text:
# A novel FLEX supplemented QMC approach to the Hubbard model

## I Introduction

Despite its transparent meaning and simple form, the Hubbard model is thought to contain much of the fundamental physics of correlated electron systems J.Hubbard (1963). Since its inception, the Hubbard model has been successfully applied to the description of the Mott–Hubbard metal-insulator transition, and is thought to contain a minimal description of certain transition metal oxides, such as the high-$`T_C`$ cuprates and the low-$`T_C`$ ruthenates. While limiting aspects of the model are easily understood, the exact ground state of the one-band Hubbard model remains unknown for all cases other than the Hubbard chain E.H.Lieb and F.Y.Wu (1968).

Examination of the infinite-dimensional limit of the Hubbard model using dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) has lead to a greater understanding of intermediate coupling phenomena such as the Mott-Hubbard metal-insulator transition A.Georges et al. (1996). DMFT maps the full lattice problem onto a single impurity Anderson model, which may be solved using various numerically exact techniques such as quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) M.Jarrell (1992) and numerical renormalization group (NRG) R.Bulla et al. (1999). In recent work, the dynamical mean-field theory was extended to study correlated electron systems in 2D, resulting in an approach known as the dynamical cluster approximation (DCA) M.H.Hettler et al. (1998). DCA is a fully causal method, which systematically restores non-local corrections to the dynamical mean-field theory. In previous work, Jarrell *et al.* computed the phase diagram of the 2D Hubbard model for small clusters of $`N_C=4`$ using QMC M.Jarrell et al. (2001a). Unfortunately, the QMC solution of large clusters is prohibitively expensive in terms of super-computer time, while alternative approaches, such as the perturbation-theory-based FLEX approximation can be used to solve large DCA clusters, but only in certain limits. FLEX is physically intuitive, concentrating on scattering from important mechanisms (spin fluctuation, density fluctuation and particle-particle pairs), and in the past, FLEX has been shown to reproduce long-length-scale physics of the Hubbard model such as the Mermin–Wagner theorem N.E.Bickers and D.J.Scalapino (1989).

In this paper we present an ansatz for combining long length scale information from the FLEX approximation with the QMC solution of the Hubbard model. The two techniques are complimentary, since QMC predicts the correct short length scale physics, while FLEX shows appropriate long length-scale behavior. In section II, we introduce the DCA and the ansatz for the self-energy, and provide technical details of the modified self-consistent procedure for the incorporation of two-length-scale physics. We examine issues of causality and applicability in section III. In section IV we examine local moment formation and the momentum dependent occupation $`n_𝐤`$. Comparisons are made between the hybrid technique introduced here, exact results for the 1D model and the more traditional FLEX technique. We calculate the Fermi surface of the 2D model in section V. Finally, we discuss the applicability and outlook for the new technique in section VI

## II Formalism

The DCA extends the DMFT, which assumes that the self-energy is constant across the Brillouin Zone (BZ), by introducing a limited momentum dependence corresponding to short range spatial fluctuations. This is achieved by breaking up the Brillouin zone into a series of subzones, within which it is assumed that the self-energy is constant. This allows a momentum integrated (or coarse grained) Green function to be defined in an analogous manner to the definition of DMFT:

$$\overline{G}(i\omega _n,𝐊_i)=\underset{k\mathrm{subzone}}{}\frac{1}{i\omega _n+\mu ϵ_k\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\omega _n,𝐊_i)}$$
(1)
The $`𝐊_i`$ are defined as in reference M.H.Hettler et al., 1998 as the mean momentum for a coarse grained cell. Via an inverse Dyson equation, this leads to a “bare” Green function corresponding to the host of a cluster impurity problem,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐊,i\omega _n)=𝒢_0^1(𝐊,i\omega _n)\overline{G}^1(𝐊,i\omega _n).$$
(2)
which may be solved with a variety of methods. The approximation has two well defined limiting cases. For cluster sizes of 1, the DCA maps onto the DMFT. For infinite subzones, the formalism is exact. For a finite number of subzones, results are expected to be closer to the behavior of the exact infinite lattice than conventional finite size techniques, since an infinite number of $`𝐤`$-states is considered. The coarse graining over $`𝐤`$-states maps the lattice model to be studied (in this case the Hubbard model) onto a periodic cluster in real space.

In order to solve the resulting problem, approximations are employed. Two common cluster solvers are the FLEX approximation Aryanpour et al. (2002), and the QMC method of Hirsch and Fye M.Jarrell et al. (2001b); J.E.Hirsch and R.M.Fye (1986). In principle, the QMC method gives the exact solution of the cluster, but the numerical cost is high, and only small clusters can be investigated. Details of the QMC and FLEX methods may be found in references M.Jarrell, 1992 and N.E.Bickers and D.J.Scalapino, 1989 respectively.

In the hybrid technique proposed here, we define clusters of two sizes, one large of size $`N_C^{}`$ solved with the FLEX, and one small of size $`N_C`$ solved with QMC. For the small cluster, coarse grained points are denoted $`𝐊`$, and for the large cluster, they are denoted as $`𝐊^{}`$. In order to couple the self energies from these methods, we define an ansatz 111The ansatz may be thought of as constructed from a generating functional $`\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{QMC}}^{N_C}\varphi _{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{N_C}+\varphi _{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{N_C^{}}`$. From this definition, the self-energy may be defined as the first functional derivative, and the irreducible vertices as the second functional derivative.:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(N_C)}(𝐊,i\omega _n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{QMC}}^{(N_C)}(𝐊,i\omega _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{(N_C)}(𝐊,i\omega _n)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{(N_C^{})}(𝐊,i\omega _n)$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(N_C^{})}(𝐊^{},i\omega _n)=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{QMC}}^{(N_C)}(𝐊^{},i\omega _n)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{(N_C)}(𝐊^{},i\omega _n)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{FLEX}}^{(N_C^{})}(𝐊^{},i\omega _n)$$
(4)
The superscripts indicate the size of the cluster. Bars over the self energy indicate that a secondary coarse graining of the lattice self energy (linear interpolated self energy) from the other cluster size has been performed, i.e.

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐊^{},i\omega _n)=\underset{kK^{}}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,i\omega _n)$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ is the linear interpolation (lattice self-energy) of the small cluster (an equivalent expression exists to coarse grain from the large to the small cluster).

The physical content of the ansatz can be clarified by examining the diagrammatic expansion in figure 1. Since the QMC self energy is non-perturbative, it contains complete contributions from all orders in $`U`$ for a cluster of size $`N_C`$ (1st term). The second term removes all FLEX contributions for cluster size $`N_C`$. These are then replaced with the FLEX contributions for the larger cluster size $`N_C^{}`$. This approach is reasonable if the set of FLEX diagrams have a stronger momentum dependence than the remaining diagrams. The complete FLEX with particle-particle scattering obeys the Mermin–Wagner theorem in 2D, indicating a significant momentum dependence which partially justifies this assumption.

As there are two length scales represented in the ansatz, two coarse grainings and cluster exclusions are performed consecutively (one for each length scale). The cluster excluded Green function for the small cluster is then used as input to the QMC, and the coarse grained Green functions are used as input to the FLEX. This leads to an iterative procedure which is demonstrated in figure 2. There are some additional methods that can be employed to aid convergence. The FLEX self-energy is strongly damped between iterations to avoid the FLEX instability, and many FLEX iterations $`100`$ are carried out for each QMC step (the ansatz is recomputed on each sub-iteration of the FLEX). The QMC step is also damped to a lesser degree.

## III Range of applicability

Causality is essential for any predictive theory. Causality violations in single-particle quantities can lead to negative parts of the single-particle spectrum and density of states and violations of sum rules. Causality violations in two-particle quantities can lead to erroneous predictions for phase transitions. This section examines how causality problems can arise, the expected regions of applicability for the new approximation, and tactics that may be employed to avoid numerical instabilities. Causality is reflected in the analytic properties of the self energy and Green functions. For example, the retarded self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )`$ is analytic in the upper half of the complex frequency plane and $`\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )>0`$. Since there is a subtraction in the ansatz for the self-energy, causality problems might be anticipated, since the imaginary part of the real-frequency self-energy can become positive. Here, we search for causality violations in the Matsubara self energy. It is related to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )`$ through

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,i\omega _n)=𝑑\omega \frac{\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{i\omega _n\omega }$$
(6)
Consequently, $`\omega _n\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,i\omega _n)>0`$ as a consequence of causality. We employ violations of this inequality as a sufficient but not necessary indication of the causality violation of our formalism.

In figure 3, we examine the self-energy in 1D for $`N_C=4`$, $`N_C^{}=32`$, $`U=0.8W`$ and $`T=0.08`$ at half-filling. All components of the ansatz are shown: The QMC self-energy for the smaller cluster (filled circles), the FLEX self-energy for the smaller cluster (filled squares) and the FLEX self-energy for the larger cluster (open squares). The result of the ansatz is also shown for the larger cluster only (open circles). The combination of 1D lattice and intermediate coupling results in an extreme test case for the ansatz, and causality can be seen to hold for both large and small clusters.

There are two ways in which causality may be violated. The first relates to the nature of the ansatz. In order to avoid overcounting of diagrams, FLEX diagrams on the small length scale are subtracted before new diagrams on a larger length scale are reinserted. Therefore, even when the FLEX method gives causal results, the ansatz may return a non-causal self energy. The FLEX parts of the ansatz are designed to return the correct momentum dependence to the self energy, and may be seen as a perturbation to the QMC segment of the self energy,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{QMC}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤)$$
(7)
In order to avoid causality problems resulting from the subtraction of FLEX diagrams, small-length-scale clusters should be as large as possible, with a minimum requirement that $`N_C>1`$. The reason for this is clear for very large QMC clusters, since in the limit that $`N_CN_C^{}`$, both FLEX solvers return the same results, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤)0`$ i.e. causality is guaranteed. For a good cancellation of the FLEX terms, the small and large cluster FLEX self-energies should both be on the large N scaling curve. We demonstrate the scaling behavior of the FLEX approximation in figure 4 (a pure FLEX calculation is used). The imaginary part of the self-energy from the FLEX approximation is shown. Both 1D and 2D calculations are carried out, and $`N_C`$ chosen to be representative of cluster sizes used in this paper. For the 2D case, the $`N_C=4`$ self-energy doesn’t sit directly on the scaling curve. However, it has the correct form to promote causality since the extremal behavior is similar to that of the large cluster. In general, for smaller $`U`$, less cluster points are needed to fall on the scaling curve (with a minimum of $`N_C=4`$ for both 1D and 2D systems). For larger $`U>W`$, the minimum $`N_C`$ required to see correct scaling behavior in the FLEX approximation is expected to increase. We suggest that the use of the ansatz should be limited to couplings that are no bigger than the bandwidth.

