text:
# Variational Principles of Lagrangian Averaged Fluid Dynamics

## Abstract

The Lagrangian average (LA) of the ideal fluid equations preserves their fundamental transport structure. This transport structure is responsible for the Kelvin circulation theorem of the LA flow and, hence, for its potential vorticity convection and its helicity conservation.

Lagrangian averaging also preserves the Euler-Poincaré (EP) variational framework that implies the LA fluid equations. This is expressed in the Lagrangian-averaged Euler-Poincaré (LAEP) theorem proven here and illustrated for the Lagrangian average Euler (LAE) equations.

PACS numbers: 02.40.-k, 11.10.Ef, 45.20.Jj, 47.10.+g

Keywords: Fluid dynamics, Variational principles, Lagrangian average

Introduction. In turbulence, in climate modeling and in other multiscale fluids problems, a major challenge is “scale-up.” This is the challenge of deriving models that correctly capture the mean, or large scale flow – including the influence on it of the rapid, or small scale dynamics.

Meteorology and oceanography must deal with averaging in either the Eulerian, or the Lagrangian fluid specification. Determining the relation between averaged quantities in these two specifications is one of the classical problems in the physics of fluids.

The GLM (Generalized Lagrangian Mean) equations of Andrews and McIntyre  systematize the approach to Lagrangian fluid modeling by introducing a slow + fast decomposition of the Lagrangian particle trajectory in general form. In these (exact, but not closed) equations, the Lagrangian mean of a fluid quantity evaluated at the mean particle position is related to its Eulerian mean, evaluated at the current particle position. Thus, the GLM equations are expressed directly in the Eulerian representation. The Lagrangian mean has the advantage of preserving the fundamental transport structure of fluid dynamics. For example, the Lagrangian mean commutes with the scalar advection operator and it preserves the Kelvin circulation property of the fluid motion equation. However, the Lagrangian mean also has two main disadvantages: it is history dependent and it does not commute with the spatial gradient.

In this paper, we place Lagrangian averaged (LA) fluid equations such as the GLM equations into the Euler-Poincaré (EP) framework of constrained variational principles. This demonstrates the variational reduction property of the Lagrangian mean, encapsulated in the LAEP Theorem proven here:

margin:

Lagrangian Averaged Euler-Poincaré Theorem Lagrangian averaging preserves the variational structure of the Euler-Poincaré framework for fluids.

According to this theorem, the Lagrangian mean’s preservation of the fundamental transport structure of fluid dynamics also extends to preserving its EP variational structure . This preservation of variational structure is not possible with the Eulerian mean. The Eulerian mean also does not preserve the transport structure of fluid mechanics.

The LAEP Theorem puts the approach using LA Hamilton’s principles and LA equations onto equal footing. This is quite a bonus for both approaches to modeling fluids. According to the LAEP Theorem, the LA Hamilton’s principle produces dynamics that is guaranteed to be verified directly by averaging the original equations, and the LA equations inherit the conservation laws that are available from the symmetries of Hamilton’s principle for fluids.

Outline of the paper. We begin by briefly reviewing the GLM theory of Andrews and McIntyre . We then state and prove the LAEP theorem, following the EP framework of . We illustrate the LAEP theorem by applying it to incompressible ideal fluids. Finally, we discuss recent progress toward closure of these equations as models of fluid turbulence.

GLM (Generalized Lagrangian Mean) theory. The GLM theory  begins by assuming that the Lagrange-to-Euler map factorizes as a product of diffeomorphisms, $`g(t)=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t).`$ Moreover, the first factor $`\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ arises from an averaging process denoted as $`\overline{g}(t)=\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)}=\stackrel{~}{g}(t).`$ The averaging process $`\overline{()}`$ can be reasonably arbitrary, except that it must satisfy the projection property, so that $`\overline{\overline{g}}(t)=\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)=\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$. Hence, a fluid parcel labeled by $`𝐱_0`$ has current position,

$`𝐱^\xi (𝐱_0,t)g(t)𝐱_0=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)(\stackrel{~}{g}(t)𝐱_0)=\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱(𝐱_0,t),t),`$
and it has mean position $`𝐱(𝐱_0,t)=\stackrel{~}{g}(t)𝐱_0.`$

GLM velocities and advective derivatives. The composition of maps $`g(t)=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ yields via the chain rule the following velocity relation,

$$\dot{𝐱}^\xi (𝐱_0,t)=\dot{g}(t)𝐱_0=\dot{\mathrm{\Xi }}(t)𝐱+T\mathrm{\Xi }(\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)𝐱_0).$$
(1)
By invertibility, $`𝐱_0=g^1(t)𝐱^\xi =\stackrel{~}{g}^1(t)𝐱.`$ Hence, one may define the fluid parcel velocity at the current position $`𝐮(𝐱^\xi ,t)`$ in terms of a vector field evaluated at the mean position $`𝐮^\xi (𝐱,t)`$ as

$$𝐮(𝐱^\xi ,t)=\dot{g}g^1(t)𝐱^\xi =\dot{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1(t)𝐱𝐮^\xi (𝐱,t).$$
(2)
The velocity relation (1) then implies,

$$𝐮^\xi (𝐱,t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }}{t}(𝐱,t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }}{𝐱}\overline{𝐮}^L(𝐱,t).$$
(3)
This is a standard velocity relation from GLM theory, in which the Lagrangian mean velocity $`\overline{𝐮}^L`$ is defined as

$$\overline{𝐮}^L(𝐱,t)\overline{𝐮^\xi (𝐱,t)}=\overline{\dot{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1(t)}𝐱=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^1𝐱.$$
(4)
In the third equality one invokes the projection property of the averaging process and finds $`\overline{\dot{g}}=\dot{\overline{g}}=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ from equation (1), so that $`\overline{𝐮}^L(𝐱,t)=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^1𝐱\stackrel{~}{𝐮}(𝐱,t).`$ Thus, the Lagrangian mean velocity $`\overline{𝐮}^L`$ coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{𝐮}`$, the tangent to the mean motion associated with $`\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$. Hence, one may write equation (3) in terms of the LA material time derivative $`D^L/Dt`$ as

$$𝐮^\xi (𝐱,t)=\left(\frac{}{t}+\overline{𝐮}^L\right)\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t)\frac{D^L}{Dt}\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t).$$
(5)
For any other fluid quantity $`\chi `$ one may similarly define $`\chi ^\xi `$ as the composition of functions $`\chi ^\xi (𝐱,t)=\chi (𝐱^\xi ,t)=\chi (\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t),t).`$ Taking the LA material time derivative of $`\chi ^\xi `$ and using the definition of $`D^L/Dt`$ in equation (5) yields the advective derivative relation,

$$\left(\frac{\chi }{t}\right)^\xi +T\chi \frac{D^L}{Dt}\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t)=\left(\frac{\chi }{t}+T\chi 𝐮\right)^\xi ,$$
(6)
so $`D^L\chi ^\xi /Dt=(D\chi /Dt)^\xi `$. As in equation (4) for the velocity, the Lagrangian mean $`\overline{\chi }^L`$ of a fluid quantity $`\chi `$ is defined as

$$\overline{\chi }^L(𝐱,t)\overline{\chi ^\xi (𝐱,t)}=\overline{\chi (𝐱^\xi ,t)}=\overline{\chi (g(t)𝐱_0,t)}.$$
(7)
Taking the Lagrangian mean of equation (6) and again using its projection property yields $`\dot{\overline{\chi }}^L=D^L\overline{\chi }^L/Dt=\overline{(D\chi /Dt)}^L=\overline{\dot{\chi }}^L.`$ Thus, the Lagrangian mean defined in (7) commutes with the material derivative.

Transformation factors of advected quantities. Advective transport by $`g(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ is defined by

$`a(𝐱^\xi ,t)=a_0g^1(t)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐱,t)=a_0\stackrel{~}{g}^1(t),`$
where $`a_0=a(𝐱_0,0)=\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐱_0,0)`$, with $`a,\stackrel{~}{a}V^{}`$ and the factorization $`g(t)=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐱,t)=a\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t).`$ Since $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ refer to the same initial conditions, $`a_0`$,

$$a_0\stackrel{~}{g}^1(t)=\stackrel{~}{a}(𝐱,t)=a\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱,t)(𝐱,t)a^\xi (𝐱,t).$$
(8)
Note that the right side of this equation is potentially rapidly varying, but the left side is a mean advected quantity. Here $`(𝐱,t)`$ is the tensor transformation factor of the advected quantity $`a`$ under the change of variables $`\mathrm{\Xi }:𝐱𝐱^\xi `$. For example, the density, $`D`$, transforms as

$`D^\xi det(T\mathrm{\Xi })(𝐱,t)=\stackrel{~}{D}(𝐱,t),`$ $`(𝐱,t)=det(T\mathrm{\Xi }),`$ (9)
and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ advects as $`_t\stackrel{~}{D}=\mathrm{div}(\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{𝐮}).`$ (10)
The transformation factors are 1, $`det(T\mathrm{\Xi })`$ and $`𝖪det(T\mathrm{\Xi })T\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$, for an advected scalar, density and vector field, respectively. In each case, the corresponding transformation factor $``$ appears in a variational relation for an advected quantity, expressed via equation (8) as

$$\delta a^\xi =\delta (^1\stackrel{~}{a})=^1\delta \stackrel{~}{a}+(\delta ^1)\stackrel{~}{a}.$$
(11)
This formula will be instrumental in establishing the main result.

Lagrangian averaged Euler-Poincaré Theorem. Let the following list of assumptions hold .

$``$ There is a right representation of Lie group $`G`$ on the vector space $`V`$ and $`G`$ acts in the natural way on the right on $`TG\times V^{}`$: $`(v_g,a)h=(v_gh,ah)`$.

$``$ The function $`L:TG\times V^{}𝐑`$ is right $`G`$–invariant.

$``$ In particular, if $`a_0V^{}`$, define the Lagrangian $`L_{a_0}:TG𝐑`$ by $`L_{a_0}(v_g)=L(v_g,a_0)`$. Then $`L_{a_0}`$ is right invariant under the lift to $`TG`$ of the right action of $`G_{a_0}`$ on $`G`$, where $`G_{a_0}`$ is the isotropy group of $`a_0`$.

