text:
# 𝜅–deformed Wigner construction of relativistic wave functions and free fields on 𝜅-Minkowski space This paper is supported by KBN grant 5PO3B05620.

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been much interest in field theory on noncommutative space-time see e.g. \[1-3\]. Most authors deal with the simplest case when coordinates commute to a c-number; this implies that classical Poincaré symmetries are not modified, Lorentz symmetry however is explicitly broken. A slightly more complicated structure is obtained if one assumes that the noncommutative space–time coordinates form a Lie algebra, with “quantum” time and commutative space coordinates . It appears then that, although more complicated, such quantum Minkowski space admits 10–parameter symmetry with noncommuting quantum group parameters. Such a symmetry is given by particular deformation of Poincaré group called $`\kappa `$-Poincaré quantum group $`P_\kappa `$ with classical subgroup of nonrelativistic $`O(3)`$ rotations . Due to the fact that in such a case the deformation parameter is dimensionful and can be related to Planck length ($`l_p10^{33}`$cm) one can speculate that $`\kappa `$-Poincaré symmetry could describe the space-time structure at Planck scale (see e.g. ). We suppose, therefore, that it is interesting to elaborate in more detail the consequences of the assumption that $`P_\kappa `$ is a generalization of standard space-time symmetry at very high energies. First steps towards the construction of quantum field theory based on $`P_\kappa `$ were made recently in . This paper has as its aim the group–theoretic derivation of $`\kappa `$-deformed free field theories.
We would like to discuss here a particular aspect of $`P_\kappa `$ symmetry. In standard field theory one starts with free fields which provide a building block for the construction of Lagrangeans, defining propagators etc.; they are basic elements of the theory on perturbative level . In order to define the free fields one has to solve the basically group-theoretical problem: to construct the intertwinners between the representations of Poincaré group acting on fields and states. These intertwinners are simply the wave functions of particles of definite mass and spin and are related with Wigner theory of unitary representations of Poincaré group . It is customary to define them through the appropriate wave equations describing free fields.
Below we solve the same problem in the $`\kappa `$-deformed case. The solution appears to be quite simple and, basically, reduces to the one for the nondeformed ($`\kappa =\mathrm{}`$) case. It is important to stress that our problem is of group-theoretical origin. In such a case we speak about coordinate wave functions rather than quantum fields. Here we shall consider $`\kappa `$-deformed classical fields, with deformation originating from $`\kappa `$-deformation of Minkowski space. To obtain quantum $`\kappa `$–deformed fields one has only to replace their Fourier transforms describing momentum amplitudes by relevant creation/anihilation operators. We would like to point out that solving the problems of quantum (second–quantized) $`\kappa `$–deformed free fields is outside of the scope of this talk.
To conclude this section let us define our basic notions: the quantum Minkowski space $`M_\kappa `$ and $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group $`P_\kappa `$.
$`M_\kappa `$ is a $``$-algebra generated by four Hermitian elements $`x^\mu `$obeying

$`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{h}}(\delta _0^\mu x^\nu \delta _0^\nu x^\mu ).`$
We shall use in the sequel the following ”normal” ordering which gives the correspondence between $`M_\kappa `$ and standard Minkowski space. The product of $`x^\mu `$’s is called normally ordered if all $`x^0`$ factors stand leftmost; we denote normal product by : :. To any analytic function $`f(x)`$ we can ascribe a (formal) element $`\widehat{f}`$ of $`M_\kappa `$ by

$`\widehat{f}=:f(x):`$
The quantum $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group $`P_\kappa `$  is a $``$-Hopf algebra generated by hermitean elements $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu `$ and $`a^\mu `$ obeying

$`g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\nu =g_{\alpha \beta }I`$
$`[a^\mu ,a^\nu ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}(\delta _0^\mu a^\nu \delta _0^\nu a^\mu )`$
$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu ,a^\rho ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }}((\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}^\mu \delta _0^\mu )\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\rho +(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^0\delta _\nu ^0)g^{\mu \rho })`$
$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha ]=0`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(a^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu a^\nu +a^\mu I`$
$`S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu `$
$`S(a^\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu a^\nu `$
$`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu )=\delta _\nu ^\mu I`$
$`\epsilon (a^\mu )=0;`$
here $`g_{\mu \nu }=diag(+)`$ is numerical metric tensor.

## 2 Unitary representations of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group

Let us recall the construction of induced representations . One starts with some subgroup $`HG`$ of the group under consideration. The relevant Hilbert space is the space of square integrable functions on $`G`$ taking their values in the vector space carrying some representation of $`H`$. The group action is defined to be, say, right action: $`g_0:f(g)f(gg_0)`$. The essence of the method is the selection of invariant subspace by imposing coequivariance condition; in many cases the invariant subspace obtained in this way carries an irreducible representation of $`G`$. The more explicit characterization of the representation is achieved by solving explicitly the coequivariance condition which gives rise to the description of the representation in terms of Hilbert space of functions defined on the right coset space $`H\backslash G`$. This is especially effective for the case of semidirect products in which one factor is abelian. In particular, in the case of Poincaré group we obtain Wigner’s construction.
The whole construction can be generalized in a rather straightforward way to the $`\kappa `$–deformed case . The actual construction for the case of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group has been given in Ref. . The results read:
(a) the massive case
The carrier space is the space of square-integrable (with respect to the invariant measure $`d\stackrel{}{q}/q^0`$) functions on hyperboloid $`(q^0)^2\stackrel{}{q}^2=m^2,q^0>0`$, taking their values in the representation space of spin $`s`$ representation of rotation group ($`s`$ should be integer as we are dealing with standard “vectorial” Poincaré group).
The right coaction of $`P_\kappa `$ is then given by

$`f(q,\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}D_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(s)}(R(qI,I\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ (1)
$`e^{iP_0(q)a^0}e^{iP_k(q)a^k}f(q_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu ,\sigma ^{});`$ (2)
where

$`P_0(q)=\kappa \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ch}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\kappa }})+{\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{m}}\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\kappa }}))`$ (3)
$`P_k(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{sh}(\frac{m}{\kappa })q_k}{m\mathrm{ch}(\frac{m}{\kappa })+q_0\mathrm{sh}(\frac{m}{\kappa })}}`$ (4)
and $`D^{(s)}(R(qI,I\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ is the spin $`s`$ representation of classical Wigner rotation written in appropriate tensor product form.
(b) the massless case
The carrier space is now the space of $`𝐂`$-valued functions on upper light cone, $`(q^0)^2\stackrel{}{q}^2=0,q^0>0`$, square-integrable with respect to the same measure $`d^3\stackrel{}{q}/q^0`$. The right coaction of $`P_\kappa `$ is now given by

$`f(q)e^{i\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }(qI,I\mathrm{\Lambda })}e^{iP_0(q)a^0}`$ (6)
$`e^{iP_k(q)a^k}f(q_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu );`$
$`\lambda `$ is the (integer) helicity, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(qI,I\mathrm{\Lambda })`$-the classical rotation angle of the little group $`E(2)`$ while

$`P_0(q)=\kappa \mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{k}}(e^{\frac{k}{\kappa }}1)+1)`$ (7)
$`P_k(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (e^{\frac{k}{\kappa }}1)q_k}{q_0(e^{\frac{k}{\kappa }}1)+k}}`$ (8)
and $`k`$ parametries the standard fourvector $`(k,0,0,k)`$
It is easy to check  that the infinitesimal form of the above representation is the representation of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra in bicrossproduct basis with classical Lorentz algebra sector . It has been shown in  that the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group and $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra are related by Hopf algebra duality; the explicit form of duality relations in M-R basis is given by

$`<P_\mu ,:f(a):>=i{\displaystyle \frac{f}{a^\mu }}_{a=0}`$
$`<M_{\mu \nu },g(\mathrm{\Lambda })>=i({\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \mu }}})_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=I}`$ (9)
for translations and Lorentz transformations, respectively, extended suitably with the help of bicrossproduct structure . The infinitesimal generators are then defined as follows: denote by $`\varrho _R`$ the right coaction (2); for any element X of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra we define

$`\widehat{X}f{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}<X,\phi _\alpha >f_\alpha `$ (10)
where $`\varrho _R(f)=_\alpha f_\alpha \phi _\alpha `$. Simple calculation gives

$`\widehat{P}_0=\kappa \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ch}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\kappa }})+{\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{m}}\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\kappa }}))`$
$`\widehat{P}_k={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{sh}(\frac{m}{\kappa })q_k}{m\mathrm{ch}(\frac{m}{\kappa })+q_0\mathrm{sh}(\frac{m}{\kappa })}}`$
$`\widehat{M}_{ij}=i(q_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^j}}q_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^i}})+\epsilon _{ijk}S_k`$ (11)
$`\widehat{M}_{i0}=iq_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^i}}+\epsilon _{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{q_jS_k}{q_0+m}};`$
here $`\{S_k\}`$ (spin matrices) span the representation of the little group. Similar results are obtained in the case of massless representation, Eq. (6).

