text:
# On the origin of the cosmological constant

## Abstract

Under the assumption that the cosmological constant vanishes in the true ground state with lowest possible energy density, we argue that the observed small but finite vacuum-like energy density can be explained if we consider a theory with two or more degenerate perturbative vacua, which are unstable due to quantum tunneling, and if we still live in one of such states. An example is given making use of the topological vacua in non-Abelian gauge theories.

Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate School of Science,
Osaka University, Toyonaka 560-0043, Japan

There are two cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) problems today. One is the older problem why the vacuum energy density is vanishingly small, or why the intrinsic cosmological term cancels with accumulation of zero-point energy in quantum field theory almost exactly. Observationally, the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=3M_G^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is no larger than the critical density $`\rho _{cr0}=4\times 10^{47}\mathrm{GeV}^4=(3\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4`$ today, where $`M_G=M_{Pl}/\sqrt{8\pi }=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck scale. On the other hand, since a natural cutoff scale of zero-point fluctuations of each quantum field is the Planck scale, we would expect $`\rho _\mathrm{v}M_G^4`$ from them, which is larger than the observational constraint by a factor of $`10^{120}`$ .

The second, newer problem is that the above miraculous cancellation does not seem to work in a perfect manner, that is, there is increasing evidence that a finite positive component still remains in the vacuum-like energy density and that our Universe is in a stage of accelerated expansion now. For example, the analysis of SNIa data shows that the probability that we live in a universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is less than one percent .

Historically, a number of solutions have been proposed about the first problem . Among them, the quantum cosmological approach is based on the Euclidean path integral of the wave function of the universe . It has been claimed that such a path integral is dominated by the de Sitter instanton solution proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{3\pi }{G\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ and hence it is likely that the cosmological constant vanishes . Coleman further incorporated fluctuations of the spacetime topology in terms of the “wormhole” configurations and found a double exponential dependence . One should note, however, that the expectation values obtained in these approaches should be regarded as giving an average over the time in the history of the universe . So they may not necessarily be related with the values we observe today. We may rather interpret it as predicting a vanishing cosmological constant in some ground state where the universe spends most of the time in history. 111 We must also point out problems with Euclidean formulation of quantum gravity, namely, positive-nondefiniteness of the Euclidean action, the ambiguity of the signature of rotation , and the negativity of the phase of the saddle point solution . More recently, a number of higher dimensional models have been proposed in which the maximally symmetric solution of the three-brane must have a vanishing four-dimensional cosmological constant . Since our Universe has not settled in a maximally symmetric state, it is difficult to understand implications of these results on current values of cosmological parameters in our Universe, but we are tempted to interpret them as predicting a vanishing cosmological constant again in some ultimate ground state.

Here we argue the possible origin of the small but finite cosmological constant without introducing any small numbers. We solve the second problem under the assumption that the first one is solved in the true ground state by arguing that we have not fallen into that state. Other proposed solutions to the second problem, such as quintessence  (see also  for earlier work) or meV-scale false vacuum energy , are also based on such a hypothesis.

Our starting point is that the energy eigenvalue of the true ground state of a theory with two or more degenerate perturbative vacua, which cannot be transformed from one another without costing energy, is smaller than that of a quasi-ground state localized around one of these states in field space by an exponentially small amount. Here, by perturbative vacua we mean a state with the lowest energy density without taking possible tunneling effect to another perturbative vacuum into account. Our hypothesis is that the cosmological constant vanishes not in these degenerate perturbative vacua but in the absolute ground state with quantum tunneling effects taken into account, because there are both classical and quantum contributions to the cosmological constant and what we observe is their sum.

For illustration let us first consider an abstract field theory model whose perturbative vacuum states are classified into two distinct categories labeled by $`|+`$ and $`|`$ with $`+|=0`$ at the lowest order. We also assume that, although the transition from $`|+`$ to $`|`$ is classically forbidden, there is an instanton solution which describes quantum tunneling from $`|+`$ to $`|`$ and vice versa. By nature the instanton is localized in space and (Euclidean) time with a finite Euclidean action $`S_0`$. Then the true ground state, $`|S`$, with this tunneling effect taken into account, is given by the symmetric superposition of $`|+`$ and $`|`$, namely,

$$|S=\frac{|++|}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(1)
where we have assumed that $`|+`$ and $`|`$ are normalized.

Now we evolve $`|S`$ with Euclidean time $`T`$ to calculate $`S|e^T|S`$ by summing up contributions of instantons and anti-instantons as

$`S|e^T|S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(+|e^T|++|e^T|++|e^T|+|e^T|+\right)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`e^{\rho _0VT}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2j)!}}\left(kVTe^{S_0}\right)^{2j}+e^{\rho _0VT}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2j+1)!}}\left(kVTe^{S_0}\right)^{2j+1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\rho _0VT+kVTe^{S_0}\right),`$
where $``$ is the Hamiltonian, $`km^4`$ is a positive constant and $`V`$ represents spatial volume . Here $`\rho _0`$ is the energy density of the perturbative vacua, $`|+`$ and $`|`$, which are presumably translationally invariant. Thus the energy density of the true ground state $`|S`$ is given by

$$\rho _S=\rho _0m^4e^{S_0}.$$
(3)
It is this energy density that vanishes under our hypothesis. This in turn implies that we find a nonvanishing vacuum energy density

$$\rho _0=m^4e^{S_0}$$
(4)
in either of the perturbative vacuum states, $`|+`$ or $`|`$.

Thus if our Universe is in one of the perturbative vacuum states because it is too young to be relaxed into the true ground state $`|S`$, we observe a nonvanishing vacuum energy density (4) today. Since the tunneling rate per unit volume per unit time is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m^4e^{2S_0}`$ apart from a prefactor of order unity , the requirement that there should be no transition in the horizon volume in the cosmic age reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }H_0^49M_G^4/m^4\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1,$$
(5)
where $`H_0^2\rho _0/(3M_G^2)`$ is the current Hubble parameter squared. We therefore find that, if the parameters satisfy $`m\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M_G`$ and $`S_0=120\mathrm{ln}10+4\mathrm{ln}(m/M_G)`$, we can account for the observed small value of the cosmological constant without introducing any small numbers.

So far is a generic study to generate an exponentially small difference in energy density using a theory with degenerate perturbative vacua whose real ground state is given by their superposition. Next in order to see how this mechanism may be implemented in a more specific theory with this property, let us consider a famous example of an SU($`N`$) ($`N2`$) gauge theory whose perturbative vacuum states are classified in terms of the winding number $`n`$ and denoted by $`|n`$ . States with different winding numbers cannot be transformed from each other by a continuous gauge transformation  and there is an energy barrier between them. Let us concentrate on the simplest case with $`N=2`$ hereafter. An instanton solution , which describes quantum tunneling from one perturbative vacuum to another with the change of the winding number $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=1`$, can be expressed as

$$A_\mu (x)=\frac{2R^2\eta _{a\mu \nu }(x_\nu y_\nu )\sigma ^a}{(xy)^2\left[(xy)^2+R^2\right]},$$
(6)
where $`\eta _{a\mu \nu }`$ is the ’t Hooft symbol , $`\sigma ^a`$ is the Pauli matrix and $`R`$ is the size of the instanton. Here $`y_\nu `$ represents spacetime coordinates at its center. Thanks to the translational and the scale invariance, the Euclidean action does not depend on these quantities, namely,

$$S_0=\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2},$$
(7)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+g\epsilon ^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$ is the field strength and $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant.

The true ground state in the presence of quantum tunneling is given by an infinite sum of these $`|n`$ states as

$$|\theta =\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in\theta }|n,$$
(8)
where $`\theta `$ is a real parameter . One can easily find that this state is a real eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $``$ in terms of the following calculation based on the dilute instanton approximation .

$`\theta ^{}\left|e^T\right|\theta =\mathrm{exp}\left(2KVTe^{S_0}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\delta \left(\theta \theta ^{}\right),`$ (9)
where $`KVTe^{S_0}`$ represents contribution of a single instanton or anti-instanton. Here $`K`$ is a positive constant and $`VT`$ again represents spacetime volume.

Then the above equality (9) clearly shows that each $`\theta `$-vacuum $`|\theta `$ has a different energy density than the perturbative vacuum $`|n`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =2Ke^{S_0}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(10)
Apparently the $`\theta =0`$ vacuum has the lowest energy (and no CP violation), but one cannot conclude that this is the only vacuum state, because other $`\theta `$-vacua are also stable against gauge-invariant perturbations  and transition between different $`\theta `$-vacua is impossible even when instantons are incorporated into calculation as is seen in (9). Since different $`\theta `$-vacua have different energy density they behave differently in the presence of gravity, and we must choose some particular value of $`\theta `$ where we assume the cosmological vanishes. This choice should ultimately be made together with the solution of the older cosmological constant problem. At present, however, since there is no completely satisfactory solution to this problem, we simply normalize the vacuum energy density to vanish in the most natural CP-symmetric $`\theta =0`$ vacuum state here. We point out that the wormhole mechanism  is an example of proposed solutions to the older cosmological constant problem which selects $`\theta =0`$ vacuum as the “ground” state with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ where the universe presumably spends most of the time . With this normalization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the vacuum energy density in each perturbative vacua is found to be

$$n|\rho _\mathrm{v}|n=2Ke^{S_0}.$$
(11)
In fact, the factor $`K`$, which is expressed as

$$K=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\left(\frac{8\pi }{g^2(\mu )}\right)^4\frac{dR}{R^5}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2(\mu )}+\frac{22}{3}\mathrm{ln}(\mu R)+6.998435\right),$$
(12)
in the case of the pure SU(2) gauge theory , is divergent due to the contribution of arbitrary large instantons. Here $`\mu `$ is a renormalization scale. In order to obtain a physical cutoff scale let us introduce an SU(2) doublet scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with a potential $`V[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\lambda (|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2M^2/2)^2/2`$, following ’t Hooft . For $`M0`$, the solution (6) is no longer an exact one, but one could find an approximate solution, a constrained instanton , with the following properties.
(i) For $`RM\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$, the solution is given by (6) and

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)|=\left(\frac{(xy)^2}{(xy)^2+R^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(13)
for $`(xy)^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M^2`$.
(ii) For larger $`(xy)^2`$, the solution rapidly approaches to the vacuum values with

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)|\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}e^{\sqrt{\lambda }M|xy|},A_\mu (x)e^{gM|xy|}.$$
(14)
(iii) The Euclidean action is finite and approximately given by

$$S=\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}+\pi ^2R^2M^2.$$
(15)
Using (15) in (12), the integral is now given by

$$K=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\left(\frac{8\pi }{g^2}\right)^4\frac{dR}{R^5}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}\pi ^2R^2M^2+\frac{43}{6}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{RM}{\sqrt{2}}\right)+6.759189\right],$$
(16)
and we find,

$`\rho _\mathrm{v}`$ $``$ $`M^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{g^2}}\right)^4e^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}},`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`M^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{g^2}}\right)^4e^{\frac{16\pi ^2}{g^2}}.`$ (18)
Demanding that $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=10^{120}M_G^4`$ and that the tunneling rate in the current horizon should be smaller than unity in the cosmic age, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_0^4\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha }}+2\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`60\mathrm{ln}10+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_G}}\right),`$ (19)
$`M`$ $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}`$ $`\alpha M_G,`$ (28)
where $`\alpha g^2/(4\pi )`$ is the coupling strength at the energy scale $`M/\sqrt{2}`$. If the inequality (28) is marginally satisfied, we find $`\alpha =1/44.4`$ and $`M=5\times 10^{16}`$GeV. If, on the other hand, we take $`M=M_G`$ so that the cutoff scale of instanton is identical to the presumed field-theory cutoff, we find $`\alpha =1/47.`$

Thus if our Universe happened to be created in a state with some specific winding number and remains there up until now, we would observe a nonvanishing vacuum energy density (17). Although $`\theta `$-vacuum is the real ground state of the theory, there is no a priori reason that the Universe is created in this state. In fact, in the possibly chaotic initial state of the early universe , there may well be a small domain where the scalar field has a nonvanishing expectation value with a constant SU(2) phase and $`A_\mu ^a`$ vanishes. If such a region is exponentially stretched by cosmological inflation  and our Universe is contained in it, the state of our Universe would be more like the perturbative vacuum $`|n=0`$ than some $`\theta `$-vacuum. Then it is not surprising that we observe a nonvanishing vacuum energy density (17) today. Thus our mechanism can be naturally implemented in the chaotic inflation scenario .