$``$ Right $`G`$–invariance of $`L`$ permits one to define $`\mathrm{}:𝐠\times V^{}𝐑`$ by $`\mathrm{}(v_gg^1,a_0g^1)=L(v_g,a_0).`$ Conversely, this relation defines for any $`\mathrm{}:𝐠\times V^{}𝐑`$ a right $`G`$–invariant function $`L:TG\times V^{}𝐑`$.

$``$ For a curve $`g(t)G,`$ let $`u(t)\dot{g}(t)g(t)^1TG/G𝐠`$ and define the curve $`a(t)`$ as the unique solution of the linear differential equation with time dependent coefficients $`\dot{a}(t)=a(t)u(t)`$ where the action of $`u𝐠`$ on the initial condition $`a(0)=a_0V^{}`$ is denoted by concatenation from the right. This solution can be written as the advective transport relation, $`a(t)=a_0g(t)^1.`$

$``$ The GLM factorization holds, $`g(t)=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ with $`\overline{g}(t)=\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)}=\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ and $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)=\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$.

LAEP Theorem.

The following are equivalent:

$`\overline{𝐢}`$ The averaged Hamilton’s principle holds

$$\delta _{t_1}^{t_2}\overline{L_{a_0}(g(t),\dot{g}(t))}𝑑t=0$$
(12)
for variations $`\delta g(t)`$ of $`g(t)`$ vanishing at the endpoints.

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐢}}`$ The averaged Euler–Lagrange equations for $`\overline{L}_{a_0}`$ are satisfied on $`T^{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$,

$$\overline{\frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta g}T\mathrm{\Xi }}\overline{\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta \dot{g}}T\mathrm{\Xi }}=0$$
(13)
$`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐢𝐢}}`$ The averaged constrained variational principle

$$\delta _{t_1}^{t_2}\overline{\mathrm{}(u(t),a(t))}𝑑t=0$$
(14)
holds, using variational relations of the form

$`\delta u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(_t+\mathrm{ad}_u\right)\eta ^{}+\left(T\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_t+\mathrm{ad}_{\stackrel{~}{u}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$ (15)
$`\delta a`$ $`=`$ $`a\eta =\delta \left(^1\stackrel{~}{a}\right)\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`a\eta ^{}\left(^1(\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{\eta })\right)\mathrm{\Xi }^1,`$ (17)
where Lie derivatives of advected quantities by the vector fields $`\eta ^{}(t)\delta \mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(t)\delta \stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$ and

$$\eta \delta gg^1=\eta ^{}+(T\mathrm{\Xi }\stackrel{~}{\eta })\mathrm{\Xi }^1,$$
(18)
are indicated by concatenation on the right and these three vector fields all vanish at the endpoints.

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐯}}`$ The Euler–Poincaré (EP) equation holds on $`𝐠\times V^{}`$

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{ad}_u^{}\right)\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u}=\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a}a,$$
(19)
and the Lagrangian averaged Euler–Poincaré (LAEP) equation holds on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\mathrm{ad}_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^{}\right)\overline{\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u^\xi }T\mathrm{\Xi }\right)}=\overline{\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a^\xi }^1\right)}\stackrel{~}{a}.$$
(20)
Notation. In equations (19) and (20), the operations ad and $``$ are defined by using the $`L_2`$ pairing $`f,g=fgd^3x`$. The ad operation is defined as (minus) the $`L_2`$ dual of the Lie algebra operation, ad, or commutator, ad$`{}_{u}{}^{}\eta =[u,\eta ]`$, for vector fields, $`\mathrm{ad}_u^{}\mu ,\eta \mu ,\mathrm{ad}_u\eta `$. The diamond operation $``$ is defined as (minus) the $`L_2`$ dual of the Lie derivative, namely, $`ba,\eta b,\mathrm{\pounds }_\eta a=b,a\eta ,`$ where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\eta a`$ denotes the Lie derivative with respect to vector field $`\eta `$ of the tensor $`a`$, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are dual tensors.

Proof of the LAEP Theorem. The equivalence of $`\overline{𝐢}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐢}}`$ holds for any configuration manifold, so it holds again here. To compute the averaged Euler-Lagrange equation (13), we use the following variational relation obtained from the composition of maps $`g(t)=\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$, cf. the velocity relation (1),

$$\delta g(t)=\delta \mathrm{\Xi }(t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)+T\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\delta \stackrel{~}{g}(t).$$
(21)
Hence, we find

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\overline{L_{a_0}(g(t),\dot{g}(t))}𝑑t`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left(\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta g}}\delta g}+\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta \dot{g}}}\delta \dot{g}}\right)𝑑t`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\overline{(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta g}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta \dot{g}}}\right)\delta \mathrm{\Xi }(t))}\stackrel{~}{g}𝑑t`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left(\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta g}}T\mathrm{\Xi }}\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{a_0}}{\delta \dot{g}}}T\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)\delta \stackrel{~}{g}𝑑t.`$
In the last equality, the first integral vanishes for any $`\delta \mathrm{\Xi }`$, thus ensuring that the Euler-Lagrange equations are satisfied before averaging is applied. Vanishing of the second integral for arbitrary $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g}`$ then yields the averaged Euler-Lagrange equations (13).

The equivalence of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐢𝐢}}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐯}}`$ in the LAEP theorem now follows by substituting the variations (17) into (14), and integrating by parts, to find

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\overline{\mathrm{}(u,a)}𝑑t={\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u}},\delta u}+\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a}},\delta a}dt`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\overline{\left(_t+\mathrm{ad}_u^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a}}a,\eta ^{}}𝑑t`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\mathrm{ad}_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^{})\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u^\xi }}T\mathrm{\Xi }\right)}`$
$`\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a^\xi }}^1\right)}\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{\eta }dt.`$
Thus, the independent variations $`\eta ^{}`$ in (26) and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ in (29) result in the EP motion equation (19) and the LAEP motion equation (20), respectively.

Finally we show that $`\overline{𝐢}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐢𝐢𝐢}}`$ are equivalent. First note that the $`G`$–invariance of $`L:TG\times V^{}𝐑`$ and the definition of $`a(t)=a_0g(t)^1`$ imply that the integrands in (12) and (14) are equal. In fact, this holds both before and after averaging. Moreover, all variations $`\delta g(t)TG`$ of $`g(t)`$ with fixed endpoints induce and are induced by variations $`\delta u(t)𝐠`$ of $`u(t)`$ of the form $`\delta u=\eta /t+\mathrm{ad}_u\eta `$ with $`\eta (t)𝐠`$ vanishing at the endpoints. The relation between $`\delta g(t)`$ and $`\eta (t)`$ is given by $`\eta (t)=\delta g(t)g(t)^1`$. The corresponding statements also hold for the prime- and tilde-variables in the variational relations (17) that are used in the calculation of the other equivalences. This finishes the proof of the LAEP Theorem.

Lie derivative vs ad. The equality ad$`{}_{u}{}^{}\mu =\mathrm{\pounds }_u\mu `$ holds for any one-form density $`\mu `$ (such as $`\mu =\delta \mathrm{}/\delta u`$, the variational derivative). Thus, the LAEP motion equation (20) may be written equivalently using Lie derivatives as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\mathrm{\pounds }_{\stackrel{~}{u}}\right)\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u^\xi }}T\mathrm{\Xi }\right)}=\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a^\xi }}^1\right)}\stackrel{~}{a}.`$
In this notation, the advection of mass takes the form $`(_t+\mathrm{\pounds }_{\stackrel{~}{u}})\stackrel{~}{D}=0`$ and one immediately obtains the

LA Kelvin-Noether Circulation Theorem.

On defining $`\stackrel{~}{v}\overline{\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta u^\xi }T\mathrm{\Xi }\right)}/\stackrel{~}{D}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _{c(\stackrel{~}{u})}}\stackrel{~}{v}={\displaystyle _{c(\stackrel{~}{u})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{D}}}\overline{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta a^\xi }}^1\right)}\stackrel{~}{a},`$
for any closed curve $`c(\stackrel{~}{u})`$ following the LA fluid motion.

The same result is obtained by applying LA directly to Kelvin’s Theorem for the EP motion equation (19).

Applying the LAEP theorem to incompressible fluids. The Lagrangian averaged Euler (LAE) equations for an incompressible fluid are derived from the LAEP theorem using the reduced averaged Lagrangian,

$$\overline{\mathrm{}}=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{D}\overline{|𝐮^\xi |^2}+\overline{p^\xi \left(detT\mathrm{\Xi }\stackrel{~}{D}\right)}\right].$$
(30)
The pressure constraint implies that the mean advected density is related to the mean fluid trajectory by $`\stackrel{~}{D}=\overline{detT\mathrm{\Xi }}.`$ Thus, in general, the LAE fluid velocity has a nonzero divergence , since (10) for $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ implies

$$\mathrm{div}\stackrel{~}{𝐮}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{D}}\left(\frac{}{t}+\overline{𝐮}^L\right)\stackrel{~}{D}0.$$
(31)
In principle, one may restrict $`g(t)`$ and both its factors $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ to the space of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms, for which $`detT\mathrm{\Xi }1`$. However, some LA processes may not respect this restriction and, in general, $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{~}{𝐮}0`$. In , though, $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{~}{𝐮}=0`$ is accomplished.

For $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ in (30) the LAEP equation (20) gives

$$\frac{}{t}\stackrel{~}{v}_i+\stackrel{~}{u}^j\frac{}{x^j}\stackrel{~}{v}_i+\stackrel{~}{v}_j\frac{}{x^i}\stackrel{~}{u}^j+\frac{}{x^i}\stackrel{~}{\pi }=0,$$
(32)
with mean fluid quantities $`\stackrel{~}{v}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{D}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{u}^i}}=\overline{u_j^\xi (T\mathrm{\Xi })_i^j},\stackrel{~}{\pi }={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{D}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{|𝐮^\xi |^2}+\overline{p}^L.`$
When $`T\mathrm{\Xi }=Id+\xi `$, for a vector field $`\xi =𝐱^\xi 𝐱`$, one finds $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}=\overline{𝐮^\xi }+\overline{\frac{D^L}{Dt}\xi _j\xi ^j}\overline{𝐮}^L\overline{𝐩}.`$ The term $`\overline{𝐩}`$ is called the pseudomomentum . See, e.g.,  for discussions of the role of pseudomomentum in GLM theory.

Momentum balance.