In the bicrossproduct basis the Lorentz algebra acts nonlinearly in momentum space. This action can be linearized (providing thereby the equivalence of the algebraic sector with that of the classical Poincaré algebra) by the following deformation map

$`P_0(q)=\kappa \mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{q_0+C}{CA}})`$ (12)
$`P_k(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa q_k}{q_0+C}}`$ (13)
where $`A`$ and $`C`$ are functions of $`m^2=q^2=q_0^2q_k^2`$ obeying $`A^22AC+m^2=0`$. The expressions appearing on the right hand side of Eqs. (3), (4) provide a special case of deformation map with $`A=m(cth(\frac{m}{\kappa })\frac{1}{sh(\frac{m}{\kappa })}),C=mcth(\frac{m}{\kappa })`$ (those given by Eqs. (7), (8) correspond to $`A=0,C=\frac{k}{e^{\frac{k}{\kappa }}1})`$. Using the properties of deformation map (12) and (13) one can easily show that by replacing $`P_\mu (q)`$ given by Eqs. (3),(4),(7) and (8) by more general ones (12), (13) one obtains equivalent representations. More precisely, for two representations, given by Eqs. (2)(or(6)) and (12), (13), determined by the functions $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$, which depends on the mass $`m^2=q^2`$ and deformation parameter $`\kappa `$, this equivalence is given by

$`f^{}(q,\sigma )=({\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{C}})f({\displaystyle \frac{C}{C^{}}}q,\sigma )`$ (14)
Because

$$P_\mu (\frac{C}{C^{}}q_\mu ,A^{},C^{})=P_\mu (q_\mu ,A,C)$$
(15)
the inverse formula to (1213) satisfies the relation

$$q_\mu ^{}=q_\mu (P,A^{},C^{})=\frac{C^{}}{C}q_\mu (P,A,C)$$
(16)
It follows from (14) that replacement $`CC^{}`$ implies the change of the mass parameter $`q_\mu ^2=m^2q_\mu ^2=\frac{C^2}{C^2}m^2=m^2.`$ Therefore, by a particular choice of the function $`C`$ one can relate the deformed fourmomenta described by deformed mass shell condition (parametrized by $`\kappa `$-Poincaré-invariant mass $`M`$)

$`\left(2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{2\kappa }}\right)^2e^{\frac{P_0}{\kappa }}p^2=M^2`$ (17)
to the fourmomenta $`q_\mu `$, obeying on classical relativistic mass shell condition $`q_0^2\stackrel{}{q}^2=m^2`$ with arbitrary choice of positive mass parameter $`m`$.

To deal with halfinteger spin case one has only to replace $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group by $`\kappa `$–deformed counterpart of $`ISL(2,C)`$ group described in . The whole construction can be repeated almost without modifications; one has only to replace Wigner rotation by its classical $`SL(2,C)`$ element so that $`D^{(s)}`$ becomes a function of $`q_\mu I`$ and $`IA,ASL(2,C).`$

## 3 Covariant wave functions

In the standard case (i.e. with nondeformed symmetry) the building blocks for the construction of local interactions are the covariant fields linear in creation/anihilation operators . They are obtained by solving the following problem: given particles of a definite mass and spin we know the transformation properties of the relevant momentum amplitudes, i.e. the wave functions in momentum space or, after second quantization, momentum space creation/anihilation operators. In the following we shall construct the appropriate coordinate space wave functions carrying the same amplitudes and transforming according to a given representation of Lorentz group

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x)D_{ll^{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }_l^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(xa))`$ (18)
Quantum fields are then obtained by replacing momentum space amplitudes by creation or anihilation operators.
We attempt here to solve the same problem in $`\kappa `$-deformed case. Due to the rather mild character of $`\kappa `$-deformation as seen in the form of unitary representations given in previous section, it is not surprising that this problem can be solved in a quite straightforward way. Let us recall that $`P_\kappa `$ acts covariantly on $`M_\kappa `$ from the left as given by:

$`x^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu +a^\mu I`$ (17a)
However, we prefer to consider the right coaction of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré which corresponds to the classical representations rather than antirepresentations. It appears that, in order to get a covariant action on $`M_\kappa `$, one has to consider the group $`P_\kappa `$, the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group with $`\kappa `$ replaced by $`\kappa `$. Therefore, we define the action of $`P_\kappa `$ on $`M_\kappa `$ as follows

$`x^\mu x^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu Ia^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu `$ (17b)
As a next step we define the coordinate wave functions. Let us select some representation $`D^{(A,B)}`$ of classical Lorentz group and let $`𝐂^n,n=(2A+1)(2B+1)`$ be the carrier space of this representation. The coordinate wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x)`$ is an element of $`M_\kappa 𝐂^n`$. It is then easy to check that the following action of $`P_\kappa `$ is well defined

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_l^{}(x^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu Ia^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu )`$ (18)
$`(ID_{ll^{}}^{(AB)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ (19)
The following result forms the basis for the whole subsequent discussion. Let $`\phi (x)M_\kappa `$ be an element given by

$`\phi (x)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{q_0}a(q)}:e^{iP_\mu (q)x^\mu }:`$ (20)
where $`a(q)`$ is a $`𝐂`$-valued function on the positive hyperboloid $`(q^0)^2\stackrel{}{q}^2=m^2`$ while $`P_\mu (q)`$ is given by (2,3).
Then the following basic identity holds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{q_0}a(q)e^{iP_0(q)(x^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}Ia^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}})}}`$ (21)
$`e^{iP_k(q)(x^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^kIa^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^k)}=`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{q_0}e^{iP_0(q)(Ia^0)}e^{iP_k(q)(Ia^k)}}`$ (23)
$`a(q_\nu (I\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu ))(:e^{iP_\mu (q)x^\mu }:I)`$
The proof of the above identity is straightforward but tedious. It can be also extended to massless case.
The basic identity (21) allows us to formulate the following general result. Let us put

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{q_0}U_l(q,\sigma )a(q,\sigma )}:e^{iP_\mu (q)x^\mu }:`$ (24)
where the wave functions $`U_l(q,\sigma )`$ obey the intertwinning conditions

$`D_{ll^{}}^{(AB)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })U_l^{}(q,\sigma )=D_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }^{(S)}(R(q,\mathrm{\Lambda }))U_l(\mathrm{\Lambda }q,\sigma ^{}).`$ (25)
Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x)`$ transforms according to the formula (18). The massless counterpart reads:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_l(x)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{q_0}U_l(q,\lambda )a(q)}:e^{iP_\mu (q)x^\mu }:`$ (26)
with $`P_\mu (q)`$ given by Eqs. (7, 8) transforms covariantly if

$`D_{ll^{}}^{(AB)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })U_l^{}(q,\lambda )=e^{i\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}U_l(\mathrm{\Lambda }q,\lambda )`$ (27)
It is crucial that the conditions (25) and (27) are purely classical. This allows to write out immediately the deformed counterpart of free field theory once the classical problem is solved. Finally, let us remark that it is not difficult to show that above reasoning is valid also if one uses a general deformation map (12, 13).

## 4 Free field equations

In general there is some redundancy in the description in terms of coordinate space wave functions. In fact, the representation $`D^{(AB)}`$ can, in the massive case, describe all particles of spin s obeying $`ABsA+B`$. Therefore, apart from the Klein-Gordon (KG) condition, $`(q^2m^2)U_l(q,\sigma )=0`$ there are other conditions of the form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ll^{}}(q)U_l^{}(q,\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (28)
singling out a definite spin. These conditions can be converted into constant coefficients matrix differential equations in coordinate space. The basic problem of the theory of wave equations in undeformed as well as $`\kappa `$-deformed case is to find a single equation from which K-G equation as well as additional conditions (28) follow and to derive it from some Lagrangian. This problem has particular solutions depending on $`s`$ and $`(A,B)`$. It is considered as a preliminary step towards interacting field theory. In fact, such an equation defines propagators which are necessary to formulate the perturbative version of the theory.

The result of Sec. 3 imply the following procedure. Let us invert the relations (12, 13) which yield

$`q_0(P)=(CA)e^{P_0/\kappa }C`$
$`q_k(P)=(CA)e^{P_0/\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{P_k}{\kappa }}`$ (29)
For any $`fM_\kappa `$ given by

$`f=:f(x):`$ (30)
we define the derivative operators as follows

$`i\widehat{}_\mu f=:q_\mu (i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\nu }})f(x):`$ (31)
Now, let

$`F_{AB}()\mathrm{\Phi }_B=0`$ (32)
be the relevant classical wave equation on commutative Minkowski space. Its $`\kappa `$-deformed counterpart has the same form, only the standard space–time derivatives $`_\mu `$ are replaced by the vector fields $`\widehat{}_\mu `$ on $`\kappa `$–deformed Minkowski space (see (23)).

$`F_{AB}(\widehat{})\mathrm{\Phi }_B=0`$ (33)
This is the general prescription for constructing wave equations on $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space.

Let us write the Fourier transform for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_AM_\kappa `$ as follows (compare with (17))

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_A(\widehat{x})=\frac{d^3p}{\omega _\kappa (p)}\stackrel{~}{a}_A(p):e^{ip_\kappa \widehat{x}^\kappa }:$$
(34)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_A(p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_A\left(q(p)\right)`$ (35)
$`\omega _\kappa (p)`$ $`=`$ $`q_0(p)det\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{p_j}}\right)`$
one can replace the algebra of fields (32) on noncommutative Minkowski space by homomorphic algebra of fields on commutative Minkowski space with the multiplication described by the $`\kappa `$-deformed star product (see )

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(\widehat{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_B(\widehat{x})\phi _A(y)\phi _B(y)=`$
$`=\phi _A(y+\xi _1)\mathrm{exp}iy_\mu `$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\xi _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\xi _2}})\phi _B(y+\xi _2)|_{\xi _1=\xi _2=0}`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_o(\eta ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^0+\xi ^0`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i(\eta ,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\kappa (\eta ^0)e^{\frac{\xi _0}{\kappa }}\eta ^i+f_\kappa (\xi ^0)e^{\frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}\xi _i}{f_\kappa (\eta ^0+\xi ^0)}}`$ (39)
and $`f_\kappa (\alpha )=\frac{\kappa }{\alpha }(e^{\frac{\alpha }{\kappa }}1)`$.

The field equation (33) on noncommutative space is translated into the $`\kappa `$-deformed field equation on standard Minkowski space as follows

$$F_{AB}\left(q_\mu \left(i\frac{}{y^\nu }\right)\right)\varphi _B(y)=0$$
(40)
Further we shall consider the following simple choice of the formulae (4), corresponding to $`C=(m^2+\kappa ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, leading to (see e.g. )

$`q_0(P_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}e^{\frac{P_0}{\kappa }}\stackrel{}{p}^2`$ (41)
$`q_i(P_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{P_0}{\kappa }}P_i`$ (42)
Below we shall consider the $`\kappa `$-deformed counterpart of the Klein–Gordon, Dirac, Proca and Maxwell equations.

(a) Klein–Gordon equation.

