format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent CLEO measurement of the radiative $`bs\gamma `$ decay  has motivated theorists to study exclusive rare B meson decays such as $`BK^{()}l^+l^{}`$ . In the standard model, these rare decays occur at loop level and provide us with information on the parameters of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements  as well as various hadronic form factors. In this paper, we examine the decays of $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$ within the framework of the perturbative QCD (PQCD).

The calculations of matrix elements for exclusive hadron decays can be performed in the PQCD approach developed by Brodsky-Lepage (BL) . The application to B meson decays was first carried out in Refs.  and . In the BL formalism, the nonperturbative part is expressed as the hardon wave functions which could be determined via various QCD models such as the QCD sum rule method or lattice gauge theory and the transition amplitude is factorized into the convolution of hadron wave functions and the hard amplitude of the constituent quarks. However, with the BL approach, the nonperturbative effects appear  if one of the constituent quarks carries nearly all the momentum of hadron. To solve the problem, Li and Sterman  proposed by including the transverse momentum of constituent quark, $`k_T`$, and the Sudakov form factor to the wave functions to suppress the soft contributions from higher order corrections. In terms of the parameter $`b`$ with $`b`$ being the conjugate variable of $`k_T`$, they also showed that the effects can be also expressed as that in the BL factorization formalism.

The modified PQCD factorization theorem for exclusive heavy meson decays has been developed some time ago  and applied to nonleptonic $`BD^{()}\pi (\rho )`$ , penguin induced radiation $`BK^{}\gamma `$ , and $`BKK`$  decays. These decays involve three scales: the $`M_W`$ scale as the initial condition of renormalization-group (RG) equation, the typical scale $`t`$ which reflects the specific dynamics of the heavy meson decays, and the factorization scale $`1/b`$. Above the factorization scale, there are two large logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}(M_W/t)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(tb)`$, generated from radiative corrections. The former gives the evolution from $`M_W`$ down to $`t`$ described by the Wilson coefficient (WC), while the latter from $`t`$ to $`1/b`$. There also exist double logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}^2(Pb)`$ arising from the radiative correction to the meson wave function, where $`P`$ is the dominant light-cone component of a meson momentum. Resuming these double logarithms leads to a Sudakov form factor of $`\mathrm{exp}(s(P,b))`$ which suppresses the long-distance contributions in the large $`b`$ region such that the applicability of the PQCD around the energy scale of the bottom quark mass could be guaranteed.

The typical three-scale factorization formula is generally written as the following convolution product

$$C\left(t\right)H\left(t\right)\varphi (x,b)\mathrm{exp}\left(s(P,b)2_{1/b}^t\frac{d\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}\gamma \left(\alpha _s\left(\overline{\mu }\right)\right)\right)$$
(1)
where $`C(t)`$, $`H(t)`$ and $`\varphi (x,b)`$ denote the WC, hard decay amplitude and non-perturbative wave function, respectively, and the quark anomalous dimension $`\gamma =\alpha _s/\pi `$ is evaluated from $`t`$ to $`1/b`$. Except $`\varphi (x,b)`$ dictated by non-perturbative dynamics, all the convolution factors in Eq. (1) are calculable. Note that differing from the conventional factorization assumption (FA), the WC is also one of the convolution parts in Eq. (1). Thus, the $`\mu `$ dependent problem occurring in the FA could be solved naturally in the three-scale factorization formula.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we study the form factors in the framework of the PQCD for the decays of $`BK^{()}`$ transitions. In Sec. 3, we derive the forms of the differential decay rates and lepton asymmetries for $`BK^{()}l^+l^{}`$ based on the PQCD. In Sec. 4, we give the numerical analysis. We will also compare our results in the PQCD approach with that in the other QCD models. In Sec. 5, we present our conclusions.

## 2 Form factors in the framework of the PQCD

In the decay of $`BHl^+l^{}`$, the momentum of $`B`$ ($`H`$) in the light-cone coordinate is chosen as $`P_1=(P_{1(2)}^+,P_{1(2)}^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$, where $`P_1^\pm =M_B/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`P_2^\pm =(E_H\pm P_H)/\sqrt{2}`$ with $`E_H=\left(M_B^2+M_H^2q^2\right)/2M_B`$, $`P_H=\sqrt{E_H^2P_H^2}`$, and $`q^2`$ is the squared momentum transfer. We define the momentum of the light valence quark in the $`B`$ meson as $`k_1`$ and use $`x_1=k_1^+/P_1^+`$ with $`k_1^+`$ and $`k_{1T}`$ being the plus and transverse components of $`k_1`$, respectively. The two light valence quarks in the $`H`$ meson carry the longitudinal momenta $`x_2P_2`$ and $`(1x_2)P_2`$, and transverse momenta $`𝐤_{2T}`$ and $`𝐤_{2T}`$, respectively.

The Sudakov resummations of large logarithmic corrections lead to the exponential forms of $`\mathrm{exp}(S_B)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(S_H)`$ for $`B`$ and $`H`$ wave functions, respectively, where

$`S_B(t)`$ $`=`$ $`s(x_1P_1^+,b_1)+2{\displaystyle _{1/b_1}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}}\gamma (\alpha _s(\overline{\mu })),`$
$`S_H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`s(x_2P_2^+,b_2)+s((1x_2)P_2^+,b_2)+2{\displaystyle _{1/b_2}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}}\gamma (\alpha _s(\overline{\mu })).`$ (2)
In Eq. (2), $`b_1`$and $`b_2`$ represent the transverse momentum extents of $`B`$ and $`H`$ and are conjugate to the parton transverse momenta $`k_{1T}`$ and $`k_{2T}`$, respectively. The form for $`s`$ is written as

$$s(Q,b)=_{1/b}^Q\frac{d\mu }{\mu }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)A(\alpha _s(\mu ))+D(\alpha _s(\mu ))\right],$$
(3)
where the anomalous dimensions $`A`$ and $`D`$ calculated to the two and one-loop levels, respectively, are given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{67}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{27}}f+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}}{2}}\right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\gamma _E1}}{2}}\right),`$ (4)
with $`C_F=4/3`$ being a color factor, $`f=4`$ the active flavor number, and $`\gamma _E`$ the Euler constant. For the running coupling constant, we use

$$\alpha _s(\mu )=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)}$$
(5)
with $`\beta _0=(332f)/3`$.

To get the transition elements of $`BH\left(H=K,K^{}\right)`$ with various types of vertices, we parametrize them in terms of the relevant form factors as follows:

$`K\left(P_2\right)|V_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1\left(q^2\right)P_\mu +F_2\left(q^2\right)q_\mu ,`$
$`K\left(P_2\right)|T_{\mu \nu }q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F_T\left(q^2\right)\left(q^2P_\mu qPq_\mu \right),`$
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|V_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`iV\left(q^2\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta ,`$
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|A_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`A_0\left(q^2\right)\epsilon _\mu ^{}+\epsilon ^{}q\left[A_1\left(q^2\right)P_\mu +A_2\left(q^2\right)q_\mu \right],`$
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|T_{\mu \nu }q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`iT\left(q^2\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta ,`$
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|T_{\mu \nu }^5q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_0\left(q^2\right)\epsilon _\mu ^{}\epsilon ^{}q\left[T_1\left(q^2\right)P_\mu +T_2\left(q^2\right)q_\mu \right],`$ (6)
with

$$T_0\left(q^2\right)+\left[T_1\left(q^2\right)Pq+T_2\left(q^2\right)q^2\right]=0$$
(7)
where $`V_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b`$, $`A_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }b`$, and $`T_{\mu \nu }^5=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b`$. The correspondences of our notation to that usually used in the literature are shown in the Appendix. Using the PQCD factorization formula, the components of form factors defined in Eq. (6) are found to be

$`F_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (8)
$`\{[r_K^{}(2\alpha _{2K}+2\beta _{2K}1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$
$`(1+\beta _{2K}+(1+2r_Ks)\alpha _{2K})\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)\left]E_K\right(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\left)h^K\right(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+[2r_K^{}(1\alpha _{1K}\beta _{1K})\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$
$`+(r_K(1\alpha _{1K}+\beta _{1K})s\beta _{1K})\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)]E_K\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\}`$
$`F_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (9)
$`\{[r_K^{}(1+2\alpha _{2K}2\beta _{2K})\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)+(1+\beta _{2K}`$
$`+(1+2r_Ks)\alpha _{2K})\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)]E_K(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\left)h^K\right(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+[2r_K^{}(1\alpha _{1K}+\beta _{1K})\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)+(r_K(1\alpha _{1K}\beta _{1K})`$
$`(2s)\beta _{1K})\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)]E_K\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\}`$
$`F_T\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (10)
$`\times \{[\alpha _{2K}r_K^{}\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)+(12\beta _{2K})\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)]E_K\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+[2r_K^{}(1\alpha _{1K})\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)\beta _{1K}\varphi _K(x_2,b_2)]E_K\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`V\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (11)
$`\times \{[12\beta _{2K^{}}\sqrt{r_K^{}}\alpha _{2K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\left[\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1\alpha _{1K^{}})\right]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^3{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (12)
$`\times \{[(1+r_K^{}s)(12\beta _{2K^{}}+\sqrt{r_K^{}}\alpha _{2K^{}})`$
$`4r_K^{}\alpha _{2K^{}}+2\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1+\beta _{2K^{}})\left]E_K^{}\right(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\left)h^K^{}\right(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\sqrt{r_K^{}}[(1+r_K^{}s)(1\alpha _{1K^{}})2\beta _{1K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (13)
$`\times \{[1+2\beta _{2K^{}}+\sqrt{r_K^{}}\alpha _{2K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_1,x_2,b_2,b_1)`$
$`+\left[\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1+\alpha _{1K^{}}+2\beta _{1K^{}})\right]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_1,b_2)\},`$
$`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (14)
$`\times \{[12\beta _{2K^{}}\sqrt{r_K^{}}\alpha _{2K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\left[\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1\alpha _{1K^{}}+2\beta _{1K^{}})\right]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (15)
$`\times \{[(1+\sqrt{r_K^{}})+2s\alpha _{2K^{}}+(2\sqrt{r_K^{}}1)(\alpha _{2K^{}}+\beta _{2K^{}})]`$
$`\times E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\sqrt{r_K^{}}[\alpha _{1K^{}}+\beta _{1K^{}}\left(x_1\right)1]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T_0\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^4{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (16)
$`\times \{[(1r_K^{}s)(1+\beta _{2K^{}})+\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1r_K^{}+s)`$
$`2\sqrt{r_K^{}}\left(\left(1r_K^{}\right)\left(\alpha _{2K^{}}+\beta _{2K^{}}\right)+s\left(\beta _{2K^{}}\alpha _{2K^{}}\right)\right)`$
$`2r_K^{}\alpha _{2K^{}}+(1+r_K^{}s)(1s)\alpha _{2K^{}}\left]E_K^{}\right(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\left)h^K^{}\right(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\sqrt{r_K^{}}[(1\alpha _{1K^{}}\beta _{1K^{}})(1r_K^{})`$
$`s(1+\beta _{1K^{}}\alpha _{1K^{}})]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (17)
$`\times \{[s\alpha _{2K^{}}(1+\sqrt{r_K^{}})(12\sqrt{r_K^{}})(\alpha _{2K^{}}+\beta _{2K^{}})]`$
$`\times E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`\sqrt{r_K^{}}[1\alpha _{1K^{}}\beta _{1K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _K^{}(x_2,b_2)`$ (18)
$`\times \{[(2r_K^{}s)\alpha _{2K^{}}+(1+\alpha _{2K^{}}+\beta _{2K^{}})`$
$`\sqrt{r_K^{}}(1+2\alpha _{2K^{}}2\beta _{2K^{}})\left]E_K^{}\right(t_e^{\left(1\right)}\left)h^K^{}\right(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+\sqrt{r_K^{}}[1\alpha _{1K^{}}+\beta _{1K^{}}]E_K^{}\left(t_e^{\left(2\right)}\right)h^K^{}(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
where $`\varphi _B`$, $`\varphi _K`$ ($`\varphi _K^{}`$), and $`\varphi _K^{}`$ are the wave functions of $`B`$, pseudovector (pseudoscalar) of $`K`$, and $`K^{}`$ mesons, respectively, the evolution factor are given by

$$E_H\left(t\right)=\alpha _s\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_B\left(t\right)S_H\left(t\right)\right),$$
(19)
and the related kinematic variables are parametrized as