Following the EP theory of Holm, Marsden and Ratiu  leads to momentum balance for the LAE equations,

$$\frac{}{t}(\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{v}_i)+\frac{}{x^j}\left(\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{v}_i\stackrel{~}{u}^j+\overline{p}^L\delta _i^j\right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{D}}{2}\frac{\overline{|𝐮^\xi |^2}}{x^i}|_{exp},$$
(33)
where subscript $`exp`$ refers to the explicit spatial dependence that yields a mean force arising from the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$terms in $`\overline{|𝐮^\xi |^2}=\overline{|D^L\mathrm{\Xi }/Dt|^2}`$ that appear in equation (3).

Recent progress toward closure. Of course, the LAE equations (32) are not yet closed. As indicated in their momentum balance relation (33), they depend on the unspecified Lagrangian statistical properties appearing as the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$terms in the definitions of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Until these properties are modeled or prescribed, the LAE equations are incomplete.

Progress in formulating and analyzing a closed system of fluid equations related to the LAE equations has recently been made in the EP context. Such closed model LAE equations were first obtained in Holm, Marsden and Ratiu . For more discussion of this type of equation and its recent developments as a turbulence model, see papers by Chen et al. , Shkoller , Foias et al. , Marsden, Ratiu and Shkoller  and Marsden and Shkoller . A self-consistent variant of the LAE closure was also introduced in Gjaja and Holm  in the Lagrangian fluid specification, see Holm  for further discussion of that approach.

The LAEP approach is versatile enough to derive LA equations for compressible fluid motion, as well. This was already shown in the original GLM theory . For brevity, we only remark that the LAEP approach also preserves helicity conservation for compressible flows and it preserves magnetic helicity and cross-helicity conservation when applied to magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). For more details in this regard, see .

Acknowledgments. I am grateful for stimulating discussions of this topic with P. Constantin, G. Eyink, U. Frisch, J. E. Marsden, M. E. McIntyre, I. Mezic, S. Shkoller and A. Weinstein. Some of these discussions took place at Cambridge University while the author was a visiting professor at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Science. This work was supported by the US DOE under contracts W-7405-ENG-36 and the Applied Mathematical Sciences Program KC-07-01-01.


format: text

text:
# The origin of the logarithmic singularity in the symplectic semiclassical form factor

## I Introduction

The analytic proof of the equivalence of random matrix theory with the spectral properties of classically chaotic quantum systems (BGS-conjecture) is still an open problem. Numerically, it was proven for many chaotic quantum systems that the form factor is faithful to random matrix theory , however, a quantitative explanation is still missing.

Recently, M. Sieber and K. Richter have been able to make a first important step towards a deeper understanding of this relation by deriving the first off-diagonal term of the semiclassical form factor for the orthogonal case .

This paper is organized as follows. First, we will derive the first off-diagonal term of the symplectic form-factor using the semiclassical spin formalism derived by J. Bolte and S. Keppeler . Next, we are able to make a statement about all topological charges ($`SU(2)`$-Berry-phases) in the $`\tau `$-expansion of the form factor. This will lead to the final conclusion that the loop expansion for the orthogonal and symplectic case are basically the same in the region $`0<\tau <2`$; the only difference being the phase factor due to the spin. The main conclusion is that the singularity at the Heisenberg time in the symplectic case is originating from this additional phase factor.

The orthogonal form factor derived from random matrix theory is given by

$`K[\tau ]_{\mathrm{orth}.}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2|\tau ||\tau |\mathrm{ln}[1+2|\tau |]:& |\tau |<1\hfill \\ \hfill 2|\tau |\mathrm{ln}\frac{2|\tau |+1}{2|\tau |1}:& |\tau |>1\hfill \end{array}`$

leading to a small $`\tau `$-expansion $`K[\tau ]=2\tau 2\tau ^2+\mathrm{}`$. M. Sieber demonstrated that the first off-diagonal contribution term $`2\tau ^2`$ can be derived by considering the correlation of one self-intersecting with one non-self-intersecting loop, that is, a pair of loops where the relative intersection number is one. These configurations do only contribute to the form factor when the time-reversal symmetry is preserved. The reason is that the action difference of the two loops must be smaller than $`\mathrm{}`$ in order to give a non-vanishing contribution to the form factor. Otherwise, the summation over all contributing loop pairs would have a random phase and vanishes. Taking an analogy from the theory of disordered systems, imagine a system being invariant under time reversal. By applying a magnetic field, the time reversal symmetry is destroyed. When the magnetic field is very weak, the classical paths of motion do not deviate strongly from the paths in the original time-reversal invariant system, however, when the magnetic flux through the surface of the two parts of the loop is larger than $`\mathrm{}`$, the action difference leads to destructive interference, because although the enclosed area of the two loops is almost the same, the direction in one part of the first loop is reversed compared to the second loop. In the semiclassical limit, loops of length $`L\mathrm{}`$ have to be considered, therefore, for a constant magnetic field, the action difference will be larger than $`\mathrm{}`$ for the relevant loop pairs. Indeed, no $`\tau ^k`$ terms, $`k>1`$, exists in the unitary case in the form factor.

However, for the symplectic case, such off-diagonal terms arise much the same as for the orthogonal case. The symplectic form-factor derived from random matrix theory reads

$`K[\tau ]_{\mathrm{sympl}.}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|\tau |}{2}\frac{|\tau |}{4}\mathrm{ln}|1|\tau ||:& |\tau |<2\hfill \\ \hfill 1:& |\tau |>2\hfill \end{array}`$

thus the term $`+\tau ^2/4`$ is expected to arise from the same loop correlation that has been considered by M. Sieber. The prefactor $`1/4`$ can be determined trivially due to Kramers’ degeneracy: When the form factor $`K(\tau )`$ has been calculated using semiclassical analysis for the orthogonal case, the change due to Kramers’ degeneracy in the symplectic case leads to the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{K}(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}K(\frac{1}{2}\tau )$$
(1)
not taking into account the spin contribution. In the symplectic case, the semiclassical first-order off-diagonal contribution reads therefore

$$K_{\mathrm{sympl}.}^{\mathrm{off}}(\tau )=(\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{contribution})\frac{1}{2}(2(\frac{\tau }{2})^2)$$
(2)
Thus, the only non-trivial change for the symplectic case as compared to the orthogonal case is the sign factor, which is, as we intend to show, due to the spin contribution in the semiclassical form factor.

It was demonstrated that the spin contribution is $`+1`$ for the diagonal part of the form factor, that is, when both loops $`\gamma `$ are equal . However, the first off-diagonal contribution is due to intersecting loops, that is, non-trivial topology.

## II Trivial Topology-Case

In general, the spin contribution to the density of states is given by

$$\rho (E)_{\mathrm{osc}}=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^r\frac{T_\alpha }{\sqrt{det[M_\alpha ^r1]}}\mathrm{cos}[\frac{r}{\mathrm{}}S_\alpha (E)]$$
(3)
Comparing with the usual formulation, a factor $`\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^r`$ arises due to the spin, where $`d_\gamma `$ is a matrix from $`SU(2)`$ obeying the differential equation

$$\dot{d}(p,x,t)+iM(\mathrm{\Phi }_H^t(p,x))d(p,x,t)=0$$
(4)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H^t(p,x)`$ describes the classical trajectory along a path $`\gamma `$, and $`M`$ is a hermitian and traceless matrix on the energy shell $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$ in phase space describing the spin interaction. In the semiclassical limit, $`t\mathrm{}`$, it is assumed that the flow on the product space $`:=\mathrm{\Omega }_E\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ is strongly mixing, that is, the matrix $`d(p,x,t)g`$ has lost all memory about its initial conditions at $`t=0`$ and can be assumed to be an arbitrary $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ matrix $`h`$. In , quantum ergodicity of the spin system has been proven under the assumption that the classical motion is ergodic. Basically, this is due to the Hopf map $`\pi _H:SU(2)SO(3)`$ relating the classical spin motion with the quantum spin motion.

Using this assumption, $`<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>=1`$ can be concluded for the diagonal contribution, that is, for $`\gamma =\gamma ^{}`$.

First, we recall the key argument in the derivation of the spin contribution for the diagonal part, then we shall show how non-trivial topology alters the result. The object that has to be calculated in the diagonal part of the form factor is the integral of $`(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2`$ for large time $`t`$ over the product space $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_E\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$, that is,

$`<(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_t\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_E}}(\mathrm{Tr}d(p,x,t)gg^1)^2𝑑\mu _E(p,x)𝑑\mu _H(g)`$ (5)
Here, $`d\mu _E(p,x)`$ is the Liouville measure on the energy shell $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E`$, and $`d\mu _H(g)`$ is the Haar measure of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. Using the mixing condition $`d(p,x,t)gh`$ for large times $`t`$, this integral becomes in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$

$`<(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}(\mathrm{Tr}hg^1)^2𝑑\mu _H(h)𝑑\mu _H(g)`$ (6)
The Haar measure is right-invariant, therefore, the result is

$$<(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2>=_{SU(2)}(\mathrm{Tr}h)^2𝑑\mu _H(h)=+1$$
(7)
Obviously, the spin contribution is irrelevant for the diagonal part of the 2-point function and the form factor.

From the transport equation (4) of $`d(p,x,t)`$, it follows the composition law

$$d(p,x,t+t^{})=d(\mathrm{\Phi }_H^t^{}(p,x),t)d(p,x,t^{})$$
(8)
Therefore, it is possible to cut the loop at an arbitrary point (time $`t^{}`$) into two pieces $`d_\gamma =d_1d_2=d_\gamma ^{}`$ and express the same integral as

$`<(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_t\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_E}}(\mathrm{Tr}[d(\mathrm{\Phi }_H^t^{}(p,x),t)\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1d(p,x,t^{})gg^1)]^2d\mu _E(p,x)d\mu _H(g)d\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ (9)
leading to

$`<(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma )^2>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}(\mathrm{Tr}hg^1\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{g}^1)^2𝑑\mu _H(h)𝑑\mu _H(g)𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{h})𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{g})=+1`$ (10)
Using the right-invariance of the Haar-measure, of course, the same result is obtained. That is, cutting the two loops without reversing the direction of one of the two loops does not alter the result, as it should be. Using the symbol $`S_\gamma `$ for a part of the two loops having the same direction and $`O_\gamma `$ for a part with opposite direction, the conclusion is $`S_1S_2=S_{1+2}`$ and $`O_1O_2=O_{1+2}`$.

In the next section, we consider the case of a loop with one intersection, that is, a loop with the structure $`S_1O_2`$.

