text:
# New search for T-violation in the decays of the charged kaon V. Anisimovsky11footnote 1, A. Ivashkin, Yu. Kudenko Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117312 Russia (For the KEK-PS E246 Collaboration) ∗E-mail: valera@al20.inr.troitsk.ru

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of the E246 experiment is to measure the transverse component of the muon polarization in the decay $`K^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu \pi ^0`$ ($`K_{\mu 3}`$), while we were also able to extract $`K^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu \gamma `$ ($`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$) decay as a by-product. The transverse muon polarization is a T-odd observable defined as $`P_T=\stackrel{}{s}_\mu (\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi (\gamma )}\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mu )/|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi (\gamma )}\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mu |`$ where $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pi `$ is used for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma `$ for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$, respectively.

In the framework of the phenomenological consideration, the transverse muon polarization can be related to the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ form factors. For $`K_{\mu 3}`$ the T-violating polarization is proportional to the imaginary part of the ratio of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ form factors: $`P_Tm_\mu m_K\text{Im}(\xi )`$, where $`\xi =f^{}/f^+`$ and $`f^+`$, $`f^{}`$ are defined through

$$M_{K_{\mu 3}}G_F\mathrm{sin}\theta _c\left[f^+(q^2)(p_K^\lambda +p_\pi ^\lambda )+f^{}(q^2)(p_K^\lambda p_\pi ^\lambda )\right]\left[\overline{u}_\mu \gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)u_\nu \right]$$

The Standard Model predicts a vanishing value of less than $`10^7`$ for $`P_T`$ in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ . The calculations of $`P_T`$ due to the electromagnetic final state interactions result in a value of less than $`10^5`$ . There are several non-standard models predicting sizeable value for $`P_T`$: multi-Higgs models, SUSY with squarks mixing, SUSY with R-parity violation, leptoquark models . The values predicted in these models vary from $`4\times 10^4`$ to $`10^2`$.

In case of $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ the transverse polarization is related to the decay form factors in a more complicated way: $`P_T(x,y)=\sigma _V(x,y)\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }_V+\mathrm{\Delta }_A)+[\sigma _V(x,y)\sigma _A(x,y)]\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)`$ where $`\sigma _V(x,y)`$ and $`[\sigma _V(x,y)\sigma _A(x,y)]`$ are the functions of $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ kinematic parameters (shown in Fig. 1),

and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(V,A,P)}`$ are the contributions of non-standard interactions to the effective form factors . Although the Standard Model prediction for $`P_T`$ in $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ is as small as for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ , the contribution of the final state interaction to this value is $`10^3`$ , i.e. considerably larger than in the case of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decay. The predictions for non-zero $`P_T`$ for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ come from the same non-standard models mentioned for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and also from left-right symmetric models . The expected values vary from $`3\times 10^3`$ to $`10^2`$.

The noteworthy peculiarity of these predictions obtained in different models is the correlations between the expected values of $`P_T`$ for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ : in the three Higgs doublet model the $`P_T`$ expectations are related as $`P_T(K_{\mu 3})2P_T(K_{\mu 2\gamma })`$; in SUSY with squarks mixing the relation for $`P_T`$ induced by Higgs exchange: $`P_T(K_{\mu 3})2P_T(K_{\mu 2\gamma })`$, while for $`P_T`$ arising from W-boson exchange: $`P_T(K_{\mu 3})0`$, $`P_T(K_{\mu 2\gamma })0`$; in SUSY with R-parity violation the relation is $`P_T(K_{\mu 3})P_T(K_{\mu 2\gamma })`$; in left-right symmetric models we have: $`P_T(K_{\mu 3})=0`$, $`P_T(K_{\mu 2\gamma })0`$.

The previous experimental results for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ came from the BNL experiment which used kaon decays in flight : $`P_T=(3.1\pm 5.3)\times 10^3`$, $`\text{Im}(\xi )=(1.6\pm 2.5)\times 10^2`$, as well as from E246 : the result obtained for the data collected during 1996-1997 period was $`P_T=(4.2\pm 4.9(stat)\pm 0.9(syst))\times 10^3`$, $`\text{Im}(\xi )=(1.3\pm 1.6(stat)\pm 0.3(syst))\times 10^2`$. Both results indicated no T-violation in $`K_{\mu 3}`$. For $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ there has been no $`P_T`$ measurement, so our result is the first one.

## 2 Experiment

The E246 apparatus is shown in Fig. 2,

and described in detail elsewhere . Kaons with $`P_{K^+}=660`$ MeV/c are identified by a $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov counter, slowed in an Al+BeO degrader and then stopped in a target array of 256 scintillating fibers located at the center of a 12-sector superconducting toroidal spectrometer. Charged particles from kaon decays in the target were tracked by means of multi-wire proportional chambers at the entrance (C2) and exit (C3 and C4) of each magnet sector, along with the target and a scintillation ring hodoscope around the target. The momentum resolution of $`\sigma _p=2.6`$ MeV/c at p=205 MeV/c was obtained using mono-energetic products from the two-body decay $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ ($`K_{\pi 2}`$). The energies and angles of the photons from $`\pi ^0`$ decays were measured by a CsI(Tl) photon detector consisting of 768 modules. The photon detector covers a solid angle of 3$`\pi `$ steradian, with openings for the beam entry and exit and 12 holes for charged particles to pass into the magnet gaps. To suppress accidental background from the beam, timing information from each crystal was used. A good time resolution of 3.5 nsec (rms) at 100 MeV was achieved. Energy resolution of $`\sigma _E/E=2.7`$% at 200 MeV, angular resolutions of $`\sigma _\theta =2.3^{}`$ and the invariant mass resolution of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }=9`$ MeV/c2 were obtained. Muons entering the polarimeter (Fig. 2c) were degraded by an Al+Cu block and stopped in a stack of pure Al plates. Positrons from $`\mu ^+e^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays of stopped muons were detected by positron counters which were located azimuthally between the muon stoppers.

The trigger included the signals from $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov, target, TOF and positron counters along with the requirement of at least one hit in CsI(Tl) calorimeter.

The T-violating asymmetry was extracted using a double ratio as:

$$A_T=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{(N_{cw}/N_{ccw})_{fwd}}{(N_{cw}/N_{ccw})_{bwd}}1\right]$$

Here, $`N_{cw}`$ and $`N_{ccw}`$ are the sums over all 12 sectors of counts of clockwise ($`cw`$) and counter-clockwise ($`ccw`$) emitted positrons and $`fwd`$/$`bwd`$ denote events with the photon (or $`\pi ^0`$) going forward/backward with respect to beam direction. The sign of $`A_T`$ for $`fwd`$ events is opposite to that of $`bwd`$ events that allows us to employ a double ratio method which reduces most systematic errors and enhances the effect. Moreover, considerable reduction of systematic effects was achieved due to the azimuthal symmetry of the 12-sector detector.

The value of $`P_T`$ is related to $`A_T`$ by

$$P_T=\frac{A_T}{\alpha \times f\times (1\beta )}$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the analyzing power of the polarimeter, $`f`$ is an angular attenuation factor and $`\beta `$ is the overall fraction of backgrounds.

## 3 Analysis

The extraction and analysis of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ events comprised several procedures common for both decays. The common stage included target analysis, charged particle tracking and TOF analysis and the analysis of muon decay in polarimeter. Active target analysis included target energy deposition and target timing cuts to get rid of kaon decays in flight. The momentum of charged particle reconstructed by four-point tracking procedure was used to suppress $`K_{\mu 2}`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decays by selecting events with $`p<190`$ MeV/c. The cut on $`\chi ^2`$ for the charged particle track was used to suppress $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decays with $`\pi ^+`$ decay in flight. To separate muons and positrons (thereby suppressing $`K_{e3}`$) we used time-of-flight (TOF) technique to calculate charged particle mass and then, on the scatter plot of the TOF energy deposition versus TOF-reconstructed mass square, we separated the muon cloud from the positron one. Finally, the common stage included the signal extraction from the positron time spectra in the polarimeter.

The second stage of event selection was specific for each decay mode. For $`K_{\mu 3}`$ we selected one-photon events with $`E_\gamma >70`$ MeV and two-photon events which satisfy the constraints on the invariant mass of the two photons and on the missing mass (reconstructed mass of missing neutrino): $`70<M_{\gamma \gamma }<180`$ MeV/c2 and $`25000<M_{miss}^2<20000`$ MeV2/c4. Additionally, we used the cuts on the opening angles between two photons and between muon and $`\pi ^0`$: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\gamma \gamma }>60^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \pi }<160^{}`$ to suppress kaon decays in flight and $`K_{\pi 2}`$.

The second stage for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ selected one-photon events with $`E_\gamma >50`$ MeV and comprised three major cuts: a constraint on the neutrino missing mass $`0.7\times 10^4<M_{miss}^2<1.5\times 10^4`$ MeV2/c4, a cut on the neutrino momentum $`p_\nu >200`$ MeV/c and a cut on the opening angle between muon and photon $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \gamma }<90^{}`$. These cuts suppressed the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ by a factor of 70, while sustaining a $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ loss by a factor of 2. Fig. 3

shows the spectra of $`M_{miss}^2`$ and $`p_\nu `$ for both Monte Carlo (MC) ($`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$) and experimental data.

The background fractions for extracted $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ events were estimated using experimental spectra along with the MC simulation data. For $`K_{\mu 3}`$ the major background contributions come from CsI(Tl) accidental hits, $`K_{e3}`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$. All these backgrounds do not induce spurious asymmetry and only dilute the sensitivity to $`P_T`$. The total background fraction for $`K_{\mu 3}`$ was estimated to be $`16.0`$%.

In the case of $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ the situation is much worse due to the predominant background of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ events with one photon escaping CsI(Tl) detector. Such events almost completely mimic $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ kinematics, so they cannot be suppressed without a considerable loss of useful $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ events. The optimized $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ cuts reduced the background fraction from $`K_{\mu 3}`$ to about 17%. The background $`K_{\mu 3}`$ events might have non-zero $`P_T`$ thereby inducing spurious transverse asymmetry. Fortunately, we measure $`P_T`$ in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ with higher sensitivity in the same experiment and can reliably estimate this effect. Therefore, we can safely assume no spurious contribution to $`P_T`$ from $`K_{\mu 3}`$ background. The second major source of background is accidental photons in the CsI(Tl) detector. It was suppressed to the level of $`8`$% by requiring a photon energy threshold of 50 MeV and a coincidence between a signal from charged particle and a photon signal in the CsI within a window $`\pm 15`$ ns. Other background modes are suppressed by the $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$-specific cuts to a negligible level. The total background fraction for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ sample was estimated to be $`25`$%.

The valuable part of the asymmetry analysis includes the extraction of the value of the normal asymmetry $`A_N`$ which is proportional to the T-even muon polarization, i.e. the in-plane component of the muon polarization normal to the muon momentum. It can be measured by selecting events with $`\pi ^0`$ (or photon for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$) moving into the left or right hemisphere with respect to the median plane of the given magnet sector. The theoretical calculations indicate that the normal polarizations for $`K_{\mu 3}`$  and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$  have opposite signs for the kinematic region where selected events are located, as shown in Fig. 4.