$`\alpha _{1H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\phi _H}}}x_1,\beta _{1H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_Hs}{\sqrt{\phi _H}}}\right)x_1,`$
$`\beta _{2H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{\sqrt{\phi _H}}}x_2,\alpha _{2H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_Hs}{\sqrt{\phi _H}}}\right)x_2,`$
$`r_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{M_B^2}},r_H^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{0K}}{M_B}},s={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2}},`$ (20)
with

$`\phi _H`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1r_H\right)^22s\left(1+r_H\right)+s^2,`$
$`m_{0K}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2}{m_s+m_d}}.`$ (21)
The hard functions, $`h^H`$, are written as

$`h^H(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`K_0\left(D_H\sqrt{x_1x_2}b_1\right)[\theta (b_1b_2)K_0\left(D_H\sqrt{x_2}b_1\right)I_0\left(D_H\sqrt{x_2}b_2\right)`$ (22)
$`+\theta (b_2b_1)K_0\left(D_H\sqrt{x_2}b_2\right)I_0\left(D_H\sqrt{x_2}b_1\right)],`$
with

$$D_H^2=\frac{M_B^2}{2}\left(1+r_H\frac{q^2}{M_B^2}+\sqrt{\phi _H}\right).$$

The derivation of $`h`$, from the Fourier transformation of the lowest-order hard decay amplitude, is similar to that for $`BKK`$ decays . The hard scales $`t^{(1,2)}`$ are chosen by

$`t^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x_2}D_H,1/b_1,1/b_2),`$
$`t^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x_1}D_H,1/b_1,1/b_2).`$ (23)
The wave functions $`\varphi _H`$ and $`\varphi _K^{}`$ are defined by

$`\varphi _H(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^+}{2\pi }e^{ixP_3^{}y^+}\frac{1}{2}0|\overline{u}(y^+)\gamma ^{}\gamma _5s(0)|H},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{0K}}{P_3^{}}}\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^+}{2\pi }e^{ixP_3^{}y^+}\frac{1}{2}0|\overline{u}(y^+)\gamma _5s(0)|K},`$ (24)
with the normalization conditions of

$$_0^1𝑑x\varphi _B(x)=_0^1𝑑x\varphi _H(x)=_0^1𝑑x\varphi _K^{}(x)=\frac{f_{B\left(H\right)}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}.$$

We note that unlike the kaon case, we do not distinguish the pseudovector and pseudoscalar components of the $`B`$ wave functions since the factor $`M_B/(m_b+m_d)`$ is close to one. We also note that from Eqs. (15) and (17) we obtain $`T(0)=T_1(0)`$.

## 3 Differential decay rates and lepton asymmetries

The effective Hamiltonian of $`bsl^+l^{}`$ is given by

$$=\frac{G_F\alpha \lambda _t}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left[C_8\left(\mu \right)\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l+C_9\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l\frac{2m_bC_7\left(\mu \right)}{q^2}\overline{s}_Li\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu b_R\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l\right]$$
(25)
where $`C_8(\mu )`$, $`C_9`$ and $`C_7(\mu )`$ are the WCs and their expressions can be found in Ref.  for the SM. Since the operator associated with $`C_9`$ is not renormalized under the QCD, it is the only one with the $`\mu `$ scale free. Besides the short-distance (SD) contributions, the main effect on the branching ratio comes from cc̄ resonant states such as $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{}etc.,`$ $`i.e.`$, the long-distance (LD) contributions. In the literature , it has been suggested by combining FA and vector meson dominance (VMD) approximation to estimate LD effects for the $`B`$ decays. Hence, including the resonant effect (RE) and absorbing it to the related WC, we obtain the effective WC of $`C_8`$ as

$$C_8^{eff}=C_8\left(\mu \right)+\left(3C_1\left(\mu \right)+C_2\left(\mu \right)\right)\left(h(x,s)+\frac{3}{\alpha }\underset{j=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{}k_j\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(jl^+l^{}\right)M_j}{q^2M_j^2+iM_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\right),$$
(26)
where we have neglected the small Wilson coefficients, $`h(x,s)`$ describes the one-loop matrix elements of operators $`O_1=\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\beta \overline{c}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_Lc_\alpha `$ and $`O_2=\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu P_Lb\overline{c}\gamma _\mu P_Lc`$ , $`M_j`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$) are the masses (widths) of intermediate states, and the factors $`k_j`$ are phenomenological parameters for compensating the approximations of FA and VMD and reproducing the correct branching ratios $`Br\left(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }Xl^+l^{}X\right)=Br\left(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }X\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`Br\left(J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{}\right)`$. In this paper, for simplicity, we take $`k_j=1/\left(3C_1\left(\mu \right)+C_2\left(\mu \right)\right)`$.

Using Eqs. (6) and (25), the transition amplitudes of $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$ are as follows

$$_K=\frac{G_F\alpha \lambda _t}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }\left\{\left[\left(F_1^8\left(q^2\right)2m_bF_T^7\left(q^2\right)\right)P_\mu \right]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l+\left[F_1^9\left(q^2\right)P_\mu +F_2^9\left(q^2\right)q_\mu \right]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l\right\}$$
(27)
and

$`_K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha \lambda _t}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}\{[i(V^8(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}T^7(q^2))ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta `$ (28)
$`(A_0^8(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}T_0^7(q^2))\epsilon _\mu ^{}\epsilon ^{}q(A_1^8\left(q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}T_1^7\left(q^2\right))P_\mu ]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l`$
$`+[iV^9(q^2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta A_0^9(q^2)\epsilon _\mu ^{}\epsilon ^{}qA_1^9(q^2)P_\mu ]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l\}.`$
In Eqs. (27) and (28), we have included the WCs by inserting them into Eq. (19) as

$$E_H^j\left(t\right)=C_j\left(\mu \right)\alpha _s\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_B\left(t\right)S_H\left(t\right)\right)$$
(29)
and the superscripts of form factors denote the associated WCs of $`C_8^{eff}`$, $`C_9`$, and $`C_7`$, with the new definition of $`E_H^j`$ in Eqs. (8)-(18), respectively.

As usual, after integrating the angle dependent phase space, the differential decay rates for $`BHl^+l^{}(H=K,K^{})`$ are found to be

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\left(q^2\right)}{ds}=\frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2\left|\lambda _t\right|^2M_B^5}{3\times 2^9\pi ^5}\sqrt{\phi _H}\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{q^2}}\left[\left(1+\frac{2m_l^2}{q^2}\right)\beta _H+12\frac{m_l^2}{M_B^2}\delta _H\right]$$
(30)
where

$`\beta _K`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _K\left|F_1^8\left(q^2\right)2m_bF_T^7\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\phi _K\left|F_1^9\left(q^2\right)\right|^2,`$ (31)
$`\delta _K`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+r_K{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\right)\left|F_1^9\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\left(1r_K\right)ReF_1^9\left(q^2\right)F_2^9^{}\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\left|F_2^9\left(q^2\right)\right|^2,`$ (32)
$`\beta _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[s(2\phi _K^{}\stackrel{~}{V}\left(q^2\right)+3\stackrel{~}{F}_0\left(q^2\right))+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _K^{}}{4r_K^{}}}(\stackrel{~}{F}_0\left(q^2\right)+\phi _K^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_1\left(q^2\right)`$ (33)
$`+2(1r_K^{}s)\stackrel{~}{F}_{01}\left(q^2\right))],`$
$`\delta _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _K^{}}{2}}[2|V^9\left(q^2\right)M_B|^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\phi _K^{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{4r_K^{}}}|A_2^9\left(q^2\right)M_B|^2`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1+r_K^{}\right)s}{4r_K^{}}}\left|A_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r_K^{}}}Re\left(A_0^9\left(q^2\right)A_1^9\left(q^2\right)+A_0^9\left(q^2\right)A_2^9\left(q^2\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1r_K^{}}{2r_K^{}}}ReA_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_BA_2^9\left(q^2\right)M_B],`$
with

$`\stackrel{~}{V}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|V^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T^7\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\left|V^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right|^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_0\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^8\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0^7\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right|^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_1^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T_1^7\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\left|A_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right|^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{01}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_0^8\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0^7\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right)\left(A_1^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T_1^7\left(q^2\right)\right)\right]`$ (35)
$`+Re\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}A_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right).`$
The forward-backward asymmetry (FBA) can be defined by

$$𝒜_{FB}=\frac{1}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)/ds}\left[_0^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}{dsd\mathrm{cos}\theta }_1^0d\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}{dsd\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right],$$
(36)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle of charged $`l^+`$ with respect to the B meson in the rest frame of the lepton pair. For $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ decay, the FBA is found to be

$$𝒜_{FB}^K^{}=\frac{3s\sqrt{\phi _K^{}}\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{q^2}}R_{VA}\left(q^2\right)}{\left(1+\frac{2m_l^2}{q^2}\right)\beta _K^{}+12\frac{m_l^2}{M_B^2}\delta _K^{}}$$
(37)
with

$`R_{VA}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\left(V^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T^7\left(q^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right]`$ (38)
$`+Re\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_0^8\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0^7\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right)V^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right].`$
As expected, the FBA in Eq. (37) is sensitive to the chiral structure of interactions since it is related to the product of $`V`$ and $`A`$ currents. It is clear that the FBA for $`BKl^+l^{}`$ vanishes since there is no form factor from the axial current.

