format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been an enormous progress for flavor physics since the CLEO observation  of the radiative $`bs\gamma `$ decay. Recently, the decay modes of $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\mathrm{}=e,\mu )`$ have been observed  at the Belle detector in the KEKB $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring with the branching ratio of $`Br(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(0.75_{0.21}^{+0.25}\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$, while the standard model (SM) expectation is around $`0.5\times 10^6`$ . We remark that the decay has not yet been seen at the BaBar detector in the PEP-II B factory . Experimental searches at the B-factories for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are also within the theoretical predicted ranges . It is known that the study of flavor change neutral currents (FCNCs) in these B decays provides us with information on not only the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark-mixing matrix elements  in the SM but also new physics such as supersymmetry (SUSY).

On the other hand, via $`B`$ decays such as $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K`$, we can test whether the unique phase in the CKM matrix is indeed the origin of CP violation (CPV). In general, CP asymmetries (CPAs) in $`B`$ decays are defined by $`a_{CP}\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`A_{CP}(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)`$, called direct CPA or CP-odd observable and time dependent CPA, respectively. The former needs both weak CP violating and strong phases, while the latter contains not only a non-zero CP-odd phase but also the $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing. We note that the present world average for $`a_{CP}^{\mathrm{\Psi }K}`$ is $`0.79\pm 0.12`$  comparing with the SM prediction of $`0.70\pm 0.10`$ . In the decays of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, CPAs such as $`a_{CP}`$ are small even with weak phases being $`O(1)`$ due to the smallness of strong phases .

To study CPV in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, one can also define some T-odd observables by momentum correlations, such as the well known triple momentum correlations . These observables do not require strong phases in contrast to the CPA of $`a_{CP}`$. In the absence of final state interactions, these T-odd observables are T violating and thus CP violating by virtue of the CPT theorem. In the decays of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$, and $`\tau `$), the spin $`s`$ can be the polarized lepton, $`s_{\mathrm{}},`$ or the $`K^{}`$ meson, $`ϵ^{}(\lambda )`$. For the polarized lepton, since the T-odd polarization is normally associated with the lepton mass, we expect that this type of T violating effects is suppressed and less than $`1\%`$ for the light lepton modes . Although the $`\tau `$ mode can escape from the suppression, the corresponding branching ratio (BR) of $`O(10^7)`$ is about one order smaller than those of $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ modes. In this paper, we concentrate on the decay chain of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}K\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and give a systematic study on various possible physical observables, especially the T-odd ones.

It is known that one of the main theoretical uncertainties in studying exclusive hadron decays arises from the calculations of matrix elements. At the large momentum transfer $`(q^2)`$ region, Lepage and Brodsky (LB)  have developed an approach based on the perturbative QCD (PQCD). In the LB formalism, the nonperturbative part is included in the hadron wave functions and the transition amplitude is factorized into the convolution of hadron wave functions and the hard amplitude of valence quarks. However, with the LB approach, it has been pointed out that the perturbative evaluation of the pion form factor suffers a non-perturbative enhancement in the end-point region with a momentum fraction $`x0`$ . If so, the hard amplitude is characterized by a low scale and the expansion in terms of a large coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is not reliable. Furthermore, more serious end-point (logarithmic) singularities are observed in the $`B\pi `$ transition form factors  from the twist-2 (leading-twist) contribution. The singularities become linear while including the twist-3 (next-to-leading twist) wave function . Because of these singularities, it was claimed that even at the low $`q^2`$ form factors are dominated by soft dynamics and not calculable in the PQCD .

Following the concept of the PQCD, if the spectator quark inside the $`B`$ meson with a momentum of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=M_Bm_b`$ and $`m_b`$ is the $`b`$ quark mass, wants to catch up the outgoing quark with an energy of $`O(M_B/2)`$ to form a hadron, it should obtain a large energy from $`b`$ or the daughter of it. That is, hard gluons actually play an essential role in the $`B`$ meson with large energy released decays. Therefore, relevant decay amplitudes should be calculable perturbatively. It is clear that to deal with the problem of singularities is the main part of the PQCD. In order to handle these singularities, the strategy of including $`k_T`$, the transverse momentum of the valence-quark , and threshold resummation  have been proposed . It has been shown that the singularities do not exist in a self-consistent PQCD analysis . In the literature, the applications of this PQCD approach to the processes of $`BPP`$, such as $`BK\pi `$ , $`B\pi \pi `$ , $`BKK`$ , $`BK\eta ^{()}`$  and $`B_sKK`$ , as well as that of $`BVP`$, such as $`B\varphi \pi `$ , $`B\varphi K`$ , $`B\rho (\omega )\pi `$  and $`B\rho (\omega )K`$ , have been studied and found that they are consistent with the experimental data. In this paper, to calculate the matrix elements of relevant current operators, we adopt the PQCD factorization formalism as

$`V|𝒪_k|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [dx]\left[\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{b}}{4\pi }\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_V^{}(x_2,\stackrel{}{b}_2)T_k(\{x\},\{\stackrel{}{b}\},M_B)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,\stackrel{}{b}_1)}`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`S_t\left(\{x\}\right)e^{S(\left\{x\right\},\left\{\stackrel{}{b}\right\},M_B)}`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_B)`$ is the wave function of $`V(B)`$ meson, $`T_k`$ is the hard scattering amplitude dictated by relevant current operators, the exponential factor is the Sudakov factor , and $`S_t(x)`$  expresses the threshold resummation factor.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we study the form factors of the $`BK^{}`$ transition in the framework of the PQCD. In Sec. III, we write the angular distributions and define the physical observables for the decays of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. In Sec. IV, we present the numerical analysis. We also compare our results with those in other QCD models. We give our conclusions in Sec. V.

## 2 Form factors in $`BK^{}`$

For decays with the $`BK^{}`$ transition, the $`B`$ meson momentum $`p_1`$ and the $`K^{}`$ meson momentum $`p_2`$ and polarization vector $`ϵ`$ in the $`B`$ meson rest frame and the light-cone coordinate are taken as

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1,\stackrel{}{0}_{}),p_2={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}\eta }}(\eta ^2,r_K^{}^2,\stackrel{}{0}_{}),`$
$`ϵ_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r_K^{}\eta }}(\eta ^2,r_K^{}^2,\stackrel{}{0}_{}),ϵ_T(\pm )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,0,1,\pm i)`$ (2)
with $`\eta 1q^2/M_B^2`$ and $`r_K^{}=M_K^{}/M_B`$, while those for the spectators of $`B`$ and $`K^{}`$ sides are expressed by

$`k_1=(0,x_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}},\stackrel{}{k}_1)\mathrm{and}k_2=(x_2{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta ,0,\stackrel{}{k}_2),`$ (3)
respectively. In our calculations, we will neglect the small contributions from $`m_{u,d,s}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ as well as $`M_K^{}^2`$ due to the on-shell condition of the valence-quark preserved. From the results in Ref. , the $`K^{}`$ meson distribution amplitude up to twist-3 can be derived as follows:

$`K^{}(p,ϵ_L)|\overline{s}(z)_jd(0)_l|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{ixpz}\{M_K^{}[\mathit{ϵ̸}_L]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}(x)+[\mathit{ϵ̸}_L\mathit{}]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^t(x)`$
$`+M_K^{}[I]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^s(x)\},`$
$`K^{}(p,ϵ_T)|\overline{s}(z)_jd(0)_l|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{ixpz}\{M_K^{}[\mathit{ϵ̸}_T]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^v(x)+[\mathit{ϵ̸}_T\mathit{}]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^T(x)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^{}}{pn_{}}}i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }[\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu ]_{lj}ϵ_T^\nu p^\rho n_{}^\sigma \varphi _K^{}^a(x)\},`$
where $`n_{}=(0,1,\stackrel{}{0}_{})`$ and $`\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ and $`\varphi _K^{}^T(x)`$ are the twist-2 wave functions for the longitudinal and transverse components of the $`K^{}`$ polarization, respectively, while the remaining wave functions belong to the twist-3 ones with their explicit expressions given below.

### 2.1 Power counting

To show the $`BK^{}`$ form factors, we first discuss the twist-3 contributions in the PQCD approach. As an illustration, we take the integrand of twist-2, the hard gluon exchange in the B meson side, to be

$`I^{tw2}={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)M_B^2}{[x_1x_2M_B^2+|\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_1|^2][x_2M_B^2+|\stackrel{}{k}_2|^2]}}`$ (5)
where the first term in the denominator is the propagator of the exchanged hard gluon while the second one is that of the internal b-quark. As studied in Ref. , introducing $`k_{}`$ degrees of freedom will bring large double logarithms of $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2(k_{}/M_B)`$ through radiative corrections. In order to improve the perturbative expansion, these effects should be resummed, called $`k_{}`$ resummation . Consequently, the Sudakov form factor introduced will suppress the region of $`k_{}^2O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)`$. According to the analysis of Ref. , via the Sudakov suppression, the average $`<k_2^2>`$ is of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)`$ for $`M_B5`$ GeV. Hence, with including $`k_{}`$ resummation effects, Eq. (5) becomes

$`I^{tw2}={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)M_B^2}{[x_1x_2M_B^2+O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)][x_2M_B^2+O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)]}}.`$ (6)
Since the fraction momentum $`x_1`$ is of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B)`$ and $`\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)x_2(1x_2)`$, it is easy to see that at the end-point $`I^{tw2}`$ behaves like

$`I^{tw2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}}.`$ (7)
On the other hand, the integrand of twist-3 is expressed as

$`I^{tw3}={\displaystyle \frac{r_K^{}\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)M_B^2}{[x_1x_2M_B^2+O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)][x_2M_B^2+O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)]}}.`$ (8)
From Ref. , we find that the twist-3 wave function $`\varphi _K^{}^a`$ at the end-point is a constant so that

$`I^{tw3}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_K^{}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_K^{}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}}`$ (9)
as $`x_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$. Hence, the power behavior of $`I^{tw3}`$ in $`M_B`$ is the same as that of $`I^{tw2}`$. We note that since the twist-3 one contains the most serious singularity (linear divergence), the contribution from a higher twist wave function, such as that of twist-4, should be the same as that of twist-3 at most. However, by the definition of the twist wave function, we know that the twist-4 one is associated with a factor of $`r_K^{}^2`$, and its contribution should be one power suppressed by $`r_K^{}`$ than that of twist-3 so that it belongs to a higher power contribution in our consideration. In our analysis, its effect will be neglected.