For one-photon $`K_{\mu 3}`$ events, we obtained $`A_N(K_{\mu 3}(1\gamma ))=(3.87\pm 0.06)\times 10^2`$ while for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ we have $`A_N(K_{\mu 2\gamma })=(+3.67\pm 0.44)\times 10^2`$. This gives us a robust evidence of the sufficiently pure $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ selection. The study of the dependence of the normal asymmetry on the energy of $`\pi ^0`$ shows a sound agreement with the theoretical calculation. By comparing the values of the normal asymmetry and normal polarization obtained using Monte Carlo simulation using the relation $`A_N=\alpha \times P_N`$, we are able to extract the value of the polarimeter analyzing power $`\alpha =0.289\pm 0.015`$.

The main systematic uncertainties in $`P_T`$ come from magnetic field rotation, detector components misalignment, CsI(Tl) accidental background, beam profile asymmetry and decay plane rotation. The important point is that the sources of systematics are mostly the same for both measured decays, so we can estimate the systematic contributions using a large sample of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ data and then use the same error value for $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$. Most of the systematic effects are canceled by the unique features of the set-up (azimuthal symmetry, double ratio, etc). We evaluated the contributions from all relevant sources using the MC simulation data and comparing them with the experimental distributions . Overall systematic error was estimated to be $`\delta P_T=0.92\times 10^3`$ which is well below the level of the statistical error.

## 4 Results

After the analysis of the entire data set collected in the period 1996-2000 we obtained the results for both $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$. For $`K_{\mu 3}`$ we selected $`6.3\times 10^6`$ one- and two-photon forward/backward events and using the angular attenuation factor value extracted from MC simulation ($`f=0.72÷0.77`$ for $`2\gamma `$ events and $`f=0.56÷0.66`$ for $`1\gamma `$ events) the preliminary result $`P_T=(1.12\pm 2.17(stat)\pm 0.92(syst))\times 10^3`$ is obtained. Using the relation $`P_T=\text{Im}(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a kinematic factor, evaluated from MC simulation $`\mathrm{\Phi }0.2÷0.3`$) we get $`\text{Im}(\xi )=(0.28\pm 0.69(stat)\pm 0.30(syst))\times 10^2`$ . The dependences of the transverse asymmetry on the beam cycle, $`\pi ^0`$ energy and magnet sector number indicate no systematic irregularity and thus confirm the robustness of our systematics study. The results indicate no evidence of T-violation in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and can be interpreted as limits on the measured quantities: $`|P_T|<4.3\times 10^3`$ at 90% c.l. and $`|\text{Im}(\xi )|<1.3\times 10^2`$ at 90% c.l.

We have performed the first measurement of $`P_T`$ in the $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ decay (it is also the first $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ measurement below $`K_{\pi 2}`$ peak). The result obtained for 1996-1998 data was published in . Here we present the result of the analysis of the whole data set of $`1.88\times 10^5`$ forward/backward events. We obtained the value $`P_T=(0.14\pm 1.44(stat)\pm 0.10(syst))\times 10^2`$ with the evaluated attenuation factor of $`f=0.80\pm 0.03`$. Similarly to the case of $`K_{\mu 3}`$, we see no indication of T-violation in this decay and we can put the limit $`|P_T|<2.4\times 10^2`$ (90% c.l.)

## 5 Conclusion

We have performed the new measurement of T-violating muon polarization in two decays $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ for which several non-standard models predict non-zero $`P_T`$ values. For $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ decay our result is the first one. At the current level of the experimental sensitivity, we see no evidence for T-violation and our results allowed us to impose constraints on several non-standard models: three Higgs doublet model (the most stringent experimental constraint), SUSY with squark mixing, SUSY with R-parity violation, leptoquark models, left-right symmetric models (see, for example, Ref. ). Much higher statistical sensitivity to $`P_T`$ of $`10^4`$ can be reached in a proposed experiment  at the high intensity low energy separated kaon beam at J-PARC . In addition, the $`P_N`$ values in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ can be measured with high accuracy in this experiment that provides a new sensitive method for determination of the kaon form factor values in these decays .


format: text

text:
# Deconfinement and criticality in extended two-dimensional dimer models

(December 3, 2003)

## Abstract

A square-lattice hard-core dimer model with links extending beyond nearest-neighbors is studied using a directed-loop Monte Carlo method. An arbitrarily small fraction of next-nearest-neighbor dimers is found to cause deconfinement, whereas a critical state with $`r^2`$ distance dependence of the dimer-dimer correlations persists in the presence of longer dimers preserving the bipartite graph structure. However, the critical confinement exponent governing the correlation of two test monomers is non-universal. Implications for resonating-valence-bond states are discussed.

Dimer models have a long history in classical statistical physics fow37a ; fis61a ; kas61a ; fis63a . More recently, they have also emerged as central models in modern theories of strongly correlated quantum matter, e.g., high-temperature cuprate superconductors and frustrated antiferromagnets kiv87a ; rok88a ; fra91a ; sen00a ; mis02a ; sac03a ; ard03a . The dimers then represent singlet-forming electron pairs. In order to model the quantum fluctuations of the dimers and realize a short-range version of Anderson’s resonating valence bond (RVB) state and73a ; and87a , Kivelson, Rokhsar, and Sethna introduced a Hamiltonian with a term flipping (resonating) pairs of parallel nearest-neighbor dimers on the two-dimensional (2D) square lattice kiv87a . The purely classical dimer model retains it relevance also here: It was shown that the equal-weight sum over all dimer configurations is the ground state of the Hamiltonian when the resonance strength $`k`$ equals the potential energy cost $`v`$ of each resonating pair of dimers (the RK point) rok88a . This state is critical; the dimer-dimer correlations decay with distance as $`r^2`$ and two inserted test monomers are correlated with each other as $`r^{1/2}`$ fis63a . As it turned out, away from the RK point the dimers form long-range order and the monomers are exponentially confined sac89a ; fra91a ; leu96a . Hence this system does not give rise to the desired RVB state with no broken lattice symmetries and deconfined monomers (corresponding to spin-charge separation and87a ). Moessner and Sondhi recently showed that a true extended RVB phase does appear in the quantum dimer model on the triangular lattice moe01a . Following this insight, a large body of work has been carried out in order to characterize classical and quantum dimer models on various lattices moe01b ; mis02a ; fen02a ; hus03a ; moe03a ; fra03a . Moreover, there are currently intense activities in gauge theories related to quantum dimer models sen00a ; moe01b ; mis02a ; sac03a ; ard03a ; vis03a .

To date, research on dimer models has focused mainly on planar lattices, i.e., ones that have no intersecting links. This class of models can be analytically solved (in the form of Pfaffians) with the aid of a theorem by Kastelyn kas61a , and thus the quantum ground states at the corresponding RK points are characterized as well. It has often been stated that the inclusion of valence bonds (dimers) extending further than between nearest-neighbor sites will not change the physics provided that the probability of longer bonds decreases sufficiently rapidly rok88a ; moe01b . However, the fact that there are qualitative differences between bipartite and nonbipartite lattices, e.g., the square and triangular cases mentioned above, does raise the question of potentially important effects of short bonds connecting two sites on the same sublattice of the square lattice. Such bonds will inevitably appear in realistic systems away from the limiting cases kiv87a ; cha89a ; rea89a  represented by the nearest-neighbor ($`N_1`$) dimer models. Introducing next-nearest-neighbor ($`N_2`$) links along one of the diagonals makes the square lattice equivalent to the triangular one. It has already been shown that an arbitrarily small fraction of such diagonal dimers destroys the critical $`N_1`$ square-lattice state and leads to deconfinement fen02a ; ard03a , as in the isotropic triangular lattice moe01a . The model with links along both diagonal directions, i.e., the full 2D square lattice with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ bonds, is not solvable by Kastelyn’s theorem kas61a . Intuitively, one might suspect that the critical state is immediately destroyed in this case as well, but no calculations have been carried out thus far. One might also speculate that introducing longer bonds between the two sublattices does not lead to deconfinement, but there are no results available to back this up.

In this Letter, two extended dimer models on the square lattice are studied—the nonbipartite model with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ dimers as well as the bipartite lattice with $`N_1`$ and $`N_4`$ (fourth-nearest-neighbors, of which there are eight per site). An efficient directed-loop syl02a  Monte Carlo algorithm is used to sample the full space of hard-core dimer configurations, with fugacities $`w_i`$ assigned to the different dimer types. The results confirm that a low, most likely infinitesimal, concentration of $`N_2`$ dimers leads to deconfinement, and that the presence of $`N_4`$ dimers does not. However, while the dominant dimer correlations are $``$$`1/r^2`$ also when $`w_4>0`$, those correlations involve $`N_4`$ dimers; the $`N_1`$ correlations decay as a higher power of $`1/r`$. The structure in wave-vector space also becomes much more complicated. Furthermore, the critical confinement exponent governing the monomer correlation function is nonuniversal, changing continuously from $`1/2`$ in the pure $`N_1`$ case to $`1/9`$ (to high numerical accuracy) for the pure $`N_4`$ model.

Directed-loop algorithm.—This algorithm is an adaptation of a quantum Monte Carlo method syl02a , with the same name, in which updates of the system degrees of freedom are carried out along a self-intersecting path at the endpoints of which there are defects not allowed in the configuration space contributing to the partition function. When the two defects meet they annihilate, the loop closes, and a new allowed configuration is created. The conditions for detailed balance in the process of stochastically moving one of the defects are expressed as a coupled set of directed-loop equations syl02a . The applicability of this scheme to dimer models was first realized by Adams and Chandrasekharan ada03a  (an alternative cluster algorithm was constructed in Ref. kra03a ). Here an algorithm for the multi-length dimer problem will be presented; a simplifying representation of the dimer configurations will also be introduced. The algorithm will be described only for the case of the $`N_1`$-$`N_2`$ model, but the scheme applies directly to any range of the links.

The links connected to a given site are labeled as shown in Fig. 1(a). For a dimer configuration on a periodic $`L\times L`$ lattice, each site is numbered according to the type of dimer it is connected to. For any given site, the other member of the same dimer can then be easily found. The central object in the directed-loop algorithm is a vertex, which in this case consists of a site and all its surrounding sites to which it can be coupled by a dimer. The state of the vertex is the number ($`1`$-$`8`$) assigned to the central site. A step in the directed-loop algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). The vertex is entered through the dimer, and one of the seven other surrounding sites is chosen as the exit. The dimer is then flipped from the entrance to the exit, the central vertex site remaining connected to it. The exit site already has another dimer connected to it, and this site now becomes the entrance in the next step of the algorithm. In each step a defect is hence moved one link ahead, leaving behind a healed dimer state. The first entrance site is chosen at random and the corresponding defect remains stationary. It is annihilated when the moving defect reaches it, whence a new allowed dimer configuration has been generated. In the present case the defects are monomers, and the intermediate two-monomer configurations can thus be used to measure the correlations between two inserted test monomers.