Note that the Hubble parameter in the observable regime of inflation, $`H`$, is constrained as $`H/(2\pi )\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4\times 10^{13}`$GeV so that the tensor-induced anisotropy of cosmic microwave background radiation  satisfies $`\delta T/T\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^5`$ . Hence the amplitude of quantum fluctuations generated along the phase direction of the fields during inflation is much smaller than $`M`$, and it does not affect the realization of the state $`|n=0`$. Furthermore gravitational effects are negligibly small for the instanton configuration even during inflation because $`HM`$. We also note that thermal transition to a state with a different winding number is suppressed since the reheat temperature after inflation, $`T_R`$, is typically much smaller than $`M`$ . In fact, to avoid overproduction of gravitinos, it should satisfy $`T_R<10^{12}`$GeV . Hence we have only to worry about quantum transition (18) as we have already done.

In summary, we have pointed out that in a field theory with two (or more) degenerate perturbative vacua, the vacuum energy density of the true ground state is smaller than that in a perturbative vacua by an exponentially small amount if quantum tunneling between degenerate vacua is possible, and that this may be utilized to explain the observed small value of the cosmological constant without introducing any small quantities.


format: text

text:
# Trapped surfaces, horizons and exact solutions in higher dimensions

## Abstract

A very simple criterion to ascertain if $`(D2)`$-surfaces are trapped in arbitrary $`D`$-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds is given. The result is purely geometric, independent of the particular gravitational theory, of any field equations or of any other conditions. Many physical applications arise, a few shown here: a definition of general horizon, which reduces to the standard one in black holes/rings and other known cases; the classification of solutions with a $`(D2)`$-dimensional abelian group of motions and the invariance of the trapping under simple dimensional reductions of the Kaluza-Klein/string/M-theory type. Finally, a stronger result involving closed trapped surfaces is presented. It provides in particular a simple sufficient condition for their absence.

PACS Numbers: 04.50.+h, 04.20.Cv, 04.20.Jb, 02.40.Ky

In 1965 Penrose  introduced in General Relativity (GR) the concept of closed trapped surface, which was crucial for the development of the singularity theorems and the study of gravitational collapse, black holes, cosmological expansion and several types of horizons, see e.g. . Trapped surfaces (closed or not) are 2-dimensional imbedded spatial surfaces such that any portion of them has, at least initially, a decreasing area along any future evolution direction. The term “closed” is used if the surfaces are compact without boundary .

This concept carries over to general Lorentzian manifolds $`(𝒱,g)`$ of any dimension $`D`$ . To fix ideas and notation, let $`S`$ be a $`(D2)`$-dimensional surface with intrinsic coordinates $`\{\lambda ^A\}`$ ($`A,B,\mathrm{}=2,\mathrm{},D1`$) imbedded into the spacetime $`𝒱`$ by the parametric equations

$$x^\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\lambda ^A)(\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},D1).$$
(1)
$`S`$ is alternatively locally defined by two independent relations $`F_1(x^\mu )=0`$ and $`F_2(x^\mu )=0`$. The tangent vectors $`\{\stackrel{}{e}_A\}`$ of $`S`$ are

$`\stackrel{}{e}_Ae_A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}|_S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu }{\lambda ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}|_S`$
so that the first fundamental form of $`S`$ in $`𝒱`$ reads

$$\gamma _{AB}g_{\mu \nu }|_S\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu }{\lambda ^A}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^\nu }{\lambda ^B}$$
(2)
which gives the scalar products of the $`\{\stackrel{}{e}_A\}`$ in $`(𝒱,g)`$. Assume that $`\gamma _{AB}`$ is positive definite so that $`S`$ is spacelike. Then, the two linearly independent normal one-forms $`k_\mu ^\pm `$ to $`S`$ can be chosen to be null and future directed everywhere on $`S`$, so they satisfy

$$k_\mu ^\pm e_A^\mu =0,k_\mu ^+k^{+\mu }=0,k_\mu ^{}k^\mu =0,k_\mu ^+k^\mu =1,\text{on }S$$
(3)
where the last equality is a condition of normalization. Obviously, there still remains the freedom

$$k_\mu ^+k_\mu ^+=\sigma ^2k_\mu ^+,k_\mu ^{}k_\mu ^{}=\sigma ^2k_\mu ^{}$$
(4)
where $`\sigma ^2`$ is a positive function defined on $`S`$.

The two null (future) second fundamental forms of $`S`$ are given by

$$K_{AB}^\pm k_\mu ^\pm e_A^\nu _\nu e_B^\mu $$
(5)
and their traces are

$$K^\pm \gamma ^{AB}K_{AB}^\pm ,$$
(6)
where $`\gamma ^{AB}`$ is the contravariant metric on $`S`$: $`\gamma ^{AC}\gamma _{CB}=\delta _B^A`$. The scalar defining the trapping of $`S`$ is then

$$\kappa 2K^+K^{}=H_\mu H^\mu $$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{H}K^{}\stackrel{}{k}^+K^+\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ is the mean curvature vector of $`S`$ . Clearly, $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ are invariant under (4). $`S`$ is said to be trapped (respectively marginally trapped, absolutely non-trapped) if $`\kappa `$ is positive, (resp. zero, negative) everywhere on $`S`$. $`S`$ is called untrapped otherwise. See  and section 4 in  for details and examples. Notice that $`S`$ is trapped (resp. absolutely non-trapped) when $`\stackrel{}{H}|_S`$ is timelike (resp. spacelike). If $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ is null at a point, then at least one of the traces $`K^\pm `$ vanishes there, so that a necessary condition for $`S`$ to be marginally trapped is that $`\stackrel{}{H}|_S`$ be null.

The meaning of the trapping is simple: the traces (6) are in fact the expansions of the two families of null geodesics emerging orthogonally from $`S`$, which are tangent to $`\stackrel{}{k}^\pm `$ at $`S`$ . Thus, $`S`$ is trapped if both null geodesics families are converging, or diverging, all over $`S`$.

In this letter, a very simple way to check the trapping of surfaces is found, and thereby a definition of horizon will also arise naturally. Without loss of generality, the family of $`(D2)`$-dimensional spacelike surfaces $`S_{X^a}`$ can be described by $`\{x^a=X^a\}`$, with $`a,b,\mathrm{}=0,1`$, where $`X^a`$ are arbitrary constants and $`\{x^\alpha \}`$ are local coordinates in $`(𝒱,g)`$. The line-element can be written as

$$ds^2=g_{ab}dx^adx^b+2g_{aA}dx^adx^A+g_{AB}dx^Adx^B$$
(8)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^\alpha )`$ and $`detg_{AB}>0`$. There remains the freedom

$$x^ax^a=f^a(x^b),x^Ax^A=f^A(x^B,x^c)$$
(9)
keeping the form (8) and the chosen family of surfaces. Using coordinate conditions one can try to achieve $`g_{aA}=0`$ or other similar simplifications, which are in fact useful in many applications, but I prefer to keep the full generality.

Let us calculate the scalar $`\kappa `$ of (7) for the surfaces $`S_{X^a}`$. Clearly, the imbedding (1) for these surfaces is given locally by

$`x^a=X^a=\text{const.},x^A=\lambda ^A,`$
and therefore the first fundamental form (2) for each $`S_{X^a}`$ is $`\gamma _{AB}=g_{AB}(X^a,\lambda ^C)`$. The null normals to each $`S_{X^a}`$ satisfying (3) can be chosen as

$$𝒌^\pm =k_b^\pm dx^b|_{S_{X^a}},g^{ab}k_a^\pm k_b^\pm |_{S_{X^a}}=0,g^{ab}k_a^+k_b^{}|_{S_{X^a}}=1$$
(10)
($`g^{ab}`$ is not necessarily the inverse of $`g_{ab}`$!). Now the calculation of the $`K_{AB}^\pm `$ in (5) is straightforward:

$`K_{AB}^\pm =k_c^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^c|_{S_{X^a}}`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ are the Christoffel symbols. From its definition $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^a=g^{a\rho }(2_{(A}g_{B)\rho }_\rho g_{AB})`$ so that, by setting

$$G+\sqrt{detg_{AB}}e^U,𝒈_ag_{aA}dx^A$$
(11)
and using $`k^{\pm B}=\gamma ^{BA}g_{aA}k^{\pm a}`$, the two traces (6) can be obtained ($`f_{,\mu }=_\mu f`$)

$$K_{_{X^a}}^\pm =k^{\pm a}\left(\frac{G_{,a}}{G}\frac{1}{G}(G\gamma ^{AB}g_{aA})_{,B}\right)|_{S_{X^a}}.$$
(12)
Hence, the mean curvature one-form reads

$$\overline{)H_\mu =\delta _\mu ^a\left(U_{,a}\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{g}_a\right)}$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{div}`$ is the divergence operator on vectors at each $`S_{X^a}`$, so that the scalar (7) for each $`S_{X^a}`$ is finally

$$\overline{)\kappa _{_{X^a}}=g^{bc}H_bH_c|_{S_{X^a}}}.$$
(14)
(13-14) are the desired formulae, which are invariant under changes of type (4) and (9). Observe that one only needs to compute the norm of $`H_a`$ as if it were a one-form in the 2-dimensional metric $`g^{ab}`$. The function $`G=e^U`$, which from (11) gives the canonical $`(D2)`$-volume element of the surfaces $`S_{X^a}`$ (their area in $`D=4`$), arises as a fundamental object. As (13) shows, $`𝑯`$ has a pure divergence term in general. However, as we are going to see presently, in many situations $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{g}_a=0`$, in which case $`H_a=U_{,a}`$ and only the normal variation of volume is relevant. Let us stress that (13-14) are purely geometric, independent of any matter contents, of energy or causality conditions , and of any field equations. They hold in general dimension $`D`$, including, in particular, the case of GR for $`D=4`$.

In general, $`H_a`$ will change its causal character at different regions. The hypersurface(s) of separation $``$, defined locally by the vanishing of $`g^{bc}H_bH_c`$, is a fundamental place in $`(𝒱,g)`$ that I call the $`S_{X^a}`$-horizon. This contains (i) the regions with marginally trapped $`S_{X^a}`$, and (ii) the parts of each $`S_{X^a}`$ where one of the traces vanishes. $``$ coincides in many cases with the classical horizons, as shown in the examples that follow.

Many interesting applications can be derived from (13-14). Let us start with a simple illustrative example, the Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ (notation as in ). The case of physical interest arises for $`\{x^a\}=\{t,r\}`$, $`\{x^A\}=\{\theta ,\varphi \}`$. It is immediate to obtain $`𝒈_r=0`$, $`𝒈_t=2amr\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi `$ and

$$e^{2U}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [(r^2+a^2)\rho ^2+2mra^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]$$

so $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{g}_a=0`$, $`H_a=U_{,a}`$, and using (14) one easily derives (for $`r>0`$) $`\mathrm{sign}\kappa _{_{t,r}}=\mathrm{sign}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22mr+a^2`$. This is the standard result, which identifies the classical event and Cauchy horizons at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ as well as the closed trapped surfaces at $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$.

Let us consider now the general spherically symmetric line-element in arbitrary $`D`$

$$ds^2=g_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b+R^2(x^c)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2$$
(15)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2`$ is the round metric on the $`(D2)`$-sphere and $`detg_{ab}<0`$. Here $`H_a=U_{,a}R_{,a}/R`$, and $``$ is the classical apparent horizon , which in particular becomes an event/Cauchy horizon in symmetric cases. The former case includes $`D`$-dimensional Robertson-Walker cosmologies, and the latter the Reissner-Nordström-Tangherlini black holes , among many others. A $`D`$-generalization of the standard “mass function” in spherical symmetry (see in GR, e.g., ) arises

$`2M(x^a)R^{D3}\left(1g^{bc}R_{,b}R_{,c}\right)`$
so that $`2M(X^a)>R^{D3}(X^a)`$ for trapped $`(D2)`$-spheres $`S_{X^a}`$, which in this case are obviously closed. This agrees (up to a constant $`(D2)`$-volume factor) with .

