text:
# 𝑍 boson pair production at LHC in a stabilized Randall-Sundrum scenario

## I Introduction

Recent advances in string theories have inspired particle physicists to approach the gauge hierarchy problem of the standard model (SM) in a very novel way, i.e., by introducing extra dimensions. Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD) proposed that there exist $`n`$ large extra dimensions with factorizable geometry, whereas the SM fields are confined to our four-dimensional world. The observed largeness of Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is attributed to the large volume of the extra dimensions $`V_n`$, as can be seen from the relation $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M_S^{n+2}V_n`$ with $`M_S`$ being the fundamental scale. Since the $`M_S`$ can be maintained around TeV scale, the hierarchy problem is answered. Criticism arose such that the ordinary gauge hierarchy is replaced by a new hierarchy between the $`M_S`$ and the compactification scale $`\mu _c=V_n^{1/n}`$. Based on two branes and a single extra dimension with non-factorizable geometry, Randall and Sundrum (RS) have proposed another higher dimensional scenario where, without $`large`$ volume of the extra dimension, the hierarchy problem is solved by a geometrical exponential factor. Here the stabilization of the compactification radius is very crucial: Otherwise the study of the cosmological evolution in the RS scenario has shown that a nontrivial relationship between the matter densities on the two branes is required, which induces non-conventional cosmologies . Goldberger and Wise (GW) have proposed a stabilization mechanism where a bulk scalar field with interactions localized on the two branes can generate for the modulus field a potential which allows a minimum appropriate to the hierarchy problem .

Of great interest and significance is that the ADD and RS models could have chances to be detected at future collider experiments. Even more interestingly, they provide possible accounts for the recently reported deviation of the muon anomalous magnetic moment from the SM prediction . In the ADD case, even though the coupling of each Kaluza-Klein (KK) graviton state with the SM fields is suppressed by Planck scale, summation over almost continuous KK spectrum compensates the suppression and leaves the effective coupling of $`1/M_S`$ . In the RS scenario, the zero mode of the KK graviton states couples with the usual Planck strength, whereas the masses and couplings of all the excited KK states are characterized by some electroweak scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ . This discrete spectrum is to yield the clean signal of graviton resonance production. Another key ingredient of the RS model is from the stabilization mechanism, the radion. Since the radion can be much lighter than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ , it is likely that the first signal of the RS effects come from the radion.

Various phenomenological aspects of the radion have been extensively studied in the literature: The decay modes of the radion are different from those of the Higgs boson (e.g., the radion with mass smaller $`2m_Z`$ dominantly decays into two gluons) ; without a curvature-scalar Higgs mixing, the radion effects on the oblique parameters of the electroweak precision observations are small ; the radion effects on the phenomenology at low energy colliders  and at high energy colliders  have been also discussed.

In the RS scenario, however, there is another key ingredient, the KK spectrum of gravitons. Especially at high energy collider, comprehensive effects of the radion and KK gravitons can be substantial. Moreover, in spite of its lighter mass than the KK gravitons, the coupling strength of the radion with the SM particles is weaker than that of the KK gravitons due to the following reasons: The characteristic scale of the radion coupling, inversely proportional to the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the radion ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$), is smaller than the coupling of the KK gravitons, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ ; the degrees of freedom of the spin-0 radion are less than those of the spin-2 massive KK gravitons. And the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, usually treated as a free parameter, is also constrained through the relation with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ which receives various constraints from the LEP II and Tevatron experiments . It is to be shown that the comprehensive accommodation at high energy colliders leads to different phenomenologies from those only with the radion effects.

In order to sensitively probe the radion effects, we consider the process $`ggZZ`$. Note that the radion interacts with the SM fields through the trace of the energy-momentum tensor: The coupling becomes stronger as the interacting SM particles are more massive; QCD trace anomaly enhances the coupling of the radion to a pair of gluons. This process has been extensively studied with special attention to the Higgs search at the LHC . The double leptonic decay of the $`Z`$-boson, $`ggZZl^+l^{}l^+l^{}`$, generates a clean signal. Unfortunately the main background of the continuum production of the $`Z`$ pair via $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation is known to be dominant except for a limited range of the Higgs resonance. For example, full one-loop calculations for the $`ggZZ`$ in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with the squark loop contributions have shown that the irreducible background of $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ surpasses even resonant peaks of the supersymmetric Higgs bosons.

As shall be shown, comprehensive accommodation of both the KK graviton and radion effects is very crucial to explore the RS model. The RS effects on the gluon fusion process are much larger than those on the $`q\overline{q}`$ process, which shall be apparently shown in the $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions. As a result, the radion effects on the $`ggZZ`$ have much more chance to be detected, while the radion effects on the $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ are negligible due to the smallness of $`m_q`$. Moreover the measurement of the $`Z`$ polarization shall provide another efficient method for probing the effects of the RS model.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the RS model with the GW mechanism, and summarize the effective Lagrangian between the KK graviton, radion and SM particles. Model parameters are carefully notified. In Sec. III, the parton level helicity amplitudes for $`ggZZ`$ and $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ to leading order are given. In Sec. IV, we present numerical results of the $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions. After presenting the RS model dependence on the distributions, we shall show the RS effects on various configurations of $`Z`$-boson polarization. The sensitivity bounds for parameter space of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ and the radion mass are to be given. Finally, Sec. V deals with summary and conclusions.

## II Stabilized Randall-Sundrum scenario

For the hierarchy problem, Randall and Sundrum have proposed a five-dimensional non-factorizable geometry with the extra dimension compactified on a $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold of radius $`r_c`$. Reconciled with four-dimensional Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ invariance, the RS configuration has the following solution to Einstein’s equations:

$$ds^2=e^{2kr_c|\phi |}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +r_c^2d\phi ^2,$$
(1)
where $`0|\phi |\pi `$ and $`k`$ is $`AdS_5`$ curvature. Two orbifold fixed points accommodate two three-branes, the hidden brane at $`\phi =0`$ and our visible brane at $`|\phi |=\pi `$. The arrangement of our brane at $`|\phi |=\pi `$ renders a fundamental scale $`m_0`$ to appear as the four-dimensional physical mass $`m=e^{kr_c\pi }m_0`$. The hierarchy problem can be answered if $`kr_c12`$. From the four-dimensional effective action, the relation between the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and the fundamental string scale $`M_S`$ is obtained by

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=\frac{M_S^3}{k}(1e^{2kr_c\pi }).$$
(2)
The compactification of the fifth dimension leads to the following four-dimensional effective Lagrangian ,

$$=\frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}T^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }T^{\mu \nu }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi e^{kr_c\pi }M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is at the electroweak scale. The coupling of the zero mode of the KK gravitons is suppressed by usual Planck scale, while those of the massive KK gravitons by the electroweak scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. The masses of the KK gravitons are also at the electroweak scale, given by ,

$$m_n=kx_ne^{kr_c\pi }=\frac{k}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi x_n,$$
(4)
where the $`x_n`$’s are the $`n`$-th roots of the first order Bessel function. The condition $`k<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is to be imposed to maintain the reliability of the RS solution in Eq. (1) . We take the value in the conservative range of $`0.1<k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}<0.7`$. Then, the first excited KK graviton has mass slightly larger than $`1`$ TeV for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 3`$ TeV and so there might be a chance to see the effects of KK gravitons at future high energy colliders.

In the original RS scenario, the compactification radius $`r_c`$ is assumed to be constant. According to the studies of cosmological evolution, however, two branes wants to blow apart, i.e., $`r_c\mathrm{}`$, unless we impose a fine-tuning between the densities on two branes, which will lead to non-conventional cosmologies . A stabilization mechanism is required. Goldberger and Wise have introduced a bulk scale field with the bulk mass somewhat smaller than the $`k`$. The assumption of localizing the bulk scalar interactions on two branes determines the four-dimensional effective potential for the radion, which can allow the minimum for $`kr_c12`$ without an extreme fine-tuning. Furthermore, the radion mass is roughly an order of magnitude below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ .

It was shown that the radion couples to ordinary matter through the trace of the symmetric and conserved energy-momentum tensor with TeV scale suppressed coupling;

$$=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\varphi T_\mu ^\mu ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, the VEV of the radion field, is related such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ . The coupling of the radion with a fermion or massive gauge boson pair is the same as that of the Higgs, except for a factor of $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )`$, with $`v`$ being the VEV of the SM Higgs boson. The massless gluons and photons also contribute to the $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, due to the trace anomaly which appears as the scale invariance of massless fields is broken by the running of gauge couplings. Thus the interaction Lagrangian between two gluons and the radion or Higgs boson is

$$_{h(\varphi )gg}=\left[\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)\left\{b_3+I_{1/2}(z_t^\varphi )\right\}\varphi +I_{1/2}(z_t^h)h\right]\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi v}\mathrm{Tr}(G_{\mu \nu }^CG^{C\mu \nu }),$$
(6)
where $`z_t^{\varphi (h)}=4m_t^2/m_{\varphi (h)}^2`$, $`m_t`$ is the top quark mass, and the QCD beta function coefficient is $`b_3=112n_f/3`$ with the number of dynamical quarks $`n_f`$. The loop function $`I_{1/2}(z)`$ is defined by

$$I_{1/2}(z)=z[1+(1z)f(z)],$$
(7)
where the $`f(z)`$ is

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{arcsin}^2(1/\sqrt{z}),& z1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1z}}{1\sqrt{1z}}\right)i\pi \right]^2,& z<1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
It is to be noted that the phenomenology of radions and KK gravitons in the RS model can be determined by three parameters, $`m_\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$, and $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$.

## III Z boson pair production at LHC

### A The $`ggZZ`$ helicity amplitudes

For the process $`g(\lambda _1)g(\lambda _2)Z(\lambda _3)Z(\lambda _4)`$ there are, in general, 36 helicity amplitudes according to two and three polarization states of initial gluons and final $`Z`$-bosons, respectively. Various symmetry arguments reduce these 36 amplitudes into eight independent ones . Parity invariance implies

$$_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}=_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}^{}.$$
(11)
Bose statistics and the standard form of the $`Z`$-boson polarization vectors demand

$`_{++}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{++++}(\beta ),`$ (12)
$`_{+++}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{+++}(\beta ),`$ (13)
$`_+(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{+++}(\beta ),`$ (14)
$`_{++}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{++}(\beta ),`$ (15)
$`_{+++0}(\beta )=_{++0+}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{++0}(\beta )=_{++0}(\beta ),`$ (16)
$`_{++0}(\beta )=_{+0+}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`_{+0}(\beta )=_{+0}(\beta ).`$ (17)
For the explicit calculations, we consider the following four momenta for the initial gluons and final $`Z`$ bosons in the gluon-gluon center-of-momentum (c.m.) frame:

$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2}}(1,0,0,1),`$ $`p_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2}}(1,0,0,1),`$ (18)
$`p_3={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2}}(1,\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ $`p_4={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2}}(1,\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (19)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_Z^2/\widehat{s}}`$ and $`\widehat{t}=(p_1p_3)^2`$. The polarization vectors for the spin-1 particles with momentum $`p^\mu =(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ are

$`ϵ^\mu (p,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda \varphi _{\widehat{p}}}}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\widehat{p}}+i\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\widehat{p}},i\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\widehat{p}}\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\widehat{p}},\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$ (20)
$`ϵ^\mu (p,0)`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|/m,p^0\widehat{p}/m),`$ (21)
where the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi _{\widehat{p}}`$ specify the direction of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ .

In the SM, there are two types of Feynman diagrams for the $`ggZZ`$ process, through the box and triangle quark loops shown in Fig. 1. Despite loop suppression by a factor of $`\alpha _s^2`$, high luminosity of the gluon in a proton at the LHC yields substantial cross section for the process. The SM helicity amplitudes have been studied in detail. We refer the reader to Ref. .

In the RS model, KK gravitons mediate the $`s`$-channel Feynman diagram at tree level (see Fig. 2). The helicity amplitudes are cast into

$$_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}^G(ggZZ)=\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{\delta ^{ab}}{\widehat{s}m_n^2}𝒜_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4},$$
(22)
where $`\delta ^{ab}`$ denotes the color factor. There are six non-vanishing independent helicity amplitudes:

$`𝒜_{++++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^41)(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^2+1)\widehat{s}^2+(\widehat{t}+\widehat{u})\widehat{s},`$ (23)
$`𝒜_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\beta (\widehat{t}\widehat{u})+\widehat{s}\}^2,`$ (24)
$`𝒜_{+++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^21)\{\beta ^2(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})^2\widehat{s}^2\},`$ (25)
$`𝒜_{++0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2\sqrt{2}m_Z}}(11/\beta ^2)(\widehat{t}\widehat{u}+\beta \widehat{s})\sqrt{(\beta \widehat{s})^2(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})^2},`$ (26)
$`𝒜_{++00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\beta ^2)\{(1+\beta ^2)\widehat{s}+2(\widehat{t}+\widehat{u})\}\widehat{s}^2}{8m_Z^2}},`$ (27)
$`𝒜_{+00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(11/\beta ^2)(\beta ^22)\{(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})^2\beta ^2\widehat{s}^2\}\widehat{s}}{8m_Z^2}}.`$ (28)
The second ingredient of the RS model, the radion, couples to two gluons through its Yukawa coupling to a quark inside a triangle loop diagram, as well as through QCD trace anomaly. Since the radion interaction with quarks is proportional to the mass, only top quark loop is to be considered. Two of the eight independent helicity amplitudes receive non-vanishing contributions from the radion:

$`_{++++}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\delta ^{ab}}{\pi }}[b_{QCD}+I(z_t)]\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_\varphi ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi m_\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}},`$ (29)
$`_{++00}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\delta ^{ab}}{\pi }}[b_{QCD}+I(z_t)]\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_\varphi ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi m_\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}^2(\beta ^2+1)}{8m_Z^2}}.`$ (30)
### B The $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ helicity amplitudes

In the SM the process $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ surpass the gluon fusion process due to the presence of tree level Feynman diagrams. Accurate structure functions at low $`x`$ and higher order QCD corrections are necessary for the precise ratio of the $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation and gluon fusion processes. Even though the $`K`$-factor of $`𝒪(30\%)`$ of the $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ is known , the absence of the corresponding calculation for the gluon fusion process leads us not to include any higher order corrections. We also assume that the uncertainties with leading contributions from soft gluon emission in both processes cancel to some extent in the ratio of cross sections, hardly affecting our main interest, the distribution shapes.

In the SM, there are $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel Feynman diagrams. Since the radion coupling to fermions is proportional to the fermion mass, we can safely neglect the radion effects here. The $`s`$-channel diagram mediated by KK gravitons, which is similar to the diagram $`(a)`$ in Fig. 2, still influence the production. For the process $`q(\lambda _1)\overline{q}(\lambda _2)Z(\lambda _3)Z(\lambda _4)`$, the helicity amplitudes due to KK gravitons are written by

$$_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}^G(q\overline{q}ZZ)=\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{\delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{\widehat{s}m_n^2}_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4},$$
(31)
where non-zero and independent $``$’s are, in the parton c.m. frame,

$`_{+++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})(\beta ^21)\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\beta }},`$ (32)
$`_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}(\widehat{t}\widehat{u}+\beta \widehat{s})\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\beta }},`$ (33)
$`_{++0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta ^21)\widehat{s}^{3/2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )\{\beta \widehat{s}2(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})\}}{2^{3/2}m_Z\beta }},`$ (34)
$`_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{s}^2\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}\theta 1),`$ (35)
$`_{+0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta ^21)\widehat{s}^{3/2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )(\beta \widehat{s}+2(\widehat{t}\widehat{u}))}{2^{3/2}m_Z\beta }},`$ (36)
$`_{+00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}^2(\beta ^21)(\beta ^22)(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})\mathrm{sin}\theta }{4m_Z^2\beta }},`$ (37)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =(\widehat{t}\widehat{u})/\beta \widehat{s}`$.

