text:
# Measurement of the Ratio of Branching Fractions of the Υ(4S) to Charged and Neutral 𝐵 Mesons

## I Introduction

The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance decays predominantly to charged or neutral $`B`$ meson pairs. The cleanliness of exclusive pair production in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S)$`B\overline{B}`$ has made this mechanism a primary vehicle for the study of the light pseudoscalar $`B`$ mesons. Given the similar masses of the charged and neutral $`B`$, it is reasonable to expect that the respective production fractions, $`f_+`$ and $`f_{00}`$, are both around 50%. It has been noted, however, that mass and Coulomb effects could lead to corrections of as much as 20% on the ratio $`f_+/f_{00}`$ftheory .

Given the low efficiencies for $`B`$ reconstruction, it is not straightforward to measure this ratio directly, and the uncertainty on its value is a major source of systematic error for measurements of fundamental parameters at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S). Currently, the most successful method involves measuring the rates at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) of purely spectator decays of charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons to isospin related final states. Each rate is proportional to the product of the branching fraction of the decay, $`b_+`$ or $`b_0`$, and $`f_+`$ or $`f_{00}`$. The ratio of the rates is equal to $`b_+f_+/b_0f_{00}`$. The ratio $`b_+/b_0`$ is equivalent to the ratio of lifetimes, $`\tau _+/\tau _0`$, if one assumes that the partial decay widths are equal. Using an independently measured lifetime ratio, one may thus obtain $`f_+/f_{00}`$. We report here such a measurement of $`f_+/f_{00}`$ via partial reconstruction of the exclusive decays $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The exclusive decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)`$ has been previously reconstructed in CLEO II data using a partial reconstruction techniqueartuso . In this technique, the $`D^{}`$ is identified without reconstructing the $`D`$ meson, and the presence of the neutrino is inferred from conservation of momentum and energy. This method results in a gain of as much as a factor 20 in statistics compared to the full reconstruction method. Partial reconstruction has been used by CLEO to tag neutral $`B`$’s for measurements of the semileptonic branching fraction $`b_0`$artuso , and the mixing parameter $`\chi _d`$mssthesis . The measurement we report here includes the first reconstruction of the exclusive decays $`BD^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^{}D\pi ^0\right)`$ using the partial reconstruction method.

## II Data and Event Selection

This analysis uses 2.73 fb-1 of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance (on-resonance) and 1.43 fb-1 taken at 60 MeV below the resonance (off-resonance). These data were collected with the CLEO IIcleoii  detector at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) between 1990 and 1995. The on-resonance sample includes 2.89 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events. Hadronic events are selected by requiring at least five charged tracks, a total visible energy greater than 15% of the center-of-mass energy, and a primary vertex consistent with the known collision point. To suppress continuum background, we require the ratio $`R_2=H_2/H_0`$ of Fox-Wolfram momentsfoxwolfram  to be less than 0.4.

## III Analysis

A full discussion of the partial reconstruction method as it has been applied to the decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)`$ can be found in mssthesis . Here we give a brief description, with an emphasis on features that are particularly relevant to this measurement.

A partially reconstructed decay $`\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ (inclusion of the charge conjugate mode is implied throughout this report) consists of an identified lepton in combination with a soft pion from the decay $`D^{}D\pi `$. The approximate four-momentum of the $`D^{}`$, ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_D^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_D^{}`$), is calculated by scaling the pion momentum:

$`E_D^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_\pi }{E_\pi ^{CM}}}M_D^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_D^{},\mathrm{and}`$
$`𝐩_D^{}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{𝐩}_\pi \times \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}_D^{}^2M_D^{}^2}\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_D^{},`$
where $`E_\pi `$ is the the pion energy, $`E_\pi ^{CM}145`$ MeV is the energy of the pion in the $`D^{}`$ rest frame, and $`M_D^{}=2.01`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ is the mass of the $`D^{}`$. Using the approximation $`𝐩_𝐁0`$ we can calculate a “squared missing mass”:

$`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2\left(E_{\text{beam}}\stackrel{~}{E}_D^{}E_{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_D^{}+𝐩_{\mathrm{}}\right)^2,`$ (1)
where $`E_{beam}`$ is the beam energy and $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝐩_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the energy and momentum of the lepton. Correctly identified signal candidates accumulate in the region $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2>2.0(`$GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}/c^4)`$, as can be seen in Figure 1. We define this to be the “peak” region. The “sideband” region, defined as $`25.0<\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2<4.0`$ GeV2, is used for estimating backgrounds.

For $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$, leptons are combined with charged pions. Phase space limitations prohibit the decay chain $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`D^0D^+\pi ^{}`$, leaving only the $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay as a source of leptons which correlate with slow charged pions. In this decay, the lepton must have a charge opposite to that of the slow pion. This combination will be referred to as $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$.

A lepton may also be combined with a slow neutral pion to reconstruct decays $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$. In this case both charged and neutral $`B`$’s contribute to the signal, through the decays $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right)`$. Accounting for the respective $`D^{}D\pi `$ branching fractions, the reconstructed signal is expected to include $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ in a ratio of approximately 2:1. The value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu ^2`$ is calculated using the measured momentum of the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ candidate and the known $`\pi ^0`$ mass. Such combinations will be referred to as $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$.

Lepton candidates are required to have momentum between 1.8 GeV/$`c`$ and 2.5 GeV/$`c`$. Electrons are identified by using the ratio of the calorimeter energy to track momentum $`\left(E/p\right)`$ and specific ionization $`\left(dE/dx\right)`$ information. Muons are required to penetrate at least five interaction lengths of absorber material. Electrons and muons must fall in the fiducial region $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|<0.707`$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of the track’s momentum vector with respect to the beam axis.

All charged pion candidates are required to have momentum between 90 MeV/$`c`$ and 220 MeV/$`c`$ and to be consistent with originating at the interaction point.

Neutral pion candidates are obtained from energy deposits in the cesium iodide electromagnetic calorimeter which do not match the projection of any charged track and are consistent with being electromagnetic showers. Each shower must have energy greater than 50 MeV and be in the good barrel region only ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma <0.71`$), where $`\theta _\gamma `$ is the polar angle with respect to the beam axis. The width of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass of $`\pi ^0`$’s depends on both the energy and angular resolution of the component photons and averages 5 MeV/$`c^2`$. In order to be able to evaluate the background from random $`\gamma \gamma `$ pairs (“fake $`\pi ^0`$’s”), we consider candidates within a wide mass range, $`0.085<M_{\gamma \gamma }<0.185`$ GeV/$`c^2`$.

The $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ analyses differ mainly in the detection and identification of the soft pion. Because the efficiencies for $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ differ and are momentum-dependent, the overall reconstruction efficiencies will also differ, and their calculation will depend on the decay model used to obtain them, due to differences in momentum distributions. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the isospin-related modes $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ have the same decay dynamics, and, since the charged and neutral meson masses are nearly equal for both $`B`$ and $`D^{}`$, nearly identical kinematics. The efficiencies to partially reconstruct the two modes should thus differ only due to the momentum-dependent pion efficiencies. We therefore extract the signal yields and ratios in bins of 10 MeV/$`c`$ in the pion momentum and are then able to make direct model-independent comparisons.

The signal is extracted by counting $`\mathrm{}\pi `$ candidates which fall in the peak region of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2`$ (“peak candidates”) and evaluating and subtracting the backgrounds. Backgrounds include contributions from continuum events, leptons or $`\pi ^0`$’s that are fake, and real lepton–pion pairs in $`B\overline{B}`$ events that are not signal. Some of the backgrounds are evaluated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, where comparisons with candidates in the sideband region (“sideband candidates”) are used to obtain scaling factors.

The contribution from continuum events is evaluated by analyzing the off-resonance data and scaling to account for the differences in the integrated luminosity and center-of-mass energy. The contribution from fake leptons in $`B\overline{B}`$ events is estimated by counting continuum-subtracted candidates in which the “lepton” satisfies all criteria except lepton identification, weighted by the fake probability, which is a function of momentum fakprob . After subtracting continuum and fake-lepton backgrounds, the remainder consist of real leptons in combination with soft pion candidates in $`B\overline{B}`$ events. For $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ the numbers are obtained through simple counting. In the case of $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ there is additional background from fake $`\pi ^0`$’s, formed by random photon combinations. The yields are therefore extracted by fitting the $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass distribution. We first discuss the remaining backgrounds for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and then return to the treatments of $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$.

For the $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ case the numbers after continuum and fake lepton subtractions are those of peak and sideband candidates consisting of a real lepton in combination with a real soft pion from a $`B\overline{B}`$ event. The remaining backgrounds are of two general types. Candidates formed from the lepton and soft pion from the $`D^{}`$ in decays of the type $`\overline{B}D^{}\pi \mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(D^{}D^0\pi \right)`$ will accumulate near $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2=0`$ and are difficult to distinguish from signal. We define this type as “correlated background.” All other combinations, where the pion is not the daughter of a $`D^{}`$ from the same $`B`$ meson as the lepton, are defined as “uncorrelated background.”

We use the CLEO MC simulation, the decay model of Goity and Robertsgoityroberts , and measured branching fractions to estimate the contribution of correlated background. The $`D^{}\pi `$ combinations include three $`D^{}`$ resonances, as well as non-resonant production. The total rate is set to match the ALEPH measurementlepd2s , $`\left(b\overline{B}\right)\times \left(\overline{B}D^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^{}\nu X\right)=\left(4.73\pm 0.77\pm 0.55\right)\times 10^3`$. By isospin symmetry, we assume that $`BD^+\pi ^0\mathrm{}^+\nu X`$ contributes additionally at half of this rate, and that the rates to $`D^0`$ are equal to the corresponding rates for $`D^+`$. We then use the ALEPH value $`\left(b\overline{B}\right)=\left(37.8\pm 2.2\right)\%`$ to obtain $`\left(BD^{/0}\pi \mathrm{}^+\nu X\right)=\left(1.88\pm 0.39\right)\%`$, where the statistical and systematic errors have been added in quadrature. The resulting numbers of candidates are scaled to the integrated luminosity of the data and subtracted directly from the peak and sideband samples. The $`D^{}`$ contributions to the peak are small, due to the high lepton momentum requirement imposed in this analysis. We find that this background comprises $`\left(2.8\pm 0.2\right)`$% of the net signal. The contributions to the sideband are much smaller.

The uncorrelated background is estimated via MC simulation. We reconstruct $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ candidates in 17.5 million generic MC $`B\overline{B}`$ events, excluding signal and correlated background. To obtain a data/MC scaling factor, ratios of sideband candidates in data and MC are found in all momentum bins and the set of ratios is fitted to a single value. The numbers of peak candidates from MC are multiplied by this factor to obtain the contributions of uncorrelated background. Figure 2 displays the $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2`$ distributions in each pion momentum bin of data after continuum and fake subtractions, correlated background (MC), and uncorrelated background (MC, scaled). The agreement between MC and data of the uncorrelated background in the sideband region is excellent. Peak candidates in excess of the evaluated backgrounds comprise our signal.