For more up-to-date matters, let us apply the above results to the 5-dimensional rotating black rings/holes recently presented in  (containing a subset of the rotating black holes in ). Using the notation in  for the metric appearing in their formula (13), the physically relevant case arises for $`\{x^a\}=\{\chi ,y\}`$, $`\{x^A\}=\{v,x,\varphi \}`$. By simple inspection one reads off

$$𝒈_y=0,𝒈_\chi =\frac{\sqrt{\nu }(y\xi _2)}{\sqrt{\xi _1}A}\frac{F(x)}{F(y)}dv,e^{2U}=\frac{F^3(y)}{A^4(xy)^4}$$

and a very simple calculation gives $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{g}_\chi =0`$ (ergo $`H_a=U_{,a}`$ once again) and, for the scalar (14)

$$\kappa _{_{\chi ,y}}=\frac{A^2(xy)^2}{4F(x)F(y)}\left(\frac{3F^{}(y)}{F(y)}+\frac{4}{xy}\right)^2G(y).$$

Recalling that $`F(y)F(x)<0`$ one gets $`\mathrm{sign}\kappa _{_{\chi ,y}}=\mathrm{sign}G(y)`$ except at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:y+3x=4\xi _1`$, where $`\kappa _{_{\chi ,y}}=0`$. This is due to the vanishing of $`K_{_{\chi ,y}}^\pm `$ at the 2-surfaces $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }S_{\chi ,y})S_{\chi ,y}`$. One can check that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is located at $`y>\xi _1`$. Thus, there are closed trapped 3-surfaces $`S_{\chi ,y}`$ for some $`y(\xi _1,\xi _4)`$ ($`G(y)`$ changes sign at $`\xi _4`$), while they are non-trapped for $`y>\xi _4`$. The horizon formed by closed marginally trapped surfaces is located at $`y=\xi _4`$, which is the event horizon described in . In general, $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }\{y=\xi _4\}`$.

Another interesting application arises from the “generalized Weyl solutions” constructed recently in . The main aim in  was to obtain the $`D`$-generalization of the static and axisymmetric solutions of vacuum Einstein’s equations. However, many other solutions not of Weyl-type were implicitly, maybe inadvertently, found. The general metric of  (for the “non-Weyl” case characterized by having real coordinates $`\{Z,\overline{Z}\}`$ in the notation of ) can be written in the form (8) by putting $`g_{aA}=0`$, $`g_{AB}=`$diag$`\{e^{2U_2},\mathrm{},e^{2U_{D1}}\}`$, and letting $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\{U_A\}`$ to depend only on $`\{x^a\}`$. As proved with a particular coordinate choice in , the Ricci-flat condition for (8) implies then that $`G=e^U`$ satisfies (; is covariant derivative for $`g^{ab}`$)

$$g^{ab}G_{;ab}=0,g^{ab}\left(GU_{A,a}\right)_{;b}=0A.$$
(16)
These two expressions are conformally invariant with respect to $`g^{ab}`$. The first is simply the wave equation in the 2-metric $`g^{ab}`$ for $`G`$, easily solvable in appropriate coordinates. The second relation (16) is identical with the equation in $`D=4`$, so that in what follows one could always write down for each of the $`U_A`$ the widely known solutions found in GR. Notice, though, that the proper choice of coordinates depends on the particular physical situation to be tackled. For instance, a simple possibility would be

$$g_{ab}dx^adx^b=F^2(t,x)(dt^2+dx^2),G=x.$$
(17)
However, from the previous analysis, this immediately implies that $`\kappa _{_{t,x}}<0`$, so that all the surfaces $`t,x=`$const. are absolutely non-trapped. 333Whether or not these surfaces are closed is an open question at this stage, depending on the specific topology of the coordinates $`\{x^A\}`$. In other words, the choice (17) is adequate only for the regions of the spacetime with absolutely non-trapped $`S_{t,x}`$, and without $`S_{t,x}`$-horizon $``$. Analogous cases are given for instance by $`G=\mathrm{cosh}t\mathrm{sinh}x`$. These situations are appropriate to describe cylindrical or plane symmetric spacetimes, providing $`D`$-generalizations of this type of solutions in GR. This case is mentioned in . There are, however, other physically inequivalent situations depending on the causal character of $`U_{,a}`$. These are essentially the following (keeping always the form of $`g_{ab}`$ in (17) for simplicity):

1. $`G=t`$. Now all surfaces $`S_{t,x}`$ are trapped and again there is no $``$. This case describes cosmological solutions, as for instance the $`D`$-dimensional Kasner metric , given by $`U_A=p_A\mathrm{log}t`$ with $`_Ap_A=1`$. Analogous cases are given by $`G=\mathrm{sinh}t\mathrm{cosh}x`$.

2. $`G=G(tx)`$ (or $`G=G(t+x)`$). In this case $`\kappa _{_{t,x}}=0`$ and all the surfaces $`S_{t,x}`$ are marginally trapped. This kind of metrics include the plane waves subset of the “pp-waves” (see e.g.  and references therein), although in $`D>4`$ they are surprisingly richer as shown in Appendix B of . Still, there is no $``$ and $`S_{t,x}`$ are generically non-closed. The case with $`G`$=const. is included here.

3. $`G=\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{sin}x`$ with $`x`$ periodic. These cases allow for topologies $`S^2`$, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}\times S^1`$, etc in the $`\{x^a\}`$-part of $`(𝒱,g)`$, and are $`D`$-generalizations of the Gowdy models , including some Robertson-Walker cosmologies. In this case there is a non-trivial $`S_{t,x}`$-horizon $``$, with two connected components, which splits the spacetime into 4 regions, two of them with trapped surfaces $`S_{t,x}`$ (which may be closed), the other two without them. A similar but open-universe case arises by setting $`G=\mathrm{sinh}t\mathrm{sinh}x`$.

4. Of course, one can use the general solution $`G=f_1(tx)+f_2(t+x)`$, with arbitrary functions $`f_1,f_2`$. This is specially appropriate, with adequate choices of $`f_1,f_2`$, to describe the collision of plane waves (see e.g.  and references therein for the GR case; $`D`$-generalizations were given in ). The standard procedure to build the colliding-wave spacetime is to replace $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ by $`f_1(\mathrm{\Theta }(tx)),f_2(\mathrm{\Theta }(t+x))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside step function. Then, the two regions with $`(tx)(t+x)<0`$ are two plane waves, and the two zones with $`(tx)(t+x)>0`$ correspond to their interaction region and the flat background.

From the above one can derive yet another application. As is known, the previous vacuum solutions can be seen as Kaluza-Klein, or string/M-theory spacetimes which under dimensional reduction become 4-dimensional spacetimes with a number of scalar fields. The scalar fields are given by a subset of the $`\{U_A\}`$ or appropriate linear combinations of them, see e.g . Actually, there is a (apparently overlooked) one-to-one corespondence between the solutions found in  and the solutions generated by the technique explained in section 2 of , the $`\{U_A\}`$ of the former corresponding to the $`\{p,\psi _i\}`$ of the latter, as can be easily proved. One of the simplest dimensional reductions  starts with a line-element of type

$`ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{D1}{}}}\psi _i\right)ds_4^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{D1}{}}}e^{2\psi _i}(dx^i)^2`$
where $`ds_4^2`$ is a 4-dimensional line-element and $`\{x^i\}`$ are coordinates on a $`(D4)`$-torus. As is clear, the physically observable $`(D2)`$-surfaces are those reduced to 2-surfaces in $`ds_4^2`$. For these, $`G^2=detg_{AB}`$ and $`𝒈_a`$ become simply ($`A^{},B^{},\mathrm{}=2,3`$)

$`G^2=\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{D1}{}}}\psi _i\right)(detg_{A^{}B^{}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{D1}{}}}e^{2\psi _i}=detg_{A^{}B^{}}`$
$`𝒈_a=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{D1}{}}}\psi _i\right)g_{aA^{}}dx^A^{}g_a^A=\delta _A^{}^A\gamma ^{A^{}B^{}}g_{aB^{}}`$
so that the trapping properties of the surfaces $`S_{X^a}`$ remain unchanged whether they are seen as 2-surfaces in $`D=4`$ or as $`(D2)`$-surfaces in full $`D`$. Hence, the $`S_{X^a}`$-horizon $``$ is lifted (or reduced!) from 4 to $`D`$ ($`D`$ to 4) dimensions. The considered surfaces are closed in $`D`$ dimensions if and only if they are closed in $`D=4`$.

Let us come back to the theoretical approach. The results can be strengthened to the case of closed trapped surfaces. Take any closed spacelike $`(D2)`$-surface $`\overline{S}`$ and adapt the coordinates such that $`\overline{S}\mathrm{\Sigma }_f\left\{f(x^a)=0\right\}`$ where $`\mathrm{d}f`$ is timelike everywhere (apart from this $`f`$ is arbitrary). This can be done in many different ways. The imbedding (1) for $`\overline{S}`$ is given by

$$x^a=\mathrm{\Phi }^a(\mu ^C),x^A=\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\mu ^C),f\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^a(\mu ^C)\right)=0,$$
(18)
where $`\{\mu ^C\}`$ are intrinsic coordinates on $`\overline{S}`$. As $`\overline{S}`$ is compact without boundary, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ must reach their maximum and minimum somewhere on $`\overline{S}`$. From (18) it follows that $`f_{,a}\mathrm{\Phi }^a/\mu ^C=0`$ so that, at any point $`q\overline{S}`$ where there is an extreme of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^1/\mu ^C|_q=0`$), $`\mathrm{\Phi }^0`$ must have a critical point ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^0/\mu ^C|_q=0`$). This implies, firstly, that the two future-directed null normals of $`\overline{S}`$ at $`q`$ are given by $`𝒌^\pm `$ of (10), and secondly, that $`det(\mathrm{\Phi }^C/\mu ^A)|_q0`$ (so that the imbedding (18) has rank $`(D2)`$ there.) A way to visualize this is that $`\overline{S}`$ must be bi-tangent to some $`S_{X^a}`$ (here the assumption that the surfaces $`S_{X^a}`$ do not intersect is needed, so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ are differentiable.) Consequently, we can choose $`\{\mu ^C\}`$ in a neighbourhood $`V(q)\overline{S}`$ of $`q`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\mu ^C)=\mu ^A`$ at $`V(q)`$. A straightforward calculation for the traces (6) of $`\overline{S}`$ leads now to

$$K_{_{\overline{S}}}^\pm |_q=K_{_{X^a}}^\pm |_qk_a^\pm \gamma _{_{\overline{S}}}^{AB}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }^a}{\mu ^A\mu ^B}|_q$$
(19)
where $`K_{_{X^a}}^\pm `$ are given in (12) and $`\gamma _{_{\overline{S}}}^{AB}`$ is the contravariant first fundamental form of $`\overline{S}`$. The analysis of the second term in the righthand side of (19) can be done as follows. Due to (18)

$$f_{,a}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }^a}{\mu ^A\mu ^B}|_q=0f_{,a}\gamma _{_{\overline{S}}}^{AB}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }^a}{\mu ^A\mu ^B}|_q=0,$$

and given that the gradient of $`f`$ is timelike everywhere, it follows that $`\gamma _{_{\overline{S}}}^{AB}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }^a}{\mu ^A\mu ^B}|_q`$ is spacelike with respect to $`g^{ab}`$. Hence, as the inverse of $`g^{ab}`$ is $`2k_{(a}^+k_{b)}^{}`$, both $`k_a^\pm \gamma _{_{\overline{S}}}^{AB}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }^a}{\mu ^A\mu ^B}|_q`$ must have opposite signs.

Some interesting conclusions can be derived. Assume that $`H_a`$ is spacelike in a region, then one of the $`K_{_{X^a}}^\pm `$ is positive and the other is negative for all values of $`X^a`$ in that region. Letting $`K_{_{X^a}}^+>0`$ (say), then at the maximum or the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ one can always show that

$`K_{_{\overline{S}}}^+|_qK_{_{X^a}}^+|_q>0,K_{_{\overline{S}}}^{}|_qK_{_{X^a}}^{}|_q<0`$
and thus the surface $`\overline{S}`$ is untrapped. In fact, from the above reasoning follows the sufficiency that neither of the $`K_{_{X^a}}^\pm `$ changes sign. Thus, there are no closed trapped surfaces at the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ in any region where the $`S_{X^a}`$ are marginally trapped or absolutely non-trapped.

