text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

While working at Los Alamos in 1943-44, von Neumann became convinced that the calculation of the flows of compressible fluids containing strong shocks could be accomplished only by numerical methods. He conceived the idea of capturing shocks, i.e., of ignoring the presence of a discontinuity. Employing a Lagrangian description of compressible flow, setting heat conduction and viscosity equal to zero, von Neumann replaced space and time derivatives by symmetric difference quotients. Calculations using this scheme were carried out; the approximation resulting from these calculations (see ) showed oscillations on the mesh scale behind the shock. Von Neumann boldly conjectured that the oscillations in velocity represent the heat energy created by the irreversible action of the shock, and that as $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ tend to zero, the approximate solutions tend in the weak sense to the discontinuous solution of the equations of compressible flow.

In  it was counterconjectured that von Neumann was wrong in his surmise, i.e., that although the approximate solutions constructed by his method do converge weakly, the weak limit fails to satisfy the law of conservation of energy.

In  J.Goodman and P.Lax investigated von Neumann’s algorithm applied to the scalar equation

$$u_t+uu_x=0$$
(1)
(it is called the *Hopf equation*), in the semidiscrete case. Using numerical experimentation and analytical techniques the demonstrated the weak convergence of the oscillatory approximations, and that the weak limit fails to satisfy the scalar equation in question.

Von Neumann’s dream of capturing shocks was realized in his joint work with Richtmyer in 1950, see . Oscillations were eliminated by the judicious use of artificial viscosity; solutions constructed by this method converge uniformly except in a neighborhood of shocks, where they remain bounded and are spread out over a few mesh intervals. The limits appear to satisfy the conservation laws of compressible flow. The conservation of mass and momentum is the consequence of having approximated these equations by difference equations in conservation form; but the von Neumann-Richtmyer difference approximation to the energy equation is not in conservation form.

In the paper  T.Hou and P.Lax compared the results of a von Neumann-Richtmyer calculation with the weak limit of of calculations performed by von Neumann’s original method. P.Lax in the paper  asserts that the difference scheme of von Neumann, because of the centering of the difference quotients, is *dispersive*; it is this quality that is responsible for the oscillatory nature of the solutions.

E.Hopf  studied (1) defined the generalized solution for the this equation. He considered the approximating equation

$$u_t+uu_x=\mu u_{xx}\text{where}\mu 0$$
(2)
for the equation (1).

By a generalized solution $`u`$ of (1) or (2), $`\mu =0`$ E.Hopf meant a function $`u`$ that is measurable and quadratically integrable in every closed rectangle in the open semiplane $`t>0`$ and that satisfies the relation

$$\left[ug_t+\frac{u^2}{2}g_x\right]𝑑x𝑑t=0,$$
(3)
where $`g`$ is an arbitrary function of class $`C^1`$ in $`t>0`$ that vanishes outside some circle lying entirely in $`t>0`$. He assert: Every limit function $`u`$ obtained from the solution of (2) as $`\mu +0`$ is a generalized solution of (1). By a generalized solution $`u`$ of (2) E.Hopf meant a function $`u`$ that is measurable and quadratically integrable in every closed rectangle in the open semiplane $`t>0`$ and that satisfies the relation

$$\left[uf_t+\frac{u^2}{2}f_x+\mu uf_{xx}\right]𝑑x𝑑t=0,$$
(4)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary function of class $`C^2`$ in $`t>0`$ that vanishes outside some circle lying entirely in $`t>0`$.

This method is called the “disappearing viscosity” method. It was developed by E.Hopf , O.A.Oleinik , P.Lax , .

There is also the “zero dispersion limit” method developed by P.Lax ,  Maslov V.P and his collaborators , . The idea is to use the following equation

$$u_t+uu_x=\epsilon ^2u_{xxx},\epsilon 0.$$
(5)
for the (1). V.P.Maslov and his collaborators constructed an asymptotic solutions for the (1). They speculated on the fact that equations (2) and (5) have solutions in the class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions. For example, a particular solution of the equation (5) is the function

$$c+412\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right),c>0,$$

which represent so-called an infinitely narrow soliton. A particular solution of the (2) will be, for instance,

$$22\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{x2t}{\mu }\right)$$

which converges to a discontinues function.

In the other hand, in the paper  by S.L.Sobolev (1936) were introduced mathematical basics of the theory of generalized functions, was developed the idea of a generalized function as a functional and was introduced the concept of generalized solutions of a *linear differential equation*. These generalized functions and generalized solutions were developed by L.Schwartz . However, Sobolev-Schwartz distributions can not applied to nonlinear differential equations. For example, to substitute generalized function $`H(xvt)`$ (where H is the Heaviside function) into the (1) one need to define the product of two distributions $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ for the term $`uu_x`$. However, in 1954 L.Schwartz showed that it is impossible to introduce an associate multiplication in the space of distributions.

Starting from 1982 in the works by J.-F. Colombeau , M. Oberguggenberger , H. Biagioni , E. Rozinger , A.Y. Le Roux , Yu. Egorov , J.-A. Marti , A. Delcroix, D.Scarpalézos , B. Keyfitz , A. Antonevich, Ya. Radyno , T. Todorov , S. Pilipović  and others, a new theory of generalized functions is developed. Such functions form the algebra and contain distributions.

In general, nonlinear generalized functions are classes of equivalent smooth functions. Clearly that, one should pay attention to this approach in order to consider nonlinear differential equations. However we are now in a position to develop a new point of view on generalized functions and their applications to nonlinear equations. Namely, it is necessary to use an integral nature of a conservation law. Conservation laws are integral expressions from physical point of view and it is natural to consider an integral form of conservation laws. Moreover, we want to develop new point of view on conservation laws using the concept of functionals with values in the Non-Archimedean field of Laurent series. We call such functionals as $`𝐑\epsilon `$-distributions , . In addition, we give the definition of the special kind of solutions of the some conservation laws in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$-distributions and consider the method for the numerical calculations of the smooth shocks and soliton like solutions of the Hopf equation and equations of elasticity theory in the mentioned sense. This method based on orthogonal system of the Hermite functions as a base for calculation of such solutions (i.e. shocks and infinitely narrow solitons). Calculations of profiles of infinitely narrow soliton and shock wave are reduced to the nonlinear system of algebraic equations in $`𝐑^{n+1}`$, $`n>1`$. We proved, using the Schauder fixed point theorem , that the mentioned system has at least one solution in $`𝐑^{n+1}`$. We showed that there is possibility to find out some of the solutions of this system using the Newton iteration method . We considered examples and numerical tests. We also should emphasis that proposed numerical approach do not use a difference scheme.