On $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space the KG field equation looks as follows:

$$\left(\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{}^\mu m_0^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(\widehat{x})=0$$
(43)
If we observe that

$$q_\mu q^\mu =^2(p)\left(1+\frac{^2}{4\kappa ^2}\right)$$
(44)
where

$$^2(p)=\left(2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\frac{p_0}{2\kappa }\right)^2e^{\frac{P_0}{\kappa }}\stackrel{}{p}^2$$
(45)
describes the $`\kappa `$-deformed mass Casimir in bicrossproduct basis, we obtain the following counterpart of the $`\kappa `$-deformed KG equation on standard Minkowski space

$$^2\left(\frac{1}{i}_\mu \right)\left(1+\frac{^2(\frac{1}{i}_\mu )}{4\kappa ^2}\right)\phi (y)=m_0^2\phi (y)$$
(46)
We see that the $`\kappa `$-deformed KG operator contains additional tachyon of the mass $`2\kappa ^2(1+(1+m^2/\kappa ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}})`$.

(b) Dirac equation.

On $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space, due to lack of deformation in Lorentz sector the algebra of Dirac matrices is not deformed, i.e. we get

$$\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(47)
The Dirac equation on $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space

$$\left(\gamma ^\mu \widehat{}_\mu m_0\right)_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_B(\widehat{x})=0$$
(48)
has the following counterpart on standard Minkowski space (see also (41))

$`[\gamma ^0(\kappa \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}e^{i\frac{_0}{\kappa }}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (50)
$`e^{i\frac{_0}{\kappa }}\gamma ^i_0+m_0]_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_B=0`$
The square of the $`\kappa `$-deformed Dirac operator provides the $`\kappa `$-deformed K.G. operator (45).

The equation (50) has been firstly given in

(c) Proca and Maxwell equation.

The Proca equation on $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space takes the form:

$$\left(\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{}^\mu \delta _\nu ^\rho \widehat{}_\nu \widehat{}^\rho \right)U_\rho (\widehat{x})=m_0^2U_\rho (\widehat{x})$$
(51)
or equivalently (we observe that $`[\widehat{}_\mu ,\widehat{}_\nu ]=0`$)

$$\widehat{}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{x})=m_0^2U_\nu (\widehat{x})$$
(52)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{x})=\widehat{}_\mu U_\nu (x)\widehat{}_\nu U_\mu (x)$$
(53)
If $`m=0`$ we get

$$\widehat{}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{x})=0$$
(54)
and the theory is invariant under the following local $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations (we denote $`U_\mu |_{m_0=0}=A_\mu `$):

$$A_\mu ^{}(\widehat{x})=A_\mu (\widehat{x})\widehat{}_\mu \alpha (\widehat{x})$$
(55)
The formula (55) has the following counterpart on commutative Minkowski space:

$`A_i^{}(\stackrel{}{y},y_0)=A_i(\stackrel{}{y},y_0)_i\alpha (\stackrel{}{y},y_0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }})`$ (56)
$`A_0^{}(\stackrel{}{y},y_0)=A_0(\stackrel{}{y},y_0)\kappa (\alpha (\stackrel{}{y},y_0+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }})`$ (57)
$`\alpha (\stackrel{}{y},y_0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (\stackrel{}{y},y_0+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }})`$ (58)
One can calculate that the product of two $`\kappa `$-deformed $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations is given by the formula:

$$:e^{i\alpha (\widehat{x})}::e^{i\alpha ^{}(\widehat{x})}=e^{i\alpha _\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{x})}:$$
(59)
where

$`\widehat{\alpha }_\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}},\widehat{x}_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}},\widehat{x}_0)`$ (62)
$`+\alpha (\mathrm{exp}i[\alpha ^{}((\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}},\widehat{x}_0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa }})`$
$`\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}},\widehat{x}_0)]\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}},\widehat{x}_0)`$
## 5 On the second quantization of $`\kappa `$-deformed free fields

Let us consider as an example the second quantization of $`\kappa `$-deformed KG field (see (40)) using the commutative space-time framework. The relativistic wave equation (46) can be written as the following product of standard and tachyonic deformed KG factors:

$`\left(^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu \right)m_+^2\right)`$ (63)
$`(^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}_\mu \right)m_{}^2)\phi (x)=0`$ (64)
where

$`m_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^4}{4\kappa ^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^4}}\right)`$ (65)
$`m_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\kappa ^2m_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^4}{4\kappa ^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^4}}\right)`$ (66)
We see that $`\phi (x)`$ is the linear combination of two solutions $`\phi _+,\phi _{}`$ satisfying the equation

$$\left(^2\left(\frac{1}{i}_\mu \right)m_\pm ^2\right)\phi _\pm (x)=0$$
(67)
The physical solution of (67) with $`m_+^2>0`$ can be quantized. Let us write

$`\widehat{\phi }_\pm (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^4p\delta \left(^2(p)m_+^2\right)}`$ (69)
$`\phi _+(p)e^{ipx}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{\omega _\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})}}`$ (71)
$`(a(\stackrel{}{p})e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}\omega _\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})t}+H.C.)`$
where $`p_0=\omega (\stackrel{}{p})`$ describes the dispersion relation for $`\kappa `$-deformed relativistic particle (see (39)). As the first attempt let us introduce the following $`\kappa `$-deformed creation and anihilation relations

$$[a^+(\stackrel{}{p}),a(\stackrel{}{p}^{})]=2\omega _\kappa (p)\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}).$$
(72)
If we define the Fock vacuum as follows

$$a^+(p)|0=0$$
(73)
one gets

$`0|\widehat{\phi }_\pm (x),\widehat{\phi }_\pm (x^{})|0=`$ (74)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{2\omega _\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})}e^{i\omega _\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})(tt^{})}}`$ (75)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4p\theta (p_0)\delta \left(^2(p)m_+^2\right)e^{ip(xx^{})}}`$
We see that the formula (74) describes the $`\kappa `$-deformation of free scalar Wightmann function. It should be mentioned here that the $`\kappa `$-deformed Green functions in standard basis, obtained by the redefinition $`p_ie^{\frac{P_0}{\kappa }}p_i`$, were discussed in .

It should be stressed, however, that the relation (56) is not consistent with the $`\kappa `$-covariant definition of two-particle state $`|p_1;p_2`$ introduced as $`|p_1;p_2=a(p_1)a(p_2)|0`$. It is easy to see that the relation $`|p_1;p_2=|p_2,p_1`$ is not consistent with the nonsymmetric coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ describing the threemomenta of two-particle states. We get

$`\stackrel{}{P}|\stackrel{}{p}_1,E_1;\stackrel{}{p}_2,E_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{p}_1e^{\frac{E_2}{\kappa c}}+\stackrel{}{p}_2\right)`$ (59b)
$`|\stackrel{}{p}_1,E_1;\stackrel{}{p}_2,E_2`$
$`\stackrel{}{P}|\stackrel{}{p}_2,E_2;\stackrel{}{p}_1,E_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{p}_2e^{\frac{E_1}{\kappa c}}+\stackrel{}{p}_1\right)`$ (59d)
$`|\stackrel{}{p}_1,E_1;\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{E}_2.`$
It is easy to see that both formulae (59a-b) give the same value of total two-particle threemomentum if we assume

$`a(\stackrel{}{p}_1,E_1)a(\stackrel{}{p}_2,E_2)`$ $`=`$ $`a(\stackrel{}{p}_2e^{\frac{E_1}{\kappa c}},E_2)`$
$`a(\stackrel{}{p}_1e^{\frac{E_2}{\kappa c}},E_1).`$
The flip operation (60) can be represented by the action of quantum $`R`$-matrix, which for the quantum $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra is not known.

Further considerations leading to the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré covariant Fock space and corresponding formulation of second-quantized fields on noncommutative Minkowski space is under investigation.

## 6 Conclusions

Let us summarize our results. Firstly we have defined the covariant wave functions on $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space $`M_\kappa `$. Their transformation properties are defined by the right coacting of $`P_\kappa `$ \- $`\kappa `$-Poincaré group with the parameter $`\kappa `$ replaced by $`\kappa `$. We solved the problem of finding the intertwinners between this representation acting on coordinate wave functions and the unitary representation of $`P_\kappa `$ acting in momentum space. These intertwinners are actually the wave functions of particles of definite mass and spin. The main result here is that once this problem is solved in the nondeformed case it can be similarly solved also for nonvanishing deformation parameter.

In second part of this report we define the basic deformed free fields on noncommutative Minkowski as well as on standard Minkowski space. Due to star product technique one can represent the effect of noncommutativity of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space by nonlocal deformation of the derivatives defining free field equations (see (41)). It should be stressed that $`\kappa `$-deformation implies the deformation of free equations and the nonlocality in time.

In order to define the $`\kappa `$-deformed second-quantized field theory one should quantize the Fourier transforms $`a(q)`$ (see (20)) or $`\stackrel{~}{a}_A(p)`$ (see (34)). This problem was briefly discussed in Sect. 5 and requires for its further understanding the $`\kappa `$-covariant structure of multiparticle states and consistency with nonAbelian addition law for $`\kappa `$-deformed threemomenta.


format: text

text:
# Possibility of T-violating P-conserving magnetism and its contribution to the T-odd P-even neutron-nucleus forward elastic scattering amplitude.

## 1 Introduction

In connection with the direct observation of time-reversal symmetry violation in the system of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mesons cplear  it would be interesting to detect T-violation in other nuclear or atomic systems. However, the Standard Model predicts very small T-violating effects in nuclear and atomic physics, so we are forced to search for new interactions. It is necessary to distinguish a P- T- odd interaction from a P-even T-odd one. While there are rather rigid restrictions on the strength constants of the first type interactions, obtained from dipole moment measurements of atoms and particles, restrictions on the constants of P-even T-odd interactions are not so strong. As is known the null test for the latter kind of interaction is the observation of a $`(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{S})(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{S})`$ five fold correlation term in the forward elastic scattering amplitude of a spin $`1/2`$ particle by a particle with a spin $`S1`$ bar1 ; conzet ; beyer ; cher , where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the incident particle momentum, $`𝝈`$ is the Pauli matrix of an incident particle and $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ is the nucleus spin operator. The relevant experiments have been carried out exp ; huf0  for a $`{}_{}{}^{165}\text{Ho}`$ target and now are planed to be performed on a super-conducting synchrotron COSY COSY  with deuteron. Usually the P-conserving breakdown of the time reversal symmetry is considered on the basis of the $`\rho `$ and $`A_1`$ meson Lagrangian sim . In this paper we consider another phenomenological possibility, namely, T-violating P-conserving magnetism and its contribution to the aforementioned five fold correlation.

