text:
# Radiative Decay of Υ into a Scalar Glueball

## Abstract

We study the radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into a scalar glueball $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ using QCD factorization. We find that for this process the non-perturbative effects can be factorized into a matrix element well defined in non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) and the gluon distribution amplitude. The same NRQCD matrix element appears also in leptonic decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and therefore can be determined from data. In the asymptotic limit the gluon distribution amplitude is known up to a normalization constant. Using a QCD sum-rule calculation for the normalization constant, we obtain $`Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s)`$ to be in the range $`(12)\times 10^3`$. We also discuss some of the implications for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_i`$ decays. Near future data from CLEO-III can provide crucial information about scalar glueball properties.

preprint:

1. Introduction

The existence of glueballs are natural predictions of QCD. Some of the low lying states are $`0^{++}`$, $`0^+`$, $`1^+`$ and $`2^{++}`$ with the lowest mass eigenstate to be $`0^{++}`$ in the range of $`1.51.7`$ GeV from theoretical calculations. There are indications that $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ contain substantial scalar glueball content. For the search of glueballs, decays of quarkonia are well suited processes because the decays are mediated by gluons. Among these decays, two-body radiative decays are ideal places to study this subject, because there is no complication of interactions between light hadrons. Radiative decays of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ have been studied before, in particularly by CLEO recently. With the current data sample, there are already several observations of radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into mesons. Among them only a few with good precisions, such as the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_2(1270)`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma K\overline{K})`$, while the others have large errors. About $`4\mathrm{fb}^1`$ $`b\overline{b}`$ resonance data are planned to be taken at CLEO-III in the year prior to conversion to low energy operation (CLEO-C). This will produce the largest data sample of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in the world. More radiative decay modes of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ may be observed. Combining experimental data in the near future and theoretical results glueball properties can be studied in details.

In this paper we carry out a theoretical study of the radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into a scalar glueball by using QCD factorization. We find that the non-perturbative effects can be factorized into a matrix element well defined in non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD), and the gluon distribution amplitude. The NRQCD matrix element can be determined from leptonic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays. The asymptotic form of the gluon distribution amplitude is known in QCD up to a normalization constant. Using a QCD sum rule calculation for this constant, the branching ratio $`Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s)`$ is predicted to be in the range of $`(12)\times 10^3`$. Combining this result with experimental data, we find that none of the candidate scalar glueballs $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ can be a pure glueball. Existing information on glueball mixing allow us to predict the branching ratios for several radiative decays, such as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1370,1500,1710)\gamma K\overline{K}(\pi \pi )`$. A mixing pattern suggested in the literature is shown to be in conflict with data. Near future experimental data from CLEO-III will provide crucial information about scalar glueball properties.

2. QCD factorization of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$

It is known that properties of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ can be well described with non-relativistic QCD(NRQCD). The decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ can be thought of as a free $`b\overline{b}`$ quark pair first freed from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with a probability which is characterized by matrix elements defined in NRQCD, this pair of quarks decays into a photon and gluons, and then the gluons subsequently converted into a scalar glueball. In the heavy quark limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$, the glueball has a large momentum, this allows a twist-expansion to describe the conversion. Also, the gluons are hard and perturbative QCD can be applied for the decay of the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair into a photon and gluons. This implies that the decay width can be factorized. In the real world, the b-quark mass is 5 GeV and a scalar glueball has a mass around 1.5 GeV as suggested by lattice QCD simulations. This may lead to a question if the twist expansion is applicable. For the radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, the glueball has a momentum of order of $`m_b`$. The twist expansion means a collinear expansion of momenta of gluons in the glueball, components of these momenta have the order of $`(𝒪(k^+),𝒪((k^{}),𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}),𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}))`$, where $`k`$ is the momentum of the glueball. Here we used the light-cone coordinate system. Hence the expansion parameters are

$$\frac{k^{}}{k^+}=\frac{m_G^2}{M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}0.02,\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{k^+}0.1,$$
(1)
where $`m_G`$ is the mass of the glueball and we have taken $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}500`$MeV. In the above estimation we have used the fact that the probability for the conversion of gluons into a glueball is suppressed if the “+” component of the momentum of a gluon is very small. We see that the relevant expansion parameters are small, therefore twist expansion is expected to be a good one. We note that the same approximation may not be applied to $`J/\psi `$ system because in this case the relevant expansion parameters are not small. We now provide some details of the calculations.

The leading Feynmann diagrams for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ are from $`b\overline{b}`$ annihilation into two gluons and a photon. The basic formalism for such calculations have been developed in Ref. and has been used in the case of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma \eta (\eta ^{})`$ to obtained consistent result with experimental data. With appropriate modifications we can obtain the S-matrix for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ decay. It is given by

$`\gamma G_s|S|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eQ_bg_s^2ϵ_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4zd^4x_1d^4y_1e^{iqz}G_s|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(y)|0}`$ (3)
$`0|\overline{b}_j(x_1)b_i(y_1)|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}M_{ij}^{\mu \nu \rho ,ab}(x,y,x_1,y_1,z),`$
where $`M_{ij}^{\mu \nu \rho ,ab}`$ is a known function from evaluation of the Feynmann diagrams, $`i`$ and $`j`$ stand for Dirac- and color indices, $`a`$ and $`b`$ is the color indices of gluon. $`ϵ^{}`$ is the polarization vector of the photon and $`Q_b=1/3`$ is the $`b`$ quark electric charge. Since $`b`$ quark is heavy and moves with small velocity $`v`$, one can expand the Dirac fields in NRQCD fields:

$$0|\overline{b}_j(x)b_i(y)|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{1}{6}(P_+\gamma ^lP_{})_{ij}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^l\varphi |\mathrm{{\rm Y}}e^{ip(x+y)}+O(v^2),$$
(4)
where $`\chi ^{}(\psi )`$ is the NRQCD field for $`\overline{b}(b)`$ quark and $`P_\pm =(1\pm \gamma ^0)/2`$. The $`b`$ is almost at rest, then $`p_\mu =(m_b,0,0,0)`$ with $`m_b`$ being the $`b`$ quark pole mass.

From the above we obtain the decay amplitude for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ as

$$𝒯=\frac{eQ_bg_s^2}{6}0|\chi ^{}ϵ\sigma \psi |\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^1𝑑z\frac{1}{z(1z)}_s(z),$$
(5)
the decay width then reads:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2}{9m_b^4}\pi ^2Q_b^2\alpha \alpha _s^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|O_1(^3S_1)|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|_0^1dz\frac{1}{z(1z)}_s(z)|^2.$$
(6)
In the above $`_s`$ is the gluon distribution amplitude of $`G_s`$ and is given by

$$_s(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi k^+}𝑑x^{}e^{izk^+x^{}}G_s(k)|G^{a,+\mu }(x^{})G_{}^{a,+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}(0)|0.$$
(7)
Here we have used a gauge with $`G^+=0`$ such that the gauge link between the field strength operators vanish. This distribution characterizes basically how two gluons are converted into $`G_s`$, where one of the two gluons has the momentum $`(zk^+,0,𝐎_𝐓)`$.

In the above equations, the matrix element $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|O_1(^3S_1)|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is defined in NRQCD contains the bound state effect of b-quarks in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and can be extracted from leptonic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}l^+l^{}`$ decay. A prediction can be made for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ if the distribution amplitude is known.

The distribution amplitude can be written as

$$_s(z)=f_sf(z),\mathrm{with}_0^1𝑑zf(z)=1.$$
(8)
where $`f(z)`$ is a dimensionless function and its asymptotic form is:

$$f(z)=30z^2(1z)^2.$$
(9)
With the asymptotic form in Eq.(6) we have:

$$R_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma +G_s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}=\frac{25\pi \alpha _s^2}{3\alpha }\frac{|f_s|^2}{m_b^2}.$$
(10)
In the above we have used the fact that both $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}l^+l^{}`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|O_1(^3S_1)|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

The use of the asymptotic form for $`f(z)`$ may introduce some errors, because the scale $`\mu `$ here is actually $`m_b`$, not $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. However, with a large $`m_b`$ one may expect that it can provide a good order of magnitude estimate with the asymptotic form. We will use Eq. (10) later for our numerical discussions.

We note that at this stage the state $`G_s`$ can be any particle with the same quantum number as $`G^{a,+\mu }G_\mu ^{a,+}`$, i.e., $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$. The normalization constant $`f_s`$ depends on the properties of the specific particle. In order to obtain the branching ratio of $`G_s`$ as a scalar glueball, we have to evaluate $`f_s`$ with $`G_s`$ specified to be the scalar glueball. In the following we provide an estimate based on QCD sum rule calculation.

3. QCD sum rule calculation of the normalization constant

The constant $`f_s`$ has dimension one in mass and is related to the the product of local operator:

$$G_s(k)|G^{\mu \rho }G_{}^{\nu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}|0=f_0m_G^2g^{\mu \nu }+f_sk^\mu k^\nu .$$
(11)
The fact that the same $`f_s`$ appears in Eq.(9) and Eq.(12) can be checked by integrating over $`z`$ on the both sides of Eq.(6).

The basic idea of the QCD sum rule calculation for our estimate is to consider the two point correlator

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}i0|TG_{\mu \alpha }G_\nu ^\alpha (x),G_{\mu ^{}\beta }G_\nu ^{}^\beta (0)|0}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`T_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_T(Q^2)++V_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_V(Q^2)+S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^1\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1}(Q^2)`$ (14)
$`+S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{S2}(Q^2)+S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^3\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}(Q^2),`$
for a region of $`Q`$ in which one can incorporate the asymptotic freedom property of QCD via the operator product expansion (OPE), and then relate it to the hadronic matrix elements via the dispersion relation. The tensors in Eq. (12) are defined as

$`T_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \mu ^{}}^tg_{\nu \nu ^{}}^t+g_{\mu \nu ^{}}^tg_{\nu \mu ^{}}^t{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }^tg_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^t`$ (15)
$`V_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \mu ^{}}^tq_\nu q_\nu ^{}+g_{\nu \nu ^{}}^tq_\mu q_\mu ^{}+g_{\mu \nu ^{}}^tq_\nu q_\mu ^{}+g_{\nu \mu ^{}}^tq_\mu q_\nu ^{}`$ (16)
$`S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }^tg_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^t,S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^2=g_{\mu \nu }^tq_\mu ^{}q_\nu ^{}+g_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^tq_\mu q_\nu ,S_{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^3=q_\mu q_\nu q_\mu ^{}q_\nu ^{},`$ (17)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }^t=g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2`$. The corresponding terms $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T(Q^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_V(Q^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1}(Q^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S2}(Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}(Q^2)`$ are from the contributions of $`2^{++}`$, $`1^+`$ and $`0^{++}`$ states respectively.

In a deep Euclidean region $`Q^2=q^2>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, they can be expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i(Q^2)=C_i^0(Q^2)I+C_i^1(Q^2)\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+C_i^2(Q^2)g_sf^{abc}G_\alpha ^{a\mu }G_\beta ^{b\alpha }G_\mu ^{c\beta }+\mathrm{},`$ (18)
where $`C_i^j`$ are Wilson coefficients which need to be determined later.

On the other hand, the correlator in Eq.(12) can be saturated by all possible resonances and continuum. We have

$$Im\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(Q^2)=\underset{R}{}0|G_{\mu \alpha }G_\nu ^\alpha |RR|G_{\mu ^{}\beta }G_\nu ^{}^\beta |0\pi \delta (Q^2+m_R^2)+continuum,$$
(19)
where the sum on $`R`$ are for all possible resonances. The term $`|G_{\mu \alpha }G_\nu ^\alpha |RR|G_{\mu ^{}\beta }G_\nu ^{}^\beta |0`$ in the above equation contains the information of $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$ when $`R`$ is the scalar glueball. The $`T`$ and $`V`$ tensors are not related to $`f_s`$. They are irrelevant to our calculations. The functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1,S2,S3}`$ contain linear combinations of $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$. QCD sum rule calculations for $`G_s|G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }|0=(4f_0+f_s)m_G^2`$ has been carried out before. Therefore if one of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1,S2,S3}`$ is know, one can obtain $`f_s`$. From eq. (10) and the tensor structure of eq. (11), we find that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}`$ is proportional to $`(f_0+f_s)^2`$. Therefore the study of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}`$ is sufficient for our purpose of determining $`f_s`$. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1,2}`$ also contain information about $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$. However the non-perturbative contributions for them begin at the level of dimension-8 operators. The results obtained are not as reliable as the one from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}`$ which has a lower dimension. We now concentrate on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}`$.