The procedure applied to $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ is similar in concept, but instead of simple counting we fit the $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass distributions. After the direct subtractions of continuum and fake leptons, the remaining distributions contain in addition to the backgrounds discussed for the $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ (correlated and uncorrelated background) the contribution from $`B\overline{B}`$ events where the lepton is real and the pion is fake. The correlated background is estimated and subtracted first. In the case of $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ there are contributions from modes containing both charged and neutral $`D^{}`$. As with $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$, the contributions are calculated based on the branching fraction measured at LEP and MC simulation. We find that the correlated background comprises $`\left(2.5\pm 0.9\right)`$% of the net signal in the peak region. The contribution in the sideband region, which is much smaller, is also calculated and subtracted. We then determine the contribution of fake $`\pi ^0`$. The resulting $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass distributions are fitted to a sum of real and fake $`\pi ^0`$ distributions generated via MC simulation. In the fit we exclude the region $`0.14<M_{\gamma \gamma }c^2<0.15`$ GeV because the simulated $`\pi ^0`$ signal in this region does not show good agreement with data. Although this disagreement is not apparent in the individual pion momentum bins, due to insufficient statistics, it is revealed when we fit to a distribution that is summed over all bins (Figure 3). We find that the fake $`\pi ^0`$ background is well simulated by MC in that the fits all have good confidence and that the data/MC scaling factors are consistent with being a single constant over all $`\pi ^0`$ momenta for both sideband and peak distributions. Figures 4 and 5 show examples of fit results. Figure 6 shows results from a fit of all of the scaling factors to a single constant. That fit gives a confidence level of 80% and a scaling factor of $`0.1676\pm 0.0009`$, very close to the ratio of the numbers of $`B\overline{B}`$ events in data and MC ($`0.1667\pm 0.0001`$). We use this fitted value to calculate the amount of fake $`\pi ^0`$ in each distribution considered.

The sideband candidates remaining after the above background subtractions consist of uncorrelated background. For each momentum bin, the associated $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$ distribution is fitted to the corresponding MC simulation to obtain a data/MC scaling factor. Figure 7 shows two plots with typical fit results. A fit of the resulting scaling factors (Figure 8) shows good consistency with the hypothesis of a single constant scaling factor. The fitted value of $`0.157\pm 0.005`$ is used as the overall scaling factor to estimate the uncorrelated background in the peak region.

We fit the remaining $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$ distribution of peak candidates in each momentum bin to obtain the signal yield. Two examples are shown in Figure 9.

### III.1 Signal Yields

After all background subtractions listed above, a total of $`11,262\pm 164`$ $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and $`2,686\pm 142`$ $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ remain as signal. Figure 10 shows the yields as a function of pion momentum.

To obtain reconstruction efficiencies, we generated events containing $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }\left(D^{}D\pi \right)`$ using the model of Scora and Isgurisgw2  (ISGW2). The events were passed through a full GEANT-based detector simulation and offline analysis. We perform the analysis on tagged signal candidates. Figure 11 shows the resulting efficiency as a function of pion momentum for both $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ analyses. The efficiencies for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ reconstruction of $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{B}^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ are expected to be equal, and since the MC result is consistent with this expectation, it is assumed to be the case.

## IV Relationship of measurement to decay rates

The numbers of reconstructed $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ signal, $`N_+`$ and $`N_0`$, have the following relationships to the branching fractions:

$`N_+`$ $`=`$ (2)
$`2\times 2\times N_{B\overline{B}}f_{00}\times ϵ_{0+}\times \left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)\times \left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right),`$
$`\mathrm{and}`$ (3)
$`N_0`$ $`=`$ (4)
$`2\times 2\times N_{B\overline{B}}f_+\times ϵ_0\times \left(B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)\times \left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2\times 2\times N_{B\overline{B}}f_{00}\times ϵ_{00}\times \left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)\times \left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right),`$
where $`f_{00}`$ $`\left(f_+\right)`$ is the fraction of neutral (charged) B mesons in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\left(4S\right)`$ events, and $`ϵ_{0+}`$, $`ϵ_0`$, and $`ϵ_{00}`$ are the reconstruction efficiencies for the respective $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu \left(D^{}D\pi \right)`$ modes. Two factors of 2 enter in these expressions because each $`B\overline{B}`$ event contains two B mesons, and we add the signals for electrons and muons. Solving for the branching fractions,

$`\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_+}{4N_{B\overline{B}}f_{00}ϵ_{0+}\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)}}`$ (5)
$`\left(B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_04N_{B\overline{B}}f_{00}ϵ_{00}\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)\left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right)}{4N_{B\overline{B}}f_+ϵ_0\left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)}}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_0N_+\frac{ϵ_{00}\left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right)}{ϵ_{0+}\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)}}{4N_{B\overline{B}}f_+ϵ_0\left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)}}`$
Dividing equation (6) by equation (5), assuming that $`ϵ_0=ϵ_{00}`$, and defining $`n\frac{N_+ϵ_{00}}{N_0ϵ_{0+}}`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)}{\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{00}\left[\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)n\left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right)\right]}{nf_+\left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)}},\mathrm{and}`$ (7)
$`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{f_+}{f_{00}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)}{\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(D^+D^0\pi ^+\right)n\left(D^+D^+\pi ^0\right)}{n\left(D^0D^0\pi ^0\right)}}.`$ (8)
Although it is implied in the above equations that the ratio $`n`$ is a ratio of total rates, it is equal to the ratio of rates over any given restricted kinematic region, as long as the kinematics of the decays are the same. We thus take the ratio of the $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ to $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ signals as a function of pion momentum, correct for the reconstruction efficiencies in each bin to obtain $`n`$, and fit to a constant. The fit yields an overall value $`n=0.669\pm 0.037`$ (Figure 12). Using this value and the $`D^{}`$ branching fractions shown in Table 1, we obtain $`\alpha =1.136\pm 0.090`$, where the error is statistical only.

## V Systematic Errors

The systematic uncertainty on $`\alpha `$ is due to the uncertainty in determining the ratio $`n`$ and uncertainties in the $`D^{}`$ branching fractions. The reconstructions $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ have many features in common and therefore many shared systematic errors which cancel at least partially in taking the ratio. The principal difference between the two is in the reconstruction of the pions.

We first discuss the uncertainties from lepton detection/identification and background subtractions that are common to both reconstructions. The uncertainty on the continuum subtraction is obtained by changing the scaling factor up and down by 3%. The uncertainty on the lepton fake probability is 30%. The systematic uncertainty on the lepton identification efficiency has been determined to be $`2.5\%`$mssthesis . The systematic uncertainties from each of these sources is estimated by varying the affected quantity and observing the shift of the result. These errors cancel at least partially in taking the ratio $`n`$.

The estimation of uncorrelated background depends on accurate modeling of the peak/sideband ratio by MC. The overall $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2`$ distribution of the uncorrelated background is dominated by phase space, i.e., a hard lepton and soft pion distributed isotropically will produce a distribution similar to that shown. However, because this analysis has high statistical precision, we are somewhat sensitive to the finer details of the Monte Carlo $`B`$ decay generator. A simple overall test of its reliability is the counting of wrong sign ($`\mathrm{}^\pm \pi ^\pm `$) candidates, where no signal is expected. An analysis identical to that performed with right sign $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ yields a signal of $`91\pm 117`$, consistent with zero. The wrong sign distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu ^2`$ in data and MC simulation are shown in Figure 13. We take the absolute sum of the “signal” and statistical error, $`\left|91\right|+117=208`$, as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to modeling. This is 3.3% of the number of wrong sign peak candidates after continuum and fake subtractions, so we take 3.3% as the fractional uncertainty on the uncorrelated background in the right sign. This translates to 1.9% of the net signal in $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$. For the $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$, the corresponding uncertainty is 2.0% of the net signal. Although these two uncertainties are believed to be largely correlated, and should cancel at least partially in taking the ratio, we conservatively take the error on $`n`$ to be equal to the larger one, 2.0%.

To estimate the uncertainty due to our lack of knowledge of the $`B`$ semileptonic decays to $`D^{}\pi `$, we vary both the total branching fraction and the mix of resonant and non-resonant contributions to $`D^{}\pi `$. The branching fraction, which we took to be $`\left(1.88\pm 0.39\right)`$% for each $`D^{}`$ charge, averaged over $`B`$ charges as explained earlier, is varied up and down by the amount of the error, holding fixed the relative contributions of the different modes. We recorded excursions of 0.5% and 0.3% for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$, respectively. We also allow each mode in turn to saturate the rate and take the maximum excursion of the result as a systematic uncertainty. We thus obtain errors of 0.8%, 1.4%, and 1.0%, for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$, and $`n`$.

The systematic uncertainty on tracking efficiency for slow charged pions has been measured in a previous CLEO analysisbarish  to be 5%. The uncertainty on the efficiency ratio of slow neutral pions to slow charged pions was determined to be 7%. As the absolute efficiency for neutral pion reconstruction is determined by the charged pion efficiency and the ratio, the quadratic sum of their uncertainties gives the systematic uncertainty of $`8.6\%`$barish  on the neutral pion efficiency.

To estimate the systematic error on the evaluation of fake $`\pi ^0`$’s in $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$, we vary the fake scaling factor up and down by the amount of its statistical error and repeat the analysis. We take the maximum excursion of 1.6% to be the systematic uncertainty from this source. We also repeat the analysis without excluding the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mass region $`0.0140.015`$ GeV/c2 and find that this shifts the result by 0.7%. We add the two numbers quadratically to get a systematic error on the $`\pi ^0`$ fit of 1.7%.

We find the total systematic errors to be $`9.4\%`$ for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$, $`6.1\%`$ for $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$, and 7.6% for $`n`$. This results in an uncertainty of 10.9% on $`\alpha `$. The additional uncertainty from the $`D^{}`$ branching fractions is 6.3%. All the systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table 2.

## VI Summary and Conclusions

By measuring the ratio of partially reconstructed $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ decays in the $`\mathrm{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pi ^0`$ channels as a function of pion momentum, we obtain a measurement of the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_+}{f_{00}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _+}{\tau _0}}=1.136\pm 0.090\pm 0.143.`$
This result is in good agreement with published CLEO values (Table 3).

Using the ratio of $`B^+`$ and $`B^0`$ lifetimes from a recent world averagepdg ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _+}{\tau _0}}=1.074\pm 0.028,`$
we obtain the ratio of the charged and neutral $`B`$ meson production at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\left(4S\right)`$ resonance:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_+}{f_{00}}}=1.058\pm 0.084\pm 0.115\pm 0.067\pm 0.028`$
where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic on n, the third is due to the uncertainty on the $`D^{}`$ branching fractions, and the fourth is due to the uncertainty on the $`B`$ lifetime ratio. We add the systematic errors quadratically to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_+}{f_{00}}}=1.058\pm 0.084\pm 0.136.`$
## VII Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. M. Selen thanks the PFF program of the NSF and the Research Corporation, and A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Self force via a Green’s function decomposition

## I Introduction

The principle of equivalence in General Relativity implies that a freely moving particle, of infinitesimal mass and size, follows a geodesic of spacetimeMisner et al. (1973). For a small but finite mass $`\mu `$, the particle perturbs the spacetime geometry at $`O(\mu )`$. The interaction of the particle with this perturbation of the metric is called the “self force” which changes the worldline at $`O(\mu )`$ and includes the effects of radiation reaction.

