text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

After the very successful start of the $`𝑩`$ factories at SLAC and KEK we may expect a large amount of data on decays of $`𝑩`$ mesons. Rare decays were first observed by the CLEO collaboration ; these measurements have been refined  and confirmed by other experiments . The theoretical prediction of the Standard Model (SM) up to next-to-leading logarithmic precision for the total decay rate of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ mode is well in agreement with the experimental data . The $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ mode already allows for theoretically clean and rather strong constraints on the parameter space of various extensions of the SM .

Also, detailed measurements of CP asymmetries in rare $`𝑩`$ decays will be possible in the near future. Theoretical predictions for the normalized CP asymmetries of the inclusive channels (see ) within the Standard Model lead to

$$𝜶_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_{\overline{𝒔}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒅}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_{\overline{𝒔}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒅}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}$$

$$𝜶_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.6}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}𝜶_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\%}$$
(1)
when the best-fit values for the CKM parameters  are used. An analysis for the leptonic counterparts can be found in . The normalized CP asymmetries may also be calculated for exclusive decays; however, these results are model-dependent. An example of such a calculation may be found in .

CLEO has already presented a measurement of the CP asymmetry in inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays, yielding

$$𝜶_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.079}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.108}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.022}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.030}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
which indicates that very large effects are already excluded. However, as we point out here, the decays of the form $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ as well as their leptonic counterparts provide a stringent test, if the CKM matrix is indeed the only source of CP violation. We shall argue that the exclusive as well as the inclusive decays may be used to perform a clean test of the CKM mechanism of CP violation.

We start with the fact that the CP asymmetry for the sum of the partonic processes $`𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝒅\mathbf{)}𝜸`$ vanishes in the limit of $`𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This was first observed by Soares  in a partonic calculation of these processes. Later Kagan and Neubert analysed the CP asymmetry in inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays and mentioned this as a side remark . This fact is still true when only the weaker condition $`𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒔`$ holds, which corresponds to the U-spin limit at the quark level.

We shall show in this note that one may use this fact for a stringent test of the CKM mechanism of CP violation. Any CP violation in the standard model has to be proportional to the determinant111 We assume here that the mass matrices for up and down quarks are hermitean.

$`𝑪`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐞𝐭}\mathbf{[}𝓜_𝑼\mathbf{,}𝓜_𝑫\mathbf{]}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒊𝑱\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$
where $`𝓜_{𝑼\mathbf{/}𝑫}`$ are the mass matrices for the up and down quarks and

$$𝑱\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{[}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}$$
(4)
is the Jarlskog parameter, which is a fourth-order quantity and which is invariant under rephasing of the quarks fields. For a unitary CKM matrix there is exactly one such quantity, and for that reason $`𝑱`$ (or equivalently $`𝑪`$) is the measure of CP violation in the Standard Model. However, comparing different CP-violating processes involves also hadronic matrix elements, which in general are hard to control, making a direct extraction of $`𝑪`$ or $`𝑱`$ in general difficult.

One way to gain information about the hadronic matrix elements is to use symmetries. For the case at hand, we shall make use of the U-spin, which is the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ subgroup of flavour $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ relating the $`𝒔`$ and the $`𝒅`$ quark. In fact U-spin symmetry is a well-known tool and has already been used in the context of non-leptonic decays  and general proofs exist for U-Spin relations among arbitrary heavy hadron decays . In the present paper we shall apply this symmetry to relate the decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$.

It is known from hadron spectroscopy that the U-spin symmetry is violated, which at the parton level originates from the different masses of the down and the strange quark. Furthermore, if the down and the strange quark were degenerate, the Standard Model would be CP-conserving, as can be seen from (1).

However, we shall make use of this symmetry only with respect to the strong interactions; although the down and strange quark masses are different, we shall consider (hadronic) final states with masses well above the down and strange quark (current) masses, and thus the U-spin limit is still useful.

In section 2 we discuss the U-spin relations for hadronic matrix elements relevant to the exclusive decays; in section 3 we study inclusive processes. In section 4 we conclude with a short discussion of possible non-standard model scenarios.

## 2 U-Spin Relations: Exclusive Decays

The effective Hamiltonean mediating rare radiative or rare semileptonic transitions from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒒𝜸`$ ($`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔`$) can be decomposed into the pieces with different weak phases

$$𝑯_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}\mathbf{=}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}𝑨\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}𝑩\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}𝑪\mathbf{=}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{}𝑪\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑪\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(5)
where

$$𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒖𝒒}^{\mathbf{}}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}𝑽_{𝒄𝒒}^{\mathbf{}}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒒}^{\mathbf{}}$$
(6)
and where we have used the unitarity relation $`𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to eliminate $`𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}`$.

As far as the strong interaction U-spin is concerned, the effective Hamiltonian transforms as a doublet under this symmetry, i.e. $`𝑨`$, $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑪`$ are U-spin doublets. The charged $`𝑩`$ mesons contain neither the $`𝒅`$ nor the $`𝒔`$ flavour and are thus U-spin singlets. The neutral $`𝑩`$ mesons $`\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ form a doublet under U-spin, which makes their case more complicated.

The final states for the exclusive processes we can consider are the $`𝝅`$, $`𝑲`$, $`𝝆`$ and $`𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ states. Here again the case of charged states is simple: The $`\mathbf{(}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and the $`\mathbf{(}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ form two U-spin doublets. For the neutral mesons we can form a U-spin singlet and a U-spin triplet. For the vector mesons (assuming that the $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is a pure $`𝒔\overline{𝒔}`$ state) the singlet is a combination of $`\mathit{\varphi }`$, $`𝝆`$ and $`𝝎`$: $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{|}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝝎\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝝆\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$ while for the triplet we have the $`\mathbf{|}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}\overline{𝑲}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ as the $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ component, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{|}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝝎\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝝆\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ component.

As mentioned above, the U-spin is clearly broken by the different masses $`𝒎_𝒅`$, $`𝒎_𝒔`$ of the down and the strange quark. On the other hand, both $`𝒎_𝒅`$ and $`𝒎_𝒔`$ are small with respect to the masses of any hadron, except for the octet of light pseudoscalars, the masses of which vanish in the chiral limit of QCD and thus are presumably more sensitive to the (current quark) masses of the $`𝒔`$ and $`𝒅`$ quarks.

To this end, when talking about exclusive final states, we shall mainly consider the vector mesons; these have masses much larger than the (current quark) masses of any of the light quarks. Thus we expect, for the ground state vector mesons, the U-spin symmetry to be quite accurate inspite of the non-degeneracy of $`𝒎_𝒅`$ and $`𝒎_𝒔`$. A measure for the breaking of U-spin symmetry is certainly the relative mass difference between the $`𝝆`$ and the $`𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, which is of the order of fifteen percent.

For the decay of neutral mesons such as $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸`$ or $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$, the U-spin relations involve two reduced matrix elements corresponding to the two possibilities to couple the U-spins: the doublet of $`𝑩`$ mesons can be coupled with the (doublet) Hamltonian either to a singlet or a triplet. The two matrix elements can in principle be disentangled by measuring all the decays of neutral $`𝑩`$ mesons, including processes like $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝜸`$. Since this will not be possible in the near future, we shall concentrate on what can be done at the $`𝑩`$ factories.

Thus the charged modes are more promising since they do not involve any $`𝑩_𝒔`$ decay. Let us first consider the radiative decay $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑽^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$, where $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝝆`$ or $`𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$. The rate for these decays may be written as

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑽^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒖𝑴_𝒖\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄𝑴_𝒄\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(7)
where we have suppressed the superscript $`\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}`$ for simplicity, and $`𝑴_𝒖`$ is the matrix element of $`𝑨\mathbf{}𝑪`$ and $`𝑴_𝒄`$ is the one of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑪`$.

The charge-conjugate process is

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑽^\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝑴_𝒖\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}𝑴_𝒄\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(8)
which yields for the rate difference

$`𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑽^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑽^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑽^\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒖𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
This is a standard expression showing that CP violation is indeed proportional to $`𝑱`$, since $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }𝑱`$.

The hadronic matrix elements for $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝝆`$ and $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ are related by U-spin. Comparing $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ with $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$, one finds (up to U-spin-breaking effects):

$$𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝒖𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝒄\mathbf{,}$$
(10)
which means that

$`𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒖𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ (11)
$`𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒖𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (12)
Using unitarity of the CKM matrix one can show easily that

$$𝑱\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}$$
(13)
and thus one finds that the rate asymmetries (not the CP asymmetries, which are the rate asymmetries normalized to the sum of the rates) satisfy - in the U-spin limit for the hadronic matrix elements - the relation

$$𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(14)
This result implicitly may be found in the literature, but to our knowledge nobody has yet considered its implications in detail.

Relation (14) provides us with a relatively clean test of the CKM mechanism of CP violation. The fact that $`𝑱`$ is the only CP-violating parameter in the Standard Model is deeply related to the unitarity of the CKM matrix and to the fact that there are only three families. Any non-SM scenario has generically more sources of CP violation, which in general would disturb (14), since there will be other weak phases besides the CKM phase.

Clearly the main uncertainty in (14) is U-spin breaking, which means that (14) is only useful with some estimate of this breaking. We shall prceed in a similar way as in  and write

$`𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ (15)
$`\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑱\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{\left(}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$
where the right hand side is written as a product of a “relative U-spin breaking” $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ and a “typical size” $`𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ of the CP violating rate difference. Explicitely we have

$$𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{\left(}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}}{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{\left(}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}}$$
(16)
and

$$𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑱\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{\left(}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(17)
which is half of the difference of the two rate asymmetries.