Another interesting lepton asymmetry is the longitudinal polarization of the lepton, defined by

$$P_L\left(q^2\right)=\frac{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n=1\right)}{ds}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n=1\right)}{ds}}{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n=1\right)}{ds}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n=1\right)}{ds}}$$

where $`n`$ is the projection of the lepton $`l^{}`$ momentum to the spin direction in its rest frame. For $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$, the polarization asymmetries can be expressed as

$$P_L^K\left(q^2\right)=\frac{2\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{q^2}}\phi _K}{\left(1+\frac{2m_l^2}{q^2}\right)\beta _K+12\frac{m_l^2}{M_B^2}\delta _K}Re\left[\left(F_1^8\left(q^2\right)2m_bF_T^7\left(q^2\right)\right)F_1^9\left(q^2\right)\right]$$
(39)
and

$`P_L^K^{}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{1\frac{4m_l^2}{q^2}}}{\left(1+\frac{2m_l^2}{q^2}\right)\beta _K^{}+12\frac{m_l^2}{M_B^2}\delta _K^{}}}\{s[2\phi _K^{}R_V\left(q^2\right)+3R_{A_0}\left(q^2\right)]`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _K^{}}{4r}}[R_{A_0}\left(q^2\right)+\phi _K^{}R_{A_1}\left(q^2\right)+(1r_K^{}s)R_{A_{01}}\left(q^2\right)]\}`$
with

$`R_V\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\left(V^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T^7\left(q^2\right)\right)V^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right],`$
$`R_{A_0}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_0^8\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0^7\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}\right],`$
$`R_{A_1}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[\left(A_1^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T_1^7\left(q^2\right)\right)A_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_B\right],`$
$`R_{A_{01}}\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Re[({\displaystyle \frac{A_0^8\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0^7\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}})A_1^9\left(q^2\right)M_B`$ (41)
$`+(A_1^8\left(q^2\right)M_B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_bM_B}{q^2}}T_1^7\left(q^2\right)){\displaystyle \frac{A_0^9\left(q^2\right)}{M_B}}],`$
respectively.

## 4 Numerical Analysis

### 4.1 Form factors

In Eq. (1), $`\varphi (x,b)`$ is the universal wave function and cannot be calculated perturbatively. However, due to the universality, we can determine it by matching with the $`B`$ decay experimental data. With the ratio of

$$R=\frac{B(B_d^0K^\pm \pi ^{})}{B(B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm )}=0.95\pm 0.3,$$
(42)
given by the CLEO measurement , where $`B(B_d^0K^\pm \pi ^{})`$ represents the CP average of the branching ratios $`B(B_d^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`B(\overline{B}_d^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$, one can get the proper wave functions $`\varphi _B`$, $`\varphi _K`$, and $`\varphi _K^{}`$  while $`\varphi _K^{}`$ can be done by the branching ratio of $`BK^{}\gamma `$ . For the $`B`$ meson wave function, we take

$$\varphi _B(x,b)=N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{xM_B}{\omega _B}\right)^2\frac{\omega _B^2b^2}{2}\right],$$
(43)
with the shape parameter $`\omega _B=0.4`$ GeV . The normalization constant $`N_B=91.7835`$ GeV is related to the decay constant $`f_B=190`$ MeV. The kaon wave functions are chosen as

$`\varphi _K(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}f_Kx(1x)[1+0.51(12x)+0.3(5(12x)^21)],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}f_Kx(1x),`$
$`\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}f_K^{}x(1x)[1+0.51(12x)+(5(12x)^21)],`$ (44)
where $`\varphi _K`$ is derived from QCD sum rules , and the second term in the expression of $`\varphi _K`$ corresponds to $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking effect. The decay constants $`f_K`$ and $`f_K^{}`$ are set to be $`160`$ and $`190`$ MeV (in the convention of $`f_\pi =130`$ MeV), respectively. Note that the intrinsic $`b`$ dependences of wave functions in Eq. (44) are neglected. However, this is a good approximation only for the fast recoiling meson, that is, the transverse extent of the wave function is less important in the energetic outgoing situation. With above wave functions and taking $`M_B=5.28`$ GeV, $`M_K=0.49`$ GeV, $`m_s=100`$ MeV and $`M_K^{}=0.89`$ GeV, the form factors of $`BK`$ defined in Eqs. (6) as a function of $`q^2`$ are shown in Figure 1. The values of the form factors at $`q^2=0`$ are given in Table 1. We now compare our results with that in the light cone-QCD sum rule (LCSR ) . Using the identities in the Appendix, we find that except $`V(0)`$ is slightly smaller than that of the minimal value, while the remaining form factors are within the allowed values, in the LCSR.

Recently, it has been mentioned that by combining large energy effective theory (LEET) , originally proposed by , with the measurement of $`BK^{}\gamma `$, the form factors $`V(0)`$ and $`A_0(0)`$ could be fitted model-independently to be

$`V(0)`$ $``$ $`0.069\pm 0.011,`$
$`A_0(0)`$ $``$ $`1.650\pm 0.114.`$ (45)
Hence, from Table 1, we clearly see that the values of $`V(0)`$ and $`A_0(0)`$ are within $`1\sigma `$ and $`3.2\sigma `$ of values in Eq. (45), respectively. It is worth to mention that the LEET predicts $`T_2(0)/A_1(0)4.89`$ , while that in our approach is $`5.62`$. For the comparison of the form factors between different models at $`q^2=0`$, one can refer to Ref.  for a more detail analysis.

For the exclusive $`BK^{()}l^+l^{}`$ decays, if we use $`b`$ independent wave functions, as the mesons reach the slow recoil, the suppression in the large $`b`$ region is weaker such that form factors will blow up at points away from $`q^2=0`$ as seen from Figure 1. It is inevitable to include the intrinsic $`b`$ dependence to the outgoing meson wave functions. However, the effect of such dependence is less significant for the small $`q^2`$ values than that of large ones. Instead of using an exponential $`b`$ dependent form as the one for the B meson wave function in Eq. (43), for simplicity, we use the trial wave functions as

$$\varphi _H^{()}(x,q^2)=(1\frac{q^2}{M_B^2})\sqrt{1+\frac{q^2}{M_B^2}}\varphi _H^{()}\left(x\right).$$
(46)
On the other hand, since the available region of the PQCD essentially cannot include all allowed values of $`q^2`$, to have the form factors in the whole accessible values of $`q^2`$, we would adopt the parametrization of effective form factors as follows:

$$F\left(s\right)=F\left(0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma _1s+\sigma _2s^2+\sigma _3s^3\right)$$
(47)
with $`s=q^2/M_B^2`$ to fit the values up to $`q^215`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> calculated by the PQCD. By extrapolating to near the endpoint of $`q^2`$, we found that the values of form factors are consistent with lattice results . To illustrate how good the trial functions in Eq. (46) are, we show the form factors for $`BK`$ in Figure 2. From the figure, we find that our results are basically the same as that from the QM  and LCSR .

### 4.2 Decay rates

With the confidence of calculating the form factors by using Eqs. (46) and (47), we now study the decay rates of $`BK^{()}l^+l^{}`$. Unlike the conventional FA, the WCs in Eqs. $`\left(\text{27}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ are the members of integrations in the PQCD. Thus, adopting the approach similar to form factors, we calculate the transition amplitudes with the wave functions in Eq. (46) and the exponential forms in Eq. (47) to fit the values calculated by the PQCD for the whole range of $`q^2`$. After integrating $`q^2`$ dependence in Eq. (30), the decay branching ratios without including LD contributions for $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$ are listed in Table 2 and their distributions for the differential decay rates are shown in Figure 3. Comparing with the curves in the QM and LCSR, we find that the differential rates of $`BKl^+l^{}`$ are consistent with each other. However, there exists a slight difference in $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$. There are two main reasons for the difference: (a) $`\mu `$ scale dependence for the WC and (b) the effects from $`A_1(q^2)`$ and $`A_2(q^2)`$ in the PQCD. For the results in QM and LCSR, we have used the WC at $`\mu m_b`$ as done in the literature, whereas that in the PQCD, $`\mu `$ scale is the typical scale $`t`$ determined by Eq. (23). As seen from Eq. (35) the effect of $`A_1(q^2)`$ is large since there is a factor of $`M_B`$ associated with it, while that of $`A_2(q^2)`$ only affects in the mode of $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ due to the lepton mass dependence. Thus, measuring the exclusive modes of $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ would distinguish various QCD models due to the difference shown in Figure 3. From Table 2, we see that our PQCD results of the decay branching ratios for $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ are quite different. This can be understood by noting that in Eq. (33) there is pole of $`q^2`$ associated with the photon penguin induced couplings. These pole terms make the rates sensitive to the kinematical region of $`q^24m_l^2`$.

### 4.3 Forward-backward asymmetry

¿From Eq. (37), we present the forward-backward dilepton asymmetries of $`BK^{}l^+l^{}(l=\mu ,\tau )`$ in Figure 4. We note that the FBA of $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ is similar to that of the muon mode in Figure 4. For the light lepton pair decays such as $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, we see that the FBA is positive at low $`q^2`$, gets zero at $`q^2/M_B^20.16`$, and then becomes negative. Due to the large terms related to $`A_1(q^2)`$, the rate at lower $`q^2`$ in the PQCD has a larger value than that in the QM and LCSR. As mentioned in Ref.  with the FA, the location of zero point is only sensitive to the WC and insensitive to the form factors. However, since with the three-scale factorization formula the WC cannot be factored out of the transition amplitude and it is uncertain to choose the universal wave function of $`K^{}`$, the determination of zero point is harder as the test of the SM in the approach of the PQCD, unless we can fix $`K^{}`$ wave function more precisely. On the other hand, it is worth to mention that when the $`sign(C_8C_7)=+`$, opposite to the SM, the zero point disappears. Thus the FBA is quite sensitive to the sign of the WC and can be used as a good candidate to test the SM.

### 4.4 Polarization asymmetry

The lepton polarization asymmetries of $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$ are displayed in Figure 5. For $`BKl^+l^{}`$, $`P_L`$ is equal zero at $`q^2=0`$ and $`q^2|_{\mathrm{max}}=\left(M_BM_K\right)^2`$ because it is related to $`\sqrt{14m_l^2/q^2}\phi _K`$. Without LD effects for the light leptons $`(l=e,\mu )`$, from Eqs. (31) and (39), we easily realize that $`P_L`$ is near $`1`$ in the most region of $`q^2`$. However, for $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$, since $`\phi _K^{}`$ cannot be factored out in the numerator, there is no vanishing point at $`q^2|_{\mathrm{max}}`$; and the transition matrix elements of the set $`\left\{T^7\right\}`$ are always associated with a pole of $`q^2`$. Hence, at the low momentum transfer region, penguin induced electromagnetic effects are dominant. Also comparing Eq. (40) with Eq. (33), the related terms of $`\left\{T^7\right\}`$ are two powers for the differential decay rate but only one power for the numerator of $`P_L`$ so that the magnitude of the distribution at low $`q^2`$ has a smaller value. From Figures 5c and 5d, the polarization asymmetry of $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in the PQCD has slightly different distribution to other models at low $`q^2`$, especially that the deviation for $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is large. However, according to Figure 6, we find that our results are comparable with that given by the light-front formalism (LF) . As mentioned before, the influence of both larger values from the $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ and $`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ terms in our approach is visible for the $`\tau `$ mode. Therefore, by measuring the longitudinal $`\tau `$ polarization in $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, we can either determine a more proper $`K^{}`$ wave function or test the feasibility of our PQCD approach for semileptonic decays.

## 5 Conclusions

By the three-scale factorization theorem, we have gotten the form factors in $`q^215`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>; and with the parametrization in terms of the exponential forms to extrapolate the $`q^2`$ dependent form factors to $`q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$, we have obtained the consistent results with that from the lattice . With the PQCD, we have pointed out that the largest uncertainty in our results is from the non-perturbative wave functions. Though the universal wave function could be determined by some non-leptonic decays, the intrinsic $`b`$ dependence which suppresses the soft dynamics contribution is still unknown.