### 2.2 Form Factors

We parametrize the $`BK^{}`$ transition form factors with various types of interacting vertices as follows:

$`K^{}(p_2,ϵ)\left|V_\mu \right|\overline{B}(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{V(q^2)}{M_B+M_K^{}}}\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta \rho }ϵ^\alpha P^\beta q^\rho ,`$
$`K^{}(p_2,ϵ)\left|A_\mu \right|\overline{B}(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2M_K^{}A_0(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}q}{q^2}}q_\mu +\left(M_B+M_K^{}\right)A_1(q^2)\left(ϵ_\mu ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}q}{q^2}}q_\mu \right)`$
$`A_2(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}q}{M_B+M_K^{}}}\left(P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{q^2}}q_\mu \right),`$
$`K^{}(p_2,ϵ)\left|T_{\mu \nu }q^\nu \right|\overline{B}(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`iT_1(q^2)\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta \rho }ϵ^\alpha P^\beta q^\rho ,`$
$`K^{}(p_2,ϵ)\left|T_{\mu \nu }^5q^\nu \right|\overline{B}(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`T_2(q^2)\left(ϵ_\mu ^{}Pqϵ^{}qP_\mu \right)+T_3(q^2)ϵ^{}q\left(q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{Pq}}P_\mu \right),`$ (10)
where $`P=p_1+p_2`$, $`q=p_1p_2`$, $`V_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b`$, $`A_\mu =\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }b`$, and $`T_{\mu \nu }^5=\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b`$. According to the PQCD factorization formalism shown in Eq. (1), the components of form factors defined in Eq. (10) up to twist-3 wave functions are given by

$`V(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+r_K^{})8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (11)
$`\times \{[\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)r_K^{}(x_2\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}+x_2)\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2))]`$
$`\times E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}[\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)+\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)]E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`A_0(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (12)
$`\times \{[(1+\eta x_2)\varphi _K^{}(x_2)+r_K^{}((12x_2)\varphi _K^{}^t(x_2)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}12x_2)\varphi _K^{}^s(x_2))]E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+2r_K^{}\varphi _K^{}^s(x_2)E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`A_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi C_FM_B^2\eta }{1+r_K^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _Bt(x_1,b_1)`$ (13)
$`\times \{[\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)+r_K^{}(({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}+x_2)\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)x_2\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2))]`$
$`\times E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}[\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)+\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)]E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`A_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+r_K^{})^2}{\eta }}A_1(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1+r_K^{}}{\eta }}2r_K^{}A_0(q^2)`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_K^{}}{\eta }}32r_K^{}\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$
$`\times (({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}1)\varphi _K^{}^t(x_2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}1)\varphi _K^{}^s(x_2))E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2),`$
$`T_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (15)
$`\times \{[(1+\eta x_2)\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)+r_K^{}((12x_2)\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}12x_2)\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2))]E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}[\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)+\eta \varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)]E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}[dx]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (16)
$`\times \{[(1+\eta x_2)\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)+r_K^{}(2\eta (1+2x_2))\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}\eta (12x_2)\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)]E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}\eta [\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)+\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2)]E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\},`$
$`T_3(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (17)
$`\times \{[(1+\eta x_2)\varphi _K^{}^T(x_2)+r_K^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}(1+2x_2))\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}((12x_2))\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2){\displaystyle \frac{2r_K^{}}{\eta }}(\varphi _K^{}(x_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}+x_2)\varphi _K^{}^t(x_2)r_K^{}x_2\varphi _K^{}^s(x_2))]E(t_e^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$
$`+r_K^{}[\varphi _K^{}^v(x_2)+\varphi _K^{}^a(x_2){\displaystyle \frac{2r_K^{}}{\eta }}\varphi _K^{}^s(x_2)]E(t_e^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\}.`$
The evolution factor is given by

$$E\left(t\right)=\alpha _s\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_B\left(t\right)S_K^{}\left(t\right)\right),$$
(18)
where explicit expressions of the Sudakov exponents $`S_{B(K^{})}`$ can be found in Ref. . The hard function of $`h`$ is written as

$`h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`S_t(x_2)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_1x_2\eta }M_Bb_1\right)`$ (19)
$`\times [\theta (b_1b_2)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_2\eta }M_Bb_1\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_2\eta }M_Bb_3\right)`$
$`+\theta (b_2b_1)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_2\eta }M_Bb_2\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_2\eta }M_Bb_1\right)]`$
where the threshold resummation effect is described by

$`S_t(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2^{1+2c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+c)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c)}}[x(1x)]^c.`$
The hard scales $`t^{(1,2)}`$ are chosen to be

$`t^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{M_B^2\eta x_2},1/b_1,1/b_2),`$
$`t^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{M_B^2\eta x_1},1/b_1,1/b_2).`$
For the $`K^{}`$ meson distribution amplitudes, we adopt the results given in Ref.  and explicitly we have

$`\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3f_K^{}}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}x(1x)[1+0.57(12x)+0.1(5(12x)^21)],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}^t(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K^{}^T}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}[0.3(12x)(3(12x)^2+10(12x)1)`$
$`+0.06(12x)^2(5(12x)^23)+0.21(330(12x)^2+35(12x)^4)`$
$`+0.36(12(12x)(1+\mathrm{ln}(1x)))],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}^s(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3f_K^{}^T}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}[(12x)(1+0.2(12x)+0.6(10x^210x+1))`$
$`0.4x(1x)+0.12(16x2\mathrm{ln}(1x))],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}^T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3f_K^{}^T}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}x(1x)[1+0.60(12x)+0.06(5(12x)^21)],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}^v(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K^{}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(1+(12x)^2+0.44(12x)^3)+0.20(3(12x)^21)`$
$`+0.11(330(12x)^2+35(12x)^4)+0.48(2x+\mathrm{ln}(1x))],`$
$`\varphi _K^{}^a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3f_K^{}}{4\sqrt{2N_c}}}[(12x)(1+0.19(12x)+0.81(10x^210x+1))`$ (20)
$`1.14x(1x)+0.16(16x2\mathrm{ln}(1x))].`$
From Eqs. (14)-(16), at $`q^2=0`$ we obtain the identities

$`A_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+r_K^{})^2A_1(0)2r_K^{}(1+r_K^{})A_0(0),`$
$`T_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`T_2(0),`$ (21)
which are consistent with the leading order model-independent relation

$`A_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+r_K^{}}{1r_K^{}}}A_1(0){\displaystyle \frac{2r_K^{}}{1r_K^{}}}A_0(0).`$ (22)
We note that due to the parametrization of Eq. (10), there are terms proportional to $`r_K^{}^2`$ in Eqs. (11), (13) and (14). In order to guarantee that only $`r_K^{}`$ dependence appears in the left-handed sides of Eq. (10), those with $`r_K^{}^2`$ should not be dropped.

## 3 Angular distributions and physical observables

### 3.1 Effective Hamiltonians and Decay Amplitudes

The effective Hamiltonians of $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are given by

$$=\frac{G_F\alpha \lambda _t}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left[H_{1\mu }L^\mu +H_{2\mu }L^{5\mu }\right]$$
(23)
with

$`H_{1\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`C_9(\mu )\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (\mu )P_Lb{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}C_7(\mu )\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_Rb,`$
$`H_{2\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb,`$
$`L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{},`$
$`L^{5\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{},`$ (24)
where $`\lambda _t=V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ and $`C_9(\mu )`$, $`C_{10}`$ and $`C_7(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients (WCs) and their expressions can be found in Ref.  for the SM. Since the operator associated with $`C_{10}`$ is not renormalized under QCD, it is the only one with the $`\mu `$ scale free. Besides the short-distance (SD) contributions, the main effect on the branching ratios comes from cc̄ resonant states such as $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},etc.,`$ $`i.e.`$, the long-distance (LD) contributions. In the literature , it has been suggested by combining the FA and the vector meson dominance (VMD) approximation to estimate LD effects for the $`B`$ decays. With including the resonant effect (RE) and absorbing it to the related WC, we obtain the effective WC of $`C_9`$ as

$$C_9^{eff}=C_9\left(\mu \right)+\left(3C_1\left(\mu \right)+C_2\left(\mu \right)\right)\left(h(x,s)+\frac{3}{\alpha ^2}\underset{j=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{}k_j\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(jl^+l^{}\right)M_j}{q^2M_j^2+iM_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\right),$$
(25)
where $`h(x,s)`$ describes the one-loop matrix elements of operators $`O_1=\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\beta \overline{c}_\beta \gamma _\mu P_Lc_\alpha `$ and $`O_2=\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu P_Lb\overline{c}\gamma _\mu P_Lc`$ , $`M_j`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$) are the masses (widths) of intermediate states, and the factors $`k_j`$ are phenomenological parameters for compensating the approximations of FA and VMD and reproducing the correct branching ratios $`Br\left(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }Xl^+l^{}X\right)=Br\left(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }X\right)`$ $`\times `$ $`Br\left(J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{}\right)`$. For simplicity, we neglect the small WCs and take $`k_j=1/\left(3C_1\left(\mu \right)+C_2\left(\mu \right)\right)`$. It is clear that the uncertainty related to this assumption can be large . Moreover, it is questionable whether one can include both quark-level calculations with $`c\overline{c}`$-loop and resonances in Eq. (25). However, since we are only interested in physics behind the various observables at the large recoil we shall not discuss the uncertainties arising from Eq. (25).

Combining Eqs. (10) and (23), the transition amplitudes for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=\mu ,e`$) can be written as

$$_K^{}^{(\lambda )}=\frac{G_F\alpha \lambda _t}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }\left\{_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}L^\mu +_{2\mu }^{(\lambda )}L^{5\mu }\right\}$$
(26)
with

$`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}`$ $`=`$ $`ih_1\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu (\lambda )P^\alpha q^\beta +h_2ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda )+h_3ϵ^{}qP_\mu ,`$
$`_{2\mu }^{(\lambda )}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_1\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu (\lambda )P^\alpha q^\beta +g_2ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda )+g_3ϵ^{}qP_\mu ,`$ (27)
$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V^9(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}(\mu )T_1^7(q^2),`$
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`(m_B+m_K^{})A_1^9(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}PqT_2^7(q^2),`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2^9(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}\left(T_2^7(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{Pq}}T_3^7(q^2)\right),`$
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2),`$
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$ (28)
where the form factors associated with superscripts denote the relevant WCs convoluted with hard amplitudes and wave functions, described by

$`F^k(q^2)={\displaystyle [dx][db]\mathrm{\Phi }_K^{}^{}(x_2,\stackrel{}{b}_2)C_k(t)T_\mu (\{x\},\{\stackrel{}{b}\},M_B)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,\stackrel{}{b}_1)S_t(\{x\})e^{S(\{x\},\{\stackrel{}{b}\},M_B)}}.`$ (29)
It is worth to mention that for the convenient in the PQCD formalism, Eq. (29) can be written as $`F^kC_k(t_0)F`$ with F being the form factor and $`t_0=\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}`$.

### 3.2 Angular Distributions

In the literature, there are a lot of discussions on $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. However, most of them have been concentrated on the differential decay rates and lepton polarization and forward-backward asymmetries. It is known that the differential decay rates have large uncertainties from not only hadronic matrix elements but also the parametrizations of LD effects, and the lepton polarization asymmetries are hard to be observed due to the difficulties of measuring lepton polarizations. Therefore, to test the SM and search for new physics in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, it is necessary to find some other physical observables which have less theoretical uncertainties but measurable experimentally, similar to the zero positions in the forward-backward asymmetries . It is found that if one considers the decay chain of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, via the study of different angular distributing components, we can analyze (a) contributions from both longitudinal and transverse parts of the $`K^{}`$ polarization, (b) T-even (CP conserved) effects from the mixings of longitudinal and transverse polarizations of $`K^{}`$, and (c) T-odd effects from the mixings in (b). We note that some T-odd effects are suppressed in the SM and thus, measuring these effects could indicate CP violation from new physics .