The advantage to write the right hand side as $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ is that, although we know neither $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ nor $`𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ precisely, we still can estimate it. $`𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ can only be computed in a model, but the relative breaking $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ of U-spin can be estimated e.g. from spectroscopy. This leads us to

$$\mathbf{|}𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑴_𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝆}{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝝆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{\%}$$
(18)
which takes into account our ignorance about the sign of $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$. Certainly also other estimates are possible, such as a comparison of $`𝒇_𝝆`$ and $`𝒇_𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$222There are various definitions for these quantities in the literature; we choose to define them as $`V(p,ϵ)|j_\mu |0=f_Vm_Vϵ_\mu `$.; both quantities can be determined from $`𝝉`$ decays and one finds in this case a very small U-spin breaking. We shall use the more conservative value for $`𝒃_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$, which is also compatible with sum rule calculations of form factors (see ).

For $`𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}`$ we use the model result from  and get

$$𝚫_{𝒆𝒙𝒄}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.5}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}𝚪_𝑩$$
(19)
which leads us finally to our standard-model prediction for the difference of branching ratios

$$\mathbf{|}𝚫𝑩𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑩𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}$$
(20)
Note that we can neither give a precise value nor the sign of the U-spin breaking, since the right hand side is model-dependent. Still (20) is of some use, since a value significantly above this estimate would be a strong hint to non-CKM contributions to CP violation.

## 3 Inclusive Decays and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$

One may use similar arguments for the case of inclusive decays. For the inclusive radiative rare decays of charged $`𝑩`$ meson decays, exactly the same arguments hold for any arbitrary final state, and thus we have for the rate asymmetries the relation

$$𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(21)
Concerning the validity of U-spin, similar arguments hold. Since the lowest state in the radiative decay is a vector meson333There could also be a non-resonant contribution from $`K\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ states with a mass lower than that of the corresponding vector meson, but this is known to be small. the invariant masses of the final states are large with respect to $`𝒎_𝒅`$ and $`𝒎_𝒔`$, so we expect the U-spin to be a fairly good symmetry, very likely even better than for the exclusive channels (see below).

Going one step further one may employ the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ expansion for the inclusive process. To leading order the inclusive decay rate is the free $`𝒃`$-quark decay. In particular, there is no sensitivity to the spectator quark and thus we may generalize (21) and include also neutral $`𝑩`$ mesons

$$𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}$$
(22)
Furthermore, in this framework one relies on parton-hadron duality (besides in the long-distance contribution from up-quark loops which is found to be rather small ). So one can actually compute the breaking of U-Spin by keeping a non-vanishing strange quark mass. However, it is a formidable task to do this for the CP asymmetries and it has not yet been done. Still it is clear that the relevant parameter in the dominating contribution is $`𝒎_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which is very small.

Thus, we again parametrize the size of U-spin breaking in the same way as for the exclusive decays. We write

$$𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒃_{𝒊𝒏𝒄}𝚫_{𝒊𝒏𝒄}$$
(23)
where now the typical size of $`𝒃_{𝒊𝒏𝒄}`$ can be roughly estimated to be of the order $`\mathbf{|}𝒃_{𝒊𝒏𝒄}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ . $`\mathbf{|}𝚫_{𝒊𝒏𝒄}\mathbf{|}`$ is again the average of the moduli of the two CP rate asymmetries. These have been calculated (for vanishing strange quark mass) e.g. in  and thus we arrive at

$$\mathbf{|}𝚫𝑩𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑩𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}$$
(24)
Again, any measured value in significant deviation of (24) would be an indication of new sources of CP violation. Although we give only an estimate here, we point out again that in the inclusive mode the right-hand side in (24) can be computed in a model-independent way with the help of the heavy mass expansion.

Going beyond leading order in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ involves corrections of order $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which are small and cancel in the sum of the rate asymmetries - in the limit of U-spin symmetry. Corrections of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ involve also contributions (for example annihilation topologies), which distinguish between the charged and the neutral $`𝑩`$ mesons. These contributions are actually suppressed relative to the leading order by $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and are thus small; furthermore, the final states originating from annihilation carry neither strangeness nor a down quantum number. Strictly speaking these diagrams do not contribute to $`𝑿_𝒔`$ or $`𝑿_𝒅`$ respectively, but it is a question of the experimental set up how strongly states without $`𝒔`$ or $`𝒅`$ quantum numbers can be discriminated.

Finally, we make a few remarks on transitions of the form $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒒\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅`$. Since the CKM structure of these decays is the same, one may use eqs. (52) in the same way, only with different non-hadronic contributions to the final states. Thus, we arrive at the same conclusions for the CP-violating rate differences. Of course, the use of U-spin may be questionable for the light pseudoscalars, but for the vector mesons the above arguments apply.

Moreover, since $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑽^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝑲^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }`$ is a three-body decay, one may perform additional tests. Although this is not related to the CKM phases, one would end up with the prediction that the forward–backward rate asymmetry would be the same for $`𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝝆`$. This prediction could be used as an additional cross-check for the validity of our assumption of U-spin symmetry in the $`𝑲^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$$`𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system and maybe even access U-spin breaking in a model-independent way also for the exclusive modes.

## 4 “New Physics”

Clearly the pattern of CP violation is very peculiar in the SM. In other words, any new physics contribution is likely to have additional sources for CP violation, i.e. additional weak phases violating (20) or (24). Let us conclude with a short look at scenarios beyond the SM.

Although it has its well-known flavour problem, supersymmetry is given priority as a candidate for physics beyond the SM. Supersymmetric predictions for the CP asymmetries in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅𝜸`$ depend strongly on what is assumed for the supersymmetry-breaking sector and are thus a rather model-dependent issue. The minimal supergravity model cannot account for large CP asymmetries beyond $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ because of the constraints coming from the electron and neutron electric dipole moments . However, more general models allow for larger asymmetries of the order of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ or even larger . Recent studies of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ rate asymmetry in specific models led to asymmetries between $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$  or $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$ .

In general, CP asymmetries may lead to clean evidence for new physics by a significant deviation from the SM prediction. From (1) it is obvious that a large CP asymmetry in the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ channel or a positive CP asymmetry in the inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ channel would be a clear signal for new physics. However, if indeed a CP asymmetry in conflict with the SM is observed, this will only be an indirect hint to physics beyond the SM, and it will be difficult to identify the new structures in detail with only the information from $`𝑩`$ physics. Our test could help to discriminate between the different possibilities; It provides a definite test if generic new CP phases are present or not since it is rather unlikely that relations like (20) and (24) hold if new sources of CP violation are active.

## 5 Conclusion

A clean test of the SM pattern of CP violation is clearly one of the main topics of on-going experiments, in particular at the $`𝑩`$ factories. Being a direct CP asymmetry, the asymmetries in $`𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅\mathbf{)}𝜸`$ can be measured without the information on the proper decay time.

Despite their smaller branching ratios, the exclusive channels are easier to identify, and we expect an experimental test of (14) in the near future. However, for these decays the issue of U-spin breaking introduces a model dependence. Measuring the corresponding forward–backward rate asymmetry may allow for a model-independent estimation of the U-spin breaking in this channel.

The inclusive relations are theoretically cleaner, since one can actually compute the U-spin breaking in this case. Parametrically the U-spin breaking in the leading contribution will be of order $`𝒎_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and thus very small. From the experimental side, the inclusive mode is more difficult, since one has to make sure that the final state has the strange or the down quantum numbers. However, contributions which do not satify this criterion are suppressed by at least $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. and thus do not contaminate the inclusive measurement $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑿_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝑿_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝜸`$.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Gerhard Buchalla, Andrew Ackeroyd and Stefan Recksiegel for useful discussions, and Patricia Ball for useful comments on the manuscript. TM is supported by the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte Carlo Simulationen” and from the Ministerium für Bildung und Forschung bmb+f.


format: text

text:
# Scaling Analysis of Magnetic Field Tuned Phase Transitions in One-Dimensional Josephson Junction Arrays

## Abstract

We have studied experimentally the magnetic field-induced superconductor-insulator quantum phase transition in one-dimensional arrays of small Josephson junctions. The zero bias resistance was found to display a drastic change upon application of a small magnetic field; this result was analyzed in context of the superfluid-insulator transition in one dimension. A scaling analysis suggests a power law dependence of the correlation length instead of an exponential one. The dynamical exponents $`z`$ were determined to be close to 1, and the correlation length critical exponents were also found to be about 0.3 and 0.6 in the two groups of measured samples.

A 1D array of small Josephson junctions (JJ) provides an ideal testing ground for the $`T`$=0 quantum phase transition. Theoretically, a $`d`$-dimensional JJ array can be mapped to the classical ($`d`$+1)-dimensional $`XY`$ model, however, the types of governing phase transitions may not be the same in different dimensions. In the 2D $`XY`$ model, for instance, the exponentially dependent correlation length of Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii(KTB) transition should lead to scaling properties different from those in a 3D model. While scaling properties in 2D JJ arrays have been shown to exhibit an correlation length which corresponds to an underlying power law, no 1D arrays experiment has been reported to date. In this study we investigate the scaling behavior in 1D JJ arrays, and report a power law dependent correlation length. In addition, correlation length exponents $`\nu `$ are determined at approximately 0.3 and 0.6.

As shown in Fig. 1(a), the measured arrays were composed of I-shaped aluminum islands, whose sizes as defined by electron beam lithography were on the order of 1 $`\mu `$m. Each Al island has two tunnel junctions connected in parallel to its nearest neighbors, and forms a SQUID which is referred to as a unit cell. Being fabricated on the same chip, each group of measured arrays (denoted as group A and B) having different cell numbers, $`N`$, should have almost similar controlled parameters. Thus, length dependence of the phase transition can be investigated. The normal state resistances $`R_T`$ of each cell for the arrays, as listed in Table 1, are determined at high bias, $`V>N(2\mathrm{\Delta }^0/e)`$. The resistances for arrays in a group are quite similar, confirming the uniformity of the fabricated arrays.