First, let us consider a bit of theory which we will apply to conservation laws.

## 2 Non-Archimedean field of Laurent series and <br>$`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

The theory of Non-Archimedean fields was considered in the book by A.H.Lightstone and A.Robinson .

###### Definition 2.1

A *Laurent series* is a formal object

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _{n+k}\epsilon ^{n+k}$$

where $`k`$ is a fixed (i.e., fixed for this Laurent series), each $`\xi _i𝐑`$, and either $`\xi _k0`$ or each $`\xi _i=0`$.

The Laurent series $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\xi _n\epsilon ^n`$, where $`\xi _0=1`$ and $`\xi _n=0`$ if $`n>0`$, is denoted by 1. It is easy to see that the Laurent series is a field. Let us denote it by $`𝐑\epsilon `$. The norm on the field of Laurent series can define

$$|x|_\nu =e^{\nu (x)}\text{for}\text{each}x𝐑\epsilon $$

(in place of $`e`$ can use any number greater then 1). The function $`\nu (x)`$ is a Non-Archimedean valuation. Define

$$\nu (0)=\mathrm{}\text{and}\nu \left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _{n+k}\epsilon ^{n+k}\right)=k\text{if}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _{n+k}\epsilon ^{n+k}0,\xi _k0.$$

The norm $`||_\nu `$ have properties

1. $`|x|_\nu =0\text{if and only if}x=0,`$
2. $`|xy|_\nu =|x|_\nu |y|_\nu ,`$
3. $`|x+y|_\nu \mathrm{max}\{|x|_\nu ,|y|_\nu \}.`$

Here, we propose a general construction of the $`𝐑\epsilon `$–valued generalized functions . These objects are a natural generalization of Sobolev-Schwartz distributions. We call them as $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

1. Consider all functions $`f(x,\epsilon )C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑\times (0,1))`$ such that integrals

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}f(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x$$

exist for any $`\epsilon `$ and for all $`\psi (x)`$ from a given class of functions $`𝒳`$ ($`𝒳`$ can be $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑),`$ $`𝒮(𝐑)`$ and etc.).
2. Suppose also that $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}f(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x`$ is a number $`a_{f,\epsilon }(\psi )`$ from the field of Laurent series $`𝐑\epsilon `$.
3. The two functions $`f(x,\epsilon )`$ and $`g(x,\epsilon )`$ call equivalent with respect to test functions $`𝒳`$ if and only if

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}f(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x=a_{f,\epsilon }(\psi )=a_{g,\epsilon }(\psi )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}g(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x.$$

The equality means in sense of the field of Laurent series $`𝐑\epsilon `$ for all functions $`\psi 𝒳`$. Classes of equivalent functions call $`𝐑\epsilon `$*–functions*. The expression

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}f(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x$$

associates a number from $`𝐑\epsilon `$ with every $`\psi `$. Such a quantity is called a functional. In this case a linear functional map $`𝒳`$ into the Non-Archimedean field $`𝐑\epsilon `$. Call these functionals as $`𝐑\epsilon `$*-distributions*.

Thus,

###### Proposition 2.1

$`𝐑\epsilon `$–function $`f(x,\epsilon )=0`$ if and only if

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}f(x,\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x=0𝐑\epsilon $$

for every $`\psi `$ from $`𝒳`$.

The set of all $`𝐑\epsilon `$*–distributions* denote by $`(𝒳)`$

###### Remark 2.1

Recall that the idea of representation of a function $`fL_{\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐}}^1(𝐑)`$ in terms of a linear functional

$$C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)\psi \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}f(x)\psi (x)𝑑x𝐑$$

based on well-known proposition that if $`fL_{\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐}}^1(𝐑)`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}f(x)\psi (x)𝑑x=0`$ for any $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ then $`f=0`$ almost everywhere.

Let us consider an example of the $`𝐑\epsilon `$-distribution.

###### Example 2.2

Take $`𝒳=C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ and $`f(x,\epsilon )=\phi (x/\epsilon )`$, $`\phi (x)C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ then $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distribution can write in the following form.

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi (x/\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x=\epsilon \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi (x)𝑑x\psi (0)+\epsilon ^2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x\phi (x)𝑑x\frac{\psi ^{}(0)}{1!}+\mathrm{}.$$

Note that $`\phi (x/\epsilon )`$ converges to the function

$$u(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\phi (0),\hfill & \text{if}x=0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}x0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Last function almost everywhere equals to zero.

Like Sobolev-Schwartz distributions we can *differentiate* $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions. For example,

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d}{dx}\phi (x/\epsilon )\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi (x/\epsilon )\frac{d}{dx}\psi (x)𝑑x,$$

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi (x/\epsilon )\frac{d}{dx}\psi (x)𝑑x=\epsilon \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi (x)𝑑x\psi ^{}(0)\epsilon ^2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x\phi (x)𝑑x\frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{1!}\mathrm{}.$$

It is evident that $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions are more general objects than Sobolev-Schwartz distributions , .

## 3 Conservation laws. Non-Archimedean approach.

A conservation law asserts that the rate of change of the total amount of substance contained in a fixed domain $`G`$ is equal to the flux of that substance across the boundary of $`G`$. Denoting the density of that substance by $`u`$, and the flux by $`f`$, the conservation law is

$$\frac{d}{dt}_Gu(t,x)𝑑x=_Gf\stackrel{}{n}𝑑S.$$

Applying the divergence theorem and taking $`d/dt`$ under the integral sign we obtain

$$_G(u_t+\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐯}f)𝑑x=0.$$

Dividing by vol $`(G)`$ and shrinking $`G`$ to a point where all partial derivatives of $`u`$ and $`f`$ are continuous we obtain the differential conservation law

$$u_t(t,x)+\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐯}f(u(t,x))=0.$$

Note, that if $`f(u)=u^2/2`$ then we obtained the Hopf equation (1). In general, previous calculations based on the following well known proposition.