The last result has many applications too. As a simple but powerful one, consider once again the spherically symmetric line-element (15) and assume that $`R_{,\mu }`$ is non-timelike everywhere. Then, the $`(D2)`$-spheres are either absolutely non-, or marginally, trapped everywhere. Besides, this implies that there cannot be any closed trapped surface in $`(𝒱,g)`$ at all. For, due to the structure of the manifold, any closed $`\overline{S}`$ must be osculating to some $`(D2)`$-sphere somewhere, and at this point their corresponding $`\kappa `$’s of (14) coincide, proving that $`\overline{S}`$ cannot be trapped there. In particular, globally static cases have $`R_{,\mu }`$ non-timelike everywhere, hence they cannot contain closed trapped surfaces. These include flat spacetime, or Einstein’s and anti-de Sitter’s universes, for example. Of course, this is a known result, but the proof was rather indirect: if there were a closed trapped surface, the spacetime would be geodesically incomplete , which is not. It must be noted that any of the mentioned spacetimes, including flat one, certainly contains trapped surfaces (non-compact!, see  for examples), so that the previous result is not obvious in principle.

All in all, the significance and applicability of (13-14), which are wholly general, extremely simple, and easily computable, seems worth exploring in detail in the many different gravitational theories. Their potential applications seem to be very many.

Acknowledgement

I thank Roberto Emparan, Alex Feinstein, Marc Mars, and Raül Vera for their comments and suggestions.

References


text:
# 1 Effective birefringence due to the elliptical perturbation in a double core high dielectric contrast fiber. Data is presented for the fundamental linearly polarized doubly degenerate mode. While the width of a ring was kept at a constant 1𝜇𝑚 corresponding inner radii 𝑅 was varied in the interval (3,10)𝜇𝑚. Split in a wavevector of an originally degerate mode due to the uniform elliptical perturbation of magnitude 𝛿 as predicted by the perturbation theory (circles) is compared to the results of the Finite Difference numerical simulations (crosses). Excellent correspondence over the whole range of inner radii is observed.

Analysis of the ellipticity induced PMD and general scaling perturbation in a transmitting fiber.

Maksim Skorobogatiy, Mihai Ibanescu, Steven Johnson, Ori Weisberg, Torkel Engeness, Steven Jacobs, Yoel Fink

OmniGuide Communications, One Kendall Square, Build. 100, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

maksim@omni-guide.com

## Abstract

Presented is an analysis of general scaling perturbations in a transmitting fiber. For elliptical perturbations, under some conditions an intermode dispersion parameter characterizing modal PMD is shown to be directly proportional to the mode dispersion.

© 2024 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (060.24000) Fiber properties ; 060.2280 Fiber design and fabrication

In the following paper we derive a generalized Hermitian Hamiltonian approach for the treatment of Maxwell equations in waveguides as well as develop a perturbation theory for the general class of scaling perturbations that include ellipticity and a uniform scaling of an arbitrary index profile. Because of the Hermitian nature of the formulation most of the results from the well developed perturbation theory of quantum mechanical systems can be directly related to the light propagation in the waveguides. Such formulation provides for an intuitive way of understanding PMD and birefringence in the elliptically perturbed fiber profiles. Region of validity of our theory extends to the case of large variations of the dielectric constant across the fiber crossection and is limited only by an amount of re-scaling. Finally, we establish that if in some range of frequencies a particular mode behaves like a mode of pure polarization $`TE`$,$`TM`$ (where polarization is judged by the relative amounts of the electric and magnetic longitudinal energies in a modal crossection) its inter-mode dispersion parameter $`\tau =|\frac{\beta _e}{\omega }|`$ is related to its dispersion $`D`$ as $`\tau =\lambda \delta |D|`$, where $`\delta `$ is a measure of the fiber ellipticity and $`\beta _e`$ is a split in a wavevector of a linearly polarized doubly degenerate mode of interest due to an elliptical perturbation.

While there has been a wide amount of work done on estimating such quantities as local birefringence induced by perturbations in the fiber profile most of the treatments were geared toward understanding the low contrast, weakly guiding systems such as ubiquitous silica waveguides and are not directly applicable to the high contrast systems such as Bragg fibers, photonic crystal fibers and integrated optics waveguides which are steadily emerging as an integral part of the state of the art transmission systems.

In deriving Hamiltonian formulation for the eigen fields of a generic waveguide exhibiting translational symmetry in longitudinal $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ direction we start with a well known set of Maxwell equations written in terms of transverse and longitudinal fields . Assuming the form of the field

$$\left|\begin{array}{c}𝐄(x,y,z,t)\\ 𝐇(x,y,z,t)\end{array}\right|=\left|\begin{array}{c}𝐄(x,y)\\ 𝐇(x,y)\end{array}\right|exp(i\beta zi\omega t)$$
(1)
and introducing the transverse and longitudinal components of the fields as $`𝐅=𝐅_t+𝐅_z`$, $`𝐅_z=\widehat{𝐳}F_z`$, $`𝐅_t=(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐅)\times \widehat{𝐳}`$ Maxwell equations can be rewritten as a generalized Hermitian eigen problem

$$\beta \begin{array}{cc}0& \widehat{𝐳}\times \\ \widehat{𝐳}\times & 0\end{array}\left|\begin{array}{c}𝐄_t\\ 𝐇_t\end{array}\right|=\begin{array}{cc}\omega ϵ\frac{1}{\omega }_t\times [\widehat{𝐳}(\widehat{𝐳}(_t\times ))]& 0\\ 0& \omega \frac{1}{\omega }_t\times [\widehat{𝐳}(\frac{1}{ϵ}\widehat{𝐳}(_t\times ))]\end{array}\left|\begin{array}{c}𝐄_t\\ 𝐇_t\end{array}\right|.$$
(2)
In this form operators on the left and on the right are Hermitian thus defining a generalized Hermitian eigen problem and allowing for all the convenient properties pertaining to such a form, including real eigenvalues $`\beta `$ as well as orthogonality of the modes corresponding to the different $`\beta `$’s (for more discussion see ). Defining hermitian operator on the left of (2) as $`\widehat{B}`$ and the one on the right $`\widehat{A}`$ and introducing Dirac notation $`|\psi >=\left|\begin{array}{c}𝐄_t\\ 𝐇_t\end{array}\right|`$ we rewrite a generalized eigen problem as

$$\beta \widehat{B}|\psi _\beta >=\widehat{A}|\psi _\beta >$$
(3)
with a condition of orthogonality between modes of $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ in the form

$$<\psi _\beta |\widehat{B}|\psi _\beta ^{}>=\delta _{\beta ,\beta ^{}}.$$
(4)
In the following we analyze uniform along $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ axis perturbations. If a perturbation such as general re-scaling of coordinates $`x_{scaled}=x(1+\delta _x)`$,$`y_{scaled}=y(1+\delta _y)`$ is introduced into the system it will modify an operator $`\widehat{A}`$. A particular case of general re-scaling when $`\delta _x=\delta _y`$ correspond to the uniform scaling of a structure, while the case of $`\delta _x=\delta _y`$ corresponds to a uniform ellipticity. Denoting a correction to an original operator on the left of (2) $`\delta \widehat{A}`$, the new eigen values $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ of the split doubly degenerate eigen mode are found by solving a secular equation  and gives

$$\beta ^\pm =\beta +\frac{<\psi _{\beta ,m}|\delta \widehat{A}|\psi _{\beta ,m}>}{<\psi _{\beta ,m}|\widehat{B}|\psi _{\beta ,m}>}\pm \frac{<\psi _{\beta ,m}|\delta \widehat{A}|\psi _{\beta ,m}>}{|<\psi _{\beta ,m}|\widehat{B}|\psi _{\beta ,m}>|}.$$
(5)
The inter-mode dispersion parameter being proportional to PMD  is defined to be equal to the mismatch of the inverse group velocities of the split due to the perturbation modes $`\tau =\frac{1}{v_g^+}\frac{1}{v_g^{}}`$ which is, in turn, can be expressed in terms of the frequency derivative $`\tau =\frac{(\beta ^+\beta ^{})}{\omega }`$.

Now we derive a form of the perturbation operator for the cases of uniform scaling and uniform ellipticity. We start with an elliptical waveguide and a generalized Hermitian formulation (2) where the derivatives in operator $`\widehat{A}`$ should be understood as the derivatives over the coordinates $`x_{scaled}`$ and $`y_{scaled}`$. We then transform into the coordinate system in which an elliptical waveguide becomes cylindrical. Assuming normalization (4) after some combersome algebra  we arrive at the following expressions.

Case of uniform scaling $`\delta _x=\delta _y=\delta `$

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta _s=<\psi _{\beta ,m}|\delta \widehat{A}|\psi _{\beta ,m}>=2\delta _S𝑑s\left|\begin{array}{c}E_r\\ E_\theta \\ H_r\\ H_\theta \end{array}\right|_{\beta ,m}^+\begin{array}{cccc}\omega ϵ& 0& 0& \beta \\ 0& \omega ϵ& \beta & 0\\ 0& \beta & \omega & 0\\ \beta & 0& 0& \omega \end{array}\left|\begin{array}{c}E_r\\ E_\theta \\ H_r\\ H_\theta \end{array}\right|_{\beta ,m}=2\eta \omega _S𝑑s(ϵ|E_z|^2+|H_z|^2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Another important result about change in the propagation constant of a mode under uniform scaling is that its frequency derivative is proportional to the dispersion of a mode. To derive this result we consider a dispersion relation for some mode of a waveguide $`\beta =f(\omega )`$. From the form of Maxwell equations it is clear that if we uniformly re-scale all the transverse dimensions in a system by a factor of $`(1+\delta )`$ then the new $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta +\beta _s`$ for the same $`\omega `$ will satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\frac{f(\omega (1+\delta ))}{1+\delta }`$. Decomposing the last expression in Taylor series and collecting terms of the same order in $`\delta `$ we derive expressions for $`\beta _s`$ and its derivative $`\beta _s=\delta (\omega \frac{\beta }{\omega }\beta )`$, $`\frac{\beta _s}{\omega }=\delta \omega \frac{^2\beta }{\omega ^2}=\lambda \delta D(\omega )`$ where $`D(\omega )`$ is a dispersion of the mode.

Case of uniform ellipticity $`\delta _x=\delta _y=\delta `$. A first order correction to the split in the values of propagation constants of the modes $`(\beta ,1)`$ and $`(\beta ,1)`$ due to the uniform re-scaling becomes (5)

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta _e=2|<\psi _{\beta ,1}|\delta \widehat{A}|\psi _{\beta ,1}>|=2\eta \omega |_S𝑑s|\begin{array}{c}E_r\\ E_\theta \\ H_r\\ H_\theta \end{array}|_{\beta ,1}^+\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ& iϵ& 0& 0\\ iϵ& ϵ& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& i\\ 0& 0& i& 1\end{array}\left|\begin{array}{c}E_r\\ E_\theta \\ H_r\\ H_\theta \end{array}\right|_{\beta ,1}|=\hfill \\ 2\eta \omega |_S𝑑s[(ϵ|E_z|^2+|H_z|^2)+2Im(ϵE_r^{}E_\theta H_r^{}H_\theta )]|\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`E`$’s and $`H`$’s are those of the $`(\beta ,1)`$ mode.

From expression (7) we find that the split between the degenerate modes due to the ellipticity is proportional to the difference in the longitudinal magnetic and electric energies in the crossection of a fiber. The rest of the crossterms in expression (7) usually do not contribute substantially to the split, unless special structures are considered where longitudinal magnetic and longitudinal electric energies are of the same order.