To understand dynamical dependence in T-odd terms of $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu ϵ^\nu (\lambda )p_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha P^\beta `$, it is inevitable to investigate the processes of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ so that the polarization $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ in the differential decay rates, written as $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }H(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})`$ $`_K^{}^{(\lambda )}`$ $`_K^{}^{(\lambda ^{})}`$ with $`H(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})ϵ(\lambda )p_K`$ $`ϵ^{}(\lambda ^{})p_K`$, can be different. From Eq. (26), we see that $`_{2\mu }^{(\lambda )}`$ only depends on $`C_{10}`$. Clearly, T violating effects can not be generated from $`_{2\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{2\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}`$, but induced from $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{1\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}`$ as well as $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{2\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}`$. This can be understood as follows: firstly, for the $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{1\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}TrL^\mu L^\mu ^{}`$ part with $`TrL^\mu L^\mu ^{}(p_{\mathrm{}^{}}^\mu p_\mathrm{}^+^\mu ^{}+p_{\mathrm{}^{}}^\mu ^{}p_\mathrm{}^+^\mu g^{\mu \mu ^{}}p_{\mathrm{}^{}}p_\mathrm{}^+)`$, the relevant T-odd terms can be roughly expressed by

$`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{1\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}TrL^\mu L^\mu ^{}`$ $``$ $`Z_1Imh_1h_3^{}ϵ(0)q\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu ϵ^\nu (\pm )p_\mathrm{}^+^\alpha P^\beta `$ (30)
$`+Z_2Imh_1h_2^{}ϵ(0)p_\mathrm{}^+\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu ϵ^\nu (\pm )p_\mathrm{}^+^\alpha P^\beta `$
$`+Z_3Imh_1h_2^{}ϵ()p_\mathrm{}^+\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu ϵ^\nu (\pm )p_\mathrm{}^+^\alpha P^\beta `$
where $`Z_i(i=1,2,3)`$ are functions of kinematic variables. From Eq. (28), one gets $`Imh_1h_2^{}Imh_1h_3^{}ImC_9^{eff}(\mu )C_7(\mu )`$ . We note that, as shown in Eq. (30), the T-odd observables could be non-zero if the processes involve strong phases or absorptive parts even without CP violating phases. By means of Eq. (25), $`C_9^{eff}(\mu )`$ includes the absorptive parts such that the results of Eq. (30) do not vanish in the SM. Secondly, for $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{2\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}TrL^\mu L^{5\mu ^{}}`$, one gets

$`(_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{2\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}+_{2\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{1\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})})TrL^\mu L^{5\mu ^{}}(Imh_2g_3^{}Imh_3g_2^{})\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu ϵ^\nu (\pm )p_\mathrm{}^+^\alpha P^\beta `$ (31)
where $`TrL^\mu L^{5\mu ^{}}=4i\epsilon ^{\mu \mu ^{}\alpha \beta }q_\alpha p_{l^+\beta }`$ has been used. From Eq. (28), we find that $`Imh_2g_3^{}Imh_3g_2^{}`$ is only related to $`ImC_7(\mu )C_{10}^{}`$ and the dependence of $`ImC_9(\mu )C_{10}^{}`$ is canceled in Eq. (31). For the decays of $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, since the absorptive parts in $`C_7(\mu )`$ and $`C_{10}`$ are not expected, a non-vanishing value of $`ImC_7(\mu )C_{10}^{}`$ indicates pure weak CP violating effects.

In order to derive the whole differential decay rates with the $`K^{}`$ polarization, we choose that $`K^{}`$ helicities are $`ϵ(0)=(|\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}|,0,0,E_K^{})/M_K^{}`$ and $`ϵ(\pm )=(0,1,\pm i,0)/\sqrt{2}`$, the positron lepton momentum $`p_\mathrm{}^+=\sqrt{q^2}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}},0,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})/2`$ with $`E_K^{}=(M_B^2M_K^{}^2q^2)/2\sqrt{q^2}`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}|=\sqrt{E_K^{}^2M_K^{}^2}`$ in the $`q^2`$ rest frame, and the $`K`$ meson momentum $`p_K=(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta _K\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta _K)M_K^{}/2`$ in the $`K^{}`$ rest frame where $`\varphi `$ denotes the relative angle of the decaying plane between $`K\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. From Eq. (26), the differential decay rates of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ as functions of angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\theta _K`$ and $`\varphi `$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _Kd\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}d\varphi dq^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _{em}^2G_F^2|\lambda _t|^2|\stackrel{}{p}|}{2^{14}\pi ^6M_B^2}}Br(K^{}K\pi )`$ (32)
$`\times \{4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}|_i^0|^2`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(|_i^+|^2+|_i^{}|^2)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{cos}\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Re(_i^++_i^{})_i^0`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Im(_i^+_i^{})_i^0]`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Re(_i^+_i^{})+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Im(_i^+_i^{})\right]`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\left[2Re_1^+_2^+2Re_1^{}_2^{}\right]`$
$`+2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{cos}\varphi (Re_1^0(_2^+_2^{})+Re(_1^+_1^{})_2^0)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\varphi (Im_1^0(_2^++_2^{})Im(_1^++_1^{})_2^0)]\}`$
with

$`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{E^2M_K^{}^2},`$
$`E^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2+M_K^{}^2q^2}{2M_B}},`$
$`_a^0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{q^2}({\displaystyle \frac{E_K^{}}{M_K^{}}}f_2+2t|p_K^{}|\sqrt{q^2}{\displaystyle \frac{|p_K^{}|}{M_K^{}}}f_3),`$
$`_a^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{q^2}(\pm 2|p_K^{}|\sqrt{q^2}f_1+f_2t),`$ (33)
where $`a=1(2)`$ while $`f_i=h_i`$ $`(g_i)`$ ($`i=1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$). The polarization components $`_a^0`$ and $`_a^\pm `$ in Eq. (33) clearly represent the longitudinal and transverse polarizations, and can be easily obtained from Eq. (28), respectively. We note that other distributions for the $`K^{}`$ polarization and CP asymmetries are discussed in Refs.  and  and the photon polarization in $`BK^{}\gamma (K\pi )(l^+l^{})`$ is studied in Ref. .

From Eqs. (30) and (31), we know that $`Im(_i^+_i^{})_i^0`$ and $`Im(_i^+_i^{})`$ are from $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{1\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}TrL^\mu L^\mu ^{}`$, while $`Im_1^0(_2^++_2^{})Im(_1^++_1^{})_2^0`$ is induced by $`_{1\mu }^{(\lambda )}_{2\mu ^{}}^{(\lambda ^{})}TrL^\mu L^{5\mu ^{}}`$. Integrating the angular dependence in Eq. (32), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{dq^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`Br(K^{}K\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}^2G_F^2|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2|\stackrel{}{p}|}{3\times 2^8\pi ^5M_B^2}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(|_i^0|^2+|_i^+|^2+|_i^{}|^2)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{dq^2}}Br(K^{}K\pi ),`$
which conforms the well known equality of

$$Br\left(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}K\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\right)=Br\left(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\right)Br(K^{}K\pi ).$$

It is interesting to note that by integrating out $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (32), we have that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2dcos\theta _K}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2|\lambda _t|^2|\stackrel{}{p}|}{2^{10}\pi ^5m_B^2}}Br(K^{}K\pi )\{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}|_i^0|^2`$ (34)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(|_i^+|^2+|_i^{}|^2)\},`$
which allow us to define normalized longitudinal and transverse polarizations of $`K^{}`$ by

$`𝒫_L(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1,2}{}|_i^0|^2}{_\lambda _i|_i^\lambda |^2}},`$
$`𝒫_T(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1,2}{}|_i^+|^2+|_i^{}|^2}{_\lambda _i|_i^\lambda |^2}},`$ (35)
respectively.

### 3.3 Physical Observables

From Eq. (32), it is clear that there are 9 different helicity combinations in the amplitudes. As we will show next, among them, 6 are T-even and 3 T-odd. If each component can be extracted from the angular distribution, we should have 9 physical observables, which can be measured separately in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. To archive the purpose, we will propose some proper momentum correlation operators, so that each component of Eq. (32) can be singled out and measurable experimentally. In the following discussions, we use the $`K^{}`$ rest frame. The coordinates of relevant momenta are choosing as follows:

$`p_B`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma M_B,0,0,\gamma \beta M_B),p_\mathrm{}^+=E_\mathrm{}^+(p_\mathrm{}^+^0,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}},0,p_\mathrm{}^+^3),`$
$`p_\mathrm{}^+^0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2(1+\beta ^22\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),p_\mathrm{}^+^3=\gamma ^2((1+\beta ^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}2\beta ),`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{E^{}}},\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}},`$
$`E_K`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _K={\displaystyle \frac{M_K^{}}{2}},E_\mathrm{}^+=\omega _\mathrm{}^+={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}},`$ (36)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the usual Lorentz transformation factors. From Eq. (36), we have

$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|\omega _\mathrm{}^+}},`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|\omega _K}},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K||\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|}},`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{p}_B|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_K(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K||\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+|}}.`$ (37)
To relate the above angles to those in Eq. (37), we use momentum correlations denoted by $`𝒪_i`$ and define the physical observables by

$`𝒪_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒪_i\omega _i(u_{\theta _K},v_\theta _{\mathrm{}})\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}`$ (38)
where $`\omega _i(u_{\theta _K},v_\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$ are sign functions, $`i.e.`$,

$`\omega _i(u_{\theta _K},v_\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\theta _K}v_\theta _{\mathrm{}}}{|u_{\theta _K}v_\theta _{\mathrm{}}|}}`$ (39)
with $`u_{\theta _i}`$ being $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$. The asymmetries $`𝒜_i`$ and statistical significances $`\epsilon _i`$ of $`𝒪_i`$ are given by

$`𝒜_i(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<𝒪_i>}{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}},`$
$`\epsilon _i(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<𝒪_i>}{\sqrt{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}𝒪_i^2\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}}}.`$ (40)
We can also define the integrated asymmetries and statistical significances by

$`\overline{𝒜}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_i\omega _i(u_{\theta _K},v_\theta _{\mathrm{}})𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}{𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$
$`\overline{\epsilon }_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_i\omega _i(u_{\theta _K},v_\theta _{\mathrm{}})𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sqrt{𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒪_i^2𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}.`$ (41)
The numbers of $`B`$ mesons required to observe the effects at the $`n\sigma `$ level are given by

$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{BRA_i^2}},`$ (42)
where $`A_i`$ represent the asymmetries or the statistical significances and $`BR`$ the branching ratios of $`BK\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$.

To study the various parts of the angular distributions in Eq. (32), we use nine operators $`𝒪_i(i=1,2,\mathrm{},9)`$ and sign functions $`\omega _i`$ as follows:

$`𝒪_1`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2\omega _\mathrm{}^+^2}}3{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K|^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2\omega _K^2}},`$
$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1(\mathrm{sin}\theta _K,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (43)
$`𝒪_2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K|^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2\omega _K^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2\omega _\mathrm{}^+^2}},`$
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1,`$ (44)
$`𝒪_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K||\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|}},`$
$`\omega _3`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _3(\mathrm{cos}\theta _K,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (45)
$`𝒪_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B)]^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K|^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|^2}}|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_B\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K|^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|^2}},`$
$`\omega _4`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1,`$ (46)
$`𝒪_5`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\omega _5`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _5(\mathrm{sin}\theta _K,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (47)
$`𝒪_6`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_3,`$
$`\omega _6`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _6(\mathrm{cos}\theta _K,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (48)
$`𝒪_7`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{p}_B|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_K(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K||\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+|}},`$
$`\omega _7`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _7(\mathrm{cos}\theta _K,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (49)
$`𝒪_8`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{p}_B|{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_B\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)(\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K)(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_B\times \stackrel{}{p}_K|^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+\times \stackrel{}{p}_B|^2}},`$
$`\omega _8`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1,`$ (50)
$`𝒪_9`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_7,`$
$`\omega _9`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _6.`$ (51)
It is clear that the first six operators $`𝒪_i(i=16)`$ in Eqs. (43)-(48) are T-even observables, whereas the last three $`𝒪_j(i=79)`$ T-odd ones. We remark that the operators and sign functions in Eqs. (43)-(51) are the simplest ones to discuss the momentum correlations.