###### Proposition 3.1

If $`GL_{\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐}}^1(𝐑)`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}G(x)\psi (x)𝑑x=0`$ for any $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ then $`G=0`$ almost everywhere.

###### Definition 3.1

Let us consider two sets of the smooth functions, depending on a small parameter $`\epsilon (0,1]`$. Let us take all functions $`v(t,x,\epsilon )`$ which have the type

$$v(t,x,\epsilon )=l_0+\mathrm{\Delta }l\phi \left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right),$$

$`l_0,\mathrm{\Delta }l,c`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l0`$ and $`\phi 𝒮(𝐑)`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\phi (y)𝑑y=1`$. We denote this set of functions by $`I`$. We call $`I`$ as a set of infinetely narrow solitons.

###### Definition 3.2

Now, let us take all functions $`w(t,x,\epsilon )`$ which have the type

$$w(t,x,\epsilon )=h_0+\mathrm{\Delta }hH\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right),$$

$`h_0,\mathrm{\Delta }h,a`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }h0`$ and $`H(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}\theta (y)𝑑y`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta (y)𝑑y=1`$ and $`\theta 𝒮(𝐑)`$. We denote this set of functions by $`J`$. We call $`J`$ as a set of shock waves.

It is natural to consider conservation laws as an integral expressions which contain the time $`t`$ as parameter. Therefore, we introduce the following concept.

###### Definition 3.3

The function $`vI`$ (or $`wJ`$) will be a solution of the Hopf equation up to $`e^p`$, $`p𝐍_0`$ in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions if for any $`t[0,T]`$

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{v_t(t,x,\epsilon )+v(t,x,\epsilon )v_x(t,x,\epsilon )\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon ,$$
(6)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{w_t(t,x,\epsilon )+w(t,x,\epsilon )w_x(t,x,\epsilon )\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\eta _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon $$
(7)
for every $`\psi 𝒮(𝐑).`$ In case when $`p`$ is equal to $`+\mathrm{}`$ the function $`v(t,x,\epsilon )`$ (or $`w(t,x,\epsilon )`$) exactly satisfies the Hopf equation in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

Certainly, one can consider instead of the Hopf equation some conservation law.

From mathematical point of view, we deal with a infinitely differentiable functions in definitions 3.1 and 3.2, so that we avoid the problem of distribution multiplication. From physical point of view, functions from the set $`I`$ or $`J`$ can describe fast processes. Mathematical models of such processes based on functions from $`I`$ or $`J`$ may give additional information and take in account a short zone where physical system make a jump from one position to another.

Thus, we will consider solutions of the Hopf equation which are infinitely narrow solitons or shock waves. It easy to see that

$$v(t,x,\epsilon )\{\begin{array}{cc}l_0+\mathrm{\Delta }l\phi (0),\hfill & ifx=ct,\hfill \\ l_0,\hfill & ifxct.\hfill \end{array}\text{as}\epsilon 0$$

$$w(t,x,\epsilon )h_0+\mathrm{\Delta }hH(xat),\text{as}\epsilon 0$$

$`H`$ is Heaviside function.

## 4 Method for the numerical calculations of the microscopic profiles of soliton like solutions of the Hopf equation in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

Thus, conservation laws are integral expressions. Therefore, it is natural, that one can interpret the Hopf equation in the sense of the definition 3.3.

We will seek a solution of the Hopf equation in the type of infinitely narrow soliton, i.e. let us $`vI`$. Substitute $`v(t,x,\epsilon )`$ into integral expression (6) using the following formulas

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{}{t}\left\{\phi \left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right)\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}c\epsilon ^{k+1}m_k\frac{1}{k!}\psi ^{(k+1)}(ct),$$
(8)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{}{x}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\phi ^2\left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right)\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^{k+1}g_k\frac{1}{k!}\psi ^{(k+1)}(ct).$$
(9)
We denote

$$m_k(\phi )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}y^k\phi (y)𝑑y,g_k(\phi )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}y^k\frac{\phi ^2(y)}{2}𝑑y,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
Thus, we obtain

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{v_t+vv_x\right\}\psi 𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }l(cl_0)m_k(\mathrm{\Delta }l)^2g_k\right\}\epsilon ^{k+1}\frac{\psi ^{(k+1)}(ct)}{k!}.$$
(11)
From the last expression we have conditions for the function $`\phi (x)`$. Namely,

$$g_k(\phi )\frac{cl_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }l}m_k(\phi )=0,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
From the first ($`k=0`$) we have

$$\frac{cl_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }l}=\frac{g_0}{m_0}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(13)
Hence, we can rewrite conditions (12) as follows.

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi ^2(x)𝑑x\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\phi (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\phi ^2(x)𝑑x,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
Now, let us prove the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1

For any non-negative integer $`n`$ exists such function $`\phi 𝒮(𝐑)`$, $`\phi 0`$ which satisfies the following system of non-linear equations:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\phi (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\phi ^2(x)𝑑x/\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi ^2(x)𝑑xk=0,1,2\mathrm{}n.$$
(15)
Proof. First, we will seek function $`\phi (x)`$ in the following type:

$$\phi (x)=c_0h_0(x)+c_1h_1(x)+\mathrm{}+c_nh_n(x),$$
(16)
where

$$h_k(x)=\frac{H_k(x)}{\sqrt{2^kk!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}e^{x^2/2}\mathrm{are}\mathrm{Hermit}\mathrm{functions}.$$
(17)
Then we substitute the expression (16) into conditions (15). After that we will have nonlinear system of $`n+1`$ equations with $`n+1`$ unknowns ($`c_0,c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_n`$). We write this system by the following way.

$$A\stackrel{}{x}=𝒩(\stackrel{}{x}),\stackrel{}{x}=(c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)$$
(18)
$`A`$ is a matrix with elements

$$A_{kj}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^kh_j(x)𝑑x=(𝐢)^j𝐢^k\sqrt{2\pi }h_j^{(k)}(0),𝐢=\sqrt{1},k,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n$$