A local observer measuring the gravitational field in a neighborhood of the particle, with no a priori knowledge of the background geometry, sees a combination of the background metric plus its $`O(\mu )`$ perturbation caused by the particle. Local measurements, in a neighborhood of the particle, cannot distinguish these two specific contributions. Nevertheless, we show below that the combined metric in the neighborhood of the particle can be uniquely decomposed into two distinct parts: $`(i)`$ the tidally distorted $`\mu /r`$ piece of the perturbation of the metric, which is an inhomogeneous solution of the perturbed Einstein equations at $`O(\mu )`$, and $`(ii)`$ the sum of the background metric and the remainder of the metric perturbation, which together are a homogeneous solution of the Einstein equations through $`O(\mu )`$.

The self force is shown to result in geodesic motion of the particle, through $`O(\mu )`$, in the homogeneous perturbed metric, $`(ii)`$ above. With only local measurements, the observer has no means of distinguishing the homogeneous perturbation from the background metric through $`O(\mu )`$. As the particle moves along a geodesic of this perturbed vacuum geometry, the observer sees no effect which one would be compelled to interpret as radiation reaction at $`O(\mu )`$. In this precisely defined fashion, we extend the understanding of the principle of equivalence in General Relativity: The orbit of the particle is a geodesic through $`O(\mu )`$, in a locally measurable, vacuum gravitational field.

## II Historical background

In Dirac’s Dirac (1938) analysis of the self force for the electromagnetic field of a particle in flat spacetime, he used the conservation of the stress-energy tensor inside a narrow world tube surrounding the particle’s worldline to derive equations of motion with radiation reaction effects included. DeWitt and Brehme DeWitt and Brehme (1960) extended this approach to allow for curvature in spacetime. Mino, Sasaki and Tanaka Mino et al. (1997) generalized it to include the gravitational self force as well. Quinn and WaldQuinn and Wald (1997) and QuinnQuinn (2000) have obtained similar results by pursuing an axiomatic approach for the gravitational, electromagnetic and scalar field self forces.

On a formal level, these analyses provide a coherent and consistent treatment of the self force. Analysis begins with a given worldline $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, described by $`z^a(\tau )`$, which obeys the Lorentz force law through the fixed background gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The self force gives the actual worldline an acceleration away from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and it is the mass times this acceleration which it is wished to determine.

Towards this end, first the retarded field is obtained in terms of the corresponding Green’s function. Traditionally the Green’s function has been decomposed into “direct” and “tail” parts. The resulting “direct” part of the field at a point $`x`$ is determined completely by sources on the past null cone of $`x`$; in flat spacetime this is the Liénard-Wiechert potential for electromagnetism. The curvature of spacetime allows for an additional contribution from sources within the past null cone, and this is the “tail” part. The self force on a particle is then composed of two pieces: The first piece comes from the direct part of the field and the acceleration of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the background geometry; in flat spacetime this is the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac (ALD) force. The second piece comes from the tail part of the field and is present in curved space even if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a geodesic. While the decomposition of the field into the direct and tail parts has been useful for describing the self force, neither of these parts individually is a solution of the field equation.

In flat spacetime Dirac Dirac (1938) decomposed the retarded electromagnetic field into two parts: $`(i)`$ the “mean of the advanced and retarded fields” which is an inhomogeneous field resembling the Coulomb $`q/r`$ piece of the scalar potential near the particle, and $`(ii)`$ a “radiation” field, his Eqs. (11) and (13), which is a homogeneous solution of Maxwell’s equations. He described the self force as the interaction of the particle with the radiation field, a well-defined vacuum Maxwell field.

Previous descriptions of the self force in curved spacetime DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000) reduce to Dirac’s result in the flat spacetime limit. And they provide clear, adequate expressions for the self force. However, they do not share the physical simplicity of Dirac’s analysis where the force is described entirely in terms of an identifiable, vacuum solution of the field equations. Indeed, for an electromagnetic field, the vector potential $`A_a^{\text{self}}`$ \[cf. Eq. (14) for the corresponding scalar field expression\] might be said to be responsible for the self force. But generally $`A_a^{\text{self}}`$ does not satisfy Eq. (23) below, and the current density $`J^a`$, which would result from the application of the operator on the left hand side of Eq. (23) to $`A_a^{\text{self}}`$, would have a non-vanishing charge distribution in the vicinity of the particle. Furthermore, $`A_a^{\text{self}}`$ is non-differentiable at the location of the particle with four-velocity $`u^a`$ if $`(R_{ab}\frac{1}{6}g_{ab}R)u^b0`$ there. Similar statements hold for scalar and gravitational fields.

In this letter we present a curved space generalization of Dirac’s scheme. We find that, near the worldline $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, even in a curved geometry, the retarded field can be decomposed into two parts such that the first, $`A_a^\text{S}`$, is an inhomogeneous solution to the field equation with a point source, similar to the “mean of the advanced and retarded fields,” while the second, $`A_a^\text{R}`$, is a homogeneous solution which yields a complete description of the self force. These parts are related to but distinct from the usual direct and tail parts. Scalar and gravitational fields are analyzed similarly.

Below, we first focus on the scalar field case, and then briefly describe our results for the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

## III Scalar field

The force on a point particle with charge $`q`$ moving in a scalar field may be deduced from (see discussion in Quinn (2000))

$$F^a=q^a\psi ,$$
(1)
where the derivative of the field is to be evaluated at the location of the particle. Usually it is implicit that $`\psi `$ does not include the field from the particle itself but is composed only of the “external” field. The description of the self force is not so straightforward. However, one can introduce a quantity $`\psi ^{\text{self}}`$, as in our Eq. (14), which when substituted into the right hand side of Eq. (1) formally yields the scalar-field self force as described by Quinn Quinn (2000). Similar expressions for the force in terms of the derivatives of the field are given in Eq. (28) and Eq. (34) for electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

The scalar field equation

$$^2\psi ^a_a\psi =4\pi \rho $$
(2)
is formally solved in terms of a Green’s function,

$$^2G(x,z)=(g)^{1/2}\delta ^4(xz).$$
(3)
The source function for a point charge moving along a worldline $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, described by coordinates $`z^a(\tau )`$, is

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`q{\displaystyle (g)^{1/2}\delta ^4(xz(\tau ))\text{d}\tau },`$ (4)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the worldline of the particle with scalar charge $`q`$. The scalar field of this particle is

$$\psi (x)=4\pi qG[x,z(\tau )]\text{d}\tau .$$
(5)
A symmetric scalar field Green’s function is derived from the Hadamard form to be

$$G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[u(x,z)\delta (\sigma )v(x,z)\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma )\right],$$
(6)
where $`u(x,z)`$ and $`v(x,z)`$ are bi-scalars, the properties of which are described by DeWitt and Brehme DeWitt and Brehme (1960). They are determined by a local expansion in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and are symmetric under interchange of $`x`$ and $`z`$. $`\sigma `$ is half of the square of the distance measured along the geodesic from $`x`$ to $`z`$ with $`\sigma <0`$ for a timelike geodesic, and $`\sigma =0`$ on the past and future null cones of $`x`$. The expansions for the bi-scalars $`u(x,z)`$ and $`v(x,z)`$ are known to be convergent within a finite neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if the geometry is analyticHadamard (1923). The $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma )`$ guarantees that only when $`x`$ and $`z`$ are timelike related is there a contribution from $`v(x,z)`$. The terms in any Green’s function containing $`u`$ and $`v`$ are frequently referred to as the “direct” and “tail” parts, respectively.

The direct part of $`G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)`$, has support only on the null cone of $`x`$, and the resultant direct part of the field for a particle moving along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\psi _{\text{dir}}^{\text{sym}}(x)=\left[\frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}\right]_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}+\left[\frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}\right]_{\tau _{\text{adv}}},$$
(7)
where $`\dot{\sigma }=\text{d}\sigma (x,z(\tau ))/\text{d}\tau `$, and $`\tau _{\text{ret}}`$ and $`\tau _{\text{adv}}`$ refer to the proper time of the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the past and future null cones of $`x`$, respectively.

The tail part of $`G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)`$, has support within both the past and future null cones of $`x`$, and the resultant tail part of the field for a particle moving along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$`\psi _{\text{tail}}^{\text{sym}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau _{\text{ret}}}}+{\displaystyle _{\tau _{\text{adv}}}^{\mathrm{}}}\right)v(x,z)\text{d}\tau .`$ (8)
DeWitt and Brehme DeWitt and Brehme (1960) use local expansions in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to show that 111Our convention $`2_{[a}_{b]}\xi _c=R_{abc}{}_{}{}^{d}\xi _{d}^{}`$ agrees with that in references Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000) and is the opposite of that used in DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997).

$$u(x,z)=1+\frac{1}{12}R_{ab}^a\sigma ^b\sigma +O(r^3),x\mathrm{\Gamma };$$
(9)
$`r`$ is the proper distance from $`x`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ measured along the spatial geodesic which is orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. They also show that the symmetric bi-scalar $`v(x,z)`$ is a solution of the homogeneous wave equation,

$$^2v(x,z)=0,$$
(10)
and that for $`x`$ close to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$v(x,z)=\frac{1}{12}R(z)+O(r),x\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(11)
The retarded and advanced Green’s functions are derived from $`G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)`$,

$`G^{\text{ret}}(x,z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Theta }[\mathrm{\Sigma }(x),z]G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)`$
$`G^{\text{adv}}(x,z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Theta }[z,\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)]G^{\text{sym}}(x,z),`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }[\mathrm{\Sigma }(x),z]=1\mathrm{\Theta }[z,\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)]`$ equals 1 if $`z`$ is in the past of a spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ that intersects $`x`$, and is zero otherwise. The $`G^{\text{rad}}(x,z)`$ implicitly used by Dirac in flat spacetime is

$$G^{\text{rad}}(x,z)=G^{\text{ret}}(x,z)G^{\text{sym}}(x,z).$$
(13)
Note that the fields resulting from two different Green’s functions that each obey Eq. (3) necessarily differ by a homogeneous solution of Eq. (2).

$`G^{\text{ret}}(x,z)`$ has reasonable causal structure, and we assume for simplicity that $`\psi ^{\text{ret}}`$ is, in fact, the actual field resulting from the source particle.

## IV Self force

Careful analyses DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000) show that contributions to the self force result from both the source’s acceleration, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a geodesic, and from the curvature of spacetime. For these two distinct possibilities, the self force is a consequence of the particle interacting with either the direct or the tail part of its field, respectively. By following the detailed derivations in DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000), we see that the self force may be considered to result, via Eq. (1), from the interaction of the particle with the quantity

$$\psi ^{\text{self}}=\left[\frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}\right]_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}^{\tau _{\text{adv}}}q_{\mathrm{}}^{\tau _{\text{ret}}}v[x,z(\tau )]\text{d}\tau $$
(14)
where, unlike Dirac’s radiation field, $`\psi ^{\text{self}}`$ is not a homogeneous solution of the field equation.