## IV Continuum $`Z`$ boson pair production at the LHC

The physical production rate of $`Z`$ boson pair at $`pp`$ colliders is obtained by convoluting over the parton structure functions :

$$\sigma (ppijZZ)=𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\underset{i,j}{}f_i(x_1,Q^2)f_j(x_2,Q^2)\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}(x_1x_2s),$$
(38)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote the parton such as the gluon or quark, and the $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ denote the momentum fraction of the parton from the parent proton beam. For the numerical analysis, we use the leading order MRST parton distribution functions (PDF). The QCD factorization and renormalization scales $`Q`$ are set to be the $`m_Z`$. The $`Q^2`$-dependence is expected to be small on the distribution shapes. The c.m. energy at the LHC is $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV. And we have employed the kinematic cuts of $`p__T25`$ GeV and $`|\eta |2.5`$ throughout the paper. As discussed before, the RS effects are determined by three parameters, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ,k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}},m_\varphi )`$. From the above arguments, we consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2,3,5`$ TeV, $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1,0.3,0.7`$, and $`m_\varphi =300,500,700`$ GeV.

The SM Higgs boson mass has not been experimentally confirmed yet. Recently, the ALEPH group has reported the observation of an excess of $`3\sigma `$ in the search of the SM Higgs boson, which corresponds to the Higgs mass about 114 GeV. As the operation of LEP II has been completed, the decision whether the observations are only the results of statistical fluctuations or the first signal of the Higgs boson production is suspended until the Tevatron II and/or LHC running . In the following, the Higgs boson mass is set to be 114 GeV except for the comparison of the contributions from the Higgs boson and radion with the same mass in Fig. 3.

Before presenting numerical results, some discussions on the unitarity violation of the RS model are in order here. As can be seen in the effective Lagrangian of Eqs. (3) and (5), the RS model generically undergoes the unitarity violation at high energies $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. In Ref. , the elastic process $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ has been examined to obtain the bound from partial wave unitarity on the ratio $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ in the RS model. This process can yield very sensitive bounds since the RS effects mediated by KK gravitons are dominant due to the absence of the SM contributions. The $`J`$-partial wave amplitude is defined  by

$$a_{\mu \mu ^{}}^J=\frac{1}{64\pi }_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta d_{\mu \mu ^{}}^J(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left[i_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}\right],$$
(39)
where the $`_{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}`$ is the helicity amplitudes, $`\mu =\lambda _1\lambda _2`$, $`\mu ^{}=\lambda _3\lambda _4`$, and the $`d_{\mu \mu ^{}}^J`$ is the Wigner functions. Unitarity implies that the largest eigenvalue ($`\chi `$) of $`a_{\mu \mu ^{}}^J`$ is to be $`|\chi |1`$. The reliability of perturbative calculations is approximately guaranteed by the conditions $`|\chi |=1`$ and $`|\mathrm{Re}(\chi )|=1/2`$. The helicity amplitudes, of which the dominant contribution at high energies comes from the KK gravitons, are

$`_{++++}`$ $`=`$ $`_{}=i{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[D_n(t)+D_n(u)\right],`$ (40)
$`_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`_{++}=i{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[D_n(s)+D_n(t)\right],`$ (41)
$`_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`_{++}=i{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[D_n(s)+D_n(u)\right],`$ (42)
where $`D_n(s)=1/(sm_n^2+im_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)`$. The odd $`J`$-partial wave amplitudes vanish due to Bose-Einstein statistics in the elastic $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering. And we have $`a_{22}^2=a_{22}^2`$ and $`a_{22}^2=a_{22}^2`$ from the parity arguments. The non-vanishing eigenvalues $`\chi _i`$ are $`a_{00}^2`$ and $`2a_{22}^2`$. Numerical estimation leads to $`\sqrt{s}<3.1\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ for $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$, $`\sqrt{s}<5.7\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ for $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.3`$, and $`\sqrt{s}<9.8\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ for $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.7`$. In what follows, a very conservative bound is to be employed such as $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}0.9\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. In order to eliminate the concern for unitarity violation, it is reasonable that we restrict ourselves to the region where our perturbative calculations are trustworthy. This can be achieved by excluding data with high invariant-mass. In the following, therefore, we constrain the invariant mass to be less than $`1.8`$ TeV, to be consistent with our parameterizations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$.

First we present the $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions for unpolarized $`Z`$-bosons. Figure 3 shows the radion and KK graviton effects for the process $`ggZZ`$ on the distributions. For comparison, both the Higgs boson and radion masses are set to be 300 GeV with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2`$ TeV and $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$. The long dashed line denotes the SM results with the Higgs mass of 300 GeV. The short dashed line includes only the radion effects, whereas the dotted line incorporates both the KK graviton and radion effects. The SM result of $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ denoted by the dash-dotted line is also plotted for comparison. The $`p_T`$ distributions apparently show that the KK graviton effects enhance the cross section on the whole, which increases the chance to probe the presence of the radion. Any other models for new physics beyond the SM, including supersymmetric models, hardly generate such elevated resonance behavior. Even in the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ cases where the KK graviton effects are negligible, the distinction between the Higgs boson and radion is, in principle, possible: The resonance peak of the radion becomes narrower with increasing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ because the radion total decay width $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi )`$ is inversely proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2`$. Figure 4 shows the resonance shapes of the Higgs boson and radion with the same mass, through the invariant mass spectrum of the $`Z`$ pair. It can be seen that if both have the same mass, the radion shows sharper resonance peak than the Higgs boson. This is generic since the total decay width of the radion is smaller than that of the Higgs boson due to the radion’s larger VEV.

In Fig. 5, we present the RS effects on the process $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$, which are determined solely by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ due to the ignorance of the radion influence. The KK gravitons can be recognized by broad peaks. The RS effects are less important than those on the $`ggZZ`$ process: The effects appear beyond 300 GeV of $`p_T`$ and 700 GeV of $`M_{ZZ}`$, generating at most $`10^3`$ pb/GeV of the differential cross section with respect to $`p_T`$ or $`M_{ZZ}`$; the effects on the gluon fusion shall be shown to appear in the low $`p_T`$ and $`M_{ZZ}`$ region where the cross sections are sizable.

Now we illustrate each parameter dependence of the RS model to the gluon fusion process. In Fig. 6, we plot the distributions for the $`m_\varphi =300`$, 500, 700 GeV, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2`$ TeV and $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$. It can be seen that the resonance peak of lighter radions is sharper. If the radion is quite heavy (around 500 GeV in this parameter space), the contribution of the KK gravitons to the $`p_T`$ distributions overwhelms the radion resonance; the invariant-mass distribution is more appropriate to probe. If the radion is too heavy (more than 700 GeV in this case), large contributions of the KK gravitons obscure the radion effects. Figure 7 presents the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$-dependence on the $`ggZZ`$ process for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2`$, 3, and 5 TeV with $`m_\varphi =300`$ GeV and $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$. The $`M_{ZZ}`$ distributions show a sharp resonance peak of the radion and the successive broad peaks of the KK gravitons. In the $`p_T`$-distributions, the KK graviton effects yield a plateau region. The case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi >5`$ TeV would be difficult to probe. The $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ dependence is presented in Fig. 8, for $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$, 0.3, and 0.7 with $`m_\varphi =300`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2`$ TeV. Since the $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is proportional to the masses of the KK gravitons (see Eq. (4)), the KK graviton effects in the large $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ cases are hardly detected. Note that in the RS model the magnitude of the five-dimensional curvature $`(R_5=20k^2)`$ is required to be smaller than $`M_S^2(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2)`$ for the reliability of the classical RS solution derived from the leading order term in the curvature. The value of $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ less than about 0.1 is theoretically favored .