The key to an efficient algorithm of this kind is that the probabilities for random selection of the seven possible exit sites can be chosen in such a way that detailed balance is satisfied without any further accept/reject criterion. Each step then moves one dimer, and a full loop can accomplish very significant changes to the dimer configuration. The directed-loop equations syl02a  give the conditions for detailed balance in terms of weights $`a_{jk}`$ for the processes in which a vertex in state $`j`$ is entered at site $`j`$ and exited at $`k`$ (transforming the vertex into state $`k`$). The actual probabilities $`P_{jk}=a_{jk}/w_j`$, which implies $`_ka_{jk}=w_j`$. Detailed balance is satisfied if $`a_{jk}=a_{kj}`$. In the $`N_1`$-$`N_2`$ model, the vertices can be classified as even ($`e`$) or odd ($`o`$) according to the numbering of Fig. 1(a); there are then four weights: $`a_{ee},a_{oo},a_{eo},a_{oe}`$. In principle, one can include “bounce” processes where $`j=k`$, but in the present case they can be excluded. Including only the seven no-bounce exits, the directed-loop equations reduce to

$`w_1`$ $`=`$ $`3a_{oo}+4a_{oe},`$ (1a)
$`w_2`$ $`=`$ $`3a_{ee}+4a_{eo},`$ (1b)
$`a_{eo}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{oe}.`$ (1c)
This system is underdetermined and has an infinite number of postive-definite solutions. Here the following solution will be used: For $`w_1w_2`$,

$`a_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{oe}=a_{eo}=w_2/7,`$ (2a)
$`a_{oo}`$ $`=`$ $`(w_14w_2/7)/3,`$ (2b)
while for $`w_2w_1`$,

$`a_{oo}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{oe}=a_{eo}=w_1/7,`$ (3a)
$`a_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`(w_24w_1/7)/3.`$ (3b)
There is no guarantee that this is the best solution, but the resulting algorithm performs very well and allowed for studies of lattices with $``$$`10^6`$ dimers. The fugacity of the $`N_1`$-bonds is set to unity (except in the case of the pure $`N_2`$\- and $`N_4`$-models). The program was tested using known results for the pure $`N_1`$ case fis63a  and by comparing with local Metropolis simulations for small lattices.

Results.—Dimer-dimer correlations in the full close-packed system and monomer-monomer correlations in the system with two test monomers will be discussed. The monomer correlations $`M(𝐫)`$ were obtained by accumulating the distances between the stationary and the moving monomer in the directed-loop update. As has become customary kra03a , the normalization $`M(r=1)=1`$. Several types of dimer-dimer correlations can be defined. Here $`D_\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐫)`$ will be defined in the following way: If site $`i`$ is connected to a dimer in the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a variable $`s(i)=1`$, otherwise $`s(i)=0`$. The correlation function is then $`D_\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐫_{ij})=s(i)s(j)`$. Results will be presented for cases where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains a single dimer or half of the dimers of one type. For the $`N_1`$-$`N_2`$ model, the correlation functions $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$, $`D_A`$, and $`D_B`$ are thus defined corresponding to the sets $`\{1\}`$, $`\{2\}`$, $`A=\{1,3\}`$, and $`B=\{2,4\}`$. Analogous definitions are used for correlations $`D_1`$, $`D_A`$ of $`N_1`$ dimers and $`D_4`$, $`D_D`$ of $`N_4`$ dimers in the $`N_1`$-$`N_4`$ model.

In Fig. 2(a), dimer correlations $`D_A`$ for the nonbipartite $`N_1`$-$`N_2`$ model with $`w_2=\mathrm{e}^4`$ (corresponding to a concentration $`p_20.3\%`$ of $`N_2`$ dimers) are compared with those of the pure $`N_1`$ model. There is a clear deviation from the $`r^2`$ decay, showing that the $`N_1`$-$`N_2`$ model is not critical at this very low concentration of $`N_2`$ dimers. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the test monomer correlation approaches a nonzero constant, i.e., the system is deconfined in contrast to the critically confined $`N_1`$ model. The very significant changes seen already at a very low concentration of $`N_2`$ dimers suggest that an arbitrarily small concentration indeed causes deconfinement.

Turning now to the bipartite $`N_1`$-$`N_4`$ model, its dimer correlations $`D_A(r)`$ ($`N_1`$ dimers) and $`D_D(r)`$ ($`N_4`$ dimers) are compared with $`D_A(r)`$ of the pure $`N_1`$ model in Fig. 3. Surprisingly, the two correlation functions decay with different power-laws: $`D_D(r)`$ apparently always follows the same form $`r^2`$ as $`D_A(r)`$ of the pure $`N_1`$ model, whereas $`D_A(r)`$ decays faster once $`w_4>0`$. In Fig. 4 the Fourier transforms of the correlation functions involving a single type of dimer are shown for the pure $`N_1`$ and $`N_4`$ models. For the $`N_1`$ model, the dominant correlations are at $`𝐪=(\pi ,0)`$. A logarithmic divergence of the peak height with the system size can easily be observed (not shown here). The $`N_4`$ model exhibits more complicated correlations, with very broad peaks that show almost no size dependence up to the largest size ($`L=2048`$) that was studied. Nevertheless, a logarithmic divergence should eventually occur here as well, considering the $`r^2`$ real-space correlations. The details of the nature of these critical correlations remain to be elucidated. In the $`N_1`$-$`N_4`$ model, the wave-vector structures shown in Fig. 4 change with $`w_4`$. Most notably, the $`D_1`$ peak at $`(\pi ,0)`$ is suppressed as the fraction of $`N_4`$ dimers increases, and a nondivergent structure at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ emerges.

An unchanged dominant critical dimer exponent might suggest that the monomer correlations should also remain of the pure $`N_1`$ form $`r^{1/2}`$. This is not the case, however. Results for $`M(r)`$ at $`r=L/21`$ are shown multiplied by $`L^\alpha `$ in Fig. 5(a). Here $`\alpha `$ is adjusted to give a flat $`L`$ dependence, and hence the critical form $`M(r)r^\alpha `$ is extracted. The known $`\alpha =1/2`$ is used for the pure $`N_1`$ model. For the pure $`N_4`$ model the exponent is consistent with $`\alpha =1/9`$ (to an accuracy of $`1\%`$). To show that the exponent changes from $`1/2`$ already at a low concentration of $`N_4`$ bonds, results for $`w_4=\mathrm{e}^5`$ ($`p_40.9\%`$) are scaled with $`\alpha =1/2`$ in Fig. 5(b). This scaling clearly fails, and is instead consistent with $`\alpha 0.485`$.

Conclusions.—The results obtained here demonstrate that the 2D square-lattice dimer model becomes deconfined when a very low concentration (likely infinitesimal) of non-bipartite (next-nearest-neighbor) dimers are introduced. The system remains critically confined in the presence of longer bipartite (fourth-nearest-neighbor) dimers, but the corresponding two-monomer exponent is nonuniversal. In contrast, the dimer-dimer correlation exponent appears to remain unchanged, although the nature of the dominant correlations changes.

These findings are relevant to quantum dimer models as well. Various resonance terms can be introduced, and corresponding RK points can then be demonstrated in the same way as has been done for other models rok88a ; ard03a ; hen03a . Hence, it is clear that an RVB state can be realized on the square lattice once next-nearest-neighbor dimers are allowed. On the other hand, the emergence of new structure in the dominant dimer-dimer correlations on the bipartite graph including fourth-nearest-neighbor links indicates that phase transitions between different long-range ordered valence-bond-solid states can be realized. Such quantum order-order transitions have recently been discussed by Vishwanath, Balents, and Senthil vis03a . Extended quantum dimer models on the square lattice should thus have very rich phase diagrams and may also be relevant in the context of the cuprates.

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland, Project No. 26175. The calculations were carried out on the Condor system at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.


text:
# Measurement of the Generalized Polarizabilities of the Proton in Virtual Compton Scattering at 𝑄²=0.92 and 1.76 GeV2 : II. Dispersion Relation Analysis

The Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration

## Abstract

Virtual Compton Scattering is studied at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in the energy domain below pion threshold and in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance region. The data analysis is based on the Dispersion Relation (DR) approach. The electric and magnetic Generalized Polarizabilities (GPs) of the proton and the structure functions $`P_{LL}P_{TT}/ϵ`$ and $`P_{LT}`$ are determined at four-momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$= 0.92 and 1.76 GeV2. The DR analysis is consistent with the low-energy expansion analysis. The world data set indicates that neither the electric nor magnetic GP follows a simple dipole form.

Virtual Compton Scattering (VCS) $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ has developed in the last decade as a powerful tool to study the nucleon structure. At low CM-frame energy $`W`$, the VCS amplitude is parametrized as a function of the Generalized Polarizabilities (GPs) of the proton Guichon et al. (1995), which depend on the four-momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$ of the virtual photon. These new observables have become the subject of experimental investigation via the study of photon electroproduction $`epep\gamma `$. In a companion Letter (referred to as I) we present an extraction of the structure functions $`P_{LL}P_{TT}/ϵ`$ and $`P_{LT}`$ from data below $`N\pi `$ threshold Jaminion et al. , following the low-energy expansion (LEX) formalism Guichon et al. (1995).

B. Pasquini et al. recently developed a formalism for VCS based on Dispersion Relations (DRs) Pasquini et al. (2001). In this Letter we report a determination of the electric and magnetic GPs of the proton ($`\alpha _E(Q^2)`$ and $`\beta _M(Q^2)`$, respectively) from an analysis based on the DR model. The structure functions $`P_{LL}P_{TT}/ϵ`$ and $`P_{LT}`$ are also extracted. The method uses the photon electroproduction cross section measured in the E93-050 experiment Bertin et al. (1993) at Jefferson Lab (JLab).

In the DR formalism, the VCS amplitude is predicted from the MAID parametrization Drechsel et al. (1999) of pion electroproduction, $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\sigma `$-meson $`t`$-channel exchange, plus two other $`Q^2`$-dependent functions (subtraction constants). The latter are unconstrained phenomenological contributions to $`\alpha _E(Q^2)`$ and $`\beta _M(Q^2)`$; therefore these GPs are not fixed by the DR model. They are written as:

$`\alpha _E(Q^2)=\alpha _E^{\pi N}(Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{[\alpha _E^{exp}\alpha _E^{\pi N}]_{Q^2=0}}{(1+Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^2)^2}}`$ (1)
(same relation for $`\beta _M`$ with parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$) where $`\alpha _E^{\pi N}`$ ($`\beta _M^{\pi N}`$) is the $`\pi N`$ dispersive contribution evaluated using the MAID analysis, and $`\alpha _E^{exp}`$ ($`\beta _M^{exp}`$) is the experimental value at $`Q^2=0`$. The mass coefficients $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$ are free parameters to be fitted experimentally. We note that the choice of a dipole form in Eq. 1 is not compulsory. A more fundamental property of the DR model is that, up to the $`N\pi \pi `$ threshold, it provides a rigorous treatment of the higher order terms in the VCS amplitude, beyond the lowest order GPs given by the LEX Guichon et al. (1995). This feature allows the inclusion of data in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance region in an extraction of GPs based on the DR approach.