With the kaon wave functions fixed by the decays of $`B\pi K`$ and assumed $`q^2`$ dependences, we have shown that the distributions of the decay rates and leptonic asymmetries for $`BKl^+l^{}`$ in the PQCD agree well with that in the other QCD models such as the QM and LCSR. However, there are some differences for that in $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ among the various QCD models. Finally, we remark that although $`BK^{}\gamma `$ could also give us some information of the $`K^{}`$ wave function, one still cannot fix it satisfactorily due to various uncertainties in the decay. Moreover, the assumption of the same $`q^2`$ dependent factors in $`BK`$ is not necessary for $`BK^{}`$ and thus, to have a reliable calculation, we need more precision measurements involving the vector kaon meson in order to settle down the $`K^{}`$ wave function.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hsiang-nan Li for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under contract numbers NSC-89-2112-M-007-054 and NSC-89-2112-M-006-033.

Appendix

In order to connect our form factors in Eq. (6) to those usually used in the literature , in this Appendix we show explicitly the relationships among the form factors. In terms of the notation in Refs. , the form factors for $`B(K,K^{})`$ decays with respect to various weak currents are parametrized as

$`K\left(P_2\right)|V_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+\left(q^2\right)\left(P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{q^2}}q_\mu \right)`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{q^2}}f_0\left(q^2\right)q_\mu ,`$
$`K\left(P_2\right)|T_{\mu \nu }q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(P_\mu q^2q_\mu Pq\right)f_T\left(q^2\right),`$ (49)
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|V_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}\left(q^2\right)}{M_B+M_K^{}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta ,`$ (50)
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|A_\mu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i2M_K^{}A_0^{}\left(q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}q}{q^2}}q_\mu `$ (51)
$`+i\left(M_B+M_K^{}\right)A_1^{}\left(q^2\right)\left(\epsilon ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}q}{q^2}}q_\mu \right)`$
$`iA_2^{}\left(q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}q}{M_B+M_K^{}}}\left(P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{q^2}}q_\mu \right),`$
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|T_{\mu \nu }q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^{}\left(q^2\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu P^\alpha q^\beta ,`$ (52)
$`K^{}(P_2,\epsilon )|T_{\mu \nu }^5q^\nu |B\left(P_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`iT_2^{}\left(q^2\right)\left[\epsilon _\mu ^{}Pq+\epsilon ^{}qP_\mu \right]`$ (53)
$`iT_3^{}\left(q^2\right)\epsilon ^{}q\left[q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{Pq}}P_\mu \right],`$
where $`V_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b`$, $`A_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }b`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }^5=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b,`$ $`P=P_1+P_2`$, $`q=P_1P_2`$, and $`Pq=M_B^2M_{K^{()}}^2`$. Redefining the wave functions and comparing to Eq. (6), we obtain

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_+`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2M_K^2}{q^2}}\left(f_0f_+\right)`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{M_B+M_K^{}}}`$
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_B+M_K^{}\right)A_1^{}`$
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2^{}}{M_B+M_K^{}}}`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\left[2M_K^{}A_0^{}\left(M_B+M_K^{}\right)A_1^{}+\left(M_BM_K^{}\right)A_2^{}\right]`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^{}`$
$`T_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_B^2M_K^{}^2\right)T_2^{}`$
$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`T_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_K^{}^2}}T_3^{}`$
$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`T_3^{}.`$
Here we have neglected to show the $`q^2`$ dependence for the form factors. From the above identities, we find some interesting relations at $`q^2=0`$ and they are given by

$`f_0(0)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+(0),`$
$`T_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`T_2^{}(0).`$
From Eqs. (15) and (17), we get $`T(0)=T_1(0).`$ Hence, based on the modified PQCD factorization theorem, we obtain the relation $`T_1^{}\left(0\right)=T_2^{}(0)`$ that is the same as that in Eq. (3.6) of Ref. .

## Figure Captions

* Form factors of $`F_1`$ (solid curves), $`F_2`$ (dashed curves) and $`F_T`$ (dotted curves) for the $`BK`$ transition as a function $`q^2`$ in the PQCD (bold lines) and QM (un-bold lines), respectively.
* Form factors of $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ and $`F_T`$ for the $`BK`$ transition as a function $`q^2`$ with the $`q^2`$ dependent wave function in Eq. (46) in the PQCD (solid curves), QM (dot-dashed curves), and LCSR (dashed curves), respectively.
* The differential decay braching ratios as function of $`s`$ for (a) $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. The curves with and without resonant shapes represent including and no LD contributions, respectively. Legend is the same as Figure 2.
* The differential decay braching ratios as function of $`s`$ for (a) $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Legend is the same as Figure 3.
* Forward-backward asymmetries for (a) $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Legend is the same as Figure 3.
* Longitudinal polarization asymmetries for (a) $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Legend is the same as Figure 3.
* Longitudinal polarization asymmetries (a) $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and (b) $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Legend is the same as Figure 3.
* The longitudinal polarization asymmetry for $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ in the PQCD (solid curves) and LF (dashed curves), respectively.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Particle physics as described in the standard model for electroweak and strong interactions is characterized by four symmetry regimes. First one has the external spacetime related transformation groups, the Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$ with its double cover $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$, and the internal compact groups - $`𝐔(1)`$ for hypercharge, $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$ for isospin and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(3)`$ for color acting on the quantum fields which describe the interaction. From these symmetries for the interaction, one has to distinguish sharply the external and internal symmetries for the asymptotic particle states. A particle is characterized by one translation eigenvalue, its mass, and one space rotation number, its spin for nontrivial mass and its polarization for the massless case. The rotation invariants are related to external subgroups - spin $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$ and polarization $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$. With respect to the internal symmetry only an abelian electromagnetic $`𝐔(1)`$ remains as symmetry for the particles. Color symmetry is confined and hypercharge-isospin is spontaneously broken. The groups involved

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \text{internal}& \text{external}\\ & & \\ & & \\ \text{interactions}& 𝐔(1)[\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(3)]& \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\\ & & \\ \text{particles}& 𝐔(1)& \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2),\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\end{array}\\ \\ \text{four symmetry regimes}\end{array}$$

show subgroup relations in the vertical direction, i.e. from particles to interactions . It will be argued below that there is also a horizontal subgroup relation involved, i.e. from internal to external

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \begin{array}{c}\text{ spacetime}\\ x_{}\end{array}& & \\ & 𝐔(2)& \text{ }>& \mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)& \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{}\\ \hfill \begin{array}{c}\\ \hfill \text{Higgs vectors }\mathrm{\Phi }\end{array}& & & & q\text{ energy-momenta}\hfill \\ & 𝐔(1)& & \begin{array}{c}𝐃(1)\times 𝐔(1)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\hfill \\ 𝐃(1)\times 𝐔(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\hfill \end{array}& \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

In this diagram the external interaction group (upper right) is the Lorentz covering group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$, supplemented with a dilatation group $`𝐃(1)=\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{IR}`$ (causal group) and a phase group $`𝐔(1)=\mathrm{exp}i\mathrm{IR}`$ (fermion number group), i.e. the full linear group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$. A corresponding extension with $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC})=𝐔(1)\times 𝐃(1)`$ is used for the external particle groups (lower right). For the internal interaction symmetry (upper left), the color group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(3)`$ is omitted. The three arrows for inclusion relations will be related below to induced representations. They are labeled with manifold parameters, the Higgs parameters $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{IC}^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=M^2>0`$ for the internal induction from particle symmetry (lower left) to interaction symmetry, the mass shell energy-momenta $`q\mathrm{IR}^4`$ with $`q^2=m^20`$ for the corresponding external induction, and strictly future spacetime parameters $`x_{}\mathrm{IR}^4`$ with $`x_{}^2>0`$ and $`x_{}_{}{}^{}0>0`$ parametrizing the induction from internal to external interaction symmetries. To motivate and to understand these transmutations from groups to supgroups is the aim of this paper.

## 2 External Transmutation
from Particles to Interactions

According to Wigner  particles are embedded into an irreducible definite unitary action of the Poincaré group $`\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$ as the semidirect product of the orthochronous Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$ with the spacetime translations $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$. The infinite dimensional Poincaré group representations are induced  by finite dimensional irreducible representations of direct product subgroups where the homogeneous factor comes from energy-momentum fixgroups (‘little groups’): The rest system rotations $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$ for energy-momenta $`q\mathrm{IR}^4`$ with $`q^2>0`$, the noncompact group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,2)`$ for energy-momenta with $`q^2<0`$ and the axial rotations $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$ around the momentum direction as ‘fixgroup in the fixgroup’ $`\mathrm{IR}^2\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$ for nontrivial energy-momenta with $`q^2=0`$. Only particles with the representations for causal momenta $`q^20`$ and compact little groups $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$ are found.

With respect to the halfinteger spin particles the twofold covering simply connected groups $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$ for $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$ are used

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill u\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)& O(u)_b^a\hfill & =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}u\sigma ^au^{}\sigma ^b\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)/\mathrm{II}(2)\hfill \\ \hfill s\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)& \mathrm{\Lambda }(s)_j^i\hfill & =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}s\sigma ^is^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_j\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/\mathrm{II}(2)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \text{with }\mathrm{centr}\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=\mathrm{centr}\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)=\mathrm{II}(2)=\{\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_2\}\hfill \end{array}$$

The traces involve the hermitian

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Pauli-Weyl matrices: }\sigma ^i=(\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\sigma ^a)=\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_i,\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a& =1,2,3\hfill \\ \hfill i& =0,1,2,3\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therewith the twofold cover of the Poincaré group comes with the multiplication law

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)(x,s)\text{ with }& \{\begin{array}{c}x=x_j\sigma ^j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_0+x_3& x_1ix_2\\ x_1+ix_2& x_0x_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{IR}^4\hfill \\ (x,s)(x^{},s^{})=(x+sx^{}s^{},ss^{})\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

The induction procedure used for massive and massless particles is symbolized with the representation equivalence classes $`\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}`$ as follows

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[\mathrm{IR}\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)]\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[\mathrm{IR}\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)]\stackrel{\mathrm{ind}}{\text{ }\text{ }>}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

The discrete invariants $`2J\mathrm{IN}`$ for $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$ and $`\pm z\mathrm{ZZ}`$ for $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$ give spin and polarization resp., the continuous invariant $`q^2=m^20`$ for the translations gives the corresponding mass. According to Wigner’s particle definition, confined quarks are no particles.

