text:
# Tau Polarizations in the Three-body Slepton Decays with Stau as the NLSP.

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry provides a natural solution to the hierarchy problem that associates with weak scale physics and Planck scale physics . If nature is supersymmetric, it must spontaneously break supersymmetry and transmit the message to low energy effective models. Two approaches are widely considered to satisfy the message transmitting strategy. One is the gravity mediation approach which has the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ about of order $`10^{11}`$ GeV. The gravitino mass is typically much larger than those of gauginos and sfermions under this framework. Due to the largeness of $`\sqrt{F}`$, the gravitino interaction is also too weak to play important roles in collider phenomenology. Another approach uses gauge interactions to mediate supersymmetry breaking effect. In the gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) scenarios, the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is sufficiently small so that the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is always the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) with mass

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=\frac{F}{\sqrt{3}M_{Pl}}=2.37\times 10^4\times \left(\frac{\sqrt{F}}{1\mathrm{𝖳𝖾𝖵}}\right)^2\mathrm{𝖾𝖵},$$
(1)
where $`M_{Pl}`$ denotes the reduced Planck scale $`2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV. Since the soft masses of other superparticles are associated with the weak scale in the GMSB models, within typical range of $`\sqrt{F}`$, the gravitino is far lighter than other superparticles and becomes the LSP.

It is well known that different scenarios for the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) in the GMSB models could be crucial in discovering supersymmetry signals in colliders and may lead to different phenomenologies. In the neutralino NLSP scenarios, the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ decays into a photon and a gravitino which carries missing energy and escapes the detectors. If the SUSY breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is less than a few thousand TeV, the neutralino decay $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$ would be prompt enough to occur within the detector. One can therefore use inclusive $`\gamma \gamma +\overline{)}E_T+X`$ signals in detecting supersymmetry. In the slepton NLSP scenarios, the lightest slepton can promptly decay into its partner and a gravitino with a sufficiently small scale $`\sqrt{F}`$. Depending on the scale $`\sqrt{F}`$, the slepton NLSP may live long enough to leave tracks and kinks in detectors. In general, other NLSP scenarios are also plausible depending upon the various constructions of supersymmetry breaking models.

Scalar leptons can be easily found at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders if it is kinematically allowed. By measuring their masses and decay distributions one could determine some of the MSSM parameters. The phenomenology of sleptons in future linear colliders then deserves detailed study.

In this paper we concentrate on the GMSB scenarios in which the lighter scalar tau lepton (stau) $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is the NLSP. In general, we can write down the stau mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$ in terms of the stau mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R,`$ (3)
where $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ ranges from $`0\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}<\pi `$. Since the mixing is proportional to fermion Yukawa coupling, due to the small mixing efffects for scalar electrons (selectrons) and for scalar muons (smuons) , the lightest selectron $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ and the lightest smuon $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ are nearly right-handed sleptons with almost equal masses. We will use $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ to represent the lighter selectron and smuon respectively in this paper.

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ can decay into a tau lepton and a gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in the detectors if the SUSY scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is not too large. If the scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is sufficiently large, the stau NLSPs may live long enough to leave tracks or kinks in the collider detectors. In many of the GMSB models, the lighter selectron and the lighter smuon are merely right-handed sleptons with nearly degenerate masses. Unlike $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, they can decay not only through the two-body processes $`\stackrel{~}{e}_Re\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\mu \stackrel{~}{G}`$, but also through the processes such as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\nu _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\nu _\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ depending upon the model parameters. For instance, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ will be kinematically forbidden if the mass difference $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R}m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1})`$ is smaller than the tau mass $`m_\tau `$. This could happen in the so-called slepton co-NLSP scenarios.

However, in the stau NLSP scenarios, there exists some parameter space where the three-body processes $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ could dominate over the two-body processes $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and leads to different signatures in colliders .

If the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$ talkes place outside the detector, then one can directly identify the stau tracks or decay kinks. Thus in the $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, the pair-produced sleptons may decay in collider detectors through $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\tau \tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. In the $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders, right-handed sleptons are produced through the t-channel processes and then decay as $`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\tau \tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. It is also found that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ could have macroscopic decay lengths that are smaller than the dimensions of typical detectors if the mass difference $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R}m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}|`$ is suitably small. If this is the case, the secondary vertices of the three-body processes could be resolved and each $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ particle can be identified as coming from one of the pair-produced selectrons or smuons. In this case one could measure the polarizations of the $`\tau `$ leptons. The $`\tau `$ polarization provides another observable which could help to pin down the stau mixing angle and/or the ratio of the neutrilino and the slepton masses.

However, there might be the possibility that the two-body and three-body decay modes are of comparable amplitudes and can therefore decay in the detector. In this case we might have the decay process $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^+\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+\tau ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}\overline{)}E\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+\tau ^\pm \tau ^{}\overline{)}E\overline{)}E`$, i.e., two tau leptons with opposite charges in the final state. One of the tau lepton is coming from the three-body decay of the slepton therefore its kinetic energy is less then $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R}m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}|`$. The other tau lepton is from the two-body decay of the scalar tau and hence carries larger momentum and is much harder than the tau lepton originated from the three-body decay. In this interesting case we can easily identify the softer tau lepton from the three-body decay from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R`$.

Motivated by the above observation, we calculate the polarizations for the tau leptons in the three-body decays $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^\pm `$ in the paper. It is expected that the tau polarizations should depend on the stau mixing angle and the mass ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$. In the section two of the paper, we set the notations and give formulas for the polarizations of the tau leptons in the three-body slepton decays. Numerical results are presented and discussed in the section three. In the section four, we make our conclusion.

## II Three-Body slepton decays

As mentioned in the previous section, the three-body decays $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ could dominate over the two-body decays $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in some parameter space if the SUSY breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is sufficiently large. We restrict on the scenario where the two-body processes $`\stackrel{~}{e}_Re+\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$ are forbidden, i.e., we assume the following mass relation:

$$m_e+m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_i}>m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}>m_e+m_\tau +m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}.$$
(4)
Therefore the only competing decay processes for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ are $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\tau ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}`$.

Because of the invariance of charge conjugation and parity transformation, we can write down the following identities for the selectron decays:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau _R^\pm \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}\tau _L^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^\pm )`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau _L^\pm \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}\tau _R^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^\pm ),`$ (6)
where $`L`$ ($`R`$) denotes the left (right) helicity for the tau leptons in the decay processes. Therefore we will only discuss the decays of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+`$.

