text:
# 1 Chiral loop contribution to the structure function 𝑆̄₁(0,𝑄²) with the elastic contribution subtracted. The solid (dot-dashed) line gives the result of the present calculation to order 𝑞⁴ (𝑞³) in comparison to the heavy baryon result of [] (dotted line). Left (right) panel: Proton (neutron).

FZJ-IKP(TH)-2002-06

Novel analysis of chiral loop effects in the
generalized Gerasimov–Drell–Hearn sum rule

Véronique Bernard†,#1#1#1email: bernard@lpt6.u-strasbg.fr, Thomas R. Hemmert∗,#2#2#2email: themmert@physik.tu-muenchen.de, Ulf-G. Meißner‡,#3#3#3email: u.meissner@fz-juelich.de

Université Louis Pasteur, Laboratoire de Physique Théorique
F–67084 Strasbourg, France

Technische Universität München, Physik Department T-39
D-85747 Garching, Germany

Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institut für Kernphysik (Theorie)
D-52425 Jülich, Germany
and
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Institut für Theoretische Physik
Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz, Austria

## Abstract

We study the chiral loop corrections to the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule of the nucleon for finite photon virtuality in the framework of a Lorentz–invariant formulation of baryon chiral perturbation theory. We perform a complete one–loop calculation and obtain significant differences to previously found results based on the heavy baryon approach for the proton and neutron spin–dependent forward Compton amplitudes.

1. The spin structure of the nucleon is under active theoretical and experimental investigation. Of particular interest is the transition from the perturbative regime at high momentum transfer to the non–perturbative low–energy region. Interestingly, systematic and controlled theoretical calculations are only available for very small or very large momentum transfer while the intermediate region is accessible to resonance models or can be investigated using dispersion relations. Of special interest is the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn (GDH) sum rule  for virtual photons. It was pointed out in  that one can systematically investigate its momentum evolution at low energies in the framework of chiral perturbation theory (CHPT). In a series of papers, Ji et al.  proposed a formalism that is better suited for the direct connection with the spin–dependent structure functions measured in deep inelastic scattering. A complete one–loop fourth order calculation was presented for the forward spin–dependent Compton amplitudes and it was shown that the $`Q^2`$–variation was much stronger than expected from naive dimensional analysis. While the proton and the neutron spin–dependent amplitudes receive important resonance contributions that can not be calculated explicitly in chiral perturbation theory #4#4#4An exception to this is the contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ which can be systematically analyzed in the framework of the small scale expansion . However, at present a relativistic formulation for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ based on a systematic power counting has not been worked out. it was pointed out by Burkert  that in the proton–neutron difference these resonance contaminations largely drop out and also that the $`Q^2`$–variation is much more modest. The same happens at large $`Q^2`$ for the Bjorken sum rule in deep inelastic scattering which is free of certain assumptions entering the Ellis–Jaffe sum rules for protons and neutrons. Based on the results of , it was argued in  that the chiral prediction should only be taken seriously for $`Q^20.1`$GeV2 and that a continuous matching between the CHPT prediction and the pQCD evolution of the Bjorken sum rule to order $`\alpha _s^3`$ can be questioned. Such type of smooth transition from the perturbative to the non–perturbative regime had been suggested from the study of the sum rules for nucleon polarizabilities at finite virtuality . Note also that a vigorous experimental effort is underway at Jefferson Laboratory to determine the spin structure of the proton and the neutron. In this letter, we report about a novel analysis of the generalized Gerasimov–Drell–Hearn sum rule for low photon virtualities. We employ the Lorentz–invariant formulation of baryon chiral perturbation theory proposed in , which in contrast to the heavy fermion approach automatically fulfills all strictures from analyticity (see also the earlier work in ). It furthermore has the advantage of resumming recoil corrections to all orders which in certain cases can improve the convergence dramatically, see e.g. the discussion of the neutron electric form factor in .

2. Next, we briefly summarize the formalism necessary for the discussion of the photon–nucleon Compton amplitude and the related sum rules. It is common to express the spin amplitude of forward doubly virtual Compton scattering in terms of two structure functions, called $`S_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ and $`S_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$, via

$`T^{[\mu \nu ]}(p,q,s)=iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_\alpha \left\{ms_\beta S_1(\nu ,Q^2)+\left[pqs_\beta sqp_\beta \right]{\displaystyle \frac{S_2(\nu ,Q^2)}{m}}\right\},`$ (1)
where $`s^\mu `$ denotes the spin-polarization four-vector of the nucleon, $`m`$ is the nucleon mass, $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ the totally antisymmetric Levi–Civita tensor with $`ϵ^{0123}=1`$, $`Q^20`$ (the negative of) the photon virtuality and $`\nu =pq/m`$ the energy transfer. Note that while $`S_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ is even under crossing $`\nu \nu `$, $`S_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$ is odd. In what follows, we will be concerned with the amplitudes $`\overline{S}_i(0,Q^2)=S_i(0,Q^2)S_i^{\mathrm{el}}(0,Q^2)`$, i.e. the Compton amplitudes with the contribution from the elastic intermediate state subtracted. The generalized sum rule proposed in  utilizes the imaginary part of the photon–nucleon spin–flip amplitude $`f_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$, which can be expressed in terms of the combination $`\overline{S}_1(0,Q^2)(Q^2/m)d\overline{S}_2(\nu ,Q^2)/d\nu |_{\nu =0}`$ #5#5#5Note the different convention as compared to Ref. .. We concentrate here on the sum rule

$$_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu }{\nu }G_1(\nu ,Q^2)=\frac{1}{4e^2}\overline{S}_1(0,Q^2)=\frac{1}{m^2}\overline{I}(Q^2),$$
(2)
with $`G_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ a spin–dependent structure function, $`G_1(\nu ,Q^2)=g_1(Q^2/2m\nu ,Q^2)/(m\nu )`$ and $`g_1`$ the dimensionless scaling function. Furthermore, $`\nu _0`$ denotes the inelastic threshold. The subtracted Compton amplitude $`\overline{S}_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ is normalized as $`\overline{S}_1(0,0)=e^2\kappa ^2/m^2`$, with $`\kappa `$ the anomalous magnetic moment of the spin-1/2 particle and $`e^2/4\pi =1/137.036`$ the fine structure constant. This formula can be converted into the first moment of the sum rule via

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{2m^2}\overline{I}(Q^2).$$
(3)
All formulas given so far hold for the proton and the neutron separately and the corresponding quantities will be indicated by a superscript $`p`$ or $`n`$. At small photon virtualities, the subtracted Compton amplitudes $`\overline{S}_i(0,Q^2)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ can be calculated in chiral perturbation theory, as will be discussed next. For more details on the formalism and earlier calculations we refer to .

3. We briefly discuss the effective chiral Lagrangian underlying our calculation. Its generic form consists of a string of terms with increasing chiral dimension,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=_{\pi N}^{(1)}+_{\pi N}^{(2)}+_{\pi N}^{(3)}+_{\pi N}^{(4)}+_{\pi \pi }^{(2)}+_{\pi \pi }^{(4)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
The superscript denotes the power in the genuine small parameter $`q`$ (denoting pion masses and/or external momenta). A complete one–loop (fourth order) calculation must include all tree level graphs with insertions from all terms given in Eq. (4) and loop graphs with at most one insertion from $`_{\pi N}^{(2)}`$. The complete Lagrangian to this order is given in . We note that for the case under consideration the only appearing dimension two LECs, called $`c_6`$ and $`c_7`$ , can be fixed from the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton and of the neutron, respectively.

Baryon chiral perturbation theory is complicated by the fact that the nucleon mass does not vanish in the chiral limit and thus introduces a new mass scale apart from the one set by the quark masses. Therefore, any power of the quark masses can be generated by chiral loops in the nucleon (baryon) case, spoiling the one–to–one correspondence between the loop expansion and the one in the small parameter $`q`$. One method to overcome this is the heavy mass expansion (called HBCHPT) where the nucleon mass is transformed from the propagator into a string of vertices with increasing powers of $`1/m`$. Then, a consistent power counting emerges. However, this method has the disadvantage that certain types of diagrams are at odds with strictures from analyticity. The best example is the so–called triangle graph, which enters e.g. the scalar form factor or the isovector electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon. In a fully relativistic treatment, such constraints from analyticity are automatically fulfilled. It was recently argued in  that relativistic one–loop integrals can be separated into “soft”’ and “hard” parts. While for the former the power counting as in HBCHPT applies, the contributions from the latter can be absorbed in certain low–energy constants (LECs). In this way, one can combine the advantages of both methods. A more formal and rigorous implementation of such a program was given in . The underlying method is called “infrared regularization”. Any dimensionally regularized one–loop integral $`H`$ is split into an infrared singular and a regular part by a particular choice of Feynman parameterization. Consider first the regular part, called $`R`$. If one chirally expands these terms, one generates polynomials in momenta and quark masses. Consequently, to any order, $`R`$ can be absorbed in the LECs of the effective Lagrangian. On the other hand, the infrared (IR) singular part $`I`$ has the same analytical properties as the full integral $`H`$ in the low–energy region and its chiral expansion leads to the non–trivial momentum and quark–mass dependences of CHPT, like e.g. the chiral logs or fractional powers of the quark masses. For a typical one–loop integral (like e.g. the nucleon self–energy) this splitting can be achieved in the following way

$$H=\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{AB}=_0^1𝑑z\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[(1z)A+zB]^2}=\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}_1^{\mathrm{}}\right\}dz\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[(1z)A+zB]^2}=I+R,$$
(5)
with $`A=M_\pi ^2k^2iϵ`$, $`B=m^2(pk)^2iϵ`$, $`ϵ0^+`$ and $`M_\pi `$ the pion mass. Any general one–loop diagram with arbitrary many insertions from external sources can be brought into this form by combining the propagators to a single pion and a single nucleon propagator. It was also shown that this procedure leads to a unique, i.e. process–independent result, in accordance with the chiral Ward identities of QCD . Consequently, the transition from any one–loop graph $`H`$ to its IR singular piece $`I`$ defines a symmetry–preserving regularization.

Within this approach, we have calculated $`\overline{S}_{1,2}^{(p,n)}(0,Q^2)`$. The pertinent one–loop diagrams are given in , however, in the approach used here one does not need to consider dimension two insertions from the kinetic energy on the nucleon lines since this is done automatically in a Lorentz–invariant formulation. In fact, all such diagrams are counting as third order in the approach used here, the only genuine fourth order graphs are the ones with one insertion $`c_{6,7}`$ (anomalous magnetic moment). Therefore, $`\overline{S}_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ is already non–vanishing at third order, quite in contrast to the heavy baryon calculation. As a check, we remark that in the limit of a very large nucleon mass, one recovers the earlier HBCHPT results of  and . However, as already found in the relativistic calculation of the slope of the generalized GDH sum rule in , one can not give the results in closed analytical form. We refrain from giving the expressions based on scalar loop functions here but rather refer to the upcoming paper . Of course, there are also non–negligible resonance contributions to the $`\overline{S}_i(\nu ,Q^2)`$. More precisely, the effects from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ largely cancel in $`\overline{S}_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$  but are expected to be more important in $`\overline{S}_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$. There are additional (smaller) vector meson and higher baryon resonance contributions. Therefore we mostly concentrate here on $`\overline{S}_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ and also on the neutron–proton difference in which most resonance effects cancel, see e.g. .

4. We now present our results. First, we must specify the parameters. We use $`g_A=1.267`$, $`F_\pi =93`$MeV, $`M_\pi =139.57`$MeV, $`m=0.9389`$MeV, $`\kappa _v=3.706`$ and $`\kappa _s=0.120`$. The latter two quantities include the LECs $`c_6`$ and $`c_7`$. We point out again that there are no unknown parameters and thus we obtain genuine one–loop predictions. In Fig. 1 we show the results for $`\overline{S}_1^{p,n}(0,Q^2)`$ in comparison to the heavy baryon result of . Some remarks are in order. First, we note that in the IR approach, one has third and fourth order contributions with the latter becoming sizeable for $`Q^20.2(0.3)`$GeV2 for the proton (neutron) #6#6#6We remark that for certain tree graphs at $`\nu =0`$ the heavy baryon propagator formally scales as $`𝒪(p^2)`$ so that one could consider the contribution generated from such diagrams also as third order in HBCHPT, for details see . Second, the modulus of the structure function is bigger as compared to the HBCHPT result. Similar remarks apply to the results for $`\overline{S}_2^{p,n}(0,Q^2)`$ not shown here. These sizeable differences between our results and the HBCHPT ones can be traced back to the fact that the $`1/m`$ expansion for these structure functions is very slowly converging, and thus the method used here appears to be more appropriate.

From these results one deduces the following slopes for the proton and neutron structure function $`\overline{S}_1(Q^2)`$ (from here on, we do not display the argument $`\nu =0`$ any longer):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{S}_1^p(Q^2)}{dQ^2}}|_{Q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.4+1.2)\mathrm{GeV}^4=0.8\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{S}_1^n(Q^2)}{dQ^2}}|_{Q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(1.7+1.9)\mathrm{GeV}^4=0.2\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$ (7)
where the first (second) term in the round brackets refers to the third (fourth) order contribution. These results are compatible with expectations from naive dimensional analysis. For comparison, the corresponding HBCHPT results are $`d\overline{S}_1^p/dQ^2=2.9`$GeV-4 and $`d\overline{S}_1^n/dQ^2=2.4`$GeV-4, which are quite different. The large slope in the heavy baryon case is due to a variety of effects. First, the large value of the isovector anomalous magnetic moment, $`\kappa _v=3.71`$, appearing in $`d\overline{S}_1/dQ^2[1+3\kappa _v+2(1+3\kappa _s)\tau _3]`$ leads to a prefactor for the proton of 14 instead of the expected order of one based on naive dimensional analysis. Second, as as been spelled out clearly in , in the spin sector the natural expansion parameter seems to be $`\pi M_\pi /m`$ rather than $`M_\pi /m`$ (for the odd powers), which can lead to sizeable corrections. Consequently, the $`1/m`$ expansion converges slowly, and thus the numbers for these slopes found here should be considered more reliable. Note also that for these slopes the relative size of the fourth order corrections comes out very different for the proton and the neutron, but it should be stressed that the meaningful numbers are the full one–loop (third and fourth order) results. For orientation, we quote the result of the dispersive analysis of , which besides pion loop effects also includes resonance contributions, it is $`d\overline{S}_1^p/dQ^2=1.8`$GeV-4.

In Fig. 2 we show the first moments $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p(Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ in comparison to the heavy baryon results. For the range of photon virtualities below $`Q^2=0.2(0.3)`$GeV2, the fourth order corrections are not dramatically large for the proton (neutron). Note that while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p(Q^2)`$ crosses zero at $`Q^20.33`$GeV2, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ stays negative for all values of $`Q^2`$ in the range of virtualities considered here. We stress again that for a direct comparison with the data, some resonance contributions have to be added, this will be done and discussed in the upcoming work . However, one does not expect these resonance contributions to be overly large.

Note that we refrain from comparing these curves with the preliminary data from Jefferson Laboratory because these data are not yet final and can therefore not be shown. This comparison will be done in .

In Fig. 3 we show the result for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{pn}(Q^2)`$ in comparison to the HBCHPT result . This should be considered the main result of this paper. For $`Q^20.1`$GeV2, the fourth order IR and the heavy baryon result are very similar. For larger momentum transfer, however, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{pn}(Q^2)`$ grows faster with increasing momentum compared to the heavy baryon calculation. This is due to the fact that the chiral corrections to the individual $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p(Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ are quite different (similar) in the IR (HB) approach (for $`Q^20.1`$GeV2). The corresponding slope is of course given by the GDH sum rule,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{pn}(Q^2)}{dQ^2}|_{Q^2=0}=\frac{\kappa _n^2\kappa _p^2}{8m^2}=0.063\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(8)
as can also been seen in the figure since all curves merge to one around $`Q^20`$.

It is also interesting to consider the slopes corresponding to the combination $`\overline{S}_{12}(Q^2)\overline{S}_1(0,Q^2)(Q^2/m)`$ $`\times (d\overline{S}_2(\nu ,Q^2)/d\nu )|_{\nu =0}`$ for the proton and the neutron case separately, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{S}_{12}^p(Q^2)}{dQ^2}}|_{Q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(3.2+1.8)\mathrm{GeV}^4=5.0\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{S}_{12}^n(Q^2)}{dQ^2}}|_{Q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.31.8)\mathrm{GeV}^4=2.1\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$ (10)
which should be compared with the heavy baryon results , $`d\overline{S}_{12}^p(Q^2)/dQ^2=3.7(12.6)\mathrm{GeV}^4=6.0\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ and $`d\overline{S}_{12}^n(Q^2)/dQ^2=3.7(12.1)\mathrm{GeV}^4=4.3\mathrm{GeV}^4`$. We remark that the seemingly overwhelming fourth order correction for the neutron is simply a reflection of the accidentally suppressed third order result. The 50% correction found for the proton is not uncommon for the nucleon spin sector. The larger corrections in HBCHPT are simply a reflection of the various effects discussed already before, In the IR approach used here, higher order $`1/m`$ corrections (in the HBCHPT counting) tend to diminish such large corrections. We point out that such effects also appear in other observables, like e.g. in pion photoproduction off nucleons, but in that case their effect is much less dramatic because they are accompanied by small or normal prefactors (less than or of order one) or do not play a significant role. Such large corrections are only appearing in the spin sector and their origin is essentially understood. Note further that the slope of the integrals $`I_{p,n}(0)`$ defined in  differ from the conventions used here by an overall factor of $`\pi /2`$. For this combination of the structure functions, one has to include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (and other resonance) contribution for a direct comparison with the data, see e.g. .

5. In this paper, we have considered the one–loop representation of the structure functions of doubly virtual Compton scattering at low photon virtualities, $`\overline{S}_i(0,Q^2)`$, $`i=1,2`$ (with the elastic intermediate state contribution subtracted). We have performed the analysis in the framework of infrared regularized relativistic baryon chiral perturbation theory and compared the results with the existing ones obtained in the heavy mass formalism. We have found that there are significant differences for the individual structure functions $`S_1^p(0,Q^2)`$ and $`S_1^n(0,Q^2)`$, i.e. these exhibit a less dramatic (stronger) $`Q^2`$–evolution for the proton (neutron) than in HBCHPT and show reasonable convergence for small photon virtualities. We have also pointed out that the $`1/m`$ expansion underlying the heavy baryon approach is only slowly converging for these structure functions and thus the resummation of recoil effects inherent to the IR formalism is to be considered important. Clearly, these predictions should only be compared to data when the missing resonance contributions are included. However, in the first moment difference $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{pn}(Q^2)`$, contributions from spin–3/2 resonances like the delta drop out (and most other resonance contributions, too), so that the predictions shown in Fig.3 should be considered the main result of this paper. As it turns out, the growth of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{pn}(Q^2)`$ with increasing $`Q^2`$ is stronger to what was found previously in the heavy mass formulation. It would be interesting to compare this prediction with the data soon becoming available from Jefferson Laboratory#7#7#7First preliminary data from the CLAS collaboration which start at $`Q^2=0.2`$GeV2 seem to be consistent with our and the heavy baryon result .. It is important to systematically add resonance contributions to these chiral predictions for the proton and the neutron separately to allow for a direct comparison with the data. Work along these lines is underway .

Acknowledgments

We thank Volker Burkert for some useful communications and Norbert Kaiser for comments. One of us (UGM) thanks Susan Gardner and Wolfgang Korsch for their hospitality at the University of Kentucky, where part of this work was done.

Note added

After submission of this manuscript, new experimental information on the integral $`I_n(Q^2)`$ for $`Q^2=0.10.9`$GeV2 appeared (M. Amarian et al. \[The Jefferson Lab E94010 Coll.\], arXiv:nucl-ex/0205020). The point at lowest photon virtuality is in good agreement with the prediction given here, but the prediction at $`Q^2=0.26`$GeV2 is much more negative than the data.


format: text

text:
# Resonant and Non–Resonant Effects in Photon–Technipion Production at Lepton Colliders

## 1 Introduction

Modern technicolor  models require a walking gauge coupling  to avoid large flavor–changing neutral currents and extra top quark dynamics such as topcolor interactions  to generate the large top quark mass. To incorporate these innovations, a large number of technifermion doublets, $`N_D`$, must typically be present in the model to perform such crucial tasks as flattening the beta function and breaking the topcolor interactions to ordinary color . This large number of doublets also suppresses the technihadron mass scale, resulting in a small technipion decay constant

$$F_\mathrm{T}\frac{246\mathrm{GeV}}{\sqrt{N_D}},$$
(1.1)
and very light technipions . For example, if $`N_D=10`$, $`F_\mathrm{T}80\mathrm{GeV}`$. With such a low mass scale, the question of collider phenomenology becomes of immediate interest, since the lowest lying technimeson states could be produced directly at current or near future experiments .

This study discusses production of light technimeson states at lepton colliders. We focus on providing a complete phenomenological description of both resonant and non-resonant technimeson production. The framework created here should enable the LEP experiments to obtain more comprehensive limits on light technihadrons from their final analyses than have been extracted thus far with the more limited methods available previously . We perform several sample calculations for colliders with $`\sqrt{s}`$ of up to a few hundred GeV, consistent with our interest in the LEP data. However, our methods are also applicable to future linear colliders111Technically, our methods can also be used for hadron colliders, but the larger backgrounds there typically render non-resonant production invisible. at higher energies.

We use the Technicolor Straw Man Model (TCSM)  as a benchmark for assessing the experimental visibility of technipion production. The TCSM assumes that techni–isospin is a good symmetry, and that, in analogy with QCD, the lightest technimesons are constructed solely from the lightest technifermion weak doublet, $`(\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{U},\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{D})`$, which transform as $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_C`$ singlets and $`\mathrm{SU}(N_{\mathrm{TC}})`$ fundamentals. The members of the doublet are assigned electric charges $`Q_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`Q_\mathrm{D}`$ respectively. This flavor and gauge structure gives rise to the same type of spectrum as two–flavor QCD: namely, an isotriplet and isosinglet of pseudoscalar, pseudo-goldstone modes, the $`\pi _{\mathrm{T}}^{}{}_{}{}^{0,\pm }`$ and $`\pi _{\mathrm{T}}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$, and an isotriplet and isosinglet of vector modes, the $`\rho _{\mathrm{T}}^{}{}_{}{}^{0,\pm }`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{T}}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$. The electric charge assignments of the mesons require that $`Q_\mathrm{U}Q_\mathrm{D}=1`$. Since we assume that techni–isospin symmetry is a good symmetry, the technipions should be nearly degenerate in mass, as should the technivector modes. When both the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ are possible final states for a given process, we will refer to both collectively by the notation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$.

Calculation of matrix elements involving the technihadron bound states at energies below the technicolor scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{TC}}`$, in the full non-abelian technicolor model requires use of low energy phenomenological models. In the recent past, two different types of descriptions have been widely used for fermion–antifermion annihilation to a technipion plus electroweak gauge boson. In these the initial–state fermions couple with standard weak couplings to the appropriate electroweak gauge bosons in the $`s`$–channel. The descriptions differ in how they handle the weak gauge boson transition to the final state, and can be divided into

1. Anomaly–Mediated Approach: the gauge boson couples to the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ in the final state through a technifermion ($`\mathrm{f}_\mathrm{T}`$) triangle anomaly  (Figure 1a), and
2. Technivector ($`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$) Dominated Approach: the gauge boson undergoes a kinetic mixing (that is, a term proportional to $`s`$ in the inverse propagator matrix) into a $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ or $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$, which then decays directly into the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ in the final state  (Figure 1b).

Both schemes have direct analogues in Standard Model QCD calculations. Our goal is to synthesize these approaches within the TCSM to eliminate the shortcomings of each.

In Section 2, we review the details of both the anomaly–mediated and $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–dominated approaches to the TCSM and indicate the limitations of their individual descriptions of technimeson production at lepton colliders. Our calculations focus on the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ because kinematic and phase space considerations should give it a larger cross–section than processes involving final–state weak bosons. In Section 2.3 we discuss how to combine the strengths of both approaches within the TCSM framework. In Section 3 we compare analytic cross section predictions for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ in all three approaches. In Section 3.2 we discuss the predictions for the mass recoiling against the photon in the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ within the combined framework as implemented in Pythia.

## 2 Phenomenological Approaches

### 2.1 Anomaly Mediation

In the anomaly–mediated schemes, we assume that the lowest lying observable states, the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$, are pseudo–Nambu–Goldstone modes of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N_{\mathrm{TC}})`$ technicolor theory, in direct analogy to the QCD pion. The coupling of these $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ goldstone modes to a pair, $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$, of electroweak gauge bosons is given by

$$(G_1(q)G_2(p_1)\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(p_2))=N_{\mathrm{TC}}𝒱_{G_1G_2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\frac{g_1g_2}{8\pi ^2F_\mathrm{T}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }ϵ_\mu (q)ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_1)q_\lambda p_{1\rho }$$
(2.1)
where $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}`$ is the number of technicolors, the $`g_i`$ are the couplings of the gauge groups, $`q`$ and $`p_1`$ are the momenta and the $`ϵ_i`$ the polarizations of the gauge bosons.222We choose our notation to agree with . The triangle anomaly factor, $`𝒱_{G_1G_2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$, is given by

$$𝒱_{G_1G_2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^a\left(\{T_1,T_2\}_L+\{T_1,T_2\}_R\right)\right].$$
(2.2)
Here $`T_i`$ is the generator associated with the gauge boson $`G_i`$, and $`T^a`$ is the generator of the axial current associated with the technipion

$$j_5^{\mu a}=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5T^a\psi ;$$
(2.3)
in this convention, the generators are normalized such that $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aT^b\right)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$ .

Using these expressions, we can calculate the cross section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ in an anomaly mediated framework, obtaining

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T})=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^3N_{\mathrm{TC}}^2}{192\pi ^2F_\mathrm{T}^2}\left(sM_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}^2\right)^{3/2}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\left|\left(𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma \gamma }(s)\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}L}𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}(s)\right)\right|^2+\left|\left(𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma \gamma }(s)\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}R}𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}(s)\right)\right|^2\right],\end{array}$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma \gamma }(s)^1=s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}(s)^1=sM_{\mathrm{Z}^0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Z}^0}M_{\mathrm{Z}^0}`$, and $`\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }=T_{\mathrm{e}_\lambda }^3+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ for chiralities $`\lambda =L,R`$. For the TCSM, the anomaly factors involving the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ are given by

$`𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}}`$ $`=2\left(Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}\right)c_\chi `$ $`𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\pi _\mathrm{T}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\left(Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}\right)\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)c_\chi }{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}}`$ (2.5)
$`𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ $`=2\left(Q_\mathrm{U}^2+Q_\mathrm{D}^2\right)c_\chi ^{}`$ $`𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\left(Q_\mathrm{U}^2+Q_\mathrm{D}^2\right)\right)c_\chi ^{}}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}}.`$ (2.6)
A more detailed discussion of this and other processes in the anomaly framework can be found in . Using this framework, limits on various TC models have been extracted from published LEP data on final states with photons, large missing energy, jet pairs, or $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs in . Production of technipions in the anomaly framework at future $`\mathrm{e}^+`$$`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders has been discussed in

The anomaly mediated description has the dual strengths of conceptual clarity and relative ease of calculation. It does, however, have a flaw which would not be present in a complete technicolor model and and which prevents it from being an appropriate description in all kinematic regimes. Since this scheme does not take into account the heavier technimeson bound states of the technifermions (the states equivalent to the QCD $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$, among others), it can only provide a valid description of technicolor physics in kinematic regions well below the propagator poles of the lightest technivector meson .

### 2.2 Technivector Meson Dominance in the TCSM

To describe the kinematic regime near the technivector poles, an alternative phenomenological approach is needed; typically this takes the form of the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–dominance scheme introduced above. For the TCSM, a framework has been developed by Lane . Conceptually, the collider experiments generate electroweak gauge bosons via the direct couplings of standard model particles to the electroweak gauge fields. The electroweak gauge bosons then convert into technivector mesons through mixing terms in the vector propagator matrix (for illustration, we display the inverse of the neutral propagator matrix here)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1(s)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}s& 0& sf_{\gamma \rho _\mathrm{T}}& sf_{\gamma \omega _\mathrm{T}}\\ 0& s_{\mathrm{Z}^0}^2& sf_{\mathrm{Z}^0\rho _\mathrm{T}}& sf_{\mathrm{Z}^0\omega _\mathrm{T}}\\ sf_{\gamma \rho _\mathrm{T}}& sf_{\mathrm{Z}^0\rho _\mathrm{T}}& s_{\rho _\mathrm{T}}^2& 0\\ sf_{\gamma \omega _\mathrm{T}}& sf_{\mathrm{Z}^0\omega _\mathrm{T}}& 0& s_{\omega _\mathrm{T}}^2\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ ,\end{array}$$
(2.7)
where the masses, $`_V=M_V^2i\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ include $`s`$–dependent width effects. The mixing factors are $`f_{\gamma \rho _\mathrm{T}}=\xi `$, $`f_{\gamma \omega _\mathrm{T}}=\xi (Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D})`$, $`f_{\mathrm{Z}^0\rho _\mathrm{T}}=\xi \mathrm{cot}2\theta _W`$, and $`f_{\mathrm{Z}^0\omega _\mathrm{T}}=\xi (Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D})\mathrm{tan}\theta _W`$ where $`\xi ^2=\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{\rho _\mathrm{T}}`$ . These vector technimesons decay into the lighter spinless technimesons, electroweak bosons, and fermion–antifermion pairs.

The TCSM was developed to describe technihadron production at high–energy hadron colliders for which the convoluted parton distributions sweep over the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}/\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ resonance poles. In its original form, it did not properly include contributions that are far below the poles . However, at an $`\mathrm{e}^+`$$`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider such as LEP (or a future linear collider), the machine’s operating energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ may be well away from the resonance. For those cases, it is necessary to include off–resonance contributions. At the very least, this may allow more stringent limits on technihadron masses and couplings to be derived from searches in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders.

The coupling of the initial state electrons to the gauge boson is unchanged from the Standard Model. The couplings of the technivectors, $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$, to the final state technipion and photon are given by the TCSM matrix element

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(V_T(q)\gamma (p_1)\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}(p_2)\right)=& \frac{eV_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{M_V}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }ϵ_\mu (q)ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_1)q_\lambda p_{1\rho }+\hfill \\ & \frac{eA_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{M_A}\left(ϵ(q)ϵ^{}(p_1)qp_1ϵ(q)p_1ϵ^{}(p_1)q\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
where the first (second) term is the vector (axial) contribution, and $`M_V`$ and $`M_A`$ are dynamical mass parameters of the same order that set the strengths of these terms (for simplicity we set them equal below). The relevant axial couplings ($`A_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$) are zero; the relevant vector ($`V_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$) couplings are

$`V_{\rho _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}}`$ $`=2\left(Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}\right)c_\chi `$ $`V_{\rho _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ $`=c_\chi ^{}`$ (2.9)
$`V_{\omega _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}}`$ $`=c_\chi `$ $`V_{\omega _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ $`=2\left(Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}\right)c_\chi ^{}.`$ (2.10)
A list of analogous couplings for other gauge bosons and $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ in the TCSM is given in .

The cross section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ is given by

$$\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T})=\frac{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{108M_V^2}\frac{\left(sM_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}^2\right)^4}{s^2}\left[\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}L}^{V\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}R}^{V\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}L}^{A\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}R}^{A\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\right|^2\right].$$
(2.11)
The $`𝒢_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{X\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ are given by

$$𝒢_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{X\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}=\underset{V_T=\rho _\mathrm{T},\omega _\mathrm{T}}{}X_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{V_T}(s),$$
(2.12)
where the $`X_{V_T\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ are the vector and axial couplings of the vector technimesons to the technipion and photon, and

$$_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{V_T}(s)=e\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma V_T}(s)+\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0V_T}(s)$$
(2.13)
includes the coupling of the initial state electrons to the gauge bosons and the propagator elements that mix the vector bosons with the technivector mesons. A more detailed discussion of this and other processes in the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–dominance approach to the TCSM can be found in . The DELPHI and OPAL experiments at LEP  used $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–dominance to obtain limits on $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\rho _\mathrm{T},\omega _\mathrm{T}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ and related processes in the TCSM.

### 2.3 Combining Both Schemes

The center of mass energies of LEP and proposed future linear colliders are comparable to the expected masses of the lightest technihadrons in low–scale technicolor: a few hundred GeV. Hadron collider experiments are sensitive only to resonant technivector contributions, and therefore need consider only contributions from the poles. In contrast, lepton collider experiments have a broader sensitivity and may well be operating off the poles — especially when their location is unknown. For an $`\mathrm{e}^+`$$`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider operating slightly below the poles, it is especially important to understand how the resonant and non–resonant contributions are combined.

Schematically, we would like to define a matrix element that interpolates between the anomaly mediated matrix element at the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ production threshold and the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$-dominated matrix element in the region of the technivector poles, that is

$$_{\text{combined}}=_{\text{anomaly}}\left[f(s)\right]^n+_{\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}}\left[1f(s)\right]^n,$$

where the interpolating function $`f(s)`$ has the limits $`f(s0)1`$ and $`f(sM_{\rho _\mathrm{T},\omega _\mathrm{T}})0`$. Numerically, we find that either the anomaly–mediated or the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–mediated matrix element completely dominates the cross section, except in a relatively narrow region approximately midway between threshold and the first technivector pole, where they are of approximately equal magnitude (see Figure 2). Because of this behavior, we gain little by implementing such a complicated scheme rather than simply taking $`n0`$ in the above interpolation, that is, simply adding the relevant matrix elements everywhere. This gives us the correct limits, up to numerically irrelevant errors.

Adding the matrix elements has several virtues: it reproduces the correct cross-section both well below and in the region of the technivector meson resonances, and it is simple to implement. In addition, as will be shown shortly, the combined cross-sections still respect unitarity bounds in the energy range of experimental interest. At much higher energies, our description will break down because additional resonances and continuum technifermion production will emerge, but that is not relevant to our purposes.

Since the matrix element in Equation 2.1 for the anomaly–mediated coupling and the vectorial component in Equation 2.8 of the matrix element in the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$-dominated scheme have the same Lorentz structure, we add them. From the combined matrix elements, we obtain the cross section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}G\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$, where $`G`$ is a photon or a transversely polarized $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}G\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T})=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{12s}\lambda (s,M_G^2,M_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}^2)^{3/2}\left(\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}L}^{VG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}R}^{VG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}L}^{AG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}R}^{AG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2\right)\\ \hfill +\frac{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2M_G^2}{2}\lambda (s,M_G^2,M_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}^2)^{1/2}\left(\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}L}^{AG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2+\left|𝒢_{\mathrm{e}R}^{AG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)\right|^2\right).\end{array}$$
(2.14)
Here $`\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22ab2ac2bc`$ and $`M_G`$ is the mass of the final state gauge boson. The vectorial couplings for a given fermion helicity $`\lambda `$, including both $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ and anomaly terms, is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{VG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)=\underset{V_T=\rho _\mathrm{T},\omega _\mathrm{T}}{}\frac{V_{V_TG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{M_V}\left(Q_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma V_T}(s)+\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0V_T}(s)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{eN_{\mathrm{TC}}}{8\pi ^2F_\mathrm{T}}\underset{G^{}=\gamma ,\mathrm{Z}^0}{}𝒱_{G^{}G\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}\left(Q_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma G^{}}(s)+\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0G^{}}(s)\right),\end{array}$$
(2.15)
where in contrast to Equation 2.4, the anomaly contribution now includes off–diagonal mixing terms in the propagator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0\gamma }(s)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0}(s)`$, that are induced by the presence of the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ in the vector spectrum. The axial couplings are given by

$$𝒢_{\mathrm{e}\lambda }^{AG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}(s)=\underset{V_T=\rho _\mathrm{T},\omega _\mathrm{T}}{}\frac{A_{V_TG\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}}{M_V}\left(Q_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma V_T}(s)+\frac{2\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Z}^0V_T}(s)\right).$$
(2.16)
Once again, the $`\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ coupling is $`\zeta _{\mathrm{e}\lambda }=T_{\mathrm{e}_\lambda }^3Q_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

This method of combining the anomaly and $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ contributions applies more generally to fermion–antifermion annihilation into technipion plus transverse weak gauge boson at lepton and hadron colliders. The set of all such differential cross sections including anomaly and $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ terms and a tabulation of the various anomaly factors in the TCSM will appear in an updated version of .

## 3 $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$

As an example of our results, we study in this section the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$, both analytically and by means of Pythia simulations. We remind the reader that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ refers to both the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$. They can not be distinguished experimentally unless the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ have significantly different masses and/or decay modes. Note, however, that interference between production of $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ decaying to the same final state will not generally be significant because the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ states are extremely narrow . Only for $`|M_{\pi _\mathrm{T}}M_{\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi _\mathrm{T}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ would this be a concern. To represent the general expectations in the TCSM, we take $`M_{\pi _\mathrm{T}}=M_{\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}}`$ throughout this section and in Pythia, but do not include interference between the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$.

### 3.1 Analytical Results

As noted before, in the region of the technivector poles, the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ mesons dominate other contributions, while well below the poles, the anomaly dominates. In between, there is a transition region where the contributions should be of the same order, and neither can be considered in isolation. Because (for our choice of technihadron masses) this is the region in which LEP experiments were done, the combined amplitudes may result in better limits on low–scale technicolor. In Figure 2, we plot the cross sections for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ for two $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ masses (50 GeV in Figure 2a and 110 GeV in Figure 2b), with a $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ mass of 200 GeV and a $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ mass333One usually expects $`M\rho _\mathrm{T}M_{\omega _\mathrm{T}}`$ in the TCSM; here they are given somewhat different values so the characteristics of the resonances can be compared in the figures. of 220 GeV. From these plots, the low energy anomaly dominance and pole region $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$–dominance are clear. The $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ resonance is stronger than the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$, because the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ is narrower. We also see that the transition region is relatively narrow. For comparison with typical weak scale processes, we also plot the tree level Standard Model prediction for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ .

Finally, we must ensure that the cross sections calculated above do not violate unitarity in any kinematic region of interest. For a vector mediated interaction, both $`l=0`$ and $`l=1`$ partial waves contribute to the cross section, and the upper bound on the cross section from partial wave unitarity is given by $`\sigma <64\pi /s`$; this unitarity limit is also plotted in Figure 2. The total cross section is well within the unitarity limit in all currently accessible kinematic regions. Unitarity will be lost at inaccessibly high energies, but well before that point the model becomes invalid since it does not include higher mass technihadrons or continuum technifermion production.

### 3.2 Pythia Simulations

We now discuss our Pythia studies of the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ at the LEP collider. The kinematics of the process dictate that the photon is hard and more central than would be expected in background processes. We define the signal to be a significant peak in the “recoil mass” recoiling against the photon $`\text{ }/M=\sqrt{s2\sqrt{s}E_\gamma }`$ for $`E_\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma |<0.7`$. To reduce backgrounds, the photon must pass an isolation requirement: there must be no more than 5 GeV of excess energy within an opening angle of 30 centered on the photon. Since the technipion is expected to decay visibly, and predominantly to $`\mathrm{b}`$ quarks, we will impose a $`\mathrm{b}`$–tag to eliminate the potentially large backgrounds from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$. We comment later on how to generalize this search.

We simulated the signal at the particle level using Pythia v6.202 , with updates to the technicolor simulation as specified in this paper. The proposed signature is a peak excess in the recoil mass distribution and a loose $`\mathrm{b}`$–tag in the rest of the event. We are not sure how stringent a $`\mathrm{b}`$–tag needs to be imposed and have not included any efficiency factors for the signal or fake rates from other quarks. We do not impose any kinematic cuts or jet–reconstruction algorithm on the particles recoiling from the photon, but require only a displaced vertex.

The only background included is from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$. To account for the final–state radiation of photons off the $`\mathrm{b}`$–partons, the full 2-to-3 parton–level process is calculated at the matrix element–level. The parton level calculation is then interfaced to Pythia, producing particle–level results that include the effects of parton showering and hadronization. After the isolation cut on the photon, the results are in good agreement with the standard Pythia simulation of $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma +\gamma ^{}/\mathrm{Z}^{}`$. The implied suppression of radiation off the $`\mathrm{b}`$–quark arises from several effects: (1) the small charge of the $`\mathrm{b}`$, (2) the large $`\mathrm{b}`$ quark mass, which regulates collinear emission, and (3) the kinematic constraints favoring a small invariant mass of the ($`\mathrm{b}\gamma `$) or ($`\overline{\mathrm{b}}\gamma `$) systems, which is removed by the isolation cut. Finally, we require that at least one of the $`\mathrm{b}`$–partons (after parton showering) has a $`p_T`$ of at least 5 GeV. Assuming that displaced vertices are detected with unit probability, this eliminates backgrounds from light quarks.

The results are shown in Figure 3a, assuming a collider energy of 200 GeV and $`450\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of integrated luminosity. To demonstrate the variation with TCSM parameters, we have chosen five parameter sets starting with the baseline (1): $`M_V=M_A=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}=5/3`$, $`M_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}=110\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_{\rho _\mathrm{T}}=210\mathrm{GeV}`$. The $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ and, separately, the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ are assumed to be degenerate in mass. The other parameter sets are variations on this baseline, with all parameters as in (1) except: for (2), $`M_V=M_A=300\mathrm{GeV}`$; for (3), $`Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}=0`$; for (4), $`M_{\rho _\mathrm{T}}=250\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}=130\mathrm{GeV}`$; and, for (5), $`M_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. The general TCSM condition $`Q_UQ_D=1`$ obtains for all parameter sets. Figure 3a shows also the significance defined as $`S/\sqrt{S+B}`$ for each of the parameter sets.

The baseline curve (1) includes a strong signal from the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ poles just above the collider energy. Comparison with set (2) shows that the peak height scales as $`M_V^2`$ as we would expect from Equation 2.11. Comparison with set (4), confirms the expected reduction of signal when the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ masses are scaled up to put the collider energy well below the poles. Set (3) allows us to infer that, as in figure 2, most of the $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{T}`$ signal comes specifically from the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$. Taking $`Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}=0`$ decouples the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ from the gauge bosons and eliminates the $`𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ coupling. The branching fraction for $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ is also small for these TCSM parameters, even though the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$ is kinematically forbidden to decay to a pair of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$; the dominant decay is to $`\mathrm{W}_L\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$. Then the small signal in set (3) reflects the size of contributions from the $`𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ anomaly and the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\gamma \pi _\mathrm{T}`$ channel. The only possible source of the much larger peak in set (1) is the restored contribution of the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$. Finally, in set (5), we deliberately open the (dominant when present) decay channel $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$; this would normally be closed because of large extended technicolor contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ masses . Although this significantly decreases the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ branching ratio, a strong signal of $`\omega _\mathrm{T}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ still occurs because $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ decays to two or three $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ remain suppressed or forbidden. Once again, the dominant role of the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ in the signal is confirmed.

Figure 3b shows what the signals would look like if the anomaly couplings $`𝒱_{\gamma \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ and $`𝒱_{\gamma \mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}}`$ were eliminated. The peak heights and significances are clearly reduced in all cases. For the parameter sets with the strongest signals (1,2,5), a comparison with figure 3a confirms that the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ resonance is largely responsible for making the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ production visible. This is what we would expect from the results we presented in Figure 2, because the mass of the resonance is just slightly higher than the $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the collider. Nonetheless, the anomaly couplings make a contribution that can be large enough to impact the limits extracted from the data.

Several further comments are in order. First, the signature discussed here is strongly dependent on the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ properties, especially the coupling $`\gamma \omega _\mathrm{T}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ which is proportional to $`Q_\mathrm{U}+Q_\mathrm{D}`$. In this respect, it is complementary to the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{W}^\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ signatures . On the other hand, the TCSM may be naive in its assumption of certain mass degeneracies, and the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$ may be significantly lighter than the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}`$, yielding the first signature of technicolor. Second, the proposed signature is not inclusive, but assumes the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ branching ratio is large (the observation of some visible energy is necessary to remove the $`\gamma +\text{ }/E`$ background). This is reasonable, but the solution to the flavor problem may bring surprises in the $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$ decay rates. There may also be a substantial rate for $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}\mathrm{gg}`$ (this rate is already 30% for $`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$ with the default TCSM choices as encoded in Pythia), and there even may be appreciable $`\pi _\mathrm{T}`$$`\pi _\mathrm{T}^{}`$mixing. Therefore, while the first search should be tuned for the $`\gamma \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ mode, we advocate a decay–independent search without the $`\mathrm{b}`$–tag. The background should be 4–5 times bigger, reducing $`S/B`$ (which is a few–to–one for the $`\gamma \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ signature). It will not not reduce the significance very much; we have defined it to include a systematic error on the background. For example, naively scaling the background estimate by 5 would reduce $`S/\sqrt{S+B}`$ to $`6.6,3.7,0.4,0.5`$, and $`6.2`$ for parameter sets $`(1)`$$`(5)`$, respectively. This does not include the small increase in signal rate from all decays of the technipions.

## 4 Conclusions

In the context of the TCSM, we have shown that both the anomaly and kinetic mixing contributions should be included in analyses of technipion production at lepton colliders. We have provided analytic formulas combining these contributions and used them to display the predictions of the TCSM for a range of technihadron masses and collider energies. We have also performed Pythia simulations of $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ including the modifications to the TCSM described in this paper for five distinct sets of technihadron masses and technifermion charges. We find that resonant production of technipions is necessary to ensure a visible signature at LEP II energies for typical TCSM parameters, but that including the non-resonant production will be important for setting accurate limits. Finally, we note that measuring the recoil mass spectrum for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ production (which we found to proceed mainly through the $`\omega _\mathrm{T}`$) provides a technicolor search strategy that is complementary to the $`\rho _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{W}^\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{T}`$ channel.

Acknowledgments

We thank Guennadi Borisov and Francois Richard of DELPHI and Markus Schumacher of OPAL for asking questions that led to the present study and improvements in the TCSM. We are also grateful to R. Sekhar Chivukula and Markus Schumacher for comments on the manuscript. K. Lane acknowledges the support of the Fermilab Theory Group through a Frontier Fellowship. This work was also supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40676 and by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0074274. FNAL is operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract DE-AC02-76CH03000.


text:
# Computer simulations of polydisperse ER fluids in DID model

## I Introduction

Many theoretical investigations on electrorheological (ER) fluids are usually concentrated on monodisperse systems in which all the suspended particles are of the same size and dielectric constant. In reality ER fluids must be polydisperse in nature, i.e., the particles can have various sizes and/or different dielectric permittivities . For instance, the particle size has a significant impact on the yield stress , as well on the rheology . An initial approach for these studies would be the point-dipole (PD) approximation . As many-body and multipolar interactions between the particles have been neglected, the PD approximation is known to err considerably when the particles approach and finally touch. The PD approximation becomes even worse when the dielectric contrasts between the suspended particles and the host medium become large. To circumvent the problem, we recently employed the multiple image method to compute the interparticle force for a polydisperse ER fluid . From the results, we proposed a dipole-induced-dipole (DID) model for computer simulations of ER fluids; the DID model yields very good agreements with the multiple image results for a wide range of dielectric contrasts and polydispersity . The DID model has recently been employed to simulate the athermal aggregation of particles in ER fluids in which the particles are of different permittivities . Moreover, the dielectric contrasts between the particles and the host fluids were all positive. The aggregation time was found to be significantly reduced, both in uniaxial and rotating electric fields . In this work, we will report results for the case when the dielectric contrasts of some particles can be negative. In which case, the direction of the force should be reversed . The inclusion of the DID force further complicates the results because the symmetry between positive and negative contrasts will be broken by the presence of dipole-induced interactions. We found that the aggregation time can be much increased as compared to the PD model.

In the next section, we review the multiple image method and establish the DID model. In section III, we apply the DID model to the computer simulation of ER fluids in a uniaxial field. In section IV, we extend the simulation to athermal aggregation in rotating fields. Discussion on our results will be given.

## II multiple image method

In this section, we generalize the multiple image method  to handle both positive and negative dielectric contrasts. Consider a pair of dielectric spheres, of radii $`a`$ and $`b`$, dielectric constants $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_1^{}`$ respectively, separated by a distance $`r`$. The spheres are embedded in a host medium of a dielectric constant $`ϵ_2`$. Upon the application of an electric field $`𝐄_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the induced-dipole moment inside the spheres are, respectively, given by (SI units)

$$p_{a0}=4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2\beta E_0a^3,p_{b0}=4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2\beta ^{}E_0b^3,$$
(1)
where the dipole factors $`\beta `$, $`\beta `$’ are defined as

$$\beta =\frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{ϵ_1+2ϵ_2},\beta ^{}=\frac{ϵ_1^{}ϵ_2}{ϵ_1^{}+2ϵ_2}.$$
(2)
In the point-dipole (PD) model, the force between two particles is given by

$$𝐅_{PD}=\frac{F}{r^4}\left[(2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\widehat{𝐫}+\mathrm{sin}2\theta \widehat{\theta }\right],$$
(3)
where $`F=12\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2\beta \beta ^{}a^3b^3E_0^2`$, $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }`$ are unit vectors. Many previous studies were concentrated on the case in which both $`\beta ,\beta ^{}>0`$. When the $`\beta `$s adopt opposite signs, the direction of the PD force will be reversed. In a recent paper, we derived a correction to the PD force from the multiple image method . The total dipole moment inside sphere $`a`$ is

$`p_{aT}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sinh}\alpha )^3{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_{a0}b^3(\beta )^{n1}(\beta ^{})^{n1}}{(b\mathrm{sinh}n\alpha +a\mathrm{sinh}(n1)\alpha )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{b0}a^3(\beta )^n(\beta ^{})^{n1}}{(r\mathrm{sinh}n\alpha )^3}}\right],`$ (4)
$`p_{aL}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sinh}\alpha )^3{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_{a0}b^3(2\beta )^{n1}(2\beta ^{})^{n1}}{(b\mathrm{sinh}n\alpha +a\mathrm{sinh}(n1)\alpha )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{b0}a^3(2\beta )^n(2\beta ^{})^{n1}}{(r\mathrm{sinh}n\alpha )^3}}\right],`$ (5)
where the subscripts $`T(L)`$ denote a transverse (longitudinal) field, i.e., the applied field is perpendicular (parallel) to the line joining the centers of the spheres. Similar expressions for the total dipole moment inside sphere $`b`$ can be obtained by interchanging $`a`$ and $`b`$, as well as $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{cosh}\alpha =\frac{r^2a^2b^2}{2ab}.$$
(6)
The forces between the spheres is given by

$$F_T=\frac{E_0}{2}\frac{}{r}(p_{aT}+p_{bT}),F_L=\frac{E_0}{2}\frac{}{r}(p_{aL}+p_{bL}).$$
(7)
It should be noted that the multiple image results can be used to compare among the various models according to how many terms are retained in the multiple image expressions: (a) PD model: $`n=1`$ term only, (b) DID model: $`n=1`$ to $`n=2`$ terms only, and (c) multiple-induced-dipole (MID) model: $`n=1`$ to $`n=\mathrm{}`$ terms.

For convenience, we define the reduced separation $`\sigma =r/(a+b)`$. Here we set $`a=b`$. We consider two cases: (a) $`\beta >0,\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_1>ϵ_2>ϵ_1^{}`$ and (b) $`\beta =\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_2>ϵ_1=ϵ_1^{}`$. The interparticle forces in the longitudinal and transverse cases are plotted in Fig.1 with different values of the dielectric contrasts. For the case (a) depicted in Fig.1(a), the magnitude of MID force falls between that of the PD and DID in both the longitudinal and transverse cases. At low contrasts, the DID results almost coincide with the MID results. While at high contrast, the DID model exhibits significant deviation from MID when $`\sigma <1.1`$. For the case (b) as depicted in Fig.1(b), the DID results almost coincide with the MID results at low contrast, while deviate significantly at high contrast. The forces are found to be qualitatively different from the case of $`\beta ,\beta ^{}>0`$. Thus, by including the multiple image contributions, it is observed that the case of $`\beta ,\beta ^{}<0`$ significantly different from the presumably symmetric case of $`\beta ,\beta ^{}>0`$. The symmetry has been broken due to the presence of DID forces.

## III athermal aggregation in the uniaxial field

The multiple image expressions \[Eqs.(4) and (5)\] allow us to calculate the correction factor defined as the ratio between the DID and the PD forces :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{DID}^{()}}{F_{PD}^{()}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta a^3r^5}{(r^2b^2)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta ^{}b^3r^5}{(r^2a^2)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta \beta ^{}a^3b^3(3r^2a^2b^2)}{(r^2a^2b^2)^4}},`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{DID}^{()}}{F_{PD}^{()}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta a^3r^5}{(r^2b^2)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}b^3r^5}{(r^2a^2)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta ^{}a^3b^3(3r^2a^2b^2)}{(r^2a^2b^2)^4}},`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{DID}^{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}}{F_{PD}^{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta a^3r^3}{2(r^2b^2)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}b^3r^3}{2(r^2a^2)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta \beta ^{}a^3b^3}{(r^2a^2b^2)^3}},`$ (10)
where $`F_{PD}^{()}=3p_{a0}p_{b0}/4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2r^4`$, $`F_{PD}^{()}=6p_{a0}p_{b0}/4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2r^4`$, and $`F_{PD}^{()}=3p_{a0}p_{b0}/4\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2r^4`$ are the point-dipole forces for the transverse, longitudinal, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ cases, respectively. If we denote the ratios in Eqs.(8)–(10) by $`K_{},K_{}`$ and $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively, the force between two particles is modified to

$$𝐅_{DID}=\frac{F}{r^4}\left[(2K_{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta K_{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\widehat{𝐫}+K_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sin}2\theta \widehat{\theta }\right].$$

In what follows, we consider two spheres of equal radius $`a`$ and various dipole factors $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ respectively. These spheres are initially at rest and at a separation $`d_0`$. For aggregation induced by a uniaxial field, we consider two cases. For case (a) $`\beta >0,\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_1>ϵ_2>ϵ_1^{}`$, the electric field is perpendicular to the line joining the centers of the spheres. The equation of motion is given by

$$\frac{dz}{dt}=F_{}(2z),$$
(11)
while for case (b) $`\beta =\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_1=ϵ_1^{}<ϵ_2`$, the electric field is parallel to the line joining the centers of the spheres. The equation of motion becomes

$$\frac{dz}{dt}=F_{}(2z),$$
(12)
where $`z`$ is the displacement of one sphere from the center of mass. The separation between the two spheres is therefore $`d=2z`$ and the initial condition is $`d=d_0`$ at $`t=0`$. Eqs.(11) and (12) are dimensionless equation. Following Klingenberg and with slight modification, we choose the following natural scaling units to define the dimensionless variables :

$$z_0=2a,t_0=12\pi \eta _ca^2/F_0,F_0=\frac{3}{4}\pi ϵ_0ϵ_2E_0^2a^2,$$
(13)
where $`E_0`$ is the field strength, $`m`$ the mass, and $`\eta _c`$ the coefficient of viscosity. We have followed Klingenberg to ignore the inertial effect and thermal motion of the particles . The initial separation $`d_0`$ is related to the volume fraction $`\varphi `$ by

$$\frac{d_0}{2a}=\left(\frac{\pi }{6\varphi }\right)^{1/3}.$$
(14)
In the PD approximation, Eq.(11) admits an analytic solution

$$z=\left[\left(\frac{d_0}{4a}\right)^5+\frac{5\beta \beta ^{}t}{16}\right]^{1/5},$$
(15)
while Eq.(12) gives

$$z=\left[\left(\frac{d_0}{4a}\right)^5\frac{5\beta \beta ^{}t}{8}\right]^{1/5}.$$
(16)
It is obvious the above equations impose a condition for aggregation in uniaxial field, namely, the transverse case requires that $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are of different signs while the longitudinal case requires that they are of the same sign.

For the DID model, we integrate the equations of motion by the fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm, with the time step $`\delta t=0.0001`$ for both small and large volume fractions. In Fig.2, we plot the reduced separation $`\sigma `$ against dimensionless time $`t/t_0`$. The results reveal that in general the DID results deviate slightly from the PD results at low volume fractions, i.e. at a large initial separation, while the deviation becomes large at high volume fractions. The deviations are more pronounced at high contrasts, attributed to a large attractive force, resulting in a smaller aggregation time. In both cases (a) and (b), the DID aggregation time is generally larger than that of PD. While in the case $`\beta ,\beta ^{}>0`$, the situation is reversed. This feature can be understood from the force magnitudes of the two models (see Fig.1).

Fig.3 shows the ratio of the aggregation time for the PD model to the DID model against reduced initial separation $`d_0/2a`$. The aggregation time of the DID model is generally larger than that of the PD model especially when the initial separation is small. The correction factor is more pronounced at high contrast. In the case $`\beta =\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_2>ϵ_1=ϵ_1^{}`$, we observe a non-monotonic dependence, the correction factor increases significantly when the spheres are close and decrease again when $`d/2a=1.13`$ or less at high contrast. This behavior can be understood from the interparticle force (Fig.1(b), the three panels on the right). At low contrast, the difference in magnitude between the PD and DID force increases monotonically as the separation decreases. However at high contrast the difference increases first then decreases again as the separation decreases.

## IV athermal aggregation in the rotating field

Perhaps it is more interesting to consider aggregation in a rotating electric field . Consider a rotating field applied in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, $`E_x=E_0\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, $`E_y=E_0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$. The dimensionless equation of motion for the two spheres becomes

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=F_{}(r)\mathrm{cos}^2\omega t+F_{}(r)\mathrm{sin}^2\omega t,\frac{dy}{dt}=F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)\mathrm{sin}2\omega t$$
(17)
where $`(x,y)`$ are the displacement of one sphere from their center of mass and $`r=2\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$ is the separation between two particles. In case of a large $`\omega `$, we may safely neglect the $`y`$ direction of the motion. For the PD approximation, the dimensionless forces are $`F_{}=2\beta \beta ^{}/r^4`$ and $`F_{}=\beta \beta ^{}/r^4`$, respectively, which yields the analytic solution

$$x=\left[\left(\frac{d_0}{4a}\right)^5\frac{5\beta \beta ^{}}{64\omega }(\omega t+3\mathrm{sin}2\omega t)\right]^{1/5}$$
(18)
The separation between two spheres is $`d=2x`$. For the DID model, we integrate the equation of motion by the fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm, with a time step $`\delta t=1/400\omega `$.

Note that the two particles cannot aggregate if $`\beta >0,\beta ^{}<0`$ or $`ϵ_1>ϵ_2>ϵ_1^{}`$ in the rotating field because the repulsive force induced by longitudinal field $`F_L`$ is always larger than the attractive force induced by transverse field $`F_T`$, while the particles spend equal times in both fields on the average. The displacement-time graph of the aggregations with $`ϵ_2>ϵ_1=ϵ_1^{}`$ in the two models are plotted in Fig.4. The shape of the displacement-time graph of DID model is different from that of the PD model, especially when the two spheres are close, resulting in a large deviation between the DID and PD models in the aggregation time. This behavior can again be understood by the interparticle force between the two spheres. We can see from Fig.1(b) that the DID longitudinal attractive force and its transverse repulsive force is about the same when the separation is small. Since the spheres spend equal times in the longitudinal and transverse field and they change the direction of motion according to the rotating field, the displacement of the spheres can be estimated by the difference between the magnitude of the longitudinal attractive force and the transverse repulsive force, as there would be no displacement if the magnitude of the two forces are the same. Thus when the two spheres are near, their velocity become smaller and have different shape in the displacement-time graph. On the other hand, the PD attractive force is sufficiently larger than its repulsive force at any separation.

We further calculated the correction factor of the aggregation time for the PD model with respect to the DID model in the same way as in the uniaxial field case. We plot the correction factor against the reduced initial separation $`d_0/2a`$ with different parameters in Fig.5. The aggregation time is significantly increased when the mutual polarization of the two spheres is taken into account. The increase becomes even more pronounced and oscillating when the initial separation is small. The oscillation is due to the sensitive dependence on the initial polarization of dipoles when the spheres are close.

## Discussion and Conclusion

Here a few comments on our results are in order. In this work, we have concentrated on the multipolar interactions between touching particles, which we believe are more important than the many-body or local-field effects . In the latter approaches, the particles in ER fluids are still treated as point dipoles, while their dipole moments are determined by adding the local-field corrections. In the DID model, the additional terms arise from multipole interactions, rather than from local-field corrections.

We have studied the aggregation time for two spherical particles. We should also examine the morphology of aggregation in polydisperse ER fluids, due to the dipole-induced forces. To this end, it may be difficult to obtain the ground state lattice in polydisperse ER fluids by using dynamic simulations alone, since both body-centred tetragonal and simple cubic or even honeycomb stacking lattices coexist in such systems according to Kaski and coworkers . Moreover, many external factors such as the numbers of particles, the size of the cell, etc. will affect the final results. We are currently trying to incorporate the DID terms in the interaction energy. In this connection, we can also examine the recently proposed structural transformation by applying the uniaxial and rotating fields simultaneously to an ER fluid .

In summary, we have used the DID model to deal with computer simulations of polydisperse ER fluids for the case when the dielectric contrasts of some particles can be negative. We studied athermal aggregation of two spherical particles both in uniaxial and rotating electric fields. We showed that an inclusion of the DID force breaks the symmetry between positive and negative contrasts. As a result, the aggregation time can be much increased as compared to the PD model.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Direct Grant for Research, and in part by the RGC Earmarked Grant. K. W. Y. acknowledges useful discussion with Dr. Jones T. K. Wan of the Princeton University.

Fig.1(a)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.1(b)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.2(a)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.2(b)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.2(c)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.3/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.4(a)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.4(b)/Wong, Sun and Yu

Fig.5/Wong, Sun and Yu