text:
# A geometric basis for the standard-model gauge group

## 1 Introduction

The present work introduces a geometric approach to the minimal standard model in terms of Clifford’s geometric algebra $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ of seven-dimensional space (see for example  for an introduction to Clifford algebras and their applications in physics). It demonstrates how the gauge symmetries $`U(1)_YSU(2)_LSU(3)_C`$ arise as the rotational symmetries of a reducible representation of the Poincaré group in a linear space with only four extra spacelike dimensions. The fact that this is fewer than the minimum of seven extra dimensions required in the Kaluza-Klein type of approach  stems both from the availability of double-sided transformations on algebraic spinor elements and from the existence of higher-dimensional multivector subspaces in $`C\mathrm{}_7`$. Our approach of studying rotational symmetries in a higher-dimensional space may be viewed as an extension of the well-known association of spin with spatial rotations and the treatment of charge symmetry as a rotational symmetry in isospin space. It may lead to a better understanding of the geometry underlying the standard model.

There have been numerous attempts in the past to combine the existing symmetries into an encompassing structure. Many of the earlier ones have fallen victim to theorems such as the one by Coleman and Mandula  that disallow most except “trivial” (i.e. direct-product) couplings of internal and spacetime symmetries of the $`S`$ matrix. One of the motivations of supersymmetric models has been to evade the restrictions of such theorems .

More recently Clifford algebras have been used to model the leptons and quarks and their interactions . The Clifford algebras $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ of physical space and $`C\mathrm{}_{1,3}`$ of Minkowski spacetime are just the algebra of Pauli spin matrices and the real algebra of Dirac gamma matrices, respectively, and are essential ingredients of the relativistic quantum theory of fermions. The aim is to find a larger algebra containing $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ and $`C\mathrm{}_{1,3}`$ as subalgebras that models several fermions simultaneously. Chisholm and Farwell  investigated the mathematical constraints on models in which the particle spinors belong to minimal left ideals of the algebra, and they developed a spin-gauge theory  in which couplings to a “frame field” are responsible for the boson masses. They studied $`C\mathrm{}_{1,6}`$ , represented by $`8\times 8`$ matrices, to model the electroweak interactions of leptons in a seven-dimensional space, $`C\mathrm{}_{2,6}`$ , represented by $`16\times 16`$ matrices, to combine the electroweak and gravitational interactions in an eight-dimensional space, and both $`C\mathrm{}_{4,7}`$  and $`C\mathrm{}_{3,8}`$ , represented by $`32\times 32`$ matrices, to model one generation of eight fermions (without separate antiparticles) in an eleven-dimensional space. In all these models, gauge transformations acted on the spinors only from the left. In 1999 they chose a different behaviour  for the gauge transformations in which the spinors, still taken to be minimal left ideals, undergo similarity transformations. They interpreted a new interaction term resulting from this formulation in $`C\mathrm{}_{1,6}`$ as representing the $`U(1)`$ contribution in electroweak theory.

Our algebraic approach builds on a previous formulation  in geometric algebra of the Dirac theory. While it shares many of the powerful tools and algebraic structures of Clifford algebras with the work of Chisholm and Farwell, it is distinct in several respects. Our spinor, representing all the fermions and their antiparticles for a single generation of the standard model, is not an element of a minimal left ideal. However, isotopic pairs of particles can be isolated in the spinor by applying primitive idempotents on the right, and such projected spinors do belong to distinct minimal left ideals. The transformation behaviour is determined by the geometric role of the spinor  as an amplitude of the Lorentz transformation relating a reference frame for the particles to the lab frame: the spinor is subject to *independent* transformations on the right and left. It is through this structure, together with the Minkowskian metric of paravector space , that we are able to model all the fermions of a generation in just seven spatial (eight spacetime) dimensions with an algebra represented by $`8\times 8`$ matrices. More important than the compactness of our model, however, are its results. Our work emphasizes the geometrical significance of the algebra. The spinors physically couple “interior” and “exterior” symmetries (to be defined below) in such a way as to maintain a direct-product group structure in their two-sided transformations. The $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ symmetries arise as the exact exterior and interior rotation groups, respectively, in the seven-dimensional space that (1) conserve the physical spacetime components of particle and antiparticle currents and (2) leave the right-chiral neutrino sterile. The $`U(1)`$ symmetry is given by coupled rotations that act simultaneously on both sides of the spinor, commute with the interior and exterior rotations, and satisfy the constraints (1) and (2). It is important to emphasize that in our geometric model the gauge symmetries are not imposed but arise naturally from the algebra itself as unique symmetry groups of the current. The chiral nature of the $`SU\left(2\right)`$ group is discussed in terms of the symmetry of the Higgs field. The model also predicts the correct weak-hypercharge assignments.

Section 2 summarizes the conventions adopted and provides an $`8\times 8`$-matrix representation of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ in order to relate our algebraic formulation to conventional expressions. Section 3 develops the notion of spinors in $`C\mathrm{}_7`$. It shows how spinors representing all the fermions of a single generation can be combined into a single algebraic spinor, how the currents are calculated from such spinors, and how the contributions from individual fermions can be projected out. In section 4, we study the rotational symmetries of these spinors and show that they give exactly the gauge symmetries of the standard model with the correct weak hypercharge assignments. We also investigate other possible symmetry transformations and show that within our model the continuous interior and exterior symmetry groups (other than the Poincaré group) comprise only sets of coupled rotations. Section 5 shows how the four extra spatial dimensions and their transformation properties are precisely what is needed for the four components of a minimal Higgs field.

## 2 Algebraic Foundations

Clifford algebras are associative algebras of vectors. In the real Clifford algebra $`C\mathrm{}_7`$, the unit vectors $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_7`$ are chosen to represent orthogonal spacelike directions in the tangent space of a seven-dimensional manifold, with $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ allotted to the three observed (physical) directions. The product of any number of vectors is completely determined by the anticommutator

$$e_je_k+e_ke_j=2\delta _{jk},j,k=1,\mathrm{},7.$$
(1)
All elements of the algebra can be reduced to real linear combinations of $`2^7=128`$ basis forms, each one representing a geometric object. For example, the bivector $`e_1e_4`$ represents the plane spanned by the directions $`e_1`$ and $`e_4`$, and the trivector $`e_1e_2e_3`$ represents the physical volume element. There are a total of 21 independent bivectors and in general $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{7}{k}\right)`$ independent $`k`$-vectors (forms built from products of $`k`$ distinct basis vectors) in $`C\mathrm{}_7.`$

Two basic conjugations, both of which are antiautomorphic involutions, are used. The reversion of $`KC\mathrm{}_7`$, denoted $`K^{}`$, reverses the order of appearance of all vector elements within $`K`$. For example, $`(e_1e_2e_3)^{}=e_3e_2e_1=e_1e_2e_3`$ and $`(AB)^{}=B^{}A^{}.`$ Clifford conjugation, denoted by $`\overline{K},`$ both reverses the order and negates all vector elements of $`K`$. In the algebras $`C\mathrm{}_n,`$ the basis vectors $`e_j`$ can all be taken to be hermitian, and then reversion is equivalent to hermitian conjugation. The algebra $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ is appealing in that the volume element of the algebra, like that of $`C\mathrm{}_3,`$ commutes with all elements and squares to $`1`$. It can therefore be associated identically with the unit imaginary

$$\mathrm{i}e_1e_2e_3e_4e_5e_6e_7$$
(2)
and used to reduce products of real vectors to elements of a complex space with 64 basis forms. For example, $`e_4e_5e_6e_7=\mathrm{i}e_1e_2e_3`$. This fortuitous circumstance occurs for every $`C\mathrm{}_{3+4n}`$ with non-negative integer $`n`$, and $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ is the smallest of the series that contains the Dirac algebra as a subalgebra. The choice of adding exactly four extra dimensions to physical space is further justified below in that they arise naturally from a metric-free approach to physical space and form a natural basis for the four components of the minimal Higgs field.

The formalism used here builds on the physical applications of $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ (the Pauli algebra), in particular the use of *paravectors*  to model spacetime vectors. Paravectors are sums of scalars and vectors such as $`V=V^0+V^1e_1+V^2e_2+V^3e_3V^\mu e_\mu `$, where for notational convenience we denote the unit scalar by $`e_0,`$ and the scalar $`V^0`$ is the time component in the observer frame, that is, the frame with proper velocity $`e_0=\overline{e}_0=1`$. The linear space of paravectors has a Minkowski spacetime metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ with signature $`(1,3).`$ The metric arises from the square norm of paravectors

$$V\overline{V}=V\overline{V}_S=V^\mu V^\nu e_\mu \overline{e}_\nu _S=V^\mu V_\mu $$
(3)
as $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=e_\mu \overline{e}_\nu _S`$. Here, $`\mathrm{}_S`$ means the scalar part of the enclosed expression, and we adopt the summation convention for repeated indices, with lower-case Greek indices taking integer values $`0\mathrm{}3.`$ The algebra generated by products of paravectors is just $`C\mathrm{}_3,`$ which is isomorphic to quaternions over the complex numbers. It admits a covariant formulation of relativity and has also been shown to provide a natural formulation of the single-particle Dirac theory . The Lorentz-invariant spacetime volume element in $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ can be taken to be $`e_0e_1e_2e_3=\pm \mathrm{i}.`$ The sign indicates the handedness of the spatial basis vectors $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}.`$ As we discuss in more detail in the following section, when extra dimensions are present, it is possible to rotate a right-handed spacetime basis into a left-handed one.

Proper and orthochronous Lorentz transformations of spacetime vectors are effected by bilinear transformations of the form

$$VLVL^{}$$
(4)
where $`L`$ is any unimodular element: $`L\overline{L}=1.`$ Every such $`L`$ can be expressed as the product $`L=\mathrm{exp}\left(w/2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta /2\right)`$ of a spatial rotation $`L_R=\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta /2\right)`$ in the plane of the bivector $`\theta =\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{jk}e_j\overline{e}_k`$ and a pure boost $`L_B=\mathrm{exp}\left(w/2\right)`$ in the direction of the rapidity $`w=w^je_j`$ (or, equivalently, as a hyperbolic rotation in the spacetime plane of $`w^je_j\overline{e}_0`$). The scalar coefficients satisfy $`\theta ^{jk}=\theta ^{kj}`$ and $`w^j=0=\theta ^{kj}`$ for $`j>3.`$ An advantage of the formalism is that the generators of the transformations have direct physical significance. For example, the generator $`e_1\overline{e}_2`$ induces a rotation in the $`e_1e_2`$ plane. Note that a scalar is not necessarily the time component of some spacetime vector. The mass $`m`$ of a particle, for example, may be the time component of the momentum $`p`$ (in units with $`c=1`$) in the rest frame, or it may be the invariant norm of $`p.`$ The two possibilities are distinguished by how they transform. In particular, the square norm of $`p`$ transforms as

$$m^2=p\overline{p}\left(LpL^{}\right)\left(\overline{L}^{}\overline{p}\overline{L}\right)=p\overline{p}$$
(5)
whereas the rest-frame momentum becomes

$$me_0Lme_0L^{}=mLL^{}.$$
(6)
The extension from $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ to $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ requires four additional basis vectors, $`e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7,`$ that are orthogonal to physical space, namely the span of $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3\},`$ which generates the $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ considered here. If $`z`$ is any linear combination of $`e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7,`$ its product with any $`KC\mathrm{}_3`$ satisfies

$$zK=\overline{K}^{}z.$$
(7)
It follows that $`z`$ is invariant under any Lorentz transformation (4) with $`LC\mathrm{}_3`$: $`zLzL^{}=L\overline{L}z=z.`$ More general rotations in $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ have the form of equation (4) but are generated by bivectors that are not restricted to the three spatial planes of $`C\mathrm{}_3.`$