At tree level, the selectron $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decays through the propagation of bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and wino $`\stackrel{~}{W}^3`$. Since bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, wino $`\stackrel{~}{W}^3`$, and the two neutral higgsinos $`\stackrel{~}{h}_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_2^0`$ can mix and form the neutralino mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$, it is appropriate to do calculation in terms of the neutralino parameters. In the basis of $`\psi _i=(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{W}^3,i\stackrel{~}{h}_1^0,i\stackrel{~}{h}_2^0)`$, the neutralino states and the associated diagonal mass matrix $`M_D`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(V^+\right)_{ij}\psi _j`$ (7)
$`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`V^+MV.`$ (8)
Here $`V`$ denotes the transforming matrix which diagonalizes the neutralino mass matrix $`M`$

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& 0& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ 0& m_2& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & 0& \mu \\ m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta & m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
where $`m_Z`$ is the mass of $`Z`$ boson, $`m_1`$ denotes the soft breaking mass of bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`m_2`$ is the soft breaking mass of wino $`\stackrel{~}{W}^3`$, $`\theta _W`$ denotes the weak Weinberg angle and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio between the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets in the model, and $`\mu `$ is the supersymmetric Higgs mass parameter.

In our study, the tau polarizations are measured in the lab frame. When the collider beam energy is threshold to produce the slectrons in pairs, the selectrons may travel with velocity $`v`$ before decay and thus experience a boost which is characterized by the boost factor $`\gamma =(v/c)/\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}`$. Fig. 1 shows the selectron boost direction in the lab frame. The moving direction of the outgoing tau lepton is assigned the Z-direction and the XZ plane is spanned by the outgoing electron and the tau lepton. By summing all tree-level contributions for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+`$, the transition amplitudes $`|i\text{m}_{(L,R)}^{}|^2`$ for different helicities $`(L,R)`$ of the tau final states are given by:

$`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_eV_{Rj}^{}\sqrt{E_e}}{(q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}^2)}}\{(C_{1j}E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{E+K}C_{2j}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}\sqrt{EK})cos{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`C_{1j}P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{E+K}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})\}|^2`$ (15)
$`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_eV_{Rj}^{}\sqrt{E_e}}{(q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}^2)}}\{(C_{1j}E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{EK}C_{2j}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}\sqrt{E+K})\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`C_{1j}P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{EK}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})\}|^2`$ (17)
where

$$q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^22PE_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}2PP_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}(\theta \phi ),$$
(18)
$`(E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R},P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R})`$ and $`(E,K)`$ denote the (energy, momentum) pairs of the right-handed selectron and the outgoing tau lepton in the lab frame respectively, $`P`$ is the outgoing electron energy, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}`$ denote the masses of the right-handed selectron and the $`j`$th neutralino respectively, $`Q_e`$ represents the electric coupling of electron, and the coefficients $`C_{1j},C_{2j}`$, and $`V_{Rj}`$ are given by

$`V_{Lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}}V_{2j}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}V_{1j}`$ (19)
$`V_{Rj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}V_{1j}`$ (20)
$`C_{1j}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\tau V_{3j}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\sqrt{2}Q_eV_{Rj}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ (21)
$`C_{2j}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\tau V_{3j}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+\sqrt{2}Q_eV_{Lj}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}.`$ (22)
Here $`\lambda _\tau `$ is the coupling strength for the tau Yukawa coupling term $`\lambda _\tau H_1L_\tau R_\tau `$. Similarly, the decay process $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}`$ has the transition amplitudes

$`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^+|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_eV_{Rj}^{}\sqrt{E_e}}{(q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}^2)}}\{(C_{1j}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}\sqrt{EK}+C_{2j}E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{E+K})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`C_{2j}P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{E+K}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})\}|^2`$ (24)
$`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^+|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_eV_{Rj}^{}\sqrt{E_e}}{(q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}^2)}}\{(C_{1j}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_j}\sqrt{E+K}+C_{2j}E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{EK})\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`C_{2j}P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{EK}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})\}|^2.`$ (26)
As easily seen from Eqs. (15-26), the amplitudes do depend upon the selectron boost angles and the selectron momentum $`P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$.

Taking into account the selectron boost effect, the decays rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ of different tau lepton helicities L or R for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ is obtained as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(L,R)}=𝑑\varphi 𝑑\phi F(\varphi ,\phi )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(L,R)}(\varphi ,\phi ),$$
(27)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(L,R)}(\varphi ,\phi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dEd[\mathrm{cos}\theta ]}{64\pi ^3E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}\frac{KP|i\text{m}_{(L,R)}|^2}{E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}E+K\mathrm{cos}\theta P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\mathrm{sin}\varphi (\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta )}}`$ (28)
$`P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2+m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^22EE_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}+2P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}K\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\phi }{2[E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}E+Kcos\theta P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\mathrm{sin}\varphi (\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta )]}},`$ (29)
where $`F(\varphi ,\phi )`$ is the probability density function for selectron boosting in the $`(\varphi ,\phi )`$ direction, $`E`$ is the energy for the outcoming tau lepton, $`K=\sqrt{(E^2m_\tau ^2)}`$ denotes the momentum of the tau lepton, $`P`$ is the energy of the outcoming electron, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the tau and the electron.

Naively, the decay rates with selectron boost effects may differ to those without selectron boost effects to the order of $`O(\gamma )`$, i.e. $`O(P_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}/E_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R})`$. On the other hand, the spinless nature of selectrons leads to the following symmetry for $`F(\varphi ,\phi )`$:

$$F(\varphi ,\pm \phi )=F(\varphi ,\pi \pm \phi )=F(\pi \varphi ,\pm \phi )=F(\pi \varphi ,\pi \pm \phi ).$$
(30)
Thus all terms that are linear in $`\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ should be cancelled after integrating out the $`\phi `$ dependence. Consequently, by observing that

$$\sqrt{E_{rest}\pm K_{rest}}=\sqrt{E\pm K}\{1\frac{1}{2}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\varphi +O(\gamma ^2)\}$$
(31)
where $`E_{rest}`$ ($`K_{rest}`$) denotes the energy (momentum) of the outgoing tau lepton in the selectron rest frame, the decay rates in Eq.(27) are actually differ to those without selectron boost effects to the order of $`O(\gamma ^2)`$. Therefore, we simply do all the calculations in the selectron rest frame in the rest of the paper.

## III Tau Lepton Polarization

The tau lepton polarization asymmetry can be defined as

$$P_\tau \frac{<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R><\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>}{<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R>+<\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>}.$$
(32)
We can easily calculate the asymmetry by using the formulas presented in the previous section. From Eq.s (5) and (6) the CP invariance leads to the following relations for the tau polarization:

$`P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})=P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+)`$ (33)
$`P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+)=P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})`$ (34)
Therefore we calculate only $`P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})`$ and $`P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+)`$ and give the numerical results in this section.