When magnetic field $`B`$ is applied perpendicularly to SQUID loops with area $`A`$, the Josephson coupling energy $`E_J`$ can be tuned periodically as $`E_J=E_J^0\mathrm{cos}(\pi AB/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$. The zero field Josephson coupling $`E_J^0`$ is determined using the $`T=0`$ Ambegaokar-Baratoff formula $`E_J^0=(\mathrm{\Delta }^0/2)(R_Q/R_T)`$ with a superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ of about 200$`\mu `$eV, and a resistance quantum $`R_Q`$ of $`h/4e^26.5`$k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Accordingly, the $`E_J^0`$ values are approximately 130$`\mu `$eV for arrays in group A, and 650$`\mu `$eV for arrays in group B. From the SEM image one can estimate the junction area, and infer a junction capacitance $`C`$ of 3.0 $`\pm `$0.8fF by using a specific capacitance of 45 fF/$`\mu `$m2. With this capacitance, the charging energy for Cooper pairs, $`E_{CP}(2e)^2/2C`$, is about 106$`\pm `$35$`\mu `$eV, giving $`E_J^0/E_{CP}`$ values of about 6 and 1.3 for arrays in groups A and B, respectively.

The transport measurements were conducted in a dilution refrigerator at temperatures ranging between 40mK and 1.5K. Samples were mounted inside an electromagnetic-field-sealed compartment within an oxygen-free copper holder. Any external noise was carefully prevented from reaching the sample compartment. The signal leads were filtered by $`\pi `$-section low-pass feedthrough filters, which were on the top of the cryostat and also with ThermoCoax cables from room temperature to mK temperature of sample compartment. To minimize the line frequency noise, a battery-powered preamplifier mounted on the top of cryostat was used. Furthermore, taking advantage of the common mode noise rejection, the entire measurement circuit was placed symmetrically with respect to its ground. Zero bias resistance $`R_0`$ was taken from the slope of $`I(V)`$ characteristics at a very small bias, and it was further confirmed by using a lock-in technique at a frequency of 1.7Hz with an excitation of about 20nV. Sweeping a wide range of magnetic fields at 40mK, we determined the periodicity of magnetoresistance oscillation to be 9.15 Gauss. With this period $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, we denote the field as a dimensionless filling number $`f=B/\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, which represents an average number of flux quantum in one cell. At integer values of $`f`$, the arrays are most conductive with $`R_0`$ at a minimum, while at half integer $`f`$-values, the arrays become most resistive with $`R_0`$ at a maximum.

Figure 1(b) shows $`I(V)`$ characteristics for array A1 measured at $`f=0`$0.5. For array A1 at $`f=0`$ (i.e. the most superconducting curve), deviations of the supercurrent of consisting junctions are quite small, reaffirming the uniformity of these arrays. However, even at $`f`$=0, the array is not truly superconducting, but has a finite zero bias resistance of about 0.9 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The supercurrent decreases with $`f`$ and diminishes at $`f`$0.45, above which the supercurrent-type structure turns into a Coulomb-blockade-type structure, with zero bias resistance reaching a maximum value of about 17 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`f`$=0.5. The evolution from one structure to the other is best represented by Fig. 1(c), which shows a smooth crossover from dip to hump structure with differential resistance $`R_ddV/dI`$ as a function of bias voltage, and with a flat $`R_d(V)`$ curve separating the two limits.

Due to a smaller $`E_J^0/E_{CP}`$ value, the $`I(V)`$ characteristics for array B1, depicted in Fig. 2(a), have a higher $`R_0`$ of about 100 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`f`$=0 and 50 G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`f`$=0.5. The evolution of $`I(V)`$ characteristics, from the supercurrent-type structure to Coulomb-blockade-type structure, for this array is quite different than that of array A1: As $`f`$ increases beyond $`f`$=0.20, a small Coulomb gap in the $`I(V)`$ characteristic appears in the begining, signifying competition between Josephson coupling and Coulomb blockade of Cooper pair tunneling. This behavior can be clearly seen in Fig. 2(b), which shows, in addition to the simple dip and hump structures (as in Fig. 1(c)), a coexistence of the dip and hump structures in the $`R_d(V)`$ curves. From these $`R_d(V)`$ curves, supercurrent and Coulomb blockade thresholds are plotted as a function of the filling numbers and are shown in Fig. 2(c). Note that the two curves cross each other, a feature different from that reported in Ref. with a considerably larger $`E_J^0/E_{CP}`$ value (about 6.1) than those of our arrays in group B.

The temperature dependences of zero bias resistance at various filling numbers for the arrays A2 and B1 are depicted in Fig. 3. For the most insulating case, the conductance fits standard Arrhenius form between 1K and 150mK with an energy barrier of about 120$`\mu `$eV, which is very close to $`E_{CP}`$. This suggests that the dynamics is dominated by simple thermal activation of Cooper pairs, because the strength of the Josephson coupling is suppressed to the minimum. At even lower temperatures, shorter arrays show a saturation of resistance probably due to the finite size effect. For the most superconducting case (i.e. $`f`$=0), the resistance decreases with decreasing temperature and levels off at $`T<`$0.5K. At low temperatures with $`f`$0, $`R_0(T)`$ increases even with decreasing temperature. A close inspection reveals a separation point $`R_0(T0)R_Q`$, above which $`R_0(T)`$ curves go upward with decreasing temperature (leveling off for the case of shorter arrays) and below which $`R_0(T)`$ curves simply level off. Similar results are reported by Haviland et al. . We emphasize that this leveling off behavior is not due to any unwanted high-frequency noises in the measurement system for these reasons: 1. the leveling-off temperatures for the S and I sides are not the same, and 2. the leveling-off temperatures for the arrays in the two groups are not the same. This leveling-off behavior cannot be accounted for by heating effects because the measured resistance is almost the same for both AC and DC measurements. There are possible reasons that may bring in a finite leveling-off zero bias resistance: the finite size effect, the vortex macroscopic quantum tunneling (MQT), and the charge Coulomb interaction. The finite size effect can be ruled out because the leveling-off temperature does not change in arrays with different lengths. Even if it does involve, it should set in at the same temperature for both S and I sides, contrary to the $`R_0(T)`$ curves. The vortex MQT, observed in wire experiments , has a pronounced effect in 1D systems and can result in broadening of superconductor transition. However, MQT should be exponentially suppressed by dissipation, which is quantified as a ratio between the quantum resistance and the junction tunneling resistance, $`R_Q/R_T`$. Arrays in group A have a dissipation about five times larger than that of arrays in group B, and should have a diminishing vortex MQT. The fact that a higher leveling off temperature for arrays in group A suggests that MQT is not responsible for this behavior at this temperature.

The last effect seems to be a reasonable one if the charge soliton picture is taken into account. While the origin model describing phase transitions in 1D Josephson junction arrays considered only an“on-site” Coulomb interaction, in reality, the long range interaction due to a nonzero island-to-ground capacitance $`C_0`$ cannot be ignored. For finite $`C/C_0`$, it has been shown  that the charge will spread out and extend to a characteristic charge soliton length of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{C/C_0}`$. The result of the long range Coulomb interaction may lead to finite array resistances at low temperatures, driving even the superconducting phase to a metallic one. To investigate the effect of this charge soliton picture, we made nearby grounded electrodes along each array to control $`C_0`$. The distance between electrodes and arrays for samples in group A is 8 times longer than that for arrays in group B, leading to a smaller $`C_0`$ and thus a longer soliton length. This is qualitatively consistent with our experimental finding that arrays in group A have higher leveling off temperatures than that of group B.

For $`T>0.5`$K, the sign of $`dR_0/dT`$ changes from positive to negative value depending upon increasing filling numbers, signifying that the system undergoes a quantum superconductor-insulator transition. According to the theory of superfluid-insulator transition in 1D systems , right at critical point $`f=f^{}`$, the resistance is linearly proportional to the temperature. Experimentally, $`f^{}`$ is identified as the filling number where the extrapolation of $`R_0(T)`$ curve passes $`R_0=0`$, $`T=0`$ point. As a supplementary clue, we notice that at the base temperature, this critical filling number corresponds to an onset of Coulomb blockade threshold voltage (see Fig. 2(c)). We thus interpret these phenomena as evidence of a magnetic field-tuned SI phase transition with a critical filling number $`f^{}`$ in our measured arrays.

In a non-interacting model, the Hamiltonian of a 1D array of small JJ can be mapped to a classical 2D $`XY`$ model. Theoretically, the dimensionless coupling constant $`K`$, playing the role of the temperature in the classical model, is related to the charging energy $`E_{CP}`$ and Josephson coupling energy $`E_J`$ as, $`K=\sqrt{E_J/2E_{CP}}`$ in the quantum system. The 2D $`XY`$ model has a KTB type transition. Below the transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{KTB}}`$, the spins form vortex-antivortex pairs, while above $`T_{\mathrm{KTB}}`$, the pairs dissociate and the whole system becomes a vortex plasma. Note that the topological spin vortex in the 2D $`XY`$ model represents the phase slip in 1D JJ arrays. In our system, the corresponding KTB transition takes place at critical coupling energy $`E_J^{}`$, which is achieved by the tuning of external magnetic field. In the region $`E_J<E_J^{}`$, corresponding to the pair-dissociation phase at $`T>T_{\mathrm{KTB}}`$, the long range order in phase vanishes, and phase fluctuations render insulating 1D JJ arrays. According to the model, the transition takes place at $`E_J^{}/E_{CP}=8/\pi ^20.81`$ ; however the experimental values are slightly larger than the theoretical one. Despite the scattering of $`E_J^{}/E_{CP}`$ values in group A, the values in group B are well consistent to one other. The difference between the two groups can be explained with the effect of dissipation. At different strength of dissipation, it is expected that the critical point of SI phase transition will also be different .