It is natural to question the significance of the extra dimensions. Of course they may be compact as in the Kaluza-Klein approach, but then one can still perform rotations in the tangent space at any point, for example in the $`e_1e_4`$ plane or in other planes involving the extra dimensions. Alternatively, the extra dimensions may be finite or infinite in extent but simply not observable as spatial degrees of freedom. One way to arrive at $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ from $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ is to seek a metric-free foundation for $`C\mathrm{}_3.`$ The anticommutation relation (1) implies a Euclidean spatial metric, but we may instead start with a three-dimensional metric-free Witt basis  of null vectors $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3\}`$ satisfying

$$\alpha _j\alpha _k+\alpha _k\alpha _j=0,j,k=1,2,3.$$
(8)
A dual space can then be defined as the span of $`\{\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{},\alpha _3^{}\},`$ where

$$\alpha _j^{}\alpha _k+\alpha _k\alpha _j^{}=\delta _{jk}.$$
(9)
The anticommutation relation (1) for $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ follows directly from the identification $`e_k=\alpha _k+\alpha _k^{}.`$ However, there are now three extra linearly independent vectors that we can label $`e_k=\alpha _k\alpha _k^{}.`$ It is easily verified that the six basis vectors $`e_{\pm k}`$ anticommute and square to $`\pm 1.`$ The span of $`\left\{e_{\pm k}\right\}_{1k3}`$ is a six-dimensional space with the metric signature $`(3,3)`$. It generates the Clifford algebra $`C\mathrm{}_{3,3}`$, and its volume element $`e_4e_3e_2e_1e_1e_2e_3`$ squares to $`+1`$ and anticommutes with the six $`e_{\pm k}.`$ As in the familiar Dirac algebra, the volume element in $`C\mathrm{}_{3,3}`$ acts as an additional spatial dimension. It can be added to the basis to form a seven-dimensional space with the corresponding universal Clifford algebra$`C\mathrm{}_{4,3}.`$ The algebra $`C\mathrm{}_{4,3}`$ can be mapped to $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ if we assume the existence of a scalar unit imaginary element $`\mathrm{i}.`$ We replace the three $`e_k`$ by elements $`e_{4+k}\mathrm{i}e_k`$ that square to $`+1.`$ The elements $`e_j,`$ with $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},7,`$ then satisfy equations (1) and (2) and span a seven-dimensional Euclidean space such as used here. The Witt basis elements can now be written

$$\alpha _k=\frac{1}{2}\left(e_k\mathrm{i}e_{4+k}\right),k=1,2,3$$
(10)
and if we take the $`e_j`$ to be hermitian, the dual elements are their hermitian conjugates: $`\alpha _k^{}=\alpha _k^{}.`$ The anticommutation relations (8,9) are just those of fermion annihilation and creation operators, whose products, together with other constructions analogous to equation (10), can generate the isotopic groups used below. Here we derive the group generators directly in terms of bivectors of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ by demanding that they avoid interactions with the right-chiral neutrino and leave the spacetime components of the particle and antiparticle currents invariant.

To illustrate relations in $`C\mathrm{}_7`$, it is useful to have an explicit matrix representation. Such a representation can be built from a $`4\times 4`$-matrix representation of the familiar Dirac algebra $`C\mathrm{}_{1,3}`$, in which the basis vectors satisfy $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =2\eta _{\mu \nu }.`$ However, we note that the unit imaginary is not part of $`C\mathrm{}_{1,3},`$ that the volume element $`\mathrm{i}\gamma _5=\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$ plays the role of an added spatial dimension, that the $`\gamma _\mu `$ cannot all be hermitian, and that $`\gamma _0`$ has additional significance in the definition of the conjugate spinor. A faithful $`8\times 8`$ matrix representation of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ can be expressed in the block-matrix form

$`e_0`$ $`=1\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),e_k\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _0\gamma _k& 0\\ 0& \gamma _0\gamma _k\end{array}\right),e_4\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}\gamma _0\gamma _5& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{i}\gamma _0\gamma _5\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`e_5`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _0& 0\\ 0& \gamma _0\end{array}\right),e_6\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _0\\ \gamma _0& 0\end{array}\right),e_7\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{i}\gamma _0\\ \mathrm{i}\gamma _0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
with $`k=1,2,3.`$ Each basis vector $`e_j`$ is thus represented by a hermitian matrix. It can be seen that this representation absorbs $`\gamma _0`$ into the definition of a spatial direction, thus relegating time to the scalar part of the algebra, and it introduces four extra spacelike dimensions in accordance with the defining anticommutator (1) so that $`[\mathrm{i}]_{8\times 8}`$ arises naturally through the full volume element. Operations involving these higher dimensions may now be stated and executed cleanly in terms of the basis vectors $`e_j`$ without having to appeal to products of gamma matrices. The representation (24) is only one of many that absorb the Dirac algebra into the more mathematically uniform $`C\mathrm{}_7`$. In fact, the model can be presented algebraically without reference to specific matrices, but the representation (24) is useful for understanding the spinorial element and for making comparisons to conventional expressions.

## 3 Algebraic Spinors and Currents

Algebraic spinors may be defined as entities that transform under the restricted Lorentz group not as vectors (4), but according to the rule

$$\mathrm{\Psi }L\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(25)
They obey a similar transformation law under translations. Spinors are thus elements of the carrier space of a representation (generally a reducible representation) of the Poincaré group. In the $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ version of the Dirac theory , the spinor field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, represented by a $`2\times 2`$ matrix, is an amplitude of the bilinear Lorentz transformation (4) relating the reference and laboratory frames of the particle. The current, in particular, corresponds to the transformation of the rest-frame time axis: $`J=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.`$

To describe one generation of the standard model, we use the algebraic spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }C\mathrm{}_7`$. It is represented by an $`8\times 8`$ matrix whose columns contain the spinors for the leptons ($`\nu ,e`$) as well as for three colors of quarks ($`u,d`$) and all their antiparticles. Presumably it specifies not only the motion and orientation of the particles in spacetime, but also in the space spanned by the extra four dimensions.

The transformations (25) are preserved by multiplication from the right by Lorentz-invariant factors, in particular by hermitian idempotent elements (projectors) that project the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ onto left ideals of $`C\mathrm{}_7.`$ In particular, there are eight independent primitive idempotents that, in terms of matrices, can each be used to reduce $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to a single nonvanishing column. (Examples are given below and in the Appendix.) Every column of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transforms as a spinor \[equation (25)\], and operators from the left do not mix the spinors in different columns.

In constructing an algebraic expression for the particle current $`J`$, we seek a form that is bilinear in the spinors, transforms as a vector, and satisfies $`J^{}=J`$. The last requirement ensures that the physical components $`J^\mu `$ of $`J`$ are real. The simplest solution to this, and the one that we adopt here, has the same form as found for the Dirac theory in $`C\mathrm{}_3`$:

$$J=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}L\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}L^{}.$$
(26)
A specific component of $`J`$ may be extracted by contracting it with its associated direction through

$$J_\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\overline{e}_\mu _S=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\overline{e}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_S.$$
(27)
(We have used the algebraic property $`AB_S=BA_S`$, whose matrix representation through $`\mathrm{}_S\frac{1}{8}tr(\mathrm{})`$ is the familiar trace theorem $`tr(AB)=tr(BA)`$.) From the matrix representation for $`e_\mu `$, we see that the components (27) are sums of the conventional expressions $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ for each fermion and antifermion, where the delimiters $`\mathrm{}`$ designate prevailing non-algebraic notation.

It is useful to distinguish transformations acting on the left from others that act on the right. Those on the left include Lorentz transformations and rotations in the space of the extra four dimensions. Since they operate on orthogonal subspaces, rotations in the space spanned by $`\{e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7\}`$ commute with the Lorentz transformations. They are applied to the spinor after the particles have been given the motion and orientation described by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and will be called “exterior” transformations to represent their position, as in equation (26), in transformations of the current $`J.`$ Transformations applied from the right will similarly be called “interior”. They are applied to the particles in their reference frame, before they acquire the motion and orientation implied by the spinor. Note that exterior transformations are not synonymous with *external* transformations, since the extra four dimensions may relate to properties that are commonly considered to be *internal*. Exterior transformations mix the components within a single pair of fermions, whereas interior transformations mix different pairs together.

Primitive idempotents $`P(n)`$ needed to isolate columns of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be constructed from interior products of three pairs of simple projectors $`P_\pm =P_\pm ^{}=P_\pm ^2=\overline{P}_{},`$ where $`P_++P_{}=1`$ and $`P_+P_{}=0`$. From among several equivalent choices, we use the three mutually commuting projector pairs

$$P_{\pm 3}\frac{1}{2}(1\pm e_3),P_{\pm \alpha }\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{i}e_4e_5),P_{\pm \beta }\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{i}e_6e_7).$$
(28)
In the Weyl $`\gamma `$-matrix representation adopted here (see Appendix), the products $`P_{\pm 3}P_{\pm \alpha }P_{\pm \beta }`$ are simply the eight diagonal matrices with a single nonvanishing, unit element. For example, $`P_{+3}P_{+\alpha }P_\beta =\mathrm{diag}[1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]P(1)`$, and the first-column spinor may be written $`\mathrm{\Psi }P(1)`$ (see Appendix). Each of the eight primitive projectors $`P(n)`$, applied from the right, projects $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (or other elements) onto one of eight minimal left ideals of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ and one of the eight columns of the matrix representation. The $`n`$th column $`\mathrm{\Psi }P(n)`$ is identified with a distinct pair of fermions and forms current elements in equation (26) only with itself.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A similar primitive-idempotent structure for particle doublets was proposed for the algebra $`C\mathrm{}_{1,6}`$ by Chisholm and Farwell . However, in spite of an isomorphism between $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ and $`C\mathrm{}_{1,6},`$ their restriction to spinors belonging to minmal left ideals allows them to include only one isotopic pair of particles whereas our spinor contains eight isotopic pairs of particles and antiparticles. Furthermore, our use of paravectors provides additional degrees of freedom. Indeed, it corresponds to a 2-to-1 mapping of the larger $`C\mathrm{}_{1,7}`$ onto its even subalgebra $`C\mathrm{}_{1,7}^+C\mathrm{}_7.`$

One pair of simple projectors, applied from the right, can be taken to separate particles from antiparticles. We let this be $`P_{\pm 3},`$ although this choice is generalized below. Thus, columns $`1,4,5,8,`$ selected by $`P_{+3},`$ are designated for particles and the remaining columns, selected by $`P_3,`$ contain the antiparticle spinors. Each column holds the spinors for a fermion doublet, and the projectors for the two isotopic-spin components are taken to be $`P_{\pm \beta }`$ applied as an *exterior* operator (from the left). In the Weyl representation , each four-component spinor in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is further split into two-component spinors of right and left chirality. For example, the upper spinor of column one comprises the nonvanishing components of $`P_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }P(1):`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{11}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{21}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{31}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{41}\end{array}\right)\sqrt{8}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\\ \psi _1\\ \psi _2\\ \psi _3\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{8}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R\\ \psi _L\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
where $`\sqrt{8}`$ factors are inserted to agree with conventional normalization. The lower spinor $`P_{+\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }P\left(1\right)`$ with the four nonzero components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{51}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{81}`$ and the other $`P_{+3}`$ columns are labeled in a similar manner. The $`P_{+3}`$ (particle) spinors can be factored explicitly as in table 1. The $`P_3`$ spinors have a similar form but have been excluded for brevity. Indeed, one need only work out the algebraic equivalent of the first column, since the remaining $`P_{+3}`$ columns are easily obtained by multiplying the first-column spinor from the right by the elements $`e_5e_1,e_5e_6,e_6e_1,`$ which shifts it to columns $`4,5,8`$ respectively. These algebraic spinors transform under $`\mathrm{\Psi }L\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the same manner as in the conventional column representation.