## III Non-trivial Topology: One intersection-Case

Next, we consider the general integral

$`<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_t\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_E}}(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma (p,x,t))(\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}(p,x,t))𝑑\mu _E(p,x)𝑑\mu _H(g)`$ (11)
For the first off-diagonal contribution, the direction of one part of one loop must be reversed, that is, cutting the first loop into two parts, $`d_\gamma =d_1d_2`$, the other loop is given by $`d_\gamma ^{}=\{d_1d_2^1,d_1^1d_2\}`$. These two possibilities correspond to $`S_1O_2`$ and $`S_2O_1`$, respectively. In the calcuation of the form factor, all possible combinations of loops have to be taken into account. Therefore, the spin contribution is given by $`<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>=S_1O_2+S_2O_1`$.

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{1\mathrm{intersection}}=$$

$$\mathrm{lim}_t\mathrm{}_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_E}\mathrm{Tr}[d_1\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1d_2gg^1]\left(\mathrm{Tr}[d_1\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1gg^1d_2^1]+\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1d_1^1d_2gg^1]\right)𝑑\mu _E(p,x)𝑑\mu _H(g)𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{g})=$$

$$2_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{g}^1hg^1]\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{g}^1gh^1]𝑑\mu _H(h)𝑑\mu _H(g)𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{h})𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{g})=$$

$$2_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{h}h]\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{h}h^1]𝑑\mu _H(h)𝑑\mu _H(\stackrel{~}{h})=$$

$$2_1^1𝑑x_1_1^1𝑑x_2[\frac{1}{2}(1x_1)(1x_2)]\frac{1}{(8\pi ^2)^2}(2\pi )^4=1$$
(12)
Thus, we have calculated the spin contribution for the first off-diagonal term for the symplectic case. The parameterization of the integral and more general expressions are given in the appendix. Combining this result with the results of M. Sieber and K. Richter and taking into account Kramers’ degeneracy, the conclusion is

$$K(\tau )_{\mathrm{sympl}.}^{\mathrm{off}}=\frac{1}{2}[2(\frac{\tau }{2})^2]<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{1\mathrm{intersection}}=+\frac{\tau ^2}{4}$$
(13)
as presumed.

## IV Non-trivial Topology: Multiple intersection-Case

Next, we want to derive a general statement about the topology of higher order terms in the $`\tau `$-expansion. By comparing the orthogonal and the symplectic form factor for higher orders in $`\tau `$ and anticipating random-matrix behavior, it is possible to predict the $`SU(2)`$-topological charge and thus the contributing topology for all higher powers of $`\tau `$: Assume that semiclassically, the orthogonal form factor $`K(\tau )`$ has been evaluated, that is, the expansion in $`\tau `$ has been deduced by calculating the correlation between non-trivial topology of different loops, then $`1/2K(\tau /2)`$ corresponds to the symplectic form factor without taking into account the spin contribution. Indeed, comparing the power expansion of $`K_{\mathrm{sympl}}(\tau )`$ with $`\frac{1}{2}K_{\mathrm{orth}}(\frac{\tau }{2})`$, the result is

$$K_{\mathrm{sympl}}(\tau )=\frac{\tau ^2}{4}+\frac{\tau ^3}{8}+\frac{\tau ^4}{12}+\frac{\tau ^5}{16}+\mathrm{}$$
(14)
$$1/2K_{\mathrm{orth}}(\tau /2)=\frac{\tau ^2}{4}+\frac{\tau ^3}{8}\frac{\tau ^4}{12}+\frac{\tau ^5}{16}\mathrm{}$$
(15)
Thus, the conclusion for the spin contribution (the topological charge) for all off-diagonal contributions is

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{intersections}}=(1)^k$$
(16)
This equation should be interpreted as follows: Taking the loops $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$ corresponding to the $`\tau ^{k+1}`$-term of the expansion, the topological charge due to the spin must be $`(1)^k`$ if the BGS-conjecture is correct. The term $`k=0`$ has been calculated in , $`k=1`$ has been calculated in the previous section, corresponding to the configuration with relative intersection number $`k=1`$).

Next, we consider the case where the relative intersection number is $`k=2`$. For every new intersection, a combination same direction - opposite direction $`S_\alpha O_\beta `$ must be added to the existing loop. Obviously, summation over all possible spin contributions for the loops leads to $`2^k`$ terms, which all give the same contribution in the semiclassical limit $`t\mathrm{}`$.

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{2\mathrm{intersections}}=$$

$$2^2_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}\mathrm{Tr}[h_1h_2h_3h_4]\mathrm{Tr}[h_1h_2^1h_3h_4^1]𝑑\mu _H(h_1)𝑑\mu _H(h_2)𝑑\mu _H(h_3)𝑑\mu _H(h_4)=$$

$$2^2_1^1𝑑x_1_1^1𝑑x_2_1^1𝑑x_3_1^1𝑑x_4[\frac{1}{4}(1x_1)(1x_2)(1x_3)(1x_4)]\frac{1}{(8\pi ^2)^4}(2\pi )^8=+1$$
(17)
We conclude that the $`\tau ^3`$-term in the expansion of the form factor both in the orthogonal and symplectic case is due to correlations between orbits where the relative intersection number is two.

Next, we shall give the general expression for the spin contribution in the form factor when the relative intersection number is $`k`$. The prefactor $`2^k`$ is due to the symmetrization of the expression in each of the $`k`$ segments $`_{j=1}^kS_{\alpha _j}O_{\beta _j}`$ of the loop.

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{intersections}}=$$

$$2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_{SU(2)_j}𝑑\mu _H(h_j)\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{l=1}{\overset{2k}{}}h_l]\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}h_{2t1}h_{2t}^1]=$$

$$(1)^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_1^1𝑑x_j(1x_j)\frac{1}{(8\pi ^2)^{2k}}(2\pi )^{4k}=(1)^k$$
(18)
as presumed.

Finally, we compare $`K[\tau ]_{\mathrm{sympl}.}`$ with $`\frac{1}{2}K[\tau /2]_{\mathrm{orth}.}`$ and find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}]_{\mathrm{orth}.}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|\tau |}{2}\frac{|\tau |}{4}\mathrm{ln}[1+|\tau |]:& |\tau |<2\hfill \\ \hfill 1\frac{|\tau |}{4}\mathrm{ln}[\frac{1+|\tau |}{1|\tau |}]:& |\tau |>2\hfill \end{array}`$

$`K[\tau ]_{\mathrm{sympl}.}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|\tau |}{2}\frac{|\tau |}{4}\mathrm{ln}[1|\tau |]:& |\tau |<2\hfill \\ \hfill 1:& |\tau |>2\hfill \end{array}`$

Obviously, the sign factor which has been demonstrated to be related to the spin contribution is responsible for the singularity at $`\tau =1`$ in the symplectic case.

To summarize, we have been able to show that the BGS-conjecture leads to the conjecture that the term proportional to $`\tau ^{k+1}`$ in the small $`\tau `$-expansion both of the symplectic and orthogonal form factor is generated by correlations of loops having the relative intersection number $`k`$. Using this conjecture, we have demonstrated that the semiclassical loop expansion for the off-diagonal part of the form factor in terms of correlations between the loops $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$, with relative intersection number $`k`$ reproduces correctly the singularity at the Heisenberg time arising in the symplectic case.

I am grateful to P. Braun, M. Sieber, S. Keppeler, J. Bolte, C. Manderfeld, H. Schomerus and F. Haake for useful discussions.

## V Appendix

In this appendix we give the parameterization and the most important steps for the evaluation of the integrals over the group $`SU(2)`$. A general $`SU(2)`$-matrix can be expressed as ($`q\mathrm{exp}(i\eta ),r\mathrm{exp}(i\xi )`$)

$`h(q,r,\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )q\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\theta )r\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )r^1\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\theta )q^1\end{array}\right)`$

The integration measure in terms of the variables $`(\theta ,\xi ,\eta )`$ reads

$$_{SU(2)}𝑑\mu _H(h)=_0^{\pi /2}_0^{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )𝑑\theta 𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta $$

Now, consider a general integral of the form

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{intersections}}=$$

$$2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_{SU(2)_j}𝑑\mu _H(h_j)\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{l=1}{\overset{2k}{}}h_l]\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}h_{2t1}h_{2t}^1]=2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_{SU(2)_j}𝑑\mu _H(h_j)f(q_j,r_j,\theta _j)$$

Written in terms of $`(q_j,r_j)`$, the function $`f(q_j,r_j,\theta _j)`$ is a polynomial in $`_{j=1}^{2k}q_j^{n_j}r_j^{m_j}`$. The $`4k`$ integrals over $`(\eta ,\xi )`$ extract the term proportional to $`_{j=1}^{2k}q_j^0r_j^0=1`$ of $`f(q_j,r_j,\theta _j)`$, which will be denoted as $`g(\theta _j)`$. The remaining $`2k`$ integrals are then given by

$$<\mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma \mathrm{Tr}d_\gamma ^{}>_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{intersections}}=2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_0^{\pi /2}d\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _j)(\frac{1}{8\pi ^2})^{2k}(2\pi )^{4k}g(\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j)^2,\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j)^2)=$$

$$2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_1^1𝑑x_j(\frac{1}{8\pi ^2})^{2k}(2\pi )^{4k}g((1x_j)/2,(1+x_j)/2)=(1)^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}_1^1𝑑x_j(1x_j)\frac{1}{(8\pi ^2)^{2k}}(2\pi )^{4k}=(1)^k$$

The functions $`f(q_j,r_j,\theta _j)`$ and $`g(\theta _j)`$ have been determined with the help of Mathematica.


text:
# 𝑎₀(980)-𝑓₀(980) mixing and isospin violation in the reactions 𝑝𝑁→𝑑𝑎₀, 𝑝𝑑→³He/³H𝑎₀ and 𝑑𝑑→⁴He𝑎₀

## 1 Reactions (a) and (b)

### 1.1 Phenomenology of isospin violation

In reactions (a) and (b) the final $`da_0`$ system has isospin $`I_f=1`$, for $`l_f=0`$ ($`S`$-wave production close to threshold) it has spin-parity $`J_f^P=1^+`$. The initial $`NN`$ system cannot be in the state $`I_i=1,J_i^P=1^+`$ due to the Pauli principle. Therefore, near threshold the $`da_0`$ system should be dominantly produced in $`P`$-wave with quantum numbers $`J_f^P=0^{},1^{}`$ or $`2^{}`$. The states with $`J_i^P=0^{}`$, $`1^{}`$ or $`2^{}`$ can be formed by an $`NN`$ system with spin $`S_i=1`$ and $`l_i=1`$ and 3. Neglecting the contribution of the higher partial wave $`l_i=3`$ we can write the amplitude of reaction (a) in the following form

$`T(ppda_0^+)=`$
$`=\alpha ^+𝐩𝐒𝐤\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}+\beta ^+𝐩𝐤𝐒\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}+\gamma ^+𝐒𝐤𝐩\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (1)
where $`𝐒=\varphi _N^T\sigma _2𝝈\varphi _N`$ is the spin operator of the initial $`NN`$ system; $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐤`$ are the initial and final c.m. momenta; $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ is the deuteron polarization vector; $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$, $`\gamma ^+`$ are three independent scalar amplitudes which can be considered as constants near threshold (for $`k0`$).