If the self-energy contributions from the FLEX approximation lie far away from the scaling curve, then the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤)`$ can be as large as the QMC part. FLEX inherently overestimates the magnitude of the self-energy, so errors are expected to be amplified at strong coupling. For this reason, use of the DMFT ($`N_C=1`$) as a small cluster solver is not advised unless the temperature is high, or the coupling is weak.

Causality problems may also originate from the FLEX instability. FLEX is constructed from a geometric series, which imposes a condition on the susceptibilities: $`\chi _{pp}(\mathrm{𝟎},0),\chi _{ph}(𝐐,0)<1`$. At very high temperatures, both susceptibilities are small, and the geometric condition is met. As temperature decreases, the susceptibilities grow. In 1D and 2D, where the Mermin-Wagner theorem holds, the FLEX instability should only cause minor issues of numerical instability, since the susceptibilities are never expected to diverge (N.B. Some numerical effort is still required to avoid the instability). In 3D, however, FLEX predicts a phase transition at moderate temperatures. Below that transition, the unbroken symmetry approximation is neither causal nor valid. Lower temperatures could only be accessed by extending the approximation to include the anomalous Green functions associated with broken symmetry states. It is unlikely that the Stoner criterion $`\chi _{ph}=1`$ is meaningful in the ansatz scheme, so there will be regions of the parameter space that cannot be reached in 3D. In order to investigate the 3D phase diagram with this scheme, it is essential that the FLEX instability occurs at lower temperatures than the true phase transition. Alternatively a large cluster solver such as 2nd order perturbation theory could to be applied. The phase transition would be measured through the divergence of the relevant 2-particle susceptibility. To calculate this quantity, it would be necessary to introduce an additional ansatz for the irreducible vertex function. This would be quite involved, and is left for a future publication.

Finally, we note that FLEX (as an extension of the T-matrix approximation) is exact for dilute systems, and the ansatz is therefore expected to be exact in the region of low doping. So long as reasonable temperatures are maintained, results should be applicable to a wide range of couplings and dopings. For dopings closer to half-filling, the results of testing show the approximation to be valid for couplings of up to the band width.

## IV 1D Model

In this section, the applicability of the hybrid FLEX/QMC approach to the 1D Hubbard model is discussed. Since the exact ground state of the 1D case is known from the Bethe ansatz solution E.H.Lieb and F.Y.Wu (1968), a quantitative comparison of certain quantities is possible.

While the FLEX approximation predicts the correct AFM transition temperature (the Mermin–Wagner theorem requires that there is only a transition at absolute zero), it is well known that FLEX describes local moment formation incorrectly for couplings of the order of the bandwidth. The fundamental definition of the local moment is,

$$<\mu >=S(S+1)<(n_{}n_{})^2>=\frac{3}{4}(<n>2<D>)$$
(8)
where $`<D>=<n_{}n_{}>`$ is the expectation value of the double occupancy. 222Note that in some definitions of the local moment, the prefactor $`S(S+1)`$ is omitted. Since the potential energy term of the Hubbard model is $`UD`$, $`<D>`$ can be extracted from the expectation value of the potential energy via,

$$<V>=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐊,i\omega _n)G(𝐊,i\omega _n)]=U<D>$$
(9)
Figure 5 shows the local moment versus coupling, calculated using several different techniques (FLEX, the ansatz-based FLEX/QMC technique presented in this paper, and the exact ground state solution). There is a difference in temperature between the exact Bethe-ansatz solution of Lieb and Wu ($`T=0`$) E.H.Lieb and F.Y.Wu (1968) and the approximate solutions computed here ($`T=0.16W`$) 333The relatively high temperature used here avoids instabilities at lower temperatures. The temperature is still low enough to see the non-trivial effects of spatial fluctuations. The hopping, $`t=0.25`$, fixes the the bandwidth of the non-interacting problem to unity (therefore the interaction energy scale for the boundary between weak and strong coupling regimes is $`U=1`$). Calculations are carried out for values of $`U`$ up to the bandwidth to examine behavior outside the perturbative regime. The exact result for a 1D problem calculated from the Bethe ansatz solution is shown, and compared with the 4 site QMC, the FLEX solution for a cluster size of $`N_C=32`$, and the hybrid FLEX/QMC scheme.

The results in figure 5 shows that all schemes have the same weak coupling behavior. The gradient of the low $`U`$ curve increases with larger cluster size and decreased temperature to converge on the Bethe-ansatz solution. It can be seen that FLEX overestimates the moment at strong coupling, i.e. it underestimates the double occupancy. Alternatively, results from the 4 site QMC approximation are inclined to underestimate the local moment at intermediate coupling, probably because the mean-field nature of the $`N_C=4`$ DCA used here predicts a metal insulator transition at a critical coupling $`U=U_C`$, rather than at $`U=0^+`$ as expected in 1D. The solution from the new ansatz shows promising results. The moment has the same weak coupling behavior seen in all the presented approximations. More importantly, the overestimation of the moment that was predicted by the FLEX approximation has been corrected. Remarkably, the new hybrid method predicts a moment that closely follows the exact solution, and the mean-field like behavior of the DCA is greatly reduced.

The self energy predicted by the hybrid scheme is shown in figure 6. Calculations are also carried out for the 1D system for a series of couplings. In this case, the temperature is $`T=0.08W`$. Groups of curves with similar asymptotic behavior belong to the same coupling, and differ only by their location in the Brillouin zone. As coupling increases, the self-energy gets larger, as expected. As compared to a conventional QMC calculation with $`N_C=4`$, the self-energy has significantly more detail, representing many more points in the Brillouin zone. This momentum dependence is most important for intermediate coupling results.

By examining the $`U=0.8W`$ result, the advantage of the hybrid method over the traditional approach can be seen. With a QMC calculation, a linear interpolation would be used to extract the lattice self energy. This would mean that all the self-energy curves would be equidistant. In contract, the lines at the extremes (which correspond to the center and edge of the Brillouin zone) are clearly much closer together. In fact, for QMC cluster sizes up to $`N_C=6`$ in 1D, only extremal behavior can be predicted, and therefore it is apparent that the Hybrid scheme generates results which are much closer to the true lattice self-energy.

## V 2D Model

An important quantity that can shed light on the physics of correlated electron systems is the existence and shape of the Fermi-surface. The Fermi-surface may be used as input for a variety of other theoretical techniques, and may be also be compared directly with results from experimental methods such as angle-resolved photo-emission spectroscopy (ARPES) and de Haas van Alphen measurements. In this section, we examine features of the Fermi surface in 2D, by investigating the momentum-dependent electron density across the Brillouin zone. The form of this quantity is closely connected to the shape of the Fermi-surface.

The momentum dependent electron occupation may be calculated using the following formula,

$$n_𝐤=T\underset{n}{}G(𝐤,i\omega _n)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _n0^+)$$
(10)
where the lattice Green function has been constructed from the linear interpolation of the large cluster self-energy. The magnitude of the gradient of this quantity $`|n_𝐤|`$ is related to the Fermi-surface, since the gradient is largest at the Fermi-surface.

The calculations in this section are performed at $`T=0.04`$ with coupling $`U=2.0=W`$. An $`N_C=4`$ QMC cluster is used throughout. 48 time slices were used for the Trotter decomposition of the QMC cluster. The 2D model has a simple cubic tight-binding dispersion with $`t_x=t_y=0.25`$ and a small interplane hopping $`t_z=0.005`$ to stabilize the solution. The Fermi-surface has been computed using the hybrid scheme for a series of fillings and large cluster sizes.

One of the underlying aims of the hybrid scheme is to predict features consistent with very large systems, without the need for expensive QMC simulations. We first investigate the variation in $`|n_𝐤|`$ as the cluster size is increased from $`N_C^{}=4`$ to $`N_C^{}=256`$, when the chemical potential is set to $`\mu =0.075`$ corresponding to a 2D Hubbard model just away from half-filling. The results of these calculations are shown in figure 7. As cluster size is increased, $`|n_𝐤|`$ becomes sharper and better defined. Also a small number of finer features emerges. Although $`N_C^{}=64`$ is not shown, we note that the $`N_c^{}=64`$ cluster is close to convergence, with only small differences between $`N_C^{}=64`$ and $`N_C^{}=256`$. The larger cluster seems significantly more electron- than hole-like, indicating that the band-gap inherent at half filling has become slightly narrower, although the diffuse nature of the surface indicates that the system is not in a Fermi-liquid state (this is to be expected close to half-filling, since there are significant spin-fluctuations).

An aspect of the 2D Hubbard model that is of general interest is the evolution of the Fermi-surface as filling is changed. In a dilute system, the Hubbard model is well described by the T-matrix approximation, which predicts Fermi-liquid behavior. At the other extreme, the half-filled system has a metal-insulator transition, with strong spin-fluctuations due to the proximity of a phase transition to the anti-ferromagnetic state at absolute zero. Also, non-Fermi-liquid pseudogapped behavior has been reported for the 2D Hubbard model a little off half filling.

In figure 8, $`|n_𝐤|`$ is shown for the $`N_C=4`$, $`N_C^{}=256`$ scheme. The results are computed for a fixed $`U`$ and temperature value, and only the filling is varied. Representative graphs are shown to demonstrate the gapped state, the movement between gapped and metallic states, and the beginnings of the Fermi-surface.