From Eqs. (32), (40), and (43)-(51), we find that

$`𝒜_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}|_i^0|^2,`$
$`𝒜_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(|_i^+|^2+|_i^{}|^2),`$
$`𝒜_3(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Re(_i^++_i^{})_i^0,`$
$`𝒜_4(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Re(_i^+_i^{}),`$
$`𝒜_5(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}(2Re_1^+_2^+2Re_1^{}_2^{}),`$
$`𝒜_6(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}(Re_1^0(_2^+_2^{})+Re(_1^+_1^{})_2^0),`$
$`𝒜_7(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Im(_i^+_i^{})_i^0,`$
$`𝒜_8(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{9\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}Im(_i^+_i^{}),`$
$`𝒜_9(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}(Im_1^0(_2^++_2^{})Im(_1^++_1^{})_2^0),`$ (52)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=64\pi /9_\lambda _i|_i^\lambda |^2`$. We note that the asymmetry $`𝒜_{1(2)}`$ in Eq. (52) is related to the longitudinal (transverse) polarization of $`K^{}`$ in Eq. (35). We can also evaluate $`\epsilon _i(q^2)`$ similar to those in Eq. (52) except the denominators due to $`𝒪_i^2𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }/𝑑q^2`$.

## 4 Numerical Analysis

In our numerical analysis, we use $`f_B=0.19`$, $`f_K^{}=0.21`$, $`f_K^{}^T=0.17`$, $`M_B=5.28`$, $`M_K^{}=0.892`$, $`m_b=4.8GeV`$, $`\lambda _t=0.04`$, $`\alpha _{em}=1/129`$, and $`c=0.4`$, and we take the $`B`$ meson wave function as

$$\varphi _B(x,b)=N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\frac{xM_B}{\omega _B})^2\frac{\omega _B^2b^2}{2}\right],$$
(53)
where $`\omega _B`$ is the shape parameter  and $`N_B`$ is determined by the normalization of the $`B`$ meson wave function, given by

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\varphi _B(x,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}.`$ (54)
Since the PQCD can be only applied to the outgoing particle of carrying a large energy, where a small coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ expansion is reliable, we only perform our numerical analysis in $`q^210GeV^2`$.

### 4.1 form factors

In Table 1,

we show the form factors parametrized in Eq. (10) with (I) $`\omega _B=0.40GeV`$ and (II) $`\omega _B=0.42GeV`$ at $`q^2=0`$. As comparisons, in the table we also give results from the light cone sum rule (LCSR) , quark model (QM) , and light front quark model (LFQM) . Since in the large energy effective theory (LEET) seven independent form factors in Eq. (10) can be reduced to two in the small $`q^2`$ region , in Table 1, we only show $`T_1(0)`$, $`V(0)`$, and $`A_1(0)`$  extracted by combining the LEET and the experimental data on $`BK^{}\gamma `$.

In our following numerical analysis, we only take the minimal results in the LCSR, which are consistent with those from the extraction of the LEET, as the representation of the LCSR. From Table 1, we find that our results from the PQCD agree with those from all other models except the QM.

It is interesting to point out that the decay branching ratio (BR) of $`B\varphi K^0`$ is found to be $`1.7(1.5)\times 10^5`$ for $`\omega _B=0.40(0.42)`$ , comparing with the recent BELLE’s result of $`1.3_{0.52}^{+0.64}\pm 0.21\times 10^5`$ . Here, the overwhelming contributions to BRs of $`B\varphi K^{}`$ are from the longitudinal parts, where the form factor $`A_0`$ plays an essential role. We remark that $`A_0`$ does not appear in our present analysis due to the light lepton mass neglected. However, one can obtain the value of $`A_0`$ if more accurate measurements on the modes of $`B\varphi K^{}`$ are available in the near future. After getting $`A_0(0)`$ and $`A_1(0)`$ , we can find $`A_2(0)`$ from the identity in Eq. (2.2). Furthermore, by using the relations among the form factors in the HQET , one can easily get $`T_3(0)`$ as well. In sum, in terms of the measurements of $`B\varphi K^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\gamma `$ together with the HQET and LEET, all form factors at $`q^2=0`$ for $`BK^{}`$ can be extracted model-independently.

In Figures 1-7, we display the form factors $`V(q^2)`$, $`A_{0,1,2}(q^2)`$, and $`T_{1,2,3}(q^2)`$ as functions of $`s=q^2/M_B^2`$, in the LCSR, QM, LFQM, PQCD (I), and PQCD (II), representing by the solid, dash-dotted, dotted, square and circle curves, respectively.

### 4.2 Differential decay rates

We now present the dilepton invariant mass distributions for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ by integrating all angular dependence in the phase space. The distribution for the decay mode with a muon pair in various QCD approaches is shown in Figure 8, where (a) and (b) represent the results with and without resonant effects, respectively. From the figures, we find that the PQCD results are consistent with the minimal ones in the LCSR approach due to similar form factors in the lower $`q^2`$ region in both models. Here, we have set that all WCs are involved at the $`m_b`$ scale for all QCD approaches except the PQCD one. As emphasized in Sec. III, in the PQCD formalism WCs should be convoluted with hard parts and meson wave functions of $`B`$ and $`K^{}`$. Due to the hard gluon exchange, with the momentum squared, $`|k_{}|^2`$, being off-shellness in magnitude of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B)`$, dominated in the fast recoil region, the PQCD approach involves a lower scale . As a consequence, even using the concept of the naive factorization, where the decay amplitude is expressed by the product of the WC and the corresponding form factor, the typical scale $`t_0`$ in the PQCD should be much less than $`M_B`$ or $`M_B/2`$. To illustrate the scale dependent on the WCs, we display the $`C_7(\mu )`$ and $`C_9(\mu )`$, renormalized by themselves at $`m_b`$, as functions of $`\mu `$-scale in Figure 9. In Figure 10, we show the decay rate of $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ with the relevant WCs fixed at $`t_0=1.3`$, $`1.5`$, $`1.7`$ and $`5.0`$ GeV, respectively. From the figure, we find that the result with $`t_0=1.3`$ GeV is compatible with that from the formal PQCD approach. Similar conclusion is also expected for the electron mode.

### 4.3 Physical observables

Because the numerical values of $`𝒜_i(q^2)`$ are similar to $`\epsilon _i(q^2)`$, in the following numerical calculations, without loss of generality we concentrate on $`\epsilon _i(q^2)`$. Moreover, we will not discuss the contributions from $`𝒪_{3,4,7,8}`$ since they are very small.

In Figures 11 and 12, we show the statistical significances of $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$, related to the longitudinal and transverse polarizations of $`K^{}`$, in various QCD approaches, respectively. From these figures, we see that the differences among different QCD approaches are insignificant, $`i.e.`$, they are not sensitive to hadronic effects so that they can be used as good candidates to test the SM as well as search for new physics.

In Figures 13 and 14, we display $`\epsilon _5(s)`$ and $`\epsilon _6(s)`$ as functions of $`s=q^2/M_B^2`$, which correspond to the angular distributions of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K`$ in Eq. (32) and depend both on $`ReC_9^{eff}C_{10}^{}`$ and $`ReC_7C_{10}^{}`$, respectively. From the figures, we see that the zero points of $`\epsilon _5`$ and $`\epsilon _6`$ in the PQCD are quite different from others. Hence, by measuring these distributions, especially those zero points, we can distinguish the PQCD results from other QCD models.

To show T violating effects, we concentrate on the T-odd operator of $`𝒪_9`$ and consider new CP violating sources beyond the CKM. In the SM, the contribution to $`\epsilon _9`$ is less than $`O(1\%)`$. As illustrations, in Figures 15 and 16, we present our results by taking (i) $`ImC_7=0.25`$ and (ii) $`ImC_7=0.25`$ and $`ImC_{10}=0.20`$ with the others being the same as those in the SM, respectively. One possible origin of having these imaginary parts is from SUSY where there are many CP violating sources. It is interesting to see that the CP violating effect in Figure 16 can be as large as $`30\%`$ in these models with new physics. We emphasize that a measurement of such effect is a clear indication of new physics as contrast with the decay rates for which one could not distinguish the non-standard effect due to the large uncertainties in various QCD models as shown in Figure 8. Finally, we note that unlike $`\epsilon _9`$, $`\epsilon _{7,8}`$ receive contributions from the absorptive parts in $`C_9^{eff}(\mu )`$ in the SM and they conserve CP. On the other hand, they are much smaller than $`\epsilon _9`$ in new physics models such as the ones in (i) and (ii). Due to the uncertainty in the form of $`C_9^{eff}(\mu )`$ in Eq. (25), we shall not discuss them further.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the exclusive decays of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ within the framework of the PQCD. We have obtained the form factors for the $`BK^{}`$ transition in the large recoil region, where the PQCD for heavy $`B`$ meson decays is reliable. We have found that the form factors at $`q^2=0`$ are consistent with those from most of the other QCD models, in particular, the LEET combined with the HQET and the experimental data on $`BK^{}\gamma `$. We have related the angle distributions in the decay chains of $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ with 9 physical observables due to the different helicity combinations in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. In particular, we have shown that the T-odd observable can be used to test the SM and search for new physics, which is $`<O(1\%)`$ and up to $`O(10\%)`$, respectively. Finally, we remark that to measure such an $`10\%`$ CP violating effect experimentally at the $`1\sigma `$ level, for example, in $`BK\pi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ one need at least $`7.7\times 10^7B\overline{B}`$, which is accessible in the current B factories at KEK and SLAC.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank K. Hagiwara, W.S. Hou, Y.Y. Keum, and H.N. Li for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under Contract Nos. NSC-90-2112-M-001-069 and NSC-90-2112-M-007-040 and the National Center for Theoretical Science.


text:
# References

On the vanishing of higher syzygies of curves. II
Marian Aprodu111Supported by an E.C. Marie Curie Fellowship, contract number HPMF-CT-2000-00895
Romanian Academy, Institute of Mathematics ”Simion Stoilow”, P.O.Box 1-764, RO-70700, Bucharest, Romania (e-mail: Marian.Aprodu@imar.ro) &
Université de Grenoble 1, Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Institut Fourier BP 74, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France (e-mail: aprodu@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr)