The JLab experiment uses the 4 GeV Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator and the Hall A instrumentation Alcorn et al. . More details can be found elsewhere Laveissière et al. (2003); Degrande (2001); Jaminion (2001); Jutier (2001); Laveissière (2001); Todor (2000). The present study involves all the $`(epep\gamma )`$ events with $`W<1.28`$ GeV. The events are divided into three independent subsets listed in Table 1. For data sets I-a and II, by far most of the events lie below pion threshold; actually these two sets have also been used in the LEX analysis Jaminion et al.  considering only events such that $`W<(M_p+M_\pi )`$. Data set I-b covers mainly the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance region in $`W`$.

The three data sets of Table 1 are the subject of three distinct DR analyses. The basic ingredients for the cross-section determination are common to all our analyses of this experiment Laveissière et al. (2003); Degrande (2001); Jaminion (2001); Jutier (2001); Laveissière (2001); Todor (2000). They include a dedicated Monte-Carlo simulation Van Hoorebeke et al.  to obtain the acceptance, proper cuts to eliminate background, the application of radiative corrections Vanderhaeghen et al. (2000), the calibration of experimental offsets and the absolute normalization of the experiment. It is important to have a realistic shape for the sampling cross section in the Monte-Carlo in order to calculate an accurate solid angle. For this purpose, simulated events are sampled in the DR model cross section ($`d^5\sigma ^{DR}`$) which reproduces the enhancement of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. $`d^5\sigma ^{DR}`$ depends on two free parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$ (cf. Eq. 1) which are iteratively fitted by a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization at the cross section level. When $`W`$ increases, the acceptance is reduced to backward polar angles $`\theta _{\gamma ^{}\gamma CM}`$ (angle between the virtual and the final photons in the $`(\gamma p)`$ CM frame). Cross-section data obtained in this angular region are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Kinematical conditions are defined on the plots, $`k_{lab}`$ being the incoming beam energy (Fig. 1), $`q`$ the virtual photon CM momentum and $`ϵ`$ the virtual photon polarization (Fig. 2). Figure 1 clearly shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance excitation and the various curves indicate the sensitivity of the DR model to its free parameters. In contrast with Fig. 1, Fig. 2 shows how the Bethe-Heitler+Born calculation, or the addition of a first-order GP effect as in the LEX approach Jaminion et al. , fails to reproduce the measured cross section above pion threshold.

The results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$ are presented in Table 2. Systematic errors are calculated from the same four uncertainties as in the LEX analysis Jaminion et al. . The resulting error bars differ from one data set to another; this comes from the various data sets having a different phase space coverage, and a different sensitivity to both the physics and the sources of systematic errors. The reasonably good $`\chi ^2`$ of the fits (1.3 to 1.5) indicates that the DR model works well in our kinematics and allows a reliable extraction of GPs, both below and above pion threshold. The compatibility between the three fitted values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ within errors (same for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$) suggests that the dipole form of Eq. 1 is rather realistic, at least in the range $`Q^2`$ $``$ 1-2 GeV2. We also note the close agreement between the obtained values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$.

In the DR model these results directly translate into values for the electric and magnetic GPs, using Eq. 1. Table 2 gives the result of this evaluation of $`\alpha _E(Q^2)`$ and $`\beta _M(Q^2)`$ at $`Q^2`$= 0.92 GeV2 (data sets I-a and I-b) and $`Q^2`$= 1.76 GeV2 (data set II). These points are shown in Fig. 3 together with the point at $`Q^2`$= 0 Olmos de Leon et al. (2001) and the points derived from the LEX analyses Roche et al. (2000); Jaminion et al. . It must be noted that the latter do not directly yield the GPs, but the structure functions $`P_{LL}P_{TT}/ϵ`$ and $`P_{LT}`$, which are combinations of GPs. Therefore to obtain the “LEX points” of Fig. 3 we have extracted $`\alpha _E(Q^2)`$ and $`\beta _M(Q^2)`$ from the measured structure functions Roche et al. (2000); Jaminion et al.  according to the formulas Pasquini et al. (2001):

$`P_{LL}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}P_{TT}={\displaystyle \frac{4M_p}{\alpha _{_{\mathrm{QED}}}}}G_E^p\alpha _E(Q^2)+\text{ [spin-flip GPs]}`$ (2)
$`P_{LT}={\displaystyle \frac{2M_p}{\alpha _{_{\mathrm{QED}}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{Q^2}}}G_E^p\beta _M(Q^2)+\text{ [spin-flip GPs]}`$ (3)
where $`\alpha _{_{\mathrm{QED}}}`$ is the fine-structure constant and $`G_E^p`$ is the proton electric form factor. In this extraction the spin-flip GP terms are predicted by the DR model (so the result is model-dependent) and the parametrization of $`G_E^p`$ is taken from Ref. Brash et al. (2002). The solid curve on Fig. 3 is the full DR calculation, split into its dispersive $`\pi N`$ contribution (dashed curve) and the remaining asymptotic contribution (dash-dotted curve, dipole term of Eq. 1) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$=0.70 GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$=0.63 GeV, as fitted on the JLab data set I-b. The $`\pi N`$ intermediate states contribute very little to the electric polarizability at finite $`Q^2`$ (Fig. 3-a) and they create a small dia-electric effect ($`\alpha _E^{\pi N}<0`$). The $`\pi N`$ contribution to the magnetic polarizability in Fig. 3-b is strongly paramagnetic, predominantly arising from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance. In the DR formalism, this is cancelled by a strong diamagnetic term originating from $`\sigma `$-meson $`t`$-channel exchange, and parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$. The dotted curve is the full DR calculation evaluated for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$=1.79 GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$=0.51 GeV, which reproduces the MAMI LEX data. The fact that there is no unique value of ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$) agreeing with all data points suggests that the dipole form of Eq. 1, although working well in the range 1-2 GeV2 as mentioned above, is not valid over the entire range of $`Q^2`$. This further suggests that the global behavior of the GP $`\alpha _E(Q^2)`$ does not follow a simple dipole form.

Finally, the results of our DR analyses can be expressed in terms of VCS structure functions. Using the GP values of Table 2 and the DR model prediction for $`P_{TT}`$, the structure functions $`P_{LL}P_{TT}/ϵ`$ and $`P_{LT}`$ are determined from Eqs. 2 and 3. Their values are reported in Table 3. To facilitate the comparison with the LEX results, the present determination is made at similar kinematics in $`Q^2`$ and $`ϵ`$ (see Table 3). The agreement with the values obtained in the LEX analysis Jaminion et al.  is very satisfactory. The results from the DR analysis of the (I-b) data set, obtained in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region, yields smaller error bars due to an enhanced sensitivity to the GPs.

In summary we have analyzed the process $`epep\gamma `$ at JLab using a Dispersion Relation approach. The VCS structure functions obtained in this approach are in good agreement with the ones extracted using the low-energy expansion. We performed the first determination of GPs by analyzing data in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance region. This opens up new possibilities to extract GPs from experiments, especially at higher $`Q^2`$.

We thank the JLab accelerator staff and the Hall A technical staff for their dedication. This work was supported by DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. We acknowledge additional grants from the US DOE and NSF, the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, the Conseil Régional d’Auvergne, the FWO-Flanders (Belgium) and the BOF-Gent University. We thank for the hospitality of ECT\* (Trento) during VCS workshops where this work was discussed.


text:
# REFERENCES

Goldstone-Mode Relaxation in a Quantized Hall Ferromagnet

in the Presence of Smooth Random Potential

S. Dickmann

Institute for Solid State Physics of RAS, Chernogolovka, 142432 Moscow District, Russia

##

We discuss the spin relaxation of a strongly correlated two-dimensional (2D) electron gas (2DEG) in the quantized Hall regime when the filling factor is close to an odd-integer. As the initial state we consider a coherent deviation of the spin system from the $`𝐁`$ direction and investigate a break-down of this Goldstone-mode state due to the spin-orbit (SO) coupling and smooth disorder. The spin relaxation (SR) process is considered in terms of annihilation transitions in the system of spin excitons (magnons).

PACS numbers: 73.43.Lp, 75.30.Ds, 71.70.Ej

Great bulk of recent SR measurements and theoretical studies deal with 2D electrons confined in quantum wells or dots.  However, during the last two decades only a few of works have been devoted to the SR in the quantized Hall regime proper. Specifically, we imply conditions under which a 2DEG is in a strong perpendicular magnetic field ($`B10`$T) and in the absence of holes and magnetic impurities. We exclude from the consideration the effects of electrons in the edge states (cf. Ref. ), and restrict our study to an odd-integer filling.

In the studied problem the relevant SR time is actually not a spin dephasing time but a time of Zeeman energy relaxation conditioned by a spin-flip process. Indeed, any spin-flip means actually a reduction of the Zeeman energy $`|g\mu _BB\mathrm{\Delta }S_z|`$ ($`\stackrel{}{B}\widehat{z}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z=S_zS_0`$ is the $`S_z`$ component deviation from the equilibrium value $`S_0`$, $`g0.44`$). The mechanism, which makes the relaxation irreversible, has thereby to provide the energy dissipation. Another necessary condition is a spin-flip mechanism non-conserving $`S_z`$.

In the present work the SO coupling is considered as the cause mixing spin states and the disorder \[to be more precise, the smooth random potential (SRP)\] as a dissipation. A crystal lattice is still implicitly assumed to be present as a “cooler” for 2DEG excitations. We will suppose that all electron-phonon relaxation processes which do not change the 2DEG spin state occur much faster than the SR. \[Thermodynamic relaxation times are estimated to be $`<1`$ns, i.e. well shorter than the SR time (see the corresponding estimate given at the end of the paper).\]

We thus study the case where the 2DEG is a quantum Hall “ferromagnet” (QHF); i.e. the filling factor is $`\nu =𝒩/N_\varphi 2\kappa +1`$, where $`𝒩`$ and $`N_\varphi =L^2/2\pi l_B^2`$ are the numbers of electrons and magnetic flux quanta ($`L^2`$ is the 2DEG area, $`l_B`$ is the magnetic length). In the high magnetic field limit, which really represents the solution to the first order in the ratio $`r_c=(e^2/\epsilon l_B)/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ considered to be small ($`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric constant), we get the ground state with zeroth, first, second,… and $`(\kappa 1)`$-th Landau levels fully occupied and with $`\kappa `$th level filled only by spin-up electrons aligned along $`𝐁`$. Only a bare handful of experimental results on the SR in such a QHF were obtained, first indirectly (the line-widths of the electron spin resonance (ESR) were measured in Ref. ) and then directly (in communication of Ref.  the photoluminescence dynamics of spin-up and spin-down states was studied). The measured times are $`510`$ns and exceed by 1-2 orders the SR times observed in quantum wells where the SR process is governed by the spin interaction with band holes.