When close to half of the electronic states are occupied $`<n>=1.0`$ (see the result for $`\mu =0.025`$), $`|n_𝐤|`$ is quite disperse, with available electronic states across the Brillouin zone, and no clearly defined maximum associated with a Fermi-surface. As filling is increased to $`<n>=1.002`$ ($`\mu =0.1`$), the Fermi-surface becomes better defined, and some curvature due to free electrons is evident. For larger fillings, $`<n>=1.02`$ ($`\mu =0.25`$), the beginnings of an electronic Fermi-surface are evident. In addition to the electron-like states, an unusual hole-like surface can be seen. This is smaller in magnitude than the maximum corresponding to the electronic states, but it persists into the metallic state.

In order to quantify the transition between gapped and metallic states, the expectation value of the occupation, $`<n>`$, has been calculated as a function of the chemical potential, $`\mu `$. The results are shown in figure 9. For chemical potentials of up to the order of $`\mu =0.1`$, the filling does not vary, sitting at $`<n>=1.0`$ or half-filling (there is a slight error due to the QMC algorithm). This indicates the presence of a gap which is approximately $`5\%`$ of the band width. Once the metallic regime is reached, the filling doesn’t vary very quickly, which suggests that there are very few states close to the Fermi-energy. This may be an indication of pseudogapped behavior.

## VI Conclusions

We have introduced a new technique for the simulation of the Hubbard model. In this technique, short length-scale fluctuations are treated using QMC techniques, and the solution is supplemented with long length scale physics from the FLEX approximation.

We have demonstrated that the new technique is successful at simulating the Hubbard model in 1D and 2D, provided that the QMC cluster is sufficiently large. In particular, we find that results for the 1D Hubbard model at low temperatures are very close to the exact Bethe ansatz solution. The new hybrid method works well for couplings up to the order of the band-width. This is important, since spatial fluctuations on all length scales are expected to make a major contribution to the physics of the 1D model. It is therefore expected that the hybrid QMC/FLEX calculations will give important insight into the 1D problem, while remaining numerically cheap. In 2D, the ansatz has been applied to the calculation of the Fermi-surface. We demonstrate that very large clusters of $`N_C^{}=256`$ can be simulated. For coupling of the order of the band-width, we demonstrate the evolution from insulating to metallic behavior.

The new technique is important from two view points. First, QMC simulation of large clusters is very expensive, with computing time growing quickly with cluster size. Therefore, any improvement on the convergence properties of the DCA method will aid in the accurate simulation of lattice models. Second, it has been proposed that a similar technique be used to combine DMFT with the *ab-initio* GW approximation P.Sun and G.Kotliar (2002). In fact the two cluster solver approach is quite general, and it is expected that other models could be accurately treated using similar techniques.

## VII Acknowledgements

We acknowledge useful conversations with K. Aryanpour, D. Hess, H.R. Krishnamurthy, and Th. Maier. This research was supported by the NSF grant DMR-0312680, and the Division of Materials Science and Engineering, U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC.


format: text

text:
# Muon spectra of Quasi-Elastic and 1-pion production events at the KEK LBL neutrino oscillation experiment

## I Introduction

Recently the KEK to Kamioka long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment (K2K) has published its first result Ahn:2002up , which confirms the existence of $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation as seen in the Super-Kamiokande (SK) atmospheric neutrino data Fukuda:1998mi . The observed oscillation parameters from K2K agree well with the neutrino mass and mixing angles deduced from the atmospheric neutrino oscillation data Fukuda:1998mi

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }m^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2.$$

As is well known, in a two flavor scenario, the probability for a muon neutrino with energy $`E_\nu `$ to remain a muon neutrino after propagating the distance $`L`$ is given by the following expression

$$P_{\mu \mu }=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{4E_\nu }\right).$$
(1)
Basically, the standard approach to measure the oscillation parameters is to determine the oscillation probability in Eq. (1) in dependence of $`E_\nu `$. At the position of the minimum $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be determined from the condition $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{4E_{\nu ,\mathrm{min}}}\stackrel{!}{=}\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ from $`P_{\mu \mu }(E_{\nu ,\mathrm{min}})\stackrel{!}{=}1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$. The neutrino energy is not directly measurable but can be reconstructed from the simple kinematics of quasi-elastic (QE) scattering events. Measuring the energy $`E_\mu `$ and the polar angle $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu `$ of the produced muon allows to reconstruct $`E_\nu `$ with help of the following relation (even if the scattered proton is not observed)

$$E_\nu =E_\nu [E_\mu ,\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu ]=\frac{ME_\mu m_\mu ^2/2}{ME_\mu +|\stackrel{}{k}_\mu |\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu }.$$
(2)
Here $`M`$ denotes the proton mass, $`m_\mu `$ the muon mass and $`\stackrel{}{k}_\mu `$ is the three-momentum of the muon in the laboratory system.

However, in practice there are some difficulties. First of all, the experimental one-ring muon events ($`1\mathrm{R}\mu `$) are not pure QE event samples. About 30$`\%`$ of the $`1\mathrm{R}\mu `$ events are 1-pion production events with unidentified or absorbed pions. For the 1-pion events Eq. (2) would systematically underestimate the true neutrino energy Walter:NuInt02 . Secondly, the reconstruction of $`E_\nu `$ gets more complicated including binding energy $`ϵ_B`$ and Fermi motion of the target nucleons

$`E_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`E_\nu [E_\mu ,\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu ,\stackrel{}{p},ϵ_B]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(E_p+ϵ_B)E_\mu (2E_pϵ_B+ϵ_B^2+m_\mu ^2)/2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k}_\mu }{E_p+ϵ_BE_\mu +|\stackrel{}{k}_\mu |\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu |\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p}},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the three momentum and $`E_p=\sqrt{M^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$ the energy of the initial nucleon. Further, $`\theta _p`$ is the polar angle of the target nucleon w.r.t. the direction of the incoming neutrino. Neglecting $`ϵ_B`$ and the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ Eq. (2) is recovered. Since the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is unknown, $`0|\stackrel{}{p}|p_F`$ where $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, this will lead to an uncertainty of the reconstructed neutrino energy at given values $`E_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu `$, and $`ϵ_B`$ of about -9$`\%`$ to +6$`\%`$ for a single event.

Hence we can see no reliable way for reconstructing the neutrino energy for the $`1\mathrm{R}\mu `$ sample on an event by event basis. On the other hand the muon energy is a directly measurable quantity for each event. Therefore it seems to us to be a better variable for testing the spectral distortion phenomenon compared to the reconstructed neutrino energy.

In this talk we summarize the basic ideas and the main results in Paschos:2003ej  where we have used kinematic considerations to predict the muon energy spectra of the QE and 1-pion resonance production events which constitute the bulk of the charged-current $`\nu _\mu `$ scattering events in the K2K experiment. These predictions can be checked with the observed muon energy spectra from the nearby detector. We also present the distortion of these muon spectra due to $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation, which one expects to see at the SK detector. Comparison of the predicted muon spectra with those of the observed QE and 1-pion events at the SK detector will be very useful in determining the oscillation parameters.

## II Flux averaged muon energy spectra

The flux averaged muon energy spectra for QE and 1-pion events are given by

$$<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>f(E_\nu )\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }dE_\nu $$
(4)
where $`f(E_\nu )`$ is the neutrino flux at K2K for the nearby detector(ND) and ’R’ denotes QE and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance contribution to 1-pion production, which dominates the latter. Simple kinematic considerations lead to the following approximation for the flux averaged muon energy spectra, both, for QE and 1-pion production Paschos:2003ej

$$<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>\sigma _{tot}^R(\overline{E_R})f(\overline{E_R}),$$
(5)
with

$`\overline{E_R}`$ $`=`$ $`E_\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }E^R=E_\mu +\{\begin{array}{cc}0.15\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & \text{for  QE}\hfill \\ 0.4\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & \text{for  1-pion}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
Furthermore, it is well known that the total cross sections for QE and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ production tend to constant values for neutrino energies of about $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, respectively: $`\sigma _{tot}^R[E_\nu ]N^R`$. Hence, for muon energies larger than about $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$, Eq. (5) can be further simplified by replacing $`\sigma _{tot}^R`$ by its constant asymptotic value $`N^R`$:

$$<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>N^R\times f(\overline{E_R})\text{for}E_\mu 1.2\mathrm{GeV},$$
(7)
with

$`N^R`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}4.5\mathrm{fb}\hfill & \text{for  QE}\hfill \\ 5.5\mathrm{fb}\hfill & \text{for  1-pion}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
The normalizations correspond to the average cross-section per nucleon for a $`H_2O`$ target Paschos:2000be .

Thus we conclude that at large muon energies $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ the flux averaged muon energy cross section $`<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>`$ is directly proportional to the neutrino flux shifted in energy. The normalizations $`N^R`$ and energy shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^R`$ are predictions of our theoretical calculation Paschos:2003ej  which can be verified experimentally with the muon energy spectra of the QE and 1-pion events observed at the ND. Furthermore, Eqs. (4), (5), and (7) also apply to the far detector (FD) if one replaces the flux at the ND by the flux at the FD which is distorted by the neutrino oscillation probability $`P_{\mu \mu }(E_\nu )`$:

$$f(E_\nu )f_{\mathrm{SK}}(E_\nu )=f(E_\nu )\times P_{\mu \mu }(E_\nu ).$$
(9)
Comparing these predictions with the observed muon energy spectra of the QE and 1-Pion events of the SK detector will test the spectral distortion due to $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation and determine the oscillation parameters. Particularly, on the higher energy side of the peak the relative size of the SK to the ND cross-sections provides a direct measure of the spectral distortion and hence the underlying oscillation parameters:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>_{\mathrm{FD}}}{<\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^R}{\mathrm{d}E_\mu }>_{\mathrm{ND}}}}P_{\mu \mu }(\overline{E_R})\text{for}E_\mu 1.2\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (10)
In Sec. III we present exact calculations of the QE Paschos:2001np  and 1-pion production cross sections. The dominant contribution to 1-pion production is from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance production for which we take the formalism of Refs. Schreiner:1973mj ; Paschos:2002mb ; eap:2003 . For completeness we have also included the $`P_{11}(1440)`$ and $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance contributions for which we used the parameterization and the form factors of Ref. Fogli:1979cz . We estimate the contribution from the still higher resonances along with the non-resonant background to be no more than $`510\%`$ of the 1-pion production cross section at these low energies (see Fig. 1). Therefore the accuracy of our prediction should be as good as that of the K2K experiment.