Due to the mixing the $`a_0^0`$ may also be produced via the $`f_0`$. In this case the $`da_0^0`$ system will be in $`S`$-wave and the amplitude of reaction (b) can be written as:

$`T(pnda_0^0)=`$
$`=\alpha ^0𝐩𝐒𝐤\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}+\beta ^0𝐩𝐤𝐒\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}+\gamma ^0𝐒𝐤𝐩\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}+\xi F𝐒\mathit{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (2)
where $`\xi `$ is the mixing parameter and $`F`$ is the $`f_0`$-production amplitude. In the limit $`k0`$, $`F`$ is again a constant. The scalar amplitudes $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ for reactions (a) and (b) are related to each other by a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$, i.e., $`\alpha ^+=\sqrt{2}\alpha ^0`$, $`\beta ^+=\sqrt{2}\beta ^0`$, $`\gamma ^+=\sqrt{2}\gamma ^0`$.

The differential cross sections for the reactions (a) and (b) have the form (up to terms linear in $`\xi `$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (ppda_0^+)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}}=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{p}}\left(C_0+C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\right)`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (pnda_0^0)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{p}}\left(C_0+C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }+C_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\right),`$ (4)
where

$`C_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2k^2\left[|\alpha ^0|^2+|\gamma ^0|^2\right],C_1=pk\left[\mathrm{Re}((\xi F)^{}(\alpha ^0+3\beta ^0+\gamma ^0))\right],`$
$`C_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2k^2\left[3|\beta ^0|^2+2\mathrm{Re}(\alpha ^0\beta ^0+\alpha ^0\gamma ^0+\beta ^0\gamma ^0)\right].`$ (5)
Similarly, the differential cross section of the reaction $`pndf_0`$ can be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (pndf_0)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{3k}{2p}|F|^2.$$

The mixing effect — described by the term $`C_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in Eq.(4) — then leads to an isospin violation in the ratio $`R_{ba}`$ of the differential cross sections for reactions (b) and (a),

$$R_{ba}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{C_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}{C_0+C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }},$$

and in the forward-backward asymmetry for reaction (b):

$$A_a(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{\sigma _a(\mathrm{\Theta })\sigma _a(\pi \mathrm{\Theta })}{\sigma _a(\mathrm{\Theta })+\sigma _a(\pi \mathrm{\Theta })}=\frac{C_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}{C_0+C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }}.$$

The latter effect was already discussed in Ref.  where it was argued that the asymmetry $`A_a(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$ can reach $`5÷10`$% at an energy excess of $`Q=(5÷10)`$ MeV. However, if we adopt a mixing parameter $`|\xi |^2=(8\pm 3)`$%, as indicated by the WA102 data, we can expect a much larger asymmetry. We note explicitly, that the coefficient $`C_1`$ in (1.1) depends not only on the magnitude of the mixing parameter $`\xi `$, but also on the relative phases with respect to the amplitudes of $`f_0`$ and $`a_0`$ production which are unknown so far. This uncertainty has to be kept in mind for the following discussion.

In case of very narrow $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ states, the differential cross section (3), dominated by $`P`$-wave near threshold, would be proportional to $`k^3`$ or $`Q^{3/2}`$, where $`Q`$ is the c.m. energy excess. Due to $`S`$-wave dominance in the reaction $`pndf_0`$ one would expect that the cross section increases as $`\sigma k`$ or $`\sqrt{Q}`$. In this limit the $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing leads to an enhancement of the asymmetry $`A_a(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ as $`1/k`$ near threshold. In reality, however, both $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ have a finite width of about 40–100 MeV. Therefore, at fixed initial momentum their production cross section should be averaged over the corresponding mass distributions, which will significantly change the threshold behavior of the cross sections. Another complication is that broad resonances are usually accompanied by background lying underneath the resonance signals. These problems will be discussed explicitly in Sects. 1.2 and 1.3.

### 1.2 Model calculations

In order to estimate the isospin-violation effects in the ratio $`R_{ba}`$ of the differential cross-section and in the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_a`$ we use the two-step model (TSM), which has successfully been applied to the description of $`\eta `$-, $`\eta ^{}`$-, $`\omega `$\- and $`\varphi `$-meson production in the reaction $`pNdX`$ in Refs. . Recently, this model has been also used for an analysis of the reaction $`ppda_0^+`$ .

The diagrams in Fig. 1 describe the different mechanisms of $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$-meson production in the reaction $`NNda_0/f_0`$ within the TSM. In the case of $`a_0`$ production the amplitude of the subprocess $`\pi Na_0N`$ contains three different contributions: i) the $`f_1(1285)`$-meson exchange (Fig. 1 a); ii) the $`\eta `$-meson exchange (Fig. 1b); iii) $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channel nucleon exchanges (Fig. 1c and d). As it was shown in Ref.  the main contribution to the cross section for the reaction $`ppda_0^+`$ stems from the $`u`$-channel nucleon exchange (i.e. from the diagram of Fig. 1d and all other contributions can be neglected in a leading order approximation. In order to preserve the correct structure of the amplitude under permutations of the initial nucleons (which is antisymmetric for the isovector state and symmetric for the isoscalar state) the amplitudes for $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ production can be written as the following combinations of the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel contributions

$`T_{pnda_0^0}(s,t,u)=A_{pnda_0^0}(s,t)A_{pnda_0^0}(s,u)`$
$`T_{pndf_0}(s,t,u)=A_{pndf_0}(s,t)+A_{pndf_0}(s,u),`$ (6)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`t=(p_3p_1)^2`$, $`u=(p_3p_2)^2`$ and $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, and $`p_4`$ are the 4-momenta of the initial protons, meson $`M`$ and the deuteron, respectively. The structure of the amplitudes (6) guarantees that the $`S`$-wave part vanishes in the case of direct $`a_0`$ production since it is forbidden by angular momentum conservation and the Pauli principle. Also higher partial waves are included in the model calculations in contrast to the simplified discussion in Sect. 1.1.

In the case of $`f_0`$ production the amplitude of the subprocess $`\pi Nf_0N`$ contains two different contributions: i) the $`\pi `$\- meson exchange (Fig. 1 b); ii) $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channel nucleon exchanges (Fig. 1 c and d). Our analysis has shown that similarly to the case of $`a_0`$ production the main contribution to the cross section of the reaction $`pndf_0`$ is due to the $`u`$-channel nucleon exchange (Fig. 1 d); the contribution of the combined $`\pi \pi `$ exchange (Fig. 1 b) as well as the $`s`$-channel nucleon exchange can be neglected. In this case we obtain for the ratio of the squared amplitudes

$$\frac{|A_{pndf_0}(s,t)|^2}{|A_{pnda_0}(s,t)|^2}=\frac{|A_{pndf_0}(s,u)|^2}{|A_{pnda_0}(s,u)|^2}=\frac{|g_{f_0NN}|^2}{|g_{a_0NN}|^2}.$$
(7)
If we take $`g_{a_0NN}`$ = 3.7 (see e.g. Ref. ) and $`g_{f_0NN}`$ =8.5  then we find for the ratio of the amplitudes $`R(f_0/a_0)=g_{f_0NN}/g_{a_0NN}=2.3`$. Note, however, that Mull and Holinde give a different value for the ratio of the coupling constants $`R(f_0/a_0)=1.46`$, which is about 37% lower. In the following we thus use $`R(f_0/a_0)=1.46÷2.3`$.

The forward differential cross section for reaction (a) as a function of the proton beam momentum is presented in Fig. 2. The bold dash-dotted and solid lines (taken from Ref.  and calculated for the zero width limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=0`$) describe the results of the TSM for different values of the nucleon cut-off parameter, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=1.2`$ and 1.3 GeV/c, respectively.

In order to take into account the finite $`a_0`$ width we use a Flatté mass distribution with the same parameters as in Ref. : K-matrix pole at 999 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0\pi \eta }=`$ 70 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K\overline{K})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \eta )=0.23`$ (see also  and references therein). The thin dash-dotted and solid lines in Fig. 2 are calculated within the TSM using this mass distribution with a cut $`M(\pi ^+\eta )0.85`$ GeV and for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=1.2`$ and 1.3 GeV, respectively. The corresponding $`\pi ^0\eta `$ invariant mass distribution for the reaction $`pnda_0^0d\pi ^0\eta `$ at 3.4 GeV/c is shown in Fig. 3 by the dashed line.

In case of the $`f_0`$, where the branching ratio $`BR(K\overline{K})`$ is not yet known , we use a Breit-Wigner mass distribution with $`m_R=980`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0\pi \pi }=70`$ MeV.

The calculated total cross sections for the reactions $`pnda_0`$ and $`pndf_0`$ (as a function of the beam energy $`T_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=1.2`$ GeV ) are shown in Fig. 4. The solid and dashed lines describe the calculations with zero and finite widths, respectively. In case of $`f_0`$ production in the $`\pi \pi `$ decay mode we choose the same cut in the invariant mass of the $`\pi \pi `$ system, i.e. $`M_{\pi \pi }0.85`$ GeV. The lines denoted by 1 and 2 are obtained for $`R(f_0/a_0)=1.46`$ and 2.3, respectively. Comparing the solid and dashed lines it is obvious that near threshold the finite width corrections to the cross sections are quite important in particular for the energy behavior of the $`a_0`$-production cross section (see also bold and thin curves in Fig. 2).