## 2 Long-range T-non-invariant P-even electromagnetic interaction.

The magnetism can be introduced by the T-violating P-conserving vertex function of a spin 1/2 particle interaction with the electromagnetic field t1 ; haff :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\eta =\mu _T\frac{\text{i}}{2m^3}(Pq)\sigma ^{\eta \nu }q_\nu ,$$
(1)
where $`P=k^{}+k`$, $`q=k^{}k`$ (Fig. 1), $`m`$ is the particle mass and $`\sigma ^{\eta \nu }=\frac{\gamma ^\eta \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\eta }{2}`$. Let us consider T-odd scattering of a particle by a point electric charge $`Ze`$.

After the application of ordinary diagram techniques ber  we obtain the appropriate matrix element corresponding to the diagram in Fig. 1:

$`=\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}e}{2m^3}}(Pq)\overline{u}(k^{})\sigma ^{0\nu }q_\nu u(k)𝒜_0^{(e)},`$ (2)
where $`𝒜_0^{(e)}(q)=\frac{4\pi Ze}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}`$ is the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential of the electric charge and $`u(k)`$ is the particle bispinor. Setting $`q=(0,\stackrel{}{q})`$ and substituting

$$u(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\epsilon +m}\varphi \\ (\epsilon +m)^{1/2}(𝝈\stackrel{}{k})\varphi \end{array}\right)$$

($`\varphi `$ is the spin wave function of a particle and $`\epsilon `$ is the particle energy including its rest mass) into (2) we find the T-odd P-even scattering amplitude of a particle by a point electric charge for small transferred momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$:

$$𝔣(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{}{4\pi }=\mu _T\frac{2Ze^2}{m^3}\frac{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}.$$
(3)
While evaluating the scattering amplitude we consider a particle to be on the mass shell $`(\stackrel{}{k}^2=(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})^2=\epsilon ^2m^2)`$ everywhere except for the term $`(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})`$. If the particle is completely on the mass shell $`(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})=0`$ and the amplitude (3) vanishes. The dependence of the amplitude on the transferred momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ looks like that for the magnetic dipoles scattering amplitude. So, it turns out that the interaction is long-range. In haff  the conclusion (repeated in the monograph of blin ) had been drawn of the non-existence of a long-range T-odd P-even potential (i.e. it is decreasing as $`1/r^3`$ or weaker with distance Dau  ). However, we’ll see that this conclusion does not concern of-mass-shell potentials.

We can consider the particle scattering in the framework of the Schroedinger equation with relativistic mass ber ; for :

$$(^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r})=2\epsilon V(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(4)
which allows us below to take into account incident particle wave distortion by the strong nucleus interaction. In the first Born approximation the amplitude (3) can be obtained from the T-odd energy dependent interaction:

$`V_T(𝒓)=\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{3Ze^2}{2\epsilon m^3}}((\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^5}}(\stackrel{}{r}𝝈\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})`$
$`+(𝝈\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^5}}(\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})).`$ (5)
It can be represented by:

$`V_T(\stackrel{}{r})=\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\epsilon m^3}}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r})\}`$
$`(𝝈\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})+(𝝈\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})\{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r})\}\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}),`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})=Ze{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{r^3}}`$ is the strength of the electric field created by a charge at the point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, the gradient acts on the $`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ only, $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}`$ is the particle momentum operator and $``$ denotes a direct vector product. When considering a particle moving along classical trajectory, we should replace the momentum operator by its classical value.

In the first order in interaction the trajectories of a classical particle deflect from a straight line only in the vicinity of a scatter (Fig. 2). In the presence of some ordinary on-mass-shell interaction, for instance strong one, the of-mass-shell T-odd interaction decreases or increases the stream of particles in the area of strong interaction and, thereby, gives a T-odd contribution to the scattering amplitude.

So, we can see that a moving particle can interact with a non-uniform electric field by means of the time reversal violating parity conserving interaction.

## 3  T-odd scattering of a neutron by a deformed nucleus with spin $`S1`$

Let us consider T-odd neutron scattering by a deformed nucleus. Let us assume that interaction of a neutron with a nucleus is the sum of the T-odd interaction, discussed above, and the strong one. For evaluating the neutron-nucleus elastic scattering amplitude we’ll use the Schroedinger equation (4). The scattering amplitude at zero angle in the third Born approximation is written as

$`F(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2\pi }}\{U(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})`$
$`+2\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{U(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})U(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})}{k^2k^2+i0}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`+(2\epsilon )^2{\displaystyle \frac{U(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})U(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime })U(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{}{k})}{(k^2k^2+i0)(k^2k^{\prime \prime 2}+i0)}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`+\mathrm{}\},`$ (7)
where $`U(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})=\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{r}}V(\stackrel{}{r})\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}d^3\stackrel{}{r}`$ represents the Fourier transform of the neutron-nucleus potential. $`U(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the sum of the strong interaction part (for simplicity we consider it is not to be depending on the spin) and T-odd one:

$`U(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})=u_s(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k})+(𝝈(\stackrel{}{k}^{}+\stackrel{}{k})\times (\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$
$`\stackrel{}{k})\left)\right((\stackrel{}{k}^{}+\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}))u_T(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}).`$ (8)
For the nucleus with the centre of symmetry $`u_s(\stackrel{}{k})=u_s(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`u_T(\stackrel{}{k})=u_T(\stackrel{}{k})`$. Substituting (8) in (7) we find that the first and second Born terms give zero contributions. As a result, we have

$`F_T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon ^3}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }\{2(𝝈\times (\stackrel{}{k}^{}+\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2k^{\prime \prime 2}}}`$
$`\times u_T(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})u_s(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{}k^{\prime \prime })u_s(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{}{k})+(𝝈\times (\stackrel{}{k}^{}+\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime })`$
$`(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime })){\displaystyle \frac{((\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }+\stackrel{}{k}^{})(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }))}{(k^2k^2)(k^2k^{\prime \prime 2})}}u_s(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$
$`\times u_T(\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime })u_s(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{}{k})\}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }}{(2\pi )^3}}.`$ (9)
In the first item of (9) we change variables $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}`$, and in the second item $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and come to

$`F_T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon ^3}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }\{2(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q})^2}})+2(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q})^2}})\}u_T(\stackrel{}{q})u_s(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{Q})u_s(\stackrel{}{Q})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{Q}}{(2\pi )^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\epsilon ^3}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2}}`$
$`\times u_T(\stackrel{}{q})u_s(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{Q})u_s(\stackrel{}{Q}){\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{Q}}{(2\pi )^3}}.`$ (10)
Deriving the last equality we have changed the variables $`\stackrel{}{Q}=\stackrel{}{Q}^{}\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$ in terms containing the factor $`\frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q})^2}`$. Using the formula (6) we express $`u_T(\stackrel{}{k})`$ through the Fourier transform of the charge distribution function inside the nucleus $`\rho (\stackrel{}{k})`$ (nucleus charge form factor):

$$u_T(\stackrel{}{k})=\mu _T\frac{\pi Ze^2}{\epsilon m^3}\frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{k})}{k^2}.$$
(11)
In the rough approximation, being suitable however for our purposes, the strong interaction term can also be expressed through the Fourier transform of the nucleon distribution function in the nucleus and the nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude at zero angle $`f(0)`$ :

$$u_s(\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{2\pi Af(0)}{\epsilon }\rho (\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(12)
where $`A`$ is the atomic number of the nucleus. Thus, we assume, that the charge distribution coincides with the matter density. From (10) we come to

$`F_T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})=\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{8Ze^2}{m^3}}(2\pi )^2A^2f^2(0)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(𝝈\times \stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{q})}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2+i0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{q})\rho (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{Q})\rho (\stackrel{}{Q})}{q^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒒}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{Q}}{(2\pi )^3}}`$ (13)
At high energies a simplification can be achieved by using the propagator in the eikonal approximation:

$$\frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2+i0}\frac{1}{2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q}+i0}=P\frac{1}{2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q}}i\pi \delta (2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q}).$$
(14)
The contribution of the first term of (14) vanishes as can be checked by changing of the variables $`\stackrel{}{Q}=\stackrel{}{Q}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$ in the expression (13). The deformed nucleus form factor can be taken in the form:

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{q})=\text{e}^{\beta q^2+\beta ^{}(𝒂\stackrel{}{q})^2}.$$
(15)
The unit vector $`𝒂`$ is parallel to the axis of symmetry of the nucleus ($`z`$-axis) and describes the orientation of the nucleus. The expression (15) corresponds to the charge and matter distribution function:

$`\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{r})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\rho (\stackrel{}{q})d^3\stackrel{}{q}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^{3/2}\beta \sqrt{\beta \beta ^{}}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}z^2}{4\beta (\beta \beta ^{})}}\right).`$ (16)
$`\beta ^{}`$ characterises the degree of deformation of the nucleus and is connected with the quadruple moment

$$𝒬=Z(3z^2r^2)\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{r})d^3\stackrel{}{r}=4Z\beta ^{}.$$
(17)
For a small nucleus deformation the nucleus root-mean-square radius is expressed through $`\beta `$:

$$R^2=r^2\mathrm{}(r)d^3r6\beta .$$
(18)
The calculation of the integral In the first order in $`\beta ^{}`$ gives the following expression:

$`{\displaystyle }\stackrel{}{Q}\times \stackrel{}{q}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q})}{q^2}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta q^2+\beta ^{}(𝒂\stackrel{}{q})^2\beta (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{Q})^2`$
$`+\beta ^{}(𝒂(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{Q}))^2\beta \stackrel{}{Q}^2+\beta ^{}(𝒂\stackrel{}{Q})^2)d^3\stackrel{}{Q}d^3\stackrel{}{q}`$
$`(𝒂\times \stackrel{}{k})(𝒂\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{5/2}}{2k^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta ^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _\beta ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta x}{(2x+\beta )^2(\beta +x)^{3/2}}}dx.`$ (19)
With the help of (19) we obtain the final formula:

$`F_T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})=i(𝝈𝒂\times \stackrel{}{k})(𝒂\stackrel{}{k})\mu _T`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{Ze^2A^2f^2(0)}{8\sqrt{\pi }m^3k^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta ^{7/2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)dx}{(2x+1)^2(1+x)^{3/2}}}.`$ (20)
The unit vector $`𝒂`$ is expressed thorough the only available nucleus spin operator vector : $`𝒂=\frac{\stackrel{}{S}}{\sqrt{S(S+1)}}`$. Setting T-violating moment (expressed in $`e/2m`$ units) $`\mu _T=1`$ we find that T-odd cross section is about of $`10^3`$ mbarn (Fig.3) for a $`{}_{}{}^{165}\text{Ho}`$ ($`S=7/2`$) target.