$`𝒩`$ is nonlinear map such that

$$𝒩(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{x}^2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(N(k)\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{e}_k\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f_k(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{e}_k$$
(19)
Vector $`\stackrel{}{e}_k=(e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ such that $`e_k=1`$ and $`e_j=0`$ for all $`jk`$. $`N(k)`$ are matrices with elements

$$N_{ij}(k)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^kh_i(x)h_j(x)𝑑x,i,j,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}n$$
(20)
and functions

$$f_k(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{(N(k)\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x})}{\stackrel{}{x}^2}.$$

Note that functions $`f_k(\stackrel{}{x})`$ are continuous everywhere except $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$ and $`|f_k(\stackrel{}{x})|N(k)`$ due to Cauchy-Bunyakovskii unequality. Matrix $`A`$ is invertible for any $`n`$ because of $`det(A)`$ is a Wronskian for the linear independent system of Hermit functions $`h_0(x)`$, $`h_1(x)`$, … $`h_n(x)`$ and

$$det(A)=(2\pi )^{\frac{(n+1)}{2}}W(h_0(0),h_1(0),\mathrm{}h_n(0)).$$

We can write the system (18) as

$$\stackrel{}{x}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f_k(\stackrel{}{x})A^1\stackrel{}{e}_kF(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{or}\stackrel{}{x}=A^1(𝒩(\stackrel{}{x}))F(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(21)
Let us describe the function $`F:𝐑^{n+1}𝐑^{n+1}`$. It is continuous except $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$ and bounded. Indeed,

$$F(\stackrel{}{x})A^1\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}N(k),r_n=A^1\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}N(k).$$
(22)
Let us consider function $`𝒩(\stackrel{}{x})`$. It is continuous function everywhere in $`𝐑^{n+1}`$ except $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$ and, moreover, $`𝒩(𝐑^{n+1}\backslash \{0\})\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\{\stackrel{}{z}𝐑^{n+1}:z_0=1\}`$ is a plane. Further $`A^1(\mathrm{\Pi }_1)=\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\{\stackrel{}{y}𝐑^{n+1}:\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_{0j}y_j=1\}`$ is another plane.

$$A_{0j}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}h_j(x)𝑑x=(𝐢)^j\sqrt{2\pi }h_j(0),𝐢=\sqrt{1},j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n$$

Thus, we can consider the function $`F(\stackrel{}{x})`$ which is defined on the convex compact set $`C_n=\mathrm{\Pi }_2B[0,r_n]`$ such that $`F:C_nC_n`$, where $`B[0,r_n]`$ is a closed ball with radius $`r_n`$. Function $`F`$ is continuous on the $`C_n`$ because of $`\stackrel{}{0}C_n`$. Now we can use J.Schauder theorem.

###### Theorem 4.2 (Schauder fixed-point theorem )

Let $`C`$ be a compact convex subset of a normed space $`E`$. Then each continuous map $`F:CC`$ has at least one fixed point.

Hence, we can conclude that our system (21) and therefore system (18) has at least one solution. Thus, there is a function $`\phi (x)`$ which satisfy to conditions (15) proposed lemma.

###### Remark 4.1

Let us a function $`\phi (x)`$ satisfies lemma condition. If $`\beta 𝐑`$ then the function $`\phi (x+\beta )`$ also satisfies lemma condition. Moreover, if $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\phi ^2(x)𝑑x=\alpha `$ then $`\phi (\alpha x)`$ satisfies lemma condition.

Thus, we can formulate the following result.

###### Theorem 4.3

For any integer $`p`$ there is a infinitely narrow soliton type solution of the Hopf equation (in the sense of the definition 3.3) up to $`e^p`$ with respect to the norm $`||_\nu `$, i.e.

$$v(t,x,\epsilon )=l_0+\mathrm{\Delta }l\phi \left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right),$$
(23)
$`l_0,\mathrm{\Delta }l,c`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l0`$ and $`\phi 𝒮(𝐑)`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\phi (y)𝑑y=1`$. Moreover,

$$\frac{cl_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }l}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\phi ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(24)
For example, calculations in case $`p=7`$ give the “profile” $`\phi (x)`$ (see Fig. 2) for the infinitely narrow soliton $`v(t,x,\epsilon )=\phi \left(\frac{xct}{\epsilon }\right)`$:

$$\phi (x)=\left\{\frac{c_0}{\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_2(4x^22)}{\sqrt{2^22!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_4(16x^448x^2+12)}{\sqrt{2^44!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}\right\}e^{x^2/2},$$
(25)
where $`c_0=0.66583`$, $`c_2=0.23404`$, $`c_4=0.05028`$, $`c=0.25032`$ ($`c`$ is a velocity of the soliton). Numbers $`c_0`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_4`$ and $`c`$ were found approximately by iteration method using the following sequence.

$$\stackrel{}{x}_{m+1}=A^1(𝒩(\stackrel{}{x}_m)),m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(26)
Matrix $`A`$ and a nonlinear $`𝒩`$ were introduced in the lemma proof.

Calculations of soliton-like profiles $`\phi (x)`$ for the Hopf equation in case $`p=13,`$ $`15,`$ $`17,`$ $`19,`$ $`21`$ give us pictures (Fig. 2, 4, 4, 6, 6).

For the $`p`$ greater than $`21`$ matrix $`A`$ is close to singular and calculations can be inaccurate.