We compare our exact calculations with the approximation in Eqs. (7) and (10) from which the range of validity can be inferred. A comparison with the approximation in Eq. (5) can be found in Ref. Paschos:2003ej  (see Figs. 2 and 3).

## III Numerical results

In this section we present our numerical results. Fig. 1 shows the K2K neutrino energy spectrum. In addition, we show an approximated spectrum by a Lorentzian given by

$`f_\mathrm{L}(E_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(E_\nu E_0)^2+\gamma ^2}}`$
$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`1.2\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.6\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (11)
where $`N`$ is an appropriate normalization factor.

Fig. 2a shows the predicted muon energy spectra for the QE (solid line) and 1-pion production (dashed line) processes. Clearly one can see that the peak at $`E_0=1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ is shifted left by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.15\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the QE and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.40.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance production which dominates the 1-pion production process. The steepness of the muon energy spectra at the low energy reflects the threshold rise of $`\sigma ^R`$ and the steep neutrino flux. On the other hand the muon energy spectra closely follow the shape of the neutrino energy spectrum on the right side of the peak. The predicted exact muon energy spectra of Fig. 2a agree reasonably well with the corresponding spectra of the K2K ND Ahn:2002up  for both the QE and the non-QE sample. In particular one can compare the predicted QE spectrum with their simulated QE spectrum shown in Fig. 1 of Ref. Ahn:2002up . Their Figs. 1a and c show separately the QE muon momentum distribution for the 1-Ring muon ($`1\mathrm{R}\mu `$) sample of the 1KT and the QE enhanced sample of the FGD respectively. The two play complementary roles in covering the complete muon energy range, as the 1KT and the FGD have high efficiencies at $`E_\mu <1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$, respectively Ahn:2002up . One can not compare our predicted muon energy spectra with these figures quantitatively without folding in these efficiency factors, which are not available to us. But there is good qualitative agreement between the predicted QE spectrum of our Fig. 2a with their Fig. 1c at $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and Fig. 1a at $`E_\mu <1\mathrm{GeV}`$. While the former shows the position of the peak and the shape of the spectrum to the right, the latter shows the broadening of spectrum down to $`E_\mu 0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$. Similarly one sees good agreement between the predicted muon energy spectrum of our Fig. 2a for 1-pion events with the non-QE spectra of their Fig. 1c,d at $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and Fig. 1a at $`E_\mu <1\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus one has a simple and robust prediction for the shape of the muon energy spectrum in terms of the neutrino spectrum not only for the QE events but also for the 1-pion production events, which dominate the inelastic events.

Fig. 2b shows the corresponding muon energy spectra of the QE and 1-pion events for the SK detector, predicted by Eqs. (4) and (9). One can clearly see the distortion of the muon energy spectrum due the $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation. They should be compared with the observed muon energy spectra of the 1-Ring and 2-Ring muon events at the SK detector, after taking into account the pion detection efficiency. We hope such a comparison will be done by the K2K collaboration.

For the estimation of the pion detection efficiency it is necessary to consider nuclear effects, i.e., Pauli blocking, nuclear absorption and charge exchange of the produced pions which can rescatter several times in the nucleus. Therefore we have included these effects following the prescription of Refs. Adler:1974qu ; Paschos:2000be ; Schienbein:2003sm . Since the dominant contribution to 1-pion production processes comes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance production on oxygen, we have evaluated the effects of nuclear absorption and rescattering on the produced pions for this case. The relevant charged current subprocesses are $`\nu p\mu ^{}p\pi ^+`$, $`\nu n\mu ^{}n\pi ^+`$ and $`\nu n\mu ^{}p\pi ^0`$ with relative cross-sections $`9:1:2`$ for the dominant contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance.

Fig. 3 shows the effects of nuclear corrections on the produced $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ spectra from these processes for the nearby detector averaged over the neutrino spectrum. The results are very similar for the SK detector. Nuclear rescattering effects result in enhancing the $`\pi ^0`$ events at the cost of the dominant $`\pi ^+`$ component. But taken together we see a nearly $`20\%`$ drop in the rate of 1-pion events due to nuclear absorption of the produced pion. Moreover about $`10\%`$ of the remaining events corresponds to the pion momentum being less than the Cerenkov threshold of $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$. Therefore one expects about $`70\%`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ events to give a detectable pion ring at the SK detector while the remaining $`30\%`$ appears like a QE event. Adding the latter to the $`35\%`$ of genuine QE events would imply that about $`50\%`$ of the CC events will appear QE-like at the SK detector. Alternatively the observed muon energy spectrum of the sum of 1-Ring and 2-Ring muon events could be compared with the predicted spectrum of the sum of QE and 1-Pion events. Although a part of the 2-Ring events may come from multi-pion production, the resulting error may be small since multi-pion events at the ND constitute only $`15\%`$ of CC events.

Next, we turn in Fig. 4 to a comparison of the exact calculation for the muon energy spectra (solid lines) with the approximation (dashed lines) made on the right hand side of Eq. (7). Fig. 4a shows the results for the ND and Fig. 4b for the FD obtained with the neutrino flux specified in Eq. (9). One can see that the approximation is in perfect agreement with the exact calculation for muon energies $`E_\mu 1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ for single pion production and $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ for QE scattering. Hence, in this region the muon energy spectra are directly proportional to the neutrino flux shifted in energy.

Finally, in Figs. 5a and 5b we show the far-near-ratio of the muon energy spectra for QE and 1-pion production, respectively. In this case, the dashed lines depict the exact result and the solid lines the oscillation probabilities $`P_{\mu \mu }`$ given in Eq. (1) which have been evaluated at the shifted energies $`\overline{E_R}`$ given in Eq. (6). Again, at $`E_\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (QE) and $`E_\mu 1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ (1-pion production) the approximation in Eqs. (7) and (10) works well and a measurement of the far-near-ratio of such pure QE or 1-pion event samples in this kinematic region would give direct access to the oscillation probability. However, as has been discussed above, the observable 1-Ring and 2-Ring muon events are superpositions of QE, 1-pion, and multi-pion events making the analysis more complicated.

## IV Conclusions

The muon energy spectra of QE and 1-pion events provide a complementary approach to experimental extractions of the atmospheric muon oscillation parameters at K2K. The results are based on quite general kinematic considerations and will also be applicable to other future long baseline experiments like J2K, MINOS and the CERN-Gran Sasso experiments which plan to use low energy $`\nu _\mu `$ beams Itow:NuInt01 ; Lipari:NuInt01 . Therefore it will be very useful to extend this analysis for the beam energy spectra and the target nuclei of these experiments.

Acknowledgment
J.-Y. Yu wishes to thank the organizers of the ICFP03 in Seoul for the kind invitation and financial support.


text:
# 1 Dependence of the mass levels on the parameter 𝑧 for 𝑧<-2 in the theory with double symmetry generated by the polar four-vector representation of the orthochronous Lorentz group.

Mass Spectra in the Doubly Symmetric Theory of Infinite-Component Fields

L.M.Slad***E-mail: slad@theory.sinp.msu.ru

D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia

Abstract

We consider the problem of the characteristics of mass spectra in the doubly symmetric theory of fields transforming under the proper Lorentz group representations decomposable into an infinite direct sum of finite-dimensional irreducible representations. We show that there exists a range of free parameters of the theory where the mass spectra of fermions are quite satisfactory from the physical standpoint and correspond to the picture expected in the parton model of hadrons.

1. Introduction

In , , the beginning was laid for investigating the relativistically invariant theory of fields transforming under representations of the proper Lorentz group $`L_+^{}`$ that are decomposable into an infinite direct sum of finite-dimensional irreducible representations (we say that such fields belong to the ISFIR class).

The structure of relativistically invariant Lagrangians of any free fields was established and described by Gelfand and Yaglom , ; such Lagrangians have the form

$$_0=\frac{i}{2}\left[(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi })(_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi })\right](\mathrm{\Psi },R\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(1)
For fields of the ISFIR class, the matrix operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ involved in Lagrangian (1) contain an infinite number of arbitrary constants. Because of this, restriction to the theory of the ISFIR-class fields was performed in ; this restriction was achieved by imposing the condition that Lagrangian (1) is also invariant under the secondary-symmetry transformations1)1)1)The notion of double symmetry, consisting of the primary and secondary symmetries, was introduced in . It can be considered a generalization of supersymmetry and the symmetry of the Gell-Mann–Levi $`\sigma `$-model .

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iD^\mu \theta _\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right).$$
(2)
In formula (2), the parameters $`\theta _\mu `$ are polar or axial four-vectors of the orthochronous Lorentz group $`L^{}`$, and the operators $`D^\mu `$ have a matrix realization. The chosen requirement leads to selecting a countable set of versions of the theory, each of which is characterized by a definite representation of the $`L_+^{}`$ group, by single-valued (up to a normalization constant) four-vector operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ and $`D^\mu `$, and by the operator $`R`$ being proportional to the unit operator $`E`$.

To avoid infinite degeneration with respect to spin in the mass spectrum for the Lorentz group extension performed in  (such a degeneration is to be expected in accordance with the Coleman–Mandula theorem ), spontaneous breaking of the secondary symmetry was postulated in : it was assumed that scalar components (with respect to the $`L^{}`$ group) of one or several bosonic infinite-component fields of the ISFIR class have nonzero vacuum expectations $`\lambda ^i`$ (the index $`i`$ can, e.g., denote a chosen component of some representation of the internal symmetry group $`SU(3)`$). Assuming that the operator $`R`$ specifying the mass term in the Lagrangian of the free fermion field is entirely caused by spontaneous breaking of the secondary symmetry, we then have

$$R=\underset{i}{}\lambda ^iQ_i^{(0,1)00}.$$
(3)
The operators $`Q_i^{(0,1)00}`$ occurring in relation (3) originate from the Lagrangian of the fermion-boson interaction

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\underset{i^{},\tau ,l,m}{}(\psi \left(x\right),Q_i^{}^{\tau lm}\phi _{\tau lm}^i^{}\left(x\right)\psi \left(x\right)),$$
(4)
where $`\psi (x)`$ is the fermionic field, $`\phi _{\tau lm}^i^{}(x)`$ is the component of the bosonic field characterized by the finite-dimensional irreducible representation $`\tau =(l_0,l_1)`$ of $`L_+^{}`$, by the spin $`l`$ ($`l=|l_0|,|l_0|+1,\mathrm{},|l_1|1`$), and by its projection $`m`$ on the third axis, and $`Q_i^{}^{\tau lm}Q_i^{}^{(l_0,l_1)lm}`$ are matrix operators. The index $`i^{}`$ in formula (4) can include some index $`i`$ from relation (3) and, in addition, information about transformation properties of the corresponding bosonic field under the spatial reflection. The problem of the existence of a nontrivial doubly symmetric Lagrangian (4) and of matrix elements of the operator $`Q_i^{(0,1)00}`$ was solved in .