It is possible to obtain the formula for the limiting case of low energies, however, the approximation (12) used for the strong interaction becomes very rough. At low energies the propagator can be approximated by:

$$\frac{1}{k^2(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{Q})^2+i0}\frac{1}{Q^2}+\frac{2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q}}{Q^4}\frac{4(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{Q})^2}{Q^6}.$$
(21)
The final formula at low energies looks like:

$`F_T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})=(𝝈𝒂\times \stackrel{}{k})(𝒂\stackrel{}{k})\mu _T`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{8Ze^2A^2f^2(0)}{15\pi m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)dx}{(x+1)^3\sqrt{2x+1}}}`$ (22)
A magnitude of the amplitude is proportional to the squared neutron wave number $`k^2`$ at low energies, whereas at high energies it decreases in inverse proportion to the wave number. At $`kR1`$ both formulas give the same but overestimated order of the amplitude magnitude. So, we restrict ourselves $`\epsilon m=\text{E}_{\text{lab}}>50Mev`$ (Fig.3), where $`kR>7`$ and the eikonal approximation should be valid.

## 4 Estimates for T-odd magnetism for the other systems.

It is of interest to study the consequences of T-violating P-conserving magnetism for other systems.

a) Electric dipole moment (EDM) of a neutron. The existing rigid experimental limit on the neutron EDM ($`8\times 10^{26}ecm`$) allows one to obtain constraints on the T-odd P-even interactions. Actually we have $`PoddTodd=(PevenTodd)\times (PoddTeven)`$. So, P-conserving beakdown of the time reversal symmetry contributes to the neutron EDM through interference with P-odd weak interaction.

The restriction $`\overline{g}_\rho <10^3`$ on the relative magnitude of the T-odd P-even nucleon-$`\rho `$-meson coupling has been obtained haxt  by calculating the Feynman graph in Fig. 4a. The source of T-violation was the $`\rho `$-meson-nucleon vertex and the source of P-violation was the $`\pi `$-meson-neutron interaction.

We can consider the diagram in Fig.4b, corresponding to the T-odd magnetism contribution to the neutron EDM. Both diagrams contain strong, electromagnetic and weak interaction vertices. Hence they should give approximately the same restriction on the relative strength of the T-violation, but, in the first case, T-violation occurs in strong interaction, and in the second case it occurs in the electromagnetic one. However, due to the of-mass-shell character of the electromagnetic vertex an additional suppression factor $`\frac{(Pq)}{m^2}\left(\frac{m_\pi }{m}\right)^22\times 10^2`$ arises haff . Thus the constraint on $`\mu _T`$ is expected to be $`\mu _T10^1`$.

b) positronium-like system decays. Let us now consider the positronium system. The density of electrons (positrons) in positronium state with total spin $`J=1`$ can be presented in the form cher

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})=A_0(r)+A_1\stackrel{}{J}\left(𝝈_{}+𝝈_+\right)+A_2(\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})(𝝈_{}+𝝈_+)\stackrel{}{r}`$
$`+\mathrm{}+T_0(𝝈_{}\times 𝝈_+\stackrel{}{J})+T_1((𝝈_{}\stackrel{}{r})(𝝈_+\times \stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})`$
$`(𝝈_+\stackrel{}{r})(𝝈_{}\times \stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r}))+T_2((\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})((𝝈_{}𝝈_+)\times \stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})`$
$`+((𝝈_{}𝝈_+)\times \stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})(\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{r})),`$ (23)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the electron radius vector (the positron radius-vector is $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ ), $`A_n,T_n`$ are the functions of $`r`$, $`𝝈_{}`$, $`𝝈_+`$ are the Pauli matrices of electron and positron, respectively. The density is simultaneously the spin density matrix of a positron and an electron. The positronium total spin operator $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is a parameter describing the positronium orientation. To find the density for the concrete positronium orientation we must take the matrix element from (23) over a positronium spin state i.e. replace $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J}`$ through the positronium polarization $`<\stackrel{}{J}>`$ and quadropolarization $`<\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J}>`$ respectively. The result of C-, P-, T- transformations on the density can be described by the operations

$`C:𝝈_+𝝈_{},𝝈_{}𝝈_+,\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r},`$
$`T:\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J},𝝈_+𝝈_+,𝝈_{}𝝈_{},`$
$`P:\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}.`$ (24)
We can see that the terms proportional to $`T_0,T_1,T_2`$ are T-odd, C-odd, P-even terms. But, it is not possible to construct T-odd P-even terms for the states with $`J=0`$. From this fact we may conclude that decays of positronium like systems with $`1`$ spin should be used to search indirect T- C-violation.

The terms $`T_0,\mathrm{}`$ can originate from mixing of the states with the same spatial parity but opposite charge parity due to the P-even T-odd C-odd interaction

$`V_T(𝒓)=\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{3e^2}{2\epsilon m^3}}((\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^5}}(\stackrel{}{r}(𝝈_{}𝝈_+)\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})`$
$`+((𝝈_{}𝝈_+)\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^5}}(\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}})),`$ (25)
where $`\mu _T`$ is the T-violating electron moment (the positron has the same) and $`m`$ is the electron mass. However for the orto-positronium state $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}(J^{PC}=1^{})`$ there is no the state with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ which can be mixed to it. The charge parity of positronium is given by $`C=(1)^{l+s}`$ and the spatial parity is given by $`P=(1)^{l+1}`$. So T- C- violation can occurs only in the direct decay not under consideration here. For the state $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}(J^{PC}=1^+)`$ there exists a state $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}(J^{PC}=1^{++})`$ which can mixed to it. The impurity can be estimated as $`\eta _T\frac{V_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$, where $`V_T`$ is the typical value of a T-odd interaction and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the splitting between these levels. The splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ can be produced by tensor and spin-orbital interactions ber

$`V_s={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}((\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{p}(𝝈_{}+𝝈_+))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝝈_{}\stackrel{}{r})(𝝈_+\stackrel{}{r})}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(𝝈_{}𝝈_+)),`$ (26)
where $`\alpha =e^2`$ is the fine structure constant. Typical values of an electron momentum and co-ordinate in positronium are $`pm\alpha ,r\frac{1}{m\alpha }`$ ber . Thus, we can estimate $`V_T`$ to be

$$V_T\mu _T\frac{\alpha }{m^4}\frac{p^2}{r^3}\mu _Tm\alpha ^6$$
(27)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }EV_s\frac{\alpha }{m^2}\frac{p}{r^2}m\alpha ^4.$$
(28)
As a result, for the C- and T- odd impurity of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ state to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ state we have

$$\eta _T\frac{V_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\mu _T\alpha ^2.$$
(29)
For the branching ratio we get

$$\frac{(^1P_1^3S_1+\gamma )}{(^1P_1^3S_1+2\gamma )}\frac{\eta _T}{\alpha }\mu _T\alpha .$$
(30)
We take into account here that the probability of the decay into $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}+2\gamma `$ is reduced by an additional factor $`\alpha `$ compared to the decay to $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}+\gamma `$ ber . The measurement of the branching ratio (30) with the accuracy $`10^2`$ gives constraint for electron’s $`\mu _T1`$, but it is far beyond the experimental possibilities of positronium physics by now.

Let us consider a charmonium $`c\overline{c}`$ system, which is similar to positronium. One gluon exchange produces the Coulomb-like potential with a running constant approximately equal to $`\alpha _s=0.4`$ led  (applicable also for the tensor interaction). Charmonium energy levels can be described by this potential and a confinement potential of oscillator type. The later is essential for large excitations and it will not be taken into account in our estimations. Repeating our estimations for the present case we find:

$`V_T\mu _T{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{m_c^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{r^3}}\mu _Tm_c\alpha \alpha _s^5,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{m_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{r^2}}m_c\alpha _s^4,`$
$`\eta _T{\displaystyle \frac{V_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}}\mu _T\alpha \alpha _s,`$ (31)
where $`m_c`$ is the mass of a charmed quark. For the branching ratio of a $`c\overline{c}`$ system we find

$$\frac{(^1P_1J/\psi +\gamma )}{(^1P_1J/\psi +2\gamma )}\frac{\eta _T}{\alpha }\mu _T\alpha _s.$$
(32)
The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ state of charmonium has experimentally been identified and is called $`\chi _{c1}(1P)(3510)`$ part2 . The $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ state has not been clearly identified by now. A possible candidate would be $`h_c(1P)(3526)`$, but this needs confirmation part2 .

c) Neutral kaon system. It is natural to assume that CP-violation is due to the Standard Model weak interaction; however, another origin can not be excluded by now. It is difficult to do some estimates for T-odd magnetism for this case because of competition of an enhancement factor such as the small mass difference $`m_{K_L}m_{K_S}`$ and suppression factors such as the of-mass-shell character and spin-dependence of the T-odd P-even vertex. One needs to calculate radiation corrections to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing with the T-odd electromagnetic vertex (fig. 5). A direct CP-violation can be estimated by evaluation of radiation corrections similar to ”penguin” led  diagrams.

## 5 Conclusion

Thus, we have shown that besides P- T- odd electric dipole moment the particle can have T-violating P-conserving magnetic moment. We have considered the contribution of the T-odd magnetism to the P-odd T-even neutron-nucleus forward elastic scattering amplitude. We find, that the relative T-violation being of the order of unity corresponds to the T-odd P-even cross section (Fig. 3) being about of $`10^210^3mbarn`$ in the energy region of $`50MeV3GeV`$. The measurements for 12 MeV neutrons and $`{}_{}{}^{165}\text{Ho}`$ target give the constraint of $`10^2mb`$ on five fold correlation cross section huf0 . If we relate this constraint to our energy range we find that $`\mu _T1`$.