The finite-temperature scaling law of quantum phase transitions asserts that $`𝒪(k,\omega ,K,L_T)=L^{d_𝒪/z}𝒪(kL_T^{1/z},\omega L_T,L_T/\xi _T),`$ where $`L_T=\mathrm{}\beta `$ is a finite length on the imaginary time axis. Some of the terms can be neglected: the wave vector $`k`$ is assumed zero, the scaling dimension $`d_𝒪=2d=1`$ , and $`\omega =0`$ in DC measurements. We thus obtain a concise finite-size scaling form for zero bias resistance, $`R_0(f,T)=T^{1/z}\stackrel{~}{R_0}(1/T\xi ^z)`$, where $`\xi `$ is a function of $`f`$. To examine the correlation length dependence, we rewrite the scaling form as $`R_0(\delta ,T)=T^{1/z}\stackrel{~}{R_0}(T_1/T)`$ where $`\delta =(KK^{})/K^{}(ff^{})`$ is the distance from the transition point and $`T_1`$ are field dependent scaling parameters (see  for details). In this way, one obtains a clear power law dependence of $`T_1`$ on $`\delta `$ over one order of magnitude, suggesting a power law dependence of the correlation length. This is in contradiction to the exponential dependence predicted in KTB transition and other theories.

Based on this analysis, the correlation length $`\xi `$ can be written as $`\xi =|\delta |^\nu `$ where $`\nu `$ is a critical exponent. Finally, the scaling law can be written with a scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{R_0}`$ as

$$R_0(f,T)=T^{1/z}\times \stackrel{~}{R_0}\left(\frac{\delta }{T^{1/\nu z}}\right).$$
(1)
The exponent $`\nu z`$ is determined from the slope of the power law fitting. For the seven arrays measured, we find that the $`\nu z`$ are different varying from 0.30 to 0.60 for different arrays. Nevertheless, the same values of $`\nu z`$ are obtained from both S and I sides. Assuming a $`z`$ value of unity and using Eq. (1) with $`\nu z`$ and $`f^{}`$ obtained from above, the scaling curves shown in Fig. 4 can be obtained. In addition, the scaling function form is found to be $`\stackrel{~}{R_0}(x)e^{\alpha x}`$, with $`\alpha \pm `$10 and $`\pm `$2.5 (in unit of $`\mathrm{K}^{1/\nu z}`$, ‘+’ for I-phase and ‘$``$’ for S-phase), for arrays in groups A and B, respectively. This form for resistance is similar to results deduced from variable-range hopping(VRH) for the Bose glass. However, the VRH mechanism should not be accounted for our system since the exponent on $`T`$ is larger than 1. The fact that the scaling function in one phase is symmetrical to that in the other phases suggests that the S phase and the I phase plays a dual role at zero bias. To refine the critical filling number and the scaling exponents, one begins with a trial scaling form, namely, $`R_0(f,T)=AT^{1/z}\mathrm{exp}(\kappa (f)/T^{1/\nu z})`$. By noting that $`A`$ is $`f`$-independent constant and that $`\kappa `$ is zero at $`f^{}`$, the $`\nu z`$ and $`f^{}`$ values can be unambiguously determined. The only adjustable parameter, $`z`$, can then be determined from the scaling curves. This parameter can be determined to a reasonable accuracy; a smaller $`z`$ would give better scaling on the S-side, whereas a larger $`z`$ would result in better scaling on the I-side. This fine-tuning procedure slightly modifies $`\nu z`$ and $`f^{}`$ values, and gives a $`z`$ value of about 0.85$`\pm `$0.05 for array B1.

To summarize, we observed a magnetic field-tuned SI phase transition in the system of 1D small Josephson junction arrays, and have, for the first time, made scaling analysis on such a system. Near the critical point, the $`R_0(T)`$ scaling analysis indicates a power law dependent correlation length. The exponents $`\nu z`$ are found to be 0.3 to 0.6 with $`z`$ close to 1, implying an isotropy in spatial and time dimensions. The value of correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ contradicts what expected under current theory of 1D Boson system, $`\nu 2/d`$ and $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$. The regions of lower temperature, where probably undermined complicated physics to make scaling fail, is away from the scope of the non-interacting model. These results suggest that certain important physics has not been unearthed in this system.

Fruitful discussions with N. Trivedi, L. Balents, A. Schakel, P. Phillips, S. K. Yip, C. M. Ho, and T. K. Lee are gratefully acknowledged. We have utilized facility at the National Nano Device Laboratories. This research was partly funded by the Nation Science Council No. 89-2112-M-001-033.


text:
# A Survey of hard spectrum ROSAT sources 2: optical identification of hard sources

## 1 Introduction

The origin of most of the X–ray emission in the Universe is still unknown because the sources that produce most of the $`>`$ 2 keV X–ray background (XRB) are still to be resolved. ROSAT surveys have succeeded in resolving $`80\%`$ of the 1-2 keV XRB into individual sources (Hasinger et al. 1998), and optical identification and X–ray spectroscopy has been possible for brighter sources which produce $`40\%`$ of the 1-2 keV background. The majority of these sources are broad line AGN (hereafter BLAGN), and at faint fluxes narrow emission line galaxies (hereafter NELGs, McHardy et al. 1998); Schmidt et al. (1998) argued that the NELGs are also AGN, but with low luminosity or obscured broad line regions. On average, faint NELGs have harder X–ray spectra ($`f_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 0.5`$, Romero-Colmenero et al. 1996, Almaini et al. 1996) than the broad line AGN which have mean $`\alpha 1`$ (Mittaz et al. 1999, Ciliegi et al. 1994).

Despite the success of ROSAT surveys, the XRB cannot be synthesised by extrapolating the observed source populations to faint fluxes, because the resultant spectrum would be softer than that of the background; this discrepancy is present for all energy bands between 0.5 and 40 keV. This means that at faint fluxes there must be a population of sources with spectra that are harder than the background. According to leading models, these hard sources (eg Fabian 1999, Gilli, Risaliti & Salvati 1999) are obscured AGN. However, the physical nature and observational appearance of the XRB producing population is not yet known, and is the subject of some debate. For example, Gilli, Risaliti & Salvati (1999) examined a model intended to reproduce the XRB by extrapolating the X–ray emission of present epoch AGN to high redshift using the observed soft X–ray luminosity function. In contrast, the model of Fabian (1999) has a large fraction of the XRB due to a population of high redshift, heavily obscured, growing AGN, which are different to anything observed in the local universe.

In Page et al. (2000), hereafter paper 1, we presented a catalogue of 147 serendipitous ROSAT sources which have spectra harder than that of the XRB. These sources have a steep $`N(S)`$ relation down to the sensitivity limit of our survey ($`10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1), and are therefore likely to be the bright tail of the population of hard sources that dominate the source counts at faint fluxes. As such, they could offer us a preview of the faint, hard and dominant, X-ray source population. We have therefore undertaken a programme of optical and infrared observations of our ROSAT hard source sample to find out what these sources are. In this paper we present the hard source identifications obtained from our optical (spectroscopic) campaign together with those found in existing catalogues. Section 2 details our method and observations, the results of which are given in Section 3. These results are discussed in the context of absorbed AGN and the XRB in Section 4. Finally, we present our conclusions in Section 5.

Throughout this paper we define power law spectral index $`\alpha `$ such that $`f_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$.

## 2 Optical identification

### 2.1 Strategy

To produce a systematic and efficient optical identification programme, we divided the hard X-ray sources into two groups depending on the ease of optical identification. Sources which had one or two plausible candidates present in APM data and/or the DSS were considered suitable for optical spectroscopy and make up the ‘spectroscopic sample’, while sources with no plausible candidates, or more than two, were considered unsuitable for spectroscopy and became the ‘imaging sample’. There are 103 sources in the spectroscopic sample and 44 sources in the imaging sample. This paper will deal only with identified sources from the spectroscopic sample (except for two sources, RXJ005812.20-274217.8 and RXJ101112.05+554451.3, which are fainter than our spectroscopic sample limit but have catalogue identifications). The properties of sources in the imaging sample, and their relationship to the spectroscopic sample sources, will be discussed briefly in Section 3.2 and in more detail in Carrera et al. (in preparation) where we will present the results of our optical and infrared imaging. The three sources of data for the identification process were spectra taken on the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) and the European Southern Observatory 3.6m Telescope (ESO 3.6), and databases of existing catalogues. The optical spectra will be presented in Mittaz et al. (2001) along with a full description of the observations and data reduction.

Catalogue identifications were obtained by searching the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) and SIMBAD around all the ROSAT hard source positions (not just the spectroscopic sample). One further source (RXJ043420.48-082136.7) was identified from a WHT ISIS spectrum taken during the RIXOS programme, but was not part of the final RIXOS sample presented in Mason et al. (2000).

## 3 Results

Table 1 contains the list of optical identifications. We have categorised our sources as follows. X-ray sources with an optical counterpart which is a Galactic star, of any type, have been classified as stars, and X-ray sources which are clusters of galaxies have been classified as clusters. X-ray sources with an extragalactic optical counterpart which has one or more broad emission lines, or a broad component ($`>2000`$ km s-1) to an emission line, is classified as a broad line AGN (BLAGN). X-ray sources with galaxy optical counterparts showing narrow emission lines ($`<2000`$ km s-1) but no broad emission lines are classed as narrow emission line galaxies (NELGs). Note that none of the narrow line objects in this survey would be classified as narrow line Seyfert 1s (eg by the criteria given in Goodrich 1989). Galaxies with no discernable emission lines were classed as galaxies. The numbers of objects in each category, and their mean properties are given in Table 2. The sample is dominated by extragalactic sources, and of these over half are broad line AGN.

The distributions of offsets between the X-ray positions and the optical counterparts for the different classes of hard source are shown in Fig. 1. The mean offsets for each source type are given in Table 2 and are 6 – 7 arcseconds for all source types except for the Galactic stars, which have a mean offset of 12 arcseconds and a flat distribution of offsets (Fig. 1); this suggests that the ‘star’ identifications are less secure than the others.