There may be several bound states with the same quantum numbers to include in the QCD sum rule calculation, such as a pure scalar glueball, quark bound states and higher excited states. The contributions from higher excited states are suppressed upon the use of Borel transformation which is discussed in the below. For the quark bound states, OZI rule implies that the conversion of bound quark state into a scalar glueball is suppressed compared with the conversion of two gluon into a scalar glueball, perturbatively suppressed by powers in $`\alpha _s`$. If this is indeed true, the corresponding $`f_s`$ parameters for quark bound states will be smaller than pure glueball state. We will work with this approximation in the following discussions. To be consistent with our previous expansion, we again work to order $`\alpha _s`$. To this order, using the method in Ref. , we find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Q^4}}(G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_s}{Q^6}}f^{abc}G_\alpha ^{a\mu }G_\beta ^{b\alpha }G_\mu ^{c\beta }).`$ (20)
The correlator in Eq. (20) obtained by using OPE is related to Eq. (19) via the standard dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{Im\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(s)}{s+Q^2}.$$
(21)
In practice one may only include ground states in the calculation. In order to reduce uncertainty due to higher excited states and also continuum states, we apply Borel transformation and obtain

$$\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{M^2}_0^{s_0}𝑑se^{s/M^2}\rho _{S3}(s),$$
(22)
where $`\rho _{S3}(s)=(1/\pi )Im\mathrm{\Pi }_{S3}(s)`$, and

$$\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Pi }(Q^2)=\underset{Q^2,n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{(n1)!}(Q^2)^n(\frac{d}{dQ^2})^n\mathrm{\Pi }(Q^2),$$
(23)
Here one also needs to have the limit $`Q^2/n=M^2=constant`$.

In our numerical calculation we have varied $`s_0`$ in the range of $`36GeV^2`$, and found that the uncertainty is around 10 percent. The parameters determined are reasonably stable.

We obtain the range for $`f_s`$ as

$$f_s=(100130)\mathrm{MeV},$$
(24)
with $`f_0=190`$ MeV and $`f_s=100`$ MeV for $`m_{0^{++}}=1.5`$ GeV, and $`f_0=130`$ MeV and $`f_s=130`$ for $`m_{0^{++}}=1.7`$ GeV. In obtaining the above result, we have re-evaluated $`f_0`$ also using the same parameters. The input parameters used are $`\alpha _s(\mu )=4\pi /9\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=0.25GeV`$, $`\mu =M`$, $`\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }=0.06\pm 0.02GeV^4`$, and $`g_sf^{abc}G_\alpha ^{a\mu }G_\beta ^{b\alpha }G_\mu ^{c\beta }=0.27GeV^2\alpha _sG^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$.

For consistency, we also calculated the glueball masses. We find that for the $`0^{++}`$ state the mass is $`1.51.7`$ GeV, and for $`2^{++}`$ the mass is $`2.02.2`$ GeV. These are in agreement with other calculations.

If the scalar glueball is a pure one, using the above results we obtain the branching ratio for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ to be in the range

$`Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s)=(12)\times 10^3,`$ (25)
with a larger branching ratio for a larger glueball mass up to 1.7 GeV. Here we have used $`\alpha _s=0.18`$ which is the typical value for $`\alpha _s`$ in the energy range of the decay. We obtain a large branching ratio for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$. We would like to point out that considering several uncertainties, the assumptions of factorization and single pure glueball state in the QCD sum rule calculation, the above numbers should be used as an order of magnitude estimate.

4. Discussions of phenomenological implications

Experimental measurement of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma G_s`$ may be non-trivial. One has to rely on the decay products of glueballs. There are several ways the glueball can decay with reasonably large branching ratios, $`G_sK\overline{K}`$ or $`G_s`$ to multi-pions. As mentioned earlier that there are several candidates for scalar glueball, the $`f(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$. Decays of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(i)\gamma (K\overline{K}\text{or multi-pions})`$ can provide important information.

Experimentally there is only an upper bound of $`Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma K\overline{K})<2.6\times 10^4`$ at 90% C.L.. If $`f_0(1710)`$ is a pure glueball, experimental measurement of $`Br(f_0(1710)K\overline{K})=0.38_{0.19}^{+0.09}`$ would imply $`Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma K\overline{K})`$ to be in the range of $`(0.41.0)\times 10^3`$ which seems to indicate that $`f_0(1710)`$ may not be a pure glueball. At present it can not rule out the possibility that one of the $`f_0(1370)`$ or $`f_0(1500)`$ being a pure glueball state. Data also allow certain mixing among glueball state and other quark bound states.

Theoretical calculation of the mixings among glueball and quark bound states is a very difficult task. There is no reliable theoretical calculation. Lattice calculations may eventually give accurate predictions for the mixing parameters. At present there are some phenomenological studies of glueball mixings. We now study some implications of the branching ratio for the radiative decay of a $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into a pure scalar glueball obtained in the previous section on a mixing pattern suggested in Ref. .

An analysis combining other experimental data in Ref. showed that the three $`0^{++}`$ states $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ all contain substantial glueball content. Ref. obtained a mixing matrix of physical states in terms of pure glueball and other quark bound states to be

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{G_s}\hfill & f_{i2}^S\hfill & f_{3i}^{(N)}\hfill \\ f_0(1710)\hfill & 0.39\pm 0.03\hfill & 0.91\pm 0.02\hfill & 0.15\pm 0.02\hfill \\ f_0(1500)\hfill & 0.65\pm 0.04\hfill & 0.33\pm 0.04\hfill & 0.70\pm 0.07\hfill \\ f_0(1370)\hfill & 0.69\pm 0.07\hfill & 0.15\pm 0.01\hfill & 0.70\pm 0.07\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)
where the states $`G_s`$, $`S=|s\overline{s}`$ and $`N=|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}/\sqrt{2}`$ are the pure glueball and quark bound states. $`f_{i1}^{G_s}`$ indicate the amplitude of glueball $`G_s`$ in the three physical $`f_0(i)`$ states.

Because of the mixing, when applying our calculations to radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into a physical state which is not a purely gluonic state the parameters will be modified. If the mixing parameter is known one can obtain the $`R_s`$ ratios for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1370,1500,1710)`$ as

$$R_s(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f(i))=\frac{25\pi \alpha _s^2}{3\alpha }\frac{|f_s|^2}{m_b^2}|f_{i1}^{(G_s)}|^2.$$
(31)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f(i)`$ may also result from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays into a $`\gamma `$ and $`S,N`$ quark bound states. However, these processes are suppressed by $`\alpha _s^2`$.

Using the mixing amplitudes in Eq.(30), one obtains the branching ratios of, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1370,1500,1710)`$ to be in the ranges, $`(4.89.6,4.28.4,1.53.0)\times 10^4`$. Combining the branching ratios of $`f_0(1370,1500,1710)K\overline{K}(\pi \pi ))=`$ $`(0.38_{0.19}^{+0.09}(0.039_{0.024}^{+0.002}),0.044_{0.021}^{+0.021}(0.454_{0.104}^{+0.104}),0.35_{0.13}^{+0.13}(0.26_{0.09}^{+0.09}))`$, we obtain:

$`\begin{array}{cc}Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma K\overline{K})0.61.2;\hfill & Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma \pi \pi )0.060.12;\hfill \\ Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1500)\gamma K\overline{K})0.20.4;\hfill & Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1500)\gamma \pi \pi )1.93.8;\hfill \\ Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1370)\gamma K\overline{K})1.73.4;\hfill & Br(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma f_0(1370)\gamma \pi \pi )1.22.4.\hfill \end{array}`$ (35)
In the above the branching ratios are in unit $`10^4`$. The branching ratios predicted above can provide further test for QCD factorization. Future experimental data from CLEO III will provide us with important information.

To summarize, we have estimated the branching ratio of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma +G_s`$ with $`G_s`$ as a glueball. Our result shows that $`f_0(1710)`$ may not be consistent with the assumption that it is a pure glueball, but can not rule out the possibility that one of the $`f(1370)`$, and $`f_0(1500)`$ being a pure glueball state. We also predicted several $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\gamma KK(\pi \pi )`$ branching ratios using a phenomenological glueball mixing pattern which can provide further tests for QCD factorization calculations and glueball mixing. To have a better understanding of the situation, we have to rely on future improved experimental data. Fortunately CLEO-III will provide us with more data in the near future. We have a good chance to understand the properties of scalar glueball. We strongly encourage our experimental colleagues to carry out the study of radiative decay of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into a scalar glueball.

Acknowledgments

The work of X.G.H. was supported in part by National Science Council under grants NSC 89-2112-M-002-058. The work of H.Y.J. and J.P.M is supported by National Nature Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# References

I. The Early Ancestors (van der Waals and Weiss)

At the beginning of the 20th century, van der Waals proposed the idea of a “molecular field” in order to explain the deviation of the equation of state of gases from ideality and from there to condensation. (What this has to do with SBS will emerge subsequently.) His idea was to consider that each molecule was surrounded by others which interact with it. Thus its energy is

$$V_{mol}=\left[d^3r^{}v(rr^{})\right]\rho ,$$
(1)
where $`v(r)`$ is the intermolecular potential, taken to be attractive, in van der Waals’s eyes, for $`r>r_0`$; $`\rho `$ is the mean density. The “molecular field approximation” (MFA) is to neglect the correlation of density at $`r^{}`$ to the presence of a molecule at $`r`$. Though this neglect does some injustice to the situation, we have learnt over the years that, in the large, the essential physics is respected. One exception is the quantitative theory of critical phenomena, so beautifully executed by Wilson, Fisher and others. However, throughout this review we shall work in MFA since the main progress which has been made in analyzing the order encountered in a great variety situations has been in MFA. (Once more a notable exception is in 2 dimensional systems wherein topological considerations are often vital). In general as the dimensionality increases so does the reliability of MFA and for $`d>4`$ , it becomes reliable in all thermodynamic conditions (In this review we shall not touch upon lattice gauge theory where dimensionality plays a different role from the more conventional many body and field theoretic systems treated here. Thus confinement will not be included).

From Eq.(1), van der Waals deduced the existence of an internal pressure, $`p_{int}`$ given by

$$p_{int}=\frac{V_{mol}}{v}=\rho ^2\frac{V_{mol}}{\rho }=\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{v}(o),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{v}(o)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`v(r)`$ at $`q=0`$. The total pressure is thus $`p+p_{int}`$; $`p`$ is the external pressure. Under normal conditions ($`p1atm`$ and $`T`$ room temperature) a typical liquid exhibits $`p_{int}=10^3atm`$, which gives one an idea of just how essential are the intermolecular forces in maintaining the cohesion of the liquid, as against a vapor where $`p_{int}`$ more often than not is negligible away from critical conditions.

Whereas in an ideal gas has $`p=kT/v`$ ($`v`$ being the volume per molecule), van der Waals proposed that in a general fluid one should replace $`v`$ by the “free volume”, that which is unoccupied by the molecule itself. Thus he set $`p_{total}=(kT/vb)`$ where $`b`$ is volume occupied by stuff within a single molecule. He thus set

$$p_{Tot}=p+\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{v}(o)=kT[\rho ^1b]^1,$$
(3)
the famous van der Waals equation. This equation of state has been qualitatively successful but fails quantitatively near the critical point, as is to be expected. In Fig.1 we sketch schematically a few isotherms

> Only vapor exists for all $`p`$ once $`TT(c)`$, but for $`T<T(c)`$, along, for example, isotherm A, the system is in the liquid (vapor) phase for $`p>p(e)`$ ( $`p<p(e)`$ ) respectively. At $`p=p(e)`$, the system has a choice between liquid and vapor. They can coexist. It is this choice, seemingly arbitrary, which in this case is SBS. We shortly bring more clarity into this question, but for the moment we ask the reader to bear in mind the coexistence curve D, which on the left side marks the locus of where liquid isotherms begin as the pressure increases and on the right where vapor isotherms take over as the pressure decreases.

Whilst van der Waals was busy in Holland explaining why it rains or shines, Weiss in France was proposing a similar mechanism to explain ferromagnetism. Like van der Waals, he was toying with this new fangled idea of the atomic hypothesis. Each atom was endowed with a magnetic moment and ferromagnetism was the alignement of these elementary entities occasioned by the existence of an external magnetic field. The only trouble was that these fields were far too small to maintain the alignement at room temperature, owing to their thermal agitation. Weiss therefore proposed that there was an internal magnetic field proportional to the magnetization itself. Thus

$$\stackrel{}{H}_{Tot}=\stackrel{}{H}_{ext}+\stackrel{}{H}_{int}=\stackrel{}{H}_{ext}+\alpha \stackrel{}{M},$$
(4)
where M is the magnetization per atom.

The idea was matched neatly with van der Waals internal pressure in the 20’s when Heisenberg proposed his exchange mechanism wherein there was an energy due to spin-spin interactions brought about by interatomic coulombic forces (like those which were invoked to explain chemical binding or Hund’s rule for atoms). Thus Heisenberg proposed an interaction

$$V_{spinspin}=v(rr^{})\stackrel{}{S}(r).\stackrel{}{S}(r^{}),$$
(5)
$`\stackrel{}{S}(r)`$ being the spin of the atom located at $`r`$, hence proportional to its magnetic moment. At typical interatomic distances in a solid, $`v(r)`$ could be estimated to be something less than chemical bond energies, rather like $`O(10^1ev)=10^3`$ K. The $`v`$ in Eq.(5) is not be confused with the $`v`$ of Eq.(1). It is the spin-spin part. This advance lent more credence to Weiss’s suggestion since when the idea was first proposed, the energy one could come by was in dipole-dipole magnetic interactions and these were too small by 3 orders of magnitude (Typically ferromagnetic transitions occur at $`O(10^3K)`$ ).

Thus Heisenberg proposed to furnish Weiss’s hypothesis with a model which contained spin-spin interactions in the form

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j}{}v_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_i.\stackrel{}{S}_j,$$
(6)
$`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ being the spin on site $`i`$. This implies the existence of an internal field given at site $`i`$ by

$$\stackrel{}{H}_i=\underset{j}{}v_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_j.$$
(7)
MFA is then the analog of van der Waals’ approximation. One neglects the correlation of $`\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ to $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ and approximates

$$\stackrel{}{H}_i=\stackrel{}{H}_{int}=\underset{j}{}v_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_j=\underset{j}{}v_{ij}\stackrel{}{M},$$
(8)
where we have used translational symmetry so that $`\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ is site independent. We have set the elementary magneton of each atom equal to unity so that spin and magnetic moment mean the same thing. Then $`H`$ has the dimensions of energy.

Thus outfitted,Weiss’s molecular field becomes (with $`\stackrel{~}{v}(q)=`$ Fourier transform of $`v_{ij}`$)

$$\stackrel{}{H}_{mol}=\stackrel{}{H}+\stackrel{~}{v}(o)\stackrel{}{M}.$$
(9)
From statistical mechanics one may then calculate $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ self consistently

$$\stackrel{}{M}=\frac{tr\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \stackrel{}{H}_{mol}\stackrel{}{S}\right]\stackrel{}{S}}{tr\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \stackrel{}{H}_{mol}\stackrel{}{S}\right]};\beta =(1/kT).$$
(10)
II. Broken Discrete Symmetry

In the next few paragraphs we shall develop the idea using the Ising model (proposed by Heisenberg to his student as a thesis project). We shall see that this model is the prototype of a broken discrete symmetry, as opposed to a continuous symmetry wherein $`S`$ is a vector.

One treats $`S`$ as a 2-valued function, taking on values $`\pm `$1. Then

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\beta H_{mol}\mathrm{exp}\beta H_{mol}}{\mathrm{exp}\beta H_{mol}+\mathrm{exp}\beta H_{mol}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\beta H_{mol}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\beta \left[H+\stackrel{~}{v}(o)M\right]`$
a self consistent equation for $`M`$. In Eq.(11) $`H`$ designates the external field. To see the consequences of Eq.(11) set $`H=0`$. It is then seen that in addition to $`M=0`$ two additional solutions arise of equal and opposite values when $`\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(o)>1`$ since the slope of $`\mathrm{tanh}x`$ at $`x=0`$ exceeds unity when $`x>1`$. These are the solutions which encode spontaneous magnetization below the critical temperature ( $`kT<kT_c`$ where $`kT_c=\stackrel{~}{v}(o)`$ ). We shall shortly see that these are stable solutions whereas $`M=0`$ is unstable for $`T<T_c`$. This is SBS.

In Fig.2, curve A is the isotherm for $`T<T_c`$, B for $`T=T_c`$ and C for $`T>T_c`$.

The values of $`M`$ at $`H=0`$ are sketched in Fig.3.

Contact with the van der Waals theory is made as follows. Define

$$ϵ_i=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mu _i).$$
(12)
Thus $`ϵ=0`$ means absence of a particle on a site and $`ϵ=1`$ means its presence. Then $`M`$ is mean density and $`H`$ is like pressure. Turning Fig.2 on its side and tinkering with some thermodynamic identities converts Fig.2 into Fig.1 . Fig.3 looked at on its side is the coexistence curve of Fig.1 . In this case SBS is the choice of whether sites are occupied by particles or holes. It has recently been proven by Fisher that the analogy between liquid-vapor condensation in the case of continuum space (as opposed to the lattice) and ferromagnetism runs very deeply, even to the most minute details of their critical behaviour.

We shall continue with discrete SBS as exemplified by the Ising model by deriving these results from an important construction called the effective potential, a method developed by Bragg and Williams in the early 30’s (in another connection, but this is irrelevant).

The partition function is

$$Z=tr\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j+\beta \mu _iH_i\right].$$
(13)
For the nonce take $`H_i`$ independent of $`i`$. The trace is over all $`2^N`$ spin states. Carry it out piecemeal $`M`$ by $`M`$ where $`M`$ now means the total spin

$$M=\mu _i=N_{up}N_{down},$$
(14)
so that

$$Z=\underset{M}{}e^{\beta MH}tr_M\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j\right],$$
(15)
where $`tr_M`$ means summing over the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{(N+M)/2}\right)`$ states characterized by M.

Though one can carry through the construction in all rigor we shall only develop the theory here in MFA in order to bring out the essential ideas. It is the essence of MFA to neglect inter-spin correlations. Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j_{MFA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}v_{ij}\mu _M^2,`$ (17)
where we used translational symmetry to set $`\mu _i`$ independent of site $`i`$. The symbol $`\mu _M`$ means the average of a spin in the subensemble characterized by M i.e.

$$\mu _M=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\mu _i_M=\frac{M}{N}=m.$$
(18)
Thus in MFA one has

$`Energy`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _jH{\displaystyle \mu _i}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N\stackrel{~}{v}(0)m^2NHm.`$
Thus

$$Z_M=\mathrm{\Omega }(M)e^{\beta E(M)},$$
(20)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(M)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{(N+M)/2}\right),$$
(21)
whence

$`\mathrm{ln}Z_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(M)\beta E(M)`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\left[\left(1+m\right)\mathrm{ln}(1+m)+(1m)\mathrm{ln}(1m)\right],`$ (22)
where we have used Stirling’s approximation and Eq (18). $`\mathrm{ln}Z_M`$ has a sharp maximum at $`N=Mm^{}`$ where

$$m^{}=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(o)m^{}+H\right],$$
(23)
the relative width of which is $`O(1/\sqrt{N})`$ so that in the thermodynamic limit (i.e. $`lim_N\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}Z`$ ) one has

$$\mathrm{ln}Z=\mathrm{ln}(Nm^{}).$$
(24)
Since $`\mathrm{ln}Z=\beta `$\[Helmholtz free energy\], we identify $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(Nm^{})`$ with the entropy (because the energy has already been identified in Eq (19) ). Over the years we have come to call $`(1/N)\mathrm{ln}Z`$ the effective potential and this has become the standard way to approach SBS in field theory (since $`Z(M)`$ is the functional integral over configurations of $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$ where $`S`$ is the eucledeanized action; in our case the functional integral is the discrete sum over $`2^N`$ configurations).

One gets a first glimpse into the field formulation by looking at $`V_{eff}`$ for small $`m`$

$`V_{eff}=lim({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})\mathrm{ln}Z_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(o)m^2\beta mH+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}m^4+\mathrm{}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(o))m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}m^4\beta mH,`$
$`m`$ is to be considered a field taking on a continuum of values in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit and from now on we shall use the symbols $`m`$ and $`\phi `$ (for field ) interchangeably. In Eq.(25) the irrelevant constant $`N\mathrm{ln}2`$ has been dropped.

From Eq.(25) we have,

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\phi ^2+\lambda \phi ^4\phi H,$$
(26)
where $`\mu ^2=(1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(o))=(1(T_c/T))`$. It is seen that $`\mu ^2`$ changes sign at $`T=T_c`$ , becoming negative for $`T<T_c`$. $`V_{eff}`$ is sketched in Fig.4

> A: $`T>T_c;H=0`$ B: $`T>T_c;H>0`$ C: $`T<T_c;H=0`$ D: $`T<T_c;H>0`$ E: $`T=T_c;H=0`$
>
> These pictures essentially contain the whole story and nothing more.

For $`2<d4`$, small modifications exist in the critical region defined by $`\left|1\frac{T_c}{T}\right|=O`$(a few percent) and $`H/kT`$ a few percent. Otherwise MFA has quantitative significance, and always qualitative significance. For example for $`d=3`$ one has $`\mu ^2\left|TT_c\right|^{0.62}`$ in the critical region at $`H=0`$ rather than $`\mu ^2\left|TT_c\right|^{0.5}`$. The latter estimate becomes valid once $`\left|1\frac{T_c}{T}\right|>10\%`$. The next section will afford further insight into the whys and wherefores of these facts.

III. Correlation Function (Green’s Function)

Consider $`H=0`$ and $`T=T_c+ϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ is small and positive. As $`ϵ0`$, long range order comes into being i.e. if one fixes the orientation of a single spin out of $`N`$, then all $`N`$ get oriented in the same direction. It then must be expected that for $`ϵ>0`$, there must be a precursor of this phenomenom i.e. long range order should be heralded in by correlations among spins over increasingly longer range as $`ϵ0`$. The theory of this was worked out in the first decades of the 20th century by Ornstein-Zernike, by Smolochowski and by Einstein, the interest being the tremendous enhancement of light scattering by critical fluctuations (i.e. long range correlations) giving rise to critical opalescence. In our case the cross section is proportional to $`\left|\mu _q\right|^2`$ where

$$\mu _\stackrel{}{q}=\underset{i}{}\mu _i\mathrm{exp}\left[i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{R}_i\right],$$
(27)
hence to the Fourier transform $`\mu _i\mu _j`$, therefore at small $`q`$ sensitive to long range correlations.

A first shot at the problem is contained in a rather obvious generalization of MFA. Turn on an external field which varies from site to site

$`Hamiltonian=`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle v_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j}{\displaystyle \mu _iH_i}`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`tre^\beta .`$ (28)
Then

$$\mu _i=\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta H_i},$$
(29)
$$\mu _i\mu _j\mu _i\mu _j=\frac{\mu _i}{\beta H_j}=\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta H_i\beta H_j}.$$
(30)
For $`T>T_c`$ and in $`lim_{H_i0}`$, all $`i`$, Eq.(30) allows to compute the (connected) correlation function (Green’s function in field theory). We shall approximate this by use of MFA in this extended local sense.

The field on $`\mu _i`$ is $`_jv_{ij}\mu _j+H_i`$. Thus for small $`H_i`$ the average of $`\mu _i`$ for $`T>T_c`$ is

$$\mu _i=\mathrm{tanh}\beta (v_{ij}\mu _j+H_i)\beta \left[v_{ij}\mu _j+H_i\right].$$
(31)
The essential approximation that has been made is that $`\mu _j`$ is calculated with a probability distribution that is independent of the orientation of $`\mu _i`$ . This is not exact since the distributions differ according to $`\mu _i=+1`$ or $`\mu _i=1`$. This neglect of correlation in the present context is then a sort of local MFA. Taking a derivative of Eq.(31) with respect of to $`H_k`$ and using Eq (30) gives

$$\mu _i\mu _k=\delta _{ik}+\beta v_{ij}\mu _j\mu _k.$$
(32)
This is like an integral equation for $`G_{ij}(\mu _i\mu _j)`$. It may be solved by Fourier transform. Denoting by $`G(q)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}(q)G(q)`$ the Fourier transforms of $`G_{ij}`$ and $`v_{ij}`$, one has

$$G(q)=1+\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(q)G(q),$$
(33)
$$G(q)=\frac{1}{1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(q)}.$$
(34)
An interaction which is ferromagnetic over its whole range has $`v(\stackrel{}{R}_i\stackrel{}{R}_j)>0`$ for all distances $`\left|\stackrel{}{R}_i\stackrel{}{R}_j\right|`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{v}(q)`$ is maximal at $`q=0`$ and has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(q)=\stackrel{~}{v}(0)\alpha q^2,$$
(35)
valid small $`q`$ ($`qa1`$ where $`a`$ = lattice distance).

Thus

$$G(q)=\frac{1}{(1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(0))+\alpha q^2}\frac{1}{\mu ^2+\alpha q^2},$$
(36)
and we see that the curvature of the effective potential at its minimum (for $`T>T_c`$ and $`H=0`$ ) is equal to the $`(mass)^2`$ in $`G(q)`$. In this way one sees that for small values of $`\left[(TT_c)/T_c\right]`$ with $`(TT_c)>0`$ and for small values of $`\left(H/kT_c\right)`$ the spin system is governed by an effective action density equal to

$$\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2+(\mu ^2/2)\phi ^2+\lambda \phi ^4+\phi H,$$
(37)
with $`\mu ^2(TT_c)`$ and $`\lambda >0`$. We have dropped irrelevant factors of $`O(1)`$ which may be absorbed into the definition of $`\phi `$, $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$. The important point is that $`\mu ^20`$ as $`TT_c`$ and one is confronted with an infra red problem at $`T=T_c`$ , $`H=0`$. This gives rise to the theory of critical phenomena which results in a dynamical theory of renormalization. In particular mass renormalization shifts $`\mu ^2`$ to $`(TT_c)^{0.62}`$ for $`d=3`$. This is of little interest to us in this review which is an exploration of the physical mechanism behind SBS. Nevertheless it is interesting to understand how it is that there is a threshold value of $`d`$$`(d>4)`$ for which these renormalization effects become insignificant.

From Eq.(32), one sees that $`G(R_iR_j)`$ is built out of chains of the interactions $`v_{kl}`$ (Fig.5).

The sum of all these random walks is $`G_{ij}`$. One can recast these considerations so as to take into account the fact that in the correct rule for each walk, a given intermediate spin is visited one and only one time. To this must be added walks which do have intersections. These have different weights. One can then convert the problem into a random walk without restriction giving rise to our $`G(q)`$ plus corrections due to intersections (there has been some oversimplification but without injustice to the essential physics). It is a fact, (and one can show it from the field theory itself) that for $`d>4`$, the probability of self intersection becomes so small that it has no effect on the Green’s functions. There is too much space around and that is why MFA becomes exact (except for irrelevant factors of O(1) ) for $`d>4`$.

Now let us see what happens $`T<T_c`$. Then $`\mu _i=m`$ and the Green’s function is

$$G_{ij}=\mu _i\mu _j\mu _i\mu _j=\mu _i\mu _jm^2.$$
(38)
One can go through some formalism to establish the rules for how to construct the random walk in this case. Suffice it to say that, once again, one sums on random walks in MFA, but one must weight each vertex with the factor $`(1m^2)`$. To understand this physically, note that when one asks for the infinitesimal variation of $`\mu _i`$ due to a variation of $`H_i`$ , the field on $`\mu _i`$ , then

$$\frac{\mu _i}{\beta H_i}=\frac{}{\beta H_i}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\beta H_i\right]_{H_i=H_i^0}=1m^2(H_i^0).$$
(39)
Here $`H_i^0`$ is the value of the field on $`\mu _i`$ before the variation, be it an external or internal field!

Since in the chain of interactions, an intermediate spin, say $`k`$ , is submitted to a variation of the field $`H_k`$ upon it, coming from the link which precedes it, (where one considers the chain originating at $`i`$ and terminating at $`j`$). The response of $`\mu _k`$ to this variation is equal to $`\beta v_{lk}(1m^2)`$ which is taken to be small.

The net result is for $`T<T_c`$ , $`H=0`$

$$G(q)=\frac{1m^2}{1(1m^2)\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(q)},$$
(40)
which for small q reads

$$G(q)=\frac{1}{\mu ^2\alpha q^2},$$
(41)
where

$$\mu ^2=\frac{1}{(1m^2)^1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(0)}.$$
(42)
In this expression $`m`$ is the spontaneous magnetization i.e.

$$m=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(0)m\right].$$
(43)
From Eq.(43) and Eq.(42) it is very easy to show that $`\mu ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>0`$ and in fact for small $`(T_cT)/T_c`$ one has $`\mu ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(T_cT)`$.

Thus the wild infra-red fluctuations encountered as $`TT_c+ϵ`$ with $`ϵ>0`$ become quenched through the existence of m for $`T<T_c`$ . One easily shows that $`\mu ^{}^2`$ is the curvature of $`V_{eff}`$ in Fig.4C at one of the minima.

One defines the susceptibility, $`\chi `$ , as $`(m/H)|_{H=0}`$ and in both cases ( $`(TT_c)`$ positive or negative) one has $`\chi \left|TT_c\right|^1`$ .

IV. Broken Continuous Symmetry

Rather than the spin taking on discrete values like $`\mu _i=\pm 1`$, one can now study a spin which is a vector. This can be done classically by placing a unit vector on each lattice site. Then the trace that is used to calculate $`Z`$ is

$$h=d\stackrel{}{S}_i\delta (\stackrel{}{S}_i^21),$$
(44)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ is an $`n`$ dimensional vector in some internal space. Or one can do a quantum calculation where $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ is an operator and the trace is the sum over the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ in some group representation. For example if $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ (=Pauli matrices) then the trace is once again over the values $`\pm `$1 for each spin. The Hamiltonian in either case is taken symmetric with respect to the transformation of the symmetry group which is represented by $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$

$$=\frac{1}{2}v_{ij}(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j),$$
(45)
and one represents an external breaking by fields $`H_i`$ according to

$$_{ext}=\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{H}_i.$$
(46)
For $`T>T_c`$ the physics of this case resembles strongly that of the Ising model. For example if $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ then the chain of interactions contributing to $`G(q)`$ contains chains like

$$tr[\mathrm{}v_{kl}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k.\stackrel{}{\sigma }_lv_{lm}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l.\stackrel{}{\sigma }_m\mathrm{}].$$
(47)
Since $`tr\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l`$ is $`0`$ only for equal spatial components, one sees that the trace is the same as that for the Ising model. Then the chain which contributes to $`\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^x`$ is the same as for the Ising model. Moreover $`\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^y=0`$. Thus once again,in MFA one has

$$G(q)\frac{1}{q^2+\mu ^2}.$$
(48)
However for $`T<T_c`$ , new physics emerges. The easiest road to Rome passes by the effective potential. From Eq.(26), one sees that the system duplicates in detail the theory of discrete SBS. Thus the quadratic part of the potential is proportional to $`(\stackrel{}{\phi })^2+\mu ^2\stackrel{}{\phi }^2`$ where $`\mu ^2=TT_c`$. As before, there will be corrections due to self intersections of walks (and other dynamic effects which in fact are dependent on the representation $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ of the symmetry group in question. But, whatever, the form of the quartic interaction is dictated by symmetry to be $`\lambda \left[\left(\stackrel{}{\phi }_i\right)^2\right]^2`$). \[This is going a little too fast since sometimes other polynomial forms are available, (like $`d_{ijk}\phi _i\phi _j\phi _k`$ for $`SU_3`$ with $`\phi _i`$ in the regular representation), but this cursory review is not the place to enter into such niceties\]. Thus one is led to

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\stackrel{}{\phi }^2+\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{\phi })^2\right]+\lambda (\stackrel{}{\phi }^2)^2+\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{H}.$$
(49)
Whereas $`\mu ^2`$ changes sign at $`T=T_c`$ ( being proportional to $`(1\beta \stackrel{~}{v}(0))`$ up to a scaling of $`\stackrel{~}{v}(0)`$ ), one has $`\lambda >0`$. This is most easily seen in MFA where $`\lambda `$ arise from the entropy factor as in the Ising model.

It then follows that all the pictures of Fig.4 remain applicable for use of SBS in the case of continuous symmetry provided they become multidimensional in “$`\phi `$-space”. For ease of representation let the symmetry be $`U(1)`$. Then $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ and the pictures must be interpreted as planes cut through figures of revolution about a central axis in $`\phi `$ space.

The dimple in Fig.4C is the unstable solution $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=0`$ for $`T<T_c`$. The more stable minima lie along a circle in the $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ plane $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^2=\phi _1^2+\phi _2^2=m^2`$ where $`V/(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=0`$. In this case SBS is the choice of which vector $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is taken non vanishing. The reason for the words “more stable” rather than “stable” is clear. Suppose $`\stackrel{}{H}0`$ in some direction then the minimum becomes stable and $`\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{H}`$. Now let $`H0`$. The solution then tends to that value of $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ which is on the abovementioned circle without changing its direction as one takes the limit. But it is unstable with respect to directional changes upon applying an infinitesimal adjunction of $`\stackrel{}{H}^{}`$ in a direction different from the original $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ (which had been sent to zero). This will cause $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ to swivel along the circle so as to lie in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{H}^{}`$, albeit this latter is infinitesimal but not zero.

This new element of SBS of continuous symmetry is essential to the physics of all kinds of situations and as will be seen in the gauge section, plays a vital role in the Brout-Englert-Higgs (BEH) mechanism<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1References to the gauge theory and relevant material are given in “Modern Times”. . It is an effect which was first consciously put on display by Felix Bloch in the mid 1930’s in his spin wave theory of ferromagnetism. In the next sections we shall review his theory, as well as applications to superconductivity and superfluidity. This will be followed by Nambu’s development of the theory of spontaneously broken chiral symetry and soft pion physics. The expression of these ideas in terms of a relativistic field theory, often called the Goldstone theorem, will be presented in the context of the BEH mechanism in the section “Modern Times” by François Englert since it is herein that this aspect of the theory has been particularly successful.

We briefly summarize the important result of SBS of continuous symmetry which has been deduced up to this point. In terms of the effective potential for $`V_{eff}(\stackrel{}{\phi })`$ , for $`T>T_c`$ the situation is the same as for discrete symmetry. There is a unique minimum at $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^2=0`$, whose curvature is the inverse susceptibility $`\chi =m/H=(\mu ^2)^1(TTc)^1`$. For $`T<T_c`$, the point $`\stackrel{}{\phi }^2=0`$ is a local maximum since at this point the curvature ($`=TT_c`$) is then negative. There is then an “orbit” of minima which for the case of broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry is a circle (for the general case see Modern Times for a description of this orbit in the space of a representation of a general group). From our discussion it is seen that the susceptibility becomes a tensor in “$`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$” space. One defines a longitudinal susceptibility corresponding to the response of $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ parallel to an priori fixed vector $`\stackrel{}{\phi }_0`$ which is on the orbit of minima at $`H=0`$. One thinks of this as a “stretching” mode of response of the magnetization. The transverse susceptibility is the response to $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{\phi }_0`$ and according to our discussion of instability this is infinity. One defines a $`(mass)^2`$ tensor which is $`\chi ^1`$ whereupon $`\mu _{longitudinal}^2(T_cT)`$ and $`\mu _{transverse}^2=0`$. This vanishing of the mass in the transverse direction is in fact the terminal point of a continuous spectrum of excitations, the modes being sorted out according to Fourier transform. The expression of this in relativistic field theory (Goldstone’s Theorem) is covered in “Modern Times”. The application to feromagnetism is very instructive in this regard. This will be the subject of the next section.

V. Spin Wave Theory

The existence of zero mass modes as collective excitations (i.e. bosons in quantum field theory) is neatly revealed in spin wave theory. We here follow a procedure, due to Bloch, by studying the single quantum excitations from the the ground state (vacuum). For simplicity we work with $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ (the Pauli matrices). SBS is the choice of orientation of vacuum, the only group symmetric specification for which is “all spins parallel” i.e. all in the same spin state. We choose $`0>`$ to the “all spins up” i.e. $`\sigma _i^z0>=`$ $`0>`$.

Excitations then are generated by creating down spins, the most low lying being l.c.’s of $`\sigma _i^{}0>`$. These l.c.’s are determined from

$$[H,\phi _\omega ]0>=i\omega \phi _\omega 0>,$$
(50)
where $`\phi _\omega `$ is an “eigen operator”, i.e an l.c. of $`\sigma _i^{}0>`$ which satisfies $`[H,\phi _\omega ]=i\omega \phi _\omega `$. Using the algebra of Pauli matrices, along with $`[\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j]=0`$ for $`ij`$, we get with $`=\frac{1}{2}v_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j`$,

$$[,\sigma _i^{}]=v_{ij}([\sigma _i^z,\sigma _i^{}]\sigma _j^z+[\sigma _i^+,\sigma _i^{}]\sigma _j^{})=\underset{j}{}v_{ij}(\sigma _j^z\sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^{}).$$
(51)
Operating on vacuum, we get

$$[,\sigma _i^{}]0>=\underset{j}{}v_{ij}(\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{}).$$
(52)
By translational symmetry Eq.(52) is diagonalized by Fourier transform. Defining $`\sigma _q^{}=(1/\sqrt{N})\sigma _i^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{R}_i}`$ one has

$$[,\sigma _q^{}]0>=i\omega _q\sigma _q^{}0>=\left[\stackrel{~}{v}(0)\stackrel{~}{v}(q)\right]\sigma _q^{}0>,$$
(53)
where

$$\omega _q=\stackrel{~}{v}(0)\stackrel{~}{v}(q)q^2,\text{small}q.$$
(54)
The generalization to the case of an external field is equally interesting. Clearly our vacuum $`0>`$, corresponds to $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ in the $`z`$ direction. So adding to $``$ a term $`H\sigma _i^z`$, going through the same steps then leads to

$$\omega _q=\stackrel{~}{v}(0)\stackrel{~}{v}(q)+Hq^2+H.$$
(55)
Thus $`H`$ induces a $`(mass)^2`$ in the zero mode which is linear in the external breaking. This is especially important when applying these ideas to SB$`\chi `$S and soft pion physics. It is to be noted that the excitation operator, $`\sigma _q^{}`$, reduces to the global rotation operator at $`q=0`$ i.e. $`[H,\sigma _{q=0}^{}]=0`$ (at $`H=0`$) in virtue of symmetry whence $`\omega (0)=0`$, and we see that $`\mu _{transverse}^2=0`$ is indeed the statement that the excitation energy of a continuous spectrum vanishes at $`q=0`$ in virtue of symmetry.

We also can now see why continuous SBS cannot apply in its naïve form to $`d=2`$. The number of spin waves, at temperature $`\beta ^1`$, is $`\left[e^{\beta \omega _q}1\right]^1`$ for $`kT\stackrel{~}{v}(0)`$ (for higher T they interact and the ideal gas of excitations is no a longer valid approximation). Then the total number of spin waves at low $`T`$ is

$$d^dq\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega _q}1}\beta ^1\frac{d^dq}{q^2},$$
(56)
which diverges in the infra-red at $`d=2`$ i.e. $`0>`$ is unstable for $`H=0`$. New methods are therefore required in continuous SBS. But for SBS in the discrete case, the naive notions are OK, albeit suffering severe quantitative modifications.

Some conceptual issues arise which we will now address. Their resolution is of pedagogical interest especially when compared with the corresponding situation in the gauge theory.

We shall first display the classical concept of broken symmetry given by the familiar picture of an arrow which points in the “direction of the vacuum state” picked by the broken symmetry. For example, in the above paragraphs this arrow points in the $`z`$-direction of group space. For simplicity, we continue with the example of broken $`SU(2)`$ symmetry represented by a Pauli matrix sitting on each lattice site, wherein the Hamiltonian is a group scalar as in Eq.(45). The generalization of these considerations to any group in any representation is straightforward.

Let $`|0`$ be the vacuum state: $`S_z|0=N/2|0`$ where

$$\stackrel{}{S}=\underset{i}{}\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i}{2}.$$
(57)
Since the $`S_\alpha (\alpha =x,y,z)`$ represent group generators (i.e. $`[S_\alpha ,S_\beta ]=iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_\gamma )`$, one may construct a rotated vacuum from them. For example, a rotation about the $`x`$-axis of $`|0`$ gives the rotated vacuum $`|\theta `$ where

$$|\theta =e^{iS_x\theta }|0.$$
(58)
The states $`|\theta `$ and $`|0`$ are degenerate since $`[,S_x]=0`$, $``$ being scalar and $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ being a group vector.

Since $`S_x`$ is a group generator, it follows that

$$\theta |S_x|\theta =0;\theta |S_y|\theta =\mathrm{sin}\theta ;\theta |S_z|\theta =\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(59)
In this way, the classical notion of “arrow” is given by the expectation value of the operator $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ in the different rotated vacua.

We shall now prove that, for $`\theta `$ fixed, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta |0=0`$. Moreover, we shall show that the Hilbert space of excitations built upon different vacua are mutually exclusive as well (in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$).

$`0|\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0|e^{iS_x\theta }|0=0|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i(\sigma _i^x/2)\theta }|0`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}0|\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)+i(\sigma _i^x/2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|0`$
$`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)]^N_N\mathrm{}0.`$
If instead of the overlap of $`0|`$ with $`|\theta `$ we took excited states of $`0|`$, say containing $`n`$ spin wawes, the overlap would then be $`[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)]^{Nn}`$. So even if $`n`$ is a finite fraction of $`N`$, the result vanishes in the limit. With more effort one can prove that the excited states built on $`|\theta `$ are orthogonal to excited states of $`|0`$. This remains true until one reaches some threshhold number of excitations proportional to $`N`$ at which point one approaches critical conditions wherein these naive considerations break down.

For finite $`N`$ one can always construct $`N+1`$ orthogonal “vacuum” states as one does in the conventional method of quantizing angular momenta. These are the states $`(S^{})^p|0;p=0,1\mathrm{},N`$. States corresponding to a rotation $`\theta ,\phi `$ from $`|0`$ are obtainable as a linear combination of these. For finite $`N`$ such states are not, in general, orthogonal. But they become approximately so when their angular difference exceeds $`O(1/\sqrt{N})`$. In this way one recovers their mutual orthogonality as $`N\mathrm{}`$ for any angular difference.

VI. Superfluidity and Superconductivity

We briefly indicate how SBS applies to these two interesting phenomena. A free boson gas of $`N`$ particles condenses at a temperature for which the thermal Compton wave length $`(mkT)^{1/2}`$ is $`O`$(interparticle distance). For $`T<T_c`$ , a finite fraction of $`N`$ occupies the state $`k=0`$, and at $`T=0`$ all $`N`$ have zero momenta. For the interacting case, at $`T=0`$ there is only a finite fraction which condenses i.e.

$$a_0^+a_0=N_0=\alpha N,\alpha <1.$$
(61)
This macroscopic occupation of the $`k=0`$ state can be transcribed into a SBS as follows. The commutator $`[a_0^+,a_0]=1`$ is negligible with respect to $`N_0`$ i.e. $`N_0N_0+1`$ in good approximation. Then one can treat $`a_0`$ as a c-number. But $`a_0`$ has a phase. The choice of this phase is SBS. Bogoljubov  built a system of excitations in analogy to spins waves, by building them from a vacuum with a fixed complex c-number value of $`a_0`$. They are linear combinations of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+=\alpha _qa_q^++\beta _qa_q`$ (note $`a_q`$ $`0>0`$ because $`0>`$ contains virtual occupation of states with $`q0`$ , in virtue of the interatomic interactions). The Bogoljubov coefficients $`\alpha _q,\beta _q`$ (with ($`|\alpha _q|^2|\beta _q|^2)=1`$) are proportional to $`a_0`$ and $`a_0^{}`$ respectively. The point to be made here is that as $`q0`$, the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+`$ becomes a rotational generator in the “gauge plane” i.e. it generates infinitesimal changes of the phase of $`a_0`$.

Superfluidity is then a spectacular example of SBS where the symmetry is $`U(1)`$. The all important phase plays vital physical role since if one lets it vary from point to point, its gradient is the velocity of superfluid.

Superconductivity is an equally fascinating case of spontaneously broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Bound states (Cooper pairs) are s states in spin singlets, so causing correlations $`n_kn_kn_kn_k`$ which are $`O(1)`$ rather than the usual free gas value $`O(1/N)`$. In terms of a pseudo spin algebra which is isomorphic to Pauli spin matrices given by

$`b_k=a_ka_k`$ $``$ $`\sigma _k^{}`$
$`b_k^+=a_k^+a_k^+`$ $``$ $`\sigma _k^+`$
$`1n_kn_k`$ $``$ $`\sigma _k^z,`$ (62)
one invents a set of order parameters which are $`b_k`$. Since $`b_k`$ has a phase, one breaks $`U(1)`$ and since the hamiltonian is invariant under this $`U(1)`$ symmetry, the interactions being $`v(k,k^{})b_k^+b_k^{}`$, one has SBS. Note that an otherwise $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is broken externally since the kinetic energy in the Hamiltonian is equal to $`\epsilon (k)(n_k+n_k)`$ hence up to a constant $`=\epsilon (k)\sigma _k^z`$.

A typical “vacuum” configuration may be depicted as follows as one spans the Fermi surface in $`k`$-space

(in the free or normal metal at zero temperature $`\left|k\right|=k_f`$ is a point of discontinuity). The residual $`U(1)`$ symmetry are rotations about the isospin $`Z`$ axis which in the above picture is obtained by rotation around the horizontal axis. In this example the “molecular” field on the $`k^{th}`$ subsystem is $`\epsilon (k)\sigma _k^z+v(k,k^{})\sigma _k^{}^x`$ if the $`b_k`$’s are chosen real. The zero mass is then the aforementioned rotation which for this ground state are excitations which are linear combinations of $`\sigma _k^y`$. There are also fermionic excitations which are massive. Their mass corresponds to the energy necessary to break up a Cooper pair. It is given by $`\left[\left(\epsilon _k\epsilon _F\right)^2+H_k^2\right]^{1/2}`$ where $`H_k`$ is the ”transverse” molecular field on $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k`$ given by $`v(k,k^{})\left[b_k^{}+b_k^{}^+\right]`$.

In the above model the interaction $`v(k,k^{})`$ is a small attractive force that issues from exchange of phonons (lattice waves) among the electrons. In addition there is a much stronger force due to Coulomb interaction. Whereas Bardeen Cooper Shrieffer  worked only with the former, Anderson  and Nambu  analysed the effects of the latter. The fermionic mass is essentially unaffected, but the collective mode is completely modified so as to become the massy plasmon. It is a ”longitudinal” photon. There are also massy “transverse” photons. These give rise to the Meissner effect and the flux tubes of type II superconductors. The transverse and longitudinal masses are unequal since their origins differ dynamically. The plasmon uses the total electron density whereas the transverse photons refers to the condensate (i.e. the $`b_k`$).

These effects were the precursor of the BEH mechanism which is studied in “Modern Times”. Then because there is longitudinal and transverse isotropy in the quantum relativistic quantum field vacuum, there is only one mass.

VII. Spontanously Broken Chiral Symmetry(SB$`\chi `$S)

One of the first exercises for students in field theory is the calculation of the electron’s self mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, in QED with the result to $`O(e^2)`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }me^2m_0\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_0),$$
(63)
where $`m_0`$ is the bare mass, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the cut-off. The important point is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$, if $`m_0=0`$. It is this circumstance that reduces the divergence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ from the naïve expectation that is linear in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to logarithmic. One says that the mass is “protected” by chiral symmetry. Chiral symmetry for a single fermion field is invariance of the action under

$$\mathrm{\Psi }e^{i\alpha \gamma _5}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(64)
Whereas under normal (global) gauge transformations the $`L`$ and $`R`$ components transform the same way (where $`L,R=\left[\left(1\pm \gamma _5\right)/2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$) they transform with opposite signs under the chiral gauge transformation.

Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^+\gamma _0`$ one has under Eq.(64) $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{i\alpha \gamma _5}`$. In consequence

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }+\left(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha )\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }+(\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (65)
Here $`\gamma _5`$ is hermitian with $`(\gamma _5)^2=1`$ and $`\{\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu \}=0`$. Thus under Eq.(65) the couple $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi })`$ transforms as a vector under chiral transformations i.e. it rotates in the “chiral gauge plane” with angle ($`2\alpha `$).

Whereas the electromagnetic interaction, as well the kinetic term in the action are chiral invariants (since $`\{\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu \}=0)`$ thereby securing the invariance of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$, the mass term ($`m_0\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$) is not, due to Eq.(65). One consequence is that every term in pertubation theory gives $`m=0`$ if $`m_0=0`$. This is easily checked by making the count of the number of $`\gamma `$ matrices appearing in vertices and fermion propagators. It is odd and the trace of such a term vanishes. A mass term appearing in the self energy is calculated by taking the trace. We shortly give a more synthetic demonstration of this fact from the chiral Ward identity.

Inspired by the BCS theory of superconductivity, wherein a mass gap was derived non perturbatively (through Cooper bound state formation), Nambu  showed that the same could arise in quantum field theory, the price being the existence of a dynamically generated pseudoscalar meson, which he then identified with the pion. During this same period, Gell-Mann and Levy  proposed a chiral invariant action which contained scalar and pseudoscalar fields coupled to the fermion (Yukawa coupling). SB$`\chi `$S was first generated through the bosonic action (effective potential method) wherein the scalar picked up an expectation value and the pseudoscalar had zero mass in consequence of SBS kinematics. At low momentum scales the two methods give equivalent physical results, whereas at large momenta the composite character of the effective boson fields in Nambu’s methods could give a considerable modification of the dynamics, so as to augment the width of the massy scalar (i.e. the scalar which corresponds to the stretching mode or longitudinal susceptibility in the magnetic case).

It is the Gell-Mann Lévy phenomenological approach which until the present time has prevailed in standard model research in the implementation of the BEH mechanism. Research beyond the standard model is so tenuous that all avenues must be considered open. One also must bear in mind that the original dynamical mechanism of SB$`\chi `$S of Nambu Jona-Lasinio is now supplanted by the QCD confinement mechanism. In this case the zitterbewegung of quarks at the end of electric flux tubes (the model for mesons) provides for the “constituent” quark mass. The chiral symmetry of QCD then implies the existence of pions. These have zero mass if the “current” quark mass is zero and have a $`(mass)^2`$ proportional to the latter when it is not zero. An exception is the ninth pseudoscalar of the eightfold way which has mass due to an anomaly. The origin of quark and lepton masses in terms of some ultimate chiral, super or GUTS symmetry remains elusive, the Yukawa coupling in standard model reseach being most likely the phenomenological expression of a deeper theory.

In this review we shall adhere to Nambu’s original approach since it carries a pedagogical message of both power and elegance. We first review the simple non perturbative approach of Nambu Jona-Lasinio , not that it need be of direct applicability, but rather because it sets the scene for more general considerations.

Consider a chiral invariant four point interaction (such as $`\lambda \left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\right]^2`$ ) or its Fierz equivalent $`\lambda \left[(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi })^2(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi })\right]^2`$. In lowest order the fermion self energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is given by the graph (Fig.7)

where one may imagine some non locality over a distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ at the vertex (say due to the exchange of a very heavy meson) supplies a U-V cut-off. Then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)g^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d^4k}{\gamma ^\mu (k+p)_\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(66)
where irrelevant factors of $`O(1)`$ are dropped and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the relevant $`\gamma `$ matrices (e.g. take $`\gamma _\mu `$ for definiteness). Then $`tr\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$.

Let us now make this self consistent by iterating in the fermion propagator so that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)g^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^4k\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{\gamma ^\mu (k+p)_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }(k+p)}\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(67)
This corresponds to an infinite sum of graphs often called rainbow graphs i.e a rainbow is built on every fermion line ad infinitum. (It is amusing that one can build the Weiss molecular field of ferromagnetism using exactly the same set of graphs in a field theory which is equivalent to the original spin problem).

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=A(p)\gamma ^\mu p_\mu +M(p)`$ and take the trace to give

$$M(p)g^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^4k\frac{M(p+k)}{(p+k)^2M^2(p+k)},$$
(68)
where we have not included the effect due to the form factor $`A`$. The ensuing integral equation is difficult to solve but the ideas are brought out setting $`M(p)=M`$= constant so as to give an eigenvalue equation for $`M`$. Taking into account factors for $`i`$, one gets a solution by making a Wick rotation provided the force is attractive ($`g<0`$). This is the equivalent to the gap equation in superconductors.

Of particular interest in particle theory is the accompanying pseudoscalar. Note the SB$`\chi `$S; one could have taken $`M`$ as a linear combination of $`M_1+iM_2\gamma _5`$ with $`M^2=M_1^2+M_2^2`$. Choosing $`M_2=0`$ is a choice of direction in the chiral gauge plane, along the axis $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$ should propagate with zero mass. It does as seen from its propagator ($`1/1g\mathrm{\Pi }`$) (Fig 8)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p)=trd^4k\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{\gamma ^\mu (p+k)_\mu M}\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{\gamma ^\mu k_\mu M}.$$
(69)
At $`q=0`$ one has

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(0)\frac{d^4k}{k^2M^2},$$
(70)
and from the eigenvalue condition Eq.(68) one checks $`1g\mathrm{\Pi }(0)=0`$. The diligent reader may check all the kinematic factors of $`O(1)`$. Thus the propagator of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at $`q=0`$ has a pole and one may check (for example by dispersion relations) that it corresponds to a pole at $`q^2=0`$ in the more general case when $`q_\mu 0`$. ( Here $`q^2q_0^2\underset{¯}{q}^2`$ )

This result is general, powerful and independent of approximations that have been made. That is the true powerful accomplishement of Nambu which we now present.

The chiral Ward identity, established in the same way as the usual vector Ward identity through use of the symmetry of the action under chiral transformations, reads

$$\underset{q_\mu 0}{lim}q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}=\gamma _5\mathrm{\Sigma }(p+q)+\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\gamma _5.$$
(71)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}`$ is the vertex function formed from the chiral sources of momentum $`q_\mu `$ which scatters a fermion from $`p_\mu `$ to $`p_\mu +q_\mu `$. As $`q_\mu 0`$, one sees that the form factor $`A(p)`$ drops out of Eq.(71) (since $`\{\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu \}=0`$). Whence

$$\underset{q_\mu 0}{lim}q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}=2M(p)\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}\frac{2M(p)\gamma _5q_\mu }{q^2}.$$
(72)
This pole at $`q^2=0`$ is the signal of a pseudoscalar meson which couples to the fermion field through the mass of the fermion.

Nambu recognized that in this way he had discovered the key to the success of the celebrated Goldberger-Treiman relation, one of the gems of particle physics in the 1950’s-1960’s, to which we now turn so closing out this review of the Paleolithic Age.

The original derivation by Goldberger and Treiman was based on a dispersion relation argument, involving two assumptions: an unsubtracted dispersion relation for one of the form factors occurring in the matrix element for $`\beta `$ decay (see below) and pion dominance of the same. The quantitative success was remarkable, but there was little understanding of how to justify the assumptions. This was supplied by Nambu as follows. Whereas the Ward identity involves fields, one can also work directly with matrix elements of currents among physical states. In particular the matrix element of the axial current between nucleons is observed as the Gamow-Teller transition in $`\beta `$ decay. Its most general form can be shown to be

$$N\left|j_{\mu 5}\right|N^{}=F_A(q^2)\overline{u}_N(p+q)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u_N^{}(p)+F_p(q^2)\overline{u}_N(p+q)q_\mu \gamma _5u_N(p),$$
(73)
where $`q_\mu `$ is the 4-momentum tranfer carried by $`j_{\mu 5}`$.

Let us suppose that $`_\mu j_{\mu 5}=0`$ (i.e. chiral invariance). Then taking the divergence of Eq.(73) gives

$$0=\left[(m_N+m_N^{})F_A(q^2)+q^2F_p(q^2)\right]\left[\overline{u}_N(p+q)\gamma _5u_N(p)\right],$$
(74)
where we have used $`\{\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu \}=0`$ and the Dirac equation $`(\gamma ^\mu p_\mu M)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. As $`q^20`$, one finds

$$F_p(q^2)_{q^20}(m_N+m_N^{})\frac{1}{q^2}F_A(0),$$
(75)
i.e. $`F(p)`$ has a pole which like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 5}`$ (Eq.(72)) has residue proportional to the fermion mass, here the nucleon. Eqs. (74) and (75) have the interpretation given by the graphical structure for $`F_p`$ (Fig.9)

The dark circle in the drawing is $`0\left|j_{\mu 5}\right|\pi =if_\pi q_\mu `$. The dotted line is the pion propagator ($`=1/q^2`$) and the light circle is $`g_{\pi NN^{}}\overline{u}_N^{}\gamma _5u_N`$, where $`g_{\pi NN^{}}`$ is the pion nucleon coupling constant. The residue condition implied by Eq.(75) is

$$f_\pi g_{\pi NN^{}}=(m_N+m_N^{})F_A.$$
(76)
All quantities are measured; $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant into leptons, $`F_A`$ the Gamow-Teller $`\beta `$ decay constant, $`g_{\pi NN^{}}`$ is found from $`\pi N`$ scattering. Agreement is found to $`O(2\%)`$. The deviation is attributed to the fact that $`_\mu j_{\mu 5}`$ does not quite vanish and this is reflected by the fact that $`m_\pi ^20`$. Rather

$$0\left|_\mu j_{\mu 5}\right|\pi =q^2f_\pi =m_\pi ^2f_\pi ,$$
(77)
since the pion is “on shell”. Nambu attributed $`m_\pi ^20`$, (but small on the scale of hadron physics) to a small external breaking of chiral invariance induced by a bare mass, $`m_0`$. He then showed that $`m_\pi ^2m_0M`$ where $`M`$= hadron scale ($`m_010Mev,M1Gev,m_\pi 130Mev`$). Note the analogy to Eq.(55).

Now return to Eqs.(73), (74) and (75). The l.h.s. of Eq.(74) now contains the non vanishing value $`N\left|_\mu j_{\mu 5}\right|N^{}`$. Nevertheless the residue relation Eq.(76) should not change significantly. The $`(momentumtransfer)^2`$ in $`g_{\pi NN^{}}`$ and in $`F_A`$ are now shifted by $`O(m_\pi ^2)`$. Therefore Eq.(76) ought to hold good at the 1% level. The corrections will be encoded in the contribution of high mass states not included in the pion dominance estimate of $`F_p`$. Assuming this true, one replaces Eq.(75) by

$$F_p(q)(m_N+m_N^{})\frac{1}{q^2m_\pi ^2}F_A(0),$$
(78)
then yields Eq (76). This is the famous principle of PCAC wherein pion matrix elements are related to matrix elements of the axial current. See reference  for the phenomenology development of soft pion physics. When united with the Gell-Mann current algebra it becomes a very powerful tool which interrelates all kinds of hadronic phenomena, thus becoming one of the dominant elements of particle physics throughout the 1960’s and early 70’s. The success of the whole development bit by bit led to the QCD quark model and confinement which are now considered the theoretical bases of hadron physics as well as hadron-lepton interactions.

In the preceedings paragraphs, we have seen the important role that SBS has played in particle physics when the symmetry that has been broken is global (the chiral group). “Modern Times” is devoted to the other important facet of this development, to wit: the BEH mechanism wherein one adds to the previous consideration the complication of gauge symmetry. This chapter lead to the electroweak unification.


text:
# Radiatively Induced Neutrino Mass Matrix in a SUSY GUT Model with 𝑅-Parity Violation

## 1 Introduction

The Zee model  is one of promising models of neutrino mass generation mechanism, because the model has only 3 free parameters and it can naturally lead to a large neutrino mixing , especially, to a bimaximal mixing . However, the original Zee model is not on a framework of a grand unification theory (GUT), and moreover, it is recently pointed out  that the predicted value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ must be satisfied the relation $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}>0.99`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^210^2`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}\right)^2.$$
$`(1.1)`$
The conclusion cannot be loosened even if we take the renormalization group equation (RGE) effects into consideration.

The simple ways to evade the constraint (1.1) may be as follows: One is to consider  that the Yukawa vertices of the charged leptons can couple to both scalars $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. Another one  is to introduce a single right-handed neutrino $`\nu _R`$ and a second singlet Zee scalar $`S^+`$. Also, a model with a new doubly charged scalar $`k^{++}`$ is interesting because the two loop effects in such a model can give non-negligible contributions to the neutrino masses . As another attractive model, there is an idea  that in an $`R`$-parity violating supersymmetric (SUSY) model we identify the Zee scalar $`h^+`$ as the slepton $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$. Then, we can obtain additional contributions from the down-quark loop diagrams to the neutrino masses, so that such a model can be free from the constraint (1.1).

However, these models have not been embedded into a GUT scenario. As an extended Zee model based on a GUT scenario, there is, for example, the Haba-Matsuda-Tanimoto model . They have regarded the Zee scalar $`h^+`$ as a member of the messenger field $`M_{10}+\overline{M_{10}}`$ of SUSY-breaking on the basis of an SU(5) SUSY GUT. However, their model cannot escape from the constraint (1.1) because the radiative masses are only induced by the charged lepton loop diagrams.

In the present paper, we will investigate an extended Zee model which is based on a framework of a SUSY GUT with $`R`$-parity violation, and which is free from the severe constraint (1.1). Usually, it is accepted that SUSY models with $`R`$-parity violation are incompatible with a GUT scenario, because the $`R`$-parity violating interactions induce the proton decay. In order to suppress the proton decay due to the $`R`$-parity violating terms, we will introduce a discrete Z2 symmetry.

## 2 How to evade the proton decay

We identify the Zee scalar $`h^+`$ as the slepton $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+`$ which is a member of SU(5) 10-plet sfermions $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10}`$. Then, the Zee interactions correspond to the following $`R`$-parity violating interactions

$$\lambda _{ij}^k(\overline{\psi }_{\overline{5}}^c)_i^A(\psi _{\overline{5}})_j^B(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10})_{kAB}$$

$$=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _{ij}^k\left\{\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (d_R^c)_j^\beta (\stackrel{~}{u}_R^{})_k^\gamma \right\}.$$

$$[(\overline{e}_L^c)_i(\nu _L)_j(\overline{\nu }_L^c)_i(e_L)_j](\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{})_k$$

$$[(\overline{e}_L^c)_i(d_R^c)_j^\alpha (\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (e_L)_j](\stackrel{~}{u}_L)_{k\alpha }$$

$$+[(\overline{\nu }_L^c)_i(d_R^c)_j^\alpha (\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (\nu _L)_j](\stackrel{~}{d}_L)_{k\alpha }\},$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`\psi ^cC\overline{\psi }^T`$ and the indices $`(i,j,\mathrm{})`$, $`(A,B,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{})`$ are family-, SU(5)GUT\- and SU(3)color-indices, respectively. However, in GUT models, if the interactions (2.1) exist, the following $`R`$-parity violating interactions will also exist:

$$\lambda _{ij}^k(\overline{\psi }_{\overline{5}}^c)_i^A(\psi _{10})_{kAB}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}})_j^B$$

$$=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _{ij}^k\{\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{})_j^\beta (u_R^c)_k^\gamma $$

$$[(\overline{e}_L^c)_i(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L)_j(\overline{\nu }_L^c)_i(\stackrel{~}{e}_L)_j](e_R^c)_k$$

$$[(\overline{e}_L^c)_i(\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{})_j^\alpha (\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{e}_L)_j](u_L)_{k\alpha }$$

$$+[(\overline{\nu }_L^c)_i(\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{})_j^\alpha (\overline{d}_R)_i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L)_j](d_L)_{k\alpha }\},$$
$`(2.2)`$
which contribute to the proton decay through the intermediate state $`\stackrel{~}{d}_R`$.

In order to forbid the contribution of the interactions (2.2) to the proton decay, for example, we can assume that the $`R`$-parity violating interactions occur only when the field $`\psi _{10}`$ of the third family is related, i.e., we assume the interactions

$$\lambda _{ij}^3(\overline{\psi }_{\overline{5}}^c)_i^A(\psi _{10})_{3AB}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}})_j^B,$$
$`(2.3)`$
instead of the interaction (2.2). Then, the terms $`\lambda _{ij}^3(\overline{d}_R)_i(\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{})_j(u_R^c)_3`$ cannot contribute to the proton decay. In order to realize the constraints

$$\lambda _{12}^k=\lambda _{23}^k=\lambda _{31}^k=0\mathrm{for}k=1,2,$$
$`(2.4)`$
we introduce a discrete symmetry Z2, which exactly holds at every energy scale, as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\psi _{\overline{5}})_i\eta _i(\psi _{\overline{5}})_i,\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}})_i\eta _i(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}})_i,\hfill \\ (\psi _{10})_i\xi _i(\psi _{10})_i,\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10})_i\xi _i(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10})_i,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`\eta _i`$ and $`\xi _i`$ take

$$\eta =(+1,+1,+1),\xi =(1,1,+1),$$
$`(2.6)`$
under the Z2 symmetry. Then, the Z2 invariance leads to the constraints (2.4).

However, if the RGE effects cause a mixing between the first and third families, the interactions (2.3) can again contribute to the proton decay. If we assume that $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ Higgs fields $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ transform as

$$H_u+H_u,H_d+H_d,$$
$`(2.7)`$
under the Z2 symmetry, the up-quark mass matrix $`M_u`$ is given by the form

$$M_u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_u& d_u& 0\\ d_u& b_u& 0\\ 0& 0& a_u\end{array}\right).$$
$`(2.8)`$
This guarantees that the top quark $`u_3`$ in the $`R`$-parity violating terms (2.3) does not mix with the other components ($`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$) even if we take the RGE effects into consideration, so that the interactions (2.3) cannot contribute to the proton decay at any energy scales.

On the other hand, the down-quark mass matrix $`M_d`$ and the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_e`$, which are generated by the Higgs scalar $`H_d`$, have the form

$$M_d=M_e^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ a_1& a_2& a_3\end{array}\right).$$
$`(2.9)`$
The mass matrix form (2.9) cannot explain the observed masses and mixings. In order to give reasonable masses and mixings of the quarks and charged leptons, we must consider additional SU(5) 45-plet Higgs scalars, which do not contribute to the up-quark mass matrix because $`\overline{\psi }_{10}M_u\psi _{10}^c`$ belongs to $`(\overline{10}\times \overline{10})_{symmetric}`$. Then, we obtain the down-fermion mass matrices

$$M_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1^{}& c_2^{}& c_3^{}\\ b_1^{}& b_2^{}& b_3^{}\\ a_1+a_1^{}& a_2+a_2^{}& a_3+a_3^{}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(2.10)`$
$$M_e^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3c_1^{}& 3c_2^{}& 3c_3^{}\\ 3b_1^{}& 3b_2^{}& 3b_3^{}\\ a_13a_1^{}& a_23a_2^{}& a_33a_3^{}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(2.11)`$
where $`a_i^{}`$ and $`(b_i^{},c_i^{})`$ denote contributions from the 45-plet Higgs scalars $`H_{45}^{(+)}`$ and $`H_{45}^{()}`$ which transform $`H_{45}^{(+)}+H_{45}^{(+)}`$ and $`H_{45}^{()}H_{45}^{()}`$ under the symmetry Z2, respectively. Note that if we consider either $`H_{45}^{(+)}`$ or $`H_{45}^{()}`$, we cannot still give realistic down-fermion masses. For example, if we have $`H_5`$ ($`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$) and $`H_{45}^{()}`$, we obtain an unwelcome relation

$$m_\tau ^2+m_\mu ^2+m_e^2(m_b^2+m_s^2+m_d^2)$$

$$=8\left(|b_i^{}|^2+|c_i^{}|^2\right)>0,$$
$`(2.12)`$
from the trace of $`M_e^{}M_eM_dM_d^{}`$. Therefore, in order to obtain realistic down-fermion mass matrices, we need, at least, the three types of the Higgs scalars $`H_5`$, $`H_{45}^{(+)}`$ and $`H_{45}^{()}`$.

However, such additional Higgs scalars $`H_{45}^{(\pm )}`$ cause another problems. One is a problem of the flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC). This problem is a common subject to overcome not only in the present model but also in most GUT models. The conventional mass matrix models based on GUT scenario cannot give realistic mass matrices without assuming Higgs scalars more than two. For this problem, we optimistically consider that only one component of the linear combinations among those Higgs scalars survives at the low energy scale $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ is the electroweak energy scale), while other components are decoupled at $`\mu <\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ is a unification scale).

Another problem is that the 45 Higgs scalars can have vacuums expectation values (VEV) at the electroweak energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$, so that the Z2 symmetry is broken at $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$. Therefore, the proton decay may occur through higher order Feynman diagrams. In the conventional GUT models, it is still a current topic whether the colored components of the SU(5) 5-plet Higgs scalar can become sufficiently heavy or not to suppress the proton decay. We again optimistically assume that the colored components of the 45-plet Higgs scalars are sufficiently heavy to suppress the proton decay, i.e., that such effects will be suppressed by a factor $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_L/\mathrm{\Lambda }_X)^2`$.

## 3 Radiatively induced neutrino masses

We define fields $`u_i`$, $`d_i`$ and $`e_i`$ as those corresponding to mass eigenstates, i.e.,

$$H_{mass}=\overline{u}_LU_L^uM_uU_R^uu_R+\overline{d}_LU_L^dM_dU_R^dd_R$$

$$+\overline{e}_LU_L^eM_eU_R^ee_R+h.c.,$$
$`(3.1)`$
and fields $`\nu _{Li}`$ as partners of the mass eigenstates $`e_{Li}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{}_{Li}=(\nu _{Li},e_{Li})`$. We define the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ as

$$H_{\nu mass}=\overline{\nu }_L^cM_\nu \nu _L.$$
$`(3.2)`$
Therefore, a unitary matrix $`U_L^\nu `$ which is defined by

$$U_L^{\nu T}M_\nu U_L^\nu =D_\nu \mathrm{diag}(m_1^\nu ,m_2^\nu ,m_3^\nu ),$$
$`(3.3)`$
is identified as the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo  neutrino mixing matrix $`U_{MNSP}=U_L^\nu `$.

In addition to the $`R`$-parity violating terms (2.1) and (2.2) \[(2.3)\], we assume SUSY breaking terms $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10}H_{\overline{5}}^d`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\overline{5}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{10}H_{\overline{45}}^d`$). For the moment, we do not consider $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^c`$-$`H_d^+`$ mixing as in the original Zee model. (The $`H_d^+`$ contribution to the neutrino mass matrix will be discussed in the end of this section.) Then, the neutrino masses are radiatively generated. In Fig. 1, we illustrate the Feynman diagram for the case with the down-quark loop. The amplitude is proportional to the coefficient

$$(U_R^d\lambda U_L^e)_{lj}(\stackrel{~}{U}_L^d)_{3n}(U_L^dM_dU_R^d)_{kl}$$

$$(\stackrel{~}{U}_R^d\lambda ^TU_L^e)_{mi}(U_L^d)_{3k}(\stackrel{~}{U}_L^d\stackrel{~}{m}_d^2\stackrel{~}{U}_R^d)_{nm}$$

$$=(\stackrel{~}{m}_d^2\lambda U_L^e)_{3i}(M_d\lambda U_L^e)_{3j},$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_d^2)_{ij}`$ are coefficients of $`(\stackrel{~}{d}_L^{})_i(\stackrel{~}{d}_R)_j`$, and $`(\lambda )_{ij}=\lambda _{ij}^3`$. Similarly, we obtain the contributions from the charged lepton loops. Therefore, the radiatively induced neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ is given by the following form

$$(M_\nu )_{ij}=(f_i^eg_j^e+f_j^eg_i^e)K_e+(f_i^dg_j^d+f_j^dg_i^d)K_d,$$
$`(3.5)`$
where $`K_f`$ ($`f=e,d`$) are common factors independently of the families, and

$$\begin{array}{c}f_i^e=(M_e^T\lambda U_L^e)_{3i},g_i^e=(\stackrel{~}{m}_e^{2T}\lambda U_L^e)_{3i},\hfill \\ f_i^d=(M_d\lambda U_L^e)_{3i},g_i^d=(\stackrel{~}{m}_d^2\lambda U_L^e)_{3i}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.6)`$
On the other hand, the contributions due to the $`H_d^+`$ \- $`\stackrel{~}{e}^+`$ mixing are as follows. There are no contributions from bilinear terms $`H_u(5)[H_d(\overline{5})+_i\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\overline{5})]`$, because we can always eliminate the contributions from $`H_u(5)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\overline{5})`$ by re-definition of the scalar $`H_d(\overline{5})`$. Also, there are no contributions from $`H_d(\overline{5})H_d(\overline{5})\stackrel{~}{\psi }(10)`$, because $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(10)`$ is anti-symmetric in SU(5) indices. However, the terms $`H_d(\overline{5})H_d(\overline{45})\stackrel{~}{\psi }(10)`$ can cause the $`H_d^+`$ \- $`\stackrel{~}{e}^+`$ mixing. These contributions affect only to the charged lepton loop diagrams.

The final result which includes the $`H_d^+`$ contributions is given by

$$M_{ij}=(f_i^eg_j^e+f_j^eg_i^e)K_e+(f_i^dg_j^d+f_j^dg_i^e)K_d+F_{ij}^eK_e^{^{}},$$
$`(3.7)`$
where

$$F_{ij}^e=(U_{L}^{e}{}_{}{}^{T}\lambda M_eM_{e}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{}U_L^e)_{ij}+(ij),$$
$`(3.8)`$
and $`M_e^{^{}}`$ denotes the contributions due to $`\overline{\nu }_Le_LH_d^+`$ \[$`H_d^+`$ denotes $`(H_d(\overline{5}))^+`$, $`(H_d^{(+)}(\overline{45}))^+`$ and $`(H_d^{()}(\overline{45}))^+`$\]. We have already assumed that only one component of the linear combinations among those Higgs scalars survives at the low energy scale. Then, we can regard $`M_e^{^{}}`$ as $`M_e^{^{}}=M_e`$, so that we obtain $`F_{ij}^e`$ as follows:

$$F_{ij}^e=(\lambda ^{^{}}D_e^2)_{ij}+(ij)=\lambda _{ij}^{^{}}(m_{j}^{e}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{i}^{e}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
$`(3.9)`$
where $`\lambda ^{^{}}=U_{L}^{e}{}_{}{}^{T}\lambda U_L^e`$ is antisymmetric tensor as well as $`\lambda `$ , and $`m_i^e=(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau ).`$ Note that, in this case, the third term in (3.7) has the same mass matrix form as that in the original Zee model.

## 4 Phenomenology

In the SUSY GUT scenario, there are many origins of the neutrino mass generations. For example, the sneutrinos $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}`$ can have the VEV, and thereby, the neutrinos $`\nu _{Li}`$ acquire their masses (for example, see Ref.). Although we cannot rule out a possibility that the observed neutrino masses can be understood from such compound origins, in the present paper, we do not take such the point of view, because the observed neutrino masses and mixings appear to be rather simple and characteristic. We simply assume that the radiative masses are only dominated even if there are other origins of the neutrino mass generations.

However, even under such the assumption, we still have many parameters as shown in the expression (3.7). For simplicity, we assume that the contributions from the charged lepton loop are dominated compared with those from the down-quark loop, i.e., $`K_eK_d`$, which corresponds to the case $`m^2(\stackrel{~}{d}_L)m^2(\stackrel{~}{d}_R)m^2(\stackrel{~}{e}_L)m^2(\stackrel{~}{e}_R)`$. (We can give a similar discussion for the case $`K_dK_e`$. In the present paper, we do not discuss which case is reasonable.) Furthermore, we neglect the third term ($`H_d^+`$ contributions) in (3.7). Then, the neutrino mass matrix (3.5) becomes a simple form

$$(M_\nu )_{ij}=m_0(f_ig_j+f_jg_i).$$
$`(4.1)`$
Hereafter, for convenience, we will normalize $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ as

$$|f_1|^2+|f_2|^2+|f_3|^2=1,|g_1|^2+|g_2|^2+|g_3|^2=1.$$
$`(4.2)`$
In the most SUSY models, it is taken that the form of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_f^2`$ $`(f=e,d)`$ is proportional to the fermion mass matrix $`M_f`$. Then, the coefficients $`g_i`$ are proportional to $`f_i`$, so that the mass matrix (4.1) becomes $`(M_\nu )_{ij}=2m_0f_if_j`$, which is a rank one matrix. Therefore, we rule out the case with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_f^2M_f`$.

For convenience, hereafter, we assume that $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are real. The mass eigenvalues and mixing matrix elements for the neutrino mass matrix (4.1) are given as follows :

$$\begin{array}{c}m_1^\nu =(1+\epsilon )m_0,\hfill \\ m_2^\nu =(1\epsilon )m_0,\hfill \\ m_3^\nu =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.3)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}U_{i1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_i+g_i}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon }},\hfill \\ U_{i2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_ig_i}{\sqrt{1\epsilon }},\hfill \\ U_{i3}=\epsilon _{ijk}\frac{f_jg_k}{\sqrt{1\epsilon ^2}},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.4)`$
where

$$\epsilon =f_1g_1+f_2g_2+f_3g_3.$$
$`(4.5)`$
As seen in (4.3), the mass level pattern of the present model shows the inverse hierarchy as well as that of the Zee model. From (4.3), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(m_2^\nu )^2(m_1^\nu )^2=4\epsilon m_0^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2(m_3^\nu )^2(m_2^\nu )^2=(1\epsilon )^2m_0^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.6)`$
$$R\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}=\frac{4\epsilon }{(1\epsilon )^2}.$$
$`(4.7)`$
For a small $`R`$, the mixing parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ and $`U_{e3}^2`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}4U_{11}^2U_{12}^2=\frac{1}{1\epsilon ^2}(f_1^2g_1^2)^2,$$
$`(4.8)`$
$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}4U_{23}^2U_{33}^2$$

$$=\frac{4}{(1\epsilon ^2)^2}[f_2f_3+g_2g_3\epsilon (f_3g_2+f_2g_3)]^2,$$
$`(4.9)`$
$$U_{13}^2=1\frac{f_1^2+g_1^22\epsilon f_1g_1}{1\epsilon ^2}.$$
$`(4.10)`$
Let us demonstrate that the mass matrix form (4.1) has reasonable parameters for the observed neutrino data. The atmospheric neutrino data  suggests a large $`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _\tau `$ mixing, i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}1`$. It is known that the nearly bimaximal mixing is derived from the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ with $`23`$ symmetry . Therefore, we take

$$\begin{array}{cc}f_1=s_\alpha ,\hfill & f_2=f_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_\alpha ,\hfill \\ g_1=c_\beta ,\hfill & g_2=g_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}s_\beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.11)`$
where $`c_\alpha =\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, $`s_\alpha =\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ and so on. Then, the parameterization (4.11) gives

$$\epsilon =\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta ),$$
$`(4.12)`$
$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}=\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha +\beta ),$$
$`(4.13)`$
$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1,$$
$`(4.14)`$
$$U_{13}^2=0.$$
$`(4.15)`$
We assume that the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are highly close each other, i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )10^2`$. The result (4.13) with $`\alpha \beta `$ is free from the constraint (1.1) in the original Zee model, so that we can fit the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ with the observed value  $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}0.8`$ from the solar neutrino data by adjusting the parameter $`\alpha `$ ($`\beta `$). Of course, the parameterization (4.11) is taken only from the phenomenological point of view, so that the results (4.13)-(4.15) are not theoretical consequences in the present model.

From the recent atmospheric and solar neutrino data  $`R(4.5\times 10^5`$ eV$`{}_{}{}^{2})/(2.5\times 10^3)`$ eV2)$`=1.8\times 10^2`$, we estimate $`\epsilon =4.5\times 10^3`$, and $`m_0m_1^\nu |m_2^\nu |\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}=0.050\mathrm{eV}`$. The effective neutrino mass $`m_\nu `$ from the neutrinoless double beta decay experiment is given by $`m_\nu =(M_\nu )_{11}=2m_0c_\alpha s_\beta m_0\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}}2.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, where we have used the observed value  $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}0.8`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have proposed a neutrino mass matrix model based on a SUSY GUT model where only top quark takes $`R`$-parity violating interactions and the Z2 symmetry plays an essential role, so that the proton decay due to the $`R`$-parity interactions can be evaded safely.

The general form of the radiatively induced neutrino mass matrix in the present model is given by the expression (3.7). Since the form (3.7) has too many parameters, we have investigated phenomenology for a simplified case (4.1). Although we have investigated the case $`\epsilon 0`$ \[$`\epsilon `$ is defined by (4.5)\], the case $`1\epsilon 0`$ is also possible. However, the purpose of the present paper is to give the general form of the radiatively induced neutrino mass matrix (3.7) under the discrete symmetry Z2. A systematic study of the mass matrix (3.7) will be given elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to M. Yasue and J. Sato for their helpful discussions and valuable comments. They also thank to J. W. F. Valle and D. Marfatia for their useful comments and informing valuable references. One of the authors (AG) is supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers in Japan through Grant No.P99222.