As the spin-system perturbation in the QHF we study a coherent deviation, when the total $`S`$ number is not changed. Namely, the initial state is a Goldstone mode which represents a quantum precession of the vector $`𝐒`$ around the $`𝐁`$ direction: $`|i=\left(\widehat{S}_{}\right)^N|0`$. Here $`|0`$ stands for the QHF ground state and $`\widehat{S}_{}=_j\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{(j)}`$ is the lowering spin operator \[$`j`$ labels electrons; $`\widehat{\sigma }_\pm =(\widehat{\sigma }_x\pm i\widehat{\sigma }_y)/2`$, where $`\widehat{\sigma }_{x,y,z}`$ are the Pauli matrices\]. The number $`N`$ is assumed to be macroscopically large: $`0N<N_\varphi `$. The spin numbers of the $`|i`$ state are $`S=S_0=N_\varphi /2`$ and $`S_z=N_\varphi /2N`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z|_{t=0}=N`$). The total Hamiltonian has the form $`H_{\text{tot}}=_jH_1^{(j)}+H_{\text{int}}`$. Here $`H_{\text{int}}`$ is the many-electron (Coulomb interaction) part of the Hamiltonian which has the usual form (see, e.g., Ref. ), and $`H_1`$ is the single-electron part:

$$H_1=\mathrm{}^2\widehat{𝐪}^2/2m_e^{}ϵ_Z\widehat{\sigma }_z/2+H_{SO}+\phi (𝐫),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\widehat{𝐪}=i+e𝐀/c\mathrm{}`$ is a 2D operator, $`ϵ_Z=|g|\mu _BB`$ is the Zeeman energy of one spin-flipped electron, and $`\phi (𝐫)`$ is the SRP field \[$`𝐫`$ has components $`(x,y)`$\]. The SO Hamiltonian is specified for the (001) GaAs plane,

$$H_{SO}=\alpha \left(\widehat{𝐪}\times \widehat{𝝈}\right)_z+\beta \left(\widehat{q}_y\widehat{\sigma }_y\widehat{q}_x\widehat{\sigma }_x\right),$$
$`(2)`$
and presents a combination of the Rashba term  (with the coefficient $`\alpha `$) and the crystalline anisotropy term  (see also Refs. ). The parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are small: $`\alpha ,\beta l_B\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ (moreover, really $`\alpha <\beta 10^7\text{K}\text{cm}<l_Bϵ_Z`$). This enable us to account $`H_{SO}`$ perturbatively.

If the SRP is assumed to be Gaussian, then it is determined by the correlator $`K(𝐫)=\phi (𝐫)\phi (0)`$, where $`\phi (𝐫)`$ is the SRP field. We choose also $`\phi (𝐫)=0`$, i.e. the SRP energy is measured from the center of the Landau level. In terms of the correlation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and Landau level width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the correlator is $`K(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. In the realistic case $`\mathrm{\Delta }510`$K, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }3050`$nm. We will study the case

$$T<T^{}ϵ_Z<\mathrm{\Delta }e^2/\epsilon l_B<\mathrm{}\omega _c,\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }>l_B$$
$`(3)`$
($`T`$ is the temperature which is actually assumed to be zero in the calculations; the value $`T^{}`$ will be defined subsequently). All results which follow are obtained in the leading approximation corresponding to these inequalities.

The QHF is also remarkable for the following reason: when neglecting the last two terms in Eq. (1) the spin excitons (SEs) are actually exact (to the first order in $`r_c`$) lowest-energy eigen states. The most adequate description of the SE states is realized by the SE creation operators.  However, before writing them out we choose the bare single-electron representation. As previously  we use the spinor basis which diagonalizes the first three terms in the Hamiltonian (1) to the first order in $`u=\beta \sqrt{2}/ł_B\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ and $`v=\alpha \sqrt{2}/ł_B\mathrm{}\omega _c`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\kappa pa}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _{\kappa p}}{v\sqrt{\kappa +1}\psi _{\kappa +1p}+iu\sqrt{\kappa }\psi _{\kappa 1p}}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_{\kappa pb}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{v\sqrt{\kappa }\psi _{\kappa 1p}+iu\sqrt{\kappa +1}\psi _{\kappa +1p}}{\psi _{\kappa p}}\right),$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\psi _{\kappa p}=L^{1/2}e^{ipy}\varphi _\kappa (pl_B^2+x)`$ is the wave function of an electron in the Landau gauge ($`\varphi _\kappa `$ is the harmonic oscillatory function). We note that here and in the following we present only the perturbation expansion to within the framework of the leading order in $`u`$ and $`v`$. The exciton creation operator is

$$𝒬_{ab𝐪}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\varphi }}\underset{p}{}e^{iq_xpl_B^2}b_{p+\frac{q_y}{2}}^{}a_{p\frac{q_y}{2}},$$
$`(5)`$
where $`a_p`$ and $`b_p`$ are the Fermi annihilation operators corresponding to the states (4). The annihilation excitonic operator is $`𝒬_{ab𝐪}\left(𝒬_{ab𝐪}^{}\right)^{}𝒬_{ba𝐪}^{}`$ and we employ also the “shift” operators $`𝒜_𝐪^{}=N_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}𝒬_{aa𝐪}^{}`$ and $`_𝐪^{}=N_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}𝒬_{bb𝐪}^{}`$ ($`𝒜_𝐪=𝒜_𝐪^{}`$, $`_𝐪=_𝐪^{}`$.) In Eq. (5) the orbital index $`\kappa `$ is dropped since for our purposes the approximation of projection onto a single Landau level is quite sufficient. In the following we drop also the “spin-orbit” index $`ab`$ at the operator (5). Such single-level exciton operators constitute a Lie sub-algebra which is a part of an Excitonic Representation (ER) algebra (e.g., see Ref.  and references therein). In our case the relevant commutation rules are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}[𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}},𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}^+]=e^{i\theta _{12}}𝒜_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}e^{i\theta _{12}}_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}},\text{and}\hfill \\ e^{i\theta _{12}}[𝒜_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}},𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}]=e^{i\theta _{12}}[_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}},𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}]=N_\varphi ^1𝒬_{𝐪_1+𝐪_2},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\theta _{12}=l_B^2(𝐪_1\times 𝐪_2)_z/2`$. Besides evidently $`[𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}},𝒬_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}]=[𝒜_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}},_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}]=0`$. The ground state $`|0`$ is completely determined by the equations $`𝒜_𝐪|0=\delta _{𝐪,0}|0`$ and $`_𝐪|0=0`$. Single-exciton states are normalized: $`0|𝒬_{𝐪_1}𝒬_{𝐪_2}^{}|0=\delta _{𝐪_1,𝐪_2}`$.

In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0,H_{SO}0`$ and at $`r_c1`$ the state

$$|N;1;𝐪=𝒬_𝐪^{}\left(𝒬_0^{}\right)^N|0$$
$`(7)`$
is the eigen state of the system studied. It has the spin numbers $`S=N_\varphi /21`$ and $`S_z=N_\varphi /21N`$ \[see below the expressions (8) which should be used to calculate $`S`$ and $`S_z`$\]. The corresponding energy is $`(N+1)ϵ_Z+_q`$, where $`_q`$ is the exchange part of the SE energy. The small momentum approximation $`ql_B1`$ is quite sufficient for our problem, and therefore $`_q=(qł_B)^2/2M_{\text{x},\kappa }`$ (general expressions for the 2D magneto-excitons can be found in Ref. ). Here $`M_{\text{x},\kappa }`$ is the SE mass at $`\nu =2\kappa +1`$, namely: $`1/M_{\text{x},0}=(e^2/\epsilon l_B)\sqrt{\pi /8}`$, $`1/M_{\text{x},1}=7/4M_{\text{x},0}`$,…

Spin operators in terms of the ER are invariant with respect to $`H_{SO}`$:

$$\widehat{S}_z=N_\varphi \left(𝒜_0_0\right)/2,\widehat{S}_{}=N_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}𝒬_0^{},\widehat{𝐒}^2=N_\varphi 𝒬_0^{}𝒬_0+\widehat{S}_z^2+\widehat{S}_z,$$
$`(8)`$
At the same time in the basis (4) the operators $`\phi (𝐫)`$ and $`H_{\text{int}}`$ acquire corrections proportional to $`u`$ and $`v`$. Specifically, calculating $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\phi (𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }d^2𝐫`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_p(a_p\mathrm{\Psi }_{\kappa pa}+b_p\mathrm{\Psi }_{\kappa pb})`$, we get the terms responsible for a spin-flip process:

$$\widehat{\phi }=N_\varphi ^{1/2}l_B\underset{𝐪}{}\overline{\phi }(𝐪)\left(iuq_+vq_{}\right)𝒬_𝐪+\text{H.c.}(\text{at}ql_B1).$$
$`(9)`$
Here $`\overline{\phi }(𝐪)`$ is the Fourier component \[i.e. $`\phi =_𝐪\overline{\phi }(𝐪)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}`$\], and $`q_\pm =i(q_x\pm iq_y)/\sqrt{2}`$.

We stress one essential feature of the states (7). In spite of the existence of a formal operator equivalence $`𝒬_0^{}\underset{q0}{lim}𝒬_𝐪^{}`$ we find that $`|N;1;0`$ and $`\underset{q0}{lim}|N;1;𝐪`$ present different states. Indeed, in these states the system has different total spin numbers $`S=N_\varphi /2`$ and $`S=N_\varphi /21`$ respectively. \[$`S_z=N_\varphi /21N`$ is the same for both.\] So, the excitation of a “zero” exciton (with zero 2D momentum) corresponds to the transition $`S_zS_z1`$ without any change of the total $`S`$ number, but each “nonzero” SE changes the spin numbers by 1: $`SS1`$, $`S_zS_z1`$. Let us introduce the notation $`|N=\left(𝒬_0^{}\right)^N|0`$. The initial state $`|i`$ in the ER is actually a “Goldstone condensate” (GC) containing $`N`$ zero excitons: $`|i=|N`$.

Our goal is to study the process of the GC break-down. The state $`|N`$ is certainly degenerate and we will solve the problem in terms of the quantum-system transitions within a continuous spectrum. The transition probability is determined by the Fermi Golden Rule: $`w_{fi}=(2\pi /\mathrm{})|_{fi}|^2\delta (E_fE_i)`$. In our case evidently the final state $`|f`$ is obviously the state where a part of the Zeeman energy has been converted into an exchange energy. Since it is exactly the single-electron terms that constitute the perturbation responsible for the $`_{fi}`$ matrix element, we could find that such a transition is the $`2X_0X_𝐪^{}`$ process in the lowmost order of the perturbative approach (we denote the zero exciton by $`X_0`$ and the nonzero one by $`X_𝐪`$). In other words the final state for this transition is $`|f=|N2;1;𝐪^{}`$. The value $`q^{}`$ is determined by the energy conservation equation $`E_f=E_i`$ which reads $`2ϵ_Z=ϵ_Z+(q^{})`$, i.e. $`q^{}=\sqrt{2M_{\text{x},\kappa }ϵ_Z}/l_B`$.