One of the remarkable results of Segre’s, quoted in \[AC\] as Theorem 0.2, states that generic $`k`$-gonal curves have distinguished nodal models lying on the Hirzebruch surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, in such a way that minimal pencils are given by the ruling. Since there exist several results relating Koszul cohomology of a surface to the Koszul cohomology of curves which lie on it, it seems natural to make use of this very geometric context to verify some cases of Green’s conjecture. As exemplified by the main result of this short Note (to be compared to \[Sch\]), this strategy works well for curves of gonality much smaller than the generic value (as for the case of generic curves of large gonality, other recently developped approaches, like the innovative one of \[Vo\], are much more efficient).
Theorem 1.Green’s conjecture is valid for a generic $`k`$-gonal curve of genus $`g`$, for which $`gk(k1)/2`$.
The idea of proof consists of showing some vanishing result for the Koszul cohomology of blowups of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, and bringing this into relation with Koszul cohomology of strict transforms of nodal curves on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$. The fact of working over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ is not essential, and we can actually state similar results for an arbitrary Hirzebruch surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$, as follows (we freely use the notation of \[Ap\], such as $`C_0`$ for the minimal section, $`f`$ for the fibre of the ruling etc, without further mention).
Theorem 2.Let $`e0`$, $`\alpha 2`$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ be four integers which satisfy the following inequalities $`\beta \text{max}\{\alpha e,\alpha +e\}`$, and $`\gamma \beta (e1)\alpha `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$ be the blowup of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$ in a set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma \}`$ of generic points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$, denote $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the exceptional divisor, and $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_e}(\alpha C_0+\beta f)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`K_{p,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },H_\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ for all $`ph^0H_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha 1`$.
Proof. We show first that there exists a set of points $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma \}`$, for which vanishing of the Koszul cohomology on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ holds as stated in the conclusion. We denote $`L=𝒪_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_e}(\alpha C_0+\beta f)`$, and we choose $`Y|L|`$ a smooth curve (such a curve does exist, as $`\beta \alpha e`$, and $`\beta >0`$). Since $`\gamma \beta (e1)\alpha =\text{deg}\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_e}(C_0+f)_{|Y}\right)`$, there exists a set of points $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma \}Y`$, such that $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_e}(C_0+f)_{|Y}x_1\mathrm{}x_\gamma `$ is effective. Therefore, Theorem 6.3 of \[Ap\] applies in our case, and thus $`K_{p,1}(Y,L_{|Y}x_1\mathrm{}x_\gamma )=0`$ for all $`ph^0(Y,L_{|Y}x_1\mathrm{}x_\gamma )\alpha `$. In particular, by means of \[Ap\] Remark 1.3 applied for the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{Y}|H_\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ of $`Y`$, we obtain $`K_{p,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },H_\mathrm{\Gamma })=0,`$ for all $`ph^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },H_\mathrm{\Gamma })\alpha 1`$, as claimed. Furthermore, as the line bundle $`L_{|Y}x_1\mathrm{}x_\gamma `$ is nonspecial, the points $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma \}`$ impose independent conditions on the linear system $`|L|`$.
Next, we claim the vanishing of the Koszul cohomology of bundles $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on different blowups of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$ is an open condition in families of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s which impose independent conditions on $`|L|`$. This comes from the fact that we can describe $`K_{p,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },H_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as the cohomology in the middle of the complex

$$\stackrel{p+1}{}H^0(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })H^0(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{p}{}H^0(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })H^0(L^2)\stackrel{p1}{}H^0(H_\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

As the first map is always injective, and the complex above is the fiber-restriction of a complex of vector bundles over the locus parametrizing the cycles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which impose independent conditions on $`|L|`$, the claim follows.
Remark 3.  The condition $`\beta \text{max}\{\alpha e,\alpha +e\}`$ is equivalent to saying that the ruling on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$ restricts to a minimal pencil to any irreducible smooth curve in the linear system $`|L|`$.
An immediate consequence of Theorem 2 is the following.
Corollary 4.Let $`e0`$, $`k4`$, $`m`$, and $`\gamma `$ be four integers which satisfy the following inequalities $`m\text{max}\{(k1)e+2,k+2e\}`$, and $`\gamma me2(k2)(e1)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma \}`$ be a set of generic points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$, and let $`X`$ be an irreducible curve on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_e`$, numerically equivalent to $`kC_0+mf`$, having ordinary nodes at $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_\gamma `$ and no other singular points. If $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ denotes the normalization of $`X`$, then the Clifford dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ equals one, and Green’s conjecture is valid for $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.
Proof. The proof runs in a similar way to that of \[Ap\], 8.1, so we shall only sketch it here. We set $`\alpha =k2`$, and $`\beta =me2`$, and we use the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 2. We also denote the genus of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ by $`g=(k1)(m1ke/2)\gamma `$. We observe that $`h^0(H_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{X})=h^1(H_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{X})=0`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{\Gamma }|\stackrel{~}{X}}=K_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$, which altogether yield to a long exact sequence:

$$\mathrm{}K_{p,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },H_\mathrm{\Gamma })K_{p,1}(\stackrel{~}{X},K_{\stackrel{~}{X}})K_{p1,2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },\stackrel{~}{X},H_\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{}$$

By means of Green’s vanishing \[Gr\] 3.a.1., we obtain $`K_{p1,2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },\stackrel{~}{X},H_\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ for $`ph^0(2H_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{X})+1`$. As $`h^0(2H_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{X})+1gk+1`$, we apply Theorem 2 to conclude.
Proof of Theorem 1. Thanks to \[AC\], 4.7, we know that for any integers $`k`$, $`m`$, and $`\gamma `$ satisfying the inequalities $`k4`$, $`mk+2`$, and $`\gamma m3`$, and for any set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\gamma `$ points in general position on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, there exists an irreducible curve $`X`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, numerically equivalent to $`kC_0+mf`$, and having ordinary nodes at the points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and no other singular points. In view of Corollary 4, and of semicontinuity of graded Betti numbers, what is left from the proof is now a purely numerical matter: for any integers $`k4`$, and $`gk(k1)/2`$, there exist $`mk+2`$, and $`0\gamma m3`$, such that $`g=(k1)(m1k/2)\gamma `$.


text:
# Towards a third-order topological invariant for magnetic fields

## 1 Introduction

The topological structure of magnetic fields is an important subject in plasma physics. There, among other issues, it is related to the problem of stability of a plasma and to its energy content. Fields with an enormous wealth of entangled, braided or knotted field lines exist for example in the solar atmosphere. Note that the topological complexity of these solar magnetic fields is only revealed, if first, one takes into account that the observed loops anchored in the photosphere are closed by subphotospheric fields, and second, that already simple toroidal equilibria contain many different knotted and linked field lines. The simplest examples are the so called torus knots, which are formed by field lines where the quotient of the number of windings around the core and the torus axis is rational.

In general, magnetic fields in plasmas are not static, but evolve due to the motion of the plasma. The evolution of solar as well as most astrophysical magnetic fields is given in good approximation by the induction equation of ideal magnetohydrodynamics (IMHD)

$$\frac{}{t}𝐁\times (𝐯\times 𝐁)=0,$$
(1)
which shows that the field can be considered as frozen-in with respect to the plasma velocity $`𝐯`$. The approximation of IMHD which leads to this law is valid as long as the evolution does not lead to small scale structures, e.g. thin current sheets.

The ideal induction equation guarantees the conservation of the topology of field lines under the flow of $`𝐯`$, i.e. every linkage or knottedness of magnetic flux is preserved. Mathematically speaking, the flow of $`𝐯`$ is a differentiable isotopy of the space under consideration. It maps the field lines of $`𝐁`$ at time $`t_0`$ to a topologically equivalent set of field lines for any later time $`t>t_0`$. Let us note that, following the usual terminology in plasma physics, the term ‘topological equivalent’ is used here in the sense of a diffeomorphic isotopy.

In order to describe the structure of magnetic fields, it is desirable to have measures of complexity. These measures should be topological, i.e. they should be invariant under an arbitrary isotopy of the magnetic field, and therefore invariant under the ideal induction equation. An example of a topological measure for magnetic fields is the magnetic helicity, a quantity which has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years (see e.g. Brown et al1999). Magnetic helicity, which measures the linkage of magnetic flux, is only a lowest order topological measure. It fails for instance to detect the interlocking of magnetic flux tubes in form of the Borromean rings or the Whitehead link (see Figure 1). The total magnetic helicity of these configurations vanishes just as it does for three or two unlinked flux tubes. Both configurations must possess a higher order linkage or knottedness of magnetic flux which is not detected by magnetic helicity. This naturally raises the question whether corresponding higher order measures similar to magnetic helicity exist which are sensitive to these linkages. Here we would like to remark that the configurations shown in Figure 1 are highly idealized. In any real plasma we would not find this pure linkage but a mixture of different types of linkages, each of which is to be measured by a different integral.

In knot theory different invariants are known which distinguish e.g. the Borromean rings or the Whitehead link from unlinked rings. The problem is that invariants used in physical applications, e.g. in magnetohydrodynamics, should be expressed in terms of observable quantities, in our setting in terms of the magnetic field $`𝐁`$. Up to now only the helicity, which is related to the Gauß linking number, has been formulated as an invariant for magnetic fields in a satisfactory manner. As was recognized first by Monastyrsky and Sasorov (1987) and independently by Berger (1990) and Evans and Berger (1992), the link invariants based on so-called higher Massey products (see Massey 1958, 1969, Kraines 1966, Fenn 1983) can be written as invariants applicable to magnetic flux tubes. Similar to helicity, they only involve the magnetic fields and can be expressed as volume integrals over the space in consideration. Their disadvantage is that their usage is restricted to magnetic fields confined to isolated flux tubes. In addition, these flux tubes must not possess a linkage lower than the linkage which is measured.

In this paper we present a generalized third-order invariant for three magnetic fields not confined to isolated flux tubes. In the case of isolated flux tubes this invariant coincides with the invariant known from the Massey triple product. Using gauge fields in the context of an $`SU(2)`$ symmetry, the generalized invariant can be shown to originate from the same equation as helicity. Therefore, we will first recapitulate some basic facts about magnetic helicity before we turn to our main subject, the third-order link invariant.

## 2 Magnetic helicity

Magnetic helicity of a field $`𝐁`$ with arbitrary vector potential $`𝐀`$ is defined as

$$H(𝐁)=_V𝐀𝐁\text{d}^3x,𝐁𝐧|_V=0,$$
(2)
which can readily be shown to be gauge invariant if no magnetic flux crosses the boundary of the volume. Since it is quadratic in magnetic flux it is often referred to as a second-order topological invariant. Magnetic helicity measures the total mutual linkage of magnetic flux. This interpretation can be motivated if we envisage a simple system of two isolated and closed flux tubes $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ with vanishingly small cross-section. The latter condition ensures that the (self-)helicities of the flux tubes vanish. Moffatt (1969) has shown that for this configuration the helicity integral yields $`H(𝐁)=2\varphi _1\varphi _2\text{lk}(U_1,U_2)`$, where $`\text{lk}(U_1,U_2)`$ is the Gauß linking number (Gauß 1867) of the two tubes and where $`\varphi _i`$ is the magnetic flux in the tube $`U_i`$. Introducing an asymptotic linking number, Arnol’d (1974) was able to extend this interpretation to the generic case where field lines are not necessarily closed (see also Arnol’d & Khesin 1998, Part III, §4).

Similar to helicity we can introduce the more general cross-helicity of two magnetic fields $`𝐁_1`$ and $`𝐁_2`$. For a simply connected volume $`V`$ and provided that $`𝐁_1𝐧|_V=𝐁_2𝐧|_V=0`$ we define

$$H(𝐁_1,𝐁_2):=_V𝐀_1𝐁_2\text{d}^3x=_V𝐁_1𝐀_2\text{d}^3x.$$
(3)
The boundary conditions ensure that this is again a gauge invariant quantity. To see that the two integrals on the right-hand side are equivalent, note that they differ only by a surface integral $`(𝐀_1\times 𝐀_2)𝐧\text{d}^2x`$. This can be shown to vanish using the equivalence of $`𝐁_i𝐧|_V=0`$ with $`𝐀_i\times 𝐧|_V=0`$ in a certain gauge and for a simply connected volume $`V`$, as proved in A. Since both integrals are gauge invariant this proves the equality for any gauge.

$`H(𝐁_1,𝐁_2)`$ measures purely the cross linkage of flux among the two fields. Applied to our system of two isolated closed flux tubes with fields $`𝐁_1+𝐁_2=𝐁`$ in the corresponding tubes this invariant yields

$$H(𝐁_1,𝐁_2)=2\varphi _1\varphi _2\text{lk}(U_1,U_2),$$
(4)
which is now valid without the assumption of vanishingly small tube cross-sections.