Sharing the multiply expressed belief  that monolocal infinite-component fields can effectively represent composite particles and using the results in  and , we study the possibility of describing hadrons and their interactions using the doubly symmetric theory of fields of the ISFIR class. For this possibility to have any chance of being realistic, the theory under consideration must satisfy at least the following two requirements. First, it must ensure the existence of physically acceptable mass spectra. Second, the elastic electromagnetic interaction of the ground fermionic state of the theory must be described by form factors similar to the nucleonic ones. The first requirement is addressed in this paper.

We recall that just the mass spectra were the main stumbling block in the previous attempts at a consistent relativistic description of particles with an infinite number of degrees of freedom, realized as different states of the same field, because in all the cases considered, the spectra had an accumulation point at zero. This conclusion regarding the mass spectra was drawn, in particular, by Ginzburg and Tamm , Yukawa , Shirokov , and Markov  in their analyses of certain particular bilocal equations and also by Gelfand and Yaglom  and Komar et al.  with regard to the general linear relativistically invariant equations based on representations of the group $`L_+^{}`$ that are decomposable into a finite direct sum of infinite-dimensional irreducible representations.

The result obtained in this work should therefore appear all the more important: the doubly symmetric theory of infinite-component fields of the ISFIR class has mass spectra that qualitatively reproduce the characteristic features of the experimental physics of hadrons and the parton bag model. We give its derivation and detailed formulation only for fermionic fields in the versions of the theory with one free parameter. Versions of the theory with three, five, and more free parameters with sufficiently high positions of the mass-spectrum levels (relative to the ground level) with any given precision reduce to the versions with a single parameter. Some of the mass-spectrum characteristics that we obtain occur as consequences of exact analytic calculations, and others are the result of applying numerical methods.

After solving the main problem, we give some attention in this paper to the problem of comparing the theoretical mass spectrum with the levels of hadron resonances. We then note a nontrivial feature of the ISFIR-class fields that a state of such a field can be manifested experimentally as a group of several nearby resonances with different spins. We indicate a possible identification of such groups in the case of nucleon resonances (see the table below). The confidence level of this identification cannot be established otherwise than by using an extensive analysis involving, first, the expected correspondence between the theoretical and experimental nucleon and $`\pi `$-meson levels, second, the wave functions found for each of the theoretical states involved in the analysis, and, third, comparison of the results of theoretical (based on Lagrangian (4)) and experimental partial-wave analysis of the production amplitude of $`\pi N`$-states in the ranges of the observed nucleon resonances.

2. Equations and conditions for state vectors of particles described by ISFIR-class fields

The subject of our analysis is the linear relativistically invariant equations for a free fermionic field of the ISFIR class,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu +iR\right)\psi \left(x\right)=0,$$
(5)
corresponding to Lagrangians (1). For a field corresponding to a plane wave with a zero spatial wave vector $`\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}(iMt)\psi _{M0}`$, Eq. (5) becomes

$$\left(M\mathrm{\Gamma }^0R\right)\psi _{M0}=0.$$
(6)
For each allowed value of the spin and its third projection, this equation becomes one or several recursive relations for the components of an infinite-component field $`\psi _{M0}`$. For any value of $`M`$, these relations themselves give one or several linearly independent solutions up to a numerical factor.

If Eqs. (6) were a closed mathematical problem, then it would most likely be complemented by the normalizability condition for its solutions. But in particle physics, we are interested not so much in the fields as in the amplitudes of the processes that are expressed through currents of the form $`(\psi _{M0},O\psi _{Mp})`$ in the theory under consideration. The field vector $`\psi _{Mp}`$ is obtained from the vector $`\psi _{M0}`$ via a transition from one reference frame to another such that the wave four-vector $`\{M,0,0,0\}`$ transforms into the four-vector $`\{E,0,0,p\}`$. The role of the operator $`O`$ can be played by any of the matrix operators $`Q_i^{}^{\tau lm}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$, $`D^\mu `$, or $`R`$ in the theory. The currents $`(\psi _{M0},O\psi _{Mp})`$ are in turn expressed through infinite series whose terms are quadratic in the components of the vectors $`\psi _{M0}`$ and linear in the matrix elements of finite transformations of the proper Lorentz group. Therefore, instead of the normalizability condition for solutions of Eq. (6), we introduce a more restrictive condition that the relevant series converge, which we call the finite-amplitude condition. For any of the operators $`O`$ above, the matrix elements relating the irreducible representations $`\tau =(\pm 1/2,l_1)`$ and $`\tau ^{}=(1/2,l_1+n^{})`$ or $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }=(1/2,l_1+n^{\prime \prime })`$, where $`n^{}`$ and $`n^{\prime \prime }`$ are integers, have the asymptotic behavior as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$ of the form $`l_1^\beta `$, where $`\beta `$ is some constant. In view of this and of the asymptotic form of the field vector components $`\psi _{M0}`$ and $`\psi _{Mp}`$ as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$, which is given in this work, we can verify that for any fixed value of $`M`$, either all the series corresponding to the above currents converge or all of them diverge. We therefore formulate the finite-amplitude condition for any value of $`p`$ as the relation

$$\left|(\psi _{M0},R\psi _{Mp})\right|<+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
or

$$(\psi _{M^{}0},R\psi _{Mp})=a\left(p\right)\delta \left(M^{}M\right),$$
(8)
where $`a(p)`$ is a nonzero number. Those and only those field vectors $`\psi _{M0}`$ that satisfy Eq. (6) and relations (7) or (8) are called state vectors of a mass-$`M`$ particle; this particle is a point in the respective discrete or continuum part of the mass spectrum.

Using formula (19) below and the appropriate analogue of formula (18), we can easily verify that if relation (8) is satisfied for some value $`p=p_0`$, then it cannot be satisfied for $`p>p_0`$. Therefore, in the theory of ISFIR-class fields under consideration, the mass spectrum cannot have a continuum part.

For $`p=0`$, finite-amplitude condition (7) or (8) becomes the normalizability condition for solutions of Eq. (6). We note that the finite-amplitude condition and the normalizability condition for solutions lead to the same mass spectra in all versions of the theory considered in Secs. 4–6 below. In some versions considered in Sec. 3, there is a nonempty discrete mass spectrum if the normalizability condition for solutions of Eq. (6) is satisfied, whereas the finite-amplitude requirement leads to an empty mass spectrum.

We now give the needed results in  and  concerning the doubly symmetric theory of ISFIR-class fields with the spontaneously broken secondary symmetry considered here.

The $`L_+^{}`$-group representation $`S`$, under which the fields transforms, must coincide with one of the infinite-dimensional representations $`S^{k_1}`$ ($`k_1`$ is a half-integer, $`k_13/2`$),

$$S^{k_1}=\underset{n_1=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_0=k_1+\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{k_1\frac{3}{2}}{}}(\frac{1}{2}+n_0,k_1+n_1).$$
(9)
In the representation space of $`S^{k_1}`$, the operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\xi _{(l_0,l_1)lm}=c_0D\left(l_1\right)\sqrt{\frac{\left(ll_0\right)\left(l+l_0+1\right)\left(k_1l_01\right)\left(k_1+l_0\right)}{\left(l_1l_0\right)\left(l_1l_01\right)\left(l_1+l_0\right)\left(l_1+l_0+1\right)}}\xi _{(l_0+1,l_1)lm}$$

$$+c_0D\left(l_1\right)\sqrt{\frac{\left(ll_0+1\right)\left(l+l_0\right)\left(k_1l_0\right)\left(k_1+l_01\right)}{\left(l_1l_0+1\right)\left(l_1l_0\right)\left(l_1+l_01\right)\left(l_1+l_0\right)}}\xi _{(l_01,l_1)lm}$$

$$c_0D\left(l_0\right)\sqrt{\frac{\left(l_1l\right)\left(l_1+l+1\right)\left(l_1k_1+1\right)\left(l_1+k_1\right)}{\left(l_1l_0\right)\left(l_1l_0+1\right)\left(l_1+l_0\right)\left(l_1+l_0+1\right)}}\xi _{(l_0,l_1+1)lm}$$

$$c_0D\left(l_0\right)\sqrt{\frac{\left(l_1l1\right)\left(l_1+l\right)\left(l_1k_1\right)\left(l_1+k_11\right)}{\left(l_1l_01\right)\left(l_1l_0\right)\left(l_1+l_01\right)\left(l_1+l_0\right)}}\xi _{(l_0,l_11)lm},$$
(10)
where $`\xi _{(l_0,l_1)lm}`$ is a vector of the canonical basis in the space of the irreducible representation, $`\tau =(l_0,l_1)S^{k_1}`$, and $`c_0`$ is an arbitrary real constant. The function $`D(j)`$ of a half-integer argument $`j`$ is given by the formula

$$D\left(j\right)=1$$
(11)
if the secondary symmetry of the theory is generated by a polar four-vector representation of $`L^{}`$ (Corollary 1 in ) and by the formula

$$D\left(j\right)=\left(1\right)^{j\frac{1}{2}}j$$
(12)
if the secondary symmetry of the theory is generated by an axial four-vector representation of $`L^{}`$ (Corollary 2 (A. 2) in ).