We point out that the SO interaction (2) alone does not provide a quantum fluctuation from the GC to any state with a different electron density (in particular, to the state $`|N2;1;𝐪^{}`$). This feature may be verified by means of direct analysis of the SO influence on the 2DEG spectrum (c.f. Ref. ). Besides, this can be recognized from general considerations. Indeed, each of the components $`\widehat{q}_i`$ ($`i=x,y`$) commutes with any component of the operator $`\widehat{𝐏}=_j[\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐪}_j(e/c)𝐁\times 𝐫_j]`$. The latter commutes with the Hamiltonian $`_j\mathrm{}^2\widehat{𝐪}_j^2/2m_e^{}+H_{\text{int}}`$ and one can also check that $`[\widehat{𝐏},𝒬_𝐪^{}]=q𝒬_𝐪^{}`$ \[if $`𝒬_𝐪^{}`$ is defined by Eq. (5) to within the zero order in $`H_{SO}`$\]. The operator $`\widehat{𝐏}`$ hence plays the role of 2D momentum in the magnetic field. Its permutability with the total 2DEG Hamiltonian reflects the spatial homogeneity of the system under consideration in the “clean limit”. Since $`[H_{SO},\widehat{𝐏}]0`$, the SO coupling by itself cannot destroy the homogeneity in any order of the perturbation approach.

The transition is thereby determined by the operator (9). The corresponding matrix element $`_{if}=𝐪^{};1;N2\widehat{\phi }N[R(N)R(N2;1;𝐪^{})]^{1/2}`$ was actually calculated in Ref. . (The SRP plays the same role as the phonon field studied there.) Here and in the following the notation $`R(\mathrm{})`$ stands for the norm of the state $`|\mathrm{}`$. The result is $`\left|_{if}\right|^2=\frac{N(N1)}{2N_\varphi }(u^2+v^2)\left|q^{}l_B\overline{\phi }(𝐪^{})\right|^2,`$ and we obtain the rate of the $`if`$ transition $`(2\pi /\mathrm{})_𝐪\left|_{if}\right|^2\delta (q^2l_B^2/2M_{\text{x},\kappa }ϵ_Z)=N(N1)/\tau N_\varphi (N1),`$ where

$$1/\tau =8\pi ^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)M_{\text{x},\kappa }^2ϵ_Z\overline{K}(q^{})/\mathrm{}^3\omega _c^2l_B^4.$$
$`(10)`$
Here $`\overline{K}`$ stands for the Fourier component of the correlator: $`\overline{K}(q)=L^2\left|\overline{\phi }(q)\right|^2/4\pi ^2`$.

The quantum transition to the state $`|f=|N2;1,𝐪^{}`$ is certainly a first step in the SR process. This state is thermodynamically unstable. In a time which is much shorter than $`\tau `$ it turns to a state $`|N2;1,𝐪_0`$, where $`q_0`$ takes the lowest possible nonzero value. In fact, relevant values of $`q_0`$ are determined by the SRP field. The SE interaction with the SRP incorporates the energy $`U_{\text{x-SRP}}ql_B^2\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (the “nonzero” SE possesses the dipole momentum $`el_B^2[𝐪\times \widehat{z}]`$, see Ref. ). The latter determines the inhomogeneous uncertainty of the SE momentum $`\delta qM_{\text{x},\kappa }\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (this follows from the equation $`\delta q_𝐪/q=U_{\text{x-SRP}}`$). Therefore “quasi-zero” wave numbers in the range defined by inequalities

$$0<q_0<M_{\text{x},\kappa }\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(11)`$
present the lowest physical limit for momenta of the nonzero SEs. Under the conditions (3) we find that $`q_0q^{}`$, and the SE exchange energy $`(q_0l_B)^2/2M_{\text{x},\kappa }`$ is smaller than the value $`T^{}=M_{\text{x},\kappa }(\mathrm{\Delta }l_B/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$. This in turn is negligible in comparison with $`ϵ_Z`$.

To solve the problem in a complete form we have obviously to study the general state of the type:

$$|N;M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},M_K=\left(𝒬_{𝐪_{01}}^{}\right)^{M_1}\left(𝒬_{𝐪_{02}}^{}\right)^{M_2}\mathrm{}\left(𝒬_{𝐪_{0K}}^{}\right)^{M_K}|N.$$
$`(12)`$
All the wave-vectors $`q_{0k}`$ are assumed to satisfy the condition (11). We will also use for this state a shorthand notation $`|N;M`$, where $`M=_k^KM_k`$ is the total number of the nonzero SEs. If $`M1`$, we assume that $`1KN_\varphi `$. In the framework of our approach the state (12) is an approximate eigen state of a QHF having energy $`(N+M)ϵ_Z`$ and spin numbers $`S_z=N_\varphi /2NM`$ and $`S=N_\varphi /2M`$. This value of $`S_z`$ is the exact one. It can be calculated employing the representation of Eqs. (8) and the commutation rules (6). The same algebra allows us to find that $`\widehat{𝐒}|N;M=S(S+1)\left(|N;M+|\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }\right)`$, where the norm of the state $`|\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ is small compared with the norm of $`|N;M`$, namely: $`R(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon })/R(N;M)=O(m^3n/K)`$. The notations $`n=N/N_\varphi `$ and $`m=M/N_\varphi `$ are used for “reduced” quantum numbers. In the special case when $`N=0`$, the state $`|0,M`$ can be treated as a “thermodynamic condensate” (TDC) which arises if $`M`$ is larger than the critical number of nonzero SEs. The latter is estimated at $`N_\varphi l_B^2\frac{d^2𝐪}{2\pi }/\{\mathrm{exp}[(_q+|U_{\text{x-SRP}}|)/T]1\}`$ (e.g., c.f. Ref. ), and in our case (3) it is at least smaller than $`N_\varphi M_{\text{x},\kappa }T`$. At the same time, $`M`$ is determined by the spin $`S`$ of the system, therefore at a given $`M=N_\varphi /2S>N_\varphi M_{\text{x},\kappa }T`$ we find that below some threshold temperature the nonzero SEs necessarily form a TDC. For macroscopically large $`N`$ and $`M`$ the state (12) hence features a coexistence of GC and TDC. It should also be noted that specific values $`𝐪_{0k}`$ as well as specific distribution given by $`M_k`$ numbers have no physical meaning. The final results should not depend on them but only on $`M`$ and $`N`$.

We can now write the kinetic equations corresponding to the relevant spin transitions. The rate $`dN/dt`$ is determined by the $`2X_0X_𝐪^{}(X_{𝐪_0})`$ process (which presents a GC depletion with a simultaneous “flow” to TDC) and by the $`X_0+X_{𝐪_0}X_𝐪^{}(X_{𝐪_0^{}})`$ one. The rate $`dM/dt`$ is also formed by the $`2X_0X_𝐪^{}(X_{𝐪_0})`$ transition (which provides a TDC evolution) and by the $`X_{𝐪_0}+X_{𝐪_0^{}}X_𝐪^{}(X_{𝐪_0^{\prime \prime }})`$ one (determining a TDC depletion). \[Values of $`q_0,q_0^{}`$ and $`q_0^{\prime \prime }`$ belong to the region (11).\] The corresponding equations are derived again with help of the Fermi Golden Rule and Eqs. (6) (with vanishing $`\theta _{12}`$ in the latter):

$$dn/dt=(2\mu _{nn}+\mu _{nm})/\tau ,\text{and}dm/dt=(\mu _{nn}\mu _{mm})/\tau ,$$
$`(13)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mu _{nn}\hfill & =& \frac{|M;N2|𝒬_𝐪^{}𝒬_𝐪^{}|N;M|^2}{R(N;M)R(N2;M+1;𝐪^{})}=\frac{N^4R(N2;M+1;𝐪^{})}{N_\varphi ^2R(N;M)}\left[1+O\left(\frac{m}{nN_\varphi }\right)\right],\hfill \\ \mu _{nm}\hfill & =& \underset{k}{}\frac{|M_1,\mathrm{}M_k1,\mathrm{}M_K;N1|𝒬_{𝐪^{}+𝐪_{0k}}𝒬_𝐪^{}|N;M|^2}{R(N;M)R(N1;M;𝐪^{})}\hfill \\ & & =\frac{4M^2N^2R(N1;M;𝐪^{})}{N_\varphi ^2R(N;M)}\left[1+O\left(K/N_\varphi \right)\right],\hfill \\ \mu _{mm}\hfill & =& \underset{k<i}{}\frac{|M_1,\mathrm{}M_k1,\mathrm{}M_i1,\mathrm{}M_K;N|𝒬_{𝐪^{}+𝐪_{0k}+𝐪_{0i}}𝒬_𝐪^{}|N;M|^2}{R(N;M)R(N;M1;𝐪^{})}\hfill \\ & & =\frac{2M^4R(N;M1;𝐪^{})}{N_\varphi ^2R(N;M)}\left[1+O\left(K/N_\varphi \right)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

\[$`R(N;M+1;𝐪^{})`$ is the norm of the $`𝒬_𝐪^{}^{}|N;M`$ state\]. In this way we find that the norms appearing in these equations satisfy the conditions $`R(N;M+1;𝐪^{})/R(N;M)=r`$, $`R(N+1;M)/R(N;M)=Nr_n`$ and $`R(N;M_1,\mathrm{}M_k+1,\mathrm{}M_K)/R(N;M)=M_kr_m`$, so that

$$\mu _{nn}=n^2r/r_n^2,\mu _{nm}=4mnr/r_nr_m,\mu _{mm}=2m^2r/r_m^2,$$
$`(14)`$
where the factors $`r,r_n,r_m`$ are determined by the equations

$$\begin{array}{c}1=(1n2m)/r_n+O(m^3/nK),1=(12n2m)/r_m+n^2/r_n^2+O(m^2),\hfill \\ 1=(12n2m)/r+4mn/r_nr_m+n^2/r_n^2+2m^2/r_m^2+O(1/N_\varphi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
(Positivity of $`r_n1n2m`$ provides the physically obvious requirement $`|S_z|<S`$.) The last terms in Eqs. (15) would just depend on the specific set of the $`M_k`$ numbers. We can therefore calculate $`r_m`$ and obtain the final result only in the $`m1`$ case. Meanwhile, the values of $`m(t)`$ are determined by the initial value $`n(0)`$. According to Eqs. (13)-(15) $`max(m)n(t^{})[1n(t^{})]/\sqrt{2}`$ ($`t^{}`$ is the time at which $`m`$ peaks), i.e. at least $`m^2<1/32`$. \[In particular, at $`n(0)=0.5`$ $`max(m)0.1`$.\] The problem (13)-(15) is thus solved to the leading order in $`m`$. We should put $`r=r_n=r_m=1`$ in $`\mu _{mn}`$ and $`\mu _{mm}`$, but $`r_n=1n`$ and $`r=(1n)^2`$ in $`\mu _{nn}`$. This yields the analytical result $`n(t)=1/[2n(0)(t/\tau )^2+2(t/\tau )+1/n(0)]`$ and $`m=n(t)n(0)t/\tau `$.

The dependences are shown in Fig. 1. The vector $`𝐒(t)`$ at moments $`t=0,\tau ,2\tau ,\mathrm{}`$ is depicted in the inset. The time (10) hence governs the breakdown of the GC. (Under the realistic conditions above, $`\tau 10^810^7`$s.) However the SR occurs certainly non-exponentially and the actual time is increased by a factor of $`N_\varphi /\mathrm{\Delta }S_z(0)`$.

Experimentally, the GC could probably be created by microwave pumping at the electron frequency $`ϵ_Z/\mathrm{}`$. This should cause to “rotate” the QHF spin without changing of the $`𝐒`$ modulus. As to observing of the SR variation with time, one can think that the optical technique  is relevant in the case.