We have systematically checked the redshifts of the extragalactic hard sources for similarity to the redshifts of the targets of the PSPC observations in which they were detected. Only two sources, RXJ111926.34+210646.1 and RXJ120403.79+280711.2, both clusters of galaxies, have redshifts similar to the observation targets.

### 3.1 X-ray slopes and fluxes

The fitted X-ray spectral slopes and fluxes of the different types of sources are shown in Fig. 2, and their mean slopes and fluxes are given in Table 2. A noticeable feature of Fig. 2 is that the clusters of galaxies are concentrated towards the top right (soft spectrum, high flux) corner compared to the other sources. This trend is confirmed by a two dimensional Kolmogorov Smirnov (2DKS) test (Fasano & Franceschini 1987): the cluster distribution of ($`\alpha ,S`$) is different to that for any (or all) of the other source types with $`>99\%`$ confidence. Because they are not particularly hard, and because they are predominantly bright and therefore do not have as steep an $`N(S)`$ relation as the rest of the hard sources, the clusters are unlikely to be important contributors to the faint hard source population.

Note that the very hard mean spectral index of the Galactic stars (see Table 2) is due to the three objects with best fit $`\alpha <1`$, two of which (RXJ112056.87 +132726.2 with best fit $`\alpha =1.65`$ and RXJ133146.37+111420.4 with best fit $`\alpha =1.472`$) are unlikely to be correct identifications (see Section 3.6).

The other three types of sources (BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies) have distributions of ($`\alpha ,S`$) which are indistinguishable from one another according to the 2DKS test; any (or all) could be significant contributors to the faint, hard population.

For comparison Figure 2 also shows the unidentified sources. Unidentified objects in the spectroscopic sample are found with similar spectral slopes and fluxes to the identified sources (except the clusters which are softer and brighter). The sources in the imaging sample are more concentrated toward faint fluxes and comprise most of the faintest ($`S10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1) hard sources.

### 3.2 The unidentified sources

We now consider briefly how fair a subsample the identified sources are of the whole ROSAT hard source sample. Starting with the spectroscopic sample, candidates were chosen for identification on our WHT and ESO 3.6m observing runs without regard to their optical magnitudes and morphologies, (except to exclude sources with an existing catalogue identification) and are hence an unbiased subsample of the spectroscopic sample. The catalogue identifications, although including a few optically bright galaxies, are mostly from previous flux limited X–ray surveys. They therefore tend to have higher X–ray fluxes than the spectroscopic sample as a whole, but are otherwise a fair subsample. This means that except for a bias towards higher X–ray fluxes, the identified sources are a fair subsample of the spectroscopic sample.

The spectroscopic sample is a significant fraction of the whole ROSAT hard source sample (103 of 147 sources), but it cannot be considered a fair subsample because it excludes the optically faint sources which form the imaging sample. Without spectroscopically identifying the imaging sample (which is currently impractical) it is not possible to determine whether or not the imaging sample is actually made up of the same mix of sources as the spectroscopic sample. However we can examine whether it is possible, by assuming that similar types of sources will have similar X–ray to optical flux ratios. Figure 3 shows the X–ray flux against the APM red (E or R) magnitude for the identified sources with available APM data. BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies are found with similar ranges of X–ray to optical ratio. The optical counterparts to the imaging sample sources are presumed to be fainter than the plate limit, which we take to be 20.5 and 21.0 for sources with APM data available for E and R plates respectively. The imaging sample sources are plotted in Fig. 3 with these lower limits except for two sources RXJ031956.76-663938.5 and RXJ101031.05+503458.6, which are in the imaging sample because there are too many potential counterparts for practical spectroscopic follow up. The dashed line corresponds to an X–ray to optical flux ratio which is similar to that of RXJ111750.51+075712.8, which has the highest X–ray to optical flux ratio of the identified spectroscopic sample sources excluding the clusters. Only six of the imaging sample sources lie above the dashed line, and therefore definitely have X–ray to optical flux ratios different to those of the identified sources. Therefore the limits on the optical to X–ray ratios are consistent with the identified sources being the same types of objects as constitute almost the whole ROSAT hard source sample.

### 3.3 Redshifts and luminosities

Fig. 4 shows the redshifts and 0.5 - 2 keV luminosities for the extragalactic hard sources. Luminosities were calculated from the fitted fluxes, K corrected using the best fit spectral slopes, and assuming $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-3, $`q_0=0`$. The majority of the BLAGN have higher luminosities and redshifts than the NELGs and galaxies; all the high redshift ($`z>1`$) sources are BLAGN. This may imply that either hard spectrum narrow line sources do not exist at high luminosity/redshift or our spectroscopic sample is not deep enough (in X–ray or optical flux) to find them.

### 3.4 X–ray - optical - radio flux ratios

It is common to parameterise the X–ray to optical and optical to radio flux ratios of AGN as $`\alpha _{OX}`$ and $`\alpha _{OR}`$, where $`\alpha _{OX}`$ is the slope of the power law which (in the object’s rest frame) would connect the flux density (Fν) at 2500 Å with the X–ray flux density at 2 keV, and $`\alpha _{OR}`$ is the slope of the power law which would connect the flux density at 2500 Å with the flux density at 5 GHz.

For all sources we have estimated the rest frame 2500 Å flux density using B photometry (taken from Carrera et al. in preparation) and assuming a power law optical - UV spectrum with slope $`\alpha =0.5`$, and using the B magnitude to flux conversion given by Wilkes et al. (1994). The B magnitudes have been corrected for Galactic reddening using the expression for $`E(BV)`$ in Bohlin, Savage & Drake (1978) and assuming $`A_B=4E(B_V)`$.

To estimate the rest frame 5 GHz fluxes we have searched for potential radio counterparts to our X–ray sources in the catalogues of radio sources in the VLA 1.4 GHz FIRST (White et al. 1997) and NVSS (Condon et al. 1998) surveys and the 5 GHz Parkes-MIT-NRAO (PMN, Griffith & Wright 1993) survey. Additionally, radio images from these surveys were searched by eye to ensure that any extended radio sources associated with our X–ray sources were not missed, and to ensure that there were no spurious radio counterparts associated with other extended radio sources. The uncertainty in radio source position from these three surveys ranges from $``$ better than 1 arcsecond (FIRST) to around 10 arcseconds (PMN). The sky density of radio sources is sufficiently low (reaching around 100 deg-2 at the $``$1 mJy completeness limit of FIRST) that it is unlikely that there are any chance coincidences. Where no suitable radio source appears in a survey catalogue, we have taken the catalogue completeness limit as the upper limit to the radio flux of the X–ray source. We took the best measurement (or upper limit) available from the three surveys and assume a radio spectral slope of $`\alpha =0.7`$.

The 2 keV flux density has been estimated from the fitted 0.5 - 2 keV fluxes and assuming an X–ray spectral slope of $`\alpha =0`$.

We then computed

$$\alpha _{OX}=0.384\mathrm{log}[f_\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })/f_\nu (2\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})]$$

and

$$\alpha _{OR}=0.186\mathrm{log}[f_\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })/f_\nu (5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})]$$

$`\alpha _{OX}`$ and $`\alpha _{OR}`$ are shown in Fig. 5 for all the hard sources identified as BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies. The horizontal dashed line marks $`\alpha _{OR}=0.35`$ which is commonly used to differentiate radio loud and radio quiet objects (Zamorani et al. 1981). Seven hard sources (four BLAGN, 2 galaxies and 1 NELG) lie above this line, and are therefore radio loud. This is a large radio loud fraction (15$`{}_{5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+7}`$% where errors are the Poission 68% confidence interval, Gehrels 1986) of the BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies compared to the fraction found in normal ROSAT surveys without spectral selection, eg Cilliegi et al. (1995) find that only two of the eighty CRSS AGN and NELGs (2.5$`{}_{1.6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+3.3}`$%) are radio loud. On the other hand, the distribution of $`\alpha _{OX}`$ of the hard sources is quite similar to that found in other AGN surveys (eg Ciliegi et al. 1995, Wilkes et al. 1994), with the majority of sources having $`1<\alpha _{OX}<1.8`$.

### 3.5 X–ray absorption

The leading hypothesis to explain the majority of faint hard sources which contribute substantially to the XRB is that they are intrinsically absorbed AGN (eg Fabian & Iwasawa 1999, Setti & Woltjer 1989). This is also a likely hypothesis for our hard sources, because the optical spectra and colours of a significant fraction of our BLAGN and NELGs suggest absorption (Mittaz et al. 2001 and Carrera et al. 2001). Assuming that our BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies have hard spectra because of absorption, we have estimated their column densities from their 3 colour ROSAT PSPC spectra. We assume that before absorption they have power law X–ray spectra with energy index $`\alpha =1`$ (typical for X-ray selected AGN, eg Mittaz et al. 1999, Maccacaro et al. 1988) and fit their intrinsic cold gas column. The fitting procedure was identical to that described in paper 1 except that the free parameters in the fit are intrinsic column and power law normalisation rather than power law slope and normalisation. The results of these fits are given in Table 3.

The BLAGN, NELG and galaxies’ fitted absorbing columns and luminosities (before absorption) are shown in Fig. 6. Most of the high luminosity sources (near the top of Fig. 6) are BLAGN, while most of the galaxies are found with low luminosities; the mean log $`L`$ (in erg s-1, 0.5 - 2 keV) for the BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies are 44.4, 43.2 and 42.2 respectively. We note that the trend in Fig. 6 for the most absorbed sources to have the highest luminosity is probably a selection effect due to the shifting of the rest frame emitted passband to higher energy with increasing redshift. This means that sources detectable in the PSPC and satisfying our spectral selection criterion (see paper 1) will have larger columns at higher redshift (and hence at higher luminosity).