In the case of spin $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$, the transition from a massive particle rest system, defining a time direction, to the Lorentz group action compatible framework is performed with the boost representations, parametrized by the three real numbers in the energy-momenta $`\frac{q}{m}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}s(\frac{q}{m})=e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{m+q_0}{2m}}[\mathrm{𝟏}_2+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{m+q_0}]\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\beta }=\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|}\mathrm{artanh}\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{q_0}\hfill \\ q_0=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2}\hfill \\ s(\frac{q}{m})m\mathrm{𝟏}_2s^{}(\frac{q}{m})=q_j\sigma ^j\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the case of polarization $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$, the transition from a space system with the distinguished polarization axis as 3rd direction to a rotation group action compatible framework is performed with the 2-sphere representations, parametrized by the two real numbers in the momenta $`\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}u(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})=e^{i\frac{\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|+q^3}{2|\stackrel{}{q}|}}[\mathrm{𝟏}_2+i\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{|\stackrel{}{q}|+q^3}]\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_{}}{|\stackrel{}{q}_{}|}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}_{}|}{|\stackrel{}{q}|}\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{q}_{}=(q_2,q_1,0)\hfill \\ u(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})|\stackrel{}{q}|\sigma ^3u^{}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Such linear representations of coset representatives, here $`s(\frac{q}{m})`$ and $`\widehat{s}(\frac{q}{m})=s^1(\frac{q}{m})`$ for the boosts $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$ in the two fundamental Weyl representations (often introduced as solutions of the Dirac equation) and $`u(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})`$ for the 2-sphere $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$ in the fundamental Pauli representation, will be called transmutators. They have a characteristic hybrid transformation property: The left action with the supgroup gives the transmutator for the transformed momenta up to a right action with the subgroup

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\hfill & \lambda s(\frac{q}{m})=s(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ).\frac{q}{m})u\hfill & \text{with }u=u(\frac{q}{m},\lambda )\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\hfill \\ v\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\hfill & vu(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})=u(O(v).\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})a\hfill & \text{with }a=a(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|},v)\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\hfill \end{array}$$

External transmutators show up in the harmonic (Fourier) analysis of quantum fields with respect to the particle-antiparticle $`(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{a})`$ creation and annihilation operators involved, e.g. for the left and right handed Weyl component of a Dirac electron field

$$\begin{array}{c}𝚿(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐫^{\dot{A}}\\ 𝐥^A\end{array}\right)(x)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\begin{array}{cc}s\left(\frac{q}{m}\right)_C^{\dot{A}}& \frac{e^{xiq}\mathrm{u}^C\left(\stackrel{}{q}\right)+e^{xiq}\mathrm{a}^C\left(\stackrel{}{q}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \widehat{s}\left(\frac{q}{m}\right)_C^A& \frac{e^{xiq}\mathrm{u}^C\left(\stackrel{}{q}\right)e^{xiq}\mathrm{a}^C\left(\stackrel{}{q}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

The infinite dimensionality ($`\mathrm{IR}^3`$-cardinality) of the definite unitary representations of the noncompact Poincaré group is seen in the momentum integral $`\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}\mathrm{IR}^3}{}}`$ over all transmutators.

Higher spin and polarization fields, e.g. the massive weak vector bosons or the massless electromagnetic vector potential, need transmutators which are products of the two fundamental Weyl transmutators and the fundamental Pauli transmutator resp., e.g.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }(\frac{q}{m})_j^i& =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}s(\frac{q}{m})\sigma ^is^{}(\frac{q}{m})\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_j\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill \\ \hfill O(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})_b^a& =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}u(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})\sigma ^au^{}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})\sigma ^b\hfill & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\hfill \end{array}$$

## 3 Internal Transmutation
from Particles to Interactions

In addition to the external rotation and translation properties particles are characterized also by particle-antiparticle $`𝐔(1)`$-symmetries, e.g. the electromagnetic charge number or a fermion-antifermion number, e.g. for the neutrinos or the neutron. In the standard model of electroweak interactions the electromagnetic real 1-dimensional abelian internal $`𝐔(1)`$-symmetry is the only remaining symmetry from the real 12-dimensional rank 4 hyperisospin-color group. Particles have no isospin or color symmetry. E.g. the proton-neutron dublet displays the isospin multiplicity two, but - with the different masses - no isospin $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$-symmetry.

In the standard model, the electromagnetic group $`𝐔(1)`$ is the only proper fixgroup (’little group’) for the hyperisospin group $`𝐔(2)`$ acting on the complex 2-dimensional Hilbert space with the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{IC}^2`$ with nontrivial scalar product $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=M^2>0`$. The internal induction from electromagnetic $`𝐔(1)`$ to hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}𝐔(1)\stackrel{\mathrm{ind}}{\text{ }\text{ }>}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}𝐔(2)\hfill \end{array}$$

is in analogy to the external inductions. The analogy to the rest systems, defined by $`q_j\sigma ^j=m\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$ up to rotations $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$, and the polarization systems, defined by $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=|\stackrel{}{q}|\sigma ^3`$ up to axial rotations $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$, is the electromagnetic system which is defined by $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ M\end{array}\right)`$ up to electromagnetic transformations $`e^{i(\mathrm{𝟏}_2+\tau ^3)\gamma _0}𝐔(1)_+`$. The internal induction employs the Higgs field defined transformation

$$\begin{array}{c}v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})=\frac{1}{M}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }^2& \mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Phi }^1& \mathrm{\Phi }_2\end{array}\right)𝐔(2)\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^2=M^2>0\hfill \\ v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ M\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

from the electromagnetic system to the hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$ compatible framework. The Goldstone manifold $`𝐔(2)/𝐔(1)_+`$ involved is parametrized with the three real parameters in $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M}`$. The hybrid transformation looks like

$$\begin{array}{c}u𝐔(2)uv(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})=v(u.\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})t\text{ with }t=t(u)𝐔(1)_+\hfill \end{array}$$

The transition from the interaction parametrizing fields with hyperisospin symmetry to the particle electromagnetic symmetry is performed with the Higgs transmutator $`v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})`$ (in analogy to the Weyl and Pauli transmutators), e.g. from the left-handed lepton isodoublet $`(𝐋_\alpha )_{\alpha =1,2}`$ to the left-handed components for the charged massive lepton field and its neutrino which, in turn, are transmuted to their particle systems as described in the last section

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐋_\alpha ^A=v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})_\alpha ^.\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu ^A\\ 𝐥^A\end{array}\right),\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu ^A(x)& =\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐥^A(x)& =\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

In contrast to the external case only compact groups are involved. Their irreducible representations are finite dimensional. Therefore there is no analogue to the momentum integral, necessary for the infinite dimensional representation of the external noncompact groups.

Higher isospin fields, e.g. the isotriplet gauge field, need transmutators which are products of the fundamental Higgs transmutator, e.g.

$$\begin{array}{c}O(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})_b^a=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})\tau ^av^{}(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})\tau ^b\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\hfill \end{array}$$

## 4 The Operational Triunit:
Internal-Spacetime-External

The transition from the large operational symmetry group of the standard model interactions to the small symmetry groups of the related particles involves the external Weyl-Pauli transmutations and the internal Higgs transmutation

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[𝐔(1)\times \mathrm{IR}\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)]\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[𝐔(1)\times \mathrm{IR}\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)]\\ \hfill \stackrel{\mathrm{ind}}{\text{ }\text{ }>}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}[𝐔(2)\times [\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]]\end{array}$$

If $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(3)`$ color fields are included the right hand side has to be written with the hyperisospin-color group  whose three factors are correlated via the centrum $`\mathrm{II}(2)\times \mathrm{II}(3)=\mathrm{II}(6)=\{z\mathrm{ZZ}|z^6=1\}`$ of the nonabelian factor

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}𝐔(1)\stackrel{\mathrm{ind}}{\text{ }\text{ }>}\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐩}𝐔(2\times 3)\text{ with }𝐔(2\times 3)=\frac{𝐔(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(3)}{\mathrm{II}(2)\times \mathrm{II}(3)}\hfill \end{array}$$

For the following considerations the color group is excluded. It cannot be described in the structures below, its occurence has to be explained differently, e.g. as proposed in .

The three factors in the standard model interaction symmetry $`𝐔(2)\times [\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]`$ describe the internal operations, the spacetime translations and the homogeneous external operations resp. Such a product constitutes a characteristic structure  occuring for representations of a group $`G`$ induced by representations of a subgroup $`UG`$. In the representation induction, which will be described in more detail below, the group $`G`$ is decomposed into disjoint subgroup $`U`$-orbits and representatives $`(UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}`$ for the cosets $`UG`$

$$\begin{array}{c}G=U\times (UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}=\underset{\mathrm{repr}k_rG}{}Uk_r\hfill \end{array}$$

For notational convenience the left classes $`Uk`$, i.e. the $`U`$-orbits under left multiplication are taken

$$\begin{array}{c}uU:L_u:GG,L_u(k)=uk\hfill \end{array}$$

To establish the standard model operations as an example for the abstract structure

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐔(2)\times [\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}U\times [(UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }G]\hfill \end{array}$$

the Lorentz group cover $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ is filled up by a phase $`𝐔(1)`$-group (fermion number) and a dilatation group $`𝐃(1)`$ (causal group) to the full linear group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$, a real 8-dimensional Lie group

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=𝐃(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\times \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)\hfill \end{array}$$

The direct unimodular factor involved is the centrally correlated product of two normal subgroups, the fermion number and the Lorentz covering group

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)=𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)||\mathrm{det}g|=1\}\hfill \\ 𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=\mathrm{II}(2)=\{\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_2\},\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)& 𝐔(1)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)/𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)& \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/\mathrm{II}(2)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therewith the triad $`U\times [(UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }G]`$ of the internal-spacetime-external transformations will be defined with a maximal compact subgroup $`𝐔(2)`$, defining the internal operations, in the full group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$, defining the external operations

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{operational triunit: }𝐔(2)\times [𝐃(2)\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

The manifold of hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$ orbits in the full external group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ is a real 4-dimensional rank 2 symmetric space $`𝐃(2)`$ which will be used as model for nonlinear spacetime . It has as representatives the hermitian invertible $`2\times 2`$-matrices which can also be parametrized by the translations of the strictly future lightcone

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (𝐔(2)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2))_{\mathrm{repr}}=𝐃(2)=\{k\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)|& k=k^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k_0+k_3& k_1ik_2\\ k_1+ik_2& k_0k_3\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \text{ and }\mathrm{spec}k>0\}\hfill \end{array}$$

All $`2\times 2`$-matrices with $`𝐔(2)`$-conjugation constitute a $`C^{}`$-algebra with the natural spectral order and the polar decomposition of the full group into internal compact operations and noncompact spacetime

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=𝐔(2)\times 𝐃(2),k=u|k|,|k|=\sqrt{k^{}k}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the general structure, the group $`G`$ acts on the left orbits $`Uk`$ of a subgroup $`U`$ by right inverse multiplication which may look quite complicated for the chosen orbit representatives

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill gG:R_g:& UG& & UG,& R_g(Uk)=Ukg^1\hfill \\ & (UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}& & (UG)_{\mathrm{repr}},& k_rk_r^{}\text{ for }k_rg^1=uk_r^{}\hfill \\ & & & & \text{with }u=u(k_r,g^1)U\hfill \end{array}$$

In the physical structure proposed one obtains the action of the full external group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ on the nonlinear spacetime $`𝐃(2)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2):𝐃(2)𝐃(2),& |k||k^{}|\text{ for }|k|g^1=u|k^{}|\hfill \\ & \text{with }u=u(|k|,g^1)𝐔(2)\hfill \\ \hfill & |k^{}|=\sqrt{g^1|k|^2g^1}=|kg^1|\hfill \end{array}$$

The tangent space of the symmetric space $`𝐃(2)`$ constitutes the spacetime translations with the faithful action of the causal Lorentz group

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}𝐃(2)=\{x=x_j\sigma ^j|e^x=|k|𝐃(2)\}\mathrm{IR}^4\hfill \\ g=e^{\frac{\beta _0+i\alpha _0}{2}}s\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2):xgxg^{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}g\sigma ^ig^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_j=e^{\beta _0}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)𝐃(1)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\hfill \end{array}$$

## 5 Internal-External Actions on Standard Model Fields

The transformation behavior of fields with respect to external Lorentz and internal hyperisospin operations is quite different: The fields used in the standard model with the operations $`𝐔(2)\times [\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]`$ , e.g. the left-handed lepton isodoublet $`\{𝐋_\alpha ^A\}_{\alpha =1,2}^{A=1,2}`$, map the spacetime translations $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$ into a complex vector space