In principle, $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing can modify the mass spectrum of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$. However, in the $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ case the effect is expected to be less pronounced as for the $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ case, where the widths of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ are very different (see e.g. the discussion in Ref.  and references therein). Nevertheless, the modification of the $`a_0^0`$ spectral function due to $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing can be measured by comparing the invariant mass distributions of $`a_0^0`$ with that of $`a_0^+`$. According to our analysis, however, a much cleaner signal for isospin violation can be obtained from the measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry in the reaction $`pnda_0^0d\pi ^0\eta `$ integrating over the full $`a_0`$ mass distribution. For the following calculations, the strengths of the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ thus will be integrated over the mass interval 0.85–1.02 GeV.

The magnitude of the isospin violation effects is shown in Fig. 5, where we present the differential cross section of the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$ at $`T_p=2.6`$ GeV as a function of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ for different values of the mixing intensity $`|\xi |^2`$ from 0.05 to 0.11. For reference, the solid line shows the case of isospin conservation, i.e. $`|\xi |^2=0`$. The dashed-dotted curves include the mixing effect. Note that all curves in Fig. 5 were calculated assuming maximal interference of the amplitudes describing the direct $`a_0`$ production and its production through the $`f_0`$. The maximal values of the differential cross section may also occur at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=0^{}`$ depending on the sign of the coefficient $`C_1`$ in Eq.(4).

It follows from Fig. 5 in either case that the isospin-violation parameter $`A_a(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=180^{}`$ may be quite large, i.e.

$$A_a(180^{})=0.86÷0.96\mathrm{or}0.9÷0.98$$
(8)
for $`R(f_0/a_0)=1.46`$ or 2.3, respectively. Note that the asymmetry depends rather weakly on $`R(f_0/a_0)`$. It might be more sensitive to the relative phase of $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ contributions, which has to be settled experimentally.

### 1.3 Background

The dash-dotted line in Fig. 3 shows our estimate of the possible background from nonresonant $`\pi ^0\eta `$ production in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ at $`T_{\mathrm{lab}}=2.6`$ GeV (see also Ref. ). The background amplitude is described by the diagram shown in Fig. 1 e, where the $`\eta `$ and $`\pi `$ mesons are created through the intermediate production of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ (in the amplitude $`\pi N\pi N`$) and a $`N(1535)`$ (in the amplitude $`\pi N\eta N`$). The total cross section for the nonresonant $`\pi \eta `$ production due to this mechanism was found to be $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BG}}`$ 0.8 $`\mu `$b for a cut-off in the one-pion exchange of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1`$ GeV.

We point out that the background is charge-symmetric and cancels in the difference of the cross sections $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Theta })\sigma (\pi \mathrm{\Theta })`$. Therefore, a complete separation of the background is not crucial for a test of isospin violation due to the $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing. There will also be some contribution from $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ mixing as discussed in Refs. . According to the results of Ref.  this mechanism yields a charge-symmetry breaking in the $`\eta NN`$ system of about 6%:

$$R=d\sigma (\pi ^+dpp\eta )/\sigma (\pi ^{}dnn\eta )=0.938\pm 0.009.$$

A similar isospin violation due to $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ mixing can also be expected in our case.

The best strategy to search for isospin violation due to $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing is a measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry for different intervals of $`M_{\eta \pi ^0}`$. It follows from Fig. 3 that $`\sigma _{a_0}(\sigma _{\mathrm{BG}})=0.3(0.4),0.27(0.29)`$ and 0.19(0.15) $`\mu `$b for $`M_{\eta \pi ^0}0.85,0.9`$ and 0.95 GeV, respectively. For $`M_{\eta \pi ^0}0.7`$ GeV the resonant contribution is rather small and the charge-symmetry breaking will dominantly be related to $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ mixing and, therefore, be small. On the other hand, for $`M0.95`$ GeV the background does not exceed the resonance contribution and we expect a comparatively large isospin-breaking signal due to $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing.

### 1.4 The reaction $`pndf_0d\pi \pi `$

The isospin-violation effects can also be measured in the reaction

$$pndf_0d\pi ^+\pi ^{},$$
(9)
where, due to mixing, the $`f_0`$ may also be produced via the $`a_0`$. The corresponding differential cross section is shown in Fig. 6. The differential cross section for $`f_0`$ production is expected to be substantiatially larger than for $`a_0`$ production, but the isospin violation effect turns out to be smaller than in the $`\pi \eta `$-production channel. Nevertheless, the isospin violation parameter $`A`$ is expected to be about 10$`÷`$30% and can be detected experimentally.

## 2 Reactions (c) and (d)

We continue with $`pd`$ reactions and compare the final states $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}a_0^+`$ (c) and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0`$ (d). Near threshold the amplitudes of these reactions can be written as

$`T(pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}a_0^+)=\sqrt{2}D_a𝐒_𝐀\mathit{ϵ}`$ (10)
$`T(pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0)=(D_a+\xi D_f)𝐒_𝐀\mathit{ϵ},`$ (11)
with $`𝐒_𝐀=\varphi _A^T\sigma _2𝝈\varphi _N`$. Here $`D_a`$ and $`D_f`$ are the scalar $`S`$-wave amplitudes describing the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ production in case of $`\xi `$=0. The ratio of the differential cross sections for reactions (d) and (c) is then given by

$$R_{dc}=\frac{|D_a+\xi D_f|^2}{2|D_a|^2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(D_a^{}\xi D_f)+|\xi D_f|^2}{|D_a|^2}.$$
(12)
The magnitude of the ratio $`R_{dc}`$ now depends on the relative value of the amplitudes $`D_a`$ and $`D_f`$. If they are comparable $`|D_a||D_f|`$ or $`|D_f|^2|D_a|^2`$ the deviation of $`R_{dc}`$ from 0.5 (which corresponds to isospin conservation) might be 100% or more. Only in the case $`|D_f|^2|D_a|^2`$ the difference of $`R_{dc}`$ from 0.5 will be small. However, this seems to be very unlikely.

Using the two-step model for the reactions $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0`$ and $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}f_0`$, involving the subprocesses $`ppd\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^+npa_0/f_0`$ (cf. Refs. ), we find

$$\frac{\sigma (pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0)}{\sigma (pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}f_0)}\frac{\sigma (\pi ^+npa_0^0)}{\sigma (\pi ^+npf_0)}.$$
(13)
According to the calculations in Ref.  we expect $`\sigma (\pi ^+npa_0)=\sigma (\pi ^{}pna_0)0.5÷1`$ mb at 1.75–2 GeV/c. A similar value for $`\sigma (\pi ^{}pnf_0)`$ can be found using the results from Ref. . According to the latter study $`\sigma (\pi ^{}pnf_0nK^+K^{})68\mu `$b at 1.75–2 GeV/c and $`Br(f_0K^+K^{})1\%`$, which implies that $`\sigma (\pi ^{}pnf_0)0.60.8`$ mb. Thus we expect that near threshold $`|D_a||D_f|`$ . This would imply that the effect of isospin violation in the ratio $`R_{dc}`$ can be rather large.

Recently the cross section of the reaction $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}K^+K^{}`$ has been measured by the MOMO collaboration at COSY-Jülich. It was found that $`\sigma =9.6\pm 1.0`$ and $`17.5\pm 1.8`$ nb for $`Q=40`$ and 56 MeV, respectively . The authors note that the invariant $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distributions in those data show broad peaks which follow phase space. However, as it was shown in Ref. , the shape of an invariant mass spectrum following phase space cannot be distinguished from an $`a_0`$-resonance contribution at small values of $`Q`$. Therefore, the events from Ref.  might also be attributed to $`a_0`$ and/or $`f_0`$ production. Moreover, due to the phase space behavior near threshold one expects a dominance of two-body reactions. Thus the cross section of the reaction $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}\pi ^0\eta `$ is expected to be not significantly smaller than the upper limit of about 80$`÷`$150 nb at $`Q=4060`$ MeV which follows from the MOMO data (using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K\overline{K})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \eta )=0.23`$ from ).

## 3 Reaction (e)

Any direct production of the $`a_0`$ in the reaction $`dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}a_0^0`$ is forbidden. It thus can only be observed due to $`f_0`$-$`a_0`$ mixing:

$$\frac{\sigma (dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}a_0^0)}{\sigma (dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}f_0)}=|\xi |^2.$$
(14)
Therefore, it will be very interesting to study the reaction

$$dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}(\pi ^0\eta )$$
(15)
near the $`f_0`$-production threshold. Any signal of the reaction (15) then will be related to isospin breaking. It is expected to be much more pronounced near the $`f_0`$ threshold as compared to the region below this threshold.

## 4 Summary

In summary, we have discussed the effects of isospin violation in the reactions $`pNda_0`$, $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}/^3\mathrm{H}a_0`$ and $`dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}a_0^0`$ which can be generated by $`f_0`$-$`a_0`$ mixing. It has been demonstrated that for a mixing intensity of about ($`8\pm 3`$)%, the isospin violation in the ratio of the differential cross sections of the reactions $`ppda_0^+d\pi ^+\eta `$ and $`pnda_0^0d\pi ^0\eta `$ as well as in the forward-backward asymmetry in the reaction $`pnda_0^0d\pi ^0\eta `$ not far from threshold may be about 50–100%. Such large effects originate from the interference of direct $`a_0`$ production and its production via the $`f_0`$. The former amplitude is suppressed close to threshold due to the $`P`$-wave amplitude whereas the latter is large due to $`S`$-wave production. A similar isospin violation is expected in the ratio of the differential cross sections of the reactions $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}a_0^+(\pi ^+\eta )`$ and $`pd{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}a_0^0(\pi ^0\eta )`$.

Finally, we have also discussed the isospin-violation effects in the reactions $`pndf_0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}a_0`$. All reactions together — once studied experimentally — are expected to provide detailed information on the strength of the $`f_0`$-$`a_0`$ mixing.