### 3.6 Notes on individual sources

RXJ004651.98-204329.0 The hard ROSAT spectrum of this active galaxy was the subject of Elvis et al. (1997) who proposed that absorption in material associated with NGC247 may be responsible.

RXJ005801.64-275308.6 A second, slightly fainter NELG at J2000 position $`00^h58^m1.69^s27^\mathrm{o}53^{}16.80^{\prime \prime }`$ has the same redshift ($`z`$= 0.086) as, and is within 10 arcseconds of, the NELG identified as the X–ray source.

RXJ013707.63-183846.4 The star has an unremarkable G type spectrum, and the X–ray source is coincident with a bright radio source (MRC 0134-188) and hence the star is unlikely to be the correct optical counterpart. The real optical counterpart is too faint to be seen on POSS.

RXJ031456.58-552006.8 This radio galaxy has extended double lobe structure; see Gruppioni, Mignoli & Zamorani (1999).

RXJ033402.54-390048.7 This source is a wide angle tail radio source in the galaxy cluster Abell 3135. A magnitude V$``$16 Galactic star is also close to the X-ray source position but is unlikely to be related.

RXJ043420.48-082136.7 The identification spectrum of this object was taken on the WHT as part of RIXOS, but the source was not part of the final RIXOS sample and is not included in the final catalogue (Mason et al. 2000).

RXJ085340.52+134924.9 This RIXOS identification is uncertain because there is another optical counterpart closer to the centre of the X–ray error circle that was not observed. Note also that the position of the optical counterpart is incorrect in Mason et al. (2000), which should be the same as that in Table 1, i.e. $`08^h53^m41.01^s+13^\mathrm{o}49^{}19.7^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000).

RXJ095340.67+074426.1 The RIXOS identification and redshift of this source are based on a relatively poor optical spectrum and therefore may be incorrect.

RXJ101112.05+554451.3 This source was identified as an obscured radio loud AGN by Barcons et al. (1998). It has strong narrow emission lines but Mg II $`\lambda `$2798 is broad, and hence we have classified it as a BLAGN.

RXJ101147.48+505002.2 This X–ray source was identified with a NELG with $`z=0.067`$ by Carballo et al. (1995), but we identify the source with a BLAGN with $`z=0.079`$, which is brighter and closer to the X–ray source. Notably, the $`z=0.079`$ BLAGN showed only narrow lines in the optical spectrum of Carballo et al. (1995); the H$`\alpha `$ line profile appears genuinely to have changed between 1994 and 1998.

RXJ111926.34+210646.1 This galaxy cluster and the target of the PSPC observation (PG 1116+215) in which it was found have very similar redshifts (0.0176 and 0.1765 respectively) and therefore this source is not strictly serendipitous.

RXJ112056.87+132726.2 The X–ray source is coincident with the symmetric double radio source 87GB 111822.7+134349, and hence the star is unlikely to be the correct identification for the X–ray source.

RXJ120403.79+280711.2 This galaxy cluster and the target of the PSPC observation (PG 1202+281) in which it was found have similar redshifts (0.0167 and 0.1653 respectively) and therefore this source may not be strictly serendipitous.

RXJ124913.86-055906.2 This broad absorption line (BAL) QSO was the only bona-fide BALQSO in sample of Green & Mathur (1996) to be detected as a PSPC source.

RXJ133146.37+111420.4 This X–ray source is coincident with the radio source 87GB 132918.1+112918, and hence the star is unlikely to be the correct optical counterpart.

RXJ142754.71+330007.0 The RIXOS identification and redshift of this source are based on a relatively poor optical spectrum and therefore may be incorrect.

## 4 Discussion

Excluding the clusters, which are unlikely to be an important part of the faint, hard X–ray source population (see Section 3.1), we have identified 3 types of extragalactic hard source: BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies. At first sight the identification content of the sample appears similar to that of other PSPC surveys with similar flux limits but without any spectral selection, eg BLAGN being the most numerous source. However, in two respects the identification content of this survey is significantly different.

The first difference is that there is a higher proportion of radio loud objects (15$`{}_{5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+7}`$%) in this survey (see Section 3.4). There are two possible reasons why this should be so. One is that the intrinsic X–ray emission of radio loud sources may be harder than that of radio quiet sources (Reeves et al. 1997) because the radio loud sources have an additional, hard spectrum X–ray emission component from the inner parts of radio jets. The other possibility is that our radio loud sources are absorbed, and because they are intrinsically more X–ray luminous than radio quiet sources they are relatively numerous in a relatively bright survey of hard spectrum sources. This would be analogous to the high proportion of (presumably unabsorbed) radio loud sources present in bright soft X–ray surveys (eg 11$`\pm 2`$% in the EMSS, Della Ceca et al. 1994) compared to fainter soft X–ray surveys (eg 2.5$`{}_{1.6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+3.3}`$% in the CRSS, Ciliegi et al. 1995).

The second difference is that there are nearly half as many NELGs as BLAGN (see Table 1) compared to ratios of $``$ 1:13 NELGS to AGN in RIXOS (Mason et al. 2000) and $``$ 1:6 in the CCRS (Boyle, Wilkes & Elvis 1997). This implies that the fraction of sources with hard spectra is larger in the NELG population than in the BLAGN population. This is consistent with the findings that the NELGs in faint X–ray surveys have, on average, harder X–ray spectra than BLAGN (Romero-Colmenero et al. 1996, Almaini et al. 1996), and with the hypothesis that most X–ray selected NELGs are absorbed AGN (Schmidt et al. 1998, Lehmann et al. 2000).

Hence the hypothesis that most of the sources have hard X–ray spectra because they are absorbed could account for both the high radio loud and NELG content of this survey. It is also consistent with the preliminary analyses of the optical spectra and optical colours of the hard sources (Mittaz et al. 2001 and Carrera et al. 2001).

Related to the absorption hypothesis, an important finding is that the distributions of X–ray spectral slopes and fluxes of the BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies are indistinguishable within the current sample, but the three groups have different ranges of luminosities. The galaxies are found at low luminosity while the high luminosity sources are BLAGN (see figures 4 and 6). The absence of high luminosity, absorbed narrow line AGN has also been noted by Akiyama et al. (2000) in the ASCA Large Sky survey. These results are consistent with all three source types having the same mechanism for their X–ray spectra (an absorbed active nucleus) but optical emission line properties which depend on luminosity. For this reason we point out that the high redshift, high luminosity, absorbed QSOs expected to produce a large fraction of the X–ray background are not neccessarily narrow line objects (the proposed “QSO 2s”) like Seyfert 2s, their low luminosity counterparts.

## 5 Conclusions

We have performed a survey of ROSAT fields for serendipitous sources with hard spectra ($`\alpha <0.5`$); such sources must be a major contributor to the X–ray background at faint fluxes. In this paper we have presented optical identifications for 62 of these sources. Almost half (28) of these sources are BLAGN, while 12 are NELGs and 5 are galaxies without visible emission lines. We have also found 8 clusters of galaxies among the hard spectrum sources. However, these are predominantly bright sources and are not particularly hard (their best fit spectral indices all lie in the range $`0.0<\alpha <0.5`$), and hence clusters are unlikely to be an important component of the hard, faint population.

The hard spectrum BLAGN have a distribution of X–ray to optical ratios which is similar to that found for AGN from other soft X–ray surveys ($`1<\alpha _{OX}<2`$). However, a relatively large proportion (15%) of the BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies are radio loud. This could be because the radio jets in these objects produce intrinsically hard X–ray emission, or if they are absorbed, it could be because radio loud objects are more X–ray luminous than radio quiet objects.

The BLAGN, NELGs and galaxies have indistinguishable distributions of X–ray flux and spectra, hence any or all may be important to the hard, faint population required to solve the XRB spectral paradox. The majority of the galaxies are low luminosity sources, while the highest luminosity objects, and all the high redshift ($`z>1`$) sources, are BLAGN. Their ROSAT spectra are consistent with their being AGN obscured by columns of $`20.5<\mathrm{log}(N_H/\mathrm{cm}^2)<23`$. Overall, our data are consistent with the X–ray emission of the BLAGN, NELGs, and the galaxy sources coming from absorbed active nuclei.

## 6 Acknowledgments

FJC thanks the DGES for partial financial support, under project PB95-0122. This research was based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile, ESO No. 62.O-0659, and on observations made at the William Herschel Telescope which is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. This research has made use of data obtained from the Leicester Database and Archive Service at the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Leicester University, UK. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## 7 References

Akiyama M., et al. , 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0001289)

Almaini O., Shanks T., Boyle B.J., Griffiths R.E., Roche N., Stewart G.C., Georgantopoulos I., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 295

Barcons X., Carballo R., Ceballos M.T., Warwick R.S., Gonzalez-Serrano, 1998, MNRAS, 301, L25

Bohlin R.C., Savage B.D., Drake J.F., 1978, ApJ, 224, 132

Boyle B.J., Wilkes B.J. & Elvis M., 1997, MNRAS, 285, 511

Carballo R., et al. , 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1312

Carrera F.J., Mittaz J.P.D., Page M.J., 2001, proceedings of “X–ray astronomy ’999: Stellar Endpoints, AGN and the Diffuse Background”, eds G. Malaguti, G. Palumbo & N. White, in press

Ciliegi P., Elvis M., Wilkes B.J., Boyle B.J., McMahon R.G., Maccacaro T., 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1463

Condon J.J., Cotton W.D., Greisen E.W., Yin Q.F., Perley R.A., Taylor G.B., & Broderick J.J., 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

Della Ceca R., Zamorani G., Maccacaro T., Wolter A., Griffiths R., Stocke J.T., Setti G., 1994, ApJ, 430, 533