The first expression in Eq. (14) is finite and differentiable in the coincidence limit, $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. When substituted into the right hand side of Eq. (1) this expression provides the curved space generalization of the ALD force, and local expansions of $`u(x,z)`$ and $`\dot{\sigma }(x,z)`$ in DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000) give the resultant force in terms of the acceleration of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and components of the Riemann tensor.

The integral in Eq. (14) comes from the tail part of the Green’s function. Its derivative results, in part, from the implicit dependence of $`\tau _{\text{ret}}`$ upon $`x`$. Quinn Quinn (2000) computes this contribution to the derivative to be

$$\begin{array}{c}qv[x,z(\tau _{\text{ret}})]_a\tau _{\text{ret}}=q\left[v\dot{\sigma }^1_a\sigma \right]_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{qR(x)}{12r}(x_az_a)+O(r),x\mathrm{\Gamma },\end{array}$$
(15)
the spatial part of which is not defined when $`x`$ is on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the usual self force analysis, one first averages $`_a\psi ^{\text{self}}`$ over a small, spatial two-sphere surrounding the particle, thus removing the spatial part of Eq. (15). Then one takes the limit of this average as the radius of the two-sphere goes to zero, thereby obtaining a well defined contribution to the self force DeWitt and Brehme (1960); Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997); Quinn (2000).

## V Homogeneous field

We now provide an alternative expression for the field responsible for the self force.

Given one Green’s function which solves Eq. (3), a second may be generated by adding to the first any bi-scalar which is a homogeneous solution of Eq. (3). $`v(x,z)`$ is just such a bi-scalar and is also symmetric, $`v(x,z)=v(z,x)`$ DeWitt and Brehme (1960). Thus, a new symmetric Green’s function is

$`G^\text{S}(x,z)`$ $``$ $`G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}v(x,z)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[u(x,z)\delta (\sigma )+v(x,z)\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma )\right],`$
which has no support within the null cone. We use $`G^\text{S}(x,z)`$ only in a local neighborhood of the particle, and do not depend upon any knowledge of its global existence. $`G^\text{S}(x,z)`$ does have support on the null cone of $`x`$, just as $`G^{\text{sym}}(x,z)`$ does, and also outside the null cone, at spacelike separated points. The use of $`G^\text{S}(x,z)`$ is thus not complicated by the need for knowledge of the entire past history of the source and is amenable to local analysis. The corresponding field

$`\psi ^\text{S}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}}\right]_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}}\right]_{\tau _{\text{adv}}}`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\tau _{\text{ret}}}^{\tau _{\text{adv}}}}v(x,z)\text{d}\tau `$
is an inhomogeneous solution of Eq. (2) just as $`\psi ^{\text{ret}}`$ is. In the pioneering spirit of Dirac, it is natural to define

$$G^\text{R}(x,z)G^{\text{ret}}(x,z)G^\text{S}(x,z)$$
(18)
\[cf. Eq. (13)\]. Remarkably, like $`G^{\text{ret}}(x,z)`$, $`G^\text{R}(x,z)`$ has no support inside the future null cone. Corresponding to $`G^\text{R}(x,z)`$, we construct

$`\psi ^\text{R}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{\text{ret}}\psi ^\text{S}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{qu(x,z)}{2\dot{\sigma }}}\right]_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}^{\tau _{\text{adv}}}`$
$`q\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\tau _{\text{ret}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\tau _{\text{ret}}}^{\tau _{\text{adv}}}}\right)v(x,z)\text{d}\tau `$
analogous to Dirac’s radiation field. By construction $`\psi ^\text{R}`$ is a homogeneous solution of Eq. (2) and has the consequent property that it is smooth in the coincidence limit, $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We note its relation to $`\psi ^{\text{self}}`$

$$\psi ^\text{R}=\psi ^{\text{self}}\frac{1}{2}q_{\tau _{\text{ret}}}^{\tau _{\text{adv}}}v(x,z)\text{d}\tau .$$
(20)
Our most significant technical result is, in fact, that the self force is determined by the particle’s interaction with $`\psi ^\text{R}`$, since the integral term in Eq. (20) gives no contribution to a self force. For a field point $`x`$ which is near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the integrand may be expanded using Eq. (11). The dominant part of the integral from $`\tau _{\text{ret}}`$ to $`\tau _{\text{adv}}`$ then brings in a factor of $`\tau _{\text{adv}}\tau _{\text{ret}}=2r+O(r^2)`$ times $`v(x,x)`$, and the integral term of Eq. (20) is

$$qrv(x,x)+O(r^2)=\frac{1}{12}qrR(x)+O(r^2),x\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(21)
The derivative of $`\frac{1}{12}qrR(x)`$ gives an outward pointing, spatial unit vector near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; this exactly cancels the troublesome part of $`_a\psi ^{\text{self}}`$ in Eq. (15) which is thus absent from $`_a\psi ^\text{R}`$. The derivative of the remainder term $`O(r^2)`$ is zero in the limit that $`x`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and gives no contribution to the self force. Thus, the self force may be seen to be due exclusively to the interaction of the particle with $`\psi ^\text{R}`$ via Eq. (1). We regard this approach as preferable, because $`\psi ^\text{R}`$ is differentiable at the location of the particle, so that averaging is no longer required in computing the self force. Even more importantly, $`\psi ^\text{R}`$ is a homogeneous solution of Eq. (2).

## VI Electromagnetic and gravitational fields

The analysis for the scalar field is easily generalizable to both electromagnetic and gravitational fields by the addition of extra indices to $`u(x,z)`$ and $`v(x,z)`$ to create corresponding bi-vectors and bi-tensors, and by the introduction of $`\overline{g}^{ab^{}}(x,z)`$, which is the bi-vector of parallel displacement DeWitt and Brehme (1960). The primed indices below refer to the source point $`z`$, the unprimed indices to the field point $`x`$ as above. The definitions and relationships for the various Green’s functions follow the same pattern as above and are not repeated below.

For the electromagnetic field, the Lorentz gauge requires

$$_aA^a=0,$$
(22)
so that Maxwell’s equations become

$$^2A^aR_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}A^b=4\pi J^a.$$
(23)
DeWitt and Brehme DeWitt and Brehme (1960) show that

$$u_{ab^{}}(x,z)=\overline{g}_{ab^{}}(x,z)u(x,z),$$
(24)
and that (as $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$)

$$v_{ab^{}}(x,z)=\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}_a{}_{}{}^{c^{}}(R_{b^{}c^{}}\frac{1}{6}g_{b^{}c^{}}R)+O(r).$$
(25)
If $`(R_{ab}\frac{1}{6}g_{ab}R)u^b0`$ at the particle, then $`A_a^{\text{self}}`$ is non-differentiable there.

Similar to the scalar field, $`A_a^\text{S}`$ is an inhomogeneous solution of Eq. (23). That it also satisfies the gauge condition (22) follows from an argument similar to that after Eqn. (3.37) in DeWitt and Brehme (1960). We have

$$^aA_a^\text{S}=_a^{}(G^\text{S}J^a^{})\sqrt{g}\text{d}^4x^{},$$
(26)
assuming that $`J^a`$ is conserved, where $`G^\text{S}`$ is the scalar Green’s function of Eq. (16). That $`G^\text{S}`$ has no support within the past or future null cone implies that the integral is zero when written as a boundary integral.

With the definition

$$A_a^\text{R}A_a^{\text{ret}}A_a^\text{S},$$
(27)
$`A_a^\text{R}`$ gives a homogeneous electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic self force becomes

$$F^a=qg^{ac}(_cA_b^\text{R}_bA_c^\text{R})\dot{z}^b.$$
(28)
This combines with the Lorentz force law from the background to determine the actual worldline of the particle.

For the gravitational field, the harmonic gauge requires

$$_a\overline{h}^{ab}=0,$$
(29)
and, with $`R_{ab}=0`$, the perturbed Einstein equations are

$$^2\overline{h}_{ab}+2R_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}\overline{h}_{cd}^{}=16\pi T_{ab},$$
(30)
where $`\overline{h}_{ab}=h_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}h^c_c`$ is the trace reversed version of the metric perturbation $`h_{ab}`$. Mino, Sasaki and Tanaka Mino et al. (1997) show that

$$u_{abc^{}d^{}}(x,z)=2\overline{g}_{ac^{}}(x,z)\overline{g}_{bd^{}}(x,z)u(x,z),$$
(31)
and that (as $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$)

$$v_{abc^{}d^{}}(x,z)=\overline{g}_a{}_{}{}^{e^{}}\overline{g}_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{f^{}}R_{c^{}e^{}d^{}f^{}}^{}(z)+O(r).$$
(32)
If $`R_{cadb}u^cu^d0`$ at the particle, then $`\overline{h}_{ab}^{\text{self}}`$ is non-differentiable there.

Similar to the electromagnetic field case, $`\overline{h}_{ab}^\text{S}`$ is an inhomogeneous solution of Eq. (30) satisfying the gauge condition (29), if $`T_{ab}`$ is conserved. With the definition

$$\overline{h}_{ab}^\text{R}\overline{h}_{ab}^{\text{ret}}\overline{h}_{ab}^\text{S},$$
(33)
$`\overline{h}_{ab}^\text{R}`$ is differentiable on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and

$$F^a=\mu (g^{ab}+\dot{z}^a\dot{z}^b)\dot{z}^c\dot{z}^d(_ch_{db}^\text{R}\frac{1}{2}_bh_{cd}^\text{R}).$$
(34)
Subject to this force, the particle moves along a worldline which is actually a geodesic for a metric composed of the background geometry complemented by $`h_{ab}^\text{R}`$. While geodesic motion has been demonstrated in the past Mino et al. (1997); Quinn and Wald (1997), only in our case is the reference metric, $`g_{ab}+h_{ab}^\text{R}`$, a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations through $`O(\mu )`$.

## VII Discussion

For the clearest demonstration of the impact of our analysis, we consider the free motion of a particle of small mass $`\mu `$ in the purely gravitational case. With no a priori knowledge of the background geometry, an observer makes local measurements of the metric within a neighborhood of the worldline of the particle. That field has two distinct contributions. The first is the background metric combined with $`h_{ab}^\text{R}`$ — this combination appears as an “external”, homogeneous field; no local measurement distinguishes $`h_{ab}^\text{R}`$ from the background. The second comes from $`h_{ab}^\text{S}`$; for free motion the observer knows this contribution to be simply the $`\mu /r`$ part of the metric with its tidal distortion from the “external,” homogeneous fieldDetweiler (2001). As a consequence of Eq. (34), the local observer naturally sees that the worldline of the particle is a geodesic in the combined, “external” homogeneous field which he measures. Making only local measurements near the worldline, the observer sees no radiation, no local source for the “external” field and also no effect which he would be compelled to describe as radiation reaction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Amos Ori and Robert Wald for comments on an earlier version of this letter. This research has been supported in part by NSF Grant No. PHY-9800977 (B.F.W.) and NASA Grant No. NAGW-4864 (S.D.) with the University of Florida.


text:
# Effects of Top-Quark Anomalous Decay Couplings at 𝛾𝛾 CollidersThis is based on collaboration with B. Grzadkowski, Z. Hioki, and J. Wudka.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The standard model (SM) is extremely successful in particle-physics phenomenology. However, since there are still several unsolved problems in the SM, it is believed that the new physics beyond the SM is necessary to solve them. Therefore, it is very important to search for signals of new physics beyond the SM at forthcoming collider experiments.