Generally, the transistion amplitudes and the associated decay rates presented in the previous section are sensitive to the neutralino masses and mixing effects. For instance, by assuming the dominance of $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ propagating in the tree-level decay processes in the Bino-like lightest neutralino scenario, the amplitude functions in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1})<<m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ are obtained approximately as

$`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^{}|^2`$ $``$ $`\{E_e|m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{E+K}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}{2}}\sqrt{EK}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|^2\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\},`$ (35)
$`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^+|^2`$ $``$ $`\{E_e|m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}\sqrt{EK}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}{2}}\sqrt{E+K}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|^2\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\},`$ (36)
$`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^{}|^2`$ $``$ $`\{E_e|m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}\sqrt{EK}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}{2}}\sqrt{E+K}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\},`$ (37)
$`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^+|^2`$ $``$ $`\{E_e|m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}\sqrt{E+K}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}{2}}\sqrt{EK}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\},.`$ (38)
From Eq.s (35-38), it is easily seen that the polarization ratio $`P_\tau `$ is determined by the mass ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ . In the purely right-handed $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ limit $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=1)`$, $`P_\tau `$ becomes

$$P_\tau \pm \frac{_{m_\tau }^\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑E(E^2m_\tau ^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2}{_{m_\tau }^\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑EE\sqrt{E^2m_\tau ^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2},(\pm )\mathrm{𝖿𝗈𝗋}\tau ^{}\mathrm{𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅}\mathrm{𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌}.$$
(39)
Eq. (39) shows that the $`P_\tau `$ ratios always have opposite signs for $`\tau ^+`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ production in the selectron decays, i.e., the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+`$ process tends to have right-handed tau leptons in the final states and the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}`$ process tends to produce left-handed $`\tau ^+`$’s in this limit.

The tau-lepton polarizations as the functions of the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with different $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ values are illustrated in Fig. 2 (a) and (b) where the mass ratio $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=2`$ is kept fixed. Although it was pointed out in  that when the mass differences between $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ are less than 10 GeV, the range of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ will be within $`0.1|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|0.3`$ , we find that if we assume that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}200`$ GeV the mass differences between $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ can be up to 20 GeV while keeping $`0.1|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|0.3`$. As shown in the plot (a), $`P(\tau ^+)P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})`$ decreases as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases. For a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value, $`P(\tau ^+)`$ always has larger values for larger $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ values. This could be explained by the fact that when $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ increases, the amplitude $`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^+|^2`$ always increases faster than $`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^+|^2`$ does when the mixing angle are within the range $`0.1|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|0.3`$ . Although not shown in the figure, from Eq.s (35,37) one can easily see that when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is kept fixed, a larger $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ will give smaller polarization $`P(\tau ^{})P_\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+)`$.

As shown in Fig. 2(b), the ratio between $`P(\tau ^+)`$ and $`P(\tau ^{})`$ is a slow varying function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with fixed $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=2`$ for most of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ range except for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=0.3`$. This is due to the complex interplay between the factors $`\sqrt{E+K}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and $`\sqrt{EK}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$. When the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is small, $`\sqrt{E+K}`$ and $`\sqrt{EK}`$ are comparable and both $`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^+|^2`$ and $`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^{}|^2`$ are getting smaller as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ changing from $`0.1`$ to $`0.3`$. On the other hand, when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ goes larger, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }=20`$ GeV, $`\sqrt{E+K}`$ is much larger than $`\sqrt{EK}`$ and $`|i\text{m}_{(L)}^{}|^2`$ ($`|i\text{m}_{(R)}^+|^2`$) is getting larger (smaller) as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ changing from $`0.1`$ to $`0.3`$. It thus leads to the intersections for those curves with negative $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ values.

Fig.s 3(a) and 3(b) show the mass ratio $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ dependence of the tau polarizations. As shown in Fig. 3(a), $`P(\tau ^+)`$ is a slow varying function of $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ with fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=\text{ 20 GeV}`$ in the plot). However, the ratio $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})`$ varies significantly for $`0.1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}0.3`$ with fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value as shown in 3(b). This plot may help in determining the model parameters such as $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ in the Bino-like lightest neutralino scenarios. For example, a ratio $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})=1.5`$ will lead to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}0.3`$ and $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}2.5`$ in the model with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=20\text{ GeV}`$.

In Fig.s 4(a-c) we plot the tau polarization functions and their ratio as functions of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ for $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=2`$ and five choices $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4,8,12,16`$, and $`20\text{ GeV}`$. Fig. 4(a) shows that the polarization $`P(\tau ^+)`$ increases as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ increases for the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ range under consideration. Similar behaviors occur when varying the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value in the model. Usually a larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value will imply a lower tau polarization for $`(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{})`$ and a higher tau polarization for $`(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+e^+\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+)`$. Several curves for the tau polarization ratio $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})`$ are plotted against the stau mixing parameter $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ with different $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values in Fig. 4(b). Varying the $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ parameter could dramatically change the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ dependence of $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})`$. We plot $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})`$ for five choices $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5`$ and $`3.0`$ in Fig. 4(c). As shown in the plot, the polarization ratio $`P(\tau ^+)/P(\tau ^{})`$ depends on $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ sensitively when $`0.3|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|0.2`$.

We can also study the neutralino mixing effects on the tau-lepton polarizations. Fig. 5 shows typical plots in both the bino-like lightest neutralino scenario and in the Higgsino-mixed neutralino region with the model parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=200`$, $`|\mu |=300`$, $`m_1=400`$, $`m_2=800\text{ GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. By comparing Fig. 5 to 3(a), we find that the tau polarization behavior in the Higgsino-mixed neutralino scenarios may look similar to that in the bino-like lightest neutralino scenarios with a larger $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|`$ value. For instance, the tau polarization in the Higgsino-mixed neutralino region with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=0.1`$ would look like the tau polarization in the bino-dominant lightest neutralino scenario with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}0.3`$.

In Fig. 6 we plot the normalized distributions for the final state electrons and tau leptons as functions of their transverse momenta $`p_T`$ in the selectron rest frame. Here we choose the model parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=200`$ GeV , $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=1.2`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=0.15`$. We plot three different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=12,16,20`$ GeV respectively. As seen from the figure, the peak values occur at about $`p_T=7.5,5.8,4.3`$ GeV ( 6.0, 4.9, 3.7 GeV) for the final state tau lepton (electron) distributions as we vary the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from 20, 16, to 12 GeV accordingly. It should be noticed that when the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is too small, the final state tau may be too soft to detect and the determination of the tau polarization would be a challenge. However, if the mass splitting is large enough, the polarization of the final state tau lepton can be measured.

According to the numerical results the knowledge of the tau polarization in the three-body slepton decays can provide another observable and may help to reveal the stau mixing angle and/or the bino-slepton mass ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ in the small mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }<<m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ limit. Experimentally, there may be a way for measuring the polarized tau-lepton productions in the selectron decay by observing its subsequent tau decays $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu _\tau `$ and $`\tau ^+\pi ^+\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. The tau polarizations can be obtained by measuring the spectrum of $`E_{\pi ^\pm }/E_{\tau ^\pm }`$ in the decays.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated the tau polarizations for the three-body slepton decays under the stau NLSP scenarios in the small mass difference limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }<<m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$. The exact formulas for calculating the slepton decay rates at the tree level are provided in section two.

The measurements of tau lepton polarizations in the slepton decays provide another window for studying the SUSY model parameters. In the right-handed $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ limit, the tau asymmetry ratio $`P_\tau `$ is solely determined by the mass difference parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Numerical studies show explicit dependence on the stau mixing angles and/or the mass ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$.