We present the influence of the $`Z`$ polarization measurement on the distributions. Figures 9 and 10 are for the polarization states $`Z_TZ_T`$ and $`Z_LZ_L`$, respectively. We set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =2`$ TeV, $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$ and $`m_\varphi =300`$ GeV for illustration. As expected from the scalar nature of the radion and the spin-2 nature of massive KK gravitons, longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons are produced more in the RS model, while the SM production of $`Z_LZ_L`$ through both gluon fusion and $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation is suppressed. Thus the measurement of the longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons would provide one of the most robust methods to single out, in particular, the radion effects of the RS model.

Unfortunately, an event cannot determine the polarization of the $`Z`$ boson. The angular distributions for the $`Z`$ boson decay, $`Zf\overline{f}`$, provide some information on the $`Z`$ polarizations. To leading order, the RS effects can be ignored in the $`Z`$ decay. Neglecting the mass of the final state fermions, the angular distributions of the $`Z`$ decay rate are given by, in the rest frame of the decaying $`Z`$,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm }{d\mathrm{cos}\chi }=\frac{3}{8}\left[\alpha _f(1\mathrm{cos}\chi )^2+(1\alpha _f)(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\chi )^2\right]$$
(43)
for the transversely polarized $`Z`$ bosons, and

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^0}{d\mathrm{cos}\chi }=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{sin}^2\chi $$
(44)
for the longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons. For the charged leptonic decay, we have $`\alpha _f=(12x_W)^2/(14x_W+8x_W^2)`$ with $`x_W\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. The partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is for the normalization, and the $`\chi `$ is the angle between the fermion momentum direction and the spin axis as seen in the $`Z`$ rest frame (the $`Z`$ boost direction in the helicity basis). Therefore, an appropriate cut on the $`\chi `$ would select more data of longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons. We define the ratio $``$ as follows, which is proportional to the observable RS effects:

$$\frac{\sigma (ppZZl^+l^{}l^+l^{})_{SM+RS}}{\sigma (ppZZl^+l^{}l^+l^{})_{SM}},$$
(45)
where $`l,l^{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$. In order to focus on the detection of the radion effects, we employ the kinematic cut, e.g., $`p_T<125`$ GeV only for the estimates of the $``$. Numerical analysis shows that with the kinematic cut of $`|\mathrm{cos}\chi |<0.3`$ the $``$ increases by 49% with respect to the $``$ without any cut on $`\chi `$. Thus appropriate kinematic cuts on the transverse momentum of $`Z`$ boson and the angle $`\chi `$ can enhance the signal for the radion effects by, e.g., about 50%.

Finally, we estimate the $`1\sigma `$ search bounds on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ and the radion mass, which is obtained by comparing the $`total`$ cross sections with and without the RS effects: Even if the cross section of longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons ($`\sigma _{LL}`$) and/or the radion resonance peak are powerful methods to probe the RS effects, higher sensitivity bounds, which is usually relevant in the case of no signal, are obtained from the observable with $`larger`$ event number. As discussed before, the RS model has unitarity violation at high energies, which may induce unphysically large contributions to the total cross section. One possible way is to exclude data with high invariant-mass, i.e., to employ an upper cut on the $`M_{ZZ}`$ such as $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}0.9\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. Thus we require that

$$\frac{\sigma _{_{SM+RS}}^<\sigma _{_{SM}}^<}{\sqrt{\sigma _{_{SM}}^<}}\sqrt{}ϵ1,$$
(46)
where the $`\sigma ^<`$ denotes the total cross section with an additional kinematic cut of $`M_{ZZ}<900\mathrm{GeV}`$. The $`ϵ`$ is the reconstruction efficiency for the $`Z`$-boson pair, which is the squared branching ratio of the $`Z`$ boson into $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The LHC luminosity $``$ is 100 pb<sup>-1</sup>. In Fig. 11, we show the $`1\sigma `$ attainable bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ and $`m_\varphi `$ with $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$. Even with restrictive efficiency, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ of about 5 TeV can be experimentally examined. Since the radion has relatively small influence upon the total cross section, the $`p_T`$ or invariant-mass distribution would be more appropriate to signal the radion effects.

## V Summary and Conclusion

We have studied the $`ggZZ`$ process at LHC as a probe of the Randall-Sundrum scenario with the Goldberger-Wise stabilization mechanism. Even though the process has been regarded significant in various aspects (e.g., in examining the Higgs sector), the main background of the continuum production of $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ is known to be dominant in the SM and MSSM. It has been shown that the comprehensive effects of Kaluza-Klein gravitons and the radion enhance the chance to probe the model: The RS effects on the $`q\overline{q}ZZ`$ process, which are generated only by KK gravitons, are much smaller than those on the $`ggZZ`$ one; the KK graviton effects increase the cross section of $`ggZZ`$ throughout the $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions; the resonance shape of the radion is distinguishable from that of the Higgs boson. Numerical results of the $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions have been obtained to show the dependence of the RS model parameters, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ,k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}},m_\varphi )`$. The distinction between the Higgs boson and radion even with the same mass is feasible since the resonance peak of the radion is narrower than that of the Higgs boson in most of the parameter space. The $`p_T`$ and invariant-mass distributions for the polarized $`Z`$ boson pair have been also presented. We have shown that especially the production of longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ bosons, to which the SM contributions are suppressed, receives substantial corrections due to KK gravitons and the radion. Polarization measurements would provide one of the most robust methods to signal the RS effects. The $`1\sigma `$ sensitivity bounds on $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ,m_\varphi )`$ with $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$ have been also obtained. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ of about $`5`$ TeV can be experimentally searched even with restrictive experimental efficiency. In conclusion, the channel of $`Z`$-boson pair production at LHC with the measurement of the $`Z`$-polarizations and the kinematic distributions can provide an efficient method to probe the effects of the RS scenario with the modules fields being stabilized by the Goldberger-Wise mechanism.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank K.Y. Lee and W.Y. Song for useful discussions on this work. The work was supported by the BK21 Program.


format: text

text:
# Wavy stripes and squares in zero Prandtl number convection

## Abstract

A simple model to explain numerically observed behaviour of chaotically varying stripes and square patterns in zero Prandtl number convection in Boussinesq fluid is presented. The nonlinear interaction of mutually perpendicular sets of wavy rolls, via higher order modes, may lead to a competition between the two sets of rolls. The appearance of square patterns is due to secondary forward Hopf bifurcation of a set of wavy rolls.

The study of low Prandtl number thermal convection \[1-13\] has been long motivated by its importance in geophysical and astrophysical problems. The hydrodynamical equations of thermal convection in Boussinesq fluids involve two types of nonlinearity. The first describes self-interaction $`𝐯.𝐯`$ of the velocity field $`𝐯`$, and the second nonlinearity $`𝐯.\theta `$ results from the advection of the temperature fluctuation $`\theta `$ by the velocity field. The nonlinearity $`𝐯.\theta `$ may be neglected in the asymptotic limit of zero Prandtl number spiegel . The linearly growing two-dimensional (2D) rolls then become exact solutions of nonlinear equations, if stress-free boundary conditions are considered. This makes this limit interesting even from purely theoretical point. Thual thual  recently showed by a most general 3D direct numerical simulations (DNS) of zero $`P`$ asymptotic equations that the solutions do not blow up. The comparison with full Boussinesq equations with both nonlinearities also reproduced zero P results. This DNS showed many interesting patterns including the possibility of square patterns in zero $`P`$ Boussinesq fluids with stress-free boundaries for $`1.05<r(=R/R_c)<1.7`$, where the critical Rayleigh number $`R_c=27\pi ^4/4`$. However, the mechanism of generation of square patterns in zero $`P`$ convection remains unexplained. A nonlinear interaction between 2D rolls cannot generate either square or hexagonal patterns kumar  for zero $`P`$ asymptotic equations as growing straight 2D rolls are their exact solutions. The streamlines in DNS thual  support this view. On the other hand, the mechanism of prevention of continuous growth of 2D rolls approximately $`0.5\%`$ above the onset of convection was captured in a simple dynamical system kft , which agreed well with the results of DNS in its validity range. This model suggested that 2D rolls undergo self-tuned nonlocal wavy instability kft , which prevents their further growth. The nonlinear superposition of two sets of wavy rolls may result in the form of square patterns. However, this proposition is not analyzed so far.