An important conclusion about PMD of a structure can be drawn when electric or magnetic longitudinal energy dominates substantially over the other (for a longer discussion see ). In the case of pure-like $`TE`$ ($`E_z0`$) or $`TM`$ ($`H_z0`$) modes split due to the uniform scaling (6) becomes almost identical to the split in the degeneracy of the modes due to the uniform ellipticity perturbation (7). Thus, in the case when the mode is predominantly $`TE`$ or $`TM`$ as judged by the amounts of the corresponding longitudinal energies in the crossection we expect $`\beta _s=\beta _e`$. As PMD is proportional to the intermode dispersion parameter $`\tau =\frac{\beta _e}{\omega }`$ and taking into account expressions for the frequency derivatives of $`\beta _s`$ we arrive to the conclusion that for such a mode PMD is proportional to the despersion of a mode

$$\tau =|\frac{\beta _e}{\omega }|=|\frac{\beta _s}{\omega }|=\lambda \delta |D(\omega )|$$
(8)
We conclude by presenting the results of calculations of the normalized birefringence due to the uniform elliptical perturbation in the case of a double core high dielectric contrast fiber Fig.1. Fundamental doubly degenerate mode of $`m=1`$ was studied in a ring-like fiber of $`1.0`$ to $`1.5`$ index contrast. Excellent correspondence between the predictions of the pertubation theory and, in principle, exact Finite Difference numerical simulations is observed.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

In a preceding paper , the associated production of scalar fermions with neutralinos and charginos at future high–energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders has been analyzed in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). For scalar leptons, only the cases of left– and right–handed smuons, staus and their partner sneutrinos have been considered. The associated production of scalar quarks, including the lightest third generation states, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$, with neutralinos, charginos as well as with gluinos, have also been studied. It has been shown that some of these three–body processes can have production cross sections sizeable enough to allow for the possibility of discovering sfermions with masses slightly above the kinematical threshold for pair production at $`𝒪(`$1 TeV) $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, i.e. $`\sqrt{s}=2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, in favorable regions of the supersymmetric (SUSY) parameter space.

The case comprising of associated production of first generation sleptons, left– and right–handed selectrons $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}`$ and electronic sneutrinos $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$, with charginos and neutralinos is more complicated compared to the case of second and third generation sleptons. This is mostly due to the fact that, because of the possibility of the $`t`$–channel exchange of charginos and neutralinos in the two–body production processes, $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$, respectively, there are many more contributing Feynman diagrams for the three–body final states, $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{}_e\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_e\chi `$. In addition, there are extra contributions with diagrams involving the exchange of $`\gamma ,Z,W`$ gauge bosons in the $`t`$–channel. Particularly important are those with $`t`$–channel $`\gamma `$ exchange, which for almost real photons, lead to poles that need to be handled carefully.

In the present paper, we extend the analysis of Ref.  to include the case of associated production of first generation scalar leptons with the lighter charginos and neutralinos. We first investigate the associated production of selectrons and sneutrinos with the lighter neutralinos $`\chi _{1,2}^0`$ or chargino $`\chi _1^\pm `$ states in electron–photon collisions

$`\gamma e_{L,R}^\pm \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^\pm \chi _{1,2}^0,\gamma e_{L,R}^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _1^\pm `$ (1)
for real photons coming from the initial electron/positron beams in the original  and improved  Weizsäcker–Williams approximations, as well as in the case of an $`e\gamma `$ collider with the photon generated by Compton–back scattering of laser light . We then analyze the three–body processes for selectron and sneutrino productions

$`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\chi _{1,2}^0`$ , $`e^+e^{}\nu \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^\pm \chi _1^{}`$
$`e^+e^{}\nu _e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _{1,2}^0`$ , $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }\chi _1^{}`$ (2)
in the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode of a future linear collider with c.m. energies $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and 1 TeV.

## 2. Production in the e$`\gamma `$ mode

The associated production of selectrons with neutralinos and sneutrinos with charginos in $`e^{}\gamma `$ collisions \[the cross sections are the same in $`e^+\gamma `$ processes because of CP invariance\] occur through the $`s`$–channel exchange of electrons and the $`t`$–channel exchange of selectrons or charginos; Fig. 1.

The cross sections of the subprocesses for longitudinally polarized electrons and unpolarized photons are as follows:

$`\widehat{\sigma }(e_{L,R}^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\chi _i^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{2\widehat{s}^3}}|G_{L,R}^i|^2[(\widehat{s}7m_{\chi _i^0}^2+7m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2)\sqrt{\lambda }`$ (3)
$`4(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2m_{\chi _i^0}^2)(\widehat{s}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2m_{\chi _i^0}^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}m_{\chi _i^0}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2+\sqrt{\lambda }}{\widehat{s}m_{\chi _i^0}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}^2\sqrt{\lambda }}}\right)]`$
$`\widehat{\sigma }(e_L^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_L\chi _i^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{2\widehat{s}^3}}|G^i|^2[(3\widehat{s}7m_{\chi _i^{}}^2+7m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2)\sqrt{\lambda }`$ (4)
$`+2(\widehat{s}^2+2m_{\chi _i^{}}^2\widehat{s}2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2\widehat{s}+2(m_{\chi _i^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2)^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}+m_{\chi _i^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2+\sqrt{\lambda }}{\widehat{s}+m_{\chi _i^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2\sqrt{\lambda }}}\right)]`$
where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the $`e\gamma `$ c.m. energy and $`\lambda `$, the two–body phase space function, given by

$`\lambda \lambda (\widehat{s},m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2,m_{\chi _i}^2)=\widehat{s}^2+m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^4+m_{\chi _i}^42\widehat{s}m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^22\widehat{s}m_{\chi _i}^22m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2m_{\chi _i}^2`$ (5)
$`G_{L,R}^i`$ ($`G^i`$) denote the selectron–neutralino–electron (sneutrino–chargino–electron) couplings; in terms of $`s_W^2=1c_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and for $`i=1,2`$, they are given by:

$`G_L^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{i1}}{c_W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N_{i2}}{s_W}}\right),G_R^i={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{c_W}}N_{i1},G^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_W}}V_{i1}`$ (6)
where $`N`$ is the matrix which diagonalizes the $`4\times 4`$ neutralino matrix while $`V`$ is one of the unitary matrices which diagonalize the $`2\times 2`$ chargino mass matrix .

The cross sections of the full processes $`e^+e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{}`$ are obtained by folding the cross sections of the subprocesses eqs. (3) and (4), respectively, with the photon luminosity $`P_{\gamma /e}(y)`$, in which $`s`$ denotes the total $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy and $`y`$ the fraction of the electron energy carried by the photon:

$`\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\chi _i)={\displaystyle _y^{}^{y^+}}𝑑yP_{\gamma /e}(y)\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s}=ys)`$ (7)
In our analysis, we will discuss three possibilities for the photon luminosity:

(a) The Weizsäcker-Williams (WW) spectrum

$`P_{\gamma /e}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1y)^2}{y}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_e^2}}`$ (8)
with the electron mass $`m_e=510.99906`$ keV and the integration boundaries

$`y^{}=(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2+m_{\chi _i}^2)/s,y^+=1`$ (9)
In general, this approximation overestimates the production cross sections.

(b) The improved Weizsäcker–Williams approximation  is more reliable than the original WW approximation for small enough $`\theta _c`$ values, where $`\theta _c`$ denotes the angle between the direction of the positron before and after radiating off a photon \[outgoing positrons above the angular cut $`\theta _c`$ compared to the initial direction of the beam are eliminated\]. Denoting the electron (beam) energy by $`E=\sqrt{s}/2`$, the spectrum is given by

$`P_{\gamma /e}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}[2(1y)({\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2y}{E^2(1y)^2\theta _c^2+m_e^2y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}})`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1y)^2}{y}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E^2(1y)^2\theta _c^2+m_e^2y^2}{m_e^2y^2}}+𝒪(\theta _c,m_e^2/E^2)]`$
(c) The Compton back–scattering spectrum

$`P_{\gamma /e}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _c(y)}{dy}}`$ (11)
with the differential Compton cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _c}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{xm_e^2}}[f_0+P_eP_\gamma f_1+P_eP_\gamma ^{}f_2+P_\gamma P_\gamma ^{}f_3]`$ (12)
$`P_e,P_\gamma ,P_\gamma ^{}`$ denote the helicities of the initial electron, the laser photon $`\gamma `$ and the scattered photon $`\gamma ^{}`$, respectively, with $`1P_e,P_\gamma ,P_\gamma ^{}1`$. The parameter $`x`$ is given by $`x=4E\omega _0/m_e^2`$ with $`E=\sqrt{s}/2`$ and the laser energy is $`\omega _0=1.26`$ eV. In terms of $`r=y/(x(1y))`$, the functions $`f_i`$ (i=0,…,3) read

$`f_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y}}+1y4r(1r),f_1=xr(12r)(2y)`$
$`f_2=xr(1+(1y)(12r)^2),f_3=(12r)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y}}+1y)`$ (13)
The integrated Compton cross section $`\sigma _c`$ can be cast into the form

$`\sigma _c=\sigma _c^{\mathrm{np}}+P_eP_\gamma \sigma _c^\mathrm{p}`$
$`\sigma _c^{\mathrm{np}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{xm_e^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+x)^2}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{x^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}(x+1)\right]`$
$`\sigma _c^\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{xm_e^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x+1)^2}}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}\right)\mathrm{ln}(x+1)\right]`$ (14)
with the integration boundaries in this case, given by

$`y^{}=(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2+m_{\chi _i}^2)/s,y^+=x/(x+1)`$ (15)
In $`e\gamma `$ colliders, with the photon generated by Compton back–scattering of laser light, c.m. energies of the order of 80 to 90% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider energy, integrated luminosities $`200`$ fb-1, and a high degree of longitudinal photon polarization can be reached .

The production cross sections of selectrons and sneutrinos in association with, respectively, the two lightest neutralinos $`\chi _{1,2}^0`$ and the lighter chargino $`\chi _1^\pm `$ are shown as functions of the slepton masses in Figs. 2 for the three options of the photon luminosity discussed above: 2a for the WW approximation, 2b for the improved WW approximation with an angular cut $`\theta _c=1^{}`$ and 2c for the Compton collider. The $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energies are set to 500 GeV (left panel) and 1 TeV (right panel) as expected for the next generation colliders . The initial $`e^{}`$ is assumed to be polarized longitudinally: left–handed polarization for the production of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ and right–handed polarization for the production of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$. The degrees of polarization are assumed to be equal to one, close to the value expected ($`80`$ to $`90\%`$) at machines such as TESLA . Note that only processes involving the $`e^{}\gamma `$ initial state are taken into account in the cross sections of Figs. 2a–b; inclusion of the charge conjugate processes with $`e^+\gamma `$, would lead to cross sections which are larger by a factor of two \[if the degree of polarization of the $`e^+`$ beam is the same as for the $`e^{}`$ beam\].

For the SUSY parameters, we have chosen $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu =500`$ GeV and the gaugino masses at the weak scale $`M_1=50`$ and $`M_2=100`$ GeV, which implies approximate unification at the GUT scale. This leads to gaugino–like lighter charginos and neutralinos with masses $`m_{\chi _1^0}M_1`$ and $`m_{\chi _2^0}m_{\chi _1^\pm }M_2`$, i.e. around the experimental limits from LEP2 negative searches . This choice is motivated by the fact that in this limit, the selectron–electron–$`\chi _{1,2}^0`$ and sneutrino–electron–$`\chi _1^{}`$ couplings eq. (6) are maximal. For mixed gaugino and higgsino states, i.e. for $`|\mu |M_2`$, these couplings are suppressed and vanish in the higgsino–like limit $`|\mu |M_2`$ \[the higgsino couplings to electrons and sleptons are proportional to the electron mass\]. We will not discuss the case of associated production of the heavier chargino and neutralino states with sleptons which are disfavored by phase–space. In particular, for the case of interest, i.e. for $`M_2|\mu |`$, the heavier chargino and neutralino states are higgsino–like with large masses $`m_{\chi _3^0}m_{\chi _4^0}m_{\chi _2^\pm }|\mu |`$ and in addition, they have tiny couplings to electron–slepton pairs. For more details, see the discussion given in Ref. . Note also that the cross section for the process $`e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\chi _2^0`$ vanishes in the limit of gaugino–like next–to–lightest neutralinos since the right–handed selectron does not couple to the winos.

For the $`e^+e^{}`$ option with Weizsäcker–Williams photons, Fig. 2a and 2b, the cross sections in the original approximation are about a factor of two larger than in the improved approximation with the angle $`\theta _c`$ between the initial and the final positron set to $`1^{}`$. The cross section in the improved WW approximation vanishes at $`\theta _c=0`$ \[since the photon luminosity in eq. (10) goes to zero\] and increases with increasing $`\theta _c`$ \[some illustrative examples will be given later on\]. In the chosen scenario, for slepton masses only slightly above the threshold for pair production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, $`\sqrt{s}2m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, and fairly far from the kinematical limit in associated production, $`\sqrt{s}m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+m_\chi `$, the gaugino mass effects do not play a significant role and the cross sections for selectron production are such that

$`\sigma (e_L\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_L\chi _2^0)/\sigma (e_L\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_L\chi _1^0)3,\sigma (e_R\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_R\chi _1^0)/\sigma (e_L\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_L\chi _1^0)4`$ (16)
These are simply the ratios of the squares of the selectron–electron–gaugino couplings in the gaugino–limit, $`(G_L^2)^2/(G_L^1)^23`$ (for $`s_W^21/4`$) and $`(G_R^1)^2/(G_L^1)^2=4`$. The behaviour of the cross sections are almost identical except for the more rapid fall–off for higher masses for $`\sigma (e_L\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_L\chi _2^0)`$, because of a fast reducing phase–space \[$`m_{\chi _2^0}2m_{\chi _1^0}`$\].

At a 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, the cross sections are of the order of 0.6 (2.6) fb for $`e_{L(R)}\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_{L(R)}\chi _1^0`$ for selectron masses of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{L,R}}275`$ GeV in the WW approximation. This means that 300 (1300) events can be collected for a yearly integrated luminosity of $`=500`$ fb-1 as expected for a machine like TESLA. Even for masses of about $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}400`$ GeV, i.e. far above the mass reach for slepton pair production, the cross section for $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\chi _1^0`$ production is of the order of 0.1 fb which means that approximately 100 events can be collected in two years of running, a sample which might be sufficient to discover these particles in the clean environment of $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. The cross sections will of course be smaller for increasing values of the gaugino masses as will be illustrated later.

The cross section for sneutrino–chargino production is an order of magnitude larger than the largest cross section for selectrons, $`\sigma (e_R\gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_R\chi _1^0)`$; for low slepton masses, it exceeds the level of 10 fb (for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=300`$ GeV) at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. This is mainly due to the fact that the magnitude of charged currents is larger than the one for neutral currents, but also because in the $`t`$–channel diagrams, it is a lighter chargino which is exchanged in this case \[compared to the slepton in the previous case\]. The latter feature also explains the slightly different behaviours of the cross sections for higher slepton masses.

The cross sections are also shown for an $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy of 1 TeV and slepton masses above 500 GeV. While in the case of selectrons they are smaller by a factor 3 to 4 \[the $`s`$–channel electron exchange contribution scales like $`1/s`$ and is therefore smaller\] for a fixed $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}/\sqrt{s}`$ value, the cross sections stay approximately the same for sneutrino–chargino production because of the dominance of the chargino $`t`$–channel exchange.

Finally, the cross sections in the $`e\gamma `$ mode of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, with the photon generated by Compton back–scattering, are shown in Fig. 2c. The laser energy is taken to be 1.26 eV, leading to a parameter $`x=4.83`$ and $`x=9.65`$ for the c.m. energies of the initial $`e^+e^{}`$ machine of 500 GeV and 1 TeV, respectively. For relatively low slepton masses, the cross sections are more than one order of magnitude larger than in the Weizsäcker–Williams approximation, with the ratios between cross sections with different states being approximately the same. This means that if the luminosity of the $`e\gamma `$ collider is of the same order as the luminosity of the $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, a very large number of events can be collected. However, there is a very strong fall–off of some of the cross sections for large slepton masses, in particular in the case of selectron and sneutrino production in association with $`\chi _2^0`$ and $`\chi _1^\pm `$, respectively. Because the energy of the $`e\gamma `$ collider peaks at approximately 90% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy, the phase space suppression becomes very strong for slepton masses close to $`m_{\mathrm{}}350`$ GeV at $`\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^{}}=500`$ GeV, since in this case, $`m_{\chi _2^0}m_{\chi _1^\pm }M_2=100`$ GeV leading to $`m_{\mathrm{}}+m_{\chi _i}450`$ GeV.

Thus the cross sections for associated production of sleptons of the first generation along with the lighter charginos or neutralinos are significant, even in the $`e^+e^{}`$ option with Weizsäcker–Williams photons. Selectrons or sneutrinos with masses beyond the values which can be reached in pair production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions \[approximately the beam energy\] can be probed with high luminosities if the charginos and neutralinos are lighter. However, the accompanying electron/positron are in general not experimentally detected in this case. To take into account this possibility as well, the full three–body production process, $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\chi _i`$, to which we turn now, has to be considered.

## 3. Production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions

There is a large number of Feynman diagrams contributing to the associated production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions of first generation selectrons $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}`$ or sneutrinos $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ with the lighter chargino $`\chi _1^\pm `$ or neutralinos $`\chi _{1,2}^0`$. Neglecting the exchange of the heavier chargino or neutralinos \[which, as discussed previously, do not couple to the sleptons and leptons in the gaugino limit\] one has: 28 Feynman diagrams for $`e^+e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\chi _i^0`$, 17 diagrams for $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _i^0`$, 13 diagrams for $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}\chi _1^+`$, 6 diagrams for $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\chi _1^+`$ and 12 diagrams for $`e^+e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _1^{}`$. The set of generic diagrams contributing to the associated production of left– or right–handed selectrons with the neutralinos $`\chi _{1,2}^0`$ are shown in Figs. 3a–c. A similar set of diagrams appears in the other processes. These diagrams can be divided into three separately gauge invariant categories:

(a) Universal diagrams which occur also in the case of the associated production of second and third generation sleptons with electroweak gauginos \[and as such, this set is therefore gauge invariant by itself\]. The amplitudes are discussed in Ref. .

(b) Non–universal diagrams, i.e. which are special to the case of first generation sleptons, and which do not involve the exchange of photons in the $`t`$–channel. They all involve neutralino or $`Z`$ boson exchange in the $`t`$–channel \[which does not occur for associated smuon production due to flavor conservation\].

(c) Non–universal diagrams where a photon is exchanged in the $`t`$–channel. Here, the electron or positron radiates a photon and part of the reaction will be exactly the same as the one discussed previously for $`e\gamma `$ collisions, but with the photon being virtual.

Similar diagrams occur for the other associated production processes. Note that in the processes where charginos and sneutrinos are produced in association, $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _1^{}`$, there are also Feynman diagrams involving the $`t`$–channel exchange of photons, Fig. 3d, and which correspond to those discussed in the case of $`e\gamma `$ collisions but with the photon being virtual. Such diagrams with $`t`$–channel photons do not occur in the associated production of charginos with selectrons or neutralinos with sneutrinos.

The amplitudes for diagrams 3b, 3c and 3d are given in Appendix A, while the ones for diagrams 3a are already given in Ref.  from which we borrow the notation. The full analytical expression for the differential cross section is rather lengthy and not very telling. In Appendix B, we will however write down the expressions for the squared amplitude of the sum of the two contributions which involve the $`t`$–channel photon exchange only. This, as we will show later, is the most important one numerically. In the following, we will simply discuss our numerical results from the complete calculation. We note that in all cases, we have thoroughly cross checked our numerical results against the corresponding ones from the package CompHEP .

The total cross sections for the associated productions of first generation sleptons with the two lightest neutralinos $`\chi _1^0`$ (a) and $`\chi _2^0`$ (b) as well as with the lightest chargino $`\chi _1^\pm `$ (c) are shown in Fig. 4 as functions of the slepton mass and for two center of mass energies $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV (left panel) and 1 TeV (right panel). As in the previous section, we have assumed a common soft–SUSY breaking mass for the scalars and fixed the SU(2) gaugino and higgsino mass terms to be $`M_2=2M_1=100`$ GeV and $`\mu =500`$ GeV with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$. The cross sections are displayed for unpolarized initial beams and the charged conjugate final states \[which lead to a factor of two increase of the cross sections\] have been included. In the case of $`e^\pm \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\chi _{1,2}^0`$ and $`e^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\chi _1^{}`$ production, which involve the $`t`$–channel photon poles, we have applied a cut on the minimum angle between the direction of the final electron (positron) with respect to the incident electron (positron), $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=1^{}`$. This cut is used to avoid the numerical instabilities near the $`t`$–channel photon pole111In principle, one can regulate this pole by including the finite mass of the electron also in the phase space (as we have already done). However, since $`m_e`$ is much smaller compared to $`\sqrt{s}`$, a very delicate and lengthy Monte–Carlo phase–space integration would be required..

As can be seen, at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, the production cross sections can be rather large, exceeding the level of 0.1 fb for slepton masses close to $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}350`$ GeV, except in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ production with $`\chi _2^0`$ and $`\chi _1^+`$ \[because $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ has very small couplings to these dominantly SU(2) gauginos\] and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ production with the LSP \[because the bino-$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$-$`\nu _e`$ coupling is suppressed and there is no $`t`$–channel photon to enhance the rate\]. The largest rates are obtained for the processes $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\chi _1^0`$ and $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_e^{()}\chi _1^{}`$. This is due to the larger $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ couplings to electrons and binos in the former case and because of the stronger charged current interactions for the latter, both of which are fortified with contributions from the $`t`$–channel photon exchange. For $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}350`$ GeV and $`m_{\chi _1^+}2m_{\chi _1^0}100`$ GeV, the cross sections are at the level of 0.5 fb and 2 fb, respectively, allowing one to collect a few hundreds of events in each process with the expected luminosity of $`500`$ fb-1. \[In fact, even for $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}400`$ GeV, one can still produce a few tens of events per year in this case.\] At $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV, the cross sections are in general smaller than that at a 500 GeV collider for a given ratio $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}/\sqrt{s}`$ \[with all the other parameters fixed\] except in some cases where sleptons are produced in association with the heavier gaugino-like $`\chi _2^0`$ and $`\chi _1^\pm `$ for which significantly larger regions of phase space are now available.

In Fig. 5, we display the cross sections at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV for a fixed $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}275`$ GeV, as functions of the gaugino mass parameter $`M_2`$, i.e. for somewhat heavier $`\chi _1^\pm `$ and $`\chi _{1,2}^0`$ gaugino states. As expected, the cross sections decrease with larger $`M_2`$, in particular for associated slepton productions with heavier gauginos, $`\chi _2^0`$ and $`\chi _1^\pm `$. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}`$ production with the LSP, where more phase space is available since $`m_{\chi _1^0}0.5M_2`$, the cross sections drop by less than a factor of 10 for a variation of $`M_2`$ from 100 to 250 GeV.

Finally, Fig. 6 shows the cross sections for the associated slepton production with the LSP at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV as functions of the slepton masses when the lighter neutralinos and chargino are almost higgsino–like (a) and mixtures of gauginos and higgsinos (b). For higgsino–like $`\chi _1^0`$ particles the cross sections are much smaller than the previous case, a result of the smaller lepton–slepton–LSP coupling. In the case of mixed $`\chi _1^0`$ states, the cross sections are slightly smaller than for a gaugino–like LSP. However, since all neutralinos and charginos will have comparable masses in this case, one has to consider the production with the heavier $`\chi `$ particles. At the end of the day, once all processes have been included, the sum of the cross sections for the various processes will be similar in magnitude compared to the case of gaugino–like lightest neutralinos.

## 4. The total production cross sections

Let us now discuss the magnitude of the various contributions to the total associated cross section and the effects of the cut–off angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ which in the previous discussion was set to $`1^0`$. Taking as examples the associated production of the left– and right–handed selectrons with the LSP, $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}\chi _1^0`$, we display in Table 1 the cross sections of the various contributions for a c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and the SUSY particle masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}}=275`$ GeV and $`m_{\chi _1^0}75`$ GeV \[$`M_2=150`$ GeV, $`\mu =500`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$\], for several values of the cut–off angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$. We will also compare these with the results obtained in the improved Weizsäcker–Williams approximation with a cut-off angle $`\theta _c=\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$.

We define the “resonant” contribution to be the cross section from the two diagrams involving the $`t`$–channel exchange of the photon in Fig. 3c. As discussed previously, the sum of these two amplitudes is gauge invariant. These contributions strongly depend on the value of the cut–off angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ for the direction of the final electron (positron) with respect to the initial electron (positron) beams and which vetoes final leptons going in the very forward direction. The cross sections increase for decreasing cut–off angles. For instance, they are a factor of 2 to 3 larger for $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}0.5^{}`$ than for $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}5^{}`$, illustrating the fact that in most cases the final lepton goes down in the forward direction. However, for a small cut–off angle, we approach too closely the photon pole and the phase–space integration becomes unstable numerically and when using a Monte–Carlo method for such an integration, this actually calls for a very large number of integration points and commensurate number of iterations to achieve a stable result. An intermediate value, say $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}1^{}`$ used in the previous discussion, is more appropriate since the cross section is significant and at the same time its determination is more accurate.

The “non–resonant” contribution consists of the squared sum of the amplitudes of the diagrams which do not involve the $`t`$–channel photon, Fig (3a) and (3b) \[which forms also a gauge invariant set\], and their interferences with the two diagrams in Fig. 3c. This interference does not involve any pole \[since there is no $`1/t^2`$ terms\] and is thus regular in the forward direction. As can be seen in Table 1, this contribution is rather small and does not depend strongly on the cut–off angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ \[provided that it is small enough\]. The total cross section, i.e. the sum of the two contributions, is thus dominated by the resonant piece222Note that the electron–photon vertex in the resonant contribution should be evaluated at $`q^2=0`$ and therefore $`\alpha =1/137`$ , while the other vertices should be evaluated at a scale close to $`\sqrt{s}`$ and thus $`\alpha 1/128`$ . Also, in principle, one should use a running $`\alpha `$; however, for our purpose, it is a good approximation to use the two values above. We thank E. Boos and T. Ohl for a discussion on this point..

We have also displayed the $`e^\pm \gamma \stackrel{~}{e}_L^\pm \chi _1^0`$ cross section in the improved Weizsäcker–Williams approximation \[for unpolarized beams and including the two charge conjugate processes\] with a cut-off angle $`\theta _c=\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$. Here, the cross section decreases with decreasing angle since the probability of having the lepton emitted from the initial beam with a smaller angle is smaller, as is evident from eq. (10).

In fact the “full” cross section and the cross section in the improved WW approximation are complementary since they deal with complementary regions of the phase space for $`\theta _c=\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$. The sum of the two gives the cross section for the associated production of sleptons and gauginos in the full angular range whether the final lepton is in the forward direction \[i.e. experimentally undetected\] or not. This sum, given in the last column of the table, is practically constant since it changes by less than $`3\%`$ between $`\theta =5^{}`$ and $`\theta =0.05^{}`$, while both of its components change by more than 100%. This modest shift is probably due to the fact that, at larger angles the improved WW approximation is rather poor, while at smaller angles, the three–body cross section is numerically unstable. A median value of $`\theta 1^{}`$, which has been adopted here, should therefore give an approximately good answer for the exclusive associated slepton+gaugino cross section333This way of calculating the full cross section for multi–body final states involving photons in the $`t`$–channel, i.e. by calculating separately the cross section in the improved WW approximation in a narrow cone around the beam axis and the full multi–body process for the rest (which eliminates the numerical instabilities at small angles) and then performing the sum, has been discussed in the context of single $`W`$ production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders . This allows for fast Monte–Carlo analyses..

## 4. Conclusions

In this paper, we have analyzed the associated production of first generation sleptons with neutralinos and charginos in the MSSM, at future high–energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, extending on the work done in Ref. . We have discussed both the two–body particle production in the $`e\gamma `$ mode and the three–body particle production in the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode of the collider. In the latter case, we have shown that the production cross sections, thanks to a strong enhancement due to the presence of $`t`$–channel photon exchange contributions, can be rather large even for slepton masses significantly exceeding the kinematical two–body reach of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, i.e. $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>\sqrt{s}/2`$. This is particularly the case for the production of right–handed selectrons with the lightest neutralino and the production of sneutrinos with the lightest chargino, where slepton masses a few ten GeV beyond the beam energy can be probed if the electroweak gauginos are relatively light.

The final states discussed in this paper should be clear enough to be detected in the clean environment of $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. However, to asses more firmly this possibility, a detailed study  of the signal and the various Standard Model backgrounds as well as the SUSY processes leading to the same final states \[such as $`\chi _1^+\chi _1^{}`$ and $`\chi _1^0\chi _2^0`$ pair production for which the cross sections can be large\], has to be performed. In particular, since in the kinematical regions where the cross sections are large, a final state electron or positron goes in the direction of the beam pipe, large and dangerous backgrounds such as single $`W`$ boson production or $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions should be studied in detail. These studies are beyond the scope of this preliminary analysis and will be performed in a near future.

Acknowledgments: We thank Ayres Freitas and Peter Zerwas for clarifying discussions and E. Boos and A. Pukhov for their help in using CompHEP. AKD is supported by a MNERT fellowship while AD and MM are supported by the Euro–GDR Supersymétrie and by the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.

## Appendix A: The amplitudes of the various contributions

In this Appendix, we present the amplitudes for the diagrams in Fig. 3b–3d (the ones for the universal contributions Fig. 3a are given in Ref. ). The first two combined represent a generic set of extra Feynman diagrams for final states involving left and right handed selectron along with neutralinos (as compared to the set in Fig. 3a which is generic to all scalar final states), i.e. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}e^+\chi _i^0`$. The set of two diagrams in Fig. 3d are for the final state involving electronic sneutrino along with the chargino, i.e. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_ee^+\chi _i^{}`$, and are the dominant ones containing photon poles when the outgoing positron is scattered in the very forward direction. In a covariant gauge, the amplitudes are given by:

$`M_{b1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3/(s_W^3c_W^2)}{\{(p_1p_5)^2m_Z^2\}(p_1+p_2p_5)^2}}[\overline{v}_e(p_1)\gamma ^\alpha (c_L^eP_L+c_R^eP_R)v_e(p_5)]`$
$`\times [\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)G_{b1}^{Aik}(\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_5)\gamma _\alpha (c_L^eP_L+c_R^eP_R)u_e(p_2)]`$
$`M_{b2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3a_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_k\stackrel{~}{e}_k}/(s_W^3c_W^2)}{\{(p_1p_5)^2m_Z^2\}\{(p_1p_3p_5)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_k}^2\}}}`$
$`\times [\overline{v}_e(p_1)(\mathit{}_1\mathit{}_52\mathit{}_3)(c_L^eP_L+c_R^eP_R)v_e(p_5)][\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)G_{b2}^{Aik}u_e(p_2)]`$
$`M_{b3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3/(s_W^3c_W^2)}{\{(p_1p_5)^2m_Z^2\}\{(p_2p_3)^2m_{\chi _j}^2\}}}[\overline{v}_e(p_1)\gamma ^\alpha (c_L^eP_L+c_R^eP_R)v_e(p_5)]`$
$`\times [\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)(O_L^{ij}P_L+O_R^{ij}P_R)\gamma _\alpha (\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_3+m_{\chi _j})G_{b3}^{Ajk}u_e(p_2)]`$
$`M_{b4}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{s_W^3}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{v}_e(p_1)G_{b4}^{Bih}v_{\chi _i^0}(p_4)][\overline{v}_e(p_2)G_{b4}^{Ajk}(\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_3m_{\chi _j})G_{b4}^{Ajh}v_e(p_5)]}{\{(p_1p_4)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_h}^2\}\{(p_2p_3)^2m_{\chi _j}^2\}}}`$
$`M_{b5}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{s_W^3}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{v}_e(p_1)G_{b5}^{Bjh}(\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_3+m_{\chi _j})G_{b5}^{Ajk}u_e(p_2)][\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)G_{b5}^{Aih}v_e(p_5)]}{\{(p_1+p_2p_3)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_h}^2\}\{(p_2p_3)^2m_{\chi _j}^2\}}}`$
$`M_{c1(d1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{s_W}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{v}_e(p_1)\gamma ^\alpha v_e(p_5)][\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)G_{c1(d1)}^{Aik}(\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_5)\gamma _\alpha u_e(p_2)]}{(p_1p_5)^2(p_1+p_2p_5)^2}}`$
$`M_{c2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{s_W}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{v}_e(p_1)(\mathit{}_1\mathit{}_52\mathit{}_3)v_e(p_5)][\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)G_{c2}^{Aik}u_e(p_2)]}{(p_1p_5)^2\{(p_1p_3p_5)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_k}^2\}}}`$
$`M_{d2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{s_W}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{v}_e(p_1)\gamma ^\alpha v_e(p_5)][\overline{u}_{\chi _i}(p_4)\gamma _\alpha (\mathit{}_1\mathit{}_4\mathit{}_5m_{\chi _j})G_{d2}^{Ajk}u_e(p_2)]}{(p_1p_5)^2\{(p_1p_4p_5)^2m_{\chi _j}^2\}}}`$
The relative signs among different diagrams contributing to the same final state arising out of the anticommuting nature of the fermionic fields (Wick’s theorem) are summarized in the table below.

| Diagrams | $`a_1`$ | $`a_2`$ | $`a_3`$ | $`a_4`$ | $`a_5`$ | $`b_1`$ | $`b_2`$ | $`b_3`$ | $`b_4`$ | $`b_5`$ | $`c_1`$ | $`c_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Relative Signs | + | + | + | $``$ | + | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | + | + | $``$ | $``$ |

We try to keep the conventions of our previous paper  in defining the variables and constants more or less intact. $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$ are the left– and right–handed chirality projectors, $`e^2=4\pi \alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ being the fine structure constant, $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ and $`c_W=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$ are the sine and the cosine of the Weinberg angle, while $`T_{3,\stackrel{~}{e}_k(e)}`$ and $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{e}_k(e)}`$, are the third component of the weak isospin and the charge of the $`k`$-th chiral selectron (electron). The couplings of electron and selectrons with gauge bosons are parametrized by

$`c_L^e=T_{3,e}Q_es_W^2,c_R^e=Q_es_W^2,a_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_k\stackrel{~}{e}_k}=T_{3,\stackrel{~}{e}_k}Q_{\stackrel{~}{e}_k}s_W^2`$ (A3)
where $`k=L,R`$ is the chirality of the selectron, while the neutralino-neutralino-$`Z`$ boson couplings are parametrized by

$`O_{ij}^L=O_{ij}^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_{i3}N_{j3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_{i4}N_{j4}`$ (A4)
following the notations of Gunion and Haber . As in Ref. , for the fermion-sfermion-gaugino couplings we follow Figs. 22,23 and 24 of Re. . In the amplitudes presented in eqs. (A1,A2), the couplings $`G`$ absorb the sign on imaginary $`i`$’s as shown against the vertices in the figures mentioned above. The subscripts of $`G`$ indicate the diagram while superscripts ($`i`$ or $`j`$) indicate whether the coupling is arising at a vertex with an outgoing ($`i`$) or a propagator ($`j`$) gaugino. A superscript $`k(h)=L,R`$ indicates the chirality of the sfermion in the final state (or in the scalar propagator) as appropriate for the vertex in context. $`G`$-couplings with superscripts $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related by hermitian conjugation at the Lagrangian level, while involving the same set of fields in respective cases. In all the couplings defined above we have taken the neutralino-mixing matrix $`N`$ in the $`BW^3`$ basis, the neutralino-mixing matrix $`N^{}`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ basis, the two chargino mixing matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$, to be real as is appropriate in an analysis that conserves CP.