The significance of magnetic helicity arises from the fact that it is invariant in IMHD. Using merely the homogeneous Maxwell equations we obtain

$$_t(𝐀𝐁)+\left(A_0𝐁+𝐄\times 𝐀\right)=2𝐄𝐁,$$
(5)
which describes the time evolution of helicity density $`𝐀𝐁`$. Here $`A_0`$ is the electric potential and $`𝐄`$ the electric field. The term $`A_0𝐁+𝐄\times 𝐀`$ is to be interpreted as a helicity current, and $`2𝐄𝐁`$ as a source term. In an ideal plasma, i.e. with $`𝐄+𝐯\times 𝐁=0`$, the source term vanishes and the helicity current can be written as

$$A_0𝐁+𝐄\times 𝐀=A_0𝐁+𝐯\left(𝐀𝐁\right)𝐁\left(𝐀𝐯\right).$$
(6)
Therefore equation (5) takes the form:

$$_t\left(𝐀𝐁\right)+\left(𝐯\left(𝐀𝐁\right)\right)=\left(\chi 𝐁\right),$$
(7)
with $`\chi =A_0+𝐀𝐯`$. Elsasser (1956) already noticed that a particular gauge can be found such that $`\chi =0`$. Using either this gauge or an arbitrary gauge together with the boundary condition $`𝐁𝐧|_V=0`$ this last equation implies the conservation of helicity in a comoving volume for an ideal plasma, since

$$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t}\underset{V}{}𝐀𝐁\text{d}^3x=\underset{V}{}_t\left(𝐀𝐁\right)+\left(𝐯\left(𝐀𝐁\right)\right)\text{d}^3x=\underset{V}{}\chi 𝐁𝐧\text{d}^2x=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(8)
The invariance of integral (2) was first stated by Woltjer (1958).

## 3 A third-order invariant from the Chern-Simons three-form

In this section we construct a third-order invariant which, under conditions specified below, yields an invariant for three magnetic fields. The derivation is based on some basic knowledge in differential geometry found e.g. in Frankel (1997).

We have noted before that equation (5) can be derived purely from the homogeneous Maxwell equations. Written in differential forms it reads

$$\text{d}(A\text{d}A)=FF,$$
(9)
where $`A`$ is the one-form potential of the field $`F`$. The right-hand side of this equation is one of two (pseudo-) scalar Lorentz invariants that can be constructed from the field tensor. We can interpret this equation as a special case of a general result in the theory of Chern forms, namely the exactness of the second Chern form

$$\text{d}tr(A\text{d}Aiq\frac{2}{3}AAA)=tr(FF).$$
(10)
In this equation $`A`$ and $`F`$ are a matrix valued one- and two-form. To be more precise they take their values in the Lie-Algebra $`𝔤`$ of the structure group. In Yang-Mills theory this is the symmetry group of the interaction under consideration, with coupling constant $`q`$. On the vector space $`𝔤`$ the trace defines a natural scalar product. For $`\omega `$, $`\theta 𝔤`$, $`\mathrm{tr}(\omega \theta )=\omega _{ij}\theta _{ji}`$, where the indices denote matrix components.

Equation (10) holds for an arbitrary, not necessarily Abelian, field strength $`F=\text{d}AiqAA`$. The three-form on the left-hand side is known as the Chern-Simons three-form. For the case of electrodynamics, i.e. for the Abelian structure group $`U(1)`$, $`F`$ is given by $`F=\text{d}A`$, since $`AA`$ vanishes and equation (10) reduces to (9). In the non-Abelian case equation (10) splits into a real and imaginary part

$`\mathrm{tr}(\text{d}A\text{d}A)=\text{d}\mathrm{tr}(A\text{d}A),`$ (11)
$`2\mathrm{tr}(AA\text{d}A)=\text{d}\mathrm{tr}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}AAA).`$ (12)
As we will see in the following a third-order invariant can be derived from identity (12) for the special case of the structure group $`SU(2)`$.

Working with an $`SU(2)`$ structure group it is appropriate to choose the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i`$, $`i`$=$`1,2,3`$, as a basis for the Lie Algebra $`su(2)`$. All results, however, are independent of this choice. The gauge potential $`A`$ and field strength $`F`$ now have three components

$`A=\sigma _iA^i,F=\sigma _iF^i,`$ (13)
where the summation convention over repeated indices is assumed. Let us note that in the following we will refer to these fields as Yang-Mills fields, although they do not necessarily satisfy the Yang-Mills equation. Using the identities for Pauli matrices

$`\sigma _j\sigma _k=iϵ_{jkl}\sigma _l+\delta _{jk}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{and}\sigma _j\sigma _k\sigma _l=iϵ_{jkl}\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (14)
equations (11) and (12) read

$`\text{d}A^i\text{d}A^i=\text{d}(A^i\text{d}A^i),`$ (15)
$`ϵ_{ijk}\text{d}A^iA^jA^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{d}(ϵ_{ijk}A^iA^jA^k).`$ (16)
If we now interpret the three components of the Yang-Mills potential $`A`$ as three independent potentials of three electromagnetic fields $`F_{EM}^i=\text{d}A^i`$, the first identity states the helicity conservation (in IMHD) for the sum of the self-helicities of the three individual fields $`F_{EM}^i`$, similar to the electrodynamic case. The second identity is new. For convenience we introduce the two-form $`G^1=A^2A^3`$, here on $`IM^4`$, and cyclic permutations of it. Then we can write the second identity as

$$\frac{1}{3}\text{d}(A^iG^i)=F_{EM}^iG^i.$$
(17)
To complete the analogy of this equation with equation (5) we have to rewrite it in the language of three-vectors. Therefore we represent the one-form $`A^i`$ by the time component $`A_0^i`$ and the three-vector $`𝐀^i`$ of the corresponding four-vector. The two-form $`G^1`$ is identified with the vector pair $`(𝐆_E^1,𝐆_B^1)=(A_0^3𝐀^2A_0^2𝐀^3,𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3)`$, equivalent to the identification of $`F_{EM}`$ with the three-vector pair ($`𝐄`$,-$`𝐁`$). Cyclic permutations immediately lead to corresponding pairs for $`G^2`$ and $`G^3`$. Using these conventions, the left- and right-hand side of equation (17) read respectively

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{d}(A^iG^i)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(_t(𝐀^i𝐆_B^i)+(A_0^i𝐆_B^i+𝐀^i\times 𝐆_E^i)\right)\text{vol}^4`$
$`=\left(_t(𝐀^1𝐆_B^1)+(A_0^i𝐆_B^i)\right)\text{vol}^4`$
and

$$F_{EM}^iG^i=(𝐄^i𝐆_B^i𝐁^i𝐆_E^i)\text{vol}^4=(𝐄^i𝐆_B^iA_0^i𝐆_B^i)\text{vol}^4.$$

Thus, identity (17) is equivalent to

$$_t(𝐀^1𝐆_B^1)+(A_0^i𝐆_B^i)=𝐄^i𝐆_B^i+A_0^i𝐆_B^i,$$
(18)
which shows a similar structure as equation (5) in the case of helicity. It describes the time evolution of the density $`𝐀^1𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3`$ with its current $`A_0^i𝐆_B^i`$ and source term $`𝐄^i𝐆_B^i+A_0^i𝐆_B^i`$. This is the basis for the following theorem.

Theorem: Let $`𝐁^1`$, $`𝐁^2`$ and $`𝐁^3`$ be three magnetic fields with potentials $`𝐀^i`$ satisfying $`𝐄^i+𝐯\times 𝐁^i=0`$. The integral over a volume $`VIR^3`$

$$H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3):=_V𝐀^1𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3\text{d}^3x$$
(19)
is a gauge invariant, conserved quantity, if

1. the potentials obey $`(𝐀^i\times 𝐀^j)=0`$ for all $`i,j=1,2,3`$,
2. the potentials obey the boundary condition $`𝐀^i\times 𝐧|_V=0`$ for $`𝐧`$ being the normal vector to the boundary of the integration volume $`V`$.

Proof: Let us first remark that condition (2) of the theorem implies $`𝐁^i𝐧|_V=0`$ as shown in A. It is therefore consistent with condition (1) since $`0=(𝐁^i𝐀^j𝐀^i𝐁^j)|_V=(𝐀^i\times 𝐀^j)|_V`$. Moreover, we show in A that for a simply connected volume with $`𝐁^i𝐧|_V=0`$ condition (2) can always be satisfied. In order to prove the invariance of $`H^{(3)}`$ we observe that in an ideal dynamics equation (18) can be written as

$`_t(𝐀^1𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3)+`$ $`\left(𝐯(𝐀^1𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3)\right)=`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐯(𝐀^i𝐆_B^i)A_0^i𝐆_B^i\right)+(A_0^i𝐀^i𝐯)𝐆_B^i,`$
where the last term vanishes due to condition (1).

Integrating over the volume $`V`$ yields the total time derivative of $`H^{(3)}`$ on the left-hand side, while the right-hand side can be converted into a surface integral, analogous to equation (8) in the case of helicity. The surface integral vanishes since condition (2) of the theorem implies $`𝐆_B^i=0`$ on the boundary of the volume $`V`$. This, together with the gauge invariance of $`H^{(3)}`$ shown in B, completes the proof.

## 4 Interpretation of the invariant

It is interesting to note that the new third-order invariant comes on an equal footing as the conservation of helicity, since both invariants where derived from the same identity (10). However, contrary to the conservation of helicity, the third-order integral cannot be applied to a single magnetic field, but requires a triplet of fields. Thus we have to interpret this integral in the sense of the cross-helicity rather than the total helicity. A forthcoming paper will deal with the question of how a single magnetic field might be split into a triplet of fields with the required properties $`𝐆^i=0`$, thereby linking the given cross third-order invariant and a total third-order invariant.

There is another way of looking at the new third-order invariant. By writing

$$H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3)=_V𝐀^1𝐆_B^1\text{d}^3x=H(𝐁^1,𝐆_B^1),$$
(20)
the integral is to be interpreted as the cross-helicity of the two divergence-free fields $`𝐁^1`$ and $`𝐆_B^1`$. Note that the boundary conditions for the cross-helicity, namely $`𝐁^1𝐧=0`$ and $`𝐆_B^1𝐧=0`$, are fulfilled due to condition (2) of the theorem. From this new interpretation the condition $`𝐆_B^1=0`$ is an obvious requirement analogous to $`𝐁=0`$. Furthermore, the symmetry of $`H^{(3)}`$ leads to

$$H(𝐁^1,𝐆_B^1)=H(𝐁^2,𝐆_B^2)=H(𝐁^3,𝐆_B^3),$$
(21)
which reveals the additional conditions $`𝐆_B^2=0`$ and $`𝐆_B^3=0`$. Let us note that this interpretation does not simplify the direct calculation of the third-order invariant. It is still necessary to determine the fields $`𝐆_B^i`$ which are not independent of the chosen representatives $`𝐀^i`$.

Third-order linking integrals for magnetic fields have been constructed from the Massey triple product already by Monastyrsky and Sasorov (1987), Berger (1990) and also Ruzmaikin and Akhmetiev (1994). However, these constructions are limited to cases where the three fields are confined to three isolated and mutually unlinked flux tubes with disjunct support. It is in fact easy to see that for this special case their invariants coincide with the integral (19) given above. An explicit proof is given in C. In particular, it is worth noting that for fields with mutually disjunct support the condition $`𝐆_B^i=0`$ implies that the cross-helicity of all pairs of fields vanishes, i.e. their flux tubes have to be mutually unlinked.