We also studied the distributions of the final state electrons and tau leptons as functions of their transverse momenta $`p_T`$ in the selectron rest frame. The energy spectrum of the final state leptons are mainly determined by the mass difference ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$. In our chosen parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=200`$ GeV, $`r_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=1.2`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=0.15`$ as we vary $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from 12, 16 to 20 GeV, the peaks of the distributions range from $`p_T=`$ 4.3, 5.8 to 7.5 GeV respectively. However if the mass difference is too small, the final state tau lepton will to too soft and the measurement of the polarization would be very difficult. But if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is large enough such that we can measure its polarization, the knowledge of tau-lepton polarization may help in determining the parameter space of a typical GMSB model.

### Acknowledgments

C.-L. Chou thanks M. E. Peskin for introducing the topic and useful discussion in the early stage of this work. C.-H. Chou thanks S.-C. Lee for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan(Grant No. NSC89-2112-M-001-070 and NSC89-2811-M-001-0100).


format: text

text:
# TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF f-MODE FREQUENCIES AND RADIUS

## 1 Introduction

With the availability of precise frequencies from both Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) and Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) instruments, refined analysis of solar cycle dependent parameters are being carried out. In these studies, p-mode frequencies have been widely used since these modes penetrate deep inside the sun and thus provide a way to infer changes beneath the surface. In contrast, f-modes, which are the surface gravity modes, are less well studied. Most of the efforts in f-mode studies have been concentrated in estimating the seismic radius of the sun since these mode frequencies are independent of the stratification in the solar interior (Dziembowski et al., 1998, 2000; Antia et al., 2000a). Frequency splittings obtained from f-modes have also been used to study the zonal flows which are associated with torsional oscillations (Howard & LaBonte, 1980) as seen in BBSO data (Woodard & Libbrecht, 1993). These sub-surface flows were first noticed by Kosovichev & Schou (1997) in the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) f-mode splittings. This analysis was later extended by Schou (1999) for a longer time period which showed average drift of the zonal flows towards the equator. Toomre et al. (2000) have confirmed these zonal flows using both p\- and f-mode splittings derived from MDI data.

Clearly, we are still lacking a basic understanding as to what causes the frequency changes. Keeping this in view, we analyse the f-mode frequencies and splitting coefficients obtained from the MDI medium-$`\mathrm{}`$ program for the period which includes the rising phase of the solar cycle 23. We look for possible solar cycle changes in the mean frequencies and even order splitting coefficients. These are further correlated with activity indices. We have also estimated the variations in the seismic radius for the period covered in this study.

## 2 The Data

The results presented here consist of twenty 72 day data sets obtained with the MDI instrument on board SOHO and covers a period from May 1, 1996 to August 31, 2000 with two breakdowns in between (see Schou, 1999 for more details). Each data set consists of centroid frequencies $`\nu _{n,l}`$ and 36 splitting coefficients $`a_k`$. For the present work, only f-modes are used which samples a region very close to the surface. In particular, the analysis is restricted to 41 common modes in the degree range of 217 $`\mathrm{}`$ 286 and frequency range of 1484 $`\mu `$Hz $`\nu `$ 1702 $`\mu `$Hz unless otherwise mentioned.

## 3 Analysis and Results

### 3.1 Variation of the Sun’s Eigen Frequencies

The variation of $`\mathrm{}`$ averaged frequency shift as a function of frequency for low (May 1 – July 7, 1996) and high (June 21 – August 31, 2000) activity period with reference to set 6 (April 26 – July 6, 1997) is shown in Figure 1. During the minimum activity period, $`\delta \nu `$ seems to be independent of $`\nu `$ while during high activity period, the frequency shift increases sharply with frequencies. The mean shift $`\delta \nu `$ for a given $`\mathrm{}`$ is calculated from the relation

$$\delta \nu (t)=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta \nu _{\mathrm{}}(t)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2}}{_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2}}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the error in the frequency measurement. The variation of $`\delta \nu `$ with time is shown in Figure 2. Here we notice an oscillatory behaviour with a periodicity of about one year. A similar result is also found by Antia et al. (2000b). The temporal evolution of p-mode frequencies (1500 $`\mu `$Hz $`\nu `$ 3500 $`\mu `$Hz) and the activity index represented by the International sunspot number $`R_I`$ is also shown in the same figure. It is evident that the change in p-mode frequencies is larger than that of f-mode frequencies. It is further clear that the p-mode frequency shifts follow the activity index quite closely while the mean frequency shifts of f-modes appear to be weakly correlated (also see Table 1).

To study the correlation between mean frequency shifts and solar activity cycle, we have considered the following different activity indices: $`R_I,`$ the International sunspot number obtained from the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD); KPMI, Kitt Peak Magnetic Index which represents the line of sight magnetic field setrength and averaged over the full disk from Kitt Peak magnetograms; MPSI, Magnetic Plage Strength Index from Mount Wilson magnetograms which represents the absolute values of the magnetic field strengths between 10 and 100 gauss; MWSI, Mount Wilson Sunspot Index which represents the magnetic field strengths above 100 gauss; He I, equivalent width of He I 10830 Å line, averaged over the whole disk from Kitt peak and $`F_{10}`$, integrated radio flux at 10.7 cm from SGD. Both Pearson’s ($`r_p`$) and Spearman’s ($`r_s`$) correlation coefficients are given in Table 1.

It is observed that in case of f-modes, the activity indices have weak correlation with frequency shifts. In comparison, p-modes display higher correlation coefficients showing stronger correlation with activity indices as was earlier pointed out by Jain, Tripathy, & Bhatnagar (2000) and Howe, Komm, & Hill (1999). However, it is interesting to note that MWSI with other magnetic indices has strong correlation with f-modes while it has the weakest correlation with p-modes. Thus, it appears that MWSI which represents the average magnetic field strenth above 100 gauss behaves differently with p\- and f-modes and needs to be investigated more closely as the solar cycle progresses. The observation that f-modes in comparison with p-modes are weakly correlated with magnetic field indices further confirms that magnetic fields are present at deeper layers rather than near the solar surface.

### 3.2 Seismic Radius

Since the early nineteen century, the temporal variation in the Sun’s diameter has been reported by many observers (Laclare et al., 1996; Noeel, 1997). The recent measurements report a change of 0.1 arcsec to 1 arcsec in the measured semi-diameter which implies a change of 70 to 700 km in the radius. Assuming that the change in frequencies is entirely due to the change in radius and there is no contribution from the magnetic field, convection etc., the average frequency difference is related to change in radius by

$$<\frac{\delta \nu }{\nu }>=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\delta R}{R},$$
(2)
where $`\delta \nu `$ is the centroid frequencies calculated earlier and the differences are taken with respect to the mean of all 20 data sets. The evolution of the relative differences in the seismic radius is shown in Figure 3. The maximum change is found to be 29.8 km over a period of four years, the seismic radius decreasing with increase of activity lavels and thus indicating anti-correlation between them. A relative variation in the solar radius of the order of 6$`\times `$10<sup>-6</sup> was first reported by Dziembowski et al. (1998) which corresponds to approximately 4 km over a period of 2 years around the solar minimum. If this variation is correlated with solar activity, we would expect much larger change, as reported in this paper, between minimum and maxium activity period. However, the analysis of Dziembowski et al. (2000) did not find any systematic trend of correlation with sunspot number. A similar study using GONG data (Antia et al., 2000a) for the period 1995 to 1998 reported a decrease in solar radius by about 5 km, during the period in which the solar activity was increasing. It has been known that the high wave number modes are known to deviate significantly from the simple dispersion relation (Duvall, Kosovichev & Murawski, 1998; Antia & Basu, 1999) and the inclusion of higher degree in our analysis may cause this large change in the solar radius.