Top-quark interactions could prove to be a reach source of information on the new physics. Since the mass of the top quark is much larger than the masses of the other quarks and leptons, and couplings of the top quark are still not strongly constrained, it is very interesting to investigate contribution from possible new physics in the top-quark sector. In addition, the top quark has some advantageous properties for searching new physics beyond the SM . Therefore, in this work, we will discuss effects from possible anomalous $`tbW`$ couplings in the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^\pm X`$, which will be observed at future photon-photon colliders, by performing a model-independent form-factor analysis 111 Non-standard effects in top-quark productions at $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider have been studied in ref.. .

## 2 FRAMEWORK

We will adopt the Kawasaki-Shirafuji-Tsai formula , assuming that both decaying top quarks and $`W`$ bosons are on-shell particles. In this formula, production and decay part are factorized as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d𝒑_{\mathrm{}}}}(\gamma \gamma \mathrm{}^+X)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}{\displaystyle 𝑑\Omega _t\frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega _t}(n_t,0)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{1}}{\Gamma _t}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\Gamma }{d𝒑_{\mathrm{}}}}(tb\mathrm{}^+\nu ),`$ (1)
where $`\Gamma `$ and $`\Gamma _t`$ are the leptonic and total widths of the top quark, respectively, i.e., $`\Gamma =B_{\mathrm{}}\Gamma _t`$, using $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the branching ratio for $`tb\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ ($``$ 0.22). $`d\Gamma /d𝒑_{\mathrm{}}`$ means the differential decay rate for the top quark. $`d\sigma (n_t,0)/d\Omega _t`$ is obtained from $`d\sigma (s_t,s_{\overline{t}})/d\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ which is the angular distribution of $`t\overline{t}`$ with spin $`s_t`$ and $`s_{\overline{t}}`$ by replacing $`s_t^\mu n_t^\mu =\left(g^{\mu \nu }\frac{p_t^\mu p_t^\nu }{m_t^2}\right)\frac{m_t}{(p_tp_{\mathrm{}})}p_\mathrm{}\nu `$ and setting $`s_{\overline{t}}0`$ .

Since we will perform a model-independent analysis we should use the most general couplings of $`tt\gamma `$ and $`tbW`$. However, since top-quark pair is produced via t- and u-channel processes in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions differently from the case of $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions in which top-quark pair is produced via s-channel one, there are two $`tt\gamma `$ couplings, and each $`tt\gamma `$ coupling includes one virtual top quark. Thus, without some assumptions or choice of specific models, it is not possible to estimate momentum dependence of form factors of $`tt\gamma `$ coupling, and consequently we cannot perform the $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ integration in (1).

On the other hand, in top-quark decay processes, since top quarks, bottom quarks and $`W`$ bosons can be treated as on-shell particles, we can fix momentum dependence of form factors and parameterize non-standard effects in terms of constant parameters. For these reasons, in this work, we will focus on the possibilities of new physics in the decay part assuming the SM production of the top quark.

We will adopt the following most general form of the $`tbW`$ vertex suitable for the $`tW^+b`$ decays 222Of course, though the vertex for $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$ decay would be also written down, it was omitted.:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Wtb}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{u}(p_b)[\gamma ^\mu (f_1^LP_L+f_1^RP_R).`$
$`.{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu }{M_W}}(f_2^LP_L+f_2^RP_R)]u(p_t),`$ (2)
where $`P_{L/R}=(1\gamma _5)`$ and $`k`$ is the momentum of $`W`$ boson. $`f_{1,2}^{L/R}`$ parameterize non-standard decay effects. Because $`W`$ boson is on-shell in the narrow-width approximation, the two additional form factors do not contribute. In the SM, $`f_1^L=1`$ and the other form factors vanish.

Eq.(2) allows us to perform global analysis of the non-standard effects in the top-quark decay if the decay is described by the sequential chain: $`tW^+bb\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 3 FINAL LEPTON DISTRIBUTION

In the following calculation, we neglected masses of final leptons, bottom quarks and quadratic terms of non-standard form factors.

### 3.1 Angular and Energy Distribution

Adopting the SM production of $`t\overline{t}`$ and the form factors of the top-quark decay in eq. (2), we can calculate the angular and energy distribution of final leptons as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}}}(\gamma \gamma \mathrm{}^+X)={\displaystyle \frac{3(eQ_t)^4\beta }{64\pi ^2s}}`$
$`\times \left[f_1(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})+\mathrm{Re}(f_2^R)f_2(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})\right],`$
where

$`f_1(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})=x[2\pi 𝒢_{00}.`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}})𝒢_{01}.{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}}𝒢_{02}],`$
$`f_2(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})=2\sqrt{r}x[2\pi 𝒢_{10}.`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}})𝒢_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}}𝒢_{12}],`$
with

$`𝒢_{00}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega ,`$
$`𝒢_{01}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega (I_++I_{}),`$
$`𝒢_{02}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega (J_++J_{}),`$
$`𝒢_{10}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1+2r}}\right),`$
$`𝒢_{11}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1+2r}}\right)`$
$`\times (I_++I_{}),`$
$`𝒢_{12}(x,\theta _{\mathrm{}})C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1+2r}}\right)`$
$`\times (J_++J_{}),`$
$`I_\pm {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_\pm \mathrm{cos}x+B_\pm }}=2\pi /\sqrt{B_\pm ^2A_\pm ^2},`$
$`J_\pm {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(A_\pm \mathrm{cos}x+B_\pm )^2}}`$
$`=2\pi B_\pm /\sqrt{(B_\pm ^2A_\pm ^2)^3}`$
$`A_\pm =\pm \beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}},B_\pm =1\pm \beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _t\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}},`$
$`r\left(M_W/m_t\right)^2,W(1r)^2(1+2r),`$
$`\omega (p_tp_{\mathrm{}})^2/m_t^2,C3B_{\mathrm{}}(1+\beta )^2s/(m_t^2W).`$
In the above integration, $`c_\pm `$ express the kinematical upper/lower bounds of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _t`$ (see ref. ), $`x`$ is the rescaled energy of the final lepton defined in terms of its CM-frame energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the top-quark velocity $`\beta (\sqrt{14m_t^2/s})`$ as $`x\frac{2E_{\mathrm{}}}{m_t}\sqrt{(1\beta )/(1+\beta )},`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the angle between the initial beam direction and the final-lepton momentum. This result shows that the angular and energy distribution enables us to investigate non-standard decay via $`\mathrm{Re}(f_2^R)`$ exclusively.

Performing an optimal-observable analysis  for $`t`$ decay, we have determined the following size of anomalous coupling that would guarantee a signal at $`1\sigma `$ level: $`\delta (\mathrm{Re}(f_2^R))=8.58\times 10^3`$ with integrated luminosity $`L=500\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and one-lepton-detection efficiency $`ϵ=0.6`$. Of course we can carry out an analogous calculation for $`\overline{t}`$ decay, and get the same result.

### 3.2 Angular Distribution

Performing further integration over $`x`$ for $`r(1\beta )/(1+\beta )x1`$, we obtain the angular distribution of the final lepton:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{(eQ_t)^4\beta }{128\pi ^2s}}(r1)^2(1+2r)(\beta 1)^2`$
$`\times C{\displaystyle _c_{}^{c_+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _t}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _t)^2}}[2\pi `$
$`+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}}\right)(I_++I_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8m_t^4}{s^2}}(J_++J_{})].`$
Surprisingly, we found that $`f_2^R`$ terms vanish after $`x`$ integration. This is one typical example of the general decoupling theorem found in . For $`d\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{}^{}X)/d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$, same calculations lead us to an analogous result. Thus, in this distribution, we should not observe any signal of non-standard top-quark decay.

This means: if non-standard effects are observed in this distribution, that is a signal of some physics beyond our assumptions. Let us recall what assumptions we have adopted in this work;

1. top-quark decay is described by sequential decays $`tW^+bb\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$,
2. narrow-width approximation is applicable for $`t`$ and $`W`$,
3. masses of $`b`$ quarks and final leptons, and quadratic terms of non-standard form factors were neglected,
4. non-standard effects do not exist in the production.

The assumptions 1$``$3 are well justified in this process, therefore observation of non-standard effects in the angular distribution would be a signal of physics beyond the assumption 4, i.e. new physics in the production part.

## 4 SUMMARY

In the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^\pm X`$ for unpolarized photon beams333The analysis that takes into account the beam polarization is under way., the angular and energy distribution, and the angular distribution of the secondary lepton were calculated, assuming the standard top-quark production and the most general couplings for the decay. In addition, the masses of bottom quarks and final leptons have been neglected and only linear terms of non-standard form factors have been kept. To calculate distributions of final leptons, Kawasaki-Shirafuji-Tsai formula was adopted with narrow-width approximation for the top quark and $`W`$ boson.

The double angular and energy distribution is sensitive to the non-standard contribution from the top-quark decay vertex. Thus this observable seems to be a useful tool to measure deviations from the standard top-quark decay. For the angular distribution of the final leptons, non-standard effects of $`tbW`$ couplings completely vanish after integration of the energy dependence. Therefore, an observation of any non-standard signal in the angular distribution may be an indication of some new physics in the production mechanism.


text:
# Symbiotic stars on Asiago archive plates. II

## 1 Introduction

In Paper I (Munari et al. 2001) we presented the first results of the search for plates in the Asiago photographic archive containing symbiotic stars. A total of 602 plates imaging AS 323, Ap 3-1, CM Aql, V1413 Aql, V443 Her, V627 Cas and V919 Sgr were located and the brightness of symbiotic stars estimated at the microscope against the UBV(RI)C comparison sequences calibrated by Henden & Munari (2000). The effort paid fruitful dividends on these poorly known systems: AS 323 was discovered to be quite probably an eclipsing system with the shortest known orbital period among symbiotic stars (P=197.6 days), and CM Aql was found to have a P=1058 days orbital period and a remarkable amplitude of the associated reflection/heating effect ($`\mathrm{\Delta }B2.2`$ mag).

In this second paper of the series we searched the Asiago archive for plates imaging the eight symbiotic stars Hen 2-468, QW Sge, LT Del, V407 Cyg, K 3-9, V335 Vul, FG Ser and Draco C-1. A total of 635 plates were found containing the program stars and their brightness has been again estimated at the microscope against the UBV(RI)C comparison sequences calibrated by Henden & Munari (2000).