Corresponding measurements are now in preparation for the ANKE spectrometer at COSY-Jülich .


text:
# Impact of a Light Strange-Beauty Squark on 𝑩_𝒔 Mixing and Direct Search

\[

## Abstract

If one has Abelian flavor symmetry, $`s_R`$-$`b_R`$ mixing could be near maximal. This can drive a “strange-beauty” squark ($`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$) to be rather light, but still evade the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. Low energy constraints imply that all other superpartners are at TeV scale, except for a possibly light neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. Whether light or heavy, the $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ can impact on the $`B_s`$ system: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and indirect $`CP`$ phase, even for $`B_s\varphi \gamma `$. Direct search is similar to usual $`\stackrel{~}{b}b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, but existing bounds are weakened by $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1s\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ possibility. All these effects could be studied soon at the Tevatron.

preprint:
\]

The source of $`CP`$ violation within the Standard Model (SM) rests in the flavor sector, which is not well understood. With three quark generations, we have 6 masses, 3 mixing angles and a unique $`CP`$ phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix $`V`$. Together with leptons, the majority of SM parameters in fact lies in the flavor sector. However, the left-handed nature of weak dynamics screens out the mixings and $`CP`$ phases (no longer unique) in the right-handed quark sector. The actual number of flavor parameters are much larger than meets the eye!

The observed quark masses and mixings do, however, exhibit an intriguing hierarchical pattern in powers of $`\lambda |V_{us}|`$, hinting at a possible underlying symmetry . If this “horizontal” or flavor symmetry is Abelian, then $`s_R`$-$`b_R`$ mixing would be near maximal , although still hidden from view. It is interesting that, if supersymmetry (SUSY) is also realized, $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ squark mixing could then be near maximal. This could generate observable effects in $`bs`$ transitions even if squark masses are at TeV scale . Furthermore, one of the squarks, the “strange-beauty” squark $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$, could be driven by this large flavor violation to be considerably below the other squarks . Whether we have a light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ squark or not, it is of great interest since the current bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$  indicates that it could be larger than SM expectations.

In this Letter we point out that a light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ squark and a light neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are allowed by the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. We explore the implications of large $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing on $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing and its $`CP`$ phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$. In case of light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$, we briefly comment on direct search. All these effects can be covered at the Tevatron Run II, which has just started. Mixing dependent CP violation in $`B_s\varphi \gamma `$ decay can also be studied in the future. We stress that, besides the assumptions of Abelian flavor symmetry and SUSY, the quark mixing and $`CP`$ phase we study are on similar footing as the usual CKM matrix.

Horizontal models try to explain the mass and mixing hierarchies by powers of $`\lambda S/M`$, where $`S`$ is the expectation of a scalar field $`S`$ and $`M`$ is a high scale. For Abelian symmetries, the commuting nature of horizontal charges in general gives $`M_{ij}M_{ji}M_{ii}M_{jj}`$ ($`i`$, $`j`$ not summed), where “$``$” indicates approximate rather than exact equality. This allows one to determine, e.g. $`M_d^{32}`$ from our knowledge of $`M_d^{22}m_s\lambda ^2m_b`$, $`M_d^{23}V_{23}m_b\lambda ^2m_b`$ and $`M_d^{33}m_b`$. Hence

$$\widehat{M}_d=\frac{M_d}{m_b}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& [\lambda ^3]& [\lambda ^3]\\ [\lambda ^3]& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ [\lambda ]& 1& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(1)
and similarly for $`M_u`$; the $`[\mathrm{}]`$ terms would be set to zero as explained shortly. Diagonalizing $`M_d`$ by a biunitary $`D_L`$ and $`D_R`$ transform, $`D_R^{23}1`$ is clearly the largest mixing element, but its effect is hidden within SM.

Taking SUSY as commuting with the horizontal symmetry, the squark mass matrices are fixed by the common horizontal charge of the chiral supermultiplet. We take the usual approach that squarks are almost degenerate with common scale $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. From Eq. (1) one finds that $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{LR}=(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RL}^{}\stackrel{~}{m}M_d`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{LL}\stackrel{~}{m}^2V`$, while

$$(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& [\lambda ]& [\lambda ]\\ [\lambda ]& 1& 1\\ [\lambda ]& 1& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(2)
where $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{23,32}\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ if $`s_R`$ and $`b_R`$ have the same horizontal charge(s), hence comparable to $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{22,33}\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$.

We are interested in the impact of $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{23,32}`$. It is known that 4 texture zeros are needed  to fully evade the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$ constraints. Hence, we choose horizontal charges such that the $`[\mathrm{}]`$ terms in Eqs. (1) and (2) are all set to zero, which is achievable under a U$`(1)\times `$U$`(1)`$ or higher horizontal group. With the $`d`$ quark thus decoupled, one is safe from all known low energy constraints. However, one needs $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_u^2)_{LL}^{12}\lambda \stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ to account for $`V_{us}`$ . It is intriguing that $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ TeV brings  $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ right into the ballpark of current  experimental sensitivities. This sets the scale for $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, for if they were lighter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$ would be too large. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constrains $`\stackrel{~}{u}_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$ loops, implying also  that squarks are at TeV scale, while the wino part of the chargino is heavier than 500 GeV.

With $`d`$-flavor decoupled, the $`s`$-$`b`$ part of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^2`$ in Eq. (2) appears “democratic”. More explicitly, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^{2(sb)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{22}^2\hfill & \stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2e^{i\sigma }\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2e^{i\sigma }\hfill & \stackrel{~}{m}_{33}^2\hfill \end{array}\right]=R\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2\end{array}\right]R^{},$$
(3)
in quark mass basis, where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ are all $`>0`$, and

$$R=\left[\begin{array}{cc}c_\theta & s_\theta \\ s_\theta e^{i\sigma }& c_\theta e^{i\sigma }\end{array}\right].$$
(4)
The phase in $`R`$ absorbs the $`\sigma `$ phase in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^{2(sb)}`$, which is on similar footing as $`\varphi _3\mathrm{arg}V_{ub}^{}`$ . By nature of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{22,33}^2`$, in general we have one suppressed eigenvalue $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2`$ due to level splitting, where $`\theta `$ is a measure of the relative weight of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2`$ vs $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{22}^2`$. Since our case corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{22}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ because of Eqs. (1) and (2), near maximal mixing is implied. The eigenstates hence carry both $`s`$ and $`b`$ flavors and are called the strange-beauty squarks $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_{1,2}`$. Without much loss of generality, we take $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{22}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ (so $`\theta =\pi /4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2=2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$) and consider the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^21\delta 1`$. The squark mass eigenvalues must be positive to preserve color symmetry, hence $`\delta >0`$ is required. For small $`\delta `$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\delta \stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2(2\delta )\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$. Thus, with some tuning, $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ can become quite light, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^22\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$, the driving force being the large $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{23,32}/\stackrel{~}{m}^21`$ in Eqs. (2) and (3). We note that, assuming $`\stackrel{~}{m}2`$ TeV, tuning $`\delta `$ to $`\lambda ^2`$, $`\lambda ^3`$, $`\lambda ^4`$ give $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=`$ 440, 206, 97 GeV; for $`\stackrel{~}{m}1`$ TeV, $`\delta =\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^2`$, $`\lambda ^3`$ give $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=`$ 470, 220, 103 GeV. In the following, we limit ourselves to $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ 100 GeV.

Besides concerns about tuning, the pressing question is that a light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ driven by large strange-beauty mixing seems particularly dangerous in face of the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. As shown in , heavy squark and gluino loops are suppressed by $`1/G_F\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ compared to SM contribution, such that $`bs\gamma `$ rate is hardly affected. It is interesting that, even with $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ as light as 100 GeV, the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint is still rather accommodating.

Since mass splittings are large, the calculation of short distance coefficients is done following . The expressions for Wilson coefficients together with their renormalisation group equations (RGE) can be found in . Our model gives large RR and RL mixings, while LL and LR mixings are suppressed by $`\lambda ^2`$. In terms of the loop-induced effective $`bs\gamma `$ couplings $`m_b\overline{s}[C_7R+C_7^{}L]\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }b`$, it is $`C_7^{}`$ that receives larger contributions. This in itself provides some protection, since $`C_7^{}`$ is not generated in SM ($`C_7^{\mathrm{SM}}0.31`$), hence our SUSY effects enter $`bs\gamma `$ rate only quadratically.

We find that, although RL mixing is suppressed by $`m_b/\stackrel{~}{m}`$, its effect dominates over the RR contribution for $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma <0`$. Let us first show that $`C_{7RR}^{}`$ is finite and suppressed by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^20`$ limit. By direct computation, one finds that the $`\stackrel{~}{sb}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ loop contribution to $`m_bC_{7RR}^{}`$ is proportional to

$$𝑑k^2\frac{k^4m_b\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma }}{(k^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)(k^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2)^4}(\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2),$$
(5)
where “super-GIM” cancellation is ensured by Eq. (4), and the $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_2`$ term decouples for heavy $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2`$. Since RR mixing is chiral conserving, a factor of $`m_b`$ is needed, while $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma }`$ is from $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{23}`$. The integral is clearly finite in the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^20`$ limit. Using formulas from , we find $`C_{7RR}^{}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}})0.1c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma }(0.8\mathrm{TeV}/m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})^2`$ for maximal super-GIM breaking (small $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2`$, large $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2`$) case. The shift in $`bs\gamma `$ rate is $`2\%`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}>m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>0.8`$ TeV.

The $`m_b/\stackrel{~}{m}`$ suppression of RL contribution is compensated by a chiral enhancement factor  $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/m_b`$ since chirality flip is via $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. With $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L\stackrel{~}{sb}_{1R}`$ mixing and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ heavy, the $`s_\theta e^{i\sigma }`$ factor in Eq. (5) is replaced by $`(R^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{RL}^2)^{23}/\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left(c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma }\right)m_b/\stackrel{~}{m},`$ where $`R`$ is given in Eq. (4), and we take $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RL}^{23,33}m_b\stackrel{~}{m}`$ as real. The factor $`k^4/(k^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2)^4`$ in Eq. (5) is replaced by $`k^2/(k^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2)^3`$ and the integral is still finite for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^20`$. We find $`C_{7RL}^{}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}})0.12c_\theta (c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma })(1.6\mathrm{TeV}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})`$ for small $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2`$. Taking $`s_\theta 1/\sqrt{2}`$, $`C_{7RL}^{}`$ is subdominant for $`\sigma 0`$, but dominates over $`C_{7RR}^{}`$ for $`\sigma \pi `$.