## 5 Calculations of the microscopic profiles of the shock wave solutions of the Hopf equation in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

A solution of the Hopf equation in this case we will seek in the set $`J`$. Namely,

$$w(t,x,\epsilon )=h_0+\mathrm{\Delta }hK\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right),$$

$`h_0,\mathrm{\Delta }h,a`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }h0`$ and

$$K(x)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y,\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y=1,\theta 𝒮(𝐑).$$

Substitute $`w(t,x,\epsilon )`$ into the integral expression (7) using the following formulas

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{}{t}\left\{K\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right)\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(a)\epsilon ^km_k\frac{\psi ^{(k)}(at)}{k!},$$
(27)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}K\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right)\frac{}{x}\left\{K\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right)\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon ^kr_k\frac{\psi ^{(k)}(at)}{k!}.$$
(28)
We denote by

$$m_k(\theta )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}y^k\theta (y)𝑑y,r_k(\theta )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y\right)𝑑x,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
Thus, we get

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{w_t+ww_x\right\}\psi 𝑑x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)^2r_k\mathrm{\Delta }h(ah_0)m_k\right\}\epsilon ^k\frac{\psi ^{(k)}(at)}{k!}.$$
(30)
From the last expression we have conditions for the function $`\theta (x)`$

$$r_k(\theta )\frac{ah_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}m_k(\theta )=0,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
From the first ($`k=0`$) we have

$$\frac{ah_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\theta (x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y\right)𝑑x=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(32)
Therefore, we can rewrite (31) as

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y\right)𝑑xk=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
The same method one can prove that there is such function $`\theta (x)𝒮(𝐑)`$ which satisfies the following conditions

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y\right)𝑑xk=0,1,2\mathrm{}n.$$
(34)
Thus, we can formulate next result.

###### Theorem 5.1

For any integer $`p`$ there is a shock wave type solution of the Hopf equation (in the sense of the definition 3.3) up to $`e^p`$ with respect to the norm $`||_\nu `$.

$$w(t,x,\epsilon )=h_0+\mathrm{\Delta }hK\left(\frac{xat}{\epsilon }\right),$$
(35)
$`h_0,\mathrm{\Delta }h,a`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }h0`$ and $`K(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}\theta (y)𝑑y`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta (y)𝑑y=1`$ and $`\theta 𝒮(𝐑).`$ Moreover,

$$\frac{ah_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(36)
Note that the condition (36) is *Rankine — Hugoniot condition* for the velocity of a shock wave.

As in previous section we seek function $`\theta (x)`$ in the following type:

$$\phi (x)=a_0h_0(x)+a_1h_1(x)+\mathrm{}+a_nh_n(x),$$
(37)
where $`h_k(x)`$ are Hermite functions. Calculations in case $`p=7`$ give the following “profile” ($`K(x)`$) for the shock wave $`w(t,x,\epsilon )=K\left({\displaystyle \frac{xat}{\epsilon }}\right)`$ (where $`h_0=0,\mathrm{\Delta }h=1`$).

$$K(x)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\left\{\frac{c_0}{\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_2(4\tau ^22)}{\sqrt{2^22!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_4(16\tau ^448\tau ^2+12)}{\sqrt{2^44!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}\right\}e^{\tau ^2/2}𝑑\tau $$
(38)
where $`c_0=0.79617`$, $`c_2=0.53004`$, $`c_4=0.17923`$, $`c=1/2`$ is a velocity of the shock wave (see Fig. 8). Numbers $`c_0`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_4`$ were found approximately.

Note that the function $`K(x)`$ is not unique. There is a different function $`K_1(x)`$ which satisfies mentioned above conditions. It has the following type

$$\begin{array}{c}K_1(x)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\left\{\frac{c_0}{\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_12\tau }{\sqrt{2^11!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_2(4\tau ^22)}{\sqrt{2^22!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}\right\}e^{\tau ^2/2}𝑑\tau +\hfill \\ +\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\left\{\frac{c_3(8\tau ^312\tau )}{\sqrt{2^33!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}+\frac{c_4(16\tau ^448\tau ^2+12)}{\sqrt{2^44!}\sqrt[4]{\pi }}\right\}e^{\tau ^2/2}𝑑\tau \hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
where $`c_0=0.18357`$, $`c_1=0.73567`$, $`c_2=0.74733`$, $`c_3=0.15327`$ $`c_4=0.29539`$, $`c=1/2`$ is a velocity of the shock wave (see Fig. 8). Coefficients $`c_0`$, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$, $`c_4`$ were found approximately by the Newton iteration method.

Taking in account the *Rankine — Hugoniot condition* (36) we also have graphs (Fig. 10, 10) as a shock profiles.

Here we describe how it is possible to find coefficients $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$ in this case by the Newton iteration method for the following system of nonlinear equations.

$$P(\stackrel{}{c})=A\stackrel{}{c}2\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(S(k)\stackrel{}{c},\stackrel{}{c})\stackrel{}{e}_k=0,\stackrel{}{c}=(c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)$$
(40)
Vector $`\stackrel{}{e}_k=(e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ such that $`e_k=1`$ and $`e_j=0`$ for all $`jk`$. $`S(k)`$ are matrices with elements

$$S_{ij}(k)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^kh_i(x)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}h_j(y)𝑑y𝑑x,i,j,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}n$$
(41)
Matrix $`A`$ have elements

$$A_{ij}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^ih_j(x)𝑑x,i,j=0,1,2\mathrm{}n$$
(42)
We can write the formula for the Newton iteration method .

$$\stackrel{}{x}_{m+1}=\stackrel{}{x}_m\left[P^{}(\stackrel{}{x}_m)\right]^1\left[P(\stackrel{}{x}_m)\right],$$
(43)
where $`\left[P^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\right]`$ is a linear map depending on the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}`$.

$$\left[P^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\right][\stackrel{}{h}]=A\stackrel{}{h}2\left\{\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(S(k)\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{h})\stackrel{}{e}_k+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(S^T(k)\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{h})\stackrel{}{e}_k\right\}$$
(44)
Calculations of shock profiles $`K(x)`$ for the Hopf equation in case $`p=8,`$ $`9,`$ $`10,`$ $`11,`$ $`12,`$ $`13`$ give us the following pictures (Fig. 12, 12, 14, 14, 16, 16). Here, we show only two different types of the shock type solutions of the Hopf equation. We can find more solutions if we take a different initial data for the Newton iteration method.

###### Remark 5.1

It is not easy to see that there is exist function

$$\theta (x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nh_n(x),\stackrel{}{a}=(a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,\mathrm{})l_2,$$
(45)
such that

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)𝑑x=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\theta (x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\theta (y)𝑑y\right)𝑑x,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(46)
We think that it is true.