Elvis M., Fiore F., Giommi P., & Padovani P., 1997, MNRAS, 291, L49

Fabian A.C., 1999, MNRAS in press

Fabian A.C., Iwasawa K., 1999, MNRAS, 303, L34

Gehrels N., 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

Gilli R., Risaliti G., & Salvati M., 1999, A&A, 347, 424

Goodrich R.W., 1989, ApJ, 342, 224

Griffith M.R. & Wright A.E., 1993, AJ, 105, 1666

Gruppioni C., Mignoli M., & Zamorani G., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 199

Lehmann I., et al. , 2000, A&A, in press

Maccacaro T., Gioia I.M., Wolter A., Zamorani G., Stocke J.T., 1988, ApJ, 326, 680

Mason K.O., et al. , 2000, MNRAS, 311, 456

McHardy I.M., et al. , 1998, MNRAS, 295, 641

Mittaz J.P.D., Page M.J., Carrera F.J., 2001, proceedings of “X–ray astronomy ’999: Stellar Endpoints, AGN and the Diffuse Background”, eds G. Malaguti, G. Palumbo & N. White, in press

Mittaz et al. , 1999, MNRAS, 308, 233

Page M.J., Mittaz J.P.D. & Carrera F.J., 2000, ‘paper 1’, MNRAS, 318, 1073

Reeves, J. N., Turner M.J.L., Ohashi T., Kii T., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 468

Romero Colmenero E., Branduardi-Raymont G., Carrera F.J., Jones L.R., Mason K.O., McHardy I.M., Mittaz J.P.D., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 94

Schmidt M., Hasinger G., Gunn J., Schneider D., Burg R., Giacconi R., Lehmann I., MacKenty J., Trümper J., Zamorani G., 1998, A&A, 329, 495

Setti G., Woltjer L., 1989, A&A, 224, L21

White R.L., Becker R.H., Helfand D.J., & Gregg M.D., 1997, ApJ, 475, 479

Wilkes B.J., et al. 1994, ApJS, 92, 53

Zamorani G., et al. 1981, ApJ, 245, 357


text:
# Integrable Supersymmetric Fluid Mechanics from Superstrings

## 1 Introduction

The Galileo invariant equations governing isentropic fluids in one spatial dimension (continuity and Euler equations for the density $`\rho `$ and velocity $`v`$) are completely integrable for polytropic gases (pressure $`\rho ^n`$) , and are accompanied by the usual hallmarks of complete integrability: Lax pairs, infinite number of constants of motion, etc.  Especially interesting is the Chaplygin gas ($`n=1`$) because this model possesses the further hidden symmetry of (2+1)-dimensional Poincaré invariance, which is a consequence of the fact that this fluid model in (1+1)-dimensional spacetime devolves from the Nambu-Goto model for a string moving on the plane, after the parameterization invariance of the latter is fixed .

In this Letter we enlarge the lineal Chaplygin gas to include anti-commuting Grassmann variables, so that the extended model supports a supersymmetry. This is achieved by considering a superstring moving on a plane and again fixing the parameterization invariance. The construction is analogous to what has already been done in one higher dimension: the Nambu-Goto action for a supermembrane in (3+1)-dimensions gives rise, in a specific parameterization, to a supersymmetric planar Chaplygin gas . Lineal and planar supersymmetric fluid models appear to be the only possible examples of the supersymmetric Nambu-Goto/fluid connection. For a higher dimensional generalization, the reduction program would begin with a $`p`$-brane in $`D=p+2`$ spacetime, giving rise to a fluid in $`D=p+1`$ spacetime. While there are no constraints on $`p`$ in the purely bosonic case, supersymmetric extensions are greatly constrained: the brane-scan for “fundamental” super $`p`$-branes (i.e. with only scalar supermultiplets in the worldvolume) contains only the above two cases cases , $`p=2`$ in $`D=4`$ and $`p=1`$ in $`D=3`$. As we demonstrate, the supersymmetric extension enjoys the same integrability properties as the purely bosonic, lineal Chaplygin gas, as a consequence of the complete integrability for the dynamics of the superstring on the plane.

## 2 Superstring Formulation

We begin with the Nambu-Goto superstring in $`D=3`$ :

$$I=d\tau d\sigma \{\sqrt{g}iϵ^{ij}_iX^\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _j\psi \},$$
(2.1)
where

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\text{det}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_j^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }\},`$ (2.2)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_iX^\mu i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _i\psi .`$ (2.3)
In these expressions $`\mu ,\nu `$ are spacetime indices running over $`0,1,2`$ and $`i,j`$ are worldsheet indices denoting $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. We now go to the light-cone gauge where we define $`X^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(X^0\pm X^2)`$. $`X^+`$ is identified with the timelike parameter $`\tau `$, $`X^{}`$ is renamed $`\theta `$, and the remaining transverse component $`X^1`$ is renamed $`x`$. We can choose a two-dimensional Majorana representation for the $`\gamma `$-matrices:

$$\gamma ^0=\sigma ^2,\gamma ^1=i\sigma ^3,\gamma ^2=i\sigma ^1,$$

such that $`\psi `$ is a real, two-component spinor. A remaining fermionic gauge choice sets

$$\gamma ^+\psi =0,$$

where $`\gamma ^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma ^0\pm \gamma ^2)`$. Thus $`\psi `$ is further reduced to a real, one-component Grassmann field. Finally we define the complex conjugation of a product of Grassmann fields $`(\psi _1\psi _2)^{}=\psi _1^{}\psi _2^{}`$ so as to eliminate $`i`$ from Grassmann bilinears in our final expression. The light-cone gauge-fixed Lagrange density becomes:

$$=\sqrt{g\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\sqrt{2}\psi _\sigma \psi ,$$
(2.4)
where

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`(_\sigma x)^2,`$ (2.5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2_\tau \theta (_\tau x)^22\sqrt{2}\psi _\tau \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{g}},`$ (2.6)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`_\sigma \theta _\tau x_\sigma x\sqrt{2}\psi _\tau \psi .`$ (2.7)
In the above equations, $`_\sigma `$ and $`_\tau `$ denote partial derivatives with respect to the spacelike and timelike worldsheet coordinates. The canonical momenta

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\tau x)}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}(_\tau x+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{g}}_\sigma x),`$ (2.8)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\tau \theta )}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}},`$ (2.9)
satisfy the constraint equation

$$p_\sigma x+\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma \theta \sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Pi }\psi _\sigma \psi =0$$
(2.10)
and can be used to recast $``$ into the form

$$=p_\tau x+\mathrm{\Pi }_\tau \theta +\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Pi }}(p^2+g)+\sqrt{2}\psi _\sigma \psi \sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Pi }\psi _\tau \psi +u(p_\sigma x+\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma \theta \sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Pi }\psi _\sigma \psi ),$$
(2.11)
where $`u`$ is now a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint. We use the remaining parameterization freedom to fix $`u=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=1`$ and perform a hodographic transformation, interchanging independent with dependent variables . The partial derivatives transform by the chain rule:

$`_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`(_\sigma x)_x=\sqrt{g}_x,`$ (2.12)
$`_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`_t+(_\tau x)_x=_t+v_x,`$ (2.13)
and the measure transforms with a factor of $`1/\sqrt{g}`$. Finally, after renaming $`\sqrt{g}`$ as $`\sqrt{2\lambda }/\rho `$, we obtain the Lagrangian for the Chaplygin “super” gas in (1+1)-dimensions (below and in what follows the overdot denotes derivative with respect to time $`t`$):

$$L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}dx\{\rho (\dot{\theta }\frac{1}{2}\psi \dot{\psi })\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2\frac{\lambda }{\rho }+\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}\psi _x\psi \},$$
(2.14)
where according to (2.8) and (2.10) (at $`u=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=1`$)

$$v=p=_x\theta \frac{1}{2}\psi _x\psi .$$
(2.15)
We have used $`\rho `$ and $`v`$ in anticipation of their role as the fluid density and velocity, and we demonstrate below that they indeed satisfy appropriate equations of motion. For convenience we have also rescaled $`\psi `$ everywhere by a factor of $`2^{3/4}`$. The Lagrangian (2.14) agrees with the limiting case of the planar fluid in . We note that as for the planar case, a more straightforward derivation leads to the fluid Lagrangian of (2.14) with $`\rho `$ integrated out. Specifically, if the parameterization freedom is used directly to equate the spacelike and timelike coordinates $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ with $`x`$ and $`t`$, we obtain

$$L^{}=dx\left(\sqrt{2\dot{\theta }\psi \dot{\psi }+v^2}\frac{1}{2}\psi _x\psi \right),$$
(2.16)
where $`v`$ is defined as in (2.15). This form of the Lagrangian can be obtained from (2.14) after $`\rho `$ is eliminated using the equations of motion for $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$, shown below.

## 3 The Supersymmetric Chaplygin Gas

### 3.1 Equations of Motion

The following equations of motion are obtained by variation of the Lagrangian (2.14):

$`\dot{\rho }+_x(\rho v)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.1)
$`\dot{\psi }+\left(v+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }}\right)_x\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.2)
$`\dot{\theta }+v_x\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2\rho }}\psi _x\psi ,`$ (3.3)
$`\dot{v}+v_xv`$ $`=`$ $`_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho ^2}}\right).`$ (3.4)
Naturally, there are only three independent equations of motion as (3.4) is obtained from (3.2), (3.3) and (2.15). Equations (3.1) and (3.4) are seen to be just the continuity and Euler equations for the Chaplygin gas. Note that these do not see the Grassmann variables directly.