Following are the couplings in details:

$`G_{(Diag.)}^{Ai(j)(L,R,\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{L(R)}^A(A_{1(L,R,\stackrel{~}{\nu })}^{i(j)}P_L+A_{2(L,R,\stackrel{~}{\nu })}^{i(j)}P_R)`$
$`G_{(Diag.)}^{Bi(j)L(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{L(R)}^B(B_{1L(R)}^{i(j)}P_R+B_{2L(R)}^{i(j)}P_L)`$ (A5)
The generic values and structures of the terms on the right hand side of the above equations are defined below in reference to final states with neutralino and with chargino. For final states with neutralinos, one has:

$`C_{L(R)}^A`$ $`=`$ $`C_{L(R)}^B=1`$
$`A_{i(j)1L}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{i(j)1L}=\sqrt{2}\left[s_WN_{i(j)1}^{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_W^2\right)N_{i(j)2}^{}\right]`$
$`A_{i(j)2R}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{i(j)2R}=\sqrt{2}(s_WN_{i(j)1}^{}s_W^2N_{i(j)2}^{})`$
$`A_{i(j)2L}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{i(j)1R}=B_{i(j)2L}=B_{i(j)1R}={\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_{i(j)3}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\right)`$ (A6)
\[Note that we have neglected the very small mixing in the selectron sector although retained the small electron-mass ($`m_e`$) in the above couplings; the reason behind this is discussed in Appendix B.\] For final states with charginos, as in case for the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 3d, one has:

$`C_L^A`$ $`=`$ $`C_L^B=+1C_R^A=C_R^B=0`$
$`A_{i(j)1}`$ $`=`$ $`=V_{i(j)1}A_{i(j)2}={\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_{i(j)2}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\right)`$
$`B_{jl}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{jl}\mathrm{with}l=1,2`$ (A7)
In the present analysis we do not use the sparticle widths, and hence, have to impose kinematic constraints to avoid situations closely approaching the on–shell limits for the (sfermion and/or gaugino) propagators that would have led to resonances. In Ref.  we have justified this consideration and illustrated with concrete examples the importance of including sparticle widths when approaching such thresholds.

## Appendix B: the differential cross section

In this Appendix, we present the analytical expressions of the differential cross section for the following two associated production processes:

$`e^+(p_1)e^{}(p_2)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k^{}(p_3)\chi _i^0(p_4)e^+(p_5)`$ (B1)
$`e^+(p_1)e^{}(p_2)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }(p_3)\chi _i^{}(p_4)e^+(p_5)`$ (B2)
where $`k=L,R`$ is the handedness of the produced selectron. We have considered the (gauge invariant) sets of only two Feynman diagrams, Fig. 3c and 3d, i.e. for the processes which contain the photon pole in the $`t`$–channel. This is a reasonably good approximation, as demonstrated in Table 1, for the “full” cross section.

Due to the presence of forward poles in these diagrams, we have to keep the electron mass in our analysis which ultimately regulates this singular behavior of the scattering matrix element over the appropriate phase space. However, it is sufficient to retain the terms proportional to $`m_e^2/t_1^2`$, where $`m_e`$ is the mass of the electron and $`t_1`$ is the square of the 4-momentum transfer between the incoming and outgoing positron. Elsewhere it is safe to take $`m_e0`$. Hence, in the following expressions for the diagonal and interference terms we have made two parts explicit; one proportional to $`m_e^2/t_1^2`$ and the other, not. We ignored, however, the negligible mixing in the selectron sector.

The complete spin-averaged matrix element squared is given by

$$||^2=4\frac{(4\pi \alpha )^3}{s_W^2}\underset{i,j=1,2}{}T_{ij}$$
(B3)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant \[to be evaluated at the scale of the momentum transfer at the vertex\]. The $`T_{ij}`$’s are the squared amplitudes and the interferences for the two diagrams in Figs. 3c (and 3d). The effects of permutations of suffixes for the interferences are already included in the original terms and hence such permutations are to be left out.

The diagonal terms are given by:

$`T_{c_1(d_1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i1k}^2}{t_1^2}}\left(𝒜__1+𝒜__2+𝒜__3\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{t_1^2}}\left\{A_{i1k}^2𝒜__4{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}^2}{m_W^2}}(𝒜__1+𝒜__2)\right\}\right]`$
$`T_{c_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(m_{\chi _i}^2s_2+t_1t_2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i1k}^2}{t_1^2}}__1(__2__3+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2t_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{t_1^2}}\{4A_{i1k}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}\right)__3+\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}\right)^2__3A_{i1k}^2\}__4\}]`$
$`T_{d_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t_2m_{\chi _j}^2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{j1k}^2}{t_1^2}}\{𝒞__1+(𝒞__2+𝒞__3+𝒞__4+𝒞__5+𝒞__6)t_1\}`$ (B4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{t_1^2}}\left\{8A_{j1k}\right({\displaystyle \frac{A_{j2k}}{m_W}})𝒞__7({\displaystyle \frac{A_{j2k}}{m_W}})^2𝒞__5A_{j1k}^2(𝒞__2+2𝒞__32𝒞__43𝒞__5+𝒞__8)\}]`$
while the interference terms are given by:

$`T_{c_1c_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2(m_{\chi _i}^2s_2+t_1t_2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i1k}^2}{t_1^2}}\{𝒟__1+𝒟__2+m_{\chi _i}^2(𝒟__3+𝒟__4)+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(𝒟__5+𝒟__6)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{t_1^2}}\{A_{i1k}(2{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}m_{\chi _i}𝒟__7A_{i1k}𝒟__8)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}(2m_{\chi _i}A_{i1k}𝒟__7+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}(𝒟__1+𝒟__3+𝒟__5))\}]`$
$`T_{d_1d_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2(m_{\chi _j}^2t_2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i1k}A_{j1k}}{t_1^2}}\{__1+__2+m_{\chi _i}^2(__3+__4)+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(__5+__6)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{t_1^2}}\{A_{i1k}(2{\displaystyle \frac{A_{j2k}}{m_W}}m_{\chi _i}__7A_{j1k}__8)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{i2k}}{m_W}}(2m_{\chi _i}A_{j1k}__7+{\displaystyle \frac{A_{j2k}}{m_W}}(__1+__3+__5))\}]`$
The factors $`𝒜_𝒾`$, $`_𝒾`$, $`𝒞_𝒾`$, $`𝒟_𝒾`$, are given below:

$`𝒜__1`$ $`=`$ $`s\left\{(m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)(2ss_2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s_2\right\}`$
$`𝒜__2`$ $`=`$ $`s_2\left[s\left\{2(ss_1s_2)+t_2\right\}+s_2(s_1t_2)\right]`$
$`𝒜__3`$ $`=`$ $`t_1\left\{(m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)(2ss_2+t_1)+s_2(ss_1+t_2)\right\}`$
$`𝒜__4`$ $`=`$ $`6s(m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)+s_2\left\{4(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2+s)3(s_1+s_2)t_2\right\}`$
$`__1`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s_2+t_1t_2`$
$`__2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _i}^2+ss_1s_2`$
$`__3`$ $`=`$ $`ss_1+t_2`$
$`__4`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2+s_2+t_2`$
$`𝒞__1`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s_1^2+s_1\left\{2(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s+s_1)+s_2\right\}t_2+(s2s_1s_2)t_2^2`$
$`+m_{\chi _j}^2(2ss_1s_1s_2st_2+s_2t_2)+m_{\chi _i}^2\left\{m_{\chi _j}^2s+2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(s_1t_2)+t_2(s2s_1+2t_2)\right\}`$
$`𝒞__2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _j}^2(s_2+t_2)+s_2t_2`$
$`𝒞__3`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\chi _i}m_{\chi _j}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2t_2)`$
$`𝒞__4`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _j}^2sm_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(2s_1t_2)st_2`$
$`𝒞__5`$ $`=`$ $`s_1(m_{\chi _j}^2+t_2)`$
$`𝒞__6`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(m_{\chi _i}^2m_{\chi _j}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)t_1`$
$`𝒞__7`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _j}(m_{\chi _i}^2s_1)(s_1t_2)`$
$`𝒞__8`$ $`=`$ $`2\left\{m_{\chi _j}^2(m_{\chi _i}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)m_{\chi _i}^2s_1+s_1^2\right\}+t_2^2`$
$`𝒟__1`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _i}^4s+2s^2(2s_2+t_2)+s_2(s_1t_2)(2s_1+3s_2+t_2)`$
$`+s\left\{4s_2^2+s_2t_2+t_2^22s_1(3s_2+t_2)\right\}`$
$`𝒟__2`$ $`=`$ $`t_1\left\{2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4+(ss_1)(2s2s_13s_2)+(ss_12s_2)t_2\right\}`$
$`𝒟__3`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s+(2s+s_2)(ss_1+t_2)`$
$`𝒟__4`$ $`=`$ $`t_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s+s_12t_2)`$
$`𝒟__5`$ $`=`$ $`4s^2+4s(s_1+s_2)2st_22s_2(s_1t_2)`$
$`𝒟__6`$ $`=`$ $`t_1(2s+2s_1+3s_22t_1+t_2)`$
$`𝒟__7`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _i}^2s+2s^2+s_2(s_1t_2)s\left\{2(s_1+s_2)t_2\right\}`$
$`𝒟__8`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\chi _i}^4+2ss_12s_1^2+6ss_26s_1s_25s_2^2+3st_2`$
$`s_1t_2s_2t_2+t_2^2+m_{\chi _i}^2(4m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2+3ss_1+s_2+t_2)`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2\left\{4s3(s_1+s_2)+t_2\right\}`$
$`__1`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\chi _i}^4s+4m_{\chi _i}m_{\chi _j}s(s+s_2)s_1s_2(2s+2s_1+s_2)`$
$`+(2s+s_2)(s+s_1+s_2)t_2+(s+s_2)t_2^2`$
$`__2`$ $`=`$ $`t_1\{2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4+2m_{\chi _i}m_{\chi _j}(2ss_2+t_1)+(ss_1)(2s2s_1s_2+t_2)\}`$
$`__3`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s2s^2+s_2(s_1t_2)+2s(s_1+s_2t_2)`$
$`__4`$ $`=`$ $`t_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s_1+s+2t_2)`$
$`__5`$ $`=`$ $`2\{(s_1t_2)(ss_2)+ss_1\}`$
$`__6`$ $`=`$ $`t_1\{2(s+s_1)+(s_2+t_2)\}`$
$`__7`$ $`=`$ $`\{s(m_{\chi _i}^2s_1)(ss_2)(s_1t_2)\}`$
$`__8`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\chi _i}^42ss_1+2s_1^2+4m_{\chi _i}m_{\chi _j}(3ss_2)+2ss_2s_2^2`$ (B6)
$`+m_{\chi _i}^2(4m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^23s+s_1+3s_2t_2)3st_2+s_1t_2s_2t_2t_2^2`$
$`+2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2(2s3s_1+s_2+t_2)`$
where the 5 Lorentz–invariant Byckling-Kajantie (Mandelstam-analogue)  variables for a $`(23)`$ process are given (in terms of 4–momenta) by

$`s=(p_1+p_2)^2s_1=(p_4+p_5)^2s_2=(p_3+p_4)^2t_1=(p_1p_5)^2t_2=(p_2p_3)^2`$ (B7)
$`A_{ink}`$ are the couplings of the $`i`$-th gaugino with a sfermion of chirality $`k`$ and a fermion. $`n=1,2`$, where 1 gives the coupling with SU(2) and U(1) gaugino content of the eigenstate and 2 gives that with the higgsino part and proportional to the electron mass. $`A_{i(j)nk}=A_{i(j)n}`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ final states as in Fig. 3d. Also we have used scaled $`A_{i(j)2k}`$ and $`A_{i(j)2}`$ in Appendix B which are equal to $`A_{i(j)2k}`$ in eq.(A6) and $`A_{i(j)2}`$ in eq.(A7), respectively, but divided by $`m_e`$. This is done to make the $`m_e`$ dependences of the squared-amplitudes explicit which is important for our purpose (as discussed in the beginning of this appendix), rather than keeping it concealed under the definitions of the couplings. Note that the mass-dimensions of the variables $`𝒜_i`$, $`_i`$, $`𝒞_i`$, $`𝒟_i`$ and $`_i`$ are left arbitrary to render the expressions for the squared terms $`T_{ij}`$’s to have a somewhat systematic look.

The differential cross section is obtained by dividing by the flux and multiplying by the phase space,

$`\mathrm{d}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p_3}{2E_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p_4}{2E_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p_5}{2E_5}}\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_3p_4p_5)\times |M|^2`$ (B8)
The integral over the phase space, to obtain the total production cross section, is then performed numerically.

Finally, we note that the production of the charged conjugate states has also to be taken into account. Due to CP–invariance, these cross sections are the same as for the corresponding previous ones, which have thus to be multiplied just by a factor of two.