## 6 Calculations of the microscopic profiles of the shock wave solutions of equations of elasticity theory in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

Let us consider the following system.

$$\begin{array}{c}u_t+(u^2)_x=\sigma _x(\text{the conservation law for momentum})\hfill \\ \sigma _t+u\sigma _x=k^2u_x(\text{the Hooke law})\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
Here, $`u`$ is the velocity of a medium and $`\sigma `$ is the stress. We suppose that density of a medium is equal to the constant $`1`$ and $`k^2`$ some constant.

We will seek for a solution of this system in the following form

$$u(t,x,\epsilon )=u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }uU\left(\frac{xvt}{\epsilon }\right),$$
(48)
$`u_0,\mathrm{\Delta }u,v`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u0`$ and $`U(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}\stackrel{~}{U}(y)𝑑y`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{U}(y)𝑑y=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}𝒮(𝐑).`$

$$\sigma (t,x,\epsilon )=\sigma _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{xvt}{\epsilon }\right),$$
(49)
$`\sigma _0,\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,v`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(y)𝑑y`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(y)𝑑y=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝒮(𝐑).`$ Note that $`v`$ is a velocity of the shock waves.

In the other hand, we suppose

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(x)=a_0h_0(x)+a_1h_1(x)+\mathrm{}+a_nh_n(x),\stackrel{}{a}=(a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n),$$
(50)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x)=c_0h_0(x)+c_1h_1(x)+\mathrm{}+c_nh_n(x),\stackrel{}{c}=(c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)$$
(51)
where $`h_k(x)`$ are Hermite functions.

We understand the solution of the system in sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

###### Definition 6.1

Functions $`uJ`$ and $`\sigma J`$ is a solution of the system (47) up to $`e^p`$, $`p𝐍_0`$ in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions if for any $`t[0,T]`$

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{u_t(t,x,\epsilon )+2u(t,x,\epsilon )u_x(t,x,\epsilon )\sigma _x(t,x,\epsilon )\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon ,$$
(52)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\sigma _t(t,x,\epsilon )+u(t,x,\epsilon )\sigma _x(t,x,\epsilon )k^2u_x(t,x,\epsilon )\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\eta _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon $$
(53)
for every $`\psi 𝒮(𝐑)`$.

In case when $`p`$ is equal to $`+\mathrm{}`$ functions $`u(t,x,\epsilon )`$ and $`\sigma (t,x,\epsilon )`$) exactly satisfies the system (47) in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

Substituting $`u`$ and $`\sigma `$ into (52), (53) we get the following relations for the moments.

$$\{2u_0\mathrm{\Delta }uv\mathrm{\Delta }u\}m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})=0,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n$$
(54)
$$\{u_0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma v\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \}m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})+\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}U)k^2\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=0,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n$$
(55)
We denote as usual by

$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\stackrel{~}{U}(x)𝑑x,$$
(56)
$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\stackrel{~}{U}(x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}(y)𝑑y\right)𝑑x,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(57)
$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}U)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x)\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}\stackrel{~}{U}(y)𝑑y\right)𝑑x,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(58)
It is easy to find $`v`$ from (54) when k=0. Indeed,

$$\{2u_0\mathrm{\Delta }uv\mathrm{\Delta }u\}+(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0.$$

Therefore,

$$v=2u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }u\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\mathrm{\Delta }u}.$$
(59)
Substitute $`v`$ into the (54). We have

$$\{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\}m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})=0,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n$$
(60)
Because of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ some real numbers, therefore, all three vectors with coordinates $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})`$, $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)`$ and $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$, $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n`$, respectively should be collinear. However,

$$m_0(\stackrel{~}{U})=m_0(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})=1.$$

Hence,

$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n.$$

Thus, $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{c}`$ and from (60) follows that

$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n.$$

This system we already know how to solve by the Newton iteration method. See conditions (34) and solution in this case.

Substitute $`v`$ into the (55)and take into account previous equalities we have

$$\left\{\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }u}u_0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \right\}m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})+\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma })k^2\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})=0$$
(61)
where $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}n`$. The last expression gives us relation for constants $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$, $`u_0`$, $`k^2`$. Namely,

$$\left\{\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }u}u_0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \right\}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma k^2\mathrm{\Delta }u=0$$
(62)
or

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2\left(u_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u\right)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma k^2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2=0$$
(63)
If $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$, $`u_0`$, $`k^2`$ are known then from the last equation one can find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u\right)\pm \frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{\Delta }u|\sqrt{(u_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2+4k^2}$$
(64)
In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=1`$, $`u_0=1`$ then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{1,2}=\frac{1}{4}\pm \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+16k^2}.$$

Shock profiles of the considered system (47) one can find on pictures (Fig. 18, 18, 20, 20). We considered case when $`p=13`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=1`$, $`u_0=1`$, $`k^2=0.1`$. We can also take any real $`\sigma _0`$ but here we took $`\sigma _0=0.5`$ and then calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1`$ (Fig. 18, 20, the velocity of shocks is $`v=1.1531`$ ) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _2`$ (Fig. 18, 20, the velocity of shocks is $`v=0.34689`$). We consider two different types of shock profiles. The first is on the Fig. 18, 18. The second is on the Fig. 20, 20.

###### Theorem 6.1

For any integer $`p`$ there is a solution of the system of equations (47) in the sense of the definition 6.1. Moreover,

$$v=2u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }u\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\mathrm{\Delta }u}$$

and

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2\left(u_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u\right)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma k^2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2=0.$$

Let us consider the following system.

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _t+(\rho u)_x=0(\text{the conservation law for mass})\hfill \\ (\rho u)_t+(\rho u^2)_x=\sigma _x(\text{the conservation law for momentum})\hfill \\ \sigma _t+u\sigma _x=k^2u_x(\text{the Hooke law})\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
Here, $`u`$ is the velocity of a medium and $`\sigma `$ is the stress. We suppose that $`k^2`$ is some constant.