In order to check the stability of our results, we have repeated the analysis by considering the frequency tables which contains the splitting coefficients only up to $`a_6`$ and thus lowering the $`\mathrm{}`$ values to 119. The relative difference in radius in this case is found to be 14 km and clearly demonstrates the degree dependence. We have also estimated the relative difference in seismic radius from activity minimum to maximum by restricting the common modes between 100 $``$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $``$ 200 and this is shown as dashed line in Figure 3. In this case, the change in radius is found to be 7 km, consistent with the results of Antia et al. (2000a) which used the same range of $`\mathrm{}`$ values.

Since the change in seismic radius reflects the relative differences in frequencies, the oscillatory pattern visible in Figure 2 persists in Figure 3. However, it is not clear if this period is associated with solar cycle variations since the data used here spans only 4 years. Also, this period is very close to the orbital period of the earth and one may expect systematic errors of this period being introduced in the data.

### 3.3 Even Order Splitting Coefficients

The variation of even order coefficients up to $`a_{16}`$ for f-modes are shown in Figure 4. These coefficients seem to be uncorrelated with solar cycle except for $`a_2`$. In contrast, the even order splitting coefficients of p-modes are known to be correlated with solar cycle. In particular, Howe, Komm, & Hill (1999) find significant correlation between the even $`a`$-coefficients and the corresponding Legendre coefficients of a fit to the Kitt Peak magnetograms. A similar result based on the BBSO Ca K plage data for higher order was recently reported by Dziembowski et al. (2000).

## 4 conclusions

We have analysed the f-mode frequencies and splitting coefficients obtained from MDI medium-$`\mathrm{}`$ program for the period May 1996 to August 2000. We find that the mean shift in these mode frequencies are weakly correlated with activity indices as compared to the p-mode frequencies. In case of MWSI, which represents the magnetic field above 100 Gauss, the f-modes have the best correlation while in case of p-modes, the correlation is weakest. We have also estimated the relative difference in the seismic radius as due to the change in frequencies and find that the change is a function of degree of the mode. If we consider only those modes with degrees between 100 and 200, we find the change in solar radius from minimum to maximum of the solar cycle is approximately 7 km and is one order smaller than that is expected from the analysis of MDI data by Dziembowski et al. (1998). If we use the high degree modes $`\mathrm{}`$ up to 286 which is approximately the same as used by Dziembowski et al., we find a significantly higher value. We also report here a 1 year periodicity in both the f-mode frequencies and seismic radius, alhough it is not clear if these are associated with the solar cycles or reflects the systematic errors in the data.

## Acknowledgments

This work utilises data from the Solar Oscillations Investigation / Michelson Doppler Imager on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. We would like to thank J. Schou for providing us the MDI data. SOHO is a mission of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. NSO/Kitt Peak magnetic, and Helium measurements used here are produced cooperatively by NSF/NOAO; NASA/GSFC and NOAA/SEL. This work is partially supported under the CSIR Emeritus Scientist Scheme and Indo–US collaborative programme–NSF Grant INT–9710279.


text:
# Plasma production and thermalisation in a strong field

## I Introduction

The Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN are designed with the goal of producing an equilibrated phase of deconfined partonic matter: the quark gluon plasma (QGP). Lattice-QCD simulations edwin  and well-constrained phenomenological models bastirev  predict a second order phase transition at $`T_c150`$MeV; i.e., at energy densities $`1`$GeV/fm3, in the equilibrium two light-flavour theory. For more than two flavours the characteristics of the transition are not as clear, but there is a transition. A number of phenomena have been proposed as signals for the existence of an equilibrated QGP signals  but the nonequilibrium stages in the plasma’s development are poorly understood and it is a contemporary challenge to develop a description of the spacetime evolution of an ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collision (URHIC): from particle production in the collision, through equilibration and plasma formation, and on to hadronisation.

Two methods are commonly used to describe the production of partons in a collision: a perturbative pre-formed parton picture Gribovpartons  and a nonperturbative flux-tube-based picture anders83 . They are complementary, and Monte-Carlo event generators partonMC ; Geiger95 ; stringMC  and hydrodynamical models hydro  have been developed to facilitate the analysis of data using either production model.

Herein we focus on the pre-equilibrium particle-production stage in the evolution of a QGP and choose to employ a flux-tube model. In this model the two colliding nuclei are imagined to pass through one another and stretch a high energy-density flux-tube between themselves as they separate. This flux tube, which describes the highly excited QCD vacuum, decays via a nonperturbative particle-antiparticle production process analogous to the Schwinger mechanism.

Particle production by the flux tube is described by a source term and in quantum field theory that source term is non-Markovian kme ; basti ; gsi ; prd ; bloch ; memory ; i.e., essentially nonlocal in time. This feature can be important when the fields are strong. (In the weak-field limit a time-local Schwinger-like source term is recovered.) Such a situation is plausible at RHIC and especially at LHC bastirev ; memory  where the anticipated initial energy densities are, respectively, $`\epsilon 10`$$`100`$GeV/fm3 and $`\epsilon 1`$TeV/fm3.

Another feature that is characteristic of the flux-tube production mechanism is the back-reaction phenomenon. This phrase simply describes the fact that once the particles are produced they are accelerated and thereby generate a field that interferes with the collisional field that produced them. Plasma oscillations are then almost inevitable Back , although they can rapidly be damped if the thermalising collisions between particles are frequent bloch ; memory ; KM ; bahl ; bahl2 ; eis ; rta ; baym ; nayak2 .

An observable that may preserve information about non-Markovian effects and plasma oscillations in the pre-equilibrium particle-production stage of an URHIC is the thermal dilepton spectrum because leptons do not participate in the strong interactions that equilibrate the QGP lerran . To explore that possibility, we employ a quantum Vlasov equation with a non-Markovian source term to calculate the single particle distribution function that characterises particle production by the flux tube, $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$, and use that to calculate the dilepton spectrum and its evolution from impact to equilibration.

Of course, equilibration can only be effected by dissipative processes, such as collisions, and herein we describe those effects via a relaxation time approximation (RTA). This is a coarse representation of the interactions between the partons produced in the collision but, even so, ensuring thermodynamic consistency is nontrivial. We introduce and describe one practical scheme for achieving that goal.

Our article is organised as follows. In Sec. II we present the quantum kinetic equation and review properties of the source term. The collision term is described in Sec. III. This completes the specification of the model and so our results appear in Sec. IV. Section V presents some concluding remarks.