It seems neutron EDM gives constraint $`\mu _T0.1`$.

Electrons and constituent quarks, in principle can possess T-violating P-conserving moments too. The way to search these may be the observation of forbidden decay modes of positronium-like systems from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ states.

## 6 Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to the Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky, Dr. K. Batrakov and Dr. D.Matsykevich for discussions and remarks.


text:
# Measurement of the 𝚲̄ Polarization in 𝝂_𝝁 Charged Current Interactions in the NOMAD Experiment

## 1 Introduction

The spin structure of hadrons has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically over the past two decades. Measuring parton spin distributions in different octet baryons can shed light on many phenomena in non-perturbative QCD, such as $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking, baryon spin content, flavor asymmetry in the baryon sea, which were evoked in connection with the proton spin puzzle . Despite some achievements in this field, our current knowledge of the nucleon sea-quark spin distributions and the spin content of the other hyperons is still very poor. One way to learn about the quark spin distributions of unstable hadrons is to measure the polarized quark fragmentation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)`$ of the quark $`q`$ into the hadron $`h`$, where $`z`$ is the fraction of the total hadronic energy carried by the hadron in the laboratory system.

Among various hadrons produced in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons are unique because of their parity violating decays into a pair of charged hadrons ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\pi ^+`$ respectively) which can be efficiently reconstructed and identified.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) polarization is measured by the asymmetry in the angular distribution of the protons (antiprotons) or pions in the parity violating decay process $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\pi ^+`$). In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) rest frame the angular distribution of the decay protons (pions) is given by:

$$\frac{1}{N}\frac{N}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{4\pi }(1+\alpha 𝐏𝐤),$$
(1)
where $`𝐏`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) polarization vector, $`\alpha =0.642\pm 0.013`$  is the decay asymmetry parameter and $`𝐤`$ is the unit vector along the direction of the outgoing positive decay particle (the proton in case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the $`\pi ^+`$ in case of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$).

To probe the polarized quark distribution in a hadron $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_h(x_{Bj})`$, where $`x_{Bj}`$ is the standard Bjorken variable, a source of polarized quarks is required. Of the many means of obtaining polarized quarks , neutrino and antineutrino DIS are exceptional due to their 100% natural polarization. Moreover, weak interactions provide a source of polarized quarks of specific flavour, which makes the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarizations in (anti)neutrino DIS an ideal tool to investigate different spin transfer mechanisms and to check various models of the baryon spin content.

Different physical mechanisms are responsible for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization in the fragmentation regions defined by positive and negative values of $`x_F=2p_L^{}/W`$. A polarization of the strange sea in the nucleon  can manifest itself through a polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons produced in the target fragmentation region ($`x_F<0`$) in (anti)neutrino DIS process. Measurements of the polarization of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons produced in the current fragmentation region ($`x_F>0`$) in (anti)neutrino DIS can provide information on the polarized fragmentation functions of quarks and antiquarks into a given hyperon ($`h=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The longitudinal polarization of a hyperon $`h`$ produced in neutrino DIS in the current fragmentation region, assuming no polarization transfer from the other (anti)quarks fragmenting into this hyperon, is given by:

$$P_\nu ^h=\frac{\left[d\left(x_{Bj}\right)+\omega s\left(x_{Bj}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^h\left(z\right)\left(1y_{Bj}\right)^2\overline{u}\left(x_{Bj}\right)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{d}}^h\left(z\right)+\omega \mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{s}}^h\left(z\right)\right]}{\left[d\left(x_{Bj}\right)+\omega s\left(x_{Bj}\right)\right]D_u^h\left(z\right)+\left(1y_{Bj}\right)^2\overline{u}\left(x_{Bj}\right)\left[D_{\overline{d}}^h\left(z\right)+\omega D_{\overline{s}}^h\left(z\right)\right]},$$
(2)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C`$ ($`\theta _C`$ is the Cabibbo angle). A measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in the current fragmentation region in $`\nu _\mu `$ charged current (CC) DIS provides an estimate of the spin transfer coefficient $`C_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ because of the dominant contribution from the first term in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (2). However an interpretation of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization in the current fragmentation region in $`\nu _\mu \mathrm{CC}`$ DIS is more complicated since the two terms in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (2) could be of comparable size.

In order to reduce the number of independent fragmentation functions the authors of  made the following assumptions:

$$D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=D_d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=D_{\overline{u}}^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(z)=D_{\overline{d}}^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(z)$$
(3)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }D_d^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{u}}^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{d}}^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(z).$$
(4)
The relations (3) and (4) simplify the interpretation of the results of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization measurements in (anti)neutrino DIS. However, these relations may not be valid if a sizable fraction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons is produced via resonance or heavier hyperon decays.

The NOMAD experiment  has collected $`1.3\times 10^6`$ $`\nu _\mu `$ CC events and has observed an unprecedented number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decays. A detailed paper devoted to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization measurement in the NOMAD experiment has been published recently . We present here the first measurement of the polarization of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons produced in $`\nu _\mu `$ CC interactions.

## 2 Event selection and $`V^0`$ identification

The measurement of charged tracks produced in neutrino interactions in the NOMAD detector is performed with a set of drift chambers  located inside a dipole magnet with a field of 0.4 Tesla.

A $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decay appears in the detector as a $`V^0`$-like vertex: two tracks of opposite charge emerging from a common vertex separated from the primary neutrino interaction vertex (see Fig. 1). A $`V^0`$-like signature is expected also for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ decays and for photon conversions.

The data are compared to the results of a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation based on LEPTO 6.1  and JETSET 7.4  generators for neutrino interactions and on a GEANT  based program for the detector response. In our MC simulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons are not polarized.

The selection procedure for the $`\nu _\mu \mathrm{CC}`$ event sample used in this analysis has been described in .

Since the NOMAD detector is unable to distinguish (anti)protons from pions in the momentum range relevant to this analysis, our $`V^0`$ identification procedure relies on the kinematic properties of a $`V^0`$ decay.

For the $`V^0`$ identification a kinematic fit method has been used as described in reference . This fit has been performed for three decay hypotheses: $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\pi ^+`$ and for the hypothesis of a photon conversion $`\gamma \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$. The output of the kinematic fits applied to a given $`V^0`$ vertex consists of four $`\chi _{V^0}^2`$. The different regions in the four-dimensional $`\chi _{V^0}^2`$ space populated by particles identified as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ have been selected.

Identified $`V^0`$’s are of two types:

* uniquely identified $`V^0`$’s, which, in the four-dimensional $`\chi _{V^0}^2`$ space described above, populate regions corresponding to the decay of different particles;
* ambiguously identified $`V^0`$’s, which populate overlapping kinematic regions where the decays of different particles are simultaneously present.

The treatment of ambiguities aims at selecting a given $`V^0`$ decay with the highest efficiency and the lowest background contamination from other $`V^0`$ types. Our identification strategy consists of two steps:

* we select a sample of uniquely identified $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons which has a purity of 91%;
* we allow ourselves an additional 7% contribution from a subsample of ambiguously identified $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles resolving the ambiguities between $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ in favour of maximal purity.

This approach provides an optimum compromise between high statistics and well understood background contamination.

A MC simulation program has been used to study the purity of the overall $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample obtained by our selection criteria in $`\nu _\mu `$ CC interactions. This study indicates that 89.6% of the selected $`V^0`$’s are true $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons, 5.4% are misidentified $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ mesons and 5.0% are due to random track associations. The global reconstruction and identification efficiency is 18.6%. A total of 649 identified $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decays is found in our data, representing a significantly larger number than in previous (anti)neutrino experiments performed with bubble chambers . Fig. 2 shows the invariant mass distributions for $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ combinations before and after the $`V^0`$ identification procedure.

We have compared the distributions of many kinematical variables, describing the neutrino interaction ($`E_\nu `$, $`x_{Bj}`$, $`y_{Bj}`$), $`V^0`$ production and decay ($`p_V`$, $`p_+`$, $`p_T^{int}`$), $`V^0`$ behaviour in the hadronic jet ($`p_T`$, $`x_F`$, $`z`$), obtained in data and MC events. The comparison (see Fig. 3) shows that the experimental distributions of all these kinematical variables are in agreement with the MC results. However, we note that the $`x_F`$ distribution is shifted towards positive values in the data (see Fig. 3e), while it is centered around zero in the MC. A small discrepancy between data and MC may be noticed in the $`z`$ distribution (Fig. 3i).

## 3 Polarization analysis

For the polarization analysis described below we use the “J” reference system, in which the axes are defined as follows (in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ rest frame):

* the $`𝐧_x`$ axis is chosen along the reconstructed $`W`$-boson direction ($`\stackrel{}{e}_W`$);
* the $`𝐧_y`$ axis is orthogonal to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production plane (defined as the plane containing both the target nucleon ($`\stackrel{}{e}_T`$) and the $`W`$-boson vectors):
$`𝐧_y=\stackrel{}{e}_W\times \stackrel{}{e}_T/|\stackrel{}{e}_W\times \stackrel{}{e}_T|`$.
* the $`𝐧_z`$ axis is chosen to form a right-handed coordinate system:
$`𝐧_z=𝐧_x\times 𝐧_y`$.

The experimental resolution for the reconstructed $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i=𝐧_i𝐤`$, where $`𝐤`$ is the unit vector in the direction of the outgoing positive track ($`\pi ^+`$), is found to be about $`0.07`$. The raw $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ distributions of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons are affected by the detector acceptance and the reconstruction algorithm:

$$\frac{dN(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}=A(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)(1+\alpha P_i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i),$$
(5)
where $`A(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)`$ is the detector acceptance function which also depends on other kinematic variables. The angular distributions in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ case (see Fig. 4) are less distorted than in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sample (see e.g. ) because of a higher average momentum of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons produced in $`\nu _\mu \mathrm{CC}`$ interactions. This is due to baryon number conservation which implies a higher $`W^2`$ threshold for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production in neutrino-nucleon DIS.

A method which allows the extraction of all three components of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) polarization vector at the same time, taking into account both the detector acceptance and the differences between generated and reconstructed angular variables, has been developed . The one-dimensional option of this method is used for the analysis presented here because of the low statistics of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample.

The results are summarized in Table 1.

## 4 Systematic errors

The following potential sources of systematic errors have been studied (see details in ):

* uncertainty in the incoming neutrino energy determination resulting in an uncertainty in the reconstructed W-boson direction and, thus, leading to a poor definition of the “J” reference system in which the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization is measured;
* uncertainty in the background rate caused by possible differences between MC and data;
* dependence of the final results on the selection criteria;
* spin precession due to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ travelling through the magnetic field of the detector.

We summarize the results of this study for the full $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample in Table 2. The maximal deviation with respect to the reference result is used as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. The overall systematic errors are obtained by adding all the contributions in quadrature111Neglecting possible correlations between variations of selection criteria and resulting background uncertainties.. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ analysis the statistical errors are larger than the systematic errors.

## 5  Discussion

In our previous publication  we have reported the measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\nu _\mu \mathrm{CC}`$ DIS obtained from a sample of 8087 identified $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}`$ decays. Let us first briefly recall these results.

For the longitudinal polarization we have found:

* in the target fragmentation region $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.21\pm 0.04\text{(stat)}\pm 0.02\text{(syst)}`$.
This result is in qualitative agreement with the predictions of the model of negatively polarized $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs in the nucleon .
* in the current fragmentation region $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.09\pm 0.06\text{(stat)}\pm 0.03\text{(syst)}`$.
This result provides a measure of the spin transfer coefficient $`C_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see Eq. (2)).

A significant transverse polarization $`P_y^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.22\pm 0.03\text{(stat)}\pm 0.01\text{(syst)}`$ has also been observed. Its dependence on the transverse momentum of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to the hadronic jet direction is in qualitative agreement with the well established behaviour observed in unpolarized hadron-hadron experiments .

As shown in Table 1, the observed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization vector for the full data sample is consistent with zero. If we split the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample into subsamples with $`x_F>0`$ and $`x_F<0`$, we still find results consistent with zero. However, a negative value of $`P_x^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(x_F>0)`$, if confirmed, would disagree with the expectations based on calculations  performed in the framework of the naive quark model, as well as of the Burkardt-Jaffe  and the Bigi-Gustafson-Häkkinen models . Similarly, a positive value of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ longitudinal polarization at $`x_F<0`$, if confirmed, would not be consistent with naive expectations in the framework of the model of negatively polarized $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs in the nucleon .

No significant transverse polarization has been found for the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample.

As a cross-check we have measured the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) transverse polarization using a modification of a bias cancelling technique adopted in hadron experiments . We exploit the left-right symmetry of our detector with respect to neutrino beam axis, and separately measure the distributions of Eq. (5) for events with primary vertex on the left (L) or on the right (R) of this axis, replacing $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _y`$ by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _y`$ for the right half of the detector:

$`L`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dN_L}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _y}}=A_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)(1+\alpha P_y\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)`$ (6)
$`R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dN_R}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _y}}=A_R(\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)(1\alpha P_y\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)`$ (7)
Using the fact that $`A_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)=A_R(\mathrm{cos}\theta _y)`$, we define an asymmetry

$$ϵ=\frac{LR}{L+R}=\alpha P_y\mathrm{cos}\theta _y$$

which does not depend on the detector acceptance. By fitting $`ϵ`$ to a straight line in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _y`$ we extract the transverse polarization $`P_y`$.

All the measurements of the transverse polarization performed with this method are in a good agreement with the results obtained using our standard method for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$  and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (Table 1) samples.

## 6 Conclusion

The results of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization measurements in $`\nu _\mu `$ CC DIS in the NOMAD experiment have been presented. A clean $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample has been selected on the basis of kinematic fits performed on $`V^0`$-like decays. The method used to extract the three components of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization vector accounts for the smearing of the angular variables. While the statistics of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ sample is limited to 649 events, the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization has been measured for the first time in a neutrino experiment. The results for the three components of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization vector as measured in the “J” reference system are compatible with zero: $`P_x=0.07\pm 0.12\text{(stat)}\pm 0.09\text{(syst)}`$, $`P_y=0.09\pm 0.13\text{(stat)}\pm 0.10\text{(syst)}`$, $`P_z=0.10\pm 0.13\text{(stat)}\pm 0.07\text{(syst)}`$. In addition no evidence for the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization is found either in the current or in the target fragmentation regions.

More precise measurements of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization in (anti)neutrino interactions could help in clarifying the fragmentation and spin transfer mechanisms of quarks and (anti)quarks into a bound system of antiquarks. Improved experimental results on the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarization in $`\nu `$($`\overline{\nu }`$) DIS will be hard to obtain before more intense neutrino beams  become available.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the CERN SPS accelerator and beam-line staff for the magnificent performance of the neutrino beam. The experiment was supported by the following funding agencies: Australian Research Council (ARC) and Department of Industry, Science, and Resources (DISR), Australia; Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et Physique des Particules (IN2P3), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA), France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, contract 05 6DO52), Germany; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique, Switzerland; Department of Energy, National Science Foundation (grant PHY-9526278), the Sloan and the Cottrell Foundations, USA.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the minimal Standard Model with one Higgs doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^0)`$ and 3 lepton doublets $`L=(\nu ,l)_L`$ and singlets $`l_R`$ only, neutrino mass must come from the effective dimension-5 operator

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}LL\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\nu \varphi ^0l\varphi ^+)^2,$$
(1)
which shows that the form of $`m_\nu `$ must necessarily be “seesaw”, i.e. $`v^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`v=\varphi ^0`$, whatever the underlying mechanism for neutrino mass is.

The canonical seesaw mechanism  assumes 3 heavy right-handed singlet lepton fields $`N_R`$ with the Yukawa couplings $`fLN\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the Majorana mass $`m_N`$, hence Eq.(1) is realized with the famous expression

$$m_\nu =\frac{f^2v^2}{m_N}.$$
(2)
Note that lepton number is violated by $`m_N`$ in the denominator and it should be large for a small neutrino mass, i.e.

$$m_\nu \left(\frac{f}{1.0}\right)^2\left(\frac{10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}}{m_N}\right)\mathrm{eV}.$$
(3)
## 2 Higgs Triplet Model

An equally satisfactory realization of Eq.(1) is to use a Higgs triplet  $`\xi =(\xi ^{++},\xi ^+,\xi ^0)`$ with

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ij}[\xi ^0\nu _i\nu _j+\xi ^+(\nu _il_j+l_i\nu _j)/\sqrt{2}+\xi ^{++}l_il_j]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\mu (\overline{\xi }^0\varphi ^0\varphi ^0\sqrt{2}\xi ^{}\varphi ^+\varphi ^0+\xi ^{}\varphi ^+\varphi ^+)+h.c.`$
Instead of having a negative $`m_\xi ^2`$, make it positive and large, i.e. $`m_\xi >>v`$. We then find

$$m_\nu =\frac{2f_{ij}\mu v^2}{m_\xi ^2}=2f_{ij}\xi ^0.$$
(5)
Note that the effective operator of Eq.(1) is realized here with a simple rearrangement of the individual terms, i.e.

$$L_iL_j\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _i\nu _j\varphi ^0\varphi ^0(\nu _il_j+l_i\nu _j)\varphi ^+\varphi ^0+l_il_j\varphi ^+\varphi ^+.$$
(6)
Note also that lepton number is violated in the numerator in this case. If $`f_{ij}1`$, then $`\mu /m_\xi ^2<10^{13}`$ GeV-1. Hence $`m_\xi 1`$ TeV is possible, if $`\mu <100`$ eV. To obtain such a small mass parameter, the “shining” mechanism of extra large dimensions  may be used.  Let $`\chi `$ be a singlet scalar in the bulk carrying lepton number $`L=2`$, then

$$\chi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n2}{2})}{4\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}}}M_{}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_P}\right)^{2\frac{4}{n}}.$$
(7)
For $`n=3`$, $`M_{}1`$ TeV, $`M_P=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, $`\chi 4.4`$ eV. Therefore, if we replace $`\mu `$ by $`h\chi `$, the intriguing possibility of having $`m_\xi 1`$ TeV is realized. In particular, the doubly charged $`\xi ^{\pm \pm }`$ can be easily produced at colliders and $`\xi ^{++}l_i^+l_j^+`$ is a distinct and backgroundless decay which maps out $`|f_{ij}|`$, and thus determine directly the neutrino mass matrix up to an overall scale.

## 3 Leptonic Higgs Doublet Model

Another simple and interesting way to have the origin of neutrino mass at the TeV scale has just been proposed.  As in the canonical seesaw model, we have again 3 $`N_R`$’s but they are now assigned $`L=0`$ instead of the customary $`L=1`$. Hence the Majorana mass terms are allowed but the usual $`LN\mathrm{\Phi }`$ terms are forbidden by lepton-number conservation. The $`LL\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ operator of Eq.(1) is not possible and $`m_\nu =0`$ at this point.

We now add a new scalar doublet $`\eta =(\eta ^+,\eta ^0)`$ with $`L=1`$, then $`fLN\eta `$ is allowed, and the operator $`LL\eta \eta `$ will generate a nonzero neutrino mass if $`\eta ^00`$. The trick now is to show how $`f\eta ^0<1`$ MeV can be obtained naturally, so that $`m_N1`$ TeV becomes possible and amenable to experimental verification, in contrast to the very heavy $`N_R`$’s of the canonical seesaw mechanism.

Consider the following Higgs potential:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+m_2^2\eta ^{}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _2(\eta ^{}\eta )^2`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })(\eta ^{}\eta )+\lambda _4(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\eta )(\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi })+\mu _{12}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\eta +\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }),`$
where the $`\mu _{12}^2`$ term breaks lepton number softly and is the only possible such term. Let $`\varphi ^0=v`$, $`\eta ^0=u`$, then the equations of constraint for the minimum of $`V`$ are given by

$`v[m_1^2+\lambda _1v^2+(\lambda _3+\lambda _4)u^2]+\mu _{12}^2u=0,`$ (9)
$`u[m_2^2+\lambda _2u^2+(\lambda _3+\lambda _4)v^2]+\mu _{12}^2v=0.`$ (10)
Consider the case $`m_1^2<0`$, $`m_2^2>0`$, and $`|\mu _{12}^2|<<m_2^2`$, then

$$v^2\frac{m_1^2}{\lambda _1},u\frac{\mu _{12}^2v}{m_2^2+(\lambda _3+\lambda _4)v^2}.$$
(11)
Hence $`u`$ may be very small compared to $`v`$(= 174 GeV). For example, if $`m_21`$ TeV, $`|\mu _{12}^2|10`$ GeV2, then $`u1`$ MeV and

$$m_\nu \left(\frac{f}{1.0}\right)^2\left(\frac{1\mathrm{TeV}}{m_N}\right)\mathrm{eV}.$$
(12)
Since both $`m_N`$ and $`m_2`$ are now of order 1 TeV, they may be produced at future colliders and be detected. (I) If $`m_2>m_N`$, then the physical charged Higgs boson $`h^+`$, which is mostly $`\eta ^+`$, will decay into $`N`$, which then decays into a charged lepton and a $`W`$ boson via $`\nu N`$ miixing:

$$h^+l_i^+N_j,N_jl_k^\pm W^{}.$$
(13)
(II) If $`m_N>m_2`$, then

$$N_il_j^\pm h^{},h^+t\overline{b},$$
(14)
the latter coming from $`\mathrm{\Phi }\eta `$ mixing. In either case, $`m_2`$ and $`m_N`$ can be determined kinematically, and $`|f_{ij}|`$ measured up to an overall scale.

In summary, the particle spectrum of the leptonic Higgs doublet model consists of the usual Standard-Model particles, including the one physical Higgs boson $`h_1^0`$, 3 heavy $`N_R`$’s at the TeV scale, and a heavy scalar doublet $`(h^\pm ,h_2^0,A)`$ of individual masses $`m_2`$. The charged Higgs boson $`h^\pm `$ can be pair-produced at hadron colliders, whereas $`N_R`$ ($`h^\pm `$) can be produced at lepton colliders via the exchange of $`h^\pm `$ ($`N_R`$).

## 4 The Size of Lepton Number Violation

It has been shown in the above that whereas Majorana neutrino masses have to be tiny, the actual magnitude of lepton number violation may come in all sizes.

(1) Large: $`m_N10^{13}`$ GeV in the canonical seesaw mechanism.

(2) Medium: $`|\mu _{12}^2|10`$ GeV2 in the leptonic Higgs doublet model with $`m_N1`$ TeV.

(3) Small: $`\lambda _0\chi 10`$ eV in the Higgs triplet model ($`m_\xi 1`$ TeV) with a singlet bulk scalar in extra large dimensions.

In (2) and (3), direct experimental determination of the relative magnitudes of the elements of $`_\nu `$ is possible at future colliders.

## 5 Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

The recent measurement  of the muon anomalous magnetic moment appears to disagree with the Standard-Model prediction  by 2.6$`\sigma `$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}>215\times 10^{11}$$
(15)
at 90% confidence level. The origin of this discrepancy may be directly related to the TeV physics responsible for neutrino mass. In the leptonic Higgs doublet model, this has the following consequences.

Assume all $`m_N`$’s are equal with its Yukawa coupling matrix given by

$$h_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2ch_1& \sqrt{2}sh_1& \sqrt{2}sh_1\\ 2sh_2& \sqrt{2}ch_2& \sqrt{2}ch_2\\ 0& \sqrt{2}h_3& \sqrt{2}h_3\end{array}\right],$$
(16)
with $`h_1h_2h_3`$ and $`s=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, we then find

$$m_\eta <371\sqrt{\alpha _h}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(17)
where $`h_1h_2h_3`$ has been assumed. In other words, the neutrino mass matrix has nearly degenerate mass eigenvalues. If not, then satisfying Eq. (15) would be in conflict with the experimental upper limit on the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ branching fraction. As it is, we also have the interesting prediction of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )}{m_\mu ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`2s^2c^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{sol}^2:2s^2c^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{sol}^2:(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{atm}^2`$
In Fig. (1), the branching fractions of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$, and the $`\mu e`$ conversion ratio in $`{}_{}{}^{13}Al`$ are plotted using the lower bound of Eq. (15), as a function of the common neutrino mass $`m_\nu `$. Using Eq. (16), the values

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{atm}=3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{sol}=3\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(19)
have been chosen according to present data from neutrino-oscillation experiments. At $`m_\nu 0.2`$ eV, which is in the range of present upper limits on $`m_\nu `$ from neutrinoless double beta decay, $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`R_{\mu e}`$ are both at their present experimental upper limits. Hence Eq. (18) will be tested in new experiments planned for the near future which will lower these upper limits.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Milla Baldo Ceolin and the other organizers of the 9th International Workshop on “Neutrino Telescopes” for their great hospitality and a stimulating conference. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The ATLAS pixel detector? consists of three barrel layers and three forward and backward disks. The detector covers the pseudo-rapidity region $`|\eta |<2.5`$ and provides at least three space point measurements. The signal from the digitalization electronics of the pixel detector is converted into an optical signal using a Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL)? and is transmitted to the counting room via a fibre. The 40-MHz beam crossing clock, encoded with the command signal, from the counting room, is transmitted to a PIN diode? via a fibre. The VSCEL and PIN couple to the two fibres inside an optical package located in close proximity to the pixel detector. In this paper, we describe the performance of a more complicated package which contains two VSCELs and one PIN diode. The simpler version with no redundancy is adopted by the ATLAS pixel collaboration due to the severe space constraints around the pixel detector region.

## 2 Optical Package Design

The main technical challenge in the fabrication of the package is the tight alignment tolerance of the VCSEL with respect to the fibre:

$``$ 50 $`\mu `$m in $`z`$ (along the fibre)

$``$ 25 $`\mu `$m in $`r`$ (transverse to the fibre)

The requirements can be satisfied either by passive or active alignment. For the former, parts must be fabricated or placed with high precision ($`10\mu `$m) so that total precision is still within the tolerance.

There are currently three designs for the optical package: Marconi, Ohio State University (OSU), and Academia Sinica (Taiwan). Both Marconi and OSU use passive alignment while Taiwan uses active alignment. The Marconi design consists of several pieces and uses aluminized mirrors to reflect the light by 450. The Taiwan design consists of three pieces and replaces the mirrors by cleaving the fibers at 450. Each fiber is actively aligned and glued permanently to the package. The package is of low cost but the permanent attachment of the fibers to the package presents a technical challenge to the assembly of the pixel detector.

The OSU design uses a connector concept: a cap with three holes for the fibres and a base with deposited wire bonding traces and pads for PIN and VCSEL placement. The design is shown in Fig. 2. The package is of low cost and the cap with the fibers attached can be mounted to the base near the end of the pixel detector assembly.

In the OSU design, precise alignment of the fibres to the VCSELs is achieved by fabricating the bases and caps with high precision and by the accurate placement of the VCSELs and fibres relative to the base and cap, respectively. The precision dice placement is realized using a jig with precisely machined pockets for the base, VCSELs and PIN. The accurate placement of the fibres in the cap is achieved by precise machining of the holes in the injection mold used to fabricate the cap (see below).

## 3 Prototype Results

We have investigated several kinds of material for the fabrication of the package. The first material tested was aluminum silicate, a machinable ceramic. We then decided to switch to macor because of its smaller grain size, which was better in reproducing some of the fine features in the design. Unfortunately, the adhesion of the tiny VCSEL to the gold trace was not good because the gold surface was not smooth enough due to the roughness of the machined macor surface. We now use aluminia to fabricate the base because of its much smoother surface. To fabricate the bases, aluminia sheet is ground to the precise thickness of the bases and then cut into strips for deposition of three-dimensional traces.? Most of the deposited traces have good connectivity across the corner of the bases. Strips with a large number of traces of good connectivity were then precisely diced into individual bases.?

We have also attempted to fabricate the cap using the same materials, aluminum silicate and macor. However, it is difficult to consistently machine the cap to the desired tolerances. We now use Ultem (polyetherimide), a mold-injectable plastic with a radiation tolerance? of 10 GRad. Due to the high cost and long lead time in developing the mold injection technique for fabricating small parts with high precision, we decided to use “manual mold injection”. Here a small spring-loaded mold of 5 cm $`\times `$ 5 cm $`\times `$ 10 cm is used in a small oven as opposed to a standard mold of 30 cm $`\times `$ 30 cm $`\times `$ 30 cm placed inside an automatic mold injection machine of 1 m $`\times `$ 1 m $`\times `$ 2 m. The critical part in the mold fabrication is the precisely machined mold for the interior of the cap that goes over the base and the three precisely located holes for the placement of the three pins which produce the holes for the fibers. We have proven the principle of this precise micro-mold injection technique and can fabricate several quality caps per hour.

We have fabricated twelve optical packages. The coupled power of ten of the packages are above the specification of 300 $`\mu `$W minium power for an average current of 10 mA in the VCSEL. The caps are interchangeable, an important test of the feasibility of the connector-type design. The waveforms? in both VCSELs have fast rise time, $`<`$ 1ns. The PIN diode also has good responsivity, 0.5 A/W. The bit error rate (BER) meets the specification, $`<`$ 10-9 at 90% confidence level, for PIN current $`>`$ 60 $`\mu `$A. The cross talk between the PIN diode and the inner VCSEL can produce a data bit error and this can be measured by sending the signal from the outer VCSEL to the PIN diode while running the inner VCSEL with an asynchronous 40 MHz clock at an average current of 10 mA. There is no measured cross talk (BER $`<`$ 10-9 at 90% C.L.) between the inner VCSEL and the PIN diode for PIN current above $`20\mu `$A. The ground plane around the traces is critical in achieving this low cross talk.

## 4 Summary

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the principle of the connector-type optical package. The package can be fabricated at low cost and satisfies the minimum coupled power and low cross talk requirements.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy. The author wishes to thank K. Arms, J. Burns, H.P. Kagan, R.D. Kass, S. Smith, T. Weidberg, and R. Wells for their contributions.

References