photon collider option at TESLA, according to the current design , the energy of the laser photons is assumed to be fixed for all considered electron-beam energies; the laser photons are assumed to have circular polarization $`P_c=`$ 100%, while the electrons longitudinal polarization is $`P_e=`$ 85%. In considered case the luminosity spectrum is peaked at high energy and we assume that the energy of primary electrons is adjusted in order to enhance the signal at a particular mass.

In a generation of the processes $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons, one has to take into account also the low energy events, since they contribute to overlaying events. To simulate them the realistic $`\gamma \gamma `$-luminosity spectra for the photon collider at TESLA  are used, with the non-linear corrections and higher order QED processes. For generation of the processes $`\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}(g),c\overline{c}(g)`$ we use the CompAZ parametrization  of the $`\gamma \gamma `$-luminosity spectrum .

The results presented in this paper were obtained for an integrated luminosity expected for one year of the photon collider running for TESLA collider . For example with $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=`$ 419 GeV – the optimal choice for $`M_A=`$ 300 GeV – the total photon–photon luminosity per year is $`L_{\gamma \gamma }=808`$ fb-1. The total photon-photon luminosity increases with energy from about 570 fb-1 for $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=`$ 305 GeV ($`M_A=`$ 200 GeV) to about 937 fb-1 for $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=`$ 473 GeV ($`M_A=`$ 350 GeV).

## 3 Details of a simulation
and the first results for $`M_A=`$ 300 GeV

To calculate the total widths and branching ratios of the MSSM Higgs bosons $`H`$ and $`A`$ we use the program HDECAY  with MSSM parameters as in , i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =7,M_2=\mu =`$ 200 GeV, and including decays and loops of supersymmetric particles.

In a generation of the signal events both $`A`$ and $`H`$ are included, due to their degeneracy in mass. This was done with the PYTHIA 6.214 program . A parton shower algorithm, implemented in PYTHIA, was used to generate the final-state particles.

The background events due to processes $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}(g),c\overline{c}(g)`$ were generated using the program written by G. Jikia , where a complete NLO QCD calculation for the production of massive quarks is performed within the massive-quark scheme. The program includes exact one-loop QCD corrections to the lowest order (LO) process $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b},c\overline{c}`$ , and in addition the non-Sudakov form factor in the double-logarithmic approximation, calculated up to four loops .

The fragmentation into hadrons for all processes was performed using the PYTHIA program.

Because of a large cross section, about two $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons events111We consider only photon–photon events with $`W_{\gamma \gamma }>4`$ GeV. are expected on average per bunch crossing at the TESLA Photon-Collider (for $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ 400 GeV, at nominal luminosity). We generate these events according to PYTHIA 6.214and convolute with results of a full simulation of the photon–photon luminosity spectra , rescaled for the chosen beam energy. For each considered $`e^{}e^{}`$ energy, $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$, an average number of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons events per a bunch crossing is calculated. Then, for every signal $`\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b}`$ or background $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}(g),c\overline{c}(g)`$ event, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons events are overlaid (added to the event record) according to the Poisson distribution.

Program SIMDET version 4.01  was used to simulate a detector performance. Because $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons process has a forward-peaked distribution (see for example ) we decrease the influence of overlaying events by ignoring tracks and clusters with $`|\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i)|>\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{min})=0.9`$ ($`\theta _{min}=450`$ mrad; the polar angle is measured in the laboratory frame). This cut is used only when overlaying events are included in the analysis.

The jets were reconstructed using the Durham algorithm, with $`y_{cut}=0.02`$; the distance measure was defined as $`y_{ij}=2\mathrm{min}(E_i^2,E_j^2)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij})/E_{vis}^2`$, where $`E_{vis}`$ is defined as the total energy measured in the detector.

The following selection cuts were used to select the signal events, $`\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b}`$:

* since the Higgs bosons are expected to be produced almost at rest, we require that the ratio of the total longitudinal momentum of all observed particles to the total visible energy is $`|P_z|/E_{vis}<0.15`$,
* we select two- and three-jet events, $`N_{jets}=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, so that events with one additional jet due to a hard-gluon emission are also accepted,
* for each jet we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _i|<0.75`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_{jets}`$.

We use “ZVTOP-B-Hadron-Tagger” package for the TESLA collider  for realistic $`b`$-tagging simulation. The package is based on the neural network algorithm trained on the $`Z`$ decays. For each jet it returns a “$`b`$-tag” value – the number between 0 and 1 corresponding to “$`b`$-jet” likelihood. In order to optimize the signal cross-section measurement, we choose the two-dimensional cut on $`b`$-tag values for 2-jet events. For 3-jet events three possible pairs of jets were considered and the event was accepted if at least one pair passed the $`b\overline{b}`$ cut. It was found that the cut optimal for $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})`$ measurement, including effects of overlaying events, corresponds to the $`b\overline{b}`$-tagging efficiency $`\epsilon _{bb}=79\%`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$-mistagging probability $`\epsilon _{cc}=3.6\%`$. However, if overlaying events are not included then the best choice corresponds to the efficiences $`\epsilon _{bb}=72\%`$ and $`\epsilon _{cc}=1.7\%`$.

The invariant-mass distributions for the $`\gamma \gamma Ab\overline{b}`$ events after $`b`$-tagging, before and after taking into account overlaying events (OE), are compared in Fig. 1 for $`M_A=`$ 300 GeV. The mass resolutions from the Gaussian fits, in the region $`\mu \sigma `$ to $`\mu +2\sigma `$, to both distributions are 8 and 20 GeV, respectively. The same resolutions are obtained for the selected $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$ events (not shown). As the expected mass difference between $`H`$ and $`A`$ is of the order of 1 GeV, it will not be possible to separate signals of scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs boson using the the invariant-mass distribution. In the following we will consider a simultaneous measurement of the total cross section for both processes $`\gamma \gamma Ab\overline{b}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$.