For a set of three arbitrary magnetic fields $`𝐆_B^i=0`$ cannot always be satisfied. To show that there are examples for which this can be satisfied, beyond the cases of three fields with mutually disjunct support, we give an explicit example in the next section.

## 5 Example of three magnetic fields with a third-order linkage

In this section we want to give an example of three magnetic fields not confined to flux tubes, which firstly allow for one-form potentials that obey $`\text{d}(A^iA^j)=0`$ and where secondly the integral invariant (19) yields a non-trivial result. The existence of such an example proves that the new invariant is indeed a generalization of the third-order invariant derived from a Massey triple product which was applicable merely to unlinked flux tubes. The fields we construct show an extraordinary high symmetry. For this reason they are interesting in their own right.

The idea to construct three fields $`A^i`$ on $`IR^4`$ which obey $`\text{d}(A^iA^j)=0`$ comes from Yang-Mills theory: An $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills field

$$F=\text{d}AiqAA$$
(22)
can, in view of equation (13) and the identities for Pauli matrices (14), be written as

$$F^i=\text{d}A^i+qϵ_{ijk}A^jA^k.$$
(23)
By taking the exterior derivative of $`F`$,

$$\text{d}F^i=qϵ_{ijk}\text{d}(A^jA^k),$$
(24)
we immediately observe that $`\text{d}F=0`$ is a sufficient condition for all $`\text{d}(A^iA^j)`$ to vanish. In the special case of a vacuum Yang-Mills field, i.e. $`F=0`$, the requirement $`\text{d}F=0`$ is trivially fulfilled. If we now reinterpret the three components of the Yang-Mills potential as potentials of three independent magnetic fields, we have constructed an example field configuration to which the invariant (19) can be applied.

### 5.1 Yang-Mills potentials of a vacuum field with non-vanishing winding number

An $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills vacuum field is now constructed on a time slice $`IR^3`$ of $`IR^4`$ using the mapping $`g:IR^3SU(2)`$ (see e.g. Frankel 1997, Itzykson and Zuber 1980)

$$g(𝐱)=\text{exp}\left[\frac{i\pi x^j\sigma _j}{\sqrt{𝐱^2+\lambda ^2}}\right].$$
(25)
Interpreted as a gauge transformation of an $`SU(2)`$ classical vacuum, i.e. with vanishing connection $`\omega =0`$, $`g(𝐱)`$ gives rise to the pure gauge connection

$$\omega =g^1(𝐱)\text{d}g(𝐱),$$
(26)
and the Yang-Mills potential one-form $`A=\frac{i}{q}\omega `$ reads

$$A^j\sigma _j=\frac{i}{q}g^1(𝐱)\text{d}g(𝐱).$$
(27)
At this point we want to remark that the vacuum winding number of $`\omega `$, which is defined to be the degree of the map $`g`$, is $`W(g)=1`$. An important consequence of this non-trivial winding number will be a non-trivial value of the invariant $`H^{(3)}`$, as can be seen in equations (32) and (5.2) below.

In order to explicitly calculate the one-form potential $`A`$ given by the last expression we use that $`g(𝐱)`$, as an element of $`SU(2)`$, has the form

$`g(𝐱)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}\sigma _jn^j\right)=\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}\right)i\sigma _j\widehat{n}^j\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}\right),`$ (28)
where $`𝐧=f\widehat{𝐧}`$ and where $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is a unit vector in $`IR^3`$ with coordinate components $`\widehat{n}^j=x^j/𝐱`$. A comparison with equation (25) shows

$`f`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi 𝐱}{\sqrt{𝐱^2+\lambda ^2}}}.`$ (29)
Substituting equation (28) into (27) we obtain after some calculation

$$A^i=\frac{1}{2q}\left[\widehat{n}^i\text{d}f+\text{d}\widehat{n}^i\mathrm{sin}f+ϵ_{ijk}\widehat{n}^j\text{d}\widehat{n}^k(\mathrm{cos}f1)\right].$$
(30)
### 5.2 Magnetic fields constructed from Yang-Mills potentials

As mentioned above we now interpret the three components of the non-Abelian pure gauge Yang-Mills potential $`A`$ as potentials of three independent, non-vanishing magnetic fields. It is sufficient to consider only one of the three potentials $`A^i`$, since due to $`\widehat{n}^i=x^i/𝐱`$ and the cyclic symmetry of equation (30) in the indices $`i,j,k`$ all three fields can be obtained from just one field by rotations that map the $`x^i`$-axes on one another. From equation (30) we calculate the vector potential $`𝐀^3`$ in spherical coordinates $`x=r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi `$, $`y=r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\phi `$, and $`z=r\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$. Using unit basis vectors $`𝐞_r,𝐞_\vartheta ,𝐞_\phi `$ and fixing a value for the “coupling constant” of $`q=2`$, we find

$`𝐀^3={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{cos}\vartheta }{(1+r^2)^{3/2}}}𝐞_r+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{r}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r}{\sqrt{1+r^2}}}\right)𝐞_\vartheta {\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{r}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi r}{\sqrt{1+r^2}}}\right)𝐞_\phi .`$ (31)
The corresponding magnetic field can be calculated from $`𝐁^3=\times 𝐀^3`$. It is easy to check that the fields $`𝐁^i`$ are well defined and scale as $`𝐁^i(𝐱)4\pi ^2`$ for $`r0`$ and as $`𝐁^i(𝐱)r^4`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$. Hence, they have no singularity and decay sufficiently fast for large radii.

Let us note that the fields $`𝐁^i`$ are highly symmetric and similar. Looking at the vector potential $`𝐀^3`$ we observe that it is independent of the variable $`\phi `$, therefore $`𝐁^3`$ is invariant under rotations leaving the $`x^3`$-axis fixed. Since the potentials (30) are cyclic in $`i,j,k`$ it follows that each $`𝐁^i`$ field is invariant under rotations about the $`x^i`$ axis. We have pointed out before that a rotation that maps the Euclidian basis vector field $`𝐞_1`$ to $`𝐞_2`$ also maps $`𝐁^1`$ to $`𝐁^2`$ etc. Furthermore, $`𝐁^3`$ is similar to the total field $`𝐁=𝐁^1+𝐁^2+𝐁^3`$ in the following sense: Let $`R`$ be a rotation that maps the Euclidian basis vector $`𝐞_3`$ to the vector $`\sqrt{3}R(𝐞_3)=𝐞_1+𝐞_2+𝐞_3`$, then $`𝐁=\sqrt{3}R(𝐁^3)`$.

The magnetic fields $`𝐁^i`$ are only of interest for us if their third-order invariant does not vanish. Explicitly calculating $`𝐀^i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ we find, using the main Theorem,

$`H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{r^2(1+r^2)^{3/2}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r}{\sqrt{r^2+1}}})1\right)𝑑r=16\pi ^2.`$ (32)
The fact that this integral is non-vanishing proves, that the constructed invariant cannot only be applied to all cases for which we where able to calculate the already existing invariant, i.e. to three mutually unlinked flux tubes, but also to examples of triples of fields not having disjunct support. It is thus a true generalization of the existing invariant known from the Massey triple product.

As we have pointed out before, $`H^{(3)}`$ is related to the vacuum winding number $`W(g)`$ of the connection $`\omega =g^1\text{d}g`$. We easily find (see also Frankel 1997)

$`W(g)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _V}tr(g^1dgg^1dgg^1dg)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _V}ϵ_{ijk}A^iA^jA^k`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3),`$
where the trace term is usually referred to as the Cartan three-form on $`SU(2)`$.

In the general case the cross-helicities of three magnetic fields, for which we are able to find potentials such that $`(𝐀^i\times 𝐀^j)=𝐁^i𝐀^j𝐀^i𝐁^j=0`$, do not have to vanish. In our example we can easily verify that they do vanish, i.e. $`H(𝐁^i,𝐁^j)=0`$ for $`ij`$. Of more interest are the three non-trivial self-helicities. If a triple of magnetic fields is derived from a Yang-Mills vacuum, equation (24) together with $`F=0`$ implies

$$\text{d}A^i+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}A^jA^k=0.$$

Using the definitions $`B^i=\text{d}A^i`$ and $`G^i=A^jA^k`$ we find for $`(i,j,k)`$ cyclic

$$B^i=A^jA^k=G^i.$$

Thus, for $`i=1,2,3`$, we observe that

$$H(𝐁^i,𝐁^i)=_V𝐀^i𝐁^i\text{d}^3x=_V𝐀^i𝐆^i\text{d}^3x=H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3).$$

Therefore the self-helicities are equal to the value of the third-order invariant. This is a peculiarity of all magnetic field triples derived from an $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills vacuum.

In our analysis of the three example magnetic fields we now turn our attention to the topological structure of the fields and the linkage of individual field lines. Figure 5 and 5 show numerically integrated field lines, where the starting points for integration are indicated by the foot points of the arrows that give the field line direction. We observe that all field lines are closed and have an elliptical shape. Figures 3 and 3 visualize the toroidal structure of the individual fields at the example of $`𝐁^3`$. Using $`𝐀^3=A_r^3𝐞_r+A_\vartheta ^3𝐞_\vartheta +A_\phi ^3𝐞_\phi `$ and $`\frac{}{\phi }𝐀^3=0`$ it follows that $`𝐁^3`$ can be written

$$𝐁^3=\times 𝐀^3=\frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }(r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta A_\phi ^3)\times 𝐞_\phi +B_\phi ^3𝐞_\phi .$$
(34)
Therefore, the field lines of $`𝐁^3`$ lie on $`\phi `$-invariant toroidal surfaces described by $`r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta A_\phi ^3=\text{const}`$. Figure 3 shows the poloidal $`𝐁^3`$-field and contour lines for three different values of $`r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta A_\phi ^3`$. A toroidal surface with $`r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta A_\phi ^3=1.8`$ and four field lines on it is drawn in Figure 3. The central field line, sitting within all tori is characterized by $`B_r^3=B_\vartheta ^3=0`$. In view of the last equation, this is equivalent to $`(r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta A_\phi ^3)=0`$ which yields $`r=\sqrt{1/3}`$ and $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$. We observe that all field lines wind around the central field line exactly once. From this and the toroidal structure of $`𝐁^3`$ we can conclude that any two arbitrary field lines $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$ of $`𝐁^3`$ have a Gauß linkage $`lk(l,l^{})=1`$.