For the operator $`R`$ in the representation space $`S^{k_1}`$ and for both versions of the secondary symmetry in the considered theory, the same relations hold,

$$R\xi _{(l_0,l_1)lm}=r(l_0,l_1)\xi _{(l_0,l_1)lm}=\left[\underset{i}{}\lambda ^iq_i(l_0,l_1)\right]\xi _{(l_0,l_1)lm},$$
(13)
$$q_i(l_0,l_1)=q_i(l_0,l_1),$$
(14)
$$\left(k_1l_01\right)\left(k_1+l_0\right)q_i(l_0+1,l_1)+\left(k_1l_0\right)\left(k_1+l_01\right)q_i(l_01,l_1)$$

$$\left(k_1l_11\right)\left(k_1+l_1\right)q_i(l_0,l_1+1)\left(k_1l_1\right)\left(k_1+l_11\right)q_i(l_0,l_11)=$$

$$=z_i\left(l_1l_0\right)\left(l_1+l_0\right)q_i(l_0,l_1)$$
(15)
with $`z_i=2H_i^\mathrm{B}/H^\mathrm{F}`$. The quantities $`H_i^\mathrm{B}`$ and $`H^\mathrm{F}`$ are normalization constants of the vector operators $`D^\mu `$ (with $`D^\mu D_\mu =HE`$) entering transformations (2) of the respective bosonic and fermionic fields $`\phi ^i(x)`$ and $`\psi (x)`$. They are independent of each other. For some fixed value of $`H^\mathrm{F}`$, the quantity $`H_i^\mathrm{B}`$ and hence the parameter $`z_i`$ can take any values. Indeed, if secondary symmetry transformation (2) of the bosonic field $`\phi ^i(x)`$ is nontrivial ($`D^\mu 0`$) and this field is complex (just such fields were considered in  and ), then $`H_i^\mathrm{B}>0`$. If transformation (2) is nontrivial and the bosonic field is real, then $`H_i^\mathrm{B}<0`$. But if transformation (2) of the bosonic field is trivial, then $`z_i=2`$, the operator $`Q_i^{(0,1)00}`$ is proportional to the unit operator $`E`$, and the existence of a nonzero vacuum expectation of this field does not affect the secondary symmetry.

In what follows, we only deal with fermionic fields transforming under the ”lowest” of the proper Lorentz group representations $`S^{k_1}`$ in (9), namely, the representation $`S^{3/2}`$, whose decomposition involves all finite-dimensional irreducible representations that contain spin $`1/2`$ and only such representations. A solution of recursive relation (15) for this representation ($`k_1=3/2`$) was expressed in  through the Gegenbauer polynomials and through hypergeometric series. It turns out that this solution can also be expressed through the elementary functions,

$$q_i(\frac{1}{2},l_1)=q_i(\frac{1}{2},l_1)=2q_{i0}\frac{u_i^N\left(u_iN+N+1\right)w_i^N\left(w_iN+N+1\right)}{N\left(N+1\right)\left(u_iw_i\right)\left(2+u_i+w_i\right)},$$
(16)
where $`N=l_11/2`$, $`u_i=(z_i+\sqrt{z_i^24})/2`$, and $`w_i=(z_i\sqrt{z_i^24})/2`$.

In accordance with formulas (10) and (13), the operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ and $`R`$ are diagonal in the spin index $`l`$ and in the spin projection index $`m`$, and their matrix elements are independent of $`m`$. Therefore, each vector $`\psi _{M0}`$ satisfying Eq. (6) can be assigned certain values of spin and its projection. Components of this vector can be taken independent of the value of $`m`$. Linearly independent solutions of Eq. (6) can be chosen such that they have a definite $`P`$-parity. We recall that $`P\xi _{(\pm 1/2,l_1)lm}=(1)^{l1/2}\xi _{(1/2,l_1)lm}`$. If a vector $`_{l_1}[\chi (l_1)\xi _{(1/2,l_1)lm}+\chi (l_1)\xi _{(1/2,l_1)lm}]`$ with the $`P`$-parity $`(1)^{l1/2}`$ satisfies condition (7) and Eq. (6) with $`M=M_0`$, then the vector $`_{l_1}[\chi (l_1)\xi _{(1/2,l_1)lm}+\chi (l_1)\xi _{(1/2,l_1)lm}]`$, which has the $`P`$-parity $`(1)^{l+1/2}`$, also satisfies condition (7) and Eq. (6) but with $`M=M_0`$.

In the representation space $`S^{3/2}`$ of the $`L_+^{}`$ group, Eq. (6) for the field vector components $`(\psi _{M0})_{(\pm 1/2,l_1)lm}\chi _{lm}(l_1)`$ with the spatial parity $`(1)^{l1/2}`$ becomes

$$D\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\sqrt{\left(l_1l\right)\left(l_1+l+1\right)}}{2l_1+1}\chi _{lm}\left(l_1+1\right)+D\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\sqrt{\left(l_1l1\right)\left(l_1+l\right)}}{2l_11}\chi _{lm}\left(l_11\right)$$

$$\left[\frac{D\left(l_1\right)\left(2l+1\right)}{4l_1^21}\frac{1}{2Mc_0}r\left(l_1\right)\right]\chi _{lm}\left(l_1\right)=0,$$
(17)
where $`l_1l`$ and $`r(l_1)r(\pm 1/2,l_1)`$.

We write the relativistically invariant bilinear form of relation (7) via components of the vectors $`\chi _{lm}(l_1)`$ and via matrix elements of finite transformations of the proper Lorentz group,

$$(\psi _{M0},R\psi _{Mp})=\underset{l_0=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}}{}}\underset{l_1=l+1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^{l\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{lm}^{}\left(l_1\right)r\left(l_1\right)\left\{\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha I^{03}\right)\right]_{(l_0,l_1)lm,(l_0,l_1)lm}\right\}\chi _{lm}\left(l_1\right),$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{tanh}\alpha =p/\sqrt{M^2c^2+p^2}`$ and $`I^{03}`$ is the infinitesimal operator of the group $`L_+^{}`$.

The explicit form of matrix elements of finite transformations of the $`L_+^{}`$ group for infinite-dimensional unitary irreducible representations, denoted by a pair of numbers $`(l_0,\nu )`$, was found in . The argument and the results in that work also hold for the finite-dimensional irreducible representations that interest us here. To preserve the precise meaning of the notation that we use, we must set $`\nu =il_1`$. In considering the convergence problem for the series of form (18), we need only know the asymptotic behavior of the relevant matrix elements as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$. We have

$$\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha I^{03}\right)\right]_{(l_0,l_1)lm,(l_0,l_1)lm}=T_0\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha l_1\right)}{l_1}\left(1+𝒪\left(l_1^1\right)\right),$$
(19)
where the quantity $`T_0`$ is independent of $`l_1`$.

In what follows, we discuss the mass spectra in two versions of spontaneous secondary symmetry breaking: caused by one bosonic field of the ISFIR class (in which case the index $`i`$ is to be omitted everywhere) or caused by two bosonic fields. In the first version, we separately consider three essentially different ranges of the $`z`$ parameter values: $`(\mathrm{},2]`$, $`(2,2)`$, and $`(2,+\mathrm{})`$. In the second version, attention is given only to the range $`z_1(2,+\mathrm{})`$ and $`z_2(2,2)`$.

3. Empty mass spectrum in the parameter range $`z(2,2)`$

In the case where the secondary symmetry of the theory is spontaneously broken, we cannot find solutions of Eq. (17) in the form of elementary or special functions, finite or infinite series. We also fail to find analytic formulas for mass spectra of the theory. But we can derive a number of conclusions regarding the mass spectra based on the asymptotic behavior of certain quantities.

Let $`z(2,2)`$. Using formula (16), we then have

$$r\left(l_1\right)=r_0\frac{\mathrm{sin}\zeta l_1}{l_1}\left(1+𝒪\left(l_1^1\right)\right)$$
(20)
as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$, where $`\zeta (0,\pi )`$ and $`r_0`$ is a constant. From this and Eq. (17), we obtain

$$\chi _{lm}\left(l_1\right)=A_0\left(1\right)^{\left[\frac{l_1}{2}\right]}l_1^s\left(1+K\left(l_1\right)+𝒪\left(l_1^2\right)\right)+B_0\left(1\right)^{\left[\frac{l_1+1}{2}\right]}l_1^s\left(1K\left(l_1\right)+𝒪\left(l_1^2\right)\right)$$
(21)
as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$, where

$$s=\left(2l+1\right)\left(1D\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right),K\left(l_1\right)=\left(1\right)^{l_1+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{r_0}{2Mc_0D\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\zeta }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\zeta l_1}{l_1},$$
(22)
$`\left[a\right]`$ is the integer part of the number $`a`$, and the quantities $`A_0`$ and $`B_0`$ are independent of $`l_1`$.

Based on this asymptotic formula, it is easy to establish that for $`\alpha 0`$, the terms of series (18) grow as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$ independently of whether $`A_0`$ is equal to zero for certain values of $`M`$. Therefore, if $`z(2,2)`$, then a solution of Eq. (17) cannot satisfy finite-amplitude condition (7) at any value of $`M`$, and the mass spectrum is hence empty.

4. Characteristics of the mass spectra in the parameter range $`z(\mathrm{},2]`$

Because the inequalities $`w<1`$ and $`1<u<0`$ hold in the range $`z(\mathrm{},2)`$, it follows from (16) and (17) that as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$,

$$r\left(l_1\right)=r_0\frac{w^{l_1+\frac{1}{2}}}{l_1+\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+𝒪\left(l_1^1\right)\right),$$
(23)
$$\chi _{lm}\left(l_1\right)=A_0G\left(l_1\right)\left(1+𝒪\left(l_1^1\right)\right)+B_0G^1\left(l_1\right)\left(1+𝒪\left(l_1^1\right)\right),$$
(24)
where

$$G\left(l_1\right)=\frac{v^{l_1\frac{1}{2}}w^{\frac{4l_1^21}{8}}}{\left(l_1\frac{1}{2}\right)!},v=\frac{r_0}{Mc_0D\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}.$$
(25)
Obviously, if $`A_0`$ is nonzero for some values of $`M`$, then condition (7) cannot be satisfied. But if $`A_0=0`$ for some value of $`M`$, then the terms of series (18) have the asymptotic form of the order of $`(l_1+1/2)!(l_11/2)!v^{2l_1}u^{(4l_1^21)/4}\mathrm{exp}(\alpha l_1)`$ as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$. The ratio of such a term of the series to the preceding term is equal to zero in the limit $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the relevant series (18) converges for the discussed value of $`M`$, which is equivalent to condition (7) being satisfied.