Despite our choice of a $`b\overline{b}`$ selection cut which corresponds to the greater $`b\overline{b}`$-tagging efficiency than for the simulation without overlaying events, we observe a 16% drop of number of events (from about 440 to 370 events) for simulation which includes overlaying events. This is because energy deposits from the $`\gamma \gamma `$ hadrons processes, remaining after the $`\theta _{min}`$ cut, “shift” jets nearer to the beam axis and the event can be rejected by the jet-angle cut. Moreover, the additional deposits and $`\theta _{min}`$-cut deform jets slightly what reduces a selection efficiency.

After applying selection cuts described above and including $`b`$-tagging, we obtain the distributions of the reconstructed $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass, $`W_{rec}`$, shown in Figs. 2. The $`Hb\overline{b}`$ and $`Ab\overline{b}`$ signal, and the NLO background contributions, $`b\overline{b}(g)`$ and $`c\overline{c}(g)`$, are shown separately. Result obtained before (upper plot) and after (lower plot) taking into account overlaying events are compared. We observe that the overlaying events significantly smear out the Higgs-boson signal.

Assuming that the signal for the Higgs-bosons production will be extracted by counting the number of $`b\overline{b}`$ events in the mass window around the peak, $`N_{obs}`$, and subtracting the expected background events, $`N_{bkgd}`$, we can calculate the expected relative statistical error for the cross section $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})`$ in the following way:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})}{\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})}=\frac{\sqrt{N_{obs}}}{N_{obs}N_{bkgd}}.$$

For Higgs-boson mass of 300 GeV, after taking into account overlaying events, the accuracy of 9.3% is expected for the reconstructed invariant-mass window between 275 and 405 GeV (see Fig. 2).

## 4 Final results for masses 200–350 GeV

As in  to correct for escaping neutrinos we use the corrected invariant-mass variable, defined as:

$`W_{corr}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{W_{rec}^2+2P_T(E_{vis}+P_T)}.`$
In Fig. 3 the distributions of $`W_{corr}`$ for the selected $`\gamma \gamma Ab\overline{b}`$ events, obtained without and with overlaying events, are presented. The tail of events with the invariant masses below $`280`$ GeV is much smaller than for $`W_{rec}`$ (compare with Fig. 1). The mass resolutions, derived from the Gaussian fits to the $`W_{corr}`$ distributions in the region from $`\mu 2\sigma `$ to $`\mu +\sigma `$, without and with overlaying events, are equal to 8 and 13 GeV, respectively. For $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$ events we obtain a very similar distribution, as seen in Fig. 4.

The $`W_{corr}`$ distributions, obtained for the signal and background events, are shown in Figs. 5. Results obtained before (upper plot) and after (lower plot) taking into account overlaying events (OE) are compared. If overlaying events are included, the most precise measurement of the Higgs-boson cross section is obtained for the $`W_{corr}`$ mass window between 290 and 415 GeV, as indicated by arrows. In the selected $`W_{corr}`$ region one expects, after one year of the Photon Collider running at the nominal luminosity, about 610 reconstructed signal events and 2000 background events (i.e. $`S/B0.3`$). This corresponds to the measurement with the expected relative statistical precision of 8.3%.

We have performed also a full simulation of the signal and background events for $`M_A=`$ 200, 250 and 350 GeV, choosing for each mass an optimal $`e^{}e^{}`$ beam energy. In Fig. 6 a statistical precision of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})`$ measurement for all considered masses are presented. For comparison also our earlier estimates , obtained without overlaying events, are shown.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we present results of a full simulation of a signal due to the heavy MSSM Higgs bosons $`A`$ and $`H`$ decaying into $`b\overline{b}`$ and background events for the Photon Collider at TESLA. We study masses $`M_A=`$ 200, 250, 300 and 350 GeV, and for each mass we choose an optimal $`e^{}e^{}`$ beam energy. Following , we study parameters of the MSSM, which correspond to the “LHC wedge”, for which $`A`$ and $`H`$ are almost degenerate in mass. We performed a realistic simulation with the NLO background, corrections for escaping neutrinos, with realistic $`b`$-tagging and taking into account overlaying events, as in our SM-Higgs analysis .

Our analysis shows that, for the MSSM Higgs-bosons at $`M_A`$ 300 GeV, the cross section $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})`$ can be measured with a statistical precision around 8%, for other masses it is lower – from 10% till 20%. Although this result is less optimistic than the earlier estimate , it is still true that a photon–photon collider gives opportunity of a precision measurement of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma A,Hb\overline{b})`$, assuming that we know the mass of a Higgs boson(s). The issue arises how to distinguish (separate) $`A`$ from $`H`$. To get a reliable answer to this question an additional study is needed. We confirm results of  which indicated that the reconstructed mass resolutions (without including overlaying events) are greater than $`2`$ GeV. A discovery of MSSM Higgs-bosons requires energy scanning or a run with a broad luminosity spectrum, perhaps followed by the run with a peaked one .

We conclude, that there is still a room for an optimization of $`\theta _{min}`$ cut to minimize an influence of overlaying events, which may increase a statistical precision.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. M. Mühlleitner, M. Spira and P. Zerwas for valuable discussions. M.K. acknowledges partial support by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, Grants 2 P03B 05119 (2003), 5 P03B 12120 (2003), and by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Colliders.