We present in this article a simple dynamical system, which describes nonlinear interaction between mutually perpendicular sets of wavy rolls, and captures the mechanism of selection of square patterns in zero Prandtl number Boussinesq fluid. We show that the generation of vertical vorticity is important in addition to higher order modes to provide nonlinear coupling among mutually perpendicular sets of rolls. This is qualitatively different from the case of high Prandtl number convection das  where nonlinear interaction of two sets of straight rolls may give rise to square patterns even in absence of vertical vorticity. The mutually perpendicular sets of wavy rolls interact through distortions in the vertical velocity as well as the vertical vorticity. The nonlinear interaction give rise to complex convective patterns. The sequence of wavy stripe along $`x`$axis, square patterns, and $`y`$ axis is chaotic. The generation of square patterns from wavy rolls is via forward Hopf bifurcation.

We consider a thin horizontal layer of fluid of thickness $`d`$, confined between two conducting boundaries, and heated underneath. The fluid motion is assumed to be governed by zero Prandtl number Boussinesq equations spiegel ; thual , which may be put in the following dimensionless form:

$`_t^2v_3`$ $`=`$ $`^4v_3+R_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta `$ (1)
$``$ $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟑}.\times [(\omega .)𝐯(𝐯.)\omega ]`$
$`_t\omega _3`$ $`=`$ $`^2\omega _3+[(\omega .)v_3(𝐯.)\omega _3]`$ (2)
$`^2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`v_3`$ (3)
where $`𝐯(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ is the velocity field, $`\theta `$ the deviation from the conductive temperature profile, and $`\omega =\times 𝐯(\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3)`$ the vorticity field. The Rayleigh number R is defined as $`R=\frac{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }T)gd^3}{\nu \kappa }`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion of the fluid, g the acceleration due to gravity. The unit vector $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is directed vertically upward, which is assumed to be the positive direction of $`x_3`$-axis. The boundary conditions at the stress-free conducting flat surfaces imply $`\theta =v_3=_{33}v_3=0`$ at $`x_3=0,1`$. and $`_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=_{11}+_{22}`$ is the horizontal Laplacian.

We employ the standard Galerkin procedure to describe the convection patterns in the form two sets mutually perpendicular sets of wavy rolls, and the patterns resulting due to their nonlinear superposition. The spatial dependence of the vertical velocity and the vertical vorticity are expanded in Fourier series, which is compatible with the stress-free flat conducting boundaries and periodic boundary conditions in the horizontal plane. As DNS shows either standing waves or stationary patterns, all time-dependent Fourier amplitudes are set to be real. The expansion for all the fields are truncated to describe convective structures in the form of straight cylindrical (2D) rolls, wavy (3D) rolls, and patterns arising due to their nonlinear superposition. The vertical velocity $`v_3`$ and the vertical vorticity $`\omega _3`$ then read as

$`v_3`$ $`=`$ $`[W_{101}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)+W_{011}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)]\mathrm{sin}(\pi x_3)`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`W_{211}(t)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`W_{121}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`W_{111}(t)\mathrm{sin}(kx_1)\mathrm{sin}(kx_2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`W_{112}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x_3)+\mathrm{}.`$
$`\omega _3`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{010}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)+Z_{100}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`Z_{111}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)\mathrm{cos}(\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`[Z_{201}(t)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_1)+Z_{021}(t)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_2)]\mathrm{cos}(\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`[Z_{102}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)+Z_{012}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)]\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`Z_{210}(t)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(kx_2)`$
$`+`$ $`Z_{120}(t)\mathrm{cos}(kx_1)\mathrm{cos}(2kx_2)+\mathrm{}.`$
The temperature field is slaved in the limit of zero Prandtl number, and it can be computed from Eq. 3. The horizontal components $`v_1,v_2`$ of the velocity field and the same ($`\omega _1,\omega _2`$) of the vorticity field are then computed by their solenoidal character. We now project the hydrodynamical equations $`13`$ into these modes to get the following dynamical system

$`\dot{\stackrel{}{X}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{2}}(r1)\stackrel{}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\zeta _1\\ S\zeta _2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\varphi _1\\ S\varphi _2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\psi _1\\ S\psi _2\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\eta \stackrel{}{\zeta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}\eta \stackrel{}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30\pi }}\eta \stackrel{}{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2\psi _2\\ \chi _1\psi _1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{24}}T\stackrel{}{Y}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}TX_2\\ TX_1\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`\dot{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{16}}(27r32)S\zeta _1X_1+\zeta _2X_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}(X_1\psi _1+X_2\psi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X_1\varphi _1+X_2\varphi _2)`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{100}}(\psi _1Y_2\psi _2Y_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}(\varphi _1Y_2\varphi _2Y_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}(\zeta _1Y_2\zeta _2Y_1)`$
$`\dot{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{100}}(27r500)T{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{5}}X_1X_2{\displaystyle \frac{13\pi }{50}}\stackrel{}{X}.\stackrel{}{Y}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{40}}S(\chi _1\chi _2){\displaystyle \frac{63\pi }{500}}Y_1Y_2`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10\pi }}\eta (\chi _1+\chi _2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{25\pi }}(\psi _1\varphi _2+\psi _2\varphi _1){\displaystyle \frac{4}{5\pi }}(\zeta _2\varphi _1+\zeta _1\varphi _2)`$
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{98}}(135r343)\stackrel{}{Y}+{\displaystyle \frac{31\pi }{28}}T\stackrel{}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{28}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\varphi _2\\ S\varphi _1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{40}}\left(\begin{array}{c}TY_2\\ TY_1\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{14\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \varphi _2\\ \eta \varphi _1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{28}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\psi _2\\ S\psi _1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{9}{70\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \psi _2\\ \eta \psi _1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{35\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2\psi _1\\ \chi _1\psi _2\end{array}\right)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{14}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S\zeta _2\\ S\zeta _1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{7\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \zeta _2\\ \eta \zeta _1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{7\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\varphi _1\\ \chi _2\varphi _2\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{7\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1\chi _1\\ \zeta _2\chi _2\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{\zeta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\stackrel{}{\zeta }+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SX_1\\ SX_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SY_2\\ SY_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\eta \stackrel{}{X}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2X_2\\ \chi _1X_1\end{array}\right)`$ (49)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta Y_2\\ \eta Y_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}T\varphi _2\\ T\varphi _1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{20}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1Y_1\\ \chi _2X_2\end{array}\right)`$ (56)
$`\dot{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ^2\eta +\pi \stackrel{}{\zeta }.\stackrel{}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }.\stackrel{}{X}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\stackrel{}{\psi }.\stackrel{}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}T(\chi _1+\chi _2){\displaystyle \frac{7\pi }{20}}(\varphi _2Y_1+\varphi _1Y_2)`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{10}}(\zeta _2Y_1+\zeta _1Y_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{20}}(\psi _1Y_2+\psi _2Y_1)`$
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{\psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi ^2}{2}}\stackrel{}{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SX_1\\ SX_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi }{8}}\eta \stackrel{}{X}+\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1X_2\\ \chi _2X_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi _2}{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SY_2\\ SY_1\end{array}\right)`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}T\varphi _2\\ T\varphi _1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{13\pi }{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta Y_2\\ \eta Y_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{11\pi }{40}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2Y_1\\ \chi _1Y_2\end{array}\right)`$ (71)
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^2}{2}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SX_1\\ SX_2\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2X_2\\ \chi _1X_1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\eta \stackrel{}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}T\zeta _2\\ T\zeta _1\end{array}\right)`$ (78)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}T\psi _2\\ T\psi _1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi _2}{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}SY_2\\ SY_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{80}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta Y_2\\ \eta Y_1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{20}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1Y_1\\ \chi _2Y_2\end{array}\right)`$ (87)
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`3\pi ^2\stackrel{}{\chi }+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _2X_1\\ \varphi _1X_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}ST\\ ST\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta T\\ \eta T\end{array}\right)`$ (94)
$`+`$ $`\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _2X_1\\ \zeta _1X_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{5}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1Y_1\\ \varphi _2Y_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{5}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1Y_1\\ \zeta _2Y_2\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{10}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _2Y_2\\ \psi _1Y_1\end{array}\right)`$ (103)
where $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}X_1\\ X_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}W_{101}\\ W_{011}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{}{Y}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}Y_1\\ Y_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}W_{211}\\ W_{121}\end{array}\right)`$, $`S=W_{111}`$, $`T=W_{112}`$ , $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1\\ \zeta _2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_{010}\\ Z_{100}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_{012}\\ Z_{102}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_{210}\\ Z_{120}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_{201}\\ Z_{021}\end{array}\right),`$ and $`\eta =Z_{111}`$. All roman characters stand for velocity modes, and greek letters stand for vorticity modes.