## II Distribution Function

### II.1 Kinetic Equation and Source Term

We assume that in its wake an URHIC leaves a high energy-density electric field, which occupies a large (in fact, unbounded) spacetime volume. This excited domain decays via a Schwinger-like mechanism, producing an unequilibrated plasma of highly energetic quarks and antiquarks. That system evolves and equilibrates, forming a component of the QGP. Hadronisation only takes place at a later stage, when the temperature and density of the equilibrated system fall below some critical values, and herein we do not consider that process.

We represent the excited domain by a spatially homogeneous, time-dependent Abelian vector potential, $`A_\mu (t)`$, and work in the temporal gauge: $`A_0=0`$. The spatial part of the vector potential defines the $`\widehat{z}`$-direction; i.e., $`\stackrel{}{A}(t)=(0,0,A(t))`$, and generates an electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}(t)=d\stackrel{}{A}(t)/dt`$. This provides the input for the quantum kinetic equations whose solution describes the evolution of the single parton distribution functions that characterise the produced partons:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`S_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)+C_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t),`$ (1)
$`\text{where}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+eE(t){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_{}}},`$ (2)
$`e`$ is the electric charge and $`+/`$ denotes bosons/fermions; and $`f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ gives the ensemble fraction of particles with a given momentum, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, at time $`t`$. The analogous equation for antiparticles, which is obtained via charge conjugation and must be solved simultaneously, yields $`\overline{f}_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$, the single antiparticle distribution function. The feedback generated by the motion of the partons is incorporated by coupling Maxwell’s equation to Eq. (1) and its analogue, as we discuss in Sec. II.2. That also introduces a coupling between the equations for $`f`$, $`\overline{f}`$.

In Eq. (1), $`C_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ is the collision term, which also couples the equations for $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$, and which we discuss in Sec. III; and $`S_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ is the particle-antiparticle-producing source term:

$`S_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t){\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})\left[1\pm 2f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t^{})\right]`$ (3)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\left[2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \omega (\stackrel{}{p},t,\tau )\right].`$
The effect of quantum statistics on the particle production rate is evident in the “$`\pm 2f_\pm `$” in Eq. (3) (neglecting this term defines the low density limit) and in the different transition (or tunnelling) amplitudes

$$𝒲_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})=eE(t^{})\frac{p(t,t^{})}{\omega ^2(\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})}\left(\frac{\epsilon _{}}{p(t,t^{})}\right)^{g_\pm 1},$$
(4)
where: $`g_\pm =2s_\pm +1`$, with $`s_+=0`$, $`s_{}=1/2`$; the three-vector momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}=(\stackrel{}{p}_{},p_{})`$; the transverse mass-squared $`\epsilon _{}^2=m^2+p_{}^2`$; $`\omega ^2(\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})=\epsilon _{}^2+p^2(t,t^{})`$; and

$$p(t,t^{})=p_{}e[A(t)A(t^{})]=p_{}+e_t^{}^t𝑑\tau E(\tau ).$$
(5)
(Equation (5), which describes the action of the field on the particles, is just a re-expression of the Lorentz force law: $`p(t,t^{})/t=eE(t)`$.) The source term is nonlocal in time and that can be important on short time-scales in strong fields: if the fields are strong enough the time duration of a tunnelling event and the time between successive events, which is set by the particles’ Compton wavelengths, are similar, and the processes interfere, with observable consequences in the distribution function. In addition, strong fields enhance the differences between fermion and boson production. These features were highlighted in Refs. kme ; prd .

With our initial setup we have a simple, algebraic symmetry between the particle and antiparticle distribution functions:

$$\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{p},t)=f(\stackrel{}{p},t),$$
(6)
and hence it is only necessary to consider Eq. (1) explicitly. To simplify this kinetic equation we follow Ref. bloch  and introduce two real auxiliary functions

$`u_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})\left[1\pm 2f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t^{})\right]`$ (7)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left[2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \omega (\stackrel{}{p},t,\tau )\right],`$
$`v_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t^{})\left[1\pm 2f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t^{})\right]`$ (8)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\left[2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \omega (\stackrel{}{p},t,\tau )\right],`$
such that for $`C_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)=0`$: $`u_\pm ^2+v_\pm ^2(1\pm 2f)^2=\mathrm{const}.`$, with the initial conditions $`f(t_0)=v(t_0)=u(t_0)=0`$. This permits us to rewrite Eq. (1) as a system of coupled, first-order differential equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}f_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)v_\pm +C_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}u_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})v_\pm ,`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}v_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)[1\pm 2f_\pm ]2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})u_\pm ,`$ (11)
where $`W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ and $`\omega (\stackrel{}{p})`$ denote, respectively, $`W_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t,t)`$ and $`\omega (\stackrel{}{p},t,t)`$. While this complex is qualitatively identical to Eq. (1), it is simpler to treat numerically.

The kinetic equation describes pair creation for both bosons and fermions. In the following we identify the fermionic degrees of freedom with the quarks and antiquarks produced in an URHIC and restrict ourselves solely to the fermionic case, henceforth suppressing the $`\pm `$ subscript.

### II.2 Maxwell’s Equation and Internal Currents

The kinetic equation depends nonlinearly on the time-dependent electric field. The URHIC provides the impetus for this field: it provides an external field, which we model via

$$E_{ex}(t)=A_0\mathrm{sech}^2(t/b).$$
(12)
This profile “switches-on” at $`t2b`$ and off at $`t2b`$, and attains its maximum magnitude of $`A_0`$ at $`t=0`$. The external field, $`E_{ex}`$, polarises the vacuum, generating a polarisation current that depends on the dielectric properties of the medium, which are encoded in the source term, and promotes the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs, which it then accelerates, generating a conduction current that depends on the particle distribution function. A consequence of the URHIC then is the appearance of a two component internal current and an attendant internal electric field:

$$\dot{E}_{in}(t)=j_{in}=j_{cond}(t)+j_{pol}(t),$$
(13)
where the fully renormalised currents are bloch

$`j_{cond}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_pe{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{p_{}}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}f(\stackrel{}{p},t)},`$ (14)
$`j_{pol}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`N_pe{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\epsilon _{}}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}\left[v(\stackrel{}{p},t)\frac{e\dot{E}(t)\epsilon _{}}{4\omega ^4(\stackrel{}{p})}\right]},`$
(15)
with $`N_p=18`$, as described in Table 1.

In the absence of collisions, Eqs. (9)-(11) and (13)-(15), with

$$E(t)=E_{ex}(t)+E_{in}(t),$$
(16)
form a closed system of coupled equations whose solution provides the time-dependent electric field and single parton distribution function. We can use this system to illustrate some of the effects we have mentioned. In Fig. 1 we depict the momentum dependence of the distribution function. The irregular structure is produced by interference effects in the non-Markovian source term, which arise because the tunnelling time is of the same magnitude as the Compton wavelength of the produced particles, and by the feedback mechanism. This structure is averaged out in the ideal Markov limit kme  and makes very clear that this is not the distribution function of a system in equilibrium. Figure 2 depicts the time evolution of the calculated distribution function and the feedback that characterises the behaviour of the internal currents is manifest in the obvious, regular plasma oscillation. For comparison, in Fig. 3 we depict the distribution function obtained after the inclusion of dissipative effects, to be discussed in Sec. III.