The chiral projectors for all fermions in the Weyl representation are the mutually annihilating exterior operators

$$P_{R/L}=P_{\overline{L}/\overline{R}}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm e_4e_5e_6e_7).$$
(30)
By the “pacwoman”  property $`P_{R/L}=\pm e_4e_5e_6e_7P_{R/L}=\mathrm{i}e_1e_2e_3P_{R/L},`$ these projectors split $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ into parts in which the basis elements $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ of physical space have right and left-handed orientations, respectively. In particular, since

$$e_1e_2e_3P_{R/L}=\pm \mathrm{i}P_{R/L}$$
(31)
the spatial volume element $`e_1e_2e_3`$ (which is equal to the spacetime volume element $`e_0e_1e_2e_3`$ in the lab frame) can be replaced<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2A potential conflict between these cases is restricted by the association of observed quantities such as $`J_\mu `$ (27) with the scalar expressions. by $`+\mathrm{i}`$ when multiplying $`P_R`$ and $`\mathrm{i}`$ when multiplying $`P_L.`$ Note that the chirality projectors $`P_{R/L}`$ commute with all elements of the subalgebra $`C\mathrm{}_3`$ as well as with $`P_{\pm 3},P_{\pm \alpha },P_{\pm \beta }`$ and therefore with all the primitive idempotents $`P\left(n\right).`$ Furthermore, any element $`x`$ of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ with an odd number of vector factors from the higher dimensions $`e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7`$ reverses the chirality: $`xP_R=P_Lx.`$ Such elements include bivectors such as $`e_3e_4`$ that can generate rotations from a left-handed coordinate system into a right-handed one and *vice versa*. The chirality of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can thus be flipped by the transformation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }e_1e_2e_3e_4\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(32)
which has the effect of reversing the vector components of the current (26) in the span of $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\}`$ while leaving the components in the span of $`\{e_0,e_5,e_6,e_7\}`$ invariant.

Charge conjugation is realized by the algebraic operation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\mathrm{i}e_4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}.$$
(33)
The combination of the two antiautomorphic involutions obeys the rule $`\overline{(AB)}^{}=\overline{A}^{}\overline{B}^{},`$ and the conjugate of the upper spinor of the first column (see table 1), for example, is

$$P_{+\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_CP\left(6\right)=\mathrm{i}e_4\sqrt{8}(\overline{\psi }_R^{}+\overline{\psi }_L^{}e_1e_5)P(6)$$
(34)
where $`\overline{\psi }_R^{}=\psi _0^{}\psi _1^{}e_1`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_L^{}=\psi _3^{}+\psi _2^{}e_1`$. The identification (33), together with the relation (7) and transformation rule (25), ensures that spinors and their charge conjugates transform in the same way under the Lorentz group:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C\mathrm{i}e_4\overline{L}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}=L\mathrm{i}e_4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}=L\mathrm{\Psi }_C.$$
(35)
In the matrix representation, charge conjugation (33) is equivalent to defining the conventional charge conjugates through $`\psi _C=\mathrm{i}\gamma ^2\psi ^{}`$ and interchanging both corresponding particle and antiparticle columns and upper and lower spinors. The resulting full structure of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is shown in table 2. For the sake of brevity, we take the liberty of labeling the spinors with the particle designations shown, although the gauge structure has not yet been determined. This is one of many possible arrangements and will be generalized below. Note that charge conjugation reverses the signs on all of the simple interior and exterior projectors used here.

Geometrically, charge conjugation transforms the particle current as

$$J=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}e_4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}e_4=e_4\overline{J}e_4$$
(36)
and has the effect of negating the $`e_4`$ component while leaving all other directions invariant. This is a discrete symmetry of the higher-dimensional directions that is not accessible by a rotation. The negation of two or four directions can be achieved by rotations, and to negate three directions one simply reverses one direction followed by reversing another two or four. The choice of $`e_4`$ and the phase introduced in equation (33) are merely convenient choices for the representation used.

The total current obtained by simply adding all the left ideal doublets into a single element $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then

$$J\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{16}{}}J_{(a)}^\mu e_\mu +\text{(higher-dim. terms).}$$
(37)
The sum here runs over the 16 four-component spinors assigned to the upper and lower halves of the eight minimal left ideals, each of which is ascribed to a distinct fermion . The residual part of the current involves cross-current terms between the upper and lower fermions of the same ideal as well as mass-like terms of the form $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$, all projected onto higher-dimensional elements.

The main idea of this section has simply been that, instead of writing a separate term for each of the particle currents, we can consolidate them into a single expression that accommodates a number of spinorial representations. The advantage of the algebraic formalism becomes evident when we enumerate all the possible rotational symmetries of this current.

## 4 Gauge Symmetries

The algebraic current (26) holds all the chiral currents of a single generation of the standard model, with distinct antiparticle currents, as a generalized current in a linear space of seven spatial dimensions. In this section, we show that rotational transformations that leave both the physical spacetime components of the particle and antiparticle currents and the right-chiral neutrino (and left-chiral antineutrino) invariant lead exactly to the standard-model gauge symmetries. Our approach is analogous to the conventional case where one notices that $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\psi `$ is a symmetry of the current, but now we consider all possible rotations in the seven-dimensional Euclidean space. This involves generators acting from both the left and right of the algebraic spinor, as these generators usually do not commute with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. We show further that rotations are the only continuous transformations acting from either the right or the left that are allowed in our model. Thus, by combining the fermion currents into the single form (26), we uncover relationships among the fermions that in most other models are simply imposed on abstract spaces.

We begin by considering exterior rotations $`\mathrm{\Psi }G\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}(\theta T)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that leave the physical spacetime components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ invariant, where $`T`$ generates rotations in one or more planes of the seven-dimensional space. As seen above, the generator of rotations in a plane is the bivector for the plane, and bivectors are antihermitian. From the infinitesimal form

$$J(1+\theta T)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1+\theta T^{})$$
(38)
it is clear from the invariance of $`J_\mu `$ (27) for $`\mu =0,1,2,3,`$ that $`e_\mu T=T^{}e_\mu =Te_\mu `$. Thus, to leave the spatial components of $`J`$ invariant, $`T`$ must commute with $`e_k`$, $`k=1,2,3`$. This reduces the choices for $`T`$ to linear combinations of the six bivectors $`e_je_k:(j,k)\{4,5,6,7\},j>k,`$ of the Lie algebra $`so\left(4\right),`$ which generate rotations of the higher-dimensional vector components of the current among themselves. As seen above, generators formed from products of $`e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7`$ are invariant under Lorentz transformations and may therefore be associated with intrinsic transformations. The projectors $`P_{R/L}`$ split $`so\left(4\right)`$ into two independent copies of the algebra $`su\left(2\right),`$ corresponding to the rotation groups $`SU\left(2\right)_{L/R}`$ with generators of the form $`e_je_kP_{L/R}.`$

The generators of $`SU\left(2\right)_L`$ may be written in the form

$$T_1=\frac{1}{4}(e_6e_4+e_5e_7),T_2=\frac{1}{4}(e_7e_4+e_6e_5),T_3=\frac{1}{4}(e_5e_4+e_7e_6).$$
(39)
that implicitly contains the left-chiral projector (30), for example $`2T_1=e_6e_4P_L`$, and therefore acts only on left-chiral particles and right-chiral antiparticles. The three generators (39) induce simultaneous rotations in a pair of commuting planes and satisfy $`[T_a,T_b]=\epsilon _{abc}T_c,`$ with the fully antisymmetric structure constants $`\epsilon _{abc}`$ where $`\epsilon _{123}=1.`$ The conventional presence of the unit imaginary in front of $`T_c`$ has been absorbed into the antihermitian property of the bivectors. The effect of the transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(\theta _aT_a)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is identical to that of the prevailing $`SU(2)`$ prescriptions

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _L& u_L& \overline{e}_R& \overline{d}_R\\ e_L& d_L& \overline{\nu }_R& \overline{u}_R\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta _a\sigma _a/2)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _L& u_L& \overline{e}_R& \overline{d}_R\\ e_L& d_L& \overline{\nu }_R& \overline{u}_R\end{array}\right)$$
(40)
as is readily verified by computing the matrix representations of the generators. Because operations from the left shuffle entire rows about in the matrix representation but do not shift columns, the assignment of doublets to columns is still arbitrary. The three linearly independent generators formed by replacing the $`+`$ signs in (39) by $``$ signs, and indeed any linear combination of them, all have the form $`x_bP_R,`$ where $`x_b`$ is a bivector. They would thus couple with $`\nu _R`$ and its conjugate and are therefore omitted.

Now let us look at the possible *interior* rotations $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }G^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(\theta T^{^{}}).`$ To emphasize the fact that they act on the *right* side of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the interior transformations and generators are denoted here with a prime. Any interior unitary transformation leaves $`J=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ invariant, but we want a stronger condition: we demand that the spacetime components of the particle and antiparticle currents be separately invariant. Mathematically, this is equivalent to splitting the current in two using the $`\mathrm{\Psi }P_{\pm 3}`$ spinors

$$J=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(1+e_3)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(1e_3)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}J_{+3}+J_3$$
(41)
and requiring each part to be invariant. Recall that $`P_{+3}`$ and $`P_3`$ are projectors for particles and antiparticles, respectively, and remember that the interior projectors do not Lorentz transform; they represent a choice in the intrinsic or reference-frame structure of the particles and are not altered by a Lorentz transformation operating from the opposite side of the spinors. Generators acting between $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ are similarly Lorentz invariant. Thus, we may involve the elements $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ in the interior symmetries while satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem , which prohibits any non-trivial combination of the Poincaré and isotopic groups. Under the infinitesimal interior transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }(1+\theta T^{^{}})`$, we have

$$J_{\pm 3}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(1+\theta T^{^{}})(1\pm e_3)(1+\theta T^{{}_{}{}^{}})\mathrm{\Psi }^{}$$
(42)
which may be viewed as a transformation of the central $`P_{\pm 3}`$ projector. We see that the space of available bivector generators that leave $`e_3`$ invariant is now spanned by the larger set of 15 bivectors $`e_je_k:(j,k)\{1,2,4,5,6,7\},j<k.`$ Insulating the right-chiral neutrino from interior transformations in a similar manner as before now requires that both lepton columns (1 and 6 in the representation adopted) be avoided. This reduces the number of independent generators to eight, all of which couple quarks of different colour charges:

$`T_1^{^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_1e_7+e_6e_2),T_2^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_1e_6+e_2e_7),T_3^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_1e_2+e_7e_6)`$
$`T_4^{^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_6e_4+e_5e_7),T_5^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_4e_7+e_5e_6),T_6^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_4e_1+e_2e_5)`$
$`T_7^{^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_1e_5+e_2e_4),T_8^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}(e_2e_1+2e_5e_4+e_7e_6).`$ (43)
The interior generators have been arranged to give the conventional $`SU(3)`$ structure constants

$$[T_a^{^{}},T_b^{^{}}]=f_{abc}T_c^{^{}}.$$
(44)
Computing the matrix representation for each of these generators using (24), we find that the transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(\theta _aT_a^{^{}})`$ is identical in its effect on the $`P_{+3}`$ spinor components to

$$(q_{\mathrm{red}},q_{\mathrm{grn}},q_{\mathrm{blu}})(q_{\mathrm{red}},q_{\mathrm{grn}},q_{\mathrm{blu}})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta _a\lambda _a^{}/2)$$
(45)
where $`\lambda _a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices. This is equivalent to the more familiar