There is no fixed points in this model as growing straight rolls are exact solutions of the problem. We now numerically integrate this dynamical system to investigate time dependent solutions. For each value of $`r`$, we start integration with randomly chosen initial conditions. We integrate for long periods ($`100200`$ times the viscous diffusive time scale) to ignore the transient effects. We increase $`r`$ in small steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ ($`=0.01`$) and repeat the above mentioned procedure. We get chaotic solutions for $`1.11r1.42`$ for $`k_x=k_y=k_c=\pi /\sqrt{2}`$, which is in qualitative agreement with the DNS of Thual thual . For $`r<1.11`$ we observe wavy rolls oscillating chaotically, and for $`r1.11`$ we observe chaotic sequence of wavy rolls, squares, and asymmetric squares. For $`r>1.42`$ and $`k_x=k_y=k_c`$, the model is not good enough as the anharmonicity in various fields is very high in the limit of zero Prandtl number. This is natural as there is no additional heat flux across the fluid layer due to convective motion. The extra energy is consumed by the internal dynamics.

Figure 1 shows competition of various patterns for $`r=1.11`$. Two mutually perpendicular sets of wavy rolls compete with each other. This leads to square as well as patchwork quilt patterns. The sequence of occurrence of these patterns is not periodic but chaotic. Notice that the square pattern (see Fig. 1) consists of two sets of squares. A small (big) square has four big (small) squares as its nearest neighbors (Fig. 1 b). This feature of the square pattern is qualitatively new for convection in Boussinesq fluid.

The top row of Fig. 2 (starting from left) shows time evolution of velocity modes $`W_{101}`$, $`W_{011}`$ and $`W_{112}`$ respectively after integration of the model for a period more than $`200\times `$ viscous time scale. The signal is chaotic. The second and third rows of Fig. 2 show various projections of the phase plots in fifteen dimensional phase space. Figure 3 shows time variation of the spatially average energy $`E_{av}=\frac{1}{2}<v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2>_{x_1x_2x_3}.`$ The averaged energy shows relaxation oscillation in irregular way. This is also a common feature of DNS thual .

We have presented in this paper a simple model which explains the mechanism responsible for generation of square patterns in zero Prandtl number limit in Boussinesq fluids. As the Rayleigh number is increased, one set of wavy rolls oscillating chaotically become unstable. Another set of wavy rolls are generated in a direction perpendicular to the former one. The nonlinear superposition of these wavy rolls give rise to squares and other complex patterns. The vertical vorticity modes with nonzero mean in vertical direction are responsible for the wavy nature of rolls at very close to the instability onset in case of stress-free bounding surfaces. These modes stop the unlimited growth of the $`2D`$ rolls. The DNS thual  also showed wavy rolls rather than straight rolls. The nonlinear modes depending on both the horizontal coordinates facilitate the exchange of energy between two sets of wavy rolls.

Acknowledgements: Pinaki Pal acknowledges support from CSIR, India through its grants.


text:
# Dispersion of the 𝜋 resonance

\[

preprint: SU-ITP # 97/33

We study the dispersion of the $`\pi `$ resonance in the superconducting state within the projected $`SO(5)`$ model. Away from the the commensurate momentum, the propagation of the $`\pi `$ resonance creates phase slips in the superconducting order parameter. This frustration effect leads to a strong dressing of the $`\pi `$ resonance and a downwards dispersion away from the commensurate wave vector. Based on these results, we argue that the the commensurate resonance and incommensurate magnetic fluctuations in the cuprates are continuously connected.

\]

The emergence of a commensurate neutron resonance peak below $`T_c`$ is one of the most striking properties of the cuprates. There are many different theoretical approaches to the problem. Within the $`SO(5)`$ theory, this resonance peak is interpreted as a collective mode describing a rotation from the superconducting (SC) state to the commensurate antiferromagnetic (AF) state. Since the rotation operator is a triplet particle-particle operator, which can only couple to neutrons in a SC state, this theory predicts that the intensity of the $`\pi `$ resonance mode is proportional to the square of the SC order parameter. This fact naturally explains the temperature dependence of the resonance intensity observed in experiments, and anticipated the recently observed dependence of the resonance intensity on the magnetic field. A c-axis magnetic field creates non-SC vortex cores, therefore it reduces the SC order parameter on the average. On the other hand, a magnetic field aligned in the ab plane has little effects in reducing the SC order parameter. From the dependence of the resonance intensity on the SC order parameter within the $`SO(5)`$ theory, one would therefore naturally expect a reduction of the resonance intensity in the presence of a $`c`$ axis magnetic field.

More recently, incommensurate magnetic fluctuations have also been observed in the YBCO superconductors. Unlike their counterparts in the LSCO superconductors, these incommensurate magnetic fluctuations are energy dependent, and seem to merge continuously into the $`\pi `$ resonance mode. In fact, this behavior is predicted by Furusaki and one of us, who applied the $`SO(5)`$ theory to the ladder systems. Using a asymptotically exact renormalization group method, they found that the $`\pi `$ resonance mode in the ladder system has a downward dispersion away from the commensurate wave vector (note the remarkable resemblance of Fig. 5 and 6 of reference  and the experimental Fig. 3A of Ref. ). In fact, in a earlier work, Poilblanc, Scalapino and Hanke found similar behavior in a exact diagonalization study of the ladder systems. The purpose of this work is to identify the physical origin of this downwards dispersion relation and construct a unified theory of the commensurate and incommensurate magnetic fluctuations in the cuprates.