The time scale of variability for symbiotic stars is quite long: the orbital periods range from $``$1 year up to several decades while rise and decay from an outburst may take anything from a few years to more than a century (cf. Kenyon 1986, Mikolajewska 1996). Such times scales are generally too long for devoted photometric programs to be carried out by a single Institute, but are instead well handled by those patrol programs that run for at least several decades at some Observatories around the world, one of them being Asiago. To stimulate and facilitate inspection of plates at the various archives in the world, Henden & Munari (2000, 2001, 2002) have so far calibrated accurate and deep UBV(RI)C sequences around 60 symbiotic stars. The present series of papers applies these sequences to those plates in the Asiago archive found to contain symbiotic stars, with the aim of contributing our data to the effort of reconstructing the longest and most detailed possible historical lightcurves.

## 2 Results

### 2.1 Hen 2-468

Discovered on objective-prism plates by Henize (1967) who noted a possible variability, its symbiotic nature was recognized by Carrasco et al. (1983) and Allen (1984) on the basis of optical spectra showing a late M-giant continuum and a rich emission line spectrum including HeII and the 6830 Å symbiotic band. Allen (1974) determined its infrared brightness as $`K=7.96`$, $`JK=+1.48`$. It was discovered to be a variable star by Margoni and Stagni (1984, their variable #3) that reported for the period 1969–1979 a brightness range 14.0 $`V`$15.0 and 16.0$`B`$17.2. The star however has not yet received a variable star name. Infrared photometry by Munari et al. (1992) gave $`K=8.02`$, $`JK=+1.50`$, almost identical to Allen (1974), suggesting that the cool giant in He2-468 is not intrinsically variable. Henden and Munari (2000) observed Hen 2-468 in quiescence at $`B`$=16.6 and $`BV`$=+1.8 in 1999, in agreement with the Margoni and Stagni (1984) values.

The Asiago plates (78 $`B`$, 34 $`V`$ and 5 $`I`$ band) cover the time span between Oct. 1969 and Dec. 1987. The resulting $`B`$ and $`V`$ lightcurves are plotted in Figure 1. On them, Hen 2-468 appears to have been in quiescence up to Oct. 1979, when it entered an outburst phase that lasted until the summer of 1985 when the system returned to mean quiescence brightness. The outburst amplitude was limited, at maximum reaching $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$1.8 mag above mean quiescence level. Given the red color in quiescence ($`BV`$=+1.8, cf. Table 2), the outburst is barely traceable in the $`V`$ lightcurve dominated by the stable emission of the M giant ($`BV`$+1.0 at outburst maximum). This is the first-ever recorded outburst of Hen 2-468.

The $`B`$ quiescence lightcurve of Hen 2-468 looks stable in mean brightness ($`<B>`$=16.3) but highly variable around it. A period search was performed and revealed a strong 774 day periodicity. The absence of a corresponding modulation in the $`V`$ data and the shape of the phased quiescence $`B`$ lightcurve (presented in the bottom panel of Figure 1) both support the interpretation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$1.1 mag variability as a reflection/heating effect, with

$$Max(B)=2440749+774\times E$$
(1)
giving the times of maxima, corresponding to the passage at inferior conjunction of the white dwarf companion to the M giant. The asymmetric placement of the minimum at $`\varphi `$0.35 could argue in favor of a moderately eccentric orbit. The present one is the first ever determination of the orbital period for Hen 2-468.

### 2.2 QW Sge

QW Sge (= AS 360) is another symbiotic star that has received scanty attention in the literature. Munari & Buson (1991) already reviewed the latter and discussed the system properties based on IUE, optical and IR observations.

QW Sge has an optical companion 3.5 arcsec to the north, that Munari and Buson classified as an F0 V star with $`B`$=13.59 and $`BV`$=+0.45. Henden and Munari (2000) found different values for it ($`B`$=13.18 and B–V=+0.83), with a large scatter of 0.25 mag between three different measurements (compared to the stability at a few millimag for nearby stars of similar brightness). This clearly indicates that the optical companion is itself a variable star, and this complicates the interpretation of photometry made with moderate or short focus telescopes that are not able to separate QW Sge from the close optical companion (as it is the case for most of the photographic plates in the archives around the world).

The 464 blue plates from the archive of the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow examined by Kurochkin (1993) suffer from this blending. All his measurements refer to QW Sge and the companion star merged in a single stellar image. Kurochkin’s lightcurve covers the period 1898–1990, during which two outbursts took place: one extending from July 1962 to March 1972 with $`B`$=11.5 at maximum, the other from May 1982 to September 1989 with a much more complex lightcurve and a peak brightness $`B`$=12.0. In between the combined brightness of QW Sge and its nearby companion remains in the range 12.9$`B`$13.4

Our measurements in Table 2 pertain to quiescence conditions for QW Sge. The favorable focal lengths of the Asiago Schmidt telescopes allow a marginal separation of QW Sge from the companion star. The measurements in Table 2 pertain to QW Sge alone. A few more plates from the Asiago archive were not considered here because bad seeing conditions caused an unrecoverable merging of the two stellar images into a single one.

A period search was performed and a fine periodicity emerged following the ephemeris

$$Max(B)=2445528+390.5\times E$$
(2)
The Table 2 data are phase plotted in Figure 2. Our measurements are limited in number and non-negligible errors are expected to affect our estimates of the nearly merged stellar pair. To test ephemeris (2) we therefore estimated QW Sge brightness on Palomar DSS-1 and DSS-2 blue plates (JD=2433480 and $`B`$=13.3, JD=2446326 and $`B`$=12.9, respectively) and plotted them in Figure 2 as crosses together with single $`B`$ measurements from Henden and Munari (2000) and Munari and Buson (1991). The agreement of these external data with those from the Asiago plates is excellent over the 5 decades spanned by the data. The lightcurve shape, its amplitude ($`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$=1.7 mag, and a few tenths in $`V`$) and the high repeatability over a long period of time suggests an interpretation in term of reflection/heating effect in phase with the orbital motion. The present 390$`{}_{}{}^{d}{}_{.}{}^{}`$5 day is the first ever determination of the orbital period of QW Sge.

### 2.3 LT Del

The history and photometric properties of LT Del up to the early 90ies have already been reviewed by Munari and Buson (1992). The quiescent lightcurve of LT Del displays a strong reflection/heating effect with amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$=+1.7, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$=0.5 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$=0.2 mag, that Arkhipova and Noskova (1988) reported to follow the ephemeris Min = 2445910 + 488$`\times `$E, later revised to Min = 2445910 + 478.2$`\times `$E by Arkhipova et al. (1995). The latter listed $`B`$=14.4 and $`BV`$=+1.3 as mean values for quiescence. Passuello et al. (1994) discovered the only outburst so far recorded for LT Del, with a $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$1.6 mag in 1994.

Our lightcurve of LT Del extends from Sept. 1967 to Aug. 1985 (cf. Figure 2), with mean values $`B`$=14.41 and $`BV`$=+1.32 identical to those of Arkhipova et al. (1995) for LT Del in quiescence. A period search revealed a strong periodicity at 465$`{}_{}{}^{d}{}_{.}{}^{}`$6, with an amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$0.27 mag and a sinusoidal shape indicative of a reflection/heating effect. The variation follows the ephemeris

$$Max(B)=2440493+465.6\times E$$
(3)
The 465$`{}_{}{}^{d}{}_{.}{}^{}`$6 period differs significantly from previous estimates. The 488 days suggested by Arkhipova and Noskova (1988) is definitively ruled out by our data, while the 478.2 days indicated by Arkhipova et al. (1995) performs only marginally better with a high dispersion affecting the folded lightcurve.

### 2.4 K 3-9

The photometric properties, history and orbital period are unknown for this faint and poorly studied symbiotic star. Given its optical faintness, the scanty investigations were concentrated in the infrared and radio domains where the system is much easier to observe (Ivison and Seaquist 1995). Henden & Munari (2000) report an average $`B`$=18.3 and $`BV`$=+1.3 for 1999.

The lightcurve from Asiago archival plates presented in Table 2 and Figure 4 covers the period from 1959 to 1979 and confirms the optical faintness and the moderately red color of K 3-9. The object has always been close to plate limiting magnitude, however a flat quiescence in the 70ies with $`B`$=18.3 and $`BV`$1.0 and a brighter phase in 1959 at $`B`$=17.2 are well established. A $``$0.5 mag variability affected K 3-9 in $`V`$ with apparently no counterpart in $`B`$.

Ivison and Seaquist (1995) argued about the possible presence of a Mira in K 3-9 and an ongoing symbiotic nova outburst phase for the WD companion. Symbiotic Miras are normally discovered as such when the WD companion enters a powerful outburst that ionizes and lights-up by several magnitudes the circumstellar material producing a rich emission line forest and a flat blue continuum.

Symbiotic Miras with erupting WD companions show a slow, smooth and monotonic decrease in brightness following outburst maximum. For example, the extremely smooth decline of HM Sge and V1016 Cyg over the last 20 years has been characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$0.05 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$0.03 mag yr-1, respectively, thus a whole 1 mag for HM Sge and 0.6 mag for V1016 Cyg in 20 years.

On the contrary, K 3-9 has been very stable over the last half century: Table 2 data, Palomar DSS-1 and DSS-2 blue plates ($`B`$=18.25 on JD=2434895, and $`B`$=18.30 on JD=2445936) as well as mean values for 1999 from Henden and Munari (2000) all cluster tightly around $`B`$=18.3, as shown in Figure 4. The absence of any descending trend and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$=1.1 bright phase in 1959 are more reminiscent of classical symbiotic stars with moderate active phases than of symbiotic Miras in outburst. K 3-9 bears differences with symbiotic Miras in outburst also in the spectra: observations included in the multi-epoch spectrophotometric atlas of symbiotic stars by Munari and Zwitter (2001) indicate a moderate ionization of a radiation-bounded circumstellar enviroment, quite different from the situation in HM Sge, V1016 Cyg and other symbiotic Miras in outburst characterized by firework displays of emission line spectra.

### 2.5 V407 Cyg

Discovered as Nova Cyg 1936, V407 Cyg attracted interest when ($`a`$) Meinunger (1966) reported that the main cause of the object’s large variability was the presence of a Mira with a 745 day pulsation period (too long for normal field Miras), and ($`b`$) unpublished spectra by different authors described a symbiotic star spectrum appearing from time to time (e.g. Duerbeck 1987). Munari et al. (1990) investigated V407 Cyg lightcurve up to late 80ies, confirming the presence of a Mira and discovering a large modulation of the system mean brightness by $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$3 mag. A possible 43 year periodicity was derived for the latter and interpreted as the system orbital period in the framework of the Whitelock (1987) model of variable dust obscuration. However, the lightcurve analyzed by Munari et al. spanned 51 years or just one possible orbital period. Thus the search for blue plates obtained earlier than 1935 with astrographs able to reach $`B`$=16 would be essential to investigate the secular behaviour of mean brightness and then to confirm the possible 43 year periodicity.