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{\mathrm{red}}\hfill \\ q_{\mathrm{grn}}\hfill \\ q_{\mathrm{blu}}\hfill \end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta _a\lambda _a/2)\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{\mathrm{red}}\hfill \\ q_{\mathrm{grn}}\hfill \\ q_{\mathrm{blu}}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(46)
Under the same algebraic operation, the effect of the remaining submatrices on the conjugate spinors $`(\overline{q_{\mathrm{grn}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{blu}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{red}}})`$ is equivalent to

$$(\overline{q_{\mathrm{red}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{grn}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{blu}}})(\overline{q_{\mathrm{red}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{grn}}},\overline{q_{\mathrm{blu}}})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta _a\lambda _a/2)$$
(47)
which is the correct transformation. The fact that the doublets can be written in the same representation by using either the column $`(u,d)`$ or the column $`(\overline{d},\overline{u})`$ is a special property of $`SU(2).`$ Such a construction is not possible in the for the $`SU(3)`$ triplet, but the geometric symmetries here provide a separate set of $`SU(3)`$ submatrices, one in terms of $`\lambda _a^{}`$ and the other in terms of $`\lambda _a`$, operating on the two carrier spaces. It is an advantage of having the conjugate spinors in separate columns of $`\mathrm{\Psi },`$ that the same algebraic symmetry applies to both particles and antiparticles.

Since any operation from the left shuffles rows whereas one from the right shuffles columns, the order in which two such operations is applied is immaterial. Therefore, *it is of no consequence that the generators from the left do not necessarily commute with the generators acting from the right.* They act on independent structural elements (rows and columns) of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and thus effect transformations as if they were two commuting symmetries in an abstract space. This property, together with the higher-dimensionality of the linear subspace of bivectors, is basically how these gauge groups arise from only four extra dimensions.

There remains one additional possible symmetry. We need to consider a synchronized double-sided rotation that conspires to cancel out in the case of the right-chiral neutrino. As this rotation is to represent a distinct symmetry, its left- and right-side generators must commute with all $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ generators, respectively. Since both the right- and left-sided parts separately couple the right-chiral neutrino, we resurrect previously discarded generators. The surviving bivector candidates are $`(e_4e_5+e_7e_6)`$ acting from the left, and $`(e_1e_2+e_5e_4+e_6e_7)`$ operating from the right. One may verify with the infinitesimal operator

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(1+\theta _0T_0)\mathrm{\Psi }(1+\theta _0T_0^{})$$
(48)
that the solution for which there is no change to the right-chiral neutrino can be normalized to

$$T_0=\frac{1}{2}(e_4e_5+e_7e_6),T_0^{}=\frac{1}{3}(e_1e_2+e_5e_4+e_6e_7).$$
(49)
Applying this operation to each spinor in turn proves to be identical to the $`U(1)_Y`$ transformation $`\psi _{(j)}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta _0Y_{(j)})\psi _{(j)}`$ with the weak hypercharge assignments

$`Y(\nu _R,\nu _L,e_R,e_L)`$ $`=(0,1,2,1)=Y(\overline{\nu }_L,\overline{\nu }_R,\overline{e}_L,\overline{e}_R)`$ (50)
$`Y(u_R,u_L,d_R,d_L)`$ $`=(4/3,1/3,2/3,1/3)=Y(\overline{u}_L,\overline{u}_R,\overline{d}_L,\overline{d}_R).`$
It produces the conventional weak hypercharge assignments for both leptons and quarks.

The above transformations may now be combined into a single expression

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(\theta _0T_0+\theta _aT_a)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(\theta _0T_0^{}+\theta _b^{}T_b^{})$$
(51)
operating on both particles and antiparticles. This exhausts the rotational gauge symmetries. The double-sided transformations may be locally gauged by introducing twelve gauge fields $`B,W_a,G_aC\mathrm{}_3`$ that transform according to

$`\overline{B}`$ $`\overline{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{g^{}}}\overline{}\theta _0,`$
$`\overline{W}_a`$ $`\overline{W}_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\overline{}\theta _a+\epsilon _{abc}\theta _b\overline{W}_c,a\{1,2,3\}`$ (52)
$`\overline{G}_a`$ $`\overline{G}_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s}}\overline{}\theta _a^{^{}}+f_{abc}\theta _b^{^{}}\overline{G}_c,a\{1,2,\mathrm{},8\}`$
into the Lagrangian derivative terms

$`_{}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{i}\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{i}\overline{B}(T_0\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }T_0^{})_S`$
$`g\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{i}\overline{W}_aT_a\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$
$`g_s\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{i}\overline{G}_a\mathrm{\Psi }T_a^{}_S`$
where the algebraic derivative operator is defined by

$$\overline{}_0+_1e_1+_2e_2+_3e_3.$$
(54)
When used with the interior and exterior generators found above, expression (53) yields all the usual particle and antiparticle charge currents. Note that all bivector generators uniformly obey $`T^{}=\overline{T}=T,`$ and all exterior $`T`$ commute with the physical gauge fields. Although the above terms are similar to the conventional forms, it should be emphasized that all of the currents are simultaneously handled in the same expression using the algebraic spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, whose gauge symmetries arise naturally from the geometry of the model.

It is of interest to relax the condition that the transformations of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be rotations and to see whether generators other than bivectors might play a role. However, the unitarity of the transformations together with the consistency of charge conjugation (33) combine with the invariance of spacetime components of the particle and antiparticle currents and the sterility of $`\nu _R`$ to restrict both exterior and interior generators to bivectors. Explicitly, unitarity requires $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ to be antihermitian ($`T=T^{}`$), restricting them to real linear combinations of products of 2, 3, 6, or 7 vectors. Consistency requires charge conjugation to commute with the interior and exterior transformations, yielding $`Te_4=e_4\overline{T}^{}`$ and $`T^{}=\overline{T}^{}`$. These relations eliminate all odd elements except trivectors of $`T`$ that anticommute with $`e_4`$. The invariance of the $`e_1,e_2`$, and $`e_3`$ components of $`J`$ further eliminates 6-vectors as well as all trivectors except $`e_1e_2e_3`$ from admissible contributions to $`T`$. The separation of particle and antiparticle currents requires $`T^{}`$ to commute with $`e_3,`$ which reduces the possible contributions to $`T^{}`$ to bivectors plus the one 6-vector $`ie_3`$. The only remaining candidates that are not bivectors are thus $`e_1e_2e_3`$ for $`T`$ and $`ie_3`$ for $`T^{}`$, and both of these can be eliminated because of their coupling to $`\nu _R`$. Thus, even after relaxing the condition that the transformations be rotations, we find that the generators of the interior and exterior transformations must be bivectors. Furthermore, as seen above, in order to avoid $`\nu _R`$, the exterior generators must belong to the left ideal in which $`T=TP_L`$, where $`P_L`$ is the simple chiral projector. From the form (30) of $`P_L`$, we see that the generators $`T`$ are linear combinations of pairs of commuting bivectors, generating simultaneous rotations in orthogonal planes. Similarly, the interior generators belong to the right ideal in which $`T^{}=P_{q\overline{q}}T^{}`$ where $`P_{q\overline{q}}=1P(1)P(6)`$ (see the Appendix) is the quark-antiquark projector, which can also be expressed as a linear combination of simple projectors. The generators $`T^{}`$ are thus also seen to be linear combinations of pairs of commuting bivectors.

A similar relaxation of the rotation requirement for the synchronized double-sided transformation (48) leaves $`T_0`$ unchanged but adds a 6-vector term to $`T_0^{}`$ (49):

$$T_0^{}=\beta (e_1e_2+e_5e_4+e_6e_7)+(13\beta )ie_3.$$
(55)
By restricting the possible transformations to rotations in the seven-dimensional space, we have effectively chosen $`\beta =1/3`$.

The $`U(1)_YSU(2)_LSU(3)_C`$ result here is a general consequence of the algebra for rotations that conserve the particle and antiparticle currents and do not couple $`\nu _R`$. They are not specific to the $`\mathrm{\Psi }P_{+3}`$ spinors. Any arbitrary fitting of the doublets into some orthogonal linear combination of the columns is accessible by shuffling the $`P_{+3}`$ columns through a transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }S`$ where $`SS^{}=1`$. The exterior transformations are not effected by this transformation. The constraint that the transformations are consistent with charge conjugation demands that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ transform in the same way, and this implies that $`S`$ is an even element, comprising only terms with products of an even number of vectors. The accompanying similarity transformations $`T_a^{^{}}S^{}T_a^{^{}}S`$ and $`P_{+3}S^{}P_{+3}S`$ maintain the results, preserving the structure constants of the group algebras. It can also be shown that for any other set in which all the interior generators are written solely as bivectors, the same weak hypercharge assignments are obtained. In brief, if $`T_1^{}`$ through $`T_8^{}`$ of the new set are all bivectors, it can be shown that $`S`$ must be generated by bivectors. Such a bivector transformation $`S`$ on equation (49) maintains the same form. This framework then gives a geometric basis for the gauge group of the standard model, which arises unambiguously through the various rotational symmetries of the algebraic current in seven-dimensional space.

## 5 Higgs Field

When looking at the exterior invariances of the current, we previously disregarded the higher-dimensional vector components and allowed them to freely rotate among each other. This Lorentz-invariant vector space is then a carrier space for the set of exterior gauge transformations and affords a natural inclusion of the minimal Higgs field . With the help of the matrix representation (24), one can verify that by formulating the complex scalar isodoublet $`H`$ and conjugate Higgs $`H_c=\overline{H}^{}`$ as

$`H`$ $`=(\varphi _1e_6+\varphi _2e_7)P_\alpha +(\varphi _3e_5\varphi _4e_4)P_{+\beta }`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _1+i\varphi _2}{\varphi _3+i\varphi _4}}\right)`$
$`H_c`$ $`=(\varphi _1e_6\varphi _2e_7)P_{+\alpha }(\varphi _3e_5\varphi _4e_4)P_\beta `$ (56)
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _3i\varphi _4}{\varphi _1+i\varphi _2}}\right)`$
where the $`\varphi _j`$ are real scalars, the expression

$$_M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}G_eH\mathrm{\Psi }P_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(G_dH+G_uH_c)\mathrm{\Psi }P_q_S$$
(57)
is identical to the conventional Higgs-coupling Lagrangian term with coupling strengths $`G_{e,d,u}.`$ The projectors $`P_{\mathrm{}}=P(1)`$ and $`P_q=P(4)+P(5)+P(8)`$ are used to separate the lepton and quark currents. The transformation required for gauge invariance,

$$H\mathrm{exp}(\theta _0T_0+\theta _aT_a)H\mathrm{exp}(\theta _0T_0\theta _bT_b)$$
(58)
is equivalent to the conventional notation

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi ^+}{\varphi ^0}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Y\theta _0\mathrm{i}\theta _a\sigma _a/2)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi ^+}{\varphi ^0}\right)$$
(59)
where $`\varphi ^+\varphi _1+\mathrm{i}\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi ^0=\varphi _3+\mathrm{i}\varphi _4.`$ The weak hypercharge assignment of $`Y=1`$ $`(Y=1)`$ for the Higgs field (conjugate field) has been recovered naturally from the double-sided algebraic transformation.