## III Equilibrating collisions

Once the particles are produced they are accelerated by the electric field and, as we saw in Sec. II.2, if $`eE\epsilon _{}^2`$ then large amplitude, high frequency plasma oscillations appear. This collective effect, which is a hallmark of our approach, may have observable consequences in experiments aimed at producing an equilibrated QGP. Whether that is the case or not can only be determined once the effect of parton-parton collisions is incorporated.

The general nature of the dissipative collision term is known: it too is non-Markovian and can produce particles CGreiner . However, its complexity mitigates against its use in semi-quantitative, exploratory studies and hence herein we employ a simple RTA bloch ; memory ; bahl ; bahl2 ; eis ; rta ; baym ; nayak2 .

In this approach the detailed description of parton-parton scattering is replaced by a continuous viscosity term, which involves a time-dependent parameter that is identified with the collision period. In addition we suppose that the thermodynamic laws are valid at each time $`t`$, and this assumption of local-equilibrium provides for an internally consistent definition and calculation of time-dependent thermodynamic variables, such as temperature and energy density. Of course, accepting a physical interpretation of these quantities only makes sense once the violent effects of the URHIC have subsided and the quantities are evolving slowly with $`t`$.

The collision term in the kinetic equation for $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ must describe particle-particle $`(pp)`$ and particle-antiparticle $`(pa)`$ collisions and reflect the symmetries of our initial conditions. Hence we employ

$`C(\stackrel{}{p},t;T,u^\nu )=`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{pp}(t)}}\left[f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},t;T(t),u^\nu (t))f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{pa}(t)}}\left[f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},t;T(t),u^\nu (t))f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right]`$
where $`\tau _{pp}(t)=\tau _{pa}(t)=\tau (t)`$ is the time-dependent relaxation time and

$$f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},T,u^\nu )=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p_\nu u^\nu (t)}{T(t)}\right)+1\right]^1$$
(18)
is the quasi-equilibrium distribution function, with $`p_\nu `$ the quarks’ 4-momentum. The other quantities in Eq. (17) are:

$$u^\nu (t)=(1,0,0,u(t))[1u(t)^2]^{(1/2)},$$
(19)
the hydrodynamical four-velocity; and $`T(t)`$, the local-equilibrium temperature, both of which we define below.

Our RTA encodes all the complicated effects of parton-parton collisions in a single time-dependent quantity, the relaxation time: $`\tau (t)`$. It is a measure of the time between successive collisions and as such can be expressed as nayak2

$$\tau (t)=\tau _c\frac{\lambda (t)}{\overline{\upsilon }(t)},$$
(20)
where $`\lambda (t)=1/[n(t)]^{1/3}`$ is the mean interparticle separation, since

$$n(t)=N_p\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}f(\stackrel{}{p},t)$$
(21)
is the mean particle number density, and

$$\overline{\upsilon }(t)=|\stackrel{}{p}|_f(t)/\epsilon _f(t)$$
(22)
is an average speed. (See Eqs. (23) and (27).) The only parameter in our implementation of the relaxation time approximation is then $`\tau _c`$, the dimensionless constant of proportionality.

Returning to Eq. (17), we define the local-temperature by requiring that at each time, $`t`$, the mean particle energy density in the plasma is identical to that in an equilibrated plasma at a temperature $`T(t)`$; i.e.,

$`\epsilon _f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`N_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\omega (\stackrel{}{p})\left[f(\stackrel{}{p},t)z_f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right]}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`N_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\omega (\stackrel{}{p})f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},t)}.`$ (24)
Similarly, $`u(t)`$ in Eq. (19) is defined via the requirement

$`\stackrel{}{p}_f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`N_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{}{p}\left[f(\stackrel{}{p},t)z_f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right]}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`N_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{}{p}f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},t)};`$ (26)
i.e., that the mean particle three-momentum is the same as that of an equilibrated plasma characterised by an hydrodynamical particle velocity $`u(t)`$. The average magnitude of the momentum is

$$|\stackrel{}{p}|_f(t)=N_p\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}|\stackrel{}{p}|\left[f(\stackrel{}{p},t)z_f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right].$$
(27)
The new element in these equations,

$`z_f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e\epsilon _{}}{4\omega ^3(\stackrel{}{p})}}\right)^2[E^2(t)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau _c}}e^{2t/\tau _c}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}dt^{}E^2(t^{})e^{2t^{}/\tau _c}],`$
is a regularising counterterm, determined via the same procedure bloch  that yields the renormalised currents in Sec. II.2, which ensures that the integrals involving the calculated distribution function are finite. This counterterm itself exhibits “memory effects;” i.e., it is sensitive to the time-history of the electric field.

We judge that using a time-dependent relaxation time is an improvement over previous work that used $`\tau (t)=`$const.; e.g., Refs. bloch ; memory , because it is manageable and better models the conditions produced by an URHIC. Clearly, just after the impact the parton number density is small and hence the time between successive collisions is large. Over time, however, the density of produced partons increases, leading to a reduction in the interval between collisions. These features are crudely reflected by the evolution of the relaxation time described in Eq. (20).

The final form of our collision term is thus obtained from the combination of Eqs. (17) and (20); i.e.,

$`C(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\upsilon }(t)}{\lambda (t)}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},T(t),u(t))f(\stackrel{}{p},t)}{\tau _c}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{eq}(\stackrel{}{p},T(t),u(t))f(\stackrel{}{p},t)}{\tau _c}}).`$
It provides additional nonlocal feedback in the solution for $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$. We emphasise again that our RTA is based on the assumption of local-equilibrium, which is valid for $`|t|b`$, where $`b`$ is the time duration of the URHIC. For $`|t|b`$, however, it is of questionable validity and may lead to model-dependent artefacts, the misinterpretation of which one must guard against.

## IV Numerical results

### IV.1 Thermodynamic Parameters

Our results are obtained via the simultaneous solution of Eqs. (9)-(11), (13)-(15), (24)-(28), using the collision term in Eq. (29), which we accomplish using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta procedure. The solution, $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$, fully describes the plasma’s evolution, from its creation to equilibration. In addition we obtain the time-dependent vector potential, electric field and currents, and also the quasi-equilibrium temperature and collective velocity.

To explore the solution’s properties we have employed a range of parameter sets, which are listed in Table 1, and in Figs. 49 we demonstrate the effect of collisions by comparing the solution obtained using $`\tau _c=1.0`$ with that obtained in the collisionless limit $`\tau _c\mathrm{}`$. (NB. As evident in the figures, the plasma period satisfies $`m\tau _{pl}2.5\tau _c`$. For $`\tau _cm\tau _{pl}`$ plasma oscillations are not observable bloch ; i.e., the system is overdamped.)

In Fig. 4 we see that the URHIC generates a strong electric field, which produces particles that sustain the field for a time that depends on the collision frequency: a large value of $`\nu _c=1/\tau _c`$ means a short-lived electric field and rapid equilibration.