Pulsation periods as long as that of V407 Cyg almost invariably pertain to the central star of OH/IR sources, engulfed by extremely thick dust cocoons that make these objects invisible at blue wavelengths. If the presence of the accreting and outbursting white dwarf companion inhibits the formation of all but an optically thin circumstellar dust shell (Kolotilov et al. 1998), then V407 Cyg would allow an unobstructed view of the central star of an OH/IR source. The dust could partially form and survive only in the shadow cone produced by the Mira itself, which blocks the destroying action of the white dwarf hard radiation field. When, during the orbital motion, the Mira passes at the inferior conjunction and the whole system is seen through the dust cone, the optical pulsation curve is shifted toward fainter magnitudes. In such a framework, the minimum of mean $`B`$ brightness in the early 70s would correspond to passage of the Mira at the inferior conjunction.

A new outburst was discovered in 1994 (Munari et al. 1994), 58 years after the discovery event in 1936. At that time the Mira’s spectrum appeared severely veiled by a hot continuum in the blue and strong lines of Hydrogen, HeI, HeII, \[OIII\] erupted in emission, settling the classification of V407 Cyg as a symbiotic star.

The results of our searching the Asiago plate archive for V407 Cyg are presented in Figure 5. Plates spanning a 40 year interval have been located. The $`B`$ band data are plotted in a zoomed view in Figure 6 (top panel) and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }mag=8`$ amplitude sinusoid following the original Meinunger (1966) ephemeris

$$Max(B)=2429710+745\times E$$
(4)
is overplotted for reference. A 43 year, $`\mathrm{\Delta }mag=2.1`$ amplitude modulation is superimposed to represent the dust obscuration phase that peaked in 1973. The correspondence between observed points and the sinusoidal approximation is not impressive, for at least two reasons: ($`a`$) irregular variability by the accreting white dwarf may contribute significantly to the overall system $`B`$ band brightness (apart from the 1936 and 1994 outbursts), and ($`b`$) the Mira in V407 Cyg does not follow regular pulsation cycles characterized by similar and in-phase lightcurves (the VSNET and VSOLJ amateur estimate databanks clearly show quite perturbed lightcurves over the last fifteen years).

The complexity of the Mira pulsations in V407 Cyg is evident when its behaviour at different wavelengths is compared (Figure 6). The lightcurve in the $`B`$ band is only moderately periodic, while the periodicity looks instead almost perfect in our $`R`$ and $`I`$ data. However, the shape and period of the pulsation lightcurve change with the wavelengths. The $`R`$, $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`K`$ lightcurves in Figure 6 are computed according to the following ephemerids:

$`Max(R)`$ $`=`$ $`2429710+745\times E`$ (5)
$`Max(I)`$ $`=`$ $`2446050+747.5\times E`$ (6)
$`Max(J)`$ $`=`$ $`2446100+752\times E`$ (7)
$`Max(K)`$ $`=`$ $`2446150+755.6\times E`$ (8)
where the original $`B`$-band ephemeris of Meinunger (1966) was found to be the best performing one for the $`R`$ data and the Kolotilov et al. (1998) ephemeris the best for the $`J`$ data. They are however not satisfactory for $`I`$ and $`K`$ data, for which we determined new periodicities with converging results by different techniques (Fourier and phase dispersion minimization). The apparent increase of the pulsation period (by 1.4%) and shift of phase of maximum (by 13%) going from $`R`$ to $`K`$ wavelengths seems a robust one, as indicated by the poor results that are obtained if the $`R`$ data are phase plotted against Eq. (8) or the $`K`$ data against Eq. (5).

The differences highlighted by Eq.s (5)–(8), whose validity could vanish outside the time-span covered by the data used to derive them, might be related to the highly unusual evolutionary state of the Mira in V407 Cyg, resembling the central star of OH/IR sources. Beating among phenomena characterized by different periodicities and effective temperatures could induce the above shifts in phase and period. Optical depth effects in the Mira’s atmosphere and circumstellar dust envelope could add to the overall picture: viewing the system at different wavelengths means different transparencies of the circumstellar dust and different effective photospheric levels in the stellar atmosphere.

### 2.6 V335 Vul, FG Ser, Draco C-1

The remaining program stars are only briefly commented upon.

V335 Vul was discovered by Dahlmark (1993) to contain a carbon Mira of 342 day pulsation period. On the basis of marked spectral changes and the emission line spectrum, Munari et al. (1999) suggested a possible symbiotic nature for this object. Our $`B`$ and $`V`$ data in Table 2 reveal a variability of significant amplitude, but the resulting lightcurve is disappointingly restricted to a narrow range. This is caused by the short time span covered by the plates (a couple of years), the long pulsation period (close to one year), and the seasonal visibility.

The photometric and outburst history of the eclipsing symbiotic star FG Ser has already been reviewed in detail by Munari et al. (1992, 1995) and Kurochkin (1993), and it will not be further commented upon here. Part of the plates here used to derive the magnitude of FG Ser were already investigated by Munari et al., but they are measured again here both to place them on the more accurate Henden & Munari (2000) photometric sequence and to link them with the more recent data reported in Table 2.

Similarly, Draco C-1 plate material prior to 1991 has already been considered by Munari (1991). It has been estimated again here against the better Henden & Munari (2000) comparison sequence, in order to place it on the same scale as the data collected after 1991 and included in Table 2. The star is very close to the limiting magnitude on all plates, and this affects both star detection and brightness estimate. A significant $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$=0.7 mag variability is however evident, apparently not much correlated with $`B`$ behavior. Apart from a $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$=1.3 mag bright phase in 1988, Draco C-1 remained quiescent around $`B`$=18.4 over 1987–1996, close to the mean $`B`$=18.6 measured in 1999 by Henden & Munari (2000) and the $`B`$=18.43 measured in 1981 by Aaronson et al. (1982).

###### Acknowledgements.

RJS wish to thank the hospitality of the Asiago observatory and the Primorsko-Goranska County for financial support.


text:
# QCD-Like Behaviour of High-Temperature Confining Strings

## Abstract

We show that, contrary to previous string models, the high-temperature behaviour of the recently proposed confining strings reproduces exactly the correct large-$`N`$ QCD result, a necessary condition for any string model of confinement.

PACS: 11.25Pm

Although fundamental strings  can be quantized only in critical dimensions, strings in four space-time dimensions are of great interest since there is a large body of evidence , recently confirmed by numerical tests , that they can describe the confining phase of non-Abelian gauge theories. However, a consistent quantum theory describing these strings has not yet been found: the simplest model, the Nambu–Goto string, can be quantized only in space-time dimension $`D`$ = 26 or $`D1`$ because of the conformal anomaly; it is inappropriate to describe the expected smooth strings dual to QCD , since large Euclidean world-sheets are crumpled. In the rigid string , the marginal term proportional to the square of the extrinsic curvature, introduced to cure this problem, turns out to be infrared irrelevant and, thus, unable to prevent crumpling.

Both these models also fail to describe the correct high-temperature behaviour of large-$`N`$ QCD . As shown in , the deconfining transition in QCD is due to the condensation of Wilson lines, and the partition function of QCD flux tubes can be continued above the deconfining transition; this high-temperature continuation can be evaluated perturbatively. So, any string theory that is equivalent to QCD must reproduce this behaviour. However, the Nambu–Goto action has the wrong temperature dependence, while the rigid string has the correct high-temperature behaviour but with a wrong sign and an imaginary part signalling a world-sheet instability . At low temperatures, the behaviour of the rigid string was studied in .

Recently, two new models have been proposed: a first one, the confining string , is based on an induced string action explicitly derivable for compact QED  and for Abelian-projected SU(2) ; a second one, originally proposed in , is based on a five-dimensional, curved space-time string action with the quarks living on a four-dimensional horizon . The interrelation between these two models has been analysed in .

The confining string action possesses, in its world-sheet formulation, a non-local action with a negative stiffness  that can be expressed as a derivative expansion of the interaction between surface elements. To perform an analytic analysis of the geometric properties of these strings, this expansion must be truncated: this clearly makes the model non-unitary, but in a spurious way. Moreover, since the stiffness is negative, a stable truncation must, at least, include a sixth-order term in the derivatives . In  it was shown that, in the large-$`D`$ approximation, this model has an infrared fixed point at zero stiffness, corresponding to a tensionless smooth string whose world-sheet has Hausdorff dimension 2, exactly the desired properties to describe QCD flux tubes. As first noticed in , the long-range orientational order in this model is due to an antiferromagnetic interaction between normals to the surface, a mechanism confirmed by numerical simulations . Moreover, it was shown in  that this infared fixed point does not depend on the truncation and is present for all ghost- and tachyon- free truncations, and that the effective theory describing the infrared behaviour is a conformal field theory with central charge $`c=1`$.

In this paper we will study the high-temperature behaviour of the string model defined in . We will show that this model has a high-temperature behaviour that agrees in temperature dependence, sign and reality properties with the large-$`N`$ QCD result . This result depends entirely on the higher order term and is totally independent of the stiffness. Finite-temperature confining strings in (2+1) dimensions and in the presence of D0-branes have been studied in .

In Euclidean space, the action proposed in  is:

$$S=d^2\xi \sqrt{g}g^{ab}𝒟_ax_\mu \left(ts𝒟^2+\frac{1}{M^2}𝒟^4\right)𝒟_bx_\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`𝒟_a`$ are covariant derivatives with respect to the induced metric $`g_{ab}=_ax_\mu _bx_\mu `$ on the surface $`𝐱(\xi _0,\xi _1)`$. The first term in the bracket provides a bare surface tension $`2t`$, while the second accounts for the rigidity, with a stiffness parameter $`s`$ that we set to its fixed-point value $`s=0`$. In the third term, $`M`$ is a new mass scale. Since this term contains the square of the gradient of the extrinsic curvature matrices, it suppresses the formation of spikes on the world-sheet. In the large-$`D`$ approximation it generates a string tension proportional to $`M^2`$, which takes control of the fluctuations where the orientational correlation dies off. To perform the large-$`D`$ analysis we introduce a Lagrange multiplier  $`\lambda ^{ab}`$ that forces the induced metric $`_ax_\mu _bx_\mu `$ to be equal to the intrinsic metric $`g_{ab}`$, extending the action (1) to:

$$SS+d^2\xi \sqrt{g}\left[\lambda ^{ab}(_ax_\mu _bx_\mu g_{ab})\right].$$
(2)
We parametrize the world-sheet in a Gauss map by $`x_\mu (\xi )=(\xi _0,\xi _1,\varphi ^i(\xi )),i=2,\mathrm{},D2`$. The value of the periodic coordinate $`\xi _0`$ is $`\beta /2\xi _0\beta /2`$ with $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`T`$ the temperature. Note that at high temperatures ($`\beta 1`$), the scale $`M^2`$ can be temperature-dependent. This is not unusual in closed string theory as has been shown by Atick and Witten . The value of $`\xi _1`$ is $`R/2\xi _1R/2`$; $`\varphi ^i(\xi )`$ describe the $`D2`$ transverse fluctuations. We look for a saddle-point solution with a diagonal metric $`g_{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(\rho _0,\rho _1)`$, and a Lagrange multiplier of the form $`\lambda ^{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _0/\rho _0,\lambda _1/\rho _1)`$. The action then becomes:

$`S`$ $`=S_0+S_1`$ (3)
$`S_0`$ $`=A_{\mathrm{ext}}\sqrt{\rho _0\rho _1}[t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0+\rho _1}{\rho _0\rho _1}}\right)+\lambda _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\rho _0}{\rho _0}}\right)`$ (5)
$`+\lambda _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\rho _1}{\rho _1}}\right)],`$
$`S_1`$ $`={\displaystyle d^2\xi \sqrt{g}g^{ab}_a\varphi ^i\left(t+\frac{1}{M^2}𝒟^4\right)_b\varphi ^i},`$ (6)
where $`\beta R=A_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the extrinsic, projected area in coordinate space, and $`S_0`$ is the tree-level contribution. Integrating over the transverse fluctuations in the one-loop term $`S_1`$, we obtain, in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$:

$`S_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}R\sqrt{\rho _1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}[t(\omega _n^2+p_1^2)`$ (8)
$`+p_1^2\lambda _1+\omega _n^2\lambda _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}(\omega _n^2+p_1^2)^3],`$
where $`\omega _n=\frac{2\pi }{\beta \sqrt{\rho _0}}n`$. At high temperatures, satisfying

$$(M^2\beta ^2)(t\beta ^2)1,$$
(9)
the sixth-order term in the derivatives dominates in the one-loop term $`S_1`$ when $`n0`$. Using analytic regularization

$$_{\mathrm{reg}}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}(x^2+a^2)=2\pi a,$$

and analytic continuation of the formula

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^z=\zeta (z),$$

for the Riemann zeta function, with $`\zeta (1)=1/12`$, we obtain for the $`n0`$ contribution:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}R\sqrt{\rho _1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\left(\omega _n^2+p_1^2\right)^3}{M^2}}`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}}}12\pi {\displaystyle \frac{R}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n^2}={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}}}12\pi {\displaystyle \frac{R}{\beta }}\zeta (1)`$ (11)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{\beta }}.`$ (12)
For $`n=0`$, instead, rewriting

$`\mathrm{ln}\left[p_1^2(t+\lambda _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}p_1^6\right]=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{M^2}}\left(M^2(t+\lambda _1)+p_1^4\right)\right]`$ (13)
$`=\mathrm{ln}\left[(p_1^2+iM\sqrt{\lambda _1+t})(p_1^2iM\sqrt{\lambda _1+t})\right]+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{M^2}},`$ (14)
we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}R\sqrt{\rho _1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[p_1^2(t+\lambda _1)+\frac{1}{M^2}p_1^6\right]}`$ (15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}R\sqrt{\rho _1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{2\pi }2\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{ln}(p_1^2+iM\sqrt{\lambda _1+t})}`$ (16)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}R\sqrt{\rho _1}\sqrt{2M}(\lambda _1+t)^{1/4}.`$ (17)
The action $`S=(S_0+S_1)`$ then becomes

$$S=S_0+\frac{D2}{2}R\sqrt{\rho _1}\left[\sqrt{2M}\left(\lambda _1+t\right)^{1/4}\frac{\pi }{\beta \sqrt{\rho _0}}\right].$$
(18)
The factor $`\frac{D2}{2}`$ in $`(S_0+S_1)`$ ensures that, for large $`D`$, the fields $`\rho _0,\rho _1,\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ are extremal and thus satisfy the four-gap equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1\rho _0}{\rho _0}}=0,`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _1}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2M}}{(\lambda _1+t)^{3/4}}},`$ (20)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(t\lambda _1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho _1}}(\lambda _1+t)t\lambda _0\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\beta ^2}}=0,`$ (21)
$`(t\lambda _1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _1}}(\lambda _1+t)+`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\left[\sqrt{2M}\left(\lambda _1+t\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta ^2}}\right]=0.`$ (23)
Substituting (23) into (18) we obtain a simplified form of the effective action:

$$S^{\mathrm{eff}}=A_{\mathrm{ext}}𝒯\sqrt{\frac{\rho _0}{\rho _1}},$$
(24)
with $`𝒯=2(\lambda _1+t)`$ representing the physical string tension.

By inserting (20) into (23), we obtain an equation for $`(\lambda _1+t)`$ alone:

$`(\lambda _1+t){\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8\beta }}\sqrt{2M}\left(\lambda _1+t\right)^{1/4}`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\beta ^2}}t=0.`$ (26)
Without loss of generality we set

$$\left(\lambda _1+t\right)^{1/4}=\frac{\sqrt{2M}}{\gamma },$$
(27)
where $`\gamma `$ is a dimensionless parameter. It is possible to show that, at high temperatures, when

$$t\beta ^2\frac{D2}{2},$$
(28)
we can completely neglect $`t`$ in (26). Indeed, as we now show, $`\lambda _1`$ is proportional to $`(D2)/\beta ^2`$. Note that this is compatible with the condition (9) used before. We can thus rewrite (26) as:

$$\lambda _1\frac{D2}{2}\frac{5}{8\beta }\gamma \lambda _1^{1/2}+\frac{D2}{2}\frac{\pi }{2\beta ^2}=0.$$
(29)
We now restrict to the regime

$$\frac{25}{64}\gamma ^2\left(\frac{D2}{2}\right)^22\pi \frac{D2}{2}>0,$$
(30)
for which (29) admits two real solutions:

$`(\lambda _1^1)^{1/2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16\beta }}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}`$ (32)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{25}{64}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\right)^22\pi {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}},`$
$`(\lambda _1^2)^{1/2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16\beta }}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{25}{64}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\right)^22\pi {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}}.`$
In both cases $`\lambda _1`$ is proportional to $`(D2)/\beta ^2`$, which justifies neglecting $`t`$ in (26) and implies that the scale $`M^2`$ must be chosen proportional to $`1/\beta ^2`$. Moreover, since the physical string tension is real we are guaranteed that $`M^2>0`$, as required by the stability of our model. Any complex solutions for $`𝒯`$ would have been incompatible with the stability of the truncation.

Let us start by analysing the first solution (32). By inserting (32) in (21), we obtain the following equation for $`\rho _1`$:

$$\frac{1}{\rho _1}=1\frac{4}{5+\sqrt{25\frac{128\pi }{\gamma ^2\frac{D2}{2}}}}.$$
(35)
Owing to the condition (30), $`1/\rho _1`$ is positive and, since $`\lambda _1^2`$ is real, the squared free energy is also positive:

$`F^2(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{Eff}}^2}{R^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{25}{64}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\right)^22\pi {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}})^4\times `$ (37)
$`\times \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5+\sqrt{25\frac{128\pi }{\gamma ^2\frac{D2}{2}}}}}\right).`$ (38)
In this case the high-temperature behaviour is the same as in QCD, but the sign is wrong, exactly as for the rigid string. There is, however, a crucial difference: (38) is real, while the squared free energy for the rigid string is imaginary, signalling an instability in the model.

If we now look at the behaviour of $`\rho _1`$ at low temperatures, below the deconfining transition , we see that $`1/\rho _1`$ is positive. The deconfining transition is indeed determined by the vanishing of $`1/\rho _1`$ at $`\beta =\beta _{\mathrm{dec}}`$. In the case of (32) this means that $`1/\rho _1`$ is positive below the Hagedorn transition, touches zero at $`\beta _{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and remains positive above it. Exactly the same will happen also for $`F^2`$, which is positive below $`\beta _{\mathrm{dec}}`$ , touches zero at $`\beta _{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and remains positive above it. This solution thus describes an unphysical “mirror” of the low-temperature behaviour of the confining string, without a real deconfining Hagedorn transition. For this reason we discard it.

Let us now study the solution (34). Again, by inserting (34) in (21), we obtain for $`\rho _1`$ the equation:

$$\frac{1}{\rho _1}=1\frac{4}{5\sqrt{25\frac{128\pi }{\gamma ^2\frac{D2}{2}}}}.$$
(39)
In this case, when

$$\gamma >4\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\left(\frac{D2}{2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(40)
$`1/\rho _1`$ becomes negative. The condition (40) is consistent with (30) and will be taken to fix the values of the range of parameter $`\gamma `$ that enters in (27). We will restrict to those that satisfy (40). Since $`\rho _0=1`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ is real and proportional to $`1/\beta ^2`$, we obtain the following form of the squared free energy:

$`F^2(\beta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{25}{64}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}\right)^22\pi {\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}}})^4\times `$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{5\sqrt{25\frac{128\pi }{\gamma ^2\frac{D2}{2}}}}}1\right).`$
In the range defined by (40) this is negative. For this solution, thus, both $`1/\rho _1`$ and $`F^2`$ pass from positive values at low temperatures to negative values at high temperatures, exactly as one would expect for a string model undergoing the Hagedorn transition at an intermediate temperature. In fact this is also what happens in the rigid string case, but there, above the Hagedorn transition, there is a second transition above which, at high temperature, $`\lambda _1`$ becomes large and essentially imaginary, giving a positive squared free energy. This second transition is absent in our model.

A consistency check is made to look if the two solutions (32) and (34), together with (27) and (40) are compatible with the validity range (9) of our high-temperature approximation. Ignoring numerical factors and subleading terms in $`\frac{D2}{2}`$, (9) becomes

$$t\beta ^2\frac{D2}{2},$$
(44)
which is exactly the condition (28).

Let us now compare the result (43) with the corresponding one for large-$`N`$ QCD :

$$F^2(\beta )_{\mathrm{QCD}}=\frac{2g^2(\beta )N}{\pi ^2\beta ^2},$$
(45)
where $`g^2(\beta )`$ is the QCD coupling constant. First of all let us simplify our result by choosing large values of $`\gamma `$:

$$\gamma \sqrt{\frac{128\pi }{25}}\left(\frac{D2}{2}\right)^{1/2}.$$

In this case (43) reduces to

$$F^2(\beta )=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\frac{8\pi ^3}{125}\frac{D2}{\gamma ^2}.$$
(46)
This corresponds exactly to the QCD result (45) with the identifications

$`g^2`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}},`$ (47)
$`N`$ $`D2.`$ (48)
The weak $`\beta `$-dependence of the QCD coupling $`g^2(\beta )`$ can be accommodated in the parameter $`\gamma `$. Note that our result is valid at large values of $`\gamma `$, i.e. small values of $`g^2`$, as it should be for QCD at high temperatures . Note also the interesting identification between the order of the gauge group and the number of transverse space-time dimensions. Moreover, since the sign of $`\lambda _1`$ does not change at high temperatures, the field $`x_\mu `$ is not unstable. The contrary happens in the rigid string case , where the change of sign of $`\lambda _1`$ gives rise to a world-sheet instability.

We thank C. Angelantonj for useful discussions.