Therefore, for all values of the parameter $`z`$ in the range $`z(\mathrm{},2)`$ and for both versions of the theory expressed by relations (11) and (12), the mass spectrum is discrete whenever it is nonempty.

A similar statement also holds for $`z=2`$. This is easy to verify taking into account that in this case, $`r(l_1)=r_0(1)^{l_1+1/2}l_1`$ and an analogue of relation (24) holds with $`G(l_1)=v^{l_1\frac{1}{2}}(1)^{(4l_1^21)/8}(l_11/2)!`$.

We now prove that in the range $`z(\mathrm{},2]`$, the set of all masses of the theory is bounded from below by a positive number. For this, it suffices to find a number $`\mu _0>0`$ such that for the set of values of $`M`$ satisfying the restriction $`|M|\mu _0`$, the field components lm(l1) are not arbitrarily small for sufficiently large values of $`l_1`$.

Using formula (16), we verify that in the range $`z2`$, the quantity $`|r(l_1)|`$ increases monotonically as $`l_1`$ increases and the function $`r(l_1)`$ of a half-integer argument has alternating signs, $`r(l_1+1)/r(l_1)<0`$. Let $`\mu _1=|r(3/2)/c_0|`$ and $`|M|\mu _1/2`$. Then for both versions of the function $`D(j)`$ (Eqs. (11) and (12)) and for all the allowed values of $`l`$ and $`l_1`$, the quantity $`D(l_1)(l+1/2)/(l_1^21/4)r(l_1)/Mc_0`$ is greater than one in absolute value and changes its sign as $`l_1`$ changes by $`1`$. Together with Eq. (17), this gives the desired inequality $`|\chi _{lm}(l_1+1)|>|\chi _{lm}(l_1)|`$.

For convenience in what follows, we use one or another relation between the normalization constants, thus obtaining different mass units. If $`r(3/2)/(2c_0D(1/2))=\pm 1`$ (the plus and minus signs refer to the respective relations (11) and (12), chosen such that the lower levels of the spin-$`1/2`$ particle have the spatial parity $`+1`$), we introduce the notation $`M_c=|M|`$. Any number of the lower values of mass $`M_c`$ can be found using numerical methods. In accordance with the above, only the range $`M_c>0.5`$ is to be considered in numerical calculations. To find all points of the spectrum in the relevant ranges of $`M_c`$ and of the parameter $`z`$ for a fixed spin $`l`$, it suffices to restrict to seeking points $`M_c`$ at which the quantity $`A_0`$ in Eq. (24) vanishes but does not have a minimum or a maximum for some fixed value of $`z`$. In arbitrary small neighborhoods of such points in the mass spectrum, the quantity $`\chi _{lm}(l_1)`$ then obviously changes its sign for sufficiently large values of $`l_1`$. This plays the role of an algorithm for solving the mass problem numerically. Analyzing the dependence of any two chosen neighboring points of the mass spectrum on the parameter $`z`$, we can find whether a value $`z_0`$ exists such that in tending to it from one side, these points become arbitrarily close to each other but do not appear on the other side of $`z_0`$. If such a number $`z_0`$ exists, then the limit value of the two chosen points is the mass value $`M_c`$ at which the quantity $`A_0`$ has the zero value and an extremum.

In Figs. 1 and 2, in the cases corresponding to the respective relations (11) and (12), we show the dependence of the masses of the states with spins $`1/2`$, $`3/2`$, $`5/2`$, and $`7/2`$ on the parameter $`z`$.

We first note several characteristics of the mass spectrum of the theory with double symmetry generated by the axial four-vector representation of the orthochronous Lorentz group (which corresponds to relation (12)). First, the mass spectrum is nonempty if the spatial parity of spin-$`l`$ particles is $`(1)^{l1/2}`$ and is empty if the parity is $`(1)^{l+1/2}`$. Second, among the mass lines, there are pairs that terminate, merging at certain common limit points for $`z_0<2`$; there are also single lines that exist in the entire range $`z(\mathrm{},2]`$. Third, for all $`z`$, from the range $`(\mathrm{},2.1)`$ at least, the levels of the mass spectrum have the same ordering in accordance with spin. It is the same as for $`z=2.645`$ for example, where the lower masses $`M_c`$ (with spin and parity $`l^P`$) are given by $`1.982(1/2)^+`$, $`3.209(3/2)^{}`$, $`3.687(1/2)^+`$, $`5.470(5/2)^+`$, $`6.143(3/2)^{}`$, $`6.964(1/2)^+`$, $`9.709(7/2)^{}`$, $`10.72(5/2)^+`$, $`11.91(3/2)^{}`$, $`13.35(1/2)^+`$, $`17.82(9/2)^+`$, and $`19.38(7/2)^{}`$. The lowest-level masses with a given spin increase as the spin increases somewhat faster than the geometric progression. A sequence of mass levels taken in consecutive order with the same spin is close to the geometric progression. Therefore, although the ratio of lowest-level masses with the spin and parity $`(3/2)^{}`$ and $`(1/2)^+`$ in the above example is equal to the mass ratio of the $`N(1520)`$ resonance and the nucleon, the positions of levels with $`l^P=(5/2)^+`$, $`(7/2)^{}`$, $`(9/2)^+`$, etc., are drastically different from the positions of the corresponding nucleonic resonances . Fourth, for the parameter values close to $`z=2`$, the level ordering in the mass spectrum in accordance with spin changes as $`z`$ changes. For example, for $`z=2`$, the lower levels $`M_c`$ ($`l^P`$) are $`9.506(5/2)^+`$, $`12.14(9/2)^+`$, $`12.55(3/2)^{}`$, $`13.25(5/2)^+`$, $`15.77(13/2)^+`$, $`16.03(19/2)^{}`$, and $`17.45(21/2)^+`$.

Among the mass-spectrum characteristics in the theory with double symmetry generated by the polar four-vector representation of the $`L^{}`$ group (which corresponds to relation (11)), we note the following. First, particles at any value of spin have the same spatial parity $`+1`$. Second, the set of all mass lines is decomposed into pairs that merge and terminate at $`z_0<2`$. Third, the lower-level masses with two consecutive spins, whenever they exist for a given $`z`$ in the range under consideration, differ from each other by an order of magnitude at least, which manifestly contradicts the baryon resonance picture.

5. Characteristics of the mass spectra in the parameter range $`z(2,+\mathrm{})`$

Because the inequalities $`u>1`$ and $`0<w<1`$ are satisfied in the range $`z(2,+\mathrm{})`$, formulas (23)–(25) hold, and the subsequent argument regarding the validity of condition (7) is applicable if $`w`$ is replaced with $`u`$ and $`u`$ with $`w`$ inthese formulas and in the corresponding argument. This implies the conclusion that for all values of $`z(2,+\mathrm{})`$ in both versions of the theory corresponding to relations (11) and (12), the mass spectrum is discrete if it is nonempty.

It follows from relation (16) that in the range $`z>2`$, the quantity $`r(l_1)/r(3/2)`$ is positive and increases monotonically as $`l_1`$ increases. This fact and Eq. (17) with $`l_1>l`$ lead to the inequality $`|\chi _{lm}(l_1)|>(1+1/(l_1l))|\chi _{lm}(l)|`$ for all $`l`$ and for all values of $`M`$ in the range $`|M|\mu _1/3`$, where $`\mu _1=|r(3/2)/c_0|`$. In the range of $`M`$ specified, therefore, series (18) diverges, condition (7) is not satisfied, and mass-spectrum points are absent, i.e., the mass spectrum is bounded from below.

In Figs. 3 and 4, corresponding to the respective formulas (11) and (12), we show the dependence of the lower mass levels on the parameter $`z`$ for spins $`1/2`$, $`3/2`$, $`5/2`$, and $`7/2`$, each of which is assigned the spatial parities $`+1`$ and $`1`$. As $`z2+0`$, the masses $`M_c`$ tend to unity on all lines in both versions of the theory. For any $`z>2`$, the masses of several lower levels with consecutive spins $`l`$ and with the parities $`(1)^{l1/2}`$ approximate a geometric progression. This property also applies to the masses of several consecutive levels with the same spin and parity. This does not allow achieving any reasonable quantitative agreement between the lower levels of the theory with one parameter $`z`$ and the levels of nucleonic resonances. An essential difference between the two versions of the theory is in the order of relative positions of the lower levels with two consecutive spin values and a given parity. To illustrate all this, we give numerical examples below, where the mass ratio of the lower levels with $`l^P=(3/2)^{}`$ and $`l^P=(1/2)^+`$ in the theory considered is the same as for the $`N(1520)`$ resonance and the nucleon.

We note several characteristic features of the mass spectrum for the version of the theory with relation (11). First, the mass-level ordering in accordance with spin and parity is the same for all values of the parameter $`z`$ from the range $`(2,+\mathrm{})`$. It is such as for $`z=2.441`$ for example, when the lowest masses $`M_c`$ and the corresponding spin and parity $`l^P`$ are given by $`1.595(1/2)^+`$, $`2.328(1/2)^{}`$, $`2.582(3/2)^{}`$, $`3.699(1/2)^+`$, $`3.700(3/2)^+`$, $`4.346(5/2)^+`$, $`5.609(1/2)^{}`$, $`6.111(5/2)^{}`$, $`6.158(3/2)^{}`$, $`7.522(7/2)^{}`$, $`9.272(1/2)^+`$, and $`9.174(3/2)^+`$. Second, certain mass levels with different $`l^P`$ differ from each other insignificantly in a considerable neighborhood of the point $`z=2`$. Such a small difference occurs for the $`(n+1)`$th level with $`l^P=(1/2)^+`$ and the $`n`$th level with $`l^P=(3/2)^+`$, for the $`(n+1)`$th level with $`l^P=(3/2)^{}`$ and the $`n`$th level with $`l^P=(5/2)^{}`$, and for the $`(n+1)`$th level with $`l^P=(5/2)^+`$ and the nth level with $`l^P=(7/2)^+`$ ($`n1`$), etc.