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐋_\alpha ^A:\mathrm{IR}^4WV^T,x𝐋_\alpha ^A(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

The value space is the tensor product of a finite dimensional space $`W`$ with the representation of hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$, in the lepton isodoublet example the defining representation on $`W\mathrm{IC}^2`$ with $`𝐔(1)`$-hypercharge number $`y=\frac{1}{2}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill D:𝐔(2)& \mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(W),\hfill & D(u)=u=e^{\frac{i\gamma _0\mathrm{𝟏}_2+i\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐔(2)\times W& W,\hfill & u.𝐋_\alpha ^A=u_\alpha ^\beta 𝐋_\beta ^A\hfill \end{array}$$

and another finite dimensional vector space $`V`$ with a Lorentz group representation, in the example the defining left handed Weyl representation on $`V\mathrm{IC}^2`$

$$\begin{array}{c}T:\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V),T(s)=s=e^{(i\stackrel{}{\alpha }+\stackrel{}{\beta })\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since also the spacetime translations $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$ are acted upon with the Lorentz group, the field as a mapping between two vector spaces with Lorentz group action transforms $`𝐋𝐋_s`$ as given by the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(s\right)& & \\ & \mathrm{IR}^4& & \mathrm{IR}^4& \\ 𝐋& & & & 𝐋_s\\ & V^T& & V^T& \\ & & s& & \end{array},\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill \\ 𝐋_s(\mathrm{\Lambda }.x)=s.𝐋(x)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\times V^TV^T,(𝐋_s)_\alpha ^A(x)=𝐋_\alpha ^B(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.x)s_B^A\hfill \end{array}$$

For notational convenience the dual space $`V^T`$ (linear $`V`$-forms) is used.

Both internal and external transformation behavior can be collected into one diagram, e.g. for the lepton isodoublet left-handed Weyl field above

$$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(s\right)& & \\ & \mathrm{IR}^4& & \mathrm{IR}^4& \\ 𝐋& & & & 𝐋_s\\ & WV^T& & WV^T& \\ & & us& & \end{array},& (𝐋_s)_\alpha ^A(x)=u_\alpha ^\beta 𝐋_\beta ^B(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.x)s_B^A\end{array}$$

or for the isotriplet gauge vector field $`\{𝐀_a^j\}_{a=1,2,3}^{j=0,1,2,3}`$ valued in the vector space $`W^{}V^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{IC}^3\mathrm{IC}^4`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(s\right)& & \\ & \mathrm{IR}^4& & \mathrm{IR}^4& \\ 𝐀& & & & 𝐀_s\\ & W^{}V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}& & W^{}V^{}^T& \\ & & O\left(u\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(s\right)& & \end{array},& \begin{array}{c}(𝐀_s)_a^j(x)=O_a^b𝐀_b^k(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1.x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^j\\ O=O(u)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\end{array}\end{array}$$

These transformation properties are compared in the next sections with the transformation properties occuring for induced representations.

## 6 Induced Representations

The structure of induced representations as used e.g. for Wigner’s particles classification can be sketched for our purposes - without discussion of topological structures - as follows :

A group $`G`$-representation induced by the representation of a subgroup $`D:U\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(W)`$ on a complex vector space acts on the subgroup intertwiners, i.e. on the mappings from the group $`G`$ into the vector space $`W`$, compatible with the action of $`U`$ on $`G`$ by left multiplication and on $`V`$ by the representation $`D`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & L_u& & \\ & G& & G& \\ w& & & & w\\ & W& & W& \\ & & D\left(u\right)& & \end{array},\begin{array}{c}w(uk)=D(u).w(k)\hfill \\ \text{for all }uU,kG\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

The intertwiner space dimensionality is the product of the $`W`$-dimensionality with the cardinality of the $`U`$-orbits, i.e. in general infinite for Lie groups

$$\begin{array}{c}dim_{\mathrm{IC}}W_U(G)=dim_{\mathrm{IC}}W\mathrm{card}UG\hfill \end{array}$$

The group $`G`$ action on the vector space with the intertwiners $`wW_U(G)`$ is defined by the following commutative diagram which involves the right inverse multiplication $`kkg^1`$ on the group $`G`$, not used in the definition of the intertwiners

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & R_g& & \\ & G& & G& \\ w& & & & w_g\\ & W& & W& \\ & & \mathrm{id}_W& & \end{array},\begin{array}{c}w_g(k)=w(kg)\hfill \\ \text{for all }kG,gG\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ G\times W_U(G)W_U(G),ww_g\hfill \end{array}$$

Again, both diagrams can be taken together. With a decomposition into $`U`$-orbits and representatives $`G=U\times (UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Uk_r`$ the induced $`G`$-representation reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\\ & & L_uR_g& & \\ & G& & G& \\ w& & & & w_g\\ & W& & W& \\ & & D\left(u\right)\mathrm{id}_W& & \end{array},\begin{array}{c}w_g(uk)=D(u).w(kg)\hfill \\ \text{for all }uU,kG,gG\hfill \\ w_g(k_r)=D(u).w(k_r^{})\hfill \\ \text{for }k_rg=uk_r^{}\text{ with }u=u(k_r,g)U\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

## 7 Transmutators

In general, an induced $`G`$-representation is infinite dimensional and - in many cases, e.g. for compact groups \- highly reducible, e.g. the right regular representation on the algebra $`\mathrm{IC}(G)=\{G\mathrm{IC}\}`$ with the group functions, which is induced by the trivial representation of the trivial subgroup $`U=\{e\}`$ on the numbers $`\mathrm{IC}`$, or the $`G`$-representation on an intertwiner space $`W_U(G)`$.

The group functions $`\mathrm{IC}(G)`$ contain - up to isomorphy - the representation space of each finite dimensional $`G`$-representation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T:G\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)& \end{array}$$

via the representation matrix elements, isomorphic to $`VV^T`$

$$\begin{array}{c}T(g):VV\hfill \\ VV^T\{T_\omega ^v|vV,\omega V^T\}\mathrm{IC}(G)\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{c}T_\omega ^v:G\mathrm{IC}\hfill \\ T_\omega ^v(k)=\omega ,T(k).v\hfill \\ T_\omega ^v(kg)=T_\omega ^{T(g).v}(k)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

A decomposition of a $`G`$-representation into $`U`$-representations with projectors $`\{𝒫_\iota \}_\iota `$

$$\begin{array}{c}V=\underset{\iota }{}W_\iota ,T[U].W_\iota W_\iota ,T|_U=D=\underset{\iota }{}D_\iota \hfill \\ 𝒫_\iota :VW_\iota ,D_\iota :U\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(W_\iota ),D_\iota (u):W_\iota W_\iota \hfill \end{array}$$

and an orbit decomposition of the full group $`G=U\times (UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}Uk_r`$ give rise to transmutators which are valued in the tensors $`W_\iota V^T`$ as products of the $`G`$-space $`V`$ and a $`U`$-subspace $`W_\iota `$

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\iota :GW_\iota V^T,T_\iota (uk_r)=D_\iota (u)𝒫_jT(k_r):VW_\iota \hfill \end{array}$$

If $`V\mathrm{IC}^n`$, then $`T(k)`$ has an $`n\times n`$-matrix form. If $`W_\iota \mathrm{IC}^m`$ with $`mn`$, then $`D_\iota (u)`$ has an $`m\times m`$-matrix form and $`T_\iota (k_r)`$ an $`m\times n`$-matrix form.

All ’right-sided’ matrix elements of a transmutator constitute a $`G`$-stable subspace of the $`U`$-intertwiners

$$\begin{array}{c}W_\iota V^T\{T_\iota ^v|vV\}W_{\iota ,U}(G)\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{c}T_\iota ^v:GW_\iota \hfill \\ T_\iota ^v(uk_r)=D_\iota (u)𝒫_jT(k_r).v\hfill \\ T_\iota ^v(kg)=T_\iota ^{T(g).v}(k)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therewith the intertwiner space $`W_U(G)`$ contains - up to isomorphy - all tensor products $`WV^T`$ where $`V`$ is acted on with a finite dimensional suprepresentation of the full group $`G`$

$$\begin{array}{c}D[U].WT[G].VWV^TW_U(G)\hfill \end{array}$$

$`UG`$-transmutators for irreducible $`G`$-representations are building blocks of induced representations. They transform from a vector space $`V`$ with the action of a group $`G`$ to a vector subspace $`W`$ with the action of a subgroup $`U`$. Transmutators with $`W=V`$ are called complete, i.e. all $`U`$-representations contained in the $`G`$-representation are included. Complete transmutators are bijections.

## 8 Fields as Internal-External Transmutators

Spacetime fields $`𝚿`$ for the operational triunit $`U\times [(UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }G]`$ will be defined to be transmutators from external group $`G`$-representations on a vector space $`V`$ to internal subgroup $`U`$-representations on a vector subspace $`W`$. They are parametrized with the orbit manifold $`UG`$ of the possible $`U`$’s in $`G`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝚿:(UG)_{\mathrm{repr}}WV^T,\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill U\times W& W,\hfill & \text{(internal)}\hfill \\ \hfill G\times V& V,\hfill & \text{(external)}\hfill \\ \hfill UG,& WV\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

The geometrical structure can be formulated also in a bundle language.

The internal hyperisospin group $`𝐔(2)`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of the external group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)=𝐃(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\times \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)`$ with the causal group and the unimodular fermion number-Lorentz group cover $`\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)=𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ as direct factors. Nonlinear spacetime $`𝐃(2)`$ parametrizes the noncompact manifold $`𝐔(2)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$.

### 8.1 The Fundamental Transmutator
on Nonlinear Spacetime

The fundamental spacetime field for the operational triunit

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐔(2)\times [𝐃(2)\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

transmutes from the defining internal $`𝐔(2)`$-isodoublet space $`W\mathrm{IC}^2`$ to the defining external $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$-Weyl spinor space $`V\mathrm{IC}^2`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝚿_\alpha ^A:𝐃(2)WV^T,|k|𝚿_\alpha ^A(|k|)\hfill \end{array}$$

It has the internal $`𝐔(2)`$ and the external $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ transformation behavior

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝐔(2)\times W& W,\hfill & 𝚿_\alpha ^Au_\alpha ^\beta 𝚿_\beta ^A\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\times V& V,\hfill & 𝚿_\alpha ^A(|k|g)=𝚿_\alpha ^B(|k|)g_B^A=u(|k|,g)_\alpha ^\beta 𝚿_\beta ^A(|kg|)\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the nonlinear spacetime manifold can be parametrized as the strictly future lightcone $`𝐃(2)\mathrm{IR}_{}^4\mathrm{IR}^4`$, $`|k|=x_{}`$, of its tangent space, the spacetime translations $`\mathrm{log}𝐃(2)\mathrm{IR}^4`$, the fundamental isospinor Weyl spinor field has causal support without spacelike particle interpretable contributions. Its spectrum with respect to the action of the causal group $`𝐃(1)`$ has to be investigated to find its particle interpretable content which can be defined for all spacetime translations $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$. First steps on this way have been tried in .

The fundamental isospinor-spinor dyad $`\{𝚿_\alpha ^A\}_{\alpha =1,2}^{A=1,2}`$ for the hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$ orbits in the extended Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)`$ can be seen in some analogy  to the tetrad $`\{𝐡_j^\mu \}_{j=0,1,2,3}^{\mu =0,1,2,3}`$ in general relativity for the orbits of the Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$ in the general linear group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IR}^4)`$.