To understand the basic physics of the competition between the commensurate and incommensurate magnetic fluctuations, let us first consider a very simple system of doped $`tJ_{||}J_{}`$ ladder. In the $`J_{}>>J_{||}`$ limit, the SC state of the doped ladder system can be viewed as a coherent linear superposition of a hole pair and a singlet pair on each rung. In this picture, the $`\pi `$ resonance is simply a linear superposition of a spin triplet excitation on each rung. Because the SC state is a broken symmetry state, such a excitation can be either created by a spin triplet operator or a triplet particle-particle operator, the so called $`\pi `$ operator. Simple second order perturbation theory shows that the exchange parameter between the triplet and a hole pair is $`\frac{4t^2}{J_{}}`$, which has a negative sign, while the exchange parameter between the triplet and the singlet pair is $`\frac{J_{||}}{2}`$, which has a positive sign. The positive exchange sign prefers a minimal energy wave vector at $`q_{min}=\pi `$, while the negative sign prefers a minimal energy wave vector at $`q_{min}=0`$. Since the SC ground state is a linear superposition of both the hole pair and the singlet pair, this effect leads to a competition between these two band minima. In one dimension, this competition always leads to a incommensurate band minimum. This picture is a crude caricature of the basic physics leading to the incommensurate band minimum for the $`\pi `$ resonance. For the full calculations in one dimensions, readers are referred to the original paper by Furusaki and one of us.

In this paper, we shall generalize this physics to two dimensions and study the propagation of the $`\pi `$ resonance in the SC state, within the projected $`SO(5)`$ model ($`pSO(5)`$ model). (In fact, within the pure SC state, there is no essential difference between the $`SO(5)`$ model and the projected $`SO(5)`$ model.) Just like the physical picture outlined above, the propagation of the $`\pi `$ resonance leads to a sign reversal of the SC order parameter behind it. Therefore, the problem is similar to the problem of the propagation of a single hole in the antiferromagnetic background, which has been studied extensively in the literature. In fact, using basically the same approximations, we shall show that the quantum fluctuations erase the string of sign reversals, but leads to a non-trivial correction to the dispersion of the $`\pi `$ resonance. Depending on parameters of the model, the correction can give rise to a downward dispersion of the $`\pi `$ mode, reaching a minimum at incommensurate wave vector. Current experiments only show a downwards dispersion of the $`\pi `$ resonance. The main prediction of our theory is that there will be a upward turn in the dispersion after the minimum is reached.

We begin with the projected $`SO(5)`$ model defined on a lattice, (using the notations of Ref. .)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}t_\alpha ^{}(x)t_\alpha (x)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}n_i(x)n_i(x)`$ (1)
$``$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{<xx^{}>}{}}n_\alpha (x)n_\alpha (x^{})J_c{\displaystyle \underset{<xx^{}>}{}}n_i(x)n_i(x^{})`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`V{\displaystyle \underset{<xx^{}>}{}}L_{ab}(x)L_{ab}(x^{})`$ (3)
where $`i=1,5`$, $`\alpha =2,3,4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c=\mathrm{\Delta }_c\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. In $`SO(5)`$ superspin notation, the superspin is defined as

$`n_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(t_h+t_h^{})n_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(t_ht_h^{})`$ (4)
$`n_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(t_\alpha +t_\alpha ^+).`$ (5)
where $`t_h`$ and $`t_\alpha `$ are hard-core boson annihilation operators for the hole pair and the magnon. Here one lattice site of this effective model corresponds to a plaquette in the original $`C_uO_2`$ plane, and we have made a shift of the momentum vector for $`t_\alpha `$ bosons by $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. $`pSO(5)`$ model  is constructed by projecting out doubly occupied configuration from the local $`SO(5)`$ multiplets. Even though some members of the $`SO(5)`$ multiplets are projected out, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ and $`J_c=2J_s`$, the mean field ground state manifold is still $`SO(5)`$ symmetric, and AF can be smoothly rotated into SC with no energy cost. In Ref., we have shown this model gives a realistic description of the global phase diagram of the cuprates and many of their physical properties. In that paper, the $`V`$-term in above Hamiltonian was simply ignored because it does not impact the mean field phase diagram if only pure AF phase and SC phase are concerned. However, one important observation in this paper is that this term plays important role on the dispersion of $`\pi `$ mode. If we limit our discussion on one single magnon in Hilbert space, the $`V`$-term simply describes the hopping exchange between a hole-pair and a magnon. The hopping between a magnon and a singlet is described in the term $`J_sn_\alpha (x)n_\alpha (x^{})`$. Since we only discuss the motion of an single magnon, all of other matrix elements for these two terms vanish except

$`VL_{ab}(x)L_{ab}(x^{})(t_h^+(x)t_\alpha ^+(x^{})|0>)`$ $`=`$ $`Vt_h^+(x^{})t_\alpha ^+(x)|0>`$ (6)
$`J_sn_\alpha (x)n_\alpha (x^{})(b^+(x)t_\alpha ^+(x^{})|0>)`$ $`=`$ $`J_sb^+(x^{})t_\alpha ^+(x)|0>,`$ (7)
where $`b^+(x)`$ creates an singlet at site $`x`$. Since both of $`J_s`$ and $`V`$ is positive in this model, we see that these two hopping processes have opposite signs. Therefore, in a pure SC state, which is a coherent state of singlet and hole pair on each site, the hopping of magnon flips the phase of the local SC order. More precisely, let’s take a mean field pure SC state, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\varphi _+(x),\varphi _\pm (x)=(cos\theta b^+(x)\pm sin\theta t_h^+(x))|0>,`$ (8)
which has SC order, $`<n_1(x)>=\frac{1}{2}sin(2\theta )`$, on each site. Taking the hopping term of a magnon between sites $`x,x^{}`$ we obtain for $`V=J_s`$,

$`(L_{ab}(x)L_{ab}(x^{})n_\alpha (x)n_\alpha (x^{}))t_\alpha ^+(x^{})\varphi _+(x)=t_\alpha ^+(x)\varphi _{}(x^{}),`$ (9)
in which the SC order at site $`x^{}`$, $`n_1(x^{})`$, takes value $`<n_1(x)>=\frac{1}{2}sin(2\theta )`$. A schematic diagram is shown in Fig.1 to reflect the hopping of a magnon in the SC state. The motion of a magnon creates the phase mismatch similar to the spin mismatch caused by the motion of a single hole in a AF state.

In the Ising limit, the motion of magnon creates a phase mismatched string and feels a linear potential which results in an infinite effective magnon mass. However, similar to a single hole problem, quantum phase fluctuations in the SC state can erase the string effect and modify the dispersion relation. We employ the same method in ref. to solve the problem.

Taking the variational wavefunction in Eq.8, a simple mean field calculation gives the hole-pair density

$`\rho =sin^2(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{J_cz\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c}{2J_cz}},`$ (10)
where $`z`$ is the coordination number on the lattice. We introduce a Lagrangian multiplier field $`\lambda `$ to enforce the hard-core boson constraint on average. To obtain the collective phase mode, we define two new boson operators,

$`\alpha _1(x)=sin\theta b(x)cos\theta t_h(x),`$ (11)
$`\alpha _2(x)=cos\theta b(x)+sin\theta t_h(x),`$ (12)
which satisfy $`\alpha _1(x)|\mathrm{\Phi }>=0,<\alpha _2(x)>=1`$. The quadratic Hamiltonian describing the phase fluctuation above the mean field state is therefore given by

$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H<H>`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`J_cz{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[(1\gamma (q)+{\displaystyle \frac{sin^2(2\theta )}{2}}\gamma (q))\alpha _1^+(q)\alpha _1(q)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sin^2(2\theta )}{4}}\gamma (q)(\alpha _1(q)\alpha _1(q)+h.c.)]`$ (15)
where $`\gamma (q)=\frac{cos(q_x)+cos(q_y)}{2}`$. In the following part of paper, we normalize all of the energy scale by taking $`(J_s+V)z/2=1`$ and define two additional dimensionless parameters,

$`x={\displaystyle \frac{VJ_s}{J_s+V}},y={\displaystyle \frac{2J_c}{(J_s+V)}}.`$ (16)
By standard diagonalization,

$`H^{}={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}ϵ(q)\beta ^+(q)\beta (q),`$ (17)
where