Note that $`H`$ and $`H_c`$ consist only of odd elements in the span of $`\{e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7\}`$ and therefore change the chirality, for example $`P_RH=HP_L.`$ In fact, they exhaust the couplings between $`R`$ and $`L`$ leptons and between the $`R`$ and $`L`$ quarks. Application of the gauge transformation (58) using only the exterior generators of $`SU\left(2\right)_L`$ and $`U\left(1\right)`$ naturally separates the higher-dimensional vector space into the two invariant carrier spaces of $`H`$ and $`H_c`$ and ensures that the gauge fixing occurs consistently, reducing both $`H`$ and $`H_c`$ to a component along the same higher dimension. (We have essentially pre-aligned the Higgs with its conjugate field by using the same components for each.) On the other hand, the two generators of rotations that we excluded from possible gauge groups invariably mix the spaces of $`H`$ and $`H_c`$. The symmetry of the Higgs coupling therefore requires the chiral asymmetry seen in the electroweak interaction. Ignoring the various weighted projectors used in both the Higgs field (56) and Lagrangian term (57) to give distinct masses to the different fermions, the form of equation (57) is the same as that of the current (27), but where the components of the current being extracted are from the set $`\{e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7\}`$. The Higgs field—one of the least understood aspects of the standard model—thus arises here simply as a coupling to the higher-dimensional vector components of the current.

## 6 Conclusion

We began by formulating a generalized current expression in the Clifford algebra $`C\mathrm{}_7`$ of seven-dimensional space. The addition of four spacelike dimensions to those of physical space is the minimum necessary to incorporate all the fermions of one generation, both particles and antiparticles, into a single spinorial element. By examining all possible rotations of the generalized current that leave the right-chiral neutrino (and left-chiral antineutrino) sterile and conserve the spacetime components of the particle and antiparticle currents, we found that they are precisely those of the gauge group of the standard model. The standard-model gauge symmetries are thus seen to be local rotation groups in the tangent space of a manifold with *only four* extra spacelike dimensions. In particular, the $`SU(2)_L`$ symmetries arise as *exterior* (left-sided) transformations representing rotations within the extra dimensions that act only on left-chiral fermions and their antiparticles, whereas the $`SU(3)_C`$ are *interior* (right-sided) ones that mix the colour charges of the quarks. The $`U(1)_Y`$ symmetry, complete with all the correct weak hypercharge assignments, arises as a unique group of double-sided rotations. All of these symmetries commute with the Poincaré group and are generated by bivectors of $`C\mathrm{}_7`$. The maximal chiral asymmetry of $`SU\left(2\right)_L`$ is required by the symmetry of the Higgs field.

We have further shown that in our model, rotations are in fact the only continuous transformations allowed that act entirely from the right or from the left. While we explained our model with the aid of a specific $`8\times 8`$ matrix representation, the symmetries and weak hypercharge assignments depend only on the algebra and not on any particular selection of primitive idempotents or ordering of particle spinors in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Finally, the four extra dimensions required to fit a generation of fermions into a single algebraic spinor, together with their exterior transformation properties, are precisely what is needed for the four components of a minimal scalar Higgs field, again with the correct weak hypercharge assignment.

Many features of the standard model thus flow from the relatively simple geometry of seven-dimensional Euclidean space, but there are many other features that call for explanation, such as the origin of the three generations and the mass spectra. Work is continuing on these and other aspects of the standard model within the framework of our model.

### Acknowledgement

One of us (G T) would like to thank H Georgi for suggestions on how to make the Clifford-algebra approach more accessible. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## Appendix

Relations for the matrix representation adopted in this paper are summarized here. There are several versions of the Weyl representation. In this work we have used

$$\gamma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _k=\gamma ^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _k\\ \sigma _k& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _5i\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3,$$
(60)
with

$$\psi ^{Weyl}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R\\ \psi _L\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
This is consistent with reference .

The primitive projectors $`P\left(n\right)`$, which are represented by matrices with elements $`P\left(n\right)_{jk}=\delta _{jn}\delta _{kn}`$, are given as products of simple commuting projectors (28) by

$`P\left(1\right)`$ $`=P_{+3}P_{+\alpha }P_\beta =\overline{P}\left(6\right)`$
$`P\left(2\right)`$ $`=P_3P_{+\alpha }P_\beta =\overline{P}\left(5\right)`$
$`P\left(3\right)`$ $`=P_3P_\alpha P_\beta =\overline{P}\left(8\right)`$
$`P\left(4\right)`$ $`=P_{+3}P_\alpha P_\beta =\overline{P}\left(7\right)`$
$`P\left(5\right)`$ $`=P_{+3}P_\alpha P_{+\beta }=\overline{P}\left(2\right)`$ (62)
$`P\left(6\right)`$ $`=P_3P_\alpha P_{+\beta }=\overline{P}\left(1\right)`$
$`P\left(7\right)`$ $`=P_3P_{+\alpha }P_{+\beta }=\overline{P}\left(4\right)`$
$`P\left(8\right)`$ $`=P_{+3}P_{+\alpha }P_{+\beta }=\overline{P}\left(3\right).`$
Inverse relations, such as

$$P_{+3}=P\left(1\right)+P\left(4\right)+P\left(5\right)+P\left(8\right),$$
(63)
are easily obtained by summing and applying the complementarity of simple operators of opposite signs: $`P_++P_{}=1`$.

## References


format: text

text:
# Power scaling rules for charmonia production and HQEFT Research partially supported by CICYT under contract AEN99-0692

## 1 Introduction

The application of effective theories directly derived from first principles - Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in particular - to heavy flavor physics has currently become a very important tool to cope with the complexity of the strong interaction dynamics. One of its advantages is the appearance of symmetries in the very large quark mass limit, not manifest in the full theory. Moreover, symmetry breaking effects due to the finiteness of quark masses can be systematically incorporated via power expansions in the reciprocal of the heavy quark mass. One of the foremost applications of heavy-quark spin-flavor symmetry has led to accurate and almost model-independent extractions of some Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements in inclusive and exclusive $`B`$ meson decays (see  for a review).

Over the nineties, a heavy quark effective theory (HQET) was developed  to deal with the phenomenology of heavy-light mesons and baryons. Moreover, there were early attempts to extend its initial scope to heavy-heavy bound states like the $`J/\psi `$ resonance  or the $`B_c`$ meson and doubly heavy baryons . On the other hand, a close approach also emerged in parallel, especially designed to describe heavy quarkonia inclusive decay and production, the Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD). In this formalism, the decay widths or cross sections are factorized as a sum of products of short-distance coefficients and long-distance NRQCD matrix elements.

Although both HQET and NRQCD Lagrangians present a formal analogy, there is a basic difference between both frameworks. In the former one, there are basically two relevant scales: the heavy quark mass $`m_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, the characteristic parameter of the strong interaction. In NRQCD, besides $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, there are (at least) another two low-energy scales: $`m_Qv^{}`$ (soft) and $`m_Qv_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (ultrasoft) 111In this paper we shall employ $`v^{}`$ to denote the three-velocity of heavy quarks inside quarkonium while $`v`$ will stand for the hadron four-velocity, as usual in HQET; since residual momenta of heavy quarks will not be neglected in the hadron rest frame, $`v^{}`$ obviously does not exactly coincide with the spatial component of $`v`$, i.e. $`v^{}𝐯`$..

Recently, several applications of HQET involving both heavy quark and antiquark fields altogether to the study of the phenomenology of the weak and strong interactions have appeared in the literature ( and , respectively). At the same time it becomes suitable a careful survey of the foundations on which such a theoretical framework is based. Therefore, in this paper firstly we shall focus on the quantum aspects of the heavy quark effective fields, summarizing some work presented in previous references . In particular, we shall keep both particle-antiparticle mixed sectors of the effective Lagrangian, in accordance with the pioneering work by Wu in Ref. , further developed and discussed in . Hereafter we shall refer to this extended framework as HQEFT as in , to distinguish it from $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$usual” HQET.

Furthermore, one of the goals of this paper is to analyze whether HQEFT could provide an appropriate framework to describe meaningfully the hadroproduction of charmonium. In particular, we shall analyze the power counting of four-fermion local operators, whose scaling rules for charmonia have been recently hypothesized in Ref.  along the lines of HQET. We shall examine this issue with the help of diverse extractions of some matrix elements performed by several authors.

## 2 Notation and definitions

Let us start following Ref.  by writing the plane wave Fourier expansion for a fermionic field $`Q_v\left(x\right)`$ corresponding to an almost on-shell heavy quark or antiquark (we omit indices relative to flavor and color) moving inside a hadron with four-velocity $`v`$,

$$Q_v\left(x\right)=Q_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)+Q_v^{()}\left(x\right)=\frac{d^3𝐩}{J}\underset{r}{}\left[b_r\left(𝐩\right)u_r\left(𝐩\right)e^{ipx}+\stackrel{~}{b}_r^{}\left(𝐩\right)v_r\left(𝐩\right)e^{ipx}\right]$$
(1)
where $`r`$ refers to the spin and $`J`$ stands for the chosen normalization; $`b_r\left(𝐩\right)/\stackrel{~}{b}_r^{}\left(𝐩\right)`$ is the annihilation/creation operator for a heavy quark/antiquark with three-momentum $`𝐩`$ ($`p^0+\sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}`$). Let us firstly focus on the particle sector of the theory.
Particle Sector

As the heavy quark is almost on-shell one should require for each Fourier component that $`p^2=m_Q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ satisfies $`lim_{m_Q\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2/m_Q^20`$. From now on, we shall set $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$ as a good approximation for heavy quarks bound in hadrons.

On the other hand, spinors are normalized such that $`u_r^{}\left(𝐩\right)u_s\left(𝐩\right)=2p^0N\delta _{rs}`$ and the creation/annihilation operators satisfy:

$$[b_r\left(𝐩^{}\right),b_s^{}\left(𝐩\right)]_+=K\delta _{rs}\delta ^3\left(𝐩^{}𝐩\right)$$
(2)
where $`K,N`$ are the corresponding normalization factors.

Now let us redefine the momentum of each Fourier component in Eq. (1) according to HQET as the sum of a mechanical part and a Fourier residual four-momentum $`k`$,

$$p=m_Qv+k$$
(3)
Hence one can write from (1)

$$Q_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}b_r(v,𝐤)u_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(4)
The main point to be stressed again is that we shall require that each Fourier component should satisfy the almost on-shell condition $`p_Q^2m_Q^2`$. Therefore,

$$k^2+2m_Qvk=0$$
(5)
Thus, in the hadron rest frame, the kinetic energy of the heavy quark $`vk=k^0`$ is related to $`𝐤`$ through the constraint

$$\left(k^0\right)^2+2m_Qk^0𝐤^2=0$$
(6)
which yields the expected relation for the positive root $`k^0=\sqrt{m_Q^2+𝐤^2}m_Q`$. In the non-relativistic limit obviously, $`k^0𝐤^2/2m_Q`$.