### 8.2 Standard Model Fields as Transmutators
on Linear Spacetime

Without being able so far to determine the spectrum of the causal group action on the fundamental transmutator for a particle interpretation one may start less ambitiously and try to interpret the standard model fields as a linear approximation, i.e. as internal-external transmutators parametrized with spacetime translations $`\mathrm{log}𝐃(2)\mathrm{IR}^4`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐔(2)\times [\mathrm{IR}^4\stackrel{}{\times }\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

Any representation of a group $`D:G\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ is faithful up to its kernel, a normal $`G`$-subgroup, i.e. $`D[G]G/\mathrm{kern}D`$. Therefore the representations of the internal hyperisospin group $`𝐔(2)=𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)`$ with $`𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)=\mathrm{II}(2)`$ have as nontrivial images three groups - the full hyperisospin, the hypercharge and the iso-rotation group

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐔(2)\text{-representation images: }𝐔(2),𝐔(1)& 𝐔(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)& 𝐔(2)/𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\hfill \end{array}$$

to be compared with the three nontrivial representation images of the external unimodular group, given by the full group, the fermion number and the Lorentz group

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)\text{-representation images: }\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2),𝐔(1)& \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)& \mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)/𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏}_2)\hfill \end{array}$$

There are three nontrivial internal-external embeddings - hyperisospin $`𝐔(2)`$ and hypercharge $`𝐔(1)`$ into the fermion number-Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2)`$ and iso-rotations $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)`$ into the Lorentz group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐔(2)\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2),𝐔(1)\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(2),\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill \end{array}$$

In the standard model the left-handed Weyl isodoublet field $`𝐋`$, the right-handed Weyl isosinglet fields $`𝐑`$ and the Lorentz vector isosinglet-isotriplet gauge fields $`𝐀`$ are the corresponding transmutators as mappings from the coset tangent space $`\mathrm{log}(UG)_{\mathrm{rep}}WV^T`$ into an internal-external vector space tensor product with the faithful action of the represented images $`D[U]T[G]`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝐋:\mathrm{IR}^4& \mathrm{IC}^2\mathrm{IC}^2\hfill & \text{with}& 𝐔(2)\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill x& 𝐋_\alpha ^A(x),\hfill & & \alpha =1,2;A=1,2\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐑:\mathrm{IR}^4& \mathrm{IC}^2\mathrm{IC}^2\hfill & \text{with}& 𝐔(1)\mathrm{𝐔𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill x& 𝐑_{1,2}^{\dot{A}}(x),\hfill & & \dot{A}=1,2\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐀:\mathrm{IR}^4& \mathrm{IC}^4\mathrm{IC}^4\hfill & \text{with}& \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(3)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_0(1,3)\hfill \\ \hfill x& 𝐀_{0,a}^j(x),\hfill & & a=1,2,3;j=0,1,2,3\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

There are two fermionic and one bosonic transmutator. With coinciding internal and external representation space all three transmutators are complete. The right-handed 2-component Weyl field $`𝐑`$ comprises two isosinglets $`\{𝐑_1,𝐑_2\}`$, and the 4-component Lorentz vector field $`𝐀`$ four internal degrees of freedom, an isosinglet and an isotriplet $`\{𝐀_0,\stackrel{}{𝐀}\}`$.

The transition from those standard fields for the interactions to particles for the state space requires internal transmutators, parametrized with the Higgs degrees of freedom (Goldstone manifold), as discussed above

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill v:(𝐔(2)/𝐔(1)_+)_{\mathrm{repr}}& \mathrm{IC}^2\mathrm{IC}^2\hfill & \text{with}& 𝐔(1)𝐔(2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M}& v(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M})_\alpha ^{1,2},\hfill & & \alpha =1,2\hfill \end{array}$$

and external Weyl and Pauli transmutators, parametrized with the momenta as coset representatives (boost manifold, 2-sphere)

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill s,\widehat{s}:(\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2))_{\mathrm{repr}}& \mathrm{IC}^2\mathrm{IC}^2\hfill & \text{with}& \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{q}{m}& s(\frac{q}{m})_C^{\dot{A}},\widehat{s}(\frac{q}{m})_C^A,\hfill & & C=1,2;\dot{A},A=1,2\hfill \\ \hfill u:(\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2))_{\mathrm{repr}}& \mathrm{IC}^2\mathrm{IC}^2\hfill & \text{with}& \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|}& u(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{q}|})_{1,2}^\alpha ,\hfill & & \alpha =1,2\hfill \end{array}$$

The operational triunits for the internal and external interaction-particle transmutations are

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\text{Higgs }:\hfill & \hfill 𝐔(1)& \times & \hfill [(𝐔(2)/𝐔(1)_+)_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }& 𝐔(2)]\hfill & \\ \text{Weyl }:\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)& \times & \hfill [(\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2))_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }& \mathrm{𝐒𝐋}(\mathrm{IC}^2)]\hfill & \\ \text{Pauli }:\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)& \times & \hfill [(\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)/\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2))_{\mathrm{repr}}\stackrel{}{\times }& \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)]\hfill & \end{array}$$


text:
# POWER LAW STATISTICS OF AVALANCHES IN MARTENSITIC TRANSFORMATION

## Abstract

We devise a two dimensional model that mimics the recently observed power law distributions for the amplitudes and durations of the acoustic emission signals observed during martensitic transformation \[ Vives et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1694 (1994)\]. We include a threshold mechanism arising from the athermal nature of transformation, long-range interaction between the transformed domains, inertial effects, and dissipation arising due to the motion of the interface. The model exhibits thermal hysteresis of the transformation, and more importantly, it shows that the energy is released in the form of avalanches with power law distributions for their amplitudes and durations. Computer simulations also reveal morphological features similar to those observed in real systems.

Many spatially extended driven systems naturally evolve to a marginally stable state characterized by avalanches with power law distributions for their amplitudes and durations reflecting lack of intrinsic length scales and time scales in the system. Such a state is termed as self-organized critical (SOC) state by Bak et al . Several physical systems exhibit SOC features; for example, earthquakes, acoustic emission from volcanic rocks, and stress drops during jerky flow , to name a few. Recently, Vives et al  , measured the acoustic emission (AE) signals during martensitic transformation of Cu-Zn-Al single crystals under thermal cycling. They reported power law statistics for the amplitudes and durations of the AE signals both during cooling and heating runs. To the best of our knowledge, there is no strain (or displacement) based model of martensitic transformation which explains these results. More over, any prospective model has to take into account the non-equilibrium nature of the hysteresis. Even though extensive theoretical studies exist on martensitic transformations, the influence of dissipation and defects on hysteresis has received very little attention. Here, we propose a simple phenomenological model which captures the power law distribution of AE signals along with the thermal hysteresis of the transformation. Below, we will briefly collect SOC type dynamical features of the martensitic transformation relevant for modelling the system.

Martensitic transformation is a first-order, solid-solid, diffusionless, structural phase transition. On cooling, the unit cell gets distorted leading to the nucleation of thin plate-like product domains with a twinned structure. This induces internal strains, which in turn induce long-range fields, that block the transformation leaving the system in a two phase metastable state. ( Note that this implies the existence of built-in threshold mechanism.) Thus, the amount of the transformed phase is entirely determined by the excess free energy and, an additional undercooling is required for further growth. This implies that thermal fluctuations have little role in the transformation kinetics. Thus, the transformation is athermal and hence the nucleation is athermal, usually occurring at defects like dislocations. Further, the emission of acoustic energy in the form of bursts implies that inertial effects are important. Indeed, Bales and Gooding, and later Reid and Gooding , have studied the importance of including the inertial effects. Vives et al attribute the mechanism of irreversible release of the elastic energy in the form of avalanches, each of which correspond to the motion of one (or more) interface, to the evolution of the system from one metastable state to another. Since the interface moves at near velocity of sound, there is dissipation associated with it. We include all these features along with the long-range interaction between the transformed domains.

For the sake of simplicity, we consider, a 2d square to rectangle transition, for which the free energy is usually a function of all the three components of strain defined by $`e_1=(\eta _{xx}+\eta _{yy})/\sqrt{2},e_2=(\eta _{xx}\eta _{yy})/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`e_3=\eta _{xy}=\eta _{yx}`$, where $`\eta _{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{u_i}{x_j}+\frac{u_j}{x_i})`$ refers to the components of the strain tensor and $`u_i`$ is the displacement field in the direction $`i`$ ( $`i=x,y`$). Here, $`e_1`$ is the bulk dilatational strain, $`e_2`$ is the deviatoric strain and $`e_3`$ is the shear strain. In athermal martensites, deviatoric shear strains play a dominant role in the transformation kinetics. In this paper, we consider the deviatoric strain $`e_2=ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})`$ as the principal order parameter since volume changes are small . The effect of other components of the strain, i.e., the bulk and shear strain is accounted phenomenologically by considering a long-range interaction between the deviatoric strains.

We write the rescaled free-energy functional as $`F\{ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})\}=F_L\{ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})\}+F_{lr}\{ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})\},`$ where $`F_L`$ is

$$F_L=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left[f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))+\frac{D}{2}(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))^2\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})\right].$$
(1)
where $`D`$ and $`\sigma `$ are in a scaled form. $`F_{lr}`$ is an effective long-range term that describes transformation induced strain-strain interactions. In Eqn. (1), $`f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))=\frac{\delta T}{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^2ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^4+\frac{1}{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^6`$ is the usual Landau polynomial for a first order transition, where $`\delta T=(TT_c)/(T_0T_c)`$ is the scaled temperature. $`T_0`$ is the first-order transition temperature at which the free energy for the product and parent phase are equal, and $`T_c`$ is the temperature below which there are only two degenerate global minima $`ϵ=\pm ϵ_M`$. Following Cao et al , the effect of localized defects acting as nucleation sites is simulated by an inhomogeneous stress field, $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$. This term modifies the free-energy $`f_l`$ in a way that renders the austenitic phase locally unstable leading to the nucleation of the product phase. As mentioned in the introduction, the physical cause of the long-range interaction is the coherency strain between the parent and the product phase. Such an interaction is also expected to arise due to the coupling of $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})`$ with the other components of the strain order parameter. Recently, an effective long-range interaction has been shown to result, both for the bulk  and interface , between the deviatoric strains if $`e_1`$ and $`e_3`$, are eliminated by imposing (St. Venant) elastic compatibility constraint. In ref , to describe the effect of the interface between the austenitic-martensite phases, the authors introduce an explicit interface term. Instead, we follow Wang and Khachaturyan  who have shown that the interface can be naturally described by accounting for coherency strains at the parent-product interface by a symmetry allowed fourth order anisotropic long-range interaction in the free energy. Following this, we write down the long-range term phenomenologically in the Fourier space as

$$F_{lr}\{ϵ\}=𝑑\stackrel{}{k}B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k^{},$$
(2)
where $`\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k`$ and $`\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k^{}`$ are the Fourier transform of $`ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and its complex conjugate respectively. For the square to rectangle transformation, the favourable growth directions for the product phase are the habit plane directions $`[11]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}]`$. In addition, free-energy barriers should be large along the $`[10]`$ and $`[01]`$ directions. These features are well captured by the simple kernel $`B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)=\frac{1}{2}\beta \theta (k\mathrm{\Lambda })\widehat{k}_{}^{2}{}_{x}{}^{}\widehat{k}_{}^{2}{}_{y}{}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{k}_x`$ and $`\widehat{k}_y`$ are the unit vectors in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, and $`\beta `$ is the strength of interaction and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the step function $`\theta (k\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a cutoff on the interaction range. This kernel incorporates the effect of the interface in a natural way since the cost of growth progressively increases with the transformation in directions where the kernel is positive which not only aids growth along the habit plane directions but also limits the growth of domains transverse to it. We stress that this is only a simple choice and is not unique. Other kernels with similar orientation dependence will give similar results. The real space picture of $`B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)`$ is similar to the long-range interaction of Kartha et al .