###### Definition 6.2

Functions $`uJ`$, $`\rho J`$ and $`\sigma J`$ is a solution of the system (65) up to $`e^p`$, $`p𝐍_0`$ in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions if for any $`t[0,T]`$

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\rho _t(t,x,\epsilon )+\rho _xu+\rho u_x\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon ,$$
(66)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\rho _tu+\rho u_t+\rho _xu^2+2\rho uu_x\sigma _x\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\zeta _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon ,$$
(67)
$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\sigma _t+u\sigma _xk^2u_x\right\}\psi (x)𝑑x=\underset{k=p}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\eta _k\epsilon ^k𝐑\epsilon .$$
(68)
for every $`\psi 𝒮(𝐑)`$.

In case when $`p`$ is equal to $`+\mathrm{}`$ functions $`u(t,x,\epsilon )`$, $`\rho (t,x,\epsilon )`$ and $`\sigma (t,x,\epsilon )`$ exactly satisfies the system (65) in the sense of $`𝐑\epsilon `$–distributions.

We will seek for a solution of this system in the form (48), (49), (50), (51),

$$\rho (t,x,\epsilon )=\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho R\left(\frac{xvt}{\epsilon }\right),$$
(69)
$`\rho _0,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ,v`$ are real numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 0`$ and $`R(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}}\stackrel{~}{R}(y)𝑑y`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{R}(y)𝑑y=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}𝒮(𝐑).`$ We suppose

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(x)=b_0h_0(x)+b_1h_1(x)+\mathrm{}+b_nh_n(x),\stackrel{}{b}=(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_n),$$
(70)
Substituting (48) and (69) into (66) we get the following relations for the moments.

$$\{v\mathrm{\Delta }\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }\rho u_0\}m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U)+\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U}R)=0$$
(71)
where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$. Note that $`m_0(\stackrel{~}{R}U)=1m_0(\stackrel{~}{U}R)`$. Suppose $`k=0`$ and we get

$$v\mathrm{\Delta }\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }\rho u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }u\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }u=0$$

or

$$v=u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }u+\rho _0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }$$
(72)
Last expression gives us the following

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u(\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho )m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U)+\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U}R)=0$$
(73)
where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$.

All four vectors with coordinates $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})`$, $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U)`$, $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})`$, $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}R)`$ should be collinear. Consider $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})`$ and $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})`$. Because of $`m_0(\stackrel{~}{R})=m_0(\stackrel{~}{U})=1`$ then $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})=m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ for $`k`$ from $`0`$ to $`n`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}`$. From last equality we have

$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U)=m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}R)=m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)$$

where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u(\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho )m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)+\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=0$$
(74)
where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$. It means

$$m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U),k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.$$
(75)
Substituting (48), (49) and (69) into (67) we get the following relations for the moments.

$$\begin{array}{c}u_0\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (u_0v)m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})+\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }u(2u_0v)m_k(\stackrel{~}{U})+\\ +\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (2u_0v)\{m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}R)+m_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U)\}+\\ +2\rho _0(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U)+\rho (\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2m_k(\stackrel{~}{R}U^2)+\\ +2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}RU)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\mathrm{\Sigma })=0\end{array}$$
(76)
where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$. Suppose $`k=0`$ and we get

$$\rho _0(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\left(\frac{\rho _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }+1\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =0.$$
(77)
Moreover $`m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})=m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}),k=0,1,\mathrm{}n`$ and then $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{c}`$. Finally,

$$\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{c}\text{and}m_k(\stackrel{~}{R})=3m_k(\stackrel{~}{U}U^2),k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.$$

Substituting (48) and (49) into (68) we get the following relations for the moments.

$$\{u_0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma v\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \}m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})+\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma m_k(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}U)k^2\mathrm{\Delta }um_k(\stackrel{~}{U})=0$$
(78)
where $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.`$. Suppose $`k=0`$ and using expression for the velocity (72) we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }u\left(\frac{\rho _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }+\frac{1}{2}\right)+k^2\mathrm{\Delta }u=0.$$
(79)
From the (78) we can also find the following equality for the velocity

$$v=u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }u+\frac{1}{2}u_0k^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }$$
(80)
It is well known result in the elasticity theory.

Thus, if $`\rho _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`k^2`$ are known then the rest constants we can find from the system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\rho _0(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\left(\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0,\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left(\rho _0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \right)+k^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0.\end{array}$$
(81)
Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\frac{2k^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{2\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }$$
(82)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{1,2}=\frac{\frac{3}{2}\rho _0^2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\pm \sqrt{\frac{\rho _0^4(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^4}{4}+4k^2(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\rho _0^3}}{\rho _0(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^22k^2}.$$
(83)
###### Theorem 6.2

For any integer $`p`$ there is a solution of the system of equations (65) in the sense of the definition 6. Moreover,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\rho _0(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2\left(\rho _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left(\rho _0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \right)+k^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0,\hfill \\ v=u_0+\mathrm{\Delta }u+\rho _0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Shock profiles of the considered system (65) can be found on pictures (Fig. 22, 22, 24, 24). We considered case when $`p=13`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=1`$, $`u_0=1`$, $`k^2=0.1`$. We can also take any real $`\rho _0,\sigma _0`$ (see conditions of the theorem 6.2) but here we took $`\rho _0=1.1`$, $`\sigma _0=0.5`$ and then we should calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$. We consider two different types of shock profiles. The first is on the Fig. 22, 22. The second is on the Fig. 24, 24.

## 7 Conclusions and remarks.

In fact, we considered only special kind of solutions from the sets $`I`$ and $`J`$. Moreover, mentioned solutions are “approximate” solutions. It is open question about existence of the solution of the Hopf equation in sense of the definition 3.3 when $`p=\mathrm{}`$.

We should notice that there is also a Non-Archimedean approach which is developed by V.Vladimirov, I.Volovich, E.Zelenov , A.Khrennikov . This approach based on $`p`$-adic valued distributions and used for the construction of some models in Mathematical Physics.

The authors of the papers ,  consider the same equations but they speculated a different ideology for generalized solutions and generalized functions.

In conclusion we should emphasis that our calculation method looks like the Fourier method for linear differential equations but applied to the nonlinear equations. Compare the method of mode superposition for a string and our method for the shock. Our method allowed to obtain all known formulas for the shocks characteristics and, in addition, find a microscopic behaviour of shocks in the thin layer with an assumption that the profile of the shock can be approximated by the orthogonal system of functions. We can use Laguerre functions, harmonic functions or any orthogonal system in our calculations instead of Hermite functions.