I acknowledge support by the MINERVA Foundation and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. I thank also the Max Planck Institute for Physics of Complex Systems (Dresden) and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Rehovot) for hospitality.


text:
# Non-existence of gravitational waves The stages of the theoretical discovery (1917-2003)

## Abstract.

A short history of the theoretical discovery that the gravitational waves of general relativity do not have a physical reality.

Introduction

I shall recall here the *main* stages of an important theoretical discovery: the general theory of relativity (GR) does not allow the *physical* existence of gravitational waves. The solutions of the Einstein field equations which have a wave character describe only formal undulations, quite destitute of a physical reality.

1917

In this year Tullio Levi-Civita published a very fundamental memoir “On the analytic expression that must be given to the gravitational tensor in Einstein’s theory” . The conclusion of the paper is straightforward: the Einstein field equations tell us that when the mass tensor $`T_{jk}`$ vanishes the same occurrence must happen to the gravitational tensor $`\left(1/\kappa \right)\left(R_{jk}\frac{1}{2}g_{jk}R\right)`$. “This fact entails total lack of stresses, of energy flow, and also of a simple localisation of energy”.

This result has an unquestionable *logical* soundness, as it was finally admitted by Einstein himself. Of course, it implies the rejection of the various pseudo (false) energy tensors of the gravitational field proposed by Einstein and by other authors: a *false* tensor cannot have a *true* physical meaning!

Einstein objected that in such a way the total energy-momentum of a closed system would always be equal to zero – and this fact would not imply the further existence of the system under whatever form. However, from the standpoint of the *coherence* of the formalism, Levi-Civita – and Lorentz –  were undoubtedly right. It is indeed sufficient to remember that in the action principle of *any* physical theory referred to *general* co-ordinates, the coefficients of the variations $`\delta h^{jk}`$ of the metric tensor $`h^{jk}`$ are the components, say $`E_{jk}`$, of the energy tensor of the considered field. But in GR this property is just possessed, *in vacuo*, by the tensor $`R_{jk}\frac{1}{2}g_{jk}R`$.

The gravitational waves, as objects without a *true* energy-momentum, are only ghost undulations.

1930

In this year Tullio Levi-Civita published an original study on the characteristic hypersurfaces of Einstein field equations .

He discovered that the functions $`z(x)`$, $`\left[x(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)\right]`$, of the characteristic hypersurfaces $`z(x)=0`$ of Einstein field equations are solutions of the Hamiltionian equation

(1)
$$H:=\frac{1}{2}g^{jk}(x)\frac{z(x)}{x^j}\frac{z(x)}{x^k}=0$$

According to Levi-Civita, the equation $`z(x)=0`$ gives the law of motion of an *electromagnetic* wave front – or of the wave front of *any* field, capable of transmitting signals, *different* from the gravitational field. This interpretation is quite obvious when $`g^{jk}(x)`$ has a *non*-undulatory form. If $`g^{jk}(x)`$ has a wavy form, there is no reason to repudiate the above interpretation because *the undulatory character of* $`g^{jk}(x)`$ *depends on the chosen system of co-ordinates* .

Remark that Levi-Civita’s conception is *the* reasonable extension of that valid for the null lines of *special* relativity. Thus, also GR contains the basic law of *geometric optics**and independently of Maxwell equations*.

1953

By means of perturbative computations, Scheidegger  could affirm that “…having explicitly shown that all the radiation terms \[of the gravitational field\] whatsoever can be destroyed by coordinate transformations, one observes that the terms that have been found by straightforward calculations must be entirely due to the particular choice of the coordinate system. Thus there is no radiation damping of gravitational motion”. But no damping means no emission of gravitational waves.

1960

In 1960 it was published an interesting book by Infeld and Plebanski . At pages 200 and 201 we read: “…it is hardly possible to connect any physical meaning with the flux of energy and momentum tensor defined with the help of the pseudo-energy-momentum tensor. Indeed, the \[gravitational\] radiation can be annihilated by a proper choice of the coordinate system. On the other hand, if we use a coordinate system in which the flux of energy may exist, then it can be made whatsoever we like by the addition of proper harmonic functions …– In the linear theory we were faced with the choice between the retarded and advanced potential. Here in the theory of gravitation the choice is not so simple. Using the approximation procedure, we are faced with the choice between single and double jumps. We can speak only about \[gravitational\] radiation in the case of single jumps. However, its existence or non-existence or its value will depend upon the choice of arbitrary harmonic functions.” We see that also Infeld and Plebanski were quite sceptical about the real existence of the gravitational waves.

1998-2003

In these years I have published several proofs of the non-existence of the GW’s; they are *exact*, non-perturbative proofs . I recall here only two demonstrations, which are particularly simple.

*i*) let us assume that at a given instant $`t`$ of its motion a given point mass $`M`$ begins to send forth a GW, and let us suppose that we know the *kinematical characteristics* of the motion between $`t`$ and $`t+|\text{d}t|`$. Then, we can reproduce *these* characteristics in a purely gravitational motion of $`M`$ in a suitable “external”, “rigid” gravitational field, within a time interval equal to $`|\text{d}t|`$, conveniently chosen. But in this case the mass $`M`$ moves along a *geodesic* – and therefore it cannot emit any gravitational radiation: indeed, the geodesic motions are “free” motions; they are the analogues of the rectilinear and uniform motions of an electric charge of the customary Maxwell-Lorentz theory.

Thus we see that *no**mechanism**exists for the generation of gravitational waves* – the above restriction to motions of mass *points* is *conceptually* inessential. All the solutions of the Einsteinian field equations having an undulatory character do *not* describe *physical* waves .

*ii*) As it is well known, in GR only the concepts and the results that are *independent* of the choice of the system of *general* co-ordinates have a *physical* meaning. Consider a solution of the Einstein field equations which has – in a given co-ordinate system – a wavy character. Through a *finite* sequence of co-ordinate transformations, endowed with convenient undulatory properties, the primary undulating character of our solution can be completely *destroyed*. Thus, this character is only a property of the original co-ordinate system, and therefore it has no physical meaning. (According to a metropolitan legend, Bondi *et al.* – cf., e.g., H. Bondi, F.A.E. Pirani and I. Robinson, *Proc.Roy.Soc.*, A251 (1959) 219 – would have proved the existence of a class of privileged frames insofar as the GW’s are concerned. Now, their “proof” is fully destitute of logical rigour, it is the mere expression of a desire. See at p.55 of my book quoted in ).

I remark further that the propagation velocity of any metric tensor depends on the reference system: with a suitable choice of general co-ordinates, this velocity can take any value between zero and infinite.

APPENDIX
*On the linear approximation of GR*

If we restrict ourselves to the *linear* approximation of GR – as the experimentalists generally do –, which has Minkowski spacetime as its substrate, the physical existence of the GW’s seems, at first sight, a theoretical possibility. But the energy-momentum of such GW’s has a tensor character only under Lorentz transformations, not under *general* transformations. Therefore, it is always possible to find – and we remain, of course, in the ambit of the linearized version of GR – a general system of co-ordinates for which the above energy-momentum is equal to *zero*.

In 1944 Weyl published a remarkable article entitled “How far can one get with a linear field theory of gravitation in flat space-time?” . He remarked, in particular, that Einstein’s theory of *weak* gravitational fields (i.e., the linear approximation of GR) resembles very closely Maxwell’s theory of the e.m. fields, and satisfies a principle of gauge invariance involving four arbitrary functions, but its gravitational field exerts no force on matter, i.e. it remains “a powerless shadow”. From the standpoint of the *exact* GR, this is as it should be, because “the gravitational force arises only when one continues the approximation beyond the linear stage”. Clearly, Weyl alludes here a fundamental result of the EIH-method . Thus, we find another argument – and a strong argument – against the physical adequacy of the linearized version of GR insofar as the question of the GW’s is concerned.

I am very grateful to Prof. A. Gsponer, who has called my attention to Weyl’s paper.

PARERGON
*On the PSR 1913+16*

The overwhelming majority of the astrophysicists believe that the time decrease of the revolution period of the binary radiopulsar PSR 1913+16 gives an experimental (indirect) proof of the physical reality of the gravitational radiation. As a matter of fact, the perturbative quadrupole formula gives a decrease of the revolution period which agrees very well with the observational data.

I emphasize the following points. *i*) In the *exact* theory the quadrupole formula loses any meaning because the hypothesized gravitational waves do *not* have a *true* energy; therefore, the true mechanical energy which is lost during the revolution motion ought to transform itself into the pseudo (*false*) energy of the hypothetical gravitational radiation: the energy account does not balance. *ii*) Many observational astrophysicists know that realistic explanations of the decrease of the revolution period are quite possible: for instance, *viscous losses* of the pulsar companion give a decrease of the same order of magnitude of that given by the alleged emission of gravitational waves. *iii*) The empirical success of a given theory – or of a given computation – is not an absolute guaranty of its *conceptual* adequacy: for instance, the Ptolemaic theory of cycles and epicycles explained very well the planetary orbits (with the only exception of Mercury’s).

The serious scientists should abstain from wishful thinking.

*“The king is naked!* – cried a child”.

(From an Andersen’s tale)


text:
# Chapter 1 High Energy Neutrino Generator for Neutrino Telescopes

## Chapter 1 High Energy Neutrino Generator for Neutrino Telescopes

### Abstract

We present the high energy neutrino Monte Carlo event generator ANIS (All Neutrino Interaction Simulation). The aim of the program is to provide a detailed and flexible neutrino event simulation for high energy neutrino detectors, such as AMANDA and ICECUBE. It generates neutrinos of any flavor according to a specific flux, propagates them through the Earth and in a final step simulates neutrino interactions within a specified volume. All relevant standard model processes are implemented. We discuss strength and limitations of the program, and provide as an example event rates for atmospheric and $`E^2`$ neutrino spectra.

### 1. Introduction

The era of dedicated high-energy neutrino telescopes has just begun. The currently operating detectors AMANDA and BAIKAL will hopefully soon be joined by ANTARES, ICECUBE, NEMO and NESTOR. The unifying goal is to detect neutrinos of extraterrestrial origin. For the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of atmospheric muons in such detectors, CORSIKA is frequently used. The subsequent muon propagation may be done using programs such as MMC, MUM or MUSIC. However, no standard for neutrino generators has yet emerged.

In this paper, the MC $`\nu `$-event generator ANIS (All Neutrino Interaction Simulation) is described. It generates $`\nu `$-events of all flavors, propagates them through the earth and finally simulates $`\nu `$-interactions within a specified volume around the detector. All relevant SM processes, i.e. CC and NC $`\nu N`$-interactions as well as resonant $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$-scattering are implemented. Neutrino regeneration as expected in NC-scattering, $`\nu +N\nu +X`$, and in $`\tau `$ production and decay chains, $`\nu _\tau +N\tau +X`$, $`\tau \nu _\tau +(\nu _i)+X`$, are included in ANIS.

In the next sections a description of the characteristic features of ANIS is presented. As an application of ANIS, the event rates for atmospheric and astrophysical electron neutrinos (following an $`E^2`$ spectrum) are calculated.