We now pass to the Riemann coordinates, which for this system are (velocity $`\pm `$ sound speed $`\sqrt{2\lambda }/\rho `$):

$$R_\pm =\left(v\pm \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }\right).$$
(3.5)
In terms of the Riemann coordinates, the equations of motion obtain the form

$`\dot{R_\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}_xR_\pm ,`$ (3.6)
$`\dot{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`R_+_x\psi ,`$ (3.7)
$`\dot{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_+R_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_+\psi _x\psi .`$ (3.8)
The equations in (3.6) contain the continuity and Euler equations and are known to be integrable . It is readily verified that equation (3.7) for $`\psi `$ is solved by any function of $`R_{}`$,

$$\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }(R_{}),$$
(3.9)
and hence the fluid model is completely integrable. That this is the case should come as no surprise considering that we began with an integrable world-sheet theory.

At this point it may seem curiously asymmetric that equation (3.7) for the Grassmann field should contain the $`R_+`$ Riemann coordinate and not the $`R_{}`$ companion coordinate. In fact, the reverse would have been the case if the sign of the $`\sqrt{2\lambda }`$ term in (2.14) had been opposite. The entire model is consistent with this substitution, which is just the choice of identifying $`\sqrt{g}`$ with plus or minus the sound speed $`\sqrt{2\lambda }/\rho `$.

The energy-momentum tensor is constructed from (2.14), and its components are

$`T^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}}\psi _x\psi ,`$ (3.10)
$`T^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫=\rho v,`$ (3.11)
$`T^{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho v}{2}}R_+R_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}}R_+\psi _x\psi ,`$ (3.12)
$`T^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho R_+R_{}.`$ (3.13)
The expected conserved quantities of the system, the generators of the Galileo group, are verified to be time-independent using the equations of motion. We have

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\rho },`$ (3.14)
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\rho v},`$ (3.15)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+\frac{\lambda }{\rho }\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{2}\psi _x\psi \right)},`$ (3.16)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\rho (xvt)}={\displaystyle dxx\rho }tP,`$ (3.17)
Although some generators look purely bosonic, there are still Grassmann fields hidden in $`v`$ according to its definition (2.15).

In going to Riemann coordinates, we can observe a ladder of conserved charges of the form

$$I_n^\pm =dx\rho R_\pm ^n.$$
(3.18)
The first few values of $`n`$ above give

$`I_0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`N`$ (3.19)
$`I_1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`P\pm \sqrt{2\lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (3.20)
$`I_2^+`$ $`=`$ $`2H,`$ (3.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is used to denote the length of space $`dx`$. (Note that $`I_2^{},`$ would correspond to the Hamiltonian of the theory with $`\sqrt{2\lambda }`$ replaced by its negative).

Ref.  identified two different supersymmetry generators, which correspond in one space dimension to the time independent quantities:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\rho \psi },`$ (3.22)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\rho \left(v\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }}{\rho }\right)\psi }.`$ (3.23)
These are again but special cases ($`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$) of a ladder of conserved supercharges described by

$$Q_n=dx\rho R_{}^n\psi .$$
(3.24)
We see that the supercharges evaluated on the solution (3.9) reproduce the form of the bosonic charges (3.18).

Let us observe that there exist further bosonic and fermionic conserved charges. For example, one may verify that the bosonic charges

$`{\displaystyle dx\rho R_\pm ^n\left(\frac{_xR_\pm }{\rho }\right)^m}`$ (3.25)
$`{\displaystyle dx\rho R_{}^n\left(\frac{\psi _x\psi }{\rho }\right)}`$ (3.26)
are conserved, as are the fermionic charges

$$dx\rho R_{}^n\left(\frac{_x\psi }{\rho }\right).$$
(3.27)
Conserved expressions involving higher derivatives may also be constructed. The conservation of these quantities is easily understood when the string worldsheet variables are used. Then the above are written as $`d\sigma R_\pm ^n(_\sigma R_\pm )^m`$, $`d\sigma R_{}^n(\psi _\sigma \psi )`$, and $`d\sigma R_{}^n(_\sigma \psi )`$, respectively. Furthermore when $`R_\pm `$ are evaluated on solutions, they become functions of $`\tau \pm \sigma `$ , so that integration over $`\sigma `$ extinguishes the $`\tau `$ dependence, leaving constant quantities.

### 3.2 Canonical Structure

The equations of motion (3.1-3.3) can also be obtained by Poisson bracketing with the Hamiltonian (3.10) if the following canonical brackets are postulated:

$`\{\theta (x),\rho (y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xy),`$ (3.28)
$`\{\theta (x),\psi (y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2\rho }}\delta (xy),`$ (3.29)
$`\{\psi (x),\psi (y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\delta (xy),`$ (3.30)
where the last bracket, containing Grassmann arguments on both sides is understood to be the anti-bracket. With these one verifies that the conserved charges in (3.14)-(3.17) generate the appropriate Galileo symmetry transformations on the dynamical variables $`\rho `$, $`\theta `$, and $`\psi `$. Correspondingly the supercharges (3.22),(3.23) generate the super transformations

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\rho `$ $`=`$ $`0\delta \rho =\eta _x(\rho \psi )`$ (3.31)
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \psi \delta \theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta R_+\psi `$ (3.32)
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\eta \delta \psi =\eta \psi _x\psi \eta R_{}`$ (3.33)
which leave the Lagrangian (2.14) invariant. The algebra of the bosonic generators reproduces the algebra of the (extended) Galileo group, the extension residing in the bracket $`\{B,P\}=N`$. The algebra of the supercharges is

$`\{\overline{\eta }Q,\eta Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\eta }\eta H`$ (3.34)
$`\{\overline{\eta }\stackrel{~}{Q},\eta \stackrel{~}{Q}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\eta }\eta N`$ (3.35)
$`\{\overline{\eta }\stackrel{~}{Q},\eta Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\eta }\eta (P\sqrt{2\lambda }\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (3.36)
$`\{B,Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}.`$ (3.37)
## 4 Further Symmetries of the Fluid Model

As mentioned above, since the fluid model descends from the superstring, it should possess an enhanced symmetry beyond the Galileo symmetry in (1+1)-dimensions. In fact, the following conserved charges effecting time rescaling and space-time mixing  are also verified:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx(t\rho \theta )},`$ (4.1)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx(x\theta 𝒫)},`$ (4.2)
$`G`$ is sometimes referred to as the “anti-boost” because of its transformations on extended space-time . The Galileo generators supplemented by $`D`$ and $`G`$ together satisfy the Lie algebra of the (2+1)-dimensional Poincaré group, with $`N`$, $`P`$, and $`H`$ corresponding to the three translations and with $`B`$, $`D`$ and $`G`$ forming the (2+1)-dimensional Lorentz group $`SO(2,1)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{B,D\}=B,& \{G,B\}=D,& \{D,G\}=G,\end{array}$$
(4.3)
with Casimir

$`C=BG+GB+DD.`$ (4.4)
Adjoining the supercharges results in the super-Poincaré algebra of (2+1)-dimensions. The Lorentz charges do not belong to the infinite towers of constants of motion mentioned earlier. Rather, they act as raising and lowering operators. One verifies for the $`Q_n`$ and $`I_n^+`$: 111Note that the $`\{B,I_2^+\}`$ bracket coincides with $`\{B,2H\}`$, which should equal $`2P`$ according to the Galileo algebra. But the above result, viz. $`2I_1^+`$, gives $`2(P\sqrt{2\lambda }\mathrm{\Omega })`$. This central addition arises from a term of the form
$$dxdy\sqrt{2\lambda }x\frac{}{x}\delta (xy),$$
whose value is ambiguous, depending on the order of integration.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{B,I_n^+\}=nI_{n1}^+,& \{D,I_n^+\}=(n1)I_n^+,& \{G,I_n^+\}=(\frac{n}{2}1)I_{n+1}^+,\\ \{B,Q_n\}=nQ_{n1},& \{D,Q_n\}=(n\frac{1}{2})Q_n,& \{G,Q_n\}=(\frac{n}{2}\frac{1}{2})Q_{n+1},\end{array}$$
(4.5)
The brackets with the $`I_n^{}`$ do not close, but the $`I_n^{}`$ can be modified by the addition of another tower of constant quantities, namely those of (3.26):

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}=I_n^{}\sqrt{2\lambda }n(n1)dxR_{}^{n2}\psi _x\psi .$$
(4.6)
The modified constants obey the same algebra as $`I_n^+`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{B,\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}\}=n\stackrel{~}{I}_{n1}^{},& \{D,\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}\}=(n1)\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{},& \{G,\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}\}=(\frac{n}{2}1)\stackrel{~}{I}_{n+1}^{}.\end{array}$$
(4.7)
Evidently $`I_n^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}`$, and $`Q_n`$ provide irreducible, infinite dimensional representations for $`SO(2,1)`$, with the Casimir, in adjoint action, taking the form $`l(l+1)`$, and $`l=1`$ for $`I_n^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}`$, and $`l=1/2`$ for $`Q_n`$.

Finally we inquire about the algebra of the towers of extended charges $`I_n^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_n^{}`$, and $`Q_n`$. While some (bosonic) brackets vanish, others provide new constants of motion like those in (3.25)-(3.27) and their generalizations with more derivatives. Thus it appears that one is dealing with an open (super) algebra.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented an integrable, supersymmetric fluid model with additional, “dynamical” symmetry tracing back to its origin in the superstring. Besides the planar case in , this is the only other dimensionality for a supersymmetric Chaplygin gas that can be obtained by going to the light-cone gauge in a super $`p`$-brane.

It remains an open question what other fluid interactions can be obtained from the rich factory of branes. For example, string theory $`D`$-branes have gauge fields living on them. Such gauge fields would presumably remain in passing to a fluid model and may thus provide a model of magnetohydrodynamics from $`D`$-branes. It might also be worthwhile to explore whether the fluid models with Grassmann variables are suited to describing the physical properties of fluids with spin degrees of freedom.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818. One of the authors (Y.B.) is also supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship.