format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments - in the treatment of EW radiative corrections at high energies have brought attention to the fact  that double-log enhancements of infrared/collinear origin are present even in inclusive observables associated to hard processes at the TeV scale. Such enhancements, involving the effective coupling $`\alpha _W\mathrm{log}^2[s/M_W^2]`$, signal the existence of a lack of compensation of the mass singularities associated with the $`M_W^2/s0`$ limit, due to the non abelian weak-isospin charge of the initial states (that is, electrons or protons) provided by the accelerator. In other words, the Bloch-Norsieck (B-N)theorem, valid for abelian theories, is here violated.

For instance, if we take the example of $`ee^+`$ annihilation into hadron jets in a Next Linear Collider (NLC), we found  that EW corrections to the total cross section at the TeV threshold are about $`5\%`$ compared to the strong corrections of $`3\%`$ and may even be larger if polarization and angular dependence are considered. The simple fact which underlies this surprising result is that the emission of a W boson by the incoming electron changes it into a neutrino whose hadron production cross section off positrons is different from the electron-positron one, and actually happens to be larger than the latter. This causes a lack of compensation with virtual corrections, and thus the double-logarithmic enhancement which turns out to be large in the TeV region. Evaluation of such effects for the next generation colliders is thus needed.

It is amusing to note that the electroweak sector of the standard model is the first instance where such non abelian effect is likely to be seen. In fact, since QCD is in a confined phase, no colored asymptotic states are allowed: as a consequence, colour averaging eliminates the double-log singularities and reduces the violation of collinear factorization to higher twist level . In the EW case, on the other hand, symmetry breaking allows the (non abelian) initial states to be prepared by electromagnetic forces, with ensuing violation of the B-N theorem and of collinear factorization theorems at leading level. We remark elsewhere  that a similar effect can occur in broken abelian theories too, due to initial state mixing allowed by symmetry breaking.

The enhancements of EW radiative corrections due to mass singularities were actually first pointed out in exclusive processes at double  and single  logarithmic level. In view of their size, resummations to all orders are available in the literature  but we feel that no well-established treatment of higher order Sudakov logarithms has emerged yet in the broken symmetry case, especially for the subleading ones. Here we stress again the point that the inclusive case is special because it does not depend on the photon effective mass, whose abelian effects cancel out by the B-N theorem. Therefore, exponentiation of leading logarithms can be established in a clearcut way .

In a previous paper  we have generalized the evaluation of the B-N violating logarithms to the case of initial gauge bosons, by limiting ourselves to transverse polarizations. Gauge bosons close to the mass shell are provided indirectly by the accelerator in the form of boson-fusion processes, whose importance increases with the available energy in comparison with annihilation type processes. We have thus provided a classification of the non canceling logs, which are roughly determined by the Sudakov form factor in the t-channel weak isospin representations occurring in the overlap matrix of the process. The latter are found from the Clebsch Gordan couplings of the t-channel isospin to the weak isospin states of the initial particles, whether doublets (for fermionic initial states) or triplets (for bosonic ones). This classification is here summarized in Sec.2.

In the present paper, we address the problem of longitudinal initial bosons which is special because the longitudinal projection (Sec.3) singles out, by the equivalence theorem , the Higgs-Goldstone boson sector, which is sensitive to symmetry breaking and in particular to the Higgs boson mass $`M_H`$.

Since we work in the limit where the hard process invariants are in fixed ratios, and $`sM_W^2`$, we are allowed in the fermionic and transverse boson cases to assume symmetry restoration for the squared matrix elements. In the longitudinal case we need more care: if $`M_HM_W`$ (as hinted at by LEP data ), then symmetry restoration is safely assumed for energies above the weak scale (Sec.4). On the other hand, if instead $`M_HM_W`$, in the energy region $`M_H\omega M_W`$ the $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ symmetry is broken by the mass terms, and in general no easy treatment is allowed. For this reason, we shall consider in detail the case of very small $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _W=g^{}/g`$, because in the $`\theta _W0`$ limit the custodial $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ symmetry plays a key role , and allows in fact a relatively simple treatment of the B-N violating double logs (Sec.5) in the energy region $`M_H\omega M_W`$ also.

Finally, we discuss in Sec. 6 the example of jet production by boson fusion, by providing both hard cross section and enhanced radiative corrections for the cases of a light or a heavy Higgs boson. A few details on the collinear cutoffs and on the symmetry breaking pattern are derived in the Appendices.

## 2 Electroweak double Logs in inclusive Processes

EW radiative corrections with leading (double-log) enhancements occur in inclusive observables because of a lack of compensation of infrared logarithms between virtual corrections and real emission. This is due in turn to the fact that initial states in a (non abelian) multiplet may change flavour during emission, and thus interaction probability. Such enhancements, therefore, have been classified  according to the weak isospin properties of the initial states (fermions or bosons) and the resulting picture is summarized here.

We consider the structure of “soft” (infrared/collinear) interactions accompanying a hard standard model process $`\{\alpha _Ip_I\}\{\alpha _Fp_F\}`$ where the $`\alpha `$’s and $`p`$’s denote collectively the flavours/colours and momenta of initial and final states. The corresponding S-matrix can be written as an operator in the soft Hilbert space $``$, that collects the states which are almost degenerate with the hard ones, and as a matrix in the hard labels, with form

$$S=𝒰_{\alpha _F\beta _F}^F(a_s,a_s^{})S_{\beta _F\beta _I}^H(p_F,p_I)𝒰_{\beta _I\alpha _I}^I(a_s,a_s^{})$$
(1)
where $`𝒰^F`$ and $`𝒰^I`$ are operator functionals of the soft emission operators $`a_s,a_s^{}`$.

An inclusive measurement on the hard process at hand involves squaring the matrix elements in (1) and summing over the degenerate set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)`$ of soft final states. In this procedure, the final state interaction operators $`𝒰^F`$ cancel out by unitarity, so that the relevant quantity is the overlap matrix (Fig. 1)

$$𝒪_{\beta _I\alpha _I}=_S0|𝒰_{\beta _I\beta _I^{}}^I(S^HS^H)_{\beta _I^{}\alpha _I^{}}𝒰_{\alpha _I^{}\alpha _I}^I|0_S$$
(2)
where $`|0_S`$ denotes the state without soft quanta, as is appropriate for the initial state. It is also convenient to define the hard (tree-level) overlap matrix $`𝒪^H=S^HS^H`$, which corresponds to eq. (2) if soft radiative corrections are turned off.

Note that physical cross sections of initial particles which are eigenstates of flavours (weak isospin, charge, etc…) involve diagonal overlap matrix elements only. However, off diagonal elements ($`\beta _I\alpha _I`$) are also relevant in the case of mixing (as for the $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ mass eigenstates) and in order to describe radiative corrections. For this reason we consider a general label assignment in eq. (2).

The factorization of soft operators assumed in eqs. (1) and (2) is typical of a double log treatment, in which collinear singularities are considered in the soft limit, and makes it clear that the B-N violating double logs are due to the initial state interaction. Generalization to subleading EW logarithms requires instead a critical revision of the collinear factorization statements which are valid for QCD.

In order to explicitly evaluate the inclusive double logs, we have used  the method of asymptotic dynamics  which builds up the $`𝒰`$-operators in (1) in terms of an effective large-time Hamiltonian, that is constructed in turn by an iterative method to all orders in the gauge couplings. At leading double log level, and in the high energy limit $`sM_W^2M_Z^2M^2`$, the key ingredient of the asymptotic Hamiltonian is the eikonal soft-boson emission current

$$J^{\mu a}(k)=g\underset{i}{}𝑻_i^a\frac{p_i^\mu }{p_ik},J^{\mu 0}(k)=g^{}\underset{i}{}y_i\frac{p_i^\mu }{p_ik}$$
(3)
which describes the emission of the gauge bosons eigenstates $`A^{\mu a},A^{\mu 0}`$ ($`a`$=1,2,3) of momentum $`k`$ off the fast charges $`p_i^\mu `$ of energy $`E_i\sqrt{s}`$ in the soft boson energy region $`\sqrt{s}\omega _kM`$.

Since we work in the high energy fixed angle limit for the hard process, we can assume that the $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ symmetry is restored in the squared matrix elements for $`\sqrt{s}M`$. Furthermore, since the inclusive double-logs induced by the e.m. charge $`Q`$ cancel out by the B-N theorem for abelian theories, there is no net effect from the energy region $`\omega _k<M`$ and we can work with only one cutoff

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_W=\theta (2pkM^2)$$
(4)
and with unmixed indices ($`a`$,0) in eq. (3).

The isospin $`𝑻^a`$ and hypercharge $`y`$ operators in eq. (3) act on the flavour indices $`\alpha _I(\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$ of the (two) initial particles, which are doubled, because of the square, in the overlap matrix $`𝒪_{\beta _1\beta _2,\alpha _1\alpha _2}`$. Because of the complex conjugation in the square, we shall normally use the representations $`𝑻(𝑻^T)`$ for doublets on the $`\alpha `$-indices and antidoublets on the $`\beta `$-indices (antidoublets on the $`\alpha `$-indices and doublets on the $`\beta `$-indices), with the identifications

$$\beta _1\beta _2|𝒪^{(s)}|\alpha _1\alpha _2=\overline{\alpha }_2\beta _2|𝒪^{(t)}|\alpha _1\overline{\beta }_1=𝒪|\overline{\beta }_1\overline{\beta }_2\alpha _1\alpha _2$$
(5)
where the bars denote the conjugate representation and the overlap matrix in the first and the second case is decomposed along the $`s`$ and $`t`$ channel flavour structure.

Restoration of gauge symmetry means that the gauge charges are conserved, i.e.,

$$𝒪(\underset{i}{}𝑻_i^a)=𝒪(\underset{i}{}y_i)=0,(sM^2)$$
(6)
and, as a consequence, the eikonal current (3) is conserved too

$$𝒪J^{\mu A}(k)k_\mu =0(A=(a,0))$$
(7)
Residual effects of symmetry breaking come, of course, from the weak scale cutoff $`M`$, and from the fact that initial particles may be mixed, being a superposition of different isospin or hypercharge eigenstates. By taking into account soft emission off the legs $`\alpha _1,\beta _1`$ (with momentum $`p_1`$) and $`\alpha _2,\beta _2`$ (with momentum $`p_2`$) the eikonal current for the overlap matrix becomes, by the gauge charge conservation (6):

$$J^{\mu a}(k)=g(\frac{p_1^\mu }{p_1k}\frac{p_2^\mu }{p_2k})𝑻_L^a,J^{\mu 0}(k)=g^{}(\frac{p_1^\mu }{p_1k}\frac{p_2^\mu }{p_2k})Y$$
(8)
where $`𝑻_L^a=𝑻_1^a+𝑻_1^{}^a`$ ($`Y=y_1+y_1^{}`$) denotes the total t-channel isospin (hypercharge).For initial states with definite hypercharge ($`y_1=y_1^{}`$ and $`y_2=y_2^{}`$) we can set $`Y=0`$. (But see sec.4 for a relevant example with $`Y0`$).

Radiative corrections to the hard overlap matrix (Fig.2) come from virtual contributions (connecting two $`\alpha `$-indices or two $`\beta `$-indices) and from real emission (connecting an $`\alpha `$-index with a $`\beta `$-index). A simple counting shows that a soft-boson loop contributes the eikonal radiation factor

$$\frac{1}{2}(J^a(k))^2=g^2\frac{p_1p_2}{(p_1k)(p_2k)}𝑻_L^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W$$
(9)
integrated over the phase space of the (on shell) soft boson.

The leading asymptotic hamiltonian is then found by defining an evolution variable which is conjugated to the asymptotic time and by slicing the $`k`$ phase space accordingly :

$$(\tau )=\frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{2\omega }\delta (\tau \tau (k))\frac{p_1p_2}{(p_1k)(p_2k)}𝑻_L^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W𝑻_L^2\dot{𝑳}_W(\tau )$$
(10)
In general, depending on the choice of $`\tau `$ whether energy  or emission angle  or $`k_T`$ variable , higher order terms in the effective Hamiltonian may be not negligible. Here we stress the point that the present problem is commutative, $`(\tau )`$ being proportional to $`𝑻_L^2`$ at all values of $`\tau `$, and thus any definition of $`\tau `$ will provide the same result, which is path ordering independent. By $`\tau `$ integration we find in fact the Sudakov factor

$$S(s,M_W^2)=Pe^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau (\tau )}}=e^{𝑳(s,M^2)𝑻_L^2}$$
(11)
where we have set $`𝑳_W𝑳(s,M^2)\frac{\alpha _W}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M^2}`$, which depends on the casimir $`𝑻_L^2`$ of the total t-channel weak isospin of the problem. Because of gauge symmetry, the hard overlap matrix $`𝒪_H`$ has the form of a sum of projectors of definite (t-channel) $`SU(2)U(1)`$ quantum numbers. It is then straightforward to find the resummed expression for $`𝒪`$:

$$𝒪_H=\underset{t_L}{}C_{t_L}P_{t_L}𝒪=e^{𝑳(s,M^2)𝑻_L^2}𝒪_H=\underset{t_L}{}C_{t_L}e^{𝑳(s,M^2)t_L(t_L+1)}P_{t_L}$$
(12)
The inclusive double logs are thus found for a generic initial state by the following steps:

* First, choose an inclusive hard process which is flavour blind (for instance $`e^{}e^+`$ hadronic jets, or flavoured jets, summed over flavour charges).
* Then, calculate the hard overlap matrix and its couplings to t-channel isospin.
* Finally, get the radiative corrections by the weights (11) on each isospin state.

We found  by this procedure the following classification.

### 2.1 Fermionic Initial States

This is the most interesting case, which includes electron, muon, and proton colliders above the TeV scale.

Since left-handed fermions have $`t_L=1/2`$, we should consider doublet scattering for both the $`ff`$ (which is equal to $`\overline{f}\overline{f}`$) and $`f\overline{f}`$ (equal to $`\overline{f}f`$) cases. Isospin and CP conservation provides the constraints

$$\sigma _{11}=\sigma _{22}=\sigma _{\overline{1}\overline{1}}=\sigma _{\overline{2}\overline{2}}\sigma _{1\overline{1}}=\sigma _{2\overline{2}}\sigma _{1\overline{2}}=\sigma _{\overline{1}2}$$
(13)
so that there are only four independent cross sections, e.g., $`\sigma _{12},\sigma _{22}`$ in the $`ff`$ case, and $`\sigma _{1\overline{2}},\sigma _{2\overline{2}}`$ in the $`f\overline{f}`$ one.

On the other hand, the t-channel states $`|\alpha _1\overline{\beta }_1`$ occurring in eq. (5) give rise to $`𝑻_L=0,1`$ for both the $`ff`$ and $`f\overline{f}`$ cases, thus providing again four independent coefficients :

$$𝒪_{ff}=C_0P_0+C_1P_1𝒪_{f\overline{f}}=\overline{C}_0\overline{P}_0+\overline{C}_1\overline{P}_1$$
(14)
Expressions for the resummed cross sections can be directly obtained by projecting eq. (12) on the subset of the states appearing in the projectors that, having $`t_L^3=0`$, correspond to physical cross sections ***The elements of the overlap matrix corrisponding to physical cross section always involve a given particle on leg 2 and its own antiparticle on leg 2’ in fig. 1, and have thus all t-channel additive quantum numbers set to 0.. There are two such states in the case at hand, providing the equations:

$$ii^{}|𝒪|t_L=0,t_L^3=0=ii^{}|𝒪^H|t_L=0,t_L^3=0ii^{}|𝒪|t_L=1,t_L^3=0=ii^{}|𝒪^H|t_L=1,t_L^3=0e^{2𝑳_W}$$
(15)
where $`i=1,2,\overline{1},\overline{2}`$ label the initial states on leg 1 and 1’ in Fig. 1. Namely, we find:

* The singlet $`𝑻_L=0`$ state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1\overline{2}+|2\overline{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11^{}+|22^{})$$
(16)
corresponding to the average cross sections

$$\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{12}+\sigma _{22}),\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{1\overline{2}}+\sigma _{2\overline{2}})$$
(17)
* The triplet $`𝑻_L=1`$ states whose $`𝑻_L^3=0`$ component is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1\overline{2}+|2\overline{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11^{}|22^{})$$
(18)
corresponding to the cross-section differences

$$\sigma _{12}\sigma _{22},\sigma _{1\overline{2}}\sigma _{2\overline{2}}$$
(19)

By eq. (15), the average cross section has no radiative corrections, while the difference is suppressed by the form factor in the adjoint representation, e.g.,

$$\sigma _{\nu e^+}\sigma _{e^{}e^+}=(\sigma _{\nu e^+}^H\sigma _{e^{}e^+}^H)e^{2𝑳_W}$$
(20)
This leads to corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{e^{}e^+}/\sigma _{e^{}e^+}^H`$ of order $`5\%`$ for $`e^{}e^+`$ annihilation into hadrons at the TeV treshold.

### 2.2 Transverse Bosons

This case is needed in order to treat boson-fusion processes, in which nearly on-shell gauge bosons are exchanged. It must be supplemented by the longitudinal case to the studied below, which is favoured at very high energies.

Since transverse bosons behave as genuine isospin triplets, it is straightforward to derive the isospin conservation constraints:

$$\sigma _{++}=\sigma _{},\sigma _{3+}=\sigma _3,\sigma _{33}=\sigma _{++}+\sigma _+\sigma _{3+}$$
(21)
so that only three independent cross sections are left

$$\sigma _\alpha =\sigma _{\alpha +}(\alpha =+,3,)$$
(22)
Correspondingly, the t-channel isospin can take the values $`𝑻_L=0,1,2`$, leading to three projectors and three independent coefficients.

The $`|\alpha _1\overline{\beta }_1`$ states diagonalizing such projectors are:

* The singlet state

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++|++|33)$$
(23)
corresponding to the cross section average $`\frac{1}{3}_\alpha \sigma _\alpha `$;
* Three $`𝑻_L=1`$ states, whose $`𝑻_L^3=0`$ component is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+|+)$$
(24)
corresponding to the difference $`\sigma _+\sigma _{}`$;
* Five $`𝑻_L=2`$ states, whose $`𝑻_L^3=0`$ component is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(|++|+2|33)$$
(25)
corresponding to the cross section combination

$$\sigma _++\sigma _{}2\sigma _3$$
(26)

Due to the weights (11), the average cross section has no radiative corrections, the difference $`\sigma _+\sigma _{}`$ is damped by the form factor in the adjoint representation $`e^{2𝑳_W}`$, much as in eq. (20), and the combination (26) is damped even more strongly, by the form factor in the $`𝑻_L=2`$ representation $`e^{6𝑳_W}`$.

## 3 Soft Emission in the longitudinal Sector and Equivalence Theorem

It is well known that, in the high energy limit longitudinal polarizations are of type $`ϵ_L^\mu p^\mu /M+O(M/E)`$, and therefore longitudinal boson amplitudes $`A_\lambda ^a`$ are related to the Goldstone bosons ones by the equivalence theorem

$$\frac{p^\lambda }{M}_\lambda ^a(p;\mathrm{})i(\phi ^a(p);\mathrm{}),p^2M^2$$
(27)
where $`a=1,2,3`$ labels the $`SU(2)_L`$ vector boson indices and the remaining momentum and flavour indices of the amplitudes have been dropped.  Strictly speaking, we should have written eq. (27) for the Z-boson instead of its $`A^3`$ component $`\frac{p^\lambda }{M_Z}_\lambda ^{Z_L}(p;\mathrm{})(\phi ^3(p);\mathrm{})`$. But using the relation $`M_Z=M_W/c_W`$ and electromagnetic current conservation provides eq. (27) close to the vector boson mass shell  Therefore, the soft emission properties of the longitudinal bosons are related to the ones of Goldstone bosons, which are coupled to the Higgs boson in the scalar sector. This shows that the dynamics of soft boson emission involves actually four real states $`(\phi ^a,h)`$ or the Higgs doublet and its conjugate. We shall see that depending on the mass parameters of the problem, the doublet/antidoublet or triplet/scalar description may be best suited, both in general being needed.

In order to better understand this point, let us consider the emission of a soft boson with isospin index $`a`$, Lorentz indices $`\mu `$, and momentum $`k`$ off an energetic vector boson ($`ϵ_\lambda (p))`$ via the three boson coupling. The amplitude (Fig.3$`a`$) is proportional to

$`ϵ_\lambda (p)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\lambda \mu \nu }(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\lambda (p)[g^{\lambda \nu }(2p+k)^\mu g^{\mu \nu }(p+2k)^\lambda `$ (28)
$``$ $`g^{\lambda \mu }(pk)^\nu ]2p^\mu ϵ^\nu (p)ϵ^\mu (p)p^\nu +O(k)`$ (29)
where use has been made of the condition $`ϵ(p)p=0`$. By taking into account the denominator and isospin factors, we then obtain a generalized eikonal emission amplitude

$$(b,ϵ(p);\mathrm{})|a,\mu ,kigϵ_{bac}\left[(c,ϵ(p+k);\mathrm{})\frac{p^\mu }{pk}\frac{M}{2pk}ϵ^\mu (p)(c,ϵ_L(p+k);\mathrm{})\right]$$
(30)
which differs from the customary one of the unbroken theories by the second term in square brackets, which is purely longitudinal. If $`ϵ(p)`$ is a transverse polarization, the second term is of order $`\frac{M}{E}`$ with respect to the first one, and is thus subleading. On the other hand, if $`ϵ(p)p/M+O(M/E)`$ is the longitudinal polarization, then the latter term cancels one half the “leading” term, and leads to a factorized eikonal emission current off longitudinal bosons:

$$(b,ϵ_L(p);\mathrm{})|a,\mu ,ki\frac{g}{2}ϵ_{bac}\left[(c,ϵ_L(p+k);\mathrm{})\frac{p^\mu }{pk}(1+0(\frac{\omega }{E}))\right]$$
(31)
Note the factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$, relative to the normal eikonal factorization theorem for transverse polarizations.

The amplitude (31) is not however, the only possible contribution to soft boson emission, which can occur via a Higgs boson also (Fig.3$`b`$). Taking into account the weak scale dependence properly, one finds again the factorized eikonal current, with a Higgs contribution on the r.h.s.:

$$(b,ϵ_L(p);\mathrm{})|a,\mu ,k\frac{g}{2}\frac{p^\mu }{pk}\left[iϵ_{bac}(c,ϵ_L(p+k);\mathrm{})i\delta _{ab}(h(p+k);\mathrm{})\right]$$
(32)
Since the Higgs boson can occur as a final state as well (Fig.3$`c`$) it is convenient to generalize eq. (32) in matrix form on the boson indices $`B=(b,0)(\phi _a,h)`$, as follows:

$$(\phi ^B(p);\mathrm{})|a,\mu ,kg\frac{p^\mu }{pk}(𝑻_L^a)_{BC}(\phi ^C(p+k);\mathrm{})$$
(33)
by thus introducing the weak isospin matrix in the $`(\phi ^a,h)`$ basis

$$𝑻_L^a=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}iϵ_{bac}& i\delta _{ab}\\ i\delta _{ac}& 0\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2}(T_V^a+T_h^a)$$
(34)
where $`(T_V^a)_{bc}=iϵ_{bac}`$ . Similarly one can define the eikonal emission current of the $`B_\mu A_\mu ^0`$ boson in the form:

$$(\phi ^B(p);\mathrm{})|0,\mu ,kg^{}\frac{p^\mu }{pk}Y_{BC}(\phi ^C(p+k);\mathrm{})$$
(35)
where

$$Y=\frac{1}{2}(T_V^3T_h^3)$$
(36)
is the hypercharge matrix in this sector. Eqs. (34) and (36) are the basis for our treatment of radiative corrections in the following.

It is important to realize that the gauge generators (34) and (36) have a simple structure within the custodial symmetry group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$  . In fact it is straightforward to check that $`T_V`$ and $`T_h`$ in eq. (34) satisfy the algebra of the $`O(4)`$ group

$$[T_V^a,T_V^b]=iϵ^{abc}T_V^c,[T_V^a,T_h^b]=iϵ^{abc}T_h^c,[T_h^a,T_h^b]=iϵ^{abc}T_V^c,$$
(37)
As a consequence, the $`SU(2)_L`$ ($`SU(2)_R`$) generators $`𝑻_L^a`$ ($`𝑻_R^a`$) are provided by

$$𝑻_L^a=\frac{1}{2}(T_V^a+T_h^a),𝑻_R^a=\frac{1}{2}(T_V^aT_h^a)$$
(38)
So that $`[𝑻_L^a,𝑻_R^b]=0`$ and $`Y=𝑻_R^3`$. In this language the basis $`(\phi ^a,h)`$ is just the $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ representation of the group $`O(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, characterized by $`𝑻_L^2=𝑻_R^2=3/4`$, and the matrices (34) and (36) refer to the 4-vector representation.

Of course, the same type of eikonal current (33) arises by direct study of the Goldstone-Higgs sector and of their couplings to soft bosons, as expected from the equivalence theorem (Fig.3$`c`$). The longitudinal projection just provided helps clarifying some aspects of the problem, in particular the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ occurring in (34), and the occurrence of four states associated with the longitudinal bosons. It is sometimes useful to arrange such four states of the $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ representation in the complex form of the doublet/antidoublet matrix

$$𝚽=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(h+i\tau _a\phi _a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\phi _0& i\phi _+\\ i\phi _{}& \phi _0^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}h+i\phi _3& \phi _2+i\phi _1\\ \phi _2+i\phi _1& hi\phi _3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{1}& 1\\ \overline{2}& 2\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
which transforms as $`𝚽U_L𝚽U_R^{}`$ under the $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ group. The indices $`1,2,\overline{1},\overline{2}`$ here refer to the transformation properties under SU(2)L.

## 4 Radiative Corrections in the light Higgs case

For Higgs bosons and vector bosons nearly degenerate, the gauge symmetry of the squared matrix elements is restored in the full high-energy region $`\omega M=M_WM_H`$ (the common weak scale), while the photon scale plays no role because of the B-N theorem for QED. Therefore, we can assume $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ symmetry for both the hard overlap matrix and for enhanced radiative corrections, as already discussed in sec.2.

Since the longitudinal bosons are related to the Higgs doublets by the equivalence theorem (sec.3), and the latter have $`t_L=1/2`$, it would seem that we are in the same case as that of fermion and antifermion doublets. However, a peculiarity of the longitudinal/Higgs sector is the fact that the physical Higgs boson is by itself a manifestation of (low-energy) symmetry breaking, being a coherent superposition (see (39))

$$|h=\frac{|\phi _0+|\phi _0^{}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{|\overline{1}+|2}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(40)
of doublet states of opposite hypercharge. Since the state (40) has no definite hypercharge, it happens that overlap matrix elements having non vanishing t-channel hypercharge $`Y=\pm 1`$ occur in physical cross sections initiated by neutral states, besides the normal ones with $`Y=0`$.

The fact above has no counterpart in the light fermion case Note however that mixing occurs in the case of transversely polarized fermions, which are indeed a superposition of states of opposite chirality, and of different gauge quantum numbers  because it is not possible to prepare a coherent superposition of a fermion and of its antifermion, due to exact fermion number conservation. On the other hand, a similar phenomenon occurs in the customary case of $`B_\mu W_\mu ^3`$ mixing yielding $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ mass eigenstates, as already discussed in ref. . In the latter case the mixing is nonabelian, involving $`t_L=1`$ and $`t_L=0`$ states, while in the Higgs case the mixing is abelian, involving $`y=\pm 1/2`$ hypercharge states. A peculiar consequence of this fact is that violation of B-N theorem can occur in broken abelian theories too .

By using the definitions (39), the gauge symmetry constraints (13) in the longitudinal /Higgs sector can be written as follows:

$$\sigma _{}=\sigma _{++},;\sigma _{+3}=\sigma _3=\sigma _{+h}=\sigma _h$$
(41)
In the purely neutral sector we find, on the other hand, the mixing phenomenon, in the form:

$`\sigma _{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{hh}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _+)+\mathrm{Re}(𝒪)`$ (42)
$`\sigma _{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{++}+\sigma _+)\mathrm{Re}(𝒪)`$
where $`𝒪𝒪(\phi _0\phi _0^{}\phi _0^{}\phi _0)`$ and its conjugate denote the $`Y=1`$ and $`Y=1`$ overlap matrix elements mentioned before.

It is then convenient to refer to a fixed target (the $`+`$ state, say) in order to enumerate the independent cross sections. Due to eqs. (41) we find at once three of them

$$\sigma _{++},\sigma _+,\sigma _{3+}$$
(43)
similarly to the transverse polarization case and in addition to the neutral overlap $`Re𝒪`$ just defined. Finally, we also need another off diagonal matrix element

$$I\mathrm{Im}𝒪_{h3}\mathrm{Im}(𝒪_{3+h+})=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{0+}\sigma _{0^{}+})$$
(44)
in order to express all possible initial state dependences. All these five quantities, except $`Re𝒪`$, have $`Y=0`$ in the t-channel.

We shall now compute the enhanced (B-N violating) radiative corrections to the observables (42) and (43). Following our method (sec.2), we have to (i) define the hard process and the inclusive (flavour blind) observable we are interested in (ii) derive the lowest order (tree level) hard overlap matrix $`𝒪_{\beta _1\beta _2,\alpha _1\alpha _2}^H`$ and (iii) derive the effective hamiltonian describing the enhanced radiative corrections, for the given initial state configuration.

Symmetry considerations restrict the hard overlap matrix, according to the possible t-channel quantum numbers whose eigenstates are constructed out of the $`|\alpha _1\overline{\beta }_1`$ states defined before. In the longitudinal/Higgs sector $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ span the four states of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation, so that the $`|\alpha _1\overline{\beta }_1`$ states can be classified as follows (see Appendix B for the explicit expressions):

* Eight ($`Y=0)`$ states, which can be grouped according to left isospin representation, and $`CP=\pm 1`$ eigenvalues. We find thus the projectors:

$$T^{CP}(m)=0^{}(1),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}^{}(3),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}^+(1);\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}^+(3),$$
(45)
corresponding to four independent coefficients, each with the multiplicity $`m`$ of states in parenthesis. Such four projectors are in close correspondence with the ones for the fermionic doublets discussed in sec 2. Note that the $`CP`$ eigenstates $`+1`$ ($`1`$) are just symmetric (antisymmetric) under doublet-antidoublet interchange.
* Four ($`Y=1)`$ and four ($`Y=1)`$ states, which are interchanged by $`CP`$ and must thus be degenerate, which can be classified according to left isospin representation:

$$T(m)=0(2),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}(6)$$
(46)
corresponding to two more independent coefficients.

Actually only five out of the overall six independent coefficients are coupled to the observables enumerated in eq. (43) and (44), (the one corresponding to $`𝑻_L=0`$ and $`Y=Q=\pm 1`$ being decoupled from physical states by the e.m. charge superselection rule).

The effective hamiltonian describing radiative corrections is found by exactly the same method as in sec 2, with the important difference that now we can have a non vanishing t-channel hypercharge, and we thus obtain

$$(\tau )=\dot{𝑳}_W(\tau )(𝑻_L^2+tg^2\theta _WY^2)$$
(47)
from which the t-channel Sudakov factors

$$S(𝑻_L,Y)=e^{𝑳_W(s,M_W^2)(𝑻_L^2+tg^2\theta _WY^2)}$$
(48)
are found for each one of the states (45) and (46).

In order to assign the Sudakov weights to the observables (41) and (44) we need to relate them to the explicit form of the states which diagonalize the projectors (45) and (46). A direct construction of them is obtained from their classification according the $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ group; this construction is explicitly worked out in Appendix B, From the direct product of two $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ representations we obtain the following representations

$$(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})=(0,0)(0,1)(1,0)(1,1)$$
(49)
which are related to those in (45) and (46) as follows:

* The state $`(0,0)`$ is the $`0^{}`$ state and corresponds to the average cross section

$$\sigma _++\sigma _{}+\sigma _0+\sigma _{\overline{0}}=\sigma _++\sigma _{}+\sigma _3+\sigma _h=\sigma _++\sigma _{}+2\sigma _3\mathrm{\Sigma }+2\sigma _3$$
(50)
where we introduce the notation $`\sigma _\alpha \sigma _{\alpha +}`$ in which the $`+`$ target is understood. The identification (50) is obtained by the explicit construction

$`|0;0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|1\overline{2}+|2\overline{1}+|\overline{1}2|\overline{2}1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|++|++|0\overline{0}+|\overline{0}0)=`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|++|++|33+|hh)`$
which has, by inspection, $`t_L=t_R=0`$, and is also antisymmetric into the doublet indices interchange $`i\overline{i}`$. Eq.(50) corresponds to the matrix element $`+|𝒪|0;0`$.
* The three states $`(0,1)`$ are split according to the hypercharge $`Y=𝑻_R^3`$ into (i) the two degenerate $`t_L=0,Y=\pm 1`$ states in (46) and (ii) the symmetric $`t_L=Y=0`$ state in (45). The latter corresponds to the combination

$$\sigma _+\sigma _{}+2\mathrm{Im}𝒪_{h3}\mathrm{\Delta }+2I,𝒪_{h3}=h+|𝒪|3+,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}^+$$
(53)
and to the state $`0^+`$, provided by

$$|0;t_R=1,Y=0=\frac{1}{2}(|1\overline{2}+|2\overline{1}|\overline{1}2+|\overline{2}1)=\frac{1}{2}(|+|++|0\overline{0}|\overline{0}0)$$
(54)
* The three states $`(1,0)`$ are the antisymmetric $`1^{}`$ states, whose $`t_L^3=0`$ term is the only one related to cross-sections, and corresponds to the combination

$$\sigma _+\sigma _{}2Im𝒪_{h3}\mathrm{\Delta }2I,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}^{}$$
(55)
and to the state

$$|1,t_L^3=0;0=\frac{1}{2}(|1\overline{2}|2\overline{1}+|\overline{1}2+|\overline{2}1)=\frac{1}{2}(|+|+|0\overline{0}+|\overline{0}0)$$
(56)
* The nine $`(1,1)`$ states are split, according to the hypercharge quantum number into (i) six degenerate $`t_L=1,Y=\pm 1`$ states occurring in (46) and (ii) three $`Y=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}^+`$ states occurring in (45), whose $`t_L^3=0`$ term corresponds to the cross section

$$\sigma _++\sigma _{}\sigma _0\sigma _{\overline{0}}=\sigma _++\sigma _{}\sigma _3\sigma _h=\sigma _++\sigma _{}2\sigma _3\mathrm{\Sigma }2\sigma _3,(1^+)$$
(57)
and to the state

$$|1,t_L^3=0;1,t_R^3=0=\frac{1}{2}(|1\overline{2}|2\overline{1}|\overline{1}2|\overline{2}1)=\frac{1}{2}(|++|+|0\overline{0}|\overline{0}0)$$
(58)
On the other hand, the state corresponding to the overlap $`𝒪(\phi _0\phi _0^{}\phi _0^{}\phi _0)`$ in the neutral sector has $`t_L^3+t_R^3=Q=0`$ and corresponds to the states $`|00`$ or $`|\overline{0}\overline{0}`$ in (45). Other states with $`Y0`$ give rise to $`Q0`$ and therefore cannot be coupled to physical cross sections.

The cross-section assignments just provided are summarized in Table 1(a,b).

We are now in a position to provide the Sudakov evolution in eq. (47) for each one of the cross section combinations just introduced. By using the relevant $`(t_L,Y)`$ assignments, we find

$`\sigma _+`$ $`+`$ $`\sigma _{}+2\sigma _3=\mathrm{\Sigma }^H+2\sigma _3^H,\sigma _h=\sigma _3`$ (59)
$`\sigma _+`$ $`+`$ $`\sigma _{}2\sigma _3=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^H2\sigma _3^H)e^{2𝑳_W},`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{}+2I=\mathrm{\Delta }^H+2I^H,`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{}2I=(\mathrm{\Delta }^H2I^H)e^{2𝑳_W},`$
$`\mathrm{Re}𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}𝒪^He^{𝑳_W(2+tg^2\theta _W)},`$
$`\sigma _{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _++\sigma _{})\mathrm{Re}𝒪,`$
$`\sigma _{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{hh}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _++\sigma _{})+\mathrm{Re}𝒪`$
from which all radiative corrections can be derived once the hard (tree level) cross sections are known.

## 5 The heavy Higgs Case and Symmetry Breaking Pattern

If the Higgs mass happens to be much larger than the vector boson mass, then in the energy region $`M_H\omega M_W`$ gauge symmetry is broken by the mass spectrum even if the overall energy of the process is $`sM_H^2`$. Therefore, if we want to keep track of the leading powers of all logarithms, whether $`\mathrm{log}[M_H^2/M_W^2]`$ or the customary ones $`\mathrm{log}[s/M_W^2]`$, we end up with a process with two mass scales, in which symmetry breaking causes a lack of conservation of the gauge current and therefore requires a more refined treatment of the B-N violation logs and of their scales.

Since we feel that despite recent efforts  the direct diagrammatic calculation of higher order Sudakov logarithms in the many scale, broken symmetry case, is not yet fully understood, we prefer to treat here the particular case $`g^{}/g0`$, in which the custodial symmetry $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ of the longitudinal/Higgs sector plays a key role, by providing a conserved current which considerably simplifies the problem. Note in fact that, at tree level and in the high energy limit $`sM_H^2M_W^2`$, the gauge symmetry is still valid and is actually extended to the full $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ group in the $`\theta _W0`$ limit. On the other hand, radiative corrections in the energy region $`M_H\omega M_W`$ break the gauge symmetry, but keep the global custodial symmetry $`SU(2)_VSU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ which then provides the conserved current we are interested in.

In order to understand this point, recall that the infrared/collinear behavior is regulated by the boson emission current (33) where the weak isospin charge is written as the sum of its vector component ($`1/2T_V^a`$) and of a Higgs contribution. In order to take into account the mass cutoffs in the denominators, we write the current in eq. (33) in the more precise form

$$J^{a\mu }(k)=g\frac{p^\mu }{pk}\frac{1}{2}(T_V^a\mathrm{\Theta }_W+T_h^a\mathrm{\Theta }_H)=g\frac{p^\mu }{pk}(𝑻_L^a\mathrm{\Theta }_H+\frac{1}{2}T_V^a\mathrm{\Theta }_W(1\mathrm{\Theta }_H))$$
(60)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_i=\theta (2pkM_i^2),i=W,H$$
(61)
denote the mass cutoffs.

It is apparent from eq. (60) that the soft boson insertion current is the full gauge current for $`2pk>M_H^2`$, while it becomes the $`SU(2)_V`$ current (with coupling $`g/2`$) in the region $`M_H^2>2pk>M_W^2`$. Since each current is conserved in the corresponding validity region, the evolution of radiative corrections follows the same pattern as that outlined in sec.2, and the evolution hamiltonian derived from the current (60) becomes

$$(\tau )=\dot{𝑳}_H(\tau )𝑻_L^2+\frac{T_V^2}{4}(\dot{𝑳}_H(\tau )\dot{𝑳}_W(\tau ))$$
(62)
where the $`\dot{𝑳}_H(\tau ),(\dot{𝑳}_H(\tau )\dot{𝑳}_W(\tau ))`$ contribution is defined with the phase space slicing in eq. (10), following the cutoff structure $`\mathrm{\Theta }_H,(\mathrm{\Theta }_H\mathrm{\Theta }_W)`$ in eq.(60). After $`\tau `$-integration, for $`E>M_H^2/M_W`$, the two exponents turn out to be (Appendix A):

$$𝑳_W=\frac{\alpha _W}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M_W^2}𝑳_H=\frac{\alpha _W}{4\pi }(\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M_W^2}2\mathrm{log}^2\frac{M_H^2}{M_W^2})𝑳_W2𝒍_h$$
(63)
Note that, since $`T_V^a=𝑻_L^a+𝑻_R^a`$, $`𝑻_L^a`$ transforms as a vector under $`T_V`$ rotations, and therefore $`𝑻_L^2`$ transforms as a scalar , i.e., it is invariant. It follows that the two terms in (62) commute between each other, and therefore $`[(\tau ),(\tau ^{})]=0`$ thus making the Sudakov exponent independent of the type of phase space slicing (whether in $`\omega `$ or in $`k_T`$). By $`\tau `$ integration we then obtain

$$S(s,M_H^2,M_W^2)=e^{𝑻_L^2𝑳_H\frac{T_V^2}{4}(𝑳_W𝑳_H)}$$
(64)
Note finally that the hamiltonian (62) commutes with $`T_V^a`$ (but not with $`𝑻_L^a`$), so that the overlap matrix radiative corrections are diagonalized by $`SU(2)_V`$, as anticipated before.

In practice, explicit projectors and cross section evolution are constructed as follows. The hard overlap matrix posseses full $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ symmetry, and therefore is classified directly according to the representation occurring in the direct product (49), corresponding to four independent coefficients. If radiative corrections are turned on, the symmetry is broken to $`SU(2)_V`$ and the corresponding states are classified according to the Casimir $`T_V^2`$. Eigenstates of $`T_V^2`$ are trivially constructed for the cases

* $`𝑻_L^2=T_V^2=0,CP=1`$
* $`𝑻_L^2=0,T_V^2=𝑻_R^2=1,CP=+1`$
* $`𝑻_L^2=T_V^2=1,CP=1`$

discussed before, because they are directly provided by eqs.(52),(54),(56), respectively.

In the case
* $`𝑻_L=𝑻_R=1`$

the degeneracy is resolved by the vector sum $`T_V^a=𝑻_L^a+𝑻_R^a`$, so that we can have $`T_V=0,1,2`$. By straightforward algebra (appendix B) we find

+ The $`𝑻_L=1,T_V=0`$ state

    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|\overline{1}\overline{1}|22{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|1\overline{2}+|2\overline{1}+|\overline{1}2+|\overline{2}1))=`$ (65)
    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(2|002|\overline{0}\overline{0}+|++|+|0\overline{0}|\overline{0}0)`$
    corresponding to the cross section combination

    $$\sigma _++\sigma _{}+\sigma _33\sigma _h$$
    (66)
    + Three $`𝑻_L=T_V=1`$ states whose $`Q=T_V^3=0`$ term is

    $`\frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}(|\overline{1}\overline{1}|22)=\frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}(|\overline{0}\overline{0}|00)`$ corresponding to an overlap of the type $`Im𝒪(\phi _0\phi _0^{}\phi _0^{}\phi _0)`$ which does not occur in physical cross sections.
    + Five $`𝑻_L=1,T_V=2`$ states, whose $`T_V^3=0`$ term is

    $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(|\overline{1}\overline{1}+|22|1\overline{2}|2\overline{1}|\overline{1}2|\overline{2}1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(|00+|\overline{0}\overline{0}+|++|+|0\overline{0}|\overline{0}0)$$

    corresponding to the cross section combination

    $$\sigma _++\sigma _{}2\sigma _3$$
    (67)

The cross-section assignments just provided are summarized in Table 1(a,c).

Correspondingly, the independent cross sections are $`\sigma _+,\sigma _{},\sigma _3,\sigma _h`$, while the neutral sector cross sections can be expressed in terms of the four preceding ones by the relationships

$`\sigma _{h3}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{h+}=\sigma _h`$ (68)
$`\sigma _{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _++\sigma _{}\sigma _3`$
$`\sigma _{hh}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _++\sigma _{}+\sigma _32\sigma _h`$
The relations on the first line of eq.(68) are the simple $`SU(2)_V`$ constraints already used in sec.2. The last one is obtained by straightforward algebra by using the eigenstate (65) on the $`𝑻_L=1,T_V=0`$ projectors (Appendix B).

The B-N violating corrections are finally found by assigning the Sudakov form factors (64) to each of the cross section combinations found before. We obtain

$`\sigma _+`$ $`+`$ $`\sigma _{}+\sigma _3+\sigma _h=\mathrm{\Sigma }^H+2\sigma _3^H,`$ (69)
$`\sigma _+`$ $`+`$ $`\sigma _{}+\sigma _33\sigma _h=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^H2\sigma _3^H)e^{2𝑳_H},`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{}+2I=(\mathrm{\Delta }^H+2I^H)e^{\frac{1}{2}(𝑳_W𝑳_H)},`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{}2I=(\mathrm{\Delta }^H2I^H)e^{2𝑳_W+\frac{3}{2}(𝑳_W𝑳_H)},`$
$`\sigma _+`$ $`+`$ $`\sigma _{}2\sigma _3=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^H2\sigma _3^H)e^{2𝑳_W+\frac{1}{2}(𝑳_W𝑳_H)}`$
from which each cross section can be derived.

## 6 Phenomenological Applications

Before applying the radiative corrections just found to some explicit phenomenological cases it is interesting to solve the systems (59) and (69), and to investigate their asymptotic limit $`𝑳_W\mathrm{}`$. In such a limit the values of the evolved cross sections - with radiative corrections - will depend only on some invariant combinations that do not evolve, i.e., are free of double-logs.

For the case with $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W0`$ and $`M_WM_H`$ we have the two “invariants”

$$\frac{\sigma _++\sigma _{}+\sigma _h+\sigma _3}{4}\mathrm{\Theta }_0;\frac{\sigma _+\sigma _{}+2I}{4}\mathrm{\Theta }_1$$
(70)
with the constraint $`\sigma _h=\sigma _3`$. The first one corresponds to the cross-section average over the four Goldstone/Higgs states, and the second is the difference between the doublet and antidoublet averages. As a consequence, all cross sections converge to a combination of such two invariants:

$`\sigma _\pm `$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H\pm \mathrm{\Theta }_1^H)`$ (71)
$`\sigma _3,\sigma _{33}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H`$
$`I`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1^H`$
$`\mathrm{Re}𝒪`$ $``$ $`0`$
where the superscript $`H`$ means that the invariants are evaluated at Born level.

For the case with $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W=0`$ and $`M_WM_H`$ we also have the same two “invariants”, but now we find an extra $`M_H`$ dependence in the limit $`𝑳_W\mathrm{}`$ §§§ We stress that the limit that we are taking is $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{}`$ with $`M_H,M_W`$ fixed. In such a case the combination $`𝑳_H𝑳_W=2\frac{\alpha _W}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}^2[M_H^2/M_W^2]2𝒍_h`$ is finite. :

$`\sigma _\pm `$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H\pm e^{𝒍_h}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^H)`$ (72)
$`\sigma _3,\sigma _{33}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H`$
$`I`$ $``$ $`e^{𝒍_h}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^H`$
Therefore, in the extra limit $`M_HM_W`$ all the physical cross sections would converge to the invariant $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H`$, i.e., the average over all states.

The evaluation of the ratios $`\sigma _{ij}/\mathrm{\Theta }_i^H`$ give very easily an idea of the strength of the evolution of the cross section $`\sigma _{ij}`$ under investigation. For instance, the cross section $`\sigma _{33}`$ is of interest, because it can be identified in an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider by a double tagged experiment where the two final electrons both have transverse momenta $`|𝒌_{}|^2>M^2`$. By eq. (59) it has the expression

$$\sigma _{33}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{\Sigma }^H+2\sigma _{3+}^H+e^{2𝑳_W}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^H2\sigma _{3+}^H)+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}𝒪^He^{𝑳_W(2+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W)}]$$
(73)
in the case $`M_HM`$, and an analogous one in the case $`M_HM`$. The limit $`\sigma _{33}\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H`$ is obvious at large energies, while the full behavior depends on the explicit values of the Born cross sections.

Now let us discuss the example of $`W_LW_L`$ hadronic jets. This cross section is relevant to describe hadron jet production at NLC by boson fusion, a process which becomes competitive with the annihilation process at high energies.

The Born cross sections for $`W_LW_Lq\overline{q}`$ are well known :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{++}^H}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{33}^H}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=0`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{3+}^H}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dI^H}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _W^2N_cN_f}{8s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{8}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _+^H}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _W^2N_cN_f}{8s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (918\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+20\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W)}{72\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W}}`$
The corresponding evolution, e.g., for $`\sigma _{33}`$ in the case $`M_HM`$ becomes, by eq. (73)

$$\sigma _{33}=\frac{1}{4}[\sigma _+^H+2\sigma _{3+}+e^{2𝑳_W}(\sigma _+^H2\sigma _{3+}^H)2\sigma _+^He^{𝑳_W(2+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W)}]\frac{1}{4}[\sigma _+^H+2\sigma _{3+}+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\sigma _+^H]2𝑳_W$$
(75)
In this case $`\sigma _{33}`$ becomes nonvanishing for $`s>M^2`$ because of radiative corrections, and $`\frac{\delta \sigma _{33}}{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H}2𝑳_W`$ is roughly of the order 10 % at the TeV threshold. This provides an estimate of the double logs, which are therefore of the same order as for fermions and transverse bosons initial states.

In Fig.4 we plot the ratios $`\sigma _{ij}/\mathrm{\Theta }_0^H`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W0,M_HM_W,\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$) over a huge energy range to show the “convergence speed” of the evolved cross sections.

In Fig.5 to the left we plot the same ratios as before but with three different $`M_H=100,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}500},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1000}`$ GeV cases ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W=0,M_H>M_W,\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$). To the right we plot the ratio between a cross section calculated with $`M_H=100`$ GeV over the same cross section calculated with $`M_H=1000`$ GeV to show the Higgs mass dependence as a function of the energy. This figure appears interesting from the Higgs physics point of view: while the hard $`WW\overline{f}f`$ cross section is independent of the Higgs mass at high energies, the evolved ones instead show a pronounced effect coming from the exponential $`e^{𝒍_H}`$ which tends to depress the corrections. This means that also completely inclusive cross sections not involving explicit Higgs production show enhanced Higgs mass dependence in their radiative corrections. Obviously, before bringing this simple example into the realm of phenomenology it needs many other inputs like luminosities of the longitudinal bosons, backgrounds etc. In any case we think that this extreme example can be useful to show the potential importance of this kind of “new Standard Model effects” related to the measure of inclusive cross sections at very high energy.

## 7 Conclusions

Our study of the longitudinal initial states occuring in boson fusion processes has shown that, in this case, enhanced radiative corrections have a number of interesting and sometimes surprising features.

First of all, soft interactions involve all four states of the Higgs sector, and this makes the group-theoretical classification of the corrections somewhat more involved than in previously analyzed cases (Sec. 2). We have provided here (Table 1) the combinations of cross sections with well defined form factors, for both $`M_HM_W`$ and $`M_HM_W`$, and we have studied their radiative evolution.

Secondly, we find important abelian double logs , due to the breaking of weak hypercharge, besides the nonabelian ones. This is surprising at first sight, and is due to the occurence of off-diagonal overlap matrix elements, corresponding to a nontrivial hypercharge in the t-channel (eq. (59)). In turn, this happens because the longitudinal and Higgs states are mixed, i.e., are not hypercharge eigenstates.

Finally, the quantitative effects are sizeable, in the 5-10 % range at the TeV threshold as for the fermionic and transverse bosons initial states investigated previously. Furthermore, because of the enhanced radiative corrections, the Higgs mass dependence is not negligible (Fig. 5) even for processes without Higgs bosons in the final states, that are therefore insensitive to the Higgs mass at tree level.

On the whole, we have now provided a fairly complete description of the enhanced EW corrections for fermionic and bosonic initial states, which can now be used for detailed predictions of hard inclusive observables, at the double log level, at future accelerators energies. Of course, this is not enough: we actually need a generalization of collinear factorization to broken gauge theories, in order to account for single logarithms as well.

## 8 Appendix A: Soft Radiation Coefficients

Here we derive the expansions of the evolution coefficients $`\dot{𝑳}_W,\dot{𝑳}_H`$ and of their $`\tau `$integrals for the explicit choice $`\tau =\omega `$ and $`\tau =k_T`$ of the evolution variable.

We start considering the effect of the collinear cutoff

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_H=\mathrm{\Theta }(2pkM_H^2)$$
(76)
on one of the incoming momenta (either $`p=p_1`$ or $`p=p_2`$), and the corresponding calculation of the evolution hamiltonian in eq.(10).

By taking either $`\omega `$ or $`k_T`$ fixed the constraint (76) is written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}Max(M,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{M}}}M_H)<\theta <1,(\tau =\omega )`$ (77)
$`k_T<\omega <Min({\displaystyle \frac{k_T^2\sqrt{s}}{M_H^2}},\sqrt{s}),(\tau =k_T)`$ (78)
By then integrating the eikonal radiator factor in eq.(10) over the region (77) we obtain ($`E\sqrt{s}`$)

$$\frac{\pi \tau }{\alpha _W}\dot{𝑳}_H=2\mathrm{log}\frac{\omega }{M}\mathrm{\Theta }(EM^2M_H^2\omega )+2\mathrm{log}\frac{\omega E}{M_H^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega M_H^2M^2E\omega )$$
(79)
for $`M<\tau =\omega <E`$, and

$$\frac{\pi \tau }{\alpha _W}\dot{𝑳}_H=2\mathrm{log}\frac{E}{k_T}\mathrm{\Theta }(k_TM_H)+2\mathrm{log}\frac{k_TE}{M_H^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(M_Hk_T)$$
(80)
for $`M<\tau =k_T<E,E>M_H^2/M`$, while $`\dot{𝑳}_W`$ is given by the same expressions in the $`M_H=M`$ limit.

Finally, by $`\tau `$integration, we obtain in both cases

$$𝑳_H=\frac{\alpha _W}{\pi }\left(log^2\frac{E}{M}2log^2\frac{M_H}{M}\right),E>\frac{M_H^2}{M}$$
(81)
which corresponds to eq. (62) in the text. In the intermediate energy region $`M_H<E<M_H^2/M`$ we get instead

$$𝑳_H=2\frac{\alpha _W}{\pi }log^2\frac{E}{M_H},M_H<E<\frac{M_H^2}{M}$$
(82)
as expected for a smooth $`E=M_H`$ limit.

## 9 Appendix B

The overlap matrix can always be written as a sum of projectors $`𝒪=C_iP_i`$. While the coefficients $`C_i`$ depend on the dynamics and therefore on the physical process considered, the projectors $`P_i`$ can be classified and explicitly constructed according to the relevant symmetry. We choose to classify the states according to their $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ symmetry properties. This symmetry acts on the representation $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ as follows:

$$\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{1}& 1\\ \overline{2}& 2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha _L^a\tau ^a]\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha _R^b\tau ^b]$$
(83)
so that using the basis $`|t_L,t_L^3;t_R,t_R^3`$ we can do the following identification:

$$|1=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}|2=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}|\overline{1}=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}|\overline{2}=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}$$
(84)
Then the states coming from the direct sum $`T_L=t_L^1+t_L^1^{}`$ and $`T_R=t_R^1+t_R^1^{}`$ generate the representations $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})=(0,0)+(1,0)+(0,1)+(1,1)`$ that we label as $`|T_L,T_L^3;T_R,T_R^3`$. Explicitly, the states with $`(T_L,T_R)=(1,1)`$ are given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|1,1;1,1=|\overline{2}\overline{2}\hfill & |1,1;1,0=\frac{|2\overline{2}+|\overline{2}2}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & |1,1;1,1=|22\hfill \\ |1,1;1,1=|\overline{1}\overline{1}\hfill & |1,1;1,0=\frac{|1\overline{1}+|\overline{1}1}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & |1,1;1,1=|11\hfill \\ |1,0;1,1=\frac{|\overline{1}\overline{2}+|\overline{2}\overline{1}}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & |1,0;1,0=\frac{|1\overline{2}+|\overline{1}2+|2\overline{1}+|\overline{2}1}{2}\hfill & |1,0;1,1=\frac{|12+|21}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(85)
The states $`(T_L,T_R)=(1,0)`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|1,1;0,0=\frac{|2\overline{2}|\overline{2}2}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & |1,0;0,0=\frac{|1\overline{2}|\overline{1}2+|2\overline{1}|\overline{2}1}{2}\hfill & |1,1;0,0=\frac{|1\overline{1}|\overline{1}1}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(86)
while those $`(T_L,T_R)=(0,1)`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|0,0;1,1=\frac{|1\overline{2}|\overline{2}1}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & |0,0;1,0=\frac{|1\overline{2}+|\overline{1}2|2\overline{1}|\overline{2}1}{2}\hfill & |0,0;1,1=\frac{|12|21}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(87)
Finally, the singlet $`(T_L,T_R)=(0,0)`$ is:

$$|0,0;0,0=\frac{|1\overline{2}|\overline{1}2|2\overline{1}+|\overline{2}1}{2}$$
(88)
In the $`M_HM_W`$ case, the gauge symmetry $`SU(2)U(1)`$ is the relevant one, and we can classify the states according to the $`(T_L,T_R^3=Y)`$ possible values; however this does not provide a complete classification of the states since $`U(1)_Y`$ is an abelian symmetry. For instance, we have two states corresponding to $`T_L=0,Y=0`$; one of them ($`|0,0;0,0`$ in eq. (88)) is CP-odd while the other ($`|0,0;1,0`$ in (87)) is CP-even. We can then use CP invariance to further classify the states, obtaining:

Eight ($`Y=0`$) states, whose multiplicity $`m`$ is written in parenthesis:

$$|T_L,Y^2^{CP}(m)=|0,0^{}(1),|0,0^+(1),|1,0^{}(3),|1,0^+(3)$$
(89)
Four ($`Y=1)`$ and four ($`Y=1)`$ states, which are interchanged by $`CP`$ and must thus be degenerate:

$$|T_L,Y^2(m)=|0,1(2),|1,1(6)$$
(90)
We have then 6 independent projectors, classified by their $`SU(2)U(1)`$ and CP properties; 4 of them correspond to $`Y^2=0`$ and are given in (89) and the remaining 2 with $`Y^2=1`$ are given in (90). The subset of states corresponding to physical cross sections (with $`T_L^3=Y=0`$) can be written in terms of the ones appearing in (85-88) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|T_L=0,T_L^3=T_R^3=0^+=|0,0;1,0\hfill & |T_L=0,T_L^3=T_R^3=0^{}=|0,0;0,0\hfill \\ |T_L=1,T_L^3=T_R^3=0^+=|1,0;1,0\hfill & |T_L=1,T_L^3=T_R^3=0^{}=|1,0;0,0\hfill \end{array}$$
(91)
Because of the mixing phenomenon in the neutral sector (see text), we also need the subset of (90) with $`Q=T_L^3+T_R^3=0`$ but $`Y=T_R^30`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|T_L=1,T_L^3=1,T_R^3=1=|1,1;1,1\hfill & |T_L=1,T_L^31,=T_R^3=1=|1,1;1,1\hfill \end{array}$$
(92)
In the $`M_HM_W`$ case we need classify the states according to their $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ properties and their vectorial isospin $`𝑻_V=𝑻_L+𝑻_R`$. Writing them as $`|T_L,T_R;T_V`$ we have then the possibilities:

$$|0,0;0|0,1;1|1,0;1|1,1;0|1,1;1|1,1;2$$
(93)
The first three of them are given directly by eqs. (88,87,86), the states with $`T_L^3=T_R^3=0`$ corresponding to physical cross sections. The remaining three can be found by using the usual rules of isospin composition. It is relatively easy to find the states with $`Q=T_L^3+T_R^3=0`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|1,1;0\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|1,0;1,0+|1,1;1,1+|1,1;1,1)\hfill & |1,1;1\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,1;1,1|1,1;1,1)\hfill \\ |1,1;2\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2|1,0;1,0+|1,1;1,1+|1,1;1,1)\hfill & \end{array}$$
(94)


text:
# Finite temperature dynamic susceptibility of the free Bose gas

## Abstract

A detailed calculation of the real part of the finite temperature dynamic susceptibility of the free Bose gas is presented. After a short discussion on the different ways in which it can be calculated for temperatures above and below the Bose–Einstein transition temperature, its main properties and its evolution with $`q`$ and $`T`$ are analyzed. Finally, expressions for the lowest order energy weighted sum rules are also derived and studied.
PACS: 05.30.Fk, 61.12.Bt
KEYWORDS: Dynamic susceptibility, free Bose gas.

The clear resolution of Bose–Einstein condensates in clouds of Alkali atoms at ultralow temperatures has revived the interest in the study of free and weakly interacting, homogeneous and inhomogeneous Bose systems during the last years . Recent experimental evidence  indicates that Bragg scattering can be succesfully applied to measure the dynamic structure function $`S(q,\omega )`$ of trapped Bose–Einstein condensates, and hence to directly probe their momentum distribution .

During the last thirty years, much experimental and theoretical efforts have also been devoted towards the resolution of the condensate from neutron scattering in other, more correlated systems like pure 4He and 3He–4He mixtures. However, none of the available formalisms have been able to accurately describe the influence of the temperature on the response, and particularly its influence on the condensate fraction, both at low and high momentum transfer .

In dilute systems, like the Bose–Einstein condensates of trapped alkali atoms, correlations are so weak that the response is expected to be qualitatively well described, at least at low momentum transfer, starting from the response of a free system and introducing the effect of the correlations through the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). In a previous work , a detailed description of the finite temperature dynamic structure function of the free Bose gas has been presented and discussed, focusing particularly on how $`q`$ and $`T`$ affect the total response and its coherent and incoherent parts. In this work we extend the analysis to the real part of the dynamic susceptibility $`\chi (q,\omega ;T)`$, which is the building block from which the RPA is constructed.

The dynamic susceptibility of an homogeneous free system is given by

$`\chi (q,\omega ;T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}n_𝐩\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega t_{𝐩+𝐪}+t_p+i\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega t_p+t_{𝐩𝐪}+i\eta }}\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{(2\pi )^3\rho }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩n(p)\left[\frac{1}{\omega t_{𝐩+𝐪}+t_p+i\eta }\frac{1}{\omega t_p+t_{𝐩𝐪}+i\eta }\right]},`$
where $`\rho `$ is the density, $`t_p=p^2/2m`$ is the free kinetic energy spectrum, $`n(p)`$ is the momentum distribution proportional to the occupation probability of each single–particle state of definite momentum, and $`\nu `$ is the spin-isospin degeneracy which will be taken equal to unity throughout this letter.

In the specific case of a free Bose gas case, $`n(p)`$ is the sum of a condensate and a non–condensate terms

$$n(p)=(2\pi )^3\rho n_0(T)\delta (𝐩)+\frac{1}{z^1e^{\beta p^2/2m}1},$$
(2)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ is the inverse of the temperature and $`z`$ is the fugacity, related to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the temperature through $`z=e^{\beta \mu }`$. The condensate fraction value $`n_0(T)`$ varies with the temperature according to a $`T^{3/2}`$ law

$$n_0(T)=1\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{3/2},$$
(3)
where $`T_c3.31\rho ^{2/3}/m`$ is the temperature at which the Bose–Einstein condensation sets in. Finally, the chemical potential $`\mu (T)`$ is fixed at each $`T`$ by imposing the particle normalization condition

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3\rho }𝑑𝐩n(p)=1.$$
(4)
At finite temperature, the imaginary part of the dynamic susceptibility is related to the dynamic structure function $`S(q,\omega ;T)`$ through the general relation

$$\mathrm{Im}\left[\chi (q,\omega ;T)\right]=\pi \left[S(q,\omega ;T)S(q,\omega ;T)\right]\pi \left(1e^{\beta \omega }\right)S(q,\omega ;T),$$
(5)
where use has been made of the detailed balance condition, which relates the $`\omega >0`$ and the $`\omega <0`$ contributions to the finite temperature response in the form

$$S(q,\omega ;T)=e^{\beta \omega }S(q,\omega ;T).$$
(6)
The finite temperature $`S(q,\omega ;T)`$ of the free Bose gas has been calculated in  and yields, in terms of a new set of dimensionless variables that will be used throughout this work $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/k_B`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega /ϵ_B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}=T/ϵ_B`$ where $`ϵ_B=k_B^2/2m`$ and $`k_B=\rho ^{1/3}`$ define the energy and momentum scales,

$`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0(\stackrel{~}{T})}{1e^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{T}}}}\left[\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{q}^2\right)\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }+\stackrel{~}{q}^2\right)\right]`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{16\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1e^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{T}}\right)}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1ze^{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q})^2/4\stackrel{~}{T}}}{1ze^{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{q}+\stackrel{~}{q})^2/4\stackrel{~}{T}}}}\right].`$
The first term in this expression takes into account the contribution of the atoms in the condensate and appears in the form of two delta peaks centered at the quasielastic recoil energies $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\pm \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$. The second term describes the contribution coming from the rest of the atoms and shows itself as a function with two well defined peaks of finite width and height centered at the same energies.

The real part of the dynamic susceptibility splits also in two pieces, corresponding to the condensate and non–condensate contributions, respectively. The condensate part $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_c(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ is equal to $`n_0(T)`$ times the real part of the $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ dynamic susceptibility

$$Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_c(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]=n_0(T)Re\left[\frac{1}{\omega \stackrel{~}{q}^2+i\eta }\frac{1}{\omega +\stackrel{~}{q}^2+i\eta }\right],$$
(8)
thus diverging at $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\pm \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$. On the other hand, the non–condensate part is a genuine contribution due to the finite temperature and is the main quantity analyzed in this work.

The real part of the dynamic susceptibility can be calculated in different ways, depending on whether the temperature is above or below the Bose–Einstein transition temperature. In a standard treatment, one can just evaluate it by using a Kramers–Kronig relation

$$Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]=\frac{1}{\pi }𝒫𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\frac{Im\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }},$$
(9)
where $`𝒫`$ stands for Principal Value Integration. This expression relies on the implicit assumption that $`Im\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ is an analytic function in the upper half of the complex plane, and that it decreases fast enough with increasing energy. Notice also that Eqs. (5) and (9) imply that $`Im[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ and $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ are odd and even functions of $`\omega `$, respectively.

Alternatively, one can evaluate $`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ as an infinite series, generalizing the result originally derived by Khanna and Glyde  for the free Fermi gas. Two different expressions are obtained in this way. In both cases, the dynamic susceptibility is written in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})=\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},0;\stackrel{~}{T})+_0^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}𝑑\xi \frac{}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\xi ;\stackrel{~}{T})$$
(10)
where the partial derivative in the rhs can be evaluated from the definition in Eq. (1) and is expressed as an integral that may be carried out on the complex plane. As a result one gets an infinite series corresponding to a sum of residues, that has to be inserted in Eq. (10) and integrated to get the total dynamic susceptibility.

In a first approach, one integrates this series term by term to end up with

$`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},0;\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{8\pi \stackrel{~}{q}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{y}_1\stackrel{~}{b}_n}{\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_n^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_n^2)}}\right)\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{y}_2\stackrel{~}{b}_n}{\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_n^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_n^2)}}\right)\right],`$
where the index $`n`$ runs from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. In Eq. (11), $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_n`$ are the real and imaginary parts of the poles of the momentum distribution laying in the first quadrant

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mu }+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2+4\pi ^2n^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mu }+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2+4\pi ^2n^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2},`$ (12)
while $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ are the usual West scaling variables, related to the momentum and the energy transfer through

$$\stackrel{~}{y}_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{\stackrel{~}{q}}\stackrel{~}{q}\right)\&\stackrel{~}{y}_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{\stackrel{~}{q}}+\stackrel{~}{q}\right).$$
(13)
Alternatively, one can first evaluate the sum of all the residues contributing to the energy derivative of the real part of the susceptibility

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}}Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{8\pi \stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\{2\pi n\stackrel{~}{T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_n}{\stackrel{~}{a}_n^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_n^2}}\right)[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2}{\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)^2+4\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2}{\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)^2+4\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2n^2}}]`$ (14)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_n}{\stackrel{~}{a}_n^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_n^2}}\right)[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)}{\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)^2+4\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)}{\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)^2+4\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2n^2}}]\}.`$
and afterwards perform the integration. Although this method seems to be more elaborated than the simple sum in Eq. (11), it is usually preferred since the former expression is known to converge rather slowly. In both cases, however, $`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},0;\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ is a required quantity that can be obtained, proceeding as before, in the form of a series

$`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},0;\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(0,0;\stackrel{~}{T})\right]`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{32\pi \stackrel{~}{q}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_n2\pi n\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{b}_n\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)}{\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_n^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_n^2\right)\left(\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right)^2+4\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^2n^2\right)}}`$
where

$$Re\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(0,0;\stackrel{~}{T})\right]=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}n(\stackrel{~}{p}).$$
(16)
and the sum extending from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_n`$ given in Eq. (12).

Finally, $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ can also be evaluated by direct numerical integration of Eq. (1). After simple manipulations, one finds

$`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \stackrel{~}{q}}}Re{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{p}n(\stackrel{~}{p})\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_2\stackrel{~}{p}+iϵ}{\stackrel{~}{y}_2+\stackrel{~}{p}+iϵ}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_1\stackrel{~}{p}+iϵ}{\stackrel{~}{y}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}+iϵ}\right)\right]}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \stackrel{~}{q}}}𝒫{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{p}n(\stackrel{~}{p})\left[\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_2\stackrel{~}{p}}{\stackrel{~}{y}_2+\stackrel{~}{p}}}\right|\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_1\stackrel{~}{p}}{\stackrel{~}{y}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}}}\right|\right]`$
which can be safely carried out since their singularities are of the integrable type.

For temperatures above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, all three methods are equivalent and any of them can be used to obtain the non–condensate contribution to the real part of the dynamic susceptibility. Below $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, however, only the direct integration method and the Kramers–Kronig relation can be applied, even though in the latter case the analyticity condition required for $`Im[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ is clearly violated since at those temperatures the chemical potential vanishes and the fugacity $`z`$ goes to $`1`$, therefore the function presents two singularities on the real axis located at the quasielastic energies $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\pm \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$. However, these are logarithmic singularities that can be integrated on the complex plane and yield no additional contribution to the integrals. On the other hand, none of the series methods mentioned above can be used because below $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ the momentum distribution grows as $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ for small $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, thus making $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(0,0;\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ in Eq. (16) diverge.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_c)=0`$, the temperature dependence of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_c)]`$ can be easily extracted once it is written in terms of two new variables $`Q=\stackrel{~}{q}/\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ and $`\nu =\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{T}`$. Moreover, one can define a new function

$$Re[\widehat{\chi }(Q,\nu )]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{T}}}Re\left[\chi (\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\right]$$
(18)
that does not depend on the temperature when $`Q`$ and $`\nu `$ are taken as the new independent variables. Actually, this scaling property is also satisfied by the imaginary part of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{T})`$ which inherits it from the $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ behaviour of the dynamic structure function of the free Bose gas .

$`Re[\widehat{\chi }(Q,\nu )]`$ is shown in Fig. (1) for several values of $`Q`$. At low $`\nu `$, $`Re[\widehat{\chi }(Q,\nu )]`$ is negative and discontinuous at $`\nu =Q^2`$, jumping to positive values and afterwards decaying to 0. The discontinuity at $`\nu =Q^2`$ is a direct consequence of the divergent behaviour of the momentum distribution at low momenta, and is therefore directly related to the presence of a Bose condensate. On the other hand, the decay of $`Re[\widehat{\chi }(Q,\nu )]`$ at large energies is of the form $`(1n_0(T))2Q^2/\nu ^2\stackrel{~}{T}^{3/2}2Q^2/\nu ^2\stackrel{~}{T}_c^{3/2}`$. This last property is mirrored from the fact that the real part of the dynamic susceptibility is related to the dynamic structure function through Eqs. (9) and (5), and this together with the $`f`$–sum rule satisfied by $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is enough to determine the analytical behaviour of the real part of the susceptibility at large energies . Finally, the factor $`1n_0(T)`$ reflects the fact that we are only looking at the non–condensate contribution to the susceptibility, while the condensate term adds the extra strength required to have a total decay of the form $`2\stackrel{~}{q}^2/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2`$ as expected.

With rising momentum transfer the discontinuity shifts to higher $`Q`$’s, the strength at low energies and around $`Q^2`$ is depressed, but the energy range where $`Re[\widehat{\chi }(Q,\nu )]`$ presents a significant contribution is increased. Due to the scaling in $`Q`$ and $`\nu `$, the effect of fixing $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and rising $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is equivalent to the effect of fixing $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and decreasing $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$. Therefore, the evolution with $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ can be read in the figure by moving from higher to lower $`Q`$’s, while the evolution with $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is represented by the same sequence of curves but in reverse order. At $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ the non–condensate contribution to the dynamic susceptibility vanishes and only the condensate term is left.

When $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ crosses the Bose–Einstein transition temperature, the discontinuity at $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ is smeared out and $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ becomes a continuous function of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$, as shown in Fig. (2) for a momentum transfer of $`\stackrel{~}{q}=1`$. This is due to the fact that, above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, the chemical potential is no longer $`0`$ and thus the $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$ divergence in the momentum distribution is removed. Actually the process is quite fast, and already at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=7`$ and a momentum transfer of $`\stackrel{~}{q}=1`$, no apparent trace of a discontinuity in the real part of the dynamic susceptibility is left.

The evolution with $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of the non–condensate contribution to the real part of the dynamic susceptibility for $`\stackrel{~}{T}>\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ and for three values of the momentum transfer is sketched in Fig. (3). The actual function depicted is $`\stackrel{~}{T}Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=(\nu /QQ)/2`$, since in the high temperature limit the susceptibility of the free Bose gas approaches the $`\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{}`$ classical prediction which for energies around the quasielastic peak $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ can be casted in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{T}Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{cl}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{})]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{ze^{z^2}}{z\stackrel{~}{Y}},$$
(19)
thus being a function of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ alone. Since $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ is and even function of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$, only the contribution at positive energies is shown, so the initial point in each curve is $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=Q/2`$. As it can be seen from the figure, the departure from the classical limit at low temperatures is sizeable, while the Bose prediction gets closer to the classical one when the temperature is risen, as expected. However, the way in which the classical limit is reached depends on the momentum transfer. At low $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, the low temperature susceptibility rapidly varies from negative values below the classical prediction to positive ones above it. With increasing momentum transfer, the strength of the Bose function at fixed temperature is progressively reduced, but the range of maximum variation in which the function goes from negative to positive values grows. In all cases, however, the large $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ tails of the Bose function conform to the classical prediction at any temperature, a fact that should not surprise since as commented above the dynamic susceptibility is known to decrease as $`2\stackrel{~}{q}^2/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2`$ independently of the temperature and the statistics.

The behaviour of the real part of the dynamic susceptibility at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ larger than $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ and for a sequence of increasing values of the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is depicted in Fig. (4). In this case, the $`\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ at finite $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ can be obtained from the leading term in a $`1/\stackrel{~}{q}`$ expansion, a property that is inherited from the high $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ behaviour of the dynamic structure function . As in the latter case and for the free Bose gas , the function

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{\stackrel{~}{T}}Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T})]$$
(20)
approaches a fixed curve when $`\stackrel{~}{q}\mathrm{}`$ that depends on the temperature only through the chemical potential. This limiting function is represented with a solid line in the figure, while the other curves show the way in which this limit is approached with increasing $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. Notice that, contrary to what happened in the previous case, increasing $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ makes the initial point $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=Q/2`$ in the limiting curve go to $`\mathrm{}`$, thus emphasizing that the region of maximal variation of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ lies always around $`\stackrel{~}{Y}0`$ corresponding to energies close to the quasielastic peak $`\omega =\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$. Notice also that the limiting curve is always reached from the right, as $`(\stackrel{~}{q}/\stackrel{~}{T})Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{Y};\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ shifts to lower values of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is risen.

The dependence of the real part of the susceptibility on $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ can also be analyzed by looking at the sum rules it satisfies, which are defined as the energy–weighted integrals

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_n(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\omega }^nRe[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})].$$
(21)
Sum rules could also be defined extending the integration range to $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, but then all the odd order ones would trivially vanish because $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ is an even function of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$. With the previous definition, and taking into account that the real part of the dynamic susceptibility decreases as $`2\stackrel{~}{q}^2/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2`$ at large energies, one readily notices that no sum rule with $`n>0`$ exists. However, an expansion around $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^1=0`$ displays a next–to–leading term of order $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^4`$, so one can still find a second energy weighted sum rule by subtracting the leading contribution at high energies. Proceeding in this way one finds the following relations

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_0(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]=0,`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_2(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\left(Re[\chi (\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2}}\right)=0.`$ (23)
These results actually apply to the total real part of the dynamic susceptibility, including the condensate contribution. However, they are general and therefore hold also for the $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ susceptibility of the free Bose gas also. The condensate contribution at finite temperature is equal to $`n_0(\stackrel{~}{T})Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T}=0)]`$, and thus its $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ also vanish. In this way, therefore, the above sum rules apply separately to the condensate and non–condensate parts of the dynamic susceptibility, respectively. Additionally, the fact that both sum rules vanish indicates that $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ must have different regions of positive and negative values, a feature that is in fact general to all systems since the previous sum rules apply to both correlated and uncorrelated systems at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ and finite temperature.

Although the previous results hold for any system conserving the total number of particles, it is difficult to obtain generic expressions for higher order sum rules since then additional terms in the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^1`$ expansion of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ must be subtracted, and the coefficients of this expansion are related to sum rules of the dynamic structure function $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$, which are specific to each system. Furthermore, the simple subtraction of $`2\stackrel{~}{q}^2/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2`$ does not allow for the derivation of a $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ sum rule, a problem that remains even when higher orders in the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^1`$ series expansion of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ are subtracted.

An alternative set of sum rules, valid for correlated Bose systems at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}>0`$ and for the noninteracting Bose gas at $`\stackrel{~}{T}>0`$, can be derived by subtracting to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$ the $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ dynamic susceptibility $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };0)`$ of the free Bose gas. As long as the real part is concerned, these become

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_n(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{T})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\omega }^n\left(Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };0)]\right).$$
(24)
Using the explicit representation of the dynamic susceptibility in terms of the dynamic structure function, the first $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{T})`$ moments can be easily derived and yield

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}_1(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2}{\stackrel{~}{q}^4}}\right),`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}_2(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
Interestingly enough, the expression of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ indicates that even though it is not know a priori whether the dynamic structure function $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$ of a given system does have sum rules to all orders , still some combinations of them may exist. Notice also that this sum rule is trivially satisfied by the condensate term, since the condensate contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is a sum of two delta peaks centered at $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\pm \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ where the logarithm cancels. Therefore and for the free Bose gas, the non–trivial part of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ must be satisfied by the non–condensate term alone. Moreover and from the same argument given above, it is also apparent that the total set of sum rules must be separately satisfied by the condensate and non–condensate contributions to $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$. Finally, the zeroth and second order sum rules $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_2(\stackrel{~}{q};\stackrel{~}{T})`$ are a direct consequence of the results shown in Eqs. (22) and (23).

The fact that below $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ the temperature dependence of both the dynamic susceptibility and the response function can be extracted as indicated in Eq. (18) implies that an energy weighted sum rule can also be defined in the form

$$\widehat{\mathrm{M}}_1(Q;\stackrel{~}{T})=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{T}^{3/2}}\stackrel{~}{M}_1(q;\stackrel{~}{T})_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \stackrel{~}{S}(Q,\nu ;\stackrel{~}{T})\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{Q^4}\right),$$
(28)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}(Q;\nu ;\stackrel{~}{T})=\stackrel{~}{S}_{nc}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})/\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ is the non–condensate contribution to the response of the free Bose gas written in the variables $`Q`$ and $`\nu `$. Below the Bose–Einstein transition temperature, this factorization removes any dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and thus $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}_1`$ becomes a function of $`Q`$ alone. Above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, however, a dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ remains through the chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}_1(Q;\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is shown in Fig. (5) for several temperatures below and above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$. In all cases, the low $`Q`$ behaviour is divergent, a feature produced by the $`Q^4`$ term inside the logarithm. On the other hand, the high $`Q`$ behaviour is dominated by a slowly decreasing tail that approach $`0`$ from below. In the intermediate region, $`\widehat{\mathrm{M}}_1(Q;\stackrel{~}{T})`$ presents a minimum at some $`Q`$ that increases with the temperature, even though it is hardly noticeable at high $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$’s.

In summary, it has been shown that the non–condensate contribution to the real part of the dynamic susceptibility of the free Bose gas at finite temperature can be evaluated in three different ways: by direct integration, using a Kramers–Kronig relation and performing a Khanna and Glyde -like series expansion. While the first two methods can be used above and below the Bose–Einstein transition temperature, the latter fails below $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ since at those temperatures the starting point in the series diverges.

$`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_c)]`$ is shown to scale in two new variables $`Q=\stackrel{~}{q}/\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ and $`\nu =\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{T}`$ from where its temperature dependence can be extracted, a condition that is lost above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ due to the finite value taken by the chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. Below $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, the real part of the non–condensate contribution to the dynamic susceptibility presents a discontinuity at $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\pm \stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ produced by the singular behaviour of the momentum distribution at $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$. When $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ exceeds $`\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$ this singularity in $`n(\stackrel{~}{p}0)`$ is removed and as a result the previous discontinuity is smeared out. At high $`\stackrel{~}{T}>\stackrel{~}{T}_c`$, $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ approaches the classical prediction computed from a Maxwell–Boltzmann momentum distribution which for energies close to the quasielastic peak $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$ can be brought to a form that scales in a single variable $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=(\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q})/2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$. On the other hand, the leading contribution to the high $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ limit of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ can also be expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ alone, a property that is inherited from the large momentum transfer behaviour of $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})`$.

Low order energy weighted sum rules of the non–condensate contribution to the real part of the dynamic susceptibility are also derived and discussed. Since the long energy tails of $`Re[\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\omega };\stackrel{~}{T})]`$ decrease as $`1/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2`$, no sum rule of order higher than $`0`$ exists. However, a new set of sum rules, obtained by subtracting the $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ dynamic susceptibility of the free Bose gas, is proposed and analyzed. These sum rules are general and apply to any system conserving the total number of particles, and their analysis show that in general the real part of the susceptibility must have different regions where it changes sign. Despite the simplicity of the model analyzed, the noninteracting Bose gas, some of the conclusions drawn here are expected to enlighten some aspects of the finite temperature dynamic susceptibility in weakly interacting systems, which can be built starting from the non–interacting case in the framework of the Random Phase Approximation.

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund under grant No. P12832-TPH, DGICYT (Spain) grant No. PB98-1247 and the program SGR98-11 from Generalitat de Catalunya. One of us wants to thank D. Mazzanti for giving a strong motivation to carry out this work.