Notice that the annihilation (and creation) operators and spinors have been simply relabeled in Eq. (4), satisfying the same normalization as above, though expressed in terms of the Fourier residual momentum $`𝐤`$. In particular, $`b_r(v,𝐤)/b_r^{}(v,𝐤)`$ correspond to annihilation/creation operators of a heavy quark with residual momentum $`𝐤`$ in a hadron moving with four-velocity $`v`$, satisfying accordingly

$$[b_r(v,𝐤^{}),b_s^{}(v,𝐤)]_+=K\delta _{rs}\delta ^3\left(𝐤^{}𝐤\right)$$
(7)
and

$$\underset{r}{}u_r\left(𝐤\right)\overline{u}_r\left(𝐤\right)=N[m_Q(1+v/)+k/]$$
(8)
where the normalization factors must obey the combined relation:  222 Note that $`I1/(2\pi )^32k^0`$ since $`k`$ and $`p`$ are not related through a Lorentz transformation; indeed, Eq. (3) represents an energy-momentum shift, to get rid of the unwanted frequency modes to be subsequently eliminated in the effective theory.

$$I=\frac{KN}{J^2}=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^32p^0}=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^32\left(m_Qv^0+k^0\right)}$$
(9)
On the other hand, it is quite usual in the literature to identify effective heavy quark fields with those $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$leading” components of the Fourier expansion corresponding to momenta $`p^\mu m_Qv^\mu `$ (or equivalently with $`k^\mu `$ components close to zero), so they rather look like single spinors or anti-spinors at leading order in $`1/m_Q`$. However, this is a too restrictive view since in constructing HQEFT one should allow the $`𝐤`$ components of the effective quantum fields to range over values of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

Next let us introduce the effective fields in the following standard manner  ,

$$h_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{1+v/}{2}Q_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)$$
(10)
$$H_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{1v/}{2}Q_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)$$
(11)
where $`H_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)`$ represents the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$small” (lower in the hadron reference frame) component of the corresponding spinor field. Thus one may identify from the expansion (4)

$$h_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)=\frac{1+v/}{2}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}b_r(v,𝐤)u_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(12)
$$H_v^{(+)}\left(x\right)=\frac{1v/}{2}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}b_r(v,𝐤)u_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(13)
Sometimes it can be read in the literature that $`h_v^{(+)}`$ annihilates a heavy quark whereas allegedly $`H_v^{(+)}`$ creates a heavy antiquark, both with velocity $`v`$. Although $`H_v^{(+)}`$ may take into account the antiparticle features of a relativistic fermion, its Fourier decomposition does not allow for such a process, as can be seen from (13).

## 3 Anti-particle Sector

Proceeding in a parallel way as in the particle sector, let us remark however that now the Fourier expansion of $`Q_v^{()}\left(x\right)`$ involves negative frequencies. Therefore, starting from Eq. (1) we introduce the Fourier residual momentum in this case as

$$p=m_Qvk$$
(14)
so $`k^0`$ will explicitly exhibit its negative sign. In effect, let us write

$$Q_v^{()}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_r^{}\left(𝐤\right)v_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(15)
The slightly off-shellness condition $`p^2m_Q^2`$ now implies from Eq. (14):

$$k^22m_Qvk=0$$
(16)
which can be written in the frame moving with velocity $`v`$ as

$$\left(k^0\right)^22m_Qk^0𝐤^2=0$$
(17)
whose negative root reads $`k^0=m_Q\sqrt{m_Q^2+𝐤^2}𝐤^2/2m_Q`$.

The effective fields are then defined as

$$h_v^{()}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{1v/}{2}Q_v^{()}\left(x\right)=\frac{1v/}{2}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_r^{}\left(𝐤\right)v_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(18)
$$H_v^{()}\left(x\right)=e^{im_Qvx}\frac{1+v/}{2}Q_v^{()}\left(x\right)=\frac{1+v/}{2}\frac{d^3𝐤}{J}\underset{r}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_r^{}\left(𝐤\right)v_r\left(𝐤\right)e^{ikx}$$
(19)
where the anti-spinors satisfy

$$\underset{r}{}v_r\left(𝐤\right)\overline{v}_r\left(𝐤\right)=N[m_Q(v/1)k/]$$
(20)
## 4 A complete tree-level HQEFT Lagrangian

Once introduced the notation and definitions for the heavy-quark effective fields in the previous Section, we actually get started by expressing the Lagrangian in terms of the effective fields keeping all non-null terms, leading in principle to the possibility of describing annihilation or creation of heavy quark-antiquark pairs at tree level. Indeed after performing an energy-momentum shift by introducing a center-of-mass residual momentum, only low energy modes of the fields (about the heavy quark mass) would be involved making meaningful our approach within the framework of an effective theory.

Thereby a crucial difference of this approach w.r.t. other standard works is that we are concerned with the existence of two-fermion terms in the transformed Lagrangian mixing large components of the heavy quark and heavy antiquark fields, i.e. $`h_v^{(\pm )}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{()}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stands for a combination of Dirac gamma matrices and covariant derivatives. The implications on the description of heavy quarkonia production will be seen in Section 6.

The tree-level QCD Lagrangian is our point of departure:

$$=\overline{Q}\left(i\stackrel{}{D/}m_Q\right)Q$$
(21)
where

$$Q=Q^{(+)}+Q^{()}=e^{im_Qvx}\left[h_v^{(+)}+H_v^{(+)}\right]+e^{im_Qvx}\left[h_v^{()}+H_v^{()}\right]$$
(22)
and $`D`$ standing for the covariant derivative

$$\stackrel{}{D}^\mu =\stackrel{}{}^\mu igT_aA_a^\mu $$

with $`T_a`$ the generators of $`SU\left(3\right)_c`$. Substituting (22) into (21) one easily arrives at

$$=^{\left(++\right)}+^{\left(\right)}+^{\left(+\right)}+^{\left(+\right)}$$
(23)
where we have explicitly splitted the Lagrangian into four different pieces corresponding to the particle-particle, antiparticle-antiparticle and both particle-antiparticle sectors. The former one has the form

$$^{\left(++\right)}=\overline{h}_v^{(+)}iv\stackrel{}{D}h_v^{(+)}\overline{H}_v^{(+)}\left(iv\stackrel{}{D}+2m_Q\right)H_v^{(+)}+\overline{h}_v^{(+)}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}H_v^{(+)}+\overline{H}_v^{(+)}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}h_v^{(+)}$$
(24)
corresponding to the usual HQET Lagrangian still containing both $`h_v^{(+)}`$ and $`H_v^{(+)}`$ fields. We employ the common notation where perpendicular indices are implied according to

$$D_{}^\mu =D_\alpha \left(g^{\mu \alpha }v^\mu v^\alpha \right)$$

Regarding the antiquark sector of the theory

$$^{\left(\right)}=\overline{h}_v^{()}iv\stackrel{}{D}h_v^{()}+\overline{H}_v^{()}\left(iv\stackrel{}{D}2m_Q\right)H_v^{()}+\overline{h}_v^{()}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}H_v^{()}+\overline{H}_v^{()}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}h_v^{()}$$
(25)
The latter expressions, considered as quantum field Lagrangians, certainly do not afford tree-level heavy quark-antiquark pair creation or annihilation processes stemming from the terms mixing $`h_v^{(\pm )}`$ and $`H_v^{(\pm )}`$ fields since they contain either annihilation and creation operators of heavy quarks or annihilation and creation operators of heavy antiquarks separately.

Nevertheless there are two extra pieces in the Lagrangian (23):

$`^{\left(+\right)}`$ $`=e^{i2m_Qvx}\times `$
$`\left[\overline{H}_v^{()}iv\stackrel{}{D}h_v^{(+)}\overline{h}_v^{()}\left(iv\stackrel{}{D}+2m_Q\right)H_v^{(+)}+\overline{h}_v^{()}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}h_v^{(+)}+\overline{H}_v^{()}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}H_v^{(+)}\right]`$
and

$`^{\left(+\right)}`$ $`=e^{i2m_Qvx}\times `$
$`\left[\overline{H}_v^{(+)}iv\stackrel{}{D}h_v^{()}+\overline{h}_v^{(+)}\left(iv\stackrel{}{D}2m_Q\right)H_v^{()}+\overline{h}_v^{(+)}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}h_v^{()}+\overline{H}_v^{(+)}i\stackrel{}{D/}_{}H_v^{()}\right]`$
where use was made of the orthogonality of the $`h_v^{(\pm )}`$ and $`H_v^{(\pm )}`$ fields . As could be expected, there are indeed pieces mixing both quark and antiquark fields leading to the possibility of annihilation/creation processes. After all, Lagrangian (23) is still equivalent to full (tree-level) QCD 333Superscript $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(+)/()`$” on the effective fields labels the particle/antiparticle (i.e. heavy quark/antiquark) sector of the theory . Actually $`\overline{h}_v^{(+)}(\overline{h}_v^{()})`$ corresponds to negative (positive) frequencies associated with creation (annihilation) operators of quarks (antiquarks). In fact some extra $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}+/`$” signs should be added on the conjugate fields, i.e. $`\overline{h}_v^{(+)}`$ and $`\overline{H}_v^{()+}`$, which however will be omitted to shorten the notation..

Let us remark that, at first sight, one might think that the rapidly oscillating exponentials in Eqs. (26-27) would make both $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ and $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ pieces to vanish, once integrated over all velocities according to the most general Lagrangian . However, notice that actually this should not be the case for momenta of order $`2m_Qv`$ of the gluonic field present in the covariant derivative. In fact, only such high-energy modes would survive, corresponding to the physical situation on which we are focusing, i.e. heavy quark-antiquark pair annihilation or creation.

From Eq. (26), the heavy quark-gluon coupling for an annihilation process is given by

$`_{coupling}^{\left(+\right)}`$ $`=e^{i2m_Qvx}gT_aA_\mu ^a\times `$ (28)
$`[`$ $`\overline{H}_v^{()}v^\mu h_v^{(+)}\left(a\right)`$
$``$ $`\overline{h}_v^{()}v^\mu H_v^{(+)}\left(b\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{h}_v^{()}\gamma _{}^\mu h_v^{(+)}\left(c\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{H}_v^{()}\gamma _{}^\mu H_v^{(+)}\left]\right(d)`$
There is an equivalent expression coming from $`_{coupling}^{\left(+\right)}`$ just by means of the substitution $`vv`$, corresponding to a heavy quark-antiquark pair creation process.

Let us make an important remark concerning the gluonic field. As can be seen at once, the exponential factor $`e^{i2m_Qvx}`$ in Eq. (28) cancels against the strong $`x`$ dependence of the $`A_\mu ^a`$ field creating a hard gluon. Therefore we can write

$$A_\mu ^{soft}\left(x\right)=e^{i2m_Qvx}A_\mu \left(x\right)$$
(29)
Therefore, once removed the strong dependence of the gluon momentum on (twice) the heavy quark mass, we are left with an effective gluonic field $`A_\mu ^{soft}`$, with a mild dependence on the residual momentum, similarly as for heavy quark effective fields. Thus, the physical description of the annihilation process shown in Fig. 1 could be performed in terms of massless quarks and a soft gluonic field. This is pretty similar to the situation reached in heavy-light systems, constituting a cornerstone in our approach to be developed in the following Sections, providing a theoretical basis for the use of HQEFT to describe heavy quarkonium production.

Next we want to eliminate the unwanted degrees of freedom associated to the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$small” components $`H_v^{(\pm )}`$ in $`\left(a\right)`$, $`\left(b\right)`$ and $`\left(d\right)`$ in Eq. (28). Notice that the piece labeled as (c) is the leading one in the above development.