For the version of the theory with relation (12), the general level ordering in accordance with spin and parity can be different for different values of the parameter $`z`$. But the ordering of the lowest levels with some $`l^P`$ is the same for all $`z>2`$. This ordering is as in the following example, where all the levels with $`M_c<4`$ are given, evaluated at $`z=2.261`$: $`1.108(1/2)^+`$, $`1.272(3/2)^+`$, $`1.521(1/2)^{}`$, $`1.567(5/2)^+`$, $`1.794(3/2)^{}`$, $`2.041(7/2)^+`$, $`2.119(1/2)^+`$, $`2.272(5/2)^{}`$, $`2.573(3/2)^+`$, $`2.769(9/2)^+`$, $`2.999(1/2)^{}`$, $`3.027(7/2)^{}`$, $`3.342(5/2)^+`$, $`3.747(3/2)^{}`$, and $`3.876(11/2)^+`$.

On the whole, therefore, the doubly symmetric theory with one parameter $`z`$ connected with spontaneous secondary symmetry breaking gives the following qualitative picture of the mass spectra. The continuum part of the mass spectrum does not exist for any values of $`z`$. If the mass spectrum is nonempty for some $`z`$, then the mass levels are bounded from below by a positive quantity. In the parameter range $`z>2`$, each value of spin and parity corresponds to a countable set of masses extending up to infinity, and the lowest mass level values with a given spin increase as the spin increases. The theory with one parameter $`z`$ does not give a satisfactory quantitative agreement with the nucleon resonance levels.

6. Comparison of the mass spectrum of the theory with two parameters $`z_i`$ with nucleon resonance levels

The general situation with the mass spectra of the theory involving two bosonic fields of the ISFIR class with nonvanishing vacuum expectations of their scalar components (scalar with respect to the group $`L^{}`$) is quite rich with different versions. In what follows, we consider only one version in some detail with the aim of a tentative quantitative comparison of the theoretical mass spectrum with the nucleon resonance levels.

We consider the theory with the double symmetry generated by the polar four-vector representation of the orthochronous Lorentz group (with the corresponding relation (11)). With two parameters $`z_i`$, the quantity $`r(l_1)`$ in Eq. (17) can be written as

$$r\left(l_1\right)=f_0\left(\frac{q_1(\frac{1}{2},l_1)}{q_{10}}+f_2\frac{q_2(\frac{1}{2},l_1)}{q_{20}}\right),$$
(26)
where $`q_i(1/2,l_1)`$ depends on $`z_i`$ and is given by formula (16). It is obvious that in addition to the normalization constant $`f_0/c_0`$, this theory involves three free parameters: $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, and $`f_2`$. We choose the following restrictions on them: $`z_1>2`$, $`|z_2|<2`$, and $`|f_2|<1`$. In this parameter range, as $`l_1`$ increases, the quantity $`|q_1(1/2,l_1)|`$ increases monotonically and $`q_2(1/2,l_1)`$ oscillates with a decreasing amplitude. The quantities $`r(l_1)`$ and $`f_0q_1(1/2,l_1)/q_{10}`$ have the same sign for all $`l_1`$ and can be significantly different from each other only for small values of $`l_1`$. The parameter $`z_2`$ has no effect on the asymptotic behavior of the quantities $`r(l_1)`$ and $`\chi _{lm}(l_1)`$ as $`l_1+\mathrm{}`$. Formulas (23)–(25) are valid if $`w`$ in them is replaced with $`u_1`$; the conclusions regarding the mass spectra following from these formulas are also valid. Therefore, in the considered version of the theory with two parameters $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, compared with the version of the theory with a single parameter $`z_1`$, only mass spectrum levels with the lowest values of the spin $`l`$ can significantly change their positions.

We now note a very important circumstance inherent in the theory of infinite-component fields considered. Let the ground fermionic and the ground bosonic levels of the theory correspond to the respective particles $`F`$ with spin $`1/2`$ and $`B`$ with spin $`0`$, and let an excited fermionic level exist in the theory with the corresponding particle $`F^{}`$ of spin $`l`$. We consider the amplitude $``$ of the decay $`F^{}FB`$ in the rest frame of the resonance $`F^{}`$ described by Lagrangian (4). Because the particles $`F`$ and $`B`$ have nonzero velocities in this reference frame, the corresponding infinite-component fields of the ISFIR class have nonzero components with the respective all half-integer and all integer spins. Therefore, the amplitude $``$ has nonzero terms in which the components of the $`F^{}`$, $`F`$, and $`B`$ fields are described by the following sets of spins $`\{l_F^{},l_F,l_B\}`$: $`\{l,l,0\}`$, $`\{l,l1,1\}`$, $`\{l,l,1\}`$, $`\{l,l+1,1\}`$, $`\{l,l2,2\}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\{l,l+2,2\}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. The contribution of a given spin $`l^{}`$ of the fermion $`F`$ and spin $`l^{\prime \prime }`$ of the boson $`B`$ to the amplitude $``$ can be estimated only if the state vectors of the particles $`F^{}`$, $`F`$, and $`B`$ are known in their rest frames. Because experimental conclusions about a resonance spin are obtained from the partial-wave analysis, based on the representations of the three-dimensional rotation group but not on representations of the Lorentz group, it follows that the aforesaid may be manifested in the experimentalist opinion regarding the existence of a group of several resonances that have the same mass and differ from each other only by their spins. Therefore, in comparing the theoretical mass spectrum with the experimental one, we must pay special attention to such groups of resonances and make the decision regarding the number of the corresponding theoretical levels.

The simplest proposed correspondence between the theory version under consideration and the experimental picture of nucleon resonances is given in Table 1. It corresponds to the normalization constant and the free parameters chosen as $`f_0/c_0=939/2.4686`$ MeV, $`z_1=2.036`$, $`z_2=0.14`$, and $`f_2=0.6724`$. The parameters $`z_2`$ and $`f_2`$ are chosen such that the lowest-level masses with $`l^P=(3/2)^{}`$ and $`l^P=(5/2)^+`$ are respectively equal to 1508 and 1675 MeV. The parameter $`z_1=2.036`$ determines particle states with large spins. As the experimental masses of almost all resonances, we take their pole positions. The Breit–Wigner masses (indicated with the BW superscript in the table) are taken, first, for those few resonances whose pole positions are not given in  and, second, for the Roper resonance $`N(1440)`$ because two poles, $`1370114i`$ and $`1360120i`$, have been found in the neighborhood of 1440 MeV with their parameters strongly different from the usual $`M=1470`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=545`$ MeV .

A tentative comparison of the mass spectra of the theory considered here with levels of nonnucleon resonances has not been made yet. In particular, it requires the singlet–octet separation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ resonances and an octet–decuplet separation of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ resonances in accordance with the internal symmetry group $`SU(3)`$. The description of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances is supposedly to be given by the $`S^{5/2}`$ representation of the $`L_+^{}`$ group described by formula (11) with $`k_1=5/2`$. In this case, the lowest mass level has the spin $`3/2`$. Analyzing mass spectra of bosonic fields of the ISFIR class in any versions of the doubly symmetric theory will become possible only after finding the structure of the Lagrangian of the four-particle interaction of such fields with each other and the ensuing spontaneous violation of secondary symmetry.

| Table 1 | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Theory | | Experiments  | | | |
| $`l^P`$ | Mass  (MeV) | $`l^P`$ | Resonance | Mass  (MeV) | Status |
| $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ | 939 | $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ | $`N`$ | 939 | \**** |
| $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ | 1481 | $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ | $`N\left(1440\right)`$ | 1430-1470BW | \**** |
| $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ | 1487 | $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ | $`N\left(1535\right)`$ | 1495-1515 | \**** |
| $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ | 1508 | $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ | $`N\left(1520\right)`$ | 1505-1515 | \**** |
| $`\frac{3}{2}^+`$ | 1661 | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{5}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2}^+\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`N\left(1650\right)`$  $`N\left(1675\right)`$  $`N\left(1720\right)`$ | 1640-1680  1655-1665  1650-1750 | \****  \****  \**** |
| $`\frac{5}{2}^+`$ | 1675 | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{5}{2}^+\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}^+\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`N\left(1680\right)`$  $`N\left(1700\right)`$  $`N\left(1710\right)`$ | 1665-1675  1630-1730  1670-1770 | \****  \***  \*** |
| $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{5}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | 1892  1923 | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{3}{2}^+\hfill \\ \frac{7}{2}^+\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`N\left(1900\right)`$  $`N\left(1990\right)`$ | $`1900^{\mathrm{BW}}`$  1870-1930 | \**  \** |
| $`\frac{7}{2}^{}`$ | 1940 | $`\frac{7}{2}^{}`$ | $`N\left(2190\right)`$ | 1950-2150 | \**** |
| $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{3}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}^+\hfill \\ \frac{5}{2}^+\hfill \end{array}`$ | 1995  2004  2144 | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{5}{2}^+\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}^+\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`N\left(2000\right)`$  $`N\left(2080\right)`$  $`N\left(2100\right)`$ | $`2000^{\mathrm{BW}}`$  1980-2120  2080-2160 | \**  \**  * |
| $`\frac{3}{2}^+`$ | 2140 | $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ | $`N\left(2090\right)`$ | 2080-2220 | * |
| $`\frac{7}{2}^+`$ | 2179 | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{5}{2}^{}\hfill \\ \frac{9}{2}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`N\left(2200\right)`$  $`N\left(2250\right)`$ | 2040-2160  2080-2200 | \**  \**** |
| $`\frac{9}{2}^+`$ | 2244 | $`\frac{9}{2}^+`$ | $`N\left(2220\right)`$ | 2100-2240 | \**** |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |
| $`\frac{11}{2}^{}`$ | 2547 | $`\frac{11}{2}^{}`$ | $`N\left(2600\right)`$ | 2550-2750BW | \*** |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |
| $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ | 2919 | $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ | $`N\left(2700\right)`$ | $`2700^{\mathrm{BW}}`$ | * |

Acknowledgments. The author is very grateful to E.E.Boos, V.I.Savrin, and N.P.Yudin for the useful discussions and the support of his work.