Even though deviatoric strain is the order parameter, basic variables are the displacement fields. Thus, we start with the Lagrangian $`L=𝒯F`$, where $`F`$ is the total free-energy with the kinetic energy $`𝒯`$ defined by

$$𝒯=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\rho \left[\left(\frac{u_x(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}\right)^2+\left(\frac{u_y(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}\right)^2\right].$$
(3)
Here $`\rho `$ is the mass density. The dissipation associated with the movement of the parent-product interface is represented by the Rayleigh dissipative functional . Further, since deviatoric strains are the dominant ones, dissipative functional is written entirely in terms of $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})`$, ie., $`R=\frac{1}{2}\gamma 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\frac{}{t}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right)^2`$. (This is consistent with the fact that shear and bulk strains are known to equilibrate rapidly and hence do not contribute.) The equations of motion for the displacement fields are

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\delta L}{\delta \dot{u}_i}\right)\frac{\delta L}{\delta u_i}=\frac{\delta R}{\delta \dot{u}_i},i=x,y.$$
(4)
Using the above equations, we obtain the equation of motion for $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, which after scaling out $`\rho `$ and $`D`$ (in terms of rescaled space and time variables) gives

$$\frac{^2}{t^2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)=^2\left[\frac{\delta F}{\delta ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)}+\gamma \frac{}{t}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right]$$
(5)
Thus, both $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, here, are to be taken as rescaled parameters. The structure of Eqn. (5) is similar to that derived in  for 1-d except for the long-range term.

Simulations are carried out by discretizing Eq.(5) on a $`N\times N`$ grid using the Euler’s scheme with periodic boundary conditions. The mesh size of the grid is $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$ and the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.002`$. The long-range term is computed using psuedospectral method: this term is calculated in the Fourier space and then inverse fast Fourier transform is effected to obtain the real space interaction. (We have used the cutoff distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2`$.) We have studied both the single defect and many defect nucleation case. Here, we reports results on multi-site case and only mention results on single site case wherever necessary.

Consider the nucleation and growth for a single quench. We use a random distribution of defects and represent their stress field by $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=_j^{j_{max}}\sigma _0(\stackrel{}{r_j})exp[|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r_j}|^2/\zeta ^2]`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ refers to the scaled coordinates of the defect sites and $`j_{max}`$ is the total number of defect sites. $`\sigma _0(\stackrel{}{r_j})`$ is taken to be uniformly distributed in the interval $`[0.3,0.3]`$. Initially, the system is taken to be in a homogeneous state with $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},0)`$ distributed uniformly in the interval $`[0.005,0.005]`$. At $`t=0`$, we switch on the stress-field $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}).`$ Figure 1 shows snap shots of the transformation at $`t=10,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}`$ and $`50`$. (Grey regions represent the austenitic phase $`ϵ=0`$, black and white regions represent the two variants.) Nucleation of the product phase occurs with a value $`ϵ\pm 2`$ at several locations where the magnitude of the stress-field is sufficient to make the system locally unstable ( $`t=10`$). We note here that the value of $`ϵ`$ for the two variants is larger than that given by $`f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))`$ alone ( $`ϵ_M\pm 1.31`$ for these parameters) due to the long-range interaction. In a short time, we see the other variant being created adjacent to these nuclei. By $`t=12`$ ( Fig. 1), the structure further develops into twinned arrays, propagating along $`[11]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}]`$ directions respectively. We also see that several new domains are nucleated at a finite distance from the preexisting domains which is consistent with the autocatalytic nucleation mechanism known to operate in martensitic transformation . Though, the new nucleation sites, most often coincide with the defect sites, occasionally it is seen in defect free regions. ( Similar observation was made in the single site case also.) This can be attributed to the stress accumulation at these sites as a result of the long-range term due to the preexisting martensitic domains. Note that the twinning is irregular which is again due to the mutual interaction between the various domains. There is very little growth beyond $`t=30`$. Thin needle-like structures can also be seen to emerge from larger domains ( $`t=50`$) as reported by Vives et al. There is also a distribution of domains sizes.

We simulate thermal cycling of the transformation by continuously changing $`\delta T`$ from + 40 to -80, and back in a duration of $`t=1000`$ units at a constant rate, both for the heating and cooling runs. For the reverse cycle, the final configuration of the cooling run is used as the initial configuration. Figure 2 shows the area fraction $`\varphi _A`$ versus $`\delta T`$ for the cooling and heating runs ( $``$ ). In the cooling run, transformation starts around $`\delta T_{ms}2.0`$ showing a rapid increase in $`\varphi _A`$ up to $`30\%`$, thereafter, it increases linearly up to $`90\%`$. The transformation is complete by $`\delta T_{mf}59`$. In the heating run, the parent phase appears only at $`\delta T_{as}26.0`$ and $`\varphi _A`$ decreases almost linearly till the transformation is nearly complete around $`\delta T_{af}18`$. ( For the sake of comparison, we have also shown the single-site hysteresis loop by $``$. )

The most important feature of the model is that the changes in $`\varphi _A`$ are actually jerky which can only be seen on a finer scale. Since, the rate of energy dissipated $`dE/dt=2R(t)`$, we have calculated $`R(t)`$ ( or $`R(\delta T)`$). In Fig. 3, we have plotted $`R(t)`$ with the inset showing the enlarged section of the peak which clearly shows that the rate of energy release occurs in bursts consistent with the acoustic emission studies . (Latent heat also shows a pattern similar to Fig. 3 .) Further, the distribution of the amplitudes of $`R(t)`$ denoted by $`R_A`$ has a tendency to approach a power law $`D_R(R_A)R_A^{\alpha _R}`$ with $`\alpha _R2.6`$ ($``$ in Fig. 4. We have also shown the single-site results by $``$.) Similarly, the distribution $`D_R(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ of the durations $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of the energy bursts scales with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ given by $`D_R(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{\Delta }t^{\tau _R}`$ with $`\tau _R3.2`$. Although, the scaling regime is almost identical to $`D_R(R_A)`$, we find that the scatter is slightly more in this case. ( This is true of experimental results as well and in SOC models). The conditional average of $`R_A`$, for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ denoted by $`<R_A>_c`$ behaves as $`<R_A)>_c\mathrm{\Delta }t^{x_R}`$. We get the exponent value $`x_R1.36`$. We also find that the scaling relation $`\tau _R=x_R(\alpha _R1)+1`$ is satisfied quite well. In experiments, however, one measures the amplitude of the AE signals $`A_{ae}`$, ie., $`R_AA_{ae}^2`$. Using the relationship between the two joint probability distributions $`D(R_A,\mathrm{\Delta }t)D(A_{ae},\mathrm{\Delta }t)/A_{ae}`$, it can be easily shown that $`\alpha _R=(\alpha _{ae}+1)/2`$ where $`\alpha _{ae}`$ is the exponent corresponding to $`A_{ae}`$. The other two exponents remain unchanged. Using the experimental values ( $`\alpha _{ae}3.8,\tau _{ae}3.6`$ and $`x_{ae}1`$), we see that $`\alpha _R2.4`$. Thus, we see that our values are in reasonable agreement with experiments considering the fact that real systems are 3-d. It must be stated here that in 3-d even the number of variants are generally more and one also expects that the mechanisms operating in 3-d cannot be fully accounted for in 2-d. We have also carried out a similar analysis on $`R(t)`$ for the heating run. Even though, the changes in $`R(t)`$ occurs in bursts in the heating run as well, we find that the scatter in the distributions is more than that for the cooling run.

In conclusion, the fact that the energy release occurs in the form of bursts with a power law statistics for the avalanches is well captured by the model. In addition, the model shows hysteresis under thermal cycling. The power law statistics can be attributed to the fact that we have included important ingredients of SOC dynamics, namely, the threshold dynamics, dissipation, the generation of large number of metastable states during the transformation, and a relaxation mechanism for the stored energy. This relaxation time scale corresponds to the inertial time scale as can be inferred from the fact that the basic variables are the displacement fields which in turn set the limit on the fastest time scale. Indeed, from our simulations we find that the interface movement occurs at time scales of a few units of (scaled) time. Compared to this the driving force increases with temperature at a slow pace. The important feature of inducing large number metastable states during cooling or heating runs is due to the long-range interaction between the transformed domains as can be seen from the following reasoning. We note that the value of this term at any location is the result of the superposition of the contributions arising from the spatial distribution of the already transformed domains which in turn leads to a complex terrain of local barriers ( metastable states). These self generated ( transformation induced) local thresholds, at a given time, must be overcome by the increase in the driving force arising from the slow cooling (or heating). We note that once a local barrier is overcome, part of the driving force goes in creating a new twin and the rest is dissipated in the form of burst of energy ( due to the advancing interface). The fact that long-range interaction is at the root of creating the local thresholds is further supported by the fact that we find a power law distributions even in the single site nucleation case. (See $``$ in Fig. 4.) The presence of defect sites only triggers the initial nucleation process. This must be contrasted with disorder based Ising models which also produce power law statistics for avalaches and field induced hysteresis. However, by subjecting the samples to repeated thermal cycling, Vives et al have verified that in martensite transformation, it is the dynamical ( transformation induced) disorder that is at the root of the avalanches. In this sense, our model is the first to capture both thermal hysteresis and jerky nature of the transformation based on dynamical disorder and is independent of quenched disorder. Finally, the morphological features, including the needle shaped domains are very similar to those observed in experiments.

Acknowledgement: The authors thank Ms. M. S. Bharathi for the analysis of the data. Financial support of JNCASR for carrying out this project is gratefully acknowledged.

Figure captions:

Fig. 1: Snapshots of the morphology of the transformation at $`t=10,12,15`$ and 50 time steps for multi-site nucleation. The parameters values are: $`N=128,\delta T=2.0,\beta =50,\gamma =4,\sigma _0=[0.3,0.3]`$ and $`j_{max}=164`$.

Fig. 2: Area fraction $`\varphi _A`$ as a function $`t`$ for cooling and heating ($``$) runs for $`N=256,\beta =50,\gamma =4,\sigma _0=[0.3,0.3]`$ and $`j_{max}1\%`$ of $`N^2`$ . $``$ correspond to single-site case.

Fig. 3: $`R(t)`$ as a function of $`t`$ in the cooling run for $`N=256,\beta =50,\gamma =4,\sigma _0=[0.3,0.3]`$ and $`j_{max}1\%`$ of $`N^2`$. The inset shows the fine structure of the peak.

Fig. 4: A plot of $`D(R_A)`$ versus $`R_A`$ for the same parameter values as in Fig.3 for the multi-site case ($``$ connected by dashed line) with $`\alpha =2.6`$. $``$ with continuous line shows the single site case with $`\alpha =2.5`$.