## 5 Derivation of the annihilation vertex

In all our later development we shall assume almost free quarks in the initial (or final) state (see Fig. 1). Hence, heavy quark fields appearing on the external legs of the Feynman diagram should be solutions of the unperturbed Dirac equation of motion. Hence we can write

$`H_v^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(iv\stackrel{}{}+2m_Qiϵ\right)^1i\stackrel{}{/}_{}h_v^{(+)}`$ (30)
$`H_v^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(iv\stackrel{}{}+2m_Qiϵ\right)^1i\stackrel{}{/}_{}h_v^{()}`$ (31)
and for the conjugate fields

$`\overline{H}_v^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{h}_v^{(+)}i\stackrel{}{/}_{}\left(iv\stackrel{}{}2m_Q+iϵ\right)^1`$ (32)
$`\overline{H}_v^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{h}_v^{()}i\stackrel{}{/}_{}\left(iv\stackrel{}{}2m_Q+iϵ\right)^1`$ (33)
Let us note that we are using the free particle equations which can be viewed as derived from the non-interacting parts of the Lagrangians $`^{\left(++\right)}`$ and $`^{\left(\right)}`$ respectively, i.e. we neglect the soft gluon interaction among heavy quarks amounting to describe them as plane waves, i.e. actually no bound states as a first approximation .

In momentum space we will write

$$u\left(m_Qv+q\right)=\left[1+\frac{q/_{}}{2m_Q+vq}\right]u_h\left(q\right)$$
(34)
$$\overline{v}\left(m_Qvq^{}\right)=\overline{v}_h\left(q^{}\right)\left[1\frac{q/_{}^{}}{2m_Qvq^{}}\right]$$
(35)
where $`u\left(p\right)`$ denotes the full QCD spinor whereas $`u_h\left(q\right)`$ represents the HQET spinor i.e. obeying $`v/u_h=u_h`$; similarly $`v\left(p\right)`$ denotes the full QCD antispinor and $`v_h\left(q^{}\right)`$) represents the HQET antispinor obeying $`v/v_h=v_h`$.

Actually, in order to arrive to Eqs. (34-35) from Eqs. (30-33) denominators have to be expanded as power series of derivatives acting on the $`x`$-dependent factors, assumed exponentials, to be finally resummed as geometric series of ratio $`vq/2m_Q=vq^{}/2m_Q=q^2/4m_Q^2`$ according to the on-shell conditions (5) and (16). As a consequence, Eqs. (34-35) are only valid under the condition $`q^2<4m_Q^2`$, which implies $`𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}<8m_Q^2`$. Therefore, the requirement $`𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}<m_Q^2`$ satisfies the above condition, allowing a non-relativistic expansion.

From the $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ Lagrangian we readily get for the on-shell heavy quark (vector) current coupling to a gluon, suppressing color indices and matrices,

$$\overline{v}_h\left[\gamma _{}^\mu +\frac{q/_{}^{}q/_{}}{2m_Q+vq}v^\mu +\frac{q/_{}^{}\gamma ^\mu q/_{}}{\left(2m_Q+vq\right)^2}\right]u_h$$
(36)
which also can be written as

$$\overline{v}_h\left[\gamma _{}^\mu +\frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\left(q_{}^{}q_{}\right)_\nu }{2m_Q+vq}+\frac{q/_{}^{}\gamma ^\mu q/_{}}{\left(2m_Q+vq\right)^2}\right]u_h$$
(37)
since

$$P_{}\left(v^\mu \gamma ^\nu \right)P_+=P_{}\left(i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\gamma ^\mu v^\nu \right)P_+$$

with the projectors $`P_\pm =(1\pm v/)/2`$, and $`q_\nu ^{}v^\nu =q_\nu v^\nu =0`$.

Equations (36-37) are Lorentz covariant and hence valid in any reference frame. In the following Section we focus on the center-of-mass system, where some simplifications occur.

### 5.1 Center-of-mass frame

We shall make use of the anticommutation relation:

$$q/_{}^{}\gamma ^\mu q/_{}=2q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q/_{}\gamma ^\mu q/_{}^{}q/_{}$$

Now, in the center-of-mass frame we can write $`q/_{}^{}q/_{}=𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, leading to the expression for the heavy quark vector current

$$\overline{v}_h\left[\frac{2E_q}{E_q+m_Q}\gamma _{}^\mu +\frac{2q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q/_{}}{\left(E_q+m_Q\right)^2}\right]u_h$$
(38)
where $`E_q=m_Q+q^0=\sqrt{m_Q^2+𝐪^2}`$. Moreover, the following identity is satisfied (in the Dirac representation):

$$P_{}q/_{}P_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \sigma 𝐪\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(39)
Therefore identifying $`u_h=\sqrt{E_q+m_Q}\xi `$, and $`v_h=\sqrt{E_q+m_Q}\eta `$, we obtain from (38-39),

$$\eta ^{}\left[2E_q\sigma ^j+\frac{2q^j\sigma 𝐪}{\left(E_q+m_Q\right)}\right]\xi $$
(40)
i.e. the vertex obtained from full QCD in terms of the Pauli spinors $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, allowing a systematic non-relativistic expansion: the leading term $`2m\left(\eta ^{}\sigma \xi \right)`$ associated with (c) in Eq. (28) as expected.

Had we started from the Lagrangian $`^{\left(+\right)}`$, i.e. focusing on a creation process, the heavy quark vector current would be

$$\overline{u}_h\left[\frac{2E_q}{E_q+m_Q}\gamma _{}^\mu +\frac{2q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q/_{}}{\left(E_q+m_Q\right)^2}\right]v_h$$
(41)
and since

$$P_+q/_{}P_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \sigma 𝐪\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(42)
we rapidly recover

$$\xi ^{}\left[2E_q\sigma ^j\frac{2q^j\sigma 𝐪}{\left(E_q+m_Q\right)}\right]\eta $$
(43)
which is the analogous expression to Eq. (A.11b) in the c.o.m. frame as given in .

In sum, we have derived in this Section the vector current of on-shell heavy quarks coupling to a hard gluonic field directly from the corresponding Lagrangian $`^{\left(+\right)}`$, $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ pieces, giving consistency to our formalism.

## 6 Heavy Quarkonia Hadroproduction

In 1992-93, CDF and D0 Collaborations surprisingly found an excess of charmonia prompt hadroproduction at the $`p\overline{p}`$ Tevatron collider  w.r.t. to the theoretical expectations based on what was considered at that time as conventional wisdom, the so-called color-singlet model (CSM) . This disagreement was particularly amazing because data spread over large transverse momenta where the theoretical analysis ought to be quite clean. Therefore another mechanism, known as the color-octet model (COM), was proposed by Braaten and Fleming in 1995 , superseding (generalizing actually) the CSM. Soon later, the COM was viewed as deriving from NRQCD , giving an adequate framework for the factorization of the inclusive production cross section into short- and long-distance parts, and providing a sound basis to the theoretical analysis so far done.

However, current problems in the interpretation of charmonia hadroproduction , especially regarding the (expected but unobserved) transverse resonance polarization, have cast serious doubts on the validity of NRQCD when applied to these processes. Actually, the meaningful application of the effective theory relies on the presumed convergence of the expansion governed by the typical velocity of heavy quarks $`v^{}`$ and the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$. Different contributions are assumed as leading whereas others are neglected under the assumption of the validity of the velocity scaling rules derived from NRQCD, mainly based on dimensional counting and very general physical arguments.

In this context some authors  have recently hypothesized that the correct power counting for charmonia should be the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_c`$, along the lines of HQET 444The authors of  introduce the acronym NRQCDc which we identify with HQEFT applied to charmonium., leading to predictions which could differ from the expectations coming from the usual velocity scaling rules of NRQCD. In the following and based on our previous development, we want to give a theoretical support to such a point of view. In fact we are advocating in this paper that HQEFT could provide an appropriate and consistent framework for the analysis of hadroproduction of heavy quarkonia. To this end, from Fig. 1 we may identify the heavy quark three-momentum $`𝐪`$ relative to the c.o.m. as the residual three-momentum $`𝐤`$ introduced in Section 2.

On the other hand, in charmonium systems it seems sensible to assume $`v^{}𝐪/m_Q`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for a $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$typical” scale characterizing the quarkonium soft dynamics, of order few times $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Therefore dynamical (i.e. non-Coulombic) gluons in $`c\overline{c}`$ bound states should be of the type ($`\mathrm{\Lambda },𝚲`$) though the typical residual four-momenta of bound heavy quarks should be of the type ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/2m_Q,𝚲`$) (see ), in close analogy with heavy-light hadrons. Hence the heavy quark field expansions given in Eqs. (12) and (18) about the heavy quark mass, and the reinterpretation of $`e^{i2m_Qvx}A^\mu `$ in Eq. (29) as a soft gluonic field coupling to a heavy quark vector current make sense altogether.

On the other hand, the effective QCD Lagrangian  to deal with heavy quarkonium is usually written as:

$$_{eff}=_2+_4+_{light}$$
(44)
where $`_2`$ contains bilinear operators, $`_4`$ stands for the four-fermion piece and $`_{light}`$ takes into account light quarks and gluons.

In NRQCD heavy quarks are treated according to a Schrödinger-type field theory with separate two-component Pauli spinors (commonly denoted as $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$), rather than with four-component Dirac fields as in HQEFT. Relativistic effects of full QCD are reproduced through correcting terms bilinear in the quark field or in the antiquark field. However, mixed two-fermion operators involving both quark and antiquark fields in $`_2`$ corresponding to creation/annihilation of $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs are excluded.

On the other hand, in order to account for heavy quarkonium annihilation or creation, a set of four-fermion operators are thereby included in the piece $`_4`$ of the effective Lagrangian (44), representing local interactions whose short-distance coefficients have to be determined by means of a matching procedure to QCD as described, for instance, in .

Actually, in this work we are advocating that the $`_2`$ piece of the effective Lagrangian can be extended as

$$_2=_2^{\left(++\right)}+_2^{\left(\right)}+_2^{\left(+\right)}+_2^{\left(+\right)}$$
(45)
where the $`_2^{\left(+\right)}`$ and $`_2^{\left(+\right)}`$ terms can be identified with those coming from Eqs. (26-27), therefore taking into account $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair formation and annihilation at tree-level. Notice that, as far as the heavy quark mass dependence has been removed from the effective fields, only low-energy modes (of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ around $`m_Q`$,) remain as stressed before. Hence the situation turns out to be very similar to the standard application of HQEFT to heavy-light systems. On the other hand, we keep the $`_4`$ piece in the effective Lagrangian, although written in terms of HQEFT fields.

For definiteness, let us consider quarkonium hadroproduction through the partonic channel:

$$q\overline{q}g^{}\left(Q\overline{Q}\right)_8[^3S_1]HX$$

where $`H`$ denotes a particular quarkonium state. (The diagrammatic representation for this production process yielding a vector resonance is shown in Fig. 2.)

### 6.1 Color-octet matrix elements from HQEFT

Under the assumption of factorization, the cross section can be written for inclusive resonance production as

$$d\sigma \left(H+X\right)=\underset{n}{}d\widehat{\sigma }\left[\left(Q\overline{Q}\right)_n+X\right]<𝒪_n^H>$$
(46)
where $`d\widehat{\sigma }`$ stands for the production cross section of a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in a definite color and angular-momentum state labeled by $`n`$. The short-distance interaction, represented by $`d\widehat{\sigma }`$ in (46), can be accounted for by perturbative QCD, whereas the long-distance process is encoded in the vacuum expectation values of four-fermion local operators, i.e. $`<𝒪_n^H>`$ . According to NRQCD, the relative importance of the various terms in the factorization is determined by the order in $`\alpha _s`$ and some dimensionless ratios of kinematic variables in the short-distance factors, and by a hierarchy based on the order in $`v^{}`$ of the matrix elements. Hence, the velocity scaling of the MEs is determined by the number of derivatives in the respective operators and the number of electric and magnetic dipole transitions needed to reach the final physical quarkonium state from the initial $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair produced at the short-distance process.