### 2. The Signal Generator ANIS

ANIS is written in C++ and makes use of the CLHEP package . The internal event record is derived from the CLHEP *HepMC* event class. There are currently two output formats implemented: i) the AMANDA specific event format *f2000*  and ii) the HepMC *ascii* format .

The program is controlled through a steering file which allows to enable specific interaction processes included in the simulation. The currently implemented interaction channels include CC, NC as well as resonant $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$-scattering. The cross-section data for CC and NC reactions are provided through pre-calculated external tables. The total cross-section is obtained through interpolation. Large sets of possible final states, characterized by the Bjorken variable $`x`$ and $`y=E_h/E_\nu `$, have been generated and are randomly sampled from during generation of neutrino events. The use of pre-calculated tables makes the program fast and independent of other packages. The cross-section data has been calculated up to $`10^{12}`$ GeV and is discussed in more detail in the following section.

Primary $`\nu `$’s are randomly generated on the surface of the earth with energy spectrum $`F_\nu (E)E^1`$ and are then propagated to the detector. Interacting with matter they are either absorbed (CC case) or regenerated at lower energies (NC case) . In the special case of CC $`\nu _\tau N`$-interaction a short-living $`\tau `$-lepton is produced. It propagates in matter, loosing part of its energy, and finally decays giving rise to secondary $`\nu _\tau `$ and, in $`17\%`$ of the cases, to secondary $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _e`$. The $`\tau `$-decay in ANIS has been simulated using TAUOLA . Thereby the practically full polarization of high energy $`\tau `$’s was taken into account. Again, the previously generated decays of polarized $`\tau `$-leptons are stored in tables, which are then sampled from by ANIS.

The density profile of the earth in ANIS is chosen according to the Preliminary Earth Model . Regeneration effects are naturally accounted for by feeding the secondary $`\nu `$’s back into the event record. These $`\nu `$’s are assumed to be emitted parallel to the direction of the primary $`\nu `$. This is justified, since regeneration effects become significant just at very high energies, where the accumulated deflection angle is generally smaller than the telescope angular resolution.

Once the detection volume is reached, a final vertex is sampled along the $`\nu `$ trajectory within the detection volume (specified through the steering file). In the case of a CC $`\nu _\mu N`$-interaction, ANIS correctly simulates the muon scattering angle. Along with the full event, three weights for later use are written out: the normalization of the flux, a weight for the atmospheric flux , as well as a weight proportional to the total cross-section of the neutrino interaction.

Event rates for atmospheric and various extraterrestrial neutrino spectra are obtained by applying the appropriate weights to the events. This last step is to be done by a user defined energy dependent weight function during analysis of the events in PAW, ROOT or any other analysis programs.

### 3. Neutrino Cross Sections

At $`E_\nu \stackrel{<}{}10`$ PeV, deep inelastic $`\nu N`$-cross-sections may be successfully described in the framework of pQCD. Parameterization of the $`\nu N`$ structure functions, $`F_i^{\nu N}(x,Q^2)`$, may be taken e.g. according to CTEQ5 . At higher energies these cross-sections are dominated by scattering off small $`x`$ quarks. The unknown behavior of the structure functions at $`x\stackrel{<}{}10^6`$ makes the calculations model dependent. The uncertainty in extrapolations of $`F_i^{\nu N}(x,Q^2)`$ to small $`x`$ and large $`Q^2`$ influence the expected cross-sections at high energies.

There are two possibilities presently included in ANIS: i) the smooth both in $`x`$ and in $`Q^2`$ *power-law* extrapolation of the pQCD CTEQ5 parameterization to small $`x`$ and large $`Q^2`$, and ii) *hard pomeron*  enhanced extrapolation . The cross-sections of the first case, denoted in the Fig. 1a as pQCD, practically coincide with , while the second model (HP, dash-dotted curves) predicts approximately $`2`$ times higher cross-sections at $`E_\nu 1`$ ZeV. The $`y`$-distributions, normalized to the corresponding cross-sections, are plotted in Fig. 1b; the solid and dashed curves stand for CC and NC $`\nu N`$-scattering, respectively.

The user can choose the desired model through the steering file. It is possible to add any new model to ANIS by providing the corresponding cross-section and final state tables.

Due to $`m_em_N`$, at high-energies practically all $`\nu e^{}`$-cross-sections are negligible, with the only exception of $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}W^{}anything`$ at $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}6.3`$ PeV  (see Fig. 1a). This resonance process is also included in ANIS. Finally it should be noted, that ANIS can easily be extended to include new processes beyond the Standard Model.

### 4. Discussion

As an application of ANIS, the resulting distributions of $`10^5`$ $`\nu _e+\overline{\nu }_e`$ events for an atmospheric spectrum and a diffuse AGN-like flux ($`F_\nu (E)=1\times 10^6E^2`$ GeV-1 cm-2 s-1 sr-1) are shown in Fig. 2. In order to illustrate the effects of $`\nu `$ propagation through the earth, the contributions from the upper and lower hemisphere are shown separately. Alternatively, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ can be simulated, however, muons produced in the reaction have to be propagated with a separate program, e.g. with those mentioned in the introduction. Concluding one can say, that the present version of ANIS allows the precise simulation of high-energy $`\nu `$-events of all flavors in a wide energy range and designed flexible to allow incorporation of possible new physics processes.

1. http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asd/lhc++/clhep.

2. http://www-zeuthen.desy.de/nuastro/software/siegmund/f2000.ps.gz.

3. Berezinsky V. S. et al. 1986, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 43, 637.

4. Jadach S. et al. 1993, Comput. Phys. Commun. 76, 361.

5. see Ref.  in Ghandhi R. et al. 1996, Astropart. Phys. 5, 81.

6. Lipari P. 1993, Astropart. Phys. 1, 195.

7. CTEQ collab.: La H. L. et al. hep-ph/9903282; http://www.phys.psu.edu/~cteq/.

8. Donnachie A. and Landshoff P. V. 1998, Phys. Lett. 437B, 408.

9. Gazizov A. Z., Yanush S. I. 2002, PRD 39, 941.

10. Gandhi R. et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. D 58, 093009.

11. Berezinsky V. S. and Gazizov A. Z. 1977, JETP Lett. 25, 276.


text:
# The Petrov type of the five-dimensional Myers-Perry metric

## 1 Introduction

In this article, we calculate the Petrov type of the five-dimensional Myers-Perry metric . The five-dimensional Myers-Perry (MP) metric is the generalization to five dimensions of the four-dimensional Kerr-metric. The Kerr-metric, which describes the gravitational field of a rotating star, and its static limit, the Schwarzschild metric, have both Petrov type $`D`$. It is remarkable to see that, although the Kerr-metric has fewer symmetries than the Schwarzschild metric, it does still have the same Petrov type.

We show that the same holds in five dimensions. The five-dimensional MP metric, which describes a rotating black hole in five dimensions, and its static limit, the five-dimensional Schwarzschild metric, have both Petrov type 22. Again, we see that although the five-dimensional MP metric has fewer isometries than the five-dimensional Schwarzschild metric, it does have the same Petrov type. The remainder of the article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a review of the five-dimensional Petrov classification. The Petrov type of the MP metric is given in Section 3. We conclude in Section 4.

## 2 Review of the five-dimensional Petrov classification

We only give a brief review of this classification, a longer discussion can be found in ref. . We need to introduce two objects, the Weyl spinor and the Weyl polynomial. The Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{abcd}`$ is the spinorial translation of the Weyl tensor $`C_{ijkl}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{abcd}=(\gamma _{ij})_{ab}(\gamma _{kl})_{cd}C^{ijkl}.$$

Here, $`\gamma _{ij}=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _i,\gamma _j]`$, where $`\gamma _i`$ are the $`\gamma `$-matrices in five dimensions. In this article, we use the following representation $`\gamma _1=i\sigma _11`$, $`\gamma _2=\sigma _21`$, $`\gamma _3=\sigma _3\sigma _1`$, $`\gamma _4=\sigma _3\sigma _2`$ and $`\gamma _5=\sigma _3\sigma _3`$. The Weyl spinor is symmetric in all its indices. The Weyl polynomial $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree four in four variables:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{abcd}x^ax^bx^cx^d.$$

The Petrov type of a given Weyl tensor is the number and multiplicity of the irreducible factors of its corresponding Weyl polynomial $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In this way, we obtain 12 different Petrov types, which are depicted in figure 1.

We use the following notation. The number denotes the degree of the irreducible factors and underbars denote the multiplicities. For example, a Weyl polynomial which can be factorized into two different factors, each having degree 2, has Petrov type 22. If the two factors of degree 2 are the same, the Petrov type is 22.

## 3 The Myers-Perry metric has Petrov type 22

The five-dimensional rotating black hole is described by the Myers-Perry metric

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2=& dt^2+\frac{2m}{\rho ^2}\left[dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi \right]^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{\rho ^2}{R^2}dr^2+\rho ^2d\theta ^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2=r^2+a^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2=r^2+b^2`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R^2& =\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^22mr^2\right]/r^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

We choose the following tetrad

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_1=& \frac{1}{r^2R\rho }\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2_t+a\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2_\varphi +b\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2_\psi \right]\hfill \\ \hfill e_2=& \frac{1}{r\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta }\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\left(_\varphi +a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _t\right)+b\mathrm{\Sigma }_aV\right]\hfill \\ \hfill e_3=& \frac{1}{r\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta }\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\left(_\psi +b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _t\right)a\mathrm{\Sigma }_bV\right]\hfill \\ \hfill e_4=& \frac{R}{\rho }_r\hfill \\ \hfill e_5=& \frac{1}{\rho }_\theta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Here, we have used the vectorfield

$$V=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_b+r\rho }\left(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\psi b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\varphi \right).$$

A straigthforward calculation gives the Weyl polynomial

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{48mr^2}{\rho ^6}\left[x^2y^2+z^2t^22f(xy+zt)2ig(xz+yt)\right]^2,$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f& =\frac{b\mathrm{sin}\theta }{r}\frac{a^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\rho +(b^2a^2)r\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2r^2\rho ^2},\hfill \\ \hfill g& =\frac{a\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r}\frac{b^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\rho +(a^2b^2)r\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^2r^2\rho ^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This polynomial is the square of a polynomial of degree 2. Therefore, the MP metric has Petrov type 22.

## 4 Conclusions and topics for further research

In this article, we showed that the five-dimensional MP metric has the same Petrov type as its static limit, namely Petrov type 22. Some open problems are the following.

* Recently, Emparan and Reall found a black rotating ring , see ref.  for easier coordinates. It would be nice to know its Petrov type.
* In four dimensions, adding electric charge to the rotating star does not change its Petrov type; the Kerr-Newmann metric has Petrov type $`D`$. In five dimensions, the story is more complicated. The metric of an electrically charged rotating black hole is only known in five dimensions when there is a specific Chern-Simons term in the action. The particular form of this Chern-Simons term is dictated by supersymmetry. The charged rotating black hole in this theory is described by the BMPV metric , which was found by using duality. It would be good to calculate its Petrov type. The charged rotating black hole is not known when this Chern-Simons term has an arbitrary (or even zero) coefficient. It remains to be seen if it can be found within the class of algebraically special metrics.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-0098527.