$`\beta (q)`$ $`=`$ $`u(q)\alpha _1(q)v(q)\alpha _1^+(q)`$ (18)
$`ϵ(q)`$ $`=`$ $`y\sqrt{(1\gamma (q))^2+sin^2(2\theta )\gamma (q)(1\gamma (q))}`$ (19)
$`u(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+y{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma (q)+\frac{sin^2(2\theta )}{2}\gamma (q))}{2ϵ(q)}}}`$ (20)
$`v(q)`$ $`=`$ $`sign(\gamma (q))\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+y{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma (q)+\frac{sin^2(2\theta )}{2}\gamma (q)}{2ϵ(q)}}}.`$ (21)
The hopping of a single magnon can be described by the following Hamiltonian,

$`H_m=`$ $``$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{xx^{}}{}}(t_\alpha ^+(x)t_\alpha (x^{})b^+(x^{})b(x)+h.c.)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`V{\displaystyle \underset{xx^{}}{}}(t_\alpha ^+(x)t_\alpha (x^{})t_h^+(x^{})t_h(x)+h.c.).`$ (23)
Taking the mean field expectations and using relations of Eq.8, we get

$`H_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(E_b(q,\theta )t_\alpha ^+(q)t_\alpha (q)+h.c.)`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kq}{}}f(k,q)t_\alpha ^+(k)t_\alpha (kq),`$ (25)
where

$`E_b(q,\theta )=(xcos(2\theta ))\gamma (q).`$ (26)
and

$`f(k,q)`$ $`=`$ $`sin(2\theta )[(\gamma (kq)u(q)+\gamma (k)v(q))\beta (q)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`(\gamma (k)u(q)+\gamma (kq)v(q))\beta ^+(q)].`$ (28)
Given the Hamiltonian composed of Eq.17 and Eq.25, we can calculate the dynamic spin correlation function,

$`G(x,t)=i<\mathrm{\Phi }|T[t_\alpha (x,t)b^+(x,t)t_\alpha ^+(0,0)b(0,0)]|\mathrm{\Phi }>.`$ (29)
Taking the mean field value on $`b`$ and using the self-consistent perturbation which sums only noncrossing diagrams, we obtain the following Dyson’s equation,

$`G(k,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{cos^2(\theta )}{\omega E_0(k,\theta )_qF(k,q,\theta )G(kq,\omega ϵ(q))}}`$ (30)
where

$`F(k,q,\theta )=sin^2(2\theta )|\gamma (kq)u(q)+\gamma (k)v(q)|^2.`$ (31)
In this approximation, the vertex is neglected, which is small according to the calculation in Ref. for the single hole problem. In our model, the problem is just more complicated in the sense that the coupling strength and the dispersion of phase mode are quite different and depend on the density of hole pairs. We numerically solve the above integral equations to obtain the spectrum, $`A(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }G(k,\omega )`$ , and in particular the minimum position of the dispersion in the broad arrange of parameters. We first observe is that the bare dispersion of magnon, $`E_b(k)`$, can be removed in Eq.30 by shifting $`\omega `$. Moreover, if $`y`$ is large, it is better to rescale $`ϵ(q)`$ in numerical calculation, which can narrow the energy arrange required to find a solution. Combine these two observations, the numerical convergence is rather fast.

Throughout the numerical calculation, a sharp coherent peak is found in all momentum space. The spectral function can be generally written as

$`A(k,\omega ,\theta ,y)=cos^2(\theta )Z(k,\theta ,y)\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Omega }(k,\theta ,y))+A^{},`$ (32)
where $`A^{}`$ is the incoherent part and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(k,\theta ,y)`$ defines the energy dispersion. From our numerical result, we find that the energy dispersion, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(x,k,\theta ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(x,0,\theta ,y)+(E_b(k,\theta )E_b(0,\theta ))`$ (33)
$``$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(k,\theta ,y),`$ (34)
where the first term is the energy at $`k=(0,0)`$, the second one is the bare dispersion, and the third is the relative energy shift contributed by fluctuation correction. Based on the symmetry of our model, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(k,\rho ,y)=\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(k,1\rho ,y)`$). We find that $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(k,\theta )`$ fits very well a product of two separated functions, $`h(\theta ,y)`$ and $`g(k)`$, where $`h(\theta ,y)`$ is independent of $`k`$. Considering the symmetry of the lattice, we find the function $`g(k)`$ can be well fitted to the following form,

$`g(k_x,k_y)`$ $`=`$ $`0.128(sin^2(k_x)+sin^2(k_y))`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`0.054(cos(k_x)cos(k_y))^2.`$ (36)
Thus, the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be analytically determined by plugging Eq.36 into Eq.34. The global minimum always happens along the diagonal $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ direction. However, along the $`(\pi ,0)`$ direction, there is a local minimum. The global and local minimum positions start to shift from $`(0,0)`$ at a common critical density $`\rho _I`$ which is approximately determined by the equation

$`cos(2\theta _I)0.512h(\theta _I,y)x=0.`$ (37)
In Fig.2, we show the global minimum position, $`(k_m,k_m)`$, and local minimum, $`(k_m,0)`$, as the function of the density. In Fig.3, we also show the full dispersion of $`\pi `$ mode at the density $`\rho =0.4`$.

There is another important density in the problem. Within the $`pSO(5)`$ model, uniform SC state can only exist for densities exceeding $`\rho _c`$. Ignoring small quantum corrections, $`\rho _c`$ is given by

$`\rho _c={\displaystyle \frac{r\delta _s+0.5(1x)}{0.5y+r+1}},`$ (38)
where $`r=J_s/(J_s+V)`$ and $`\delta _s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_s}{J_sz+Vz}`$. Therefore, depended on the parameters, $`\rho _I`$ could be larger or smaller than $`\rho _c`$. For example, at $`x=0`$, $`y=0.5`$ and $`r=0.25`$, $`\rho _c>\rho _I`$ for $`\delta _s<0.3`$ and $`\rho _c<\rho _I`$ for $`\delta _s>0.3`$. Therefore, the relative sizes between $`\rho _I`$ and $`\rho _c`$ could tell us the nature of the states as doping level is reduced. For $`\rho <\rho _c`$, a mix state between AF and SC is obtained. If $`\rho _I>\rho _c`$, the lowest energy magnetic fluctuations are commensurate at the transition, and a uniform mix state between AF and SC is obtained. On the other hand, if $`\rho _I<\rho _c`$, the lowest magnetic excitations are incommensurate at the transition, and a stripe state with alternating AF and SC order appears.

Finally we would like to compare our results with two classes of theory of the $`\pi `$ resonance, one based on particle-particle picture and the other based on the particle hole picture. Since all calculations are carried out in the SC state, where these two channels mix, distinctions can only be made meaningfully by comparing the final physical predictions. In this work, the intensity of the peak is determined is $`cos^2(\theta )Z(k,\theta )`$, where $`Z(k,\theta )`$ is basically independent of the density parameter $`\theta `$. Therefore, the intensity of the magnetic collective mode is

$`cos^2(\theta )=1\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{|<n_1>|^2}{\rho }},`$ (39)
where $`<n_1>`$ is the SC order parameter. This result agrees exactly with the prediction of the particle-particle picture. The energy of the collective mode is independent of the SC energy gap, and is expected to be temperature independent. Both these properties are in contrast with the predictions of based on the particle-hole picture, where the mode intensity is insensitive to the SC order, and the mode energy is always less than the SC pairing gap. The particle-hole based pictures can also explain the downward dispersion, however the mode terminates at certain wave vector due to Landau damping. On the other hand, our current work predicts a minimum in the dispersion. The energy at the minimum is the spin gap in the system.

We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with Drs. A. Auerbach, E. Demler, A. Dorneich and W. Hanke, SCZ and JP Hu are supported by the NSF under grant numbers DMR-9814289. JP Hu is also supported by the Stanford Graduate fellowship and ITP Graduate Fellowship in UCSB. Part of the work was carried out during the workshop on high $`T_c`$ superconductivity at the Institute for Theoretical Physics at UC Santa Barbara.