Finally let us discuss the linking properties among field lines of different fields. To give an example, one field line of each field is plotted in Figure 5. The symmetric appearance is due to the choice of symmetric starting points for the field line integration. As was stressed above, the magnetic fields $`𝐁^i`$ can be obtained from one another by cyclic permutations of the Cartesian coordinates $`x^i`$. In the same way the integration starting points for the field lines $`\gamma ^1`$, $`\gamma ^2`$ and $`\gamma ^3`$ where chosen to be the cyclic permuted coordinate triples $`(0,0.8,0)`$, $`(0,0,0.8)`$ and $`(0.8,0,0)`$. It is interesting that the total linkage of the set of field lines is $`\text{lk}(\gamma ^1,\gamma ^2)+\text{lk}(\gamma ^2,\gamma ^3)+\text{lk}(\gamma ^3,\gamma ^1)=3`$. Even though we have seen that the mutual cross-helicities of all three fields vanish, their individual field lines, in general, are linked pairwise. To be more precise: If we e.g. fix one field line $`\gamma ^3`$ of $`𝐁^3`$, then all field lines of $`𝐁^1`$ and $`𝐁^2`$ are either linked with $`\gamma ^3`$ exactly once or they intersect $`\gamma ^3`$ twice. For reasons of symmetry, there exists for each field line $`\gamma ^1`$ of $`𝐁^1`$ a field line $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1`$ of $`𝐁^1`$, such that we find the total linkage $`\text{lk}(\gamma ^1,\gamma ^3)+\text{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1,\gamma ^3)=0`$. Hence, the cross-helicity $`H(𝐁^1,\gamma ^3)`$ vanishes, which in turn implies $`H(𝐁^1,𝐁^3)=0`$. Figure 5 shows such field lines $`\gamma ^1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1`$ and $`\gamma ^3`$ with $`(0,0.8,0)`$, $`(0,0.8,0)`$ and $`(0.8,0,0)`$ as their respective starting points for the field line integration. Finally let us remark that in the same way as we obtained $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1`$ we can obtain field lines $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^3`$, here with integration starting points $`(0,0.8,0)`$, $`(0,0,0.8)`$ and $`(0.8,0,0)`$. Together, these three field lines yield a configuration complementary to the one shown in Figure 5, which now has a total linkage of $`+3`$.

## 6 Conclusions

An integral expression has been presented which generalizes the third-order invariant known from the Massey triple product, to an invariant not limited to mutually unlinked flux tubes, if the involved fields allow for potentials that obey $`\left(𝐀^i\times 𝐀^j\right)=0`$ for $`ij`$. An example shows that the new invariant $`H^{(3)}`$ is a true generalization. In our derivation helicity and $`H^{(3)}`$ emerge from the same general identity, which involves the Chern-Simons three-form in the context of an $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry. Whether this identity leads to further results for other gauge groups has not yet been investigated, but it is clear that only expressions quadratic and cubic in magnetic flux can be obtained. The constructed invariant is to be seen as a “cross-linkage” of three fields. It still remains to clarify whether or how a total third-order invariant can be constructed and whether this is possible with the help of a cross third-order linkage such as in the case of helicity. There might e.g. exist a subdivision of a single field into three components such that the total third-order linkage is determined by the cross-linkage alone. Unfortunately, the antisymmetry of $`H^{(3)}(𝐁^1,𝐁^2,𝐁^3)`$ seems to be one of the key problems for a further generalization analogous to helicity.

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from Volkswagen Foundation and helpful discussions with Mitchell A. Berger.

## Appendix A Equivalence of boundary conditions

We prove for a simply connected volume $`V`$ the equivalence of the boundary conditions $`𝐁𝐧|_V=0`$ and $`𝐀\times 𝐧|_V=0`$.

First note that $`𝐀\times 𝐧|_V=0`$ implies $`𝐁𝐧|_V=0`$: Locally on the boundary we can write $`𝐧=\beta `$, where $`\beta (𝐱)`$ is a scalar function defined such that $`\beta (𝐱)=\beta _0`$ defines the boundary $`V`$. Thus $`𝐀\times 𝐧|_V=0`$ implies $`𝐀|_V=\alpha \beta `$ for some $`\alpha (𝐱)`$. Then $`𝐁|_V=\alpha \times \beta `$ and therefore $`𝐁𝐧|_V=0`$.

To prove the reverse we start with an arbitrary vector potential $`𝐀`$ which will in general have a non-vanishing component $`𝐀_{||}`$ tangential to the surface $`V`$. We can express $`𝐀_{||}`$ as a one-form $`\alpha `$ defined only on $`V`$. Then the assumption $`𝐁𝐧|_V=(\times 𝐀_{||})𝐧=0`$ written in differential forms reads $`d\alpha =0`$ on $`V`$. From $`V`$ being simply connected it follows that $`V`$ has the same homotopy type as the two-sphere $`S^2`$. But since the cohomology vector space $`H^1(S^2;IR)=0`$, all closed one-forms are exact. Therefore there exists a scalar function $`\psi `$ on $`V`$ such that $`\alpha =d\psi `$. This in turn implies that a gauge exists such that $`𝐀_{||}|_V=0`$ and thus $`𝐀\times 𝐧|_V=0`$.

## Appendix B Gauge invariance of the third-order invariant $`H^{(3)}`$

We now prove that the integral invariant (19) is unchanged under all gauge transformations $`𝐀^i𝐀_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐀^i+\varphi ^i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$, which obey the following two conditions: First we require

$$𝐆^i=𝐆_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}=0,$$
(35)
where as before we define $`𝐆^i=𝐀^j\times 𝐀^k`$ and $`𝐆_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐀_{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{}\times 𝐀_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{}`$ for cyclic indices $`i,j,k`$. Second, the gauge transformations must respect the boundary condition

$$𝐀^i\times 𝐧|_V=𝐀_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\times 𝐧|_V=0,$$
(36)
where $`𝐧`$ is a normal vector to the boundary $`V`$ of the integration volume $`V`$.

It is easily checked that a general gauge transformation that leaves the condition $`𝐆^i=0`$ unchanged for $`i=1,2,3`$ has to be a simultaneous gauge transformation of all three fields. Substituting $`𝐀^i+\varphi ^i`$ for $`𝐀^i`$ our invariant of equation (19) changes according to

$`H^{(3)}H_{}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle _V}(𝐀^1+\varphi ^1)[(𝐀^2+\varphi ^2)\times (𝐀^3+\varphi ^3)]\text{d}^3x`$ (37)
$`={\displaystyle _V}𝐀^1(𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3)\text{d}^3x`$
$`+{\displaystyle _V}\left[\varphi ^1(𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3)+\varphi ^2(𝐀^3\times 𝐀^1)+\varphi ^3(𝐀^1\times 𝐀^2)\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`+{\displaystyle _V}\left[𝐀^1(\varphi ^2\times \varphi ^3)+𝐀^2(\varphi ^3\times \varphi ^1)+𝐀^3(\varphi ^1\times \varphi ^2)\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`+{\displaystyle _V}\varphi ^1(\varphi ^2\times \varphi ^3)\text{d}^3x.`$
We have to show that for gauge transformations respecting equations (35) and (36), $`H_{}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{}=H^{(3)}`$, i.e. the sum of the last three integrals in equation (B) has to vanish. We can rewrite the first integral as

$`{\displaystyle _V}\varphi ^i𝐆^i\text{d}^3x={\displaystyle _V}\varphi ^i𝐆^i𝐧\text{d}^2x{\displaystyle _V}\varphi ^i(𝐆^i)\text{d}^3x=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
which vanishes since $`𝐀^i\times 𝐧|_V=0`$ implies $`𝐆^i𝐧|_V=0`$. To show that the second integral vanishes we use the identities

$`\varphi ^2\times \varphi ^3`$ $`=\times (\varphi ^2\varphi ^3)=\times (\varphi ^3\varphi ^2)`$ (38)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times (\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2)`$ (39)
and

$$𝐆_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}𝐆^1=\varphi ^3𝐁^2\varphi ^2𝐁^3,$$

as well as expressions obtained by cyclic permutations of the indices $`(1,2,3)`$. Substituting the first identity into the second integral we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _V}\left[𝐀^1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times (\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2))+(1,2,3)\text{cyclic}\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}\left[(𝐀^1\times (\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2))𝐧+(1,2,3)\text{cyclic}\right]\text{d}^2x`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}\left[(\times 𝐀^1)(\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2)+(1,2,3)\text{cyclic}\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`=+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}\left[\varphi ^1(𝐁^3\varphi ^2𝐁^2\varphi ^3)+(1,2,3)\text{cyclic}\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}\left[\varphi ^1(𝐆_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}𝐆^1)+(1,2,3)\text{cyclic}\right]\text{d}^3x`$
$`=0.`$
The surface integral vanishes due to condition (36) and the last volume integral due to condition (35). Finally we can see that the third integral vanishes by substituting equation (39) for the term $`\varphi ^2\times \varphi ^3`$

$`{\displaystyle _V}\varphi ^1(\varphi ^2\times \varphi ^3)\text{d}^3x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}(\varphi ^1\times (\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2))\text{d}^3x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _V}(\varphi ^2\varphi ^3\varphi ^3\varphi ^2)\times \varphi ^1𝐧\text{d}^2x`$
$`=0.`$
In the last step we used that due to condition (36) the gradients $`\varphi ^1`$, $`\varphi ^2`$ and $`\varphi ^3`$ have to be parallel to $`𝐧`$. This completes the proof.

## Appendix C Equivalence of the link integrals for disjunct flux tubes

The equivalence of the third-order link integrals as given by Monastyrsky and Sasorov (1987), Berger (1990) and Ruzmaikin and Akhmetiev (1994) for three disjunct and mutually unlinked flux tubes $`U_i`$ with the integral (19) is shown as follows. Monastyrsky and Sasorov gave an integral which corresponds to the Massey triple product and reads in vector notation:

$$_{U_1}(𝐀_1\times 𝐅_1𝐀_3\times 𝐅_3)\text{d}^2x,\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{with }\times 𝐅_1=𝐆_1:=𝐀^2\times 𝐀^3\text{,}\text{ for 1,2,3 cyclic.}\end{array}$$
(40)
The integration is taken over the surface of tube $`U_1`$. Cyclic permutations of indices in (40) yield equivalent expressions. Note that the $`𝐆_i`$ in this representation are evaluated only outside the tubes $`U_i`$ where $`𝐆_i=0`$ for any gauge. To convert this integral into a volume integral over the whole space, one has to evaluate $`𝐆_i`$ and $`𝐅_i`$ on $`U_i`$ and therefore encounters the problem of $`(𝐀_j\times 𝐀_k)|_{U_i}0`$ for an arbitrary gauge. To overcome this problem Berger defined $`𝐆_i`$ within the flux tubes as

$$𝐆_i:=\{\begin{array}{c}𝐀_j\times 𝐀_k\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)k}𝐁_j\text{on}U_j,\hfill \\ 𝐀_j\times 𝐀_k+\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k)j}𝐁_k\text{on}U_k,\hfill \\ 𝐀_j\times 𝐀_k\text{else},\hfill \end{array}\text{with}i,j,k\text{cyclic and}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)j}=𝐀_j|_{U_i}.$$
(41)
The resulting volume integral

$`{\displaystyle _V}𝐁_1\left(𝐅_1\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1)2}𝐀_3\right)d^3x`$ (42)
is equivalent to (40), as shown in Berger (1990). Using the same construction with potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)j}`$ Ruzmaikin and Akhmetiev (1994) have rewritten (42) in a more symmetric form.

Now, instead of using the additional potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)j}`$, we can just as well use the special gauge

$$𝐀_i\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_i:=𝐀_i\mathrm{\Phi }_{(j)i}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k)i},$$

which implies $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_i|_{U_j}=0`$ for $`ij`$. In other words, the corresponding new $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{(i)j}`$ are set to zero and definition (41) implies condition (i) of the Theorem in section 3.

Furthermore, suppressing tildes, (42) turns into

$`{\displaystyle _V}𝐁_1\times 𝐅_1d^3x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}𝐀_1\times 𝐆_1d^3x+{\displaystyle _V}\left(𝐀_1\times 𝐅_1\right)𝐧d^2x`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}𝐀_1\times 𝐆_1d^3x+{\displaystyle _V}\left(𝐧\times 𝐀_1\right)𝐅_1d^2x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}𝐀_1\times 𝐆_1d^3x,`$
which finally shows the equivalence of the integrals (40) and (19) for the case of three pairwise unlinked flux tubes.

## References