Figure 5 depicts the time evolution of the energy density, Eq. (23). It is negative on a small domain around $`t=0`$ because of the large vacuum polarisation induced by the strong external field. This instability is quickly corrected by rapid particle creation; a correlation that is apparent in a comparison of Fig. 5 with Fig. 6, which portrays the particle number density, Eq. (21). The density reaches a higher value in the absence of collisions because the field-current feedback allows unhindered, repeated bursts of particle-pair creation. The Pauli principle does not significantly retard the process because, while the particles are preferentially produced with small momenta, the field rapidly accelerates them. As Table 1 shows, the number density increases with increasing $`A_0`$; i.e., with increasing impulse field strength.

In Fig. 7 we plot the behaviour of the entropy/particle, where the entropy density is:

$$s(t)=N_p\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\mathrm{ln}f(\stackrel{}{p},t).$$
(30)
The calculated quasi-equilibrium temperature is depicted in Fig. 8. After rising quickly, it settles into a slow evolution once the external field, Eq. (12), has subsided. This marks the beginning of the domain on which the concept of local equilibrium is valid.

The local velocity is plotted in Fig. 9. It shows, as one would intuitively expect, that the produced particles are accelerated, reaching their maximum velocity when the electric field vanishes (cf. Fig. 4), then decelerated as the field reverses direction. They stop, and then reverse direction and are accelerated by the reversed field to a new maximum velocity. The repetition of this pattern is the collective plasma oscillation, which is clearest in this figure. Of course, in equilibrating the system, collisions act to destroy the pattern.

### IV.2 Dilepton Production

The plasma oscillation is evident in the electric field and in each of the thermodynamic variables but none of these quantities are directly measurable. Is there any way that this characteristic signature of the flux-tube production mechanism can be observed?

The thermal dilepton production rate may provide a means. Dileptons produced in the URHIC do not interact strongly and hence those produced soon after the impact carry and transmit information about the pre-equilibrium stage of the plasma. The dilepton production rate from our (quasi-)equilibrium three quark system can be estimated using lerran ; wongHIC

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dtd^3xdM^2}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3\pi ^3}}(14m_l^2/M^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+m_l^2}{M^2}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{m^2m_l^2}{M^4}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _m^{\mathrm{}}}dϵ_1dϵ_2f(ϵ_1)f(ϵ_2)\theta (M^2M_{}^2)\theta (M_+^2M^2),`$
(31)
where: $`\alpha =1/137`$; $`m_l`$ is the lepton mass, $`m`$ the quark mass and we use $`m_l=m`$; $`M^2`$ is the invariant mass of the produced dilepton pair;

$$M_\pm ^2=2m^2+2ϵ_1ϵ_2\pm 2|\stackrel{}{p}_1||\stackrel{}{p}_2|;$$
(32)
and the time-dependence of the distribution functions is implicit.

We obtain the distribution functions, $`f(ϵ_{1,2})`$ in Eq. (31), as described in Sec. IV.1, using the RHIC-like parameter-Set-4 in Table 1. Knowing them, the calculation of the dilepton production rate is straightforward. In Fig. 10 we display that rate as a function of $`(M^2,t)`$. The plasma oscillation is evident in the time evolution, with more dilepton pairs being produced when the electric field is strongest and the parton production rate peaks, and no pairs being produced when the electric field vanishes. The effect of collisions is to drive the system to equilibrium where the thermal dilepton production rate becomes constant, as shown in Fig. 11.

Clearly, the plasma oscillations generate a signal. However, the time evolution of the dilepton production rate is a difficult quantity to measure. An easier quantity is the time-integrated rate:

$$\rho _{l^+l^{}}(t):=\frac{dN}{d^3xdM^2}=_0^t𝑑t^{}\frac{dN}{dt^{}d^3xdM^2}.$$
(33)
Does a signal survive in this observable?

In Fig. 12 we plot $`\rho _{l^+l^{}}(t)`$ obtained in the absence of collisions, which must be compared with the function in Fig. 13 that was obtained with the inclusion of collisions. Our simple model yields rates that are comparable with other estimates; e.g., Ref. dutta , and the comparison of the figures shows that plasma oscillations generate an enhancement in the number of dileptons, $`\rho _{l^+l^{}}(t)`$, which is as large as a factor of $`2`$ at $`t=5`$fm, given the Set 4 initial conditions in Table 1. (Note that collisions eliminate the plasma oscillation so Fig. 13 can be thought of as the oscillation-free scenario.)

A further illustration of the effect is provided in Fig. 14. The equilibrium energy per particle, $`\epsilon /n`$, grows with the violence of the collision; i.e., with the value of $`A_0`$, as do the amplitude and frequency of the plasma oscillations. This effect is responsible for the sharp increase in the dilepton yield, evident in Fig. 14, for the most energetic collision in Table 1. At lower values of $`\epsilon /n`$ the effect of plasma oscillations is suppressed by collisions, but for the Set 4 initial conditions the magnitude and frequency of the plasma oscillation are large enough to make their action evident in spite of the damping, at least in our idealised treatment. (NB. A rapid expansion of the plasma will alter the initial conditions required for plasma oscillations to have observable consequences.)

## V Epilogue

We have used a quantum kinetic equation coupled with Maxwell’s equation to explore the formation and equilibration of a strong field plasma. Using a simple impulse model for the URHIC, which produces RHIC-like conditions, we find that the non-Markovian aspects of the source term do not generate observable effects. However, the field-current feedback, which is characteristic of the production of strongly coupled charges by a strong field, manifests itself in the appearance of plasma oscillations in the thermodynamic observables. The oscillations are also evident in the production rate of thermal dileptons and, while the time evolution of this rate may not be measurable, the plasma oscillations act to significantly enhance the time integrated rate. The effect is marked by a sharp increase in the dilepton yield when the energy per particle becomes large enough to generate a high frequency and large amplitude plasma oscillation, which initially overwhelms the effect of collisions.

While the magnitudes of the quantities we calculate are phenomenologically reasonable, the primary results of our study are qualitative and many improvements are possible. Our relaxation time approximation to the collision term is an intuitive and practical tool but a more realistic connection with the actual collision process would provide a systematic and well-constrained quantitative improvement. A simpler step is the introduction of a strongly momentum-dependent dressed-parton mass, which is an essential feature of QCD Mp2 . That can have a significant impact on the evolution of the plasma, promoting plasma oscillations proc00 , and also on its subsequent hadronisation huefner . Perhaps the most significant defect of our study is the use of an Abelian model for the colour fields and progress with a non-Abelian transport equation would be a marked improvement bahl2 .

## Acknowledgments

We thank R. Alkofer, V. Morozov and P.C. Tandy for helpful discussions. This work was supported by: the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under project nos. SCHM 1342/3-1 and 436 RUS 17/102/00; the US Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract no. W-31-109-ENG-38; the US National Science Foundation under grant no. INT-9603385; and partly by the Russian Federation’s State Committee for Higher Education under grant no. N 97-0-6.1-4. This research benefited from the resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.