Pictorially, the long-distance evolution lies on the right of the rightmost dotted line in Fig. 2, belonging to the realm of the effective Lagrangian $`_4`$ and providing the probability for a heavy quark-antiquark pair to evolve into a (definite) final quarkonium state. On the other hand, the subprocess $`g^{}Q\overline{Q}`$ can be ascribed to the piece $`_2^{\left(+\right)}`$ of the effective Lagrangian from our viewpoint. Therefore we shall use the $`h_v^{(+)}`$ and $`h_v^{()}`$ HQEFT fields when rewriting the relevant operators. For example, the $`O_8(^3S_1)`$ 6-dimensional operator  can be expressed in the form of a current$`\times `$current term (see figure 3), i.e.

$$O_8(^3S_1)=\overline{h}_v^{()}\gamma _{}^\mu T_ah_v^{(+)}\left(a_H^{}a_H\right)\overline{h}_v^{(+)}\gamma _\mu T_ah_v^{()}$$
(47)
where $`a_H`$($`a_H^{}`$) stands for annihilation (creation) operators of heavy quarkonium $`H`$, such that

$$a_H^{}a_H=\underset{X}{}H+X><H+X$$
(48)
The above $`O_8(^3S_1)`$ operator can be seen as deriving from the corresponding piece of the $`_4`$ Lagrangian  now expressed in terms of HQEFT fields,

$$_4^{{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\left[8\right]}}=\frac{F_8(^3S_1)}{m_Q^2}\overline{h}_v^{(+)}\gamma _{}^\mu T_ah_v^{()}\overline{h}_v^{()}\gamma _\mu T_ah_v^{(+)}$$
(49)
The physical interpretation of (47) is that of a local four-fermion operator which creates a slightly off-shell $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\left[8\right]}`$ state and destroys it again, analogously as in NRQCD. Its vacuum expectation value $`<0O_8(^3S_1)0><O_8(^3S_1)>`$ corresponds to the usual color-octet matrix element of NRQCD. Notice, however, that the current$`\times `$current structure can be thought now as deriving from the $`_2^{\left(+\right)}`$ and $`_2^{\left(+\right)}`$ Lagrangian pieces, involving only low-frequency modes and providing consistency to all the theoretical framework. High-energy modes are encoded in the short-distance coefficients ($`F_8(^3S_1)`$ in this particular case), as usual in low-energy effective theories. (Nevertheless, the matching procedure, although formally the same as in NRQCD, might be seen as $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$built in” because the effective fields in the four-quark local operators follow from $`_2`$.)

Hence the power counting of the effective theory should follow the lines of HQEFT, as far as $`m_Qv^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the expansion parameter can be identified as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q`$. However, let us remark that the intermediate colored bound state $`\left(Q\overline{Q}\right)_8`$ evolving into final charmonium actually is a kind of hybrid state , whose $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$size” (and even nature) is not accurately known. Therefore, one could expect $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be of order few times $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, namely 700-800 MeV, and typically $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^21/4`$, but with large uncertainties.

### 6.2 Power scaling rules

Under the assumption that HQEFT could be a suitable effective theory to deal with charmonia production, we will follow a reasoning analogous to , arguing that there could be a hierarchy of the matrix elements, different from $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$standard” NRQCD. Therefore we expect that a single chromoelectric dipole (E1) transition should scale as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q`$ at the amplitude level. Since two E1 transitions are required to reach a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\left[1\right]}`$ color-singlet state from a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{\left[8\right]}`$ color-octet one, the resulting suppression factor is $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^2`$. On the other hand, a single chromomagnetic transition (M1) should scale as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q`$, because of the time derivative on the gluonic field strength-tensor, picking up a typical energy of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, at the cross section level, the power countings are expected to be of order $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^4`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^2`$ for a double E1 transition and a single M1 transition, respectively.

Now, defining as usual the linear combination of MEs 555The little difference in shape between the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{[8]}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{[8]}`$ contributions as a function of transverse momentum does not permit independent fits and only a linear combination of them can be extracted from experimental data . (where $`r`$ is an adjustable parameter varying between 3 and 3.5 for charmonia hadroproduction) as

$$M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}=<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^1S_0)>+r\frac{<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3P_J)>}{m_Q^2}$$
(50)
the former one, i.e. $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^1S_0)>`$, should become leading in the overall power counting of $`M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$.

Let us now define the ratio

$$R^{\psi \left(nS\right)}=\frac{M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}}{<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>};(n=1,2)$$
(51)
Since HQEFT predicts a typical scaling (relative to the color-singlet contribution) of $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^4`$ for $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>`$, and $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q\right)^2`$ for $`M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$, one should expect

$$R^{\psi \left(nS\right)}\left(\frac{m_Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2$$
(52)
which could also be expressed as $`1/v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ in terms of the more conventional power counting based on the typical velocity of heavy quarks, under the assumption that $`v^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q`$.

Conversely, in standard NRQCD both matrix elements $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ and $`M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$, should scale similarly (as $`v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ w.r.t. to the leading color-singlet component). Therefore no hierarchy should appear, and one would expect $`R^{\psi \left(nS\right)}1`$.

In the following we carry out a check based on the available experimental information 666We limit ourselves to those references where MEs extractions of both $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ are given; notice that distinct theoretical inputs may have been used, as for example different parton distribution functions. extracted by several authors from fits to Tevatron data on charmonia hadroproduction. In tables 1 and 2 we show the values of the color-octet matrix elements $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ and $`M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ respectively, and the corresponding ratios $`R^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$.

We realize that indeed a hierarchy seems to exist for $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ and $`M_r^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$. Although $`R^{\psi \left(1S\right)}`$ varies in a somewhat wide range, a value equal or greater than four seems to be favored. On the other hand, the ratio $`R^{\psi \left(2S\right)}`$ turns out to be slightly but systematically smaller than $`R^{\psi \left(1S\right)}`$, but close to four as well, i.e. compatible with the expectation $`v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_Q^21/4`$, already mentioned at the end of Section 6.1.

In fact one should bear in mind that t$`R^{\psi \left(nS\right)}`$ is not a fixed quantity for the whole charmonium family (nor the velocity $`v^{}`$). This remark is in agreement with the expected larger value of the typical velocity $`v^{}`$ for higher $`n`$ states in the charmonium sector or, equivalently, a smaller ratio $`m_Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Another source for the determination of long-distance matrix elements comes from fixed-target experiments. In Ref.  Beneke and Rothstein find $`M_7^{\psi \left(1S\right)}=30`$, having fixed $`<O_8^{\psi \left(2S\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ equal to 6.6 (in units of GeV-3). For the $`\psi ^{}`$ resonance, the numerical values are $`M_7^{\psi \left(2S\right)}=5.2`$ having fixed $`<O_8^{\psi \left(1S\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ equal to 4.6 (also in units of GeV-3) 777In fixed-target experiments it is not possible to fit simultaneously both matrix elements because they display a similar shape as a function of the beam energy.. Therefore one gets $`R^{\psi \left(1S\right)}=4.5`$ and $`R^{\psi \left(2S\right)}=1.1`$, indicating again a smaller value for the $`2S`$ state, although subject to large uncertainties too 888In Ref.  smaller values for $`M_7^{\psi (nS)}`$ are obtained as the inclusion of NLO corrections tend to decrease the values needed for the MEs. However, all values shown in tables 1 and 2 refer to LO extractions so we prefer not mixing them..

NRQCD matrix elements can also be determined from inclusive decays of $`B`$ mesons. In a recent work , Ma obtains a combination of $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^1S_0)>`$ and $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3P_J)>`$ MEs in the framework of HQEFT, having fixed $`<O_8^{\psi \left(nS\right)}(^3S_1)>`$ equal to $`10.6\left(4.4\right)10^3`$ GeV3 for the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ respectively. The resulting ratios (not exactly the same as in tables 1 and 2 since $`r`$ takes the value of 1.13) are $`R^{\psi \left(1S\right)}R^{\psi \left(2S\right)}2.3`$ which, although slightly smaller than those presented in the tables, are not inconsistent with them in view of the smaller $`r`$ value and the uncertainties involved in the extraction .

## 7 Summary and last remarks

In this paper we have carefully reviewed all steps to derive from the full QCD tree-level Lagrangian a complete transformed Lagrangian in terms of the heavy quark effective fields $`h_v^{(\pm )}`$, keeping the particle-antiparticle mixed pieces allowing for heavy quark-antiquark pair annihilation/creation. Let us note that such pieces are not generally neither used nor shown in similar developments in the literature, with a few exceptions .

Indeed, it may seem quite striking that a low-energy effective theory could be appropriate to deal with hard processes such as $`Q\overline{Q}`$ annihilation or creation. The keypoint is that, assuming a kinematic regime where heavy quarks/antiquarks are almost on-shell and moving with small relative momentum, the strong momentum dependence associated with the heavy quark masses can be removed, so that a description based on the low frequency modes of the fields still makes sense, as in HQET applied to heavy-light hadrons. Such a kinematic regime can be well matched by heavy quarkonia and intermediate colored $`\left(Q\overline{Q}\right)_8`$ bound states predicted by the COM.

In particular, we have focused on an annihilation process with initial-state quarks satisfying the Dirac equation of motion for free fermions. Thus, we have derived directly from the $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ piece the heavy quark vector current coupling to a background gluonic field, recovering a well known expression shown in the literature  allowing a non-relativistic expansion in the matching procedure of NRQCD and full QCD.

In the second part of this work we have examined the meaning of using a HQEFT Lagrangian to account for heavy quarkonium production. Thereby we kept the $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ and $`^{\left(+\right)}`$ pieces in the effective Lagrangian, from which the $`_4`$ four-fermion piece can be $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$constructed”. The result looks formally the same as in conventional NRQCD although the fields are the HQEFT ones, i.e. $`h_v^{(\pm )}`$, giving self-consistency to all the framework.

From a phenomenological point of view, we advocate the possibility of using the extended version of HQEFT for describing inclusive hadroproduction of charmonium states according to the color-octet mechanism. Indeed, the four different energy scales usually invoked in NRQCD (i.e. $`m_Q`$, $`m_Qv^{}`$, $`m_Qv_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) basically reduce to two in HQEFT: $`m_Q`$ and a typical hadronic scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, of the order of a few $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$’s, in a reasonable accordance with the dynamics of charmonium systems. Conversely, inclusive production of bottomonium resonances should likely be better described by NRQCD because of the clearer difference among the scales.

From inspection of tables 1 and 2, we can conclude that there are hints indicating that HQEFT may be considered as a candidate for describing $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ hadroproduction - although likely in a limited way because of the approximations in the scales and the lack of a static limit à la HQET when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Q0`$, as stressed elsewhere . Hence we give support to the hypothesis presented in Ref.  of basing the power counting for charmonium hadroproduction along the lines of HQEFT, to some extent.

As a final comment, let us remark that still the uncertainties in the phenomenological extractions of the color-octet matrix elements (choice of numerical values for the heavy quark mass and renormalization/fragmentation scales, parton distribution functions, etc) are quite large. Moreover, new approaches have recently appeared (e.g. the $`k_T`$ factorization ) while the experimental evidence is not yet conclusive to decide which framework should be the most adequate to describe hadroproduction of heavy resonances.

### Acknowledgements

I thank comments and discussions with J.L. Domenech, O. Teryaev and S. Wolf.