We illustrate in Fig. 1 the full gluino and neutralino loop effect on $`bs\gamma `$ rate vs $`CP`$ phase $`\sigma `$, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0.8`$ TeV and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=2`$ TeV, with simplifying assumptions as stated above. It is seen that, even for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ as light as 100 GeV, $`bs\gamma `$ is still  well within the allowed experimental range of $`(3.15\pm 0.54)\times 10^4`$ . For heavy $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ 1 TeV, its effect becomes negligible, and the $`bs\gamma `$ rate approaches the SM value, as indicated by the horizontal line at $`bs\gamma `$ $`3.14\times 10^4`$ for our parameter choice. The $`\sigma `$-dependence can be understood through our earlier discussion of $`C_{7RR}^{}`$ and $`C_{7RL}^{}`$. One can also easily check from the strength of $`|C_7^{}|^2`$ as seen in Fig. 1, that the LR mixing contribution $`\delta C_{7\mathrm{L}\mathrm{R}}`$ is indeed subdominant even though it interferes with $`C_7^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ which is large.

It is intriguing that, although $`C_7^{}`$ is subdominant compared to $`C_7^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, its strength is actually not small. That is, $`|C_7^{}/C_7|0.350.12`$ hence $`\mathrm{sin}2\vartheta =2|C_7C_7^{}|/(|C_7|^2+|C_7^{}|^2)63\%22\%`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=1001000`$ GeV. New physics effects  such as mixing dependent $`CP`$ violation in $`B^0K_1^0(1270)\gamma `$ could be of this order (though direct $`CP`$ is small because $`\delta C_{7\mathrm{L}\mathrm{R}}`$ is small), but detectability may be better in $`B_s\varphi \gamma `$. “Wrong” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ could also be promising .

It is known that charged Higgs effects on $`bs\gamma `$ add constructively to the SM for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , giving rise to a very stringent constraint on $`m_{H^+}`$. Our light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ only worsens slightly the situation. Taking 2$`\sigma `$ range of the measured $`BX_s\gamma `$ rate, we find $`m_{H^+}>`$ 620, 660 (500, 600) GeV, respectively, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, $`60`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 0.8 (1) TeV. The heaviness of $`H^+`$ implies that the second Higgs doublet is likely at the TeV scale as well.

Turning to charginos, as stated, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint demands that the wino part of chargino mass, controlled by $`M_2`$, should be larger than 500 GeV. Because of stringent bounds from $`bs\gamma `$, unless one makes fine-tuned cancellations  (e.g. with $`H^+`$ effect), the higgsino part of chargino mass, controlled by $`\mu `$, should also be at TeV scale, especially for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We do not entertain a light stop since we tacitly assume that flavor and SUSY scales are not too far apart , so the up squark mass average $`\stackrel{~}{m}_u`$ is also at $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ TeV. Thus, the charginos and the wino or higgsino-like neutralinos are all at TeV scale. This still leaves open the possibility of a light bino with mass controlled by $`M_1`$, which we call $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. Interestingly, $`bs\gamma `$ is not very constraining here: we have taken the rather low mass value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=`$ 90 GeV in Fig. 1, and find that its effect is still much smaller than the dominant gluino contribution. This is simply because of the much weaker bino coupling (hypercharge) to down sector compared with the strong gluino couplings.

Without necessarily advocating a light bino, we thus have a scenario where SUSY particles and exotic Higgs bosons are at TeV scale, except for a possibly light neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ that is largely bino, and a light strange-beauty squark $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ with mass driven low by flavor violation!

One may worry that large $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$) splittings may violate $`\delta \rho `$ constraint. We first note that $`\delta \rho `$ picks up corrections to isovector gauge boson self-energy diagrams. Our light bino case is hence of no consequence. Because the isovector gauge interaction is left-handed, contributions from right handed squarks are transmitted through LR mixing . However, this is suppressed in our case by $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{LR}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2m_{s,b}/\stackrel{~}{m}10^410^3`$ . $`\delta \rho `$ can constrain only mass splittings in $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L`$, which are TeV scale particles and do not have large splittings, and thus the seemingly dangerous large splitting involving $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ is safe from $`\delta \rho `$ constraint. We note in passing that our light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ can evade $`R_b`$ constraint also. The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$-$`\stackrel{~}{d}_j`$ contribution to $`R_b`$ is negligible  while $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ gives sizable contribution only for light stop and light chargino, which is not the case in our model.

Large $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing, however, can easily impact on $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing and its $`CP`$ phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$, accessible soon at the Tevatron. Recall that $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{23}/(\stackrel{~}{M}_d^2)_{RR}^{13}1/\lambda |V_{ts}/V_{td}|`$ in Eq. (2), before setting \[…\] terms to zero. By simply scaling up the $`B_d`$ mixing results of  for $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing case, one sees that even for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ TeV, its contribution to $`B_s`$ mixing could be of same order as SM. The dominant $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ box diagrams involve two $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$, or one $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ and one $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$/$`\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ mixing. The former generates effective coupling $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1\overline{s}_R^\alpha \gamma _\mu b_R^\alpha \overline{s}_R^\beta \gamma ^\mu b_R^\beta `$, while the latter $`C_{4(5)}\overline{s}_R^\alpha b_L^{\alpha (\beta )}\overline{s}_L^\beta b_R^{\beta (\alpha )}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1c_\theta ^2s_\theta ^2e^{2i\sigma }`$, $`C_{4(5)}\lambda ^2c_\theta s_\theta e^{i\sigma }`$ are known  functions of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2`$ (simpler mass insertion formulas given in ). Because of a larger loop factor, the CKM suppressed $`C_{4(5)}`$ is comparable to $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$. Thus, the explicit $`\sigma `$-phase dependence of the mixing amplitude is ($`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ are real)

$$M_{12}|M_{12}|e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}}ae^{2i\sigma }+be^{i\sigma }+c,$$
(6)
where $`b`$ (from $`C_{4(5)}`$) and $`c`$ (from SM) differ in sign.

Using RGE evolution from  and $`f_{B_s}^2B_{B_s}=(240`$ MeV$`)^2`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}^{\mathrm{SM}}14.9`$ ps-1 with vanishing $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. For illustration, in Fig. 2 we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ vs $`\sigma `$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=1.2`$ TeV, average squark mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}=2`$ TeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 1, 2 and 3 TeV. As advertised, even for heavy $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ at TeV scale, the SUSY contribution can be comparable to the SM effect. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=1`$ TeV $`<\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can reach twice the SM value around $`\sigma \pi `$. For heavier $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can reach only 22 (18) ps-1 for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 2 (3) TeV. Destructive interference between SM and SUSY for $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma >0`$ (where $`\mathrm{cos}2\sigma `$ modulation can be seen) would give $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ hence disfavored. Thus, for the $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ TeV scenario, $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma <0`$ is preferred. Similarly, $`|\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}|`$ can reach $`50\%75\%`$, vanishes at $`\sigma =\pi `$, and has smaller range for heavier $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is only slightly above SM expectation, it could be uncovered at the Tevatron in a couple of years. One could then find $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}0`$ and indirect $`CP`$ in $`B_s\varphi \gamma `$, but no sign of SUSY particles since the scale is at TeV.

The light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ case allows greater range. We plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ vs $`\sigma `$ in Fig. 3, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0.8`$, 2 TeV, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=`$ 100, 200 and 600 GeV. The $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=600`$ GeV case is similar to Fig. 2, except that $`a+b`$ in Eq. (6) is of same sign as $`c`$. For lower $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, the strength of $`b`$ increases monotonically and is stronger than $`c`$, while $`a`$ first drops slowly, resulting in an accidental cancellation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ at $`\sigma =0`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ 200 GeV. Below this, $`a`$ flips sign and changes rapidly, and together with $`b`$ they overwhelm $`c`$. Thus, for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1130`$ GeV, one develops a dip rather than maximum at $`\sigma \pi `$, as shown for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=`$ 100 GeV case.

It is interesting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ hovers not far above $`15`$ ps-1 for both a broad range of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1250`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma >0`$, and the intriguing case of a rather light ($`<`$ 100 GeV) $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ for phase $`\sigma \pi `$. For such $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ values, measurement would be swift, with good prospects for $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$, which clearly covers the full range between $`\pm 1`$, with a $`\mathrm{sin}2\sigma `$ modulation over the basic $`\mathrm{sin}\sigma `$ dependence. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can also easily reach beyond 40 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, whether $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ is heavy or light, and measurement would then take a while. This in itself would indicate new physics, but $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ measurement becomes difficult. For confirming evidence, one would have to search for $`C_7^{}`$ effects in $`bs\gamma `$, such as indirect $`CP`$ in $`B_dK_1^0\gamma `$ or “wrong” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$.

Whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ (and $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$) is measured soon or not, it is imperative to check whether there is a $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ squark below a couple hundred GeV. How should one search for it? In the usual SUSY scenario, because of heaviness of top quark, one could have a light stop by RGE evolution from very high scale, or by having large (flavor blind) LR mixing. One could also have a light sbottom if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. This has motivated the experimental search  via $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ assuming that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, if not the lightest SUSY particle (LSP), is lighter than $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$. The signature is two b jets plus missing energy. In order to distinguish sbottom from stop, $`b`$-tagging is necessary since loop-induced $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ leads to similar signature. In our case, all squarks including stop are at TeV scale, except $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ which becomes light because of large flavor violation, without the need for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ is a mixture of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$, both decays $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`s\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are important, and the $`b`$-tagging efficiency is diluted. Thus, the standard sbottom search bound would weaken. In any case, if a light sbottom is found, one would have to check against production cross section vs theory expectations from mass measurement, to determine whether it is the standard $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ or the $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$. In case $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is heavier than $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$, the LSP would likely be some sneutrino, and the decay $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu `$, $`s\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu `$ via virtual $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (hypercharge coupling) has similar signature.

In conclusion, flavor violation in $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ squark sector could be uniquely large if one has an underlying Abelian flavor symmetry, which are both inspired by the hierarchical patterns of quark masses and mixings. With SUSY above TeV scale, this large flavor violation could evade low energy constraints, including $`bs\gamma `$, but modify $`B_s`$ mixing and generate $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}0`$. It is intriguing that the strange-beauty squark $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ could be driven light by the large flavor violation itself. Both a light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1`$ and a light bino-like neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ can survive the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. This would not only further enrich $`B_s`$ physics, but can also be directly probed via $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`s\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, which extends the standard $`\stackrel{~}{b}b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ search scenario.

This work is supported in part by NSC-89-2112-M-002-063, NSC-89-2811-M-002-0086 and 0129, the MOE CosPA Project, and the BCP Topical Program of NCTS.