Our method one can apply to the problems of hydrodynamics, quantum mechanics and non-linear optics.

Acknowledgment

It is pleasure to thank the the seminar of Moscow Energy Institute organized by Prof. Yu.A. Dubinskii for the consideration to this work.

Research is partially supported by Belarussian Fundamental Research Foundation Grant No F99M-082.


format: text

text:
# Effects of the R-parity violation in the minimal supersymmetric standard model on dilepton pair production at the CERN LHC 11footnote 1Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.

## I Introduction

The extensions of the standard model (SM) have been intensively studied over the past years. The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is one of the most attractive ones among the general extended models of the SM. In the usual MSSM the R-parity is conserved. Here the R-parity is defined as

$$R_p=(1)^{3B+L+2S}.$$

We can see that the lepton-number or baryon-number violating interactions can induce R-parity violation ($`\text{/}R_p`$) . In the usual supersymmetric (SUSY) extension models, R-parity conservation  is imposed due to two reasons. One is to retain the electroweak gauge invariance of the SM. the other is to solve the proton decay problem, since the R-parity violation leads to unacceptable short proton lifetime. But the most general SUSY extension of the SM should contain R-parity violating interactions. Until now have we been lacking in credible theoretical argument and experimental tests for $`R_p`$ conservation, so we can say that the $`R_p`$ violation would be equally well motivated in the supersymmetric extension of the SM. Up to now we have experimentally only some upper limits on $`\text{/}R_p`$ parameters. Therefore, it is necessary to continue the work on finding $`\text{/}R_p`$ signal or getting further stringent constraints on the $`\text{/}R_p`$ parameters in future experiments.

Recent experimental and theoretical works have demonstrated that the dilepton production processes in hadron collisions ($`p\overline{p}l\overline{l}+X`$ and $`ppl\overline{l}+X`$ $`(l=e,\mu )`$), are very important , since there is a continuous c.m.s energy distribution of the colliding partons inside protons(and anti-protons) at hadron colliders. These dilepton production channels at hadron colliders can be used to study the parton distribution functions(PDFs) at small x values  , to determine the $`W`$ mass   , and to extract the effective weak mixing angle and the information on the width of the $`W`$ boson  ,…etc. The most attractive purpose is that at the c.m.s hadron colliding energy region beyond the $`m_{Z^0}`$, one can probe the new physics beyond the SM, such as large extra dimensions  , extra neutral gauge bosons, R-parity violation and composite quarks and leptons. Therefore, we can conclude that at the upgrade Fermilab Tevatron Run II with integrate luminosity 2-20$`fb^1/year`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=2TeV`$ and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with 100$`fb^1/year`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$, it would be possible to extract the new physics effects beyond the SM by investigating the dilepton production processes.

The dilepton pairs can be produced via the Drell-Yan subprocess and gluon fusion at hadron colliders. The analysis of the sensitivity to $`\text{/}R_p`$ couplings in measurement on the Drell-Yan production processes $`ppu_ju_j(d_kd_k)l_i^+l_i^{}+X`$ at the LHC was studied in Ref.. But we suppose that the process $`ppggl_i^+l_i^{}+X`$ could be important too due to the large gluon luminosity in hadron colliders, although the dilepton pair production via gluon fusion is an one-loop process.

If we set the values of the R-parity violating parameters concerned to be near the corresponding upper limits, we can see that the major R-parity effects on cross section of subprocess $`ggl_i^+l_i^{}(l_{i=1,2}=e,\mu )`$ come from the loops involving the third generation quarks. Then we would have the conclusion that the cross section of $`ggl_\alpha ^+l_\alpha ^{}`$ is approximately proportional to $`_{i=1}^{2,3}(\lambda _{i33}^{}\lambda _{i\alpha \alpha })^2`$ ($`i,\alpha `$ are the generation indices of the sneutrino and dilepton, respectively). From the experimental constraints of $`\text{/}R_p`$ parameters, we have the upper limitations on the related R-parity violating parameters: $`\lambda _{133}^{}1.4\times 10^3\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}/100GeV}`$, $`\lambda _{333}^{}0.45`$, $`\lambda _{233}^{}0.15\times \sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}/100GeV}`$, $`\lambda _{311}0.062\times \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}{100GeV}`$, and $`\lambda _{211}0.049\times \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}{100GeV}`$. Due to $`\lambda _{ijk}=\lambda _{jik}`$, we have $`\lambda _{ijk}=0,(fori=j)`$. Since the upper limitation of $`\lambda _{133}^{}`$ is much smaller than those of $`\lambda _{233}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$, the cross section of $`gg\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is approximately proportional to $`(\lambda _{333}^{}\lambda _{322})^2`$. And the cross section of $`gge^+e^{}`$ is approximately proportional to $`(\lambda _{333}^{}\lambda _{311}+\lambda _{233}^{}\lambda _{211})^2`$. Then we can estimate that the cross section of $`gge^+e^{}`$ may be several times larger than that of $`gg\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, if the related R-parity violating parameters have the values near the corresponding upper limits.

In this paper we concentrated on finding the effects of R-parity lepton number violating MSSM in the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production processes via both Drell-Yan and gluon fusion subprocesses at the CERN LHC. In section II we present the relevant model and the calculation of the processes $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$. Analytical calculation is presented in section II. Numerical results and discussion are given in section III, where the cross sections in the minimal standard supersymmetric models with and without R-parity violation will be compared. In section IV we give a short summary.

## II Relevant Theory and Calculations

In this section we review briefly the MSSM with R-parity lepton number violation. All renormalizable supersymmetric $`\text{/}R`$ interactions can be introduced in the superpotential. The general form of the super potential can be written as .

$$𝒲=𝒲_{MSSM}+𝒲_{\text{/}R}$$
(2.1)
where $`𝒲_{MSSM}`$ represents the R-parity conserved term, which can be written as

$$𝒲_{MSSM}=\mu ϵ_{ij}H_i^1H_j^2+ϵ_{ij}l_IH_i^1\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I\stackrel{~}{R}^Iu_I(H_1^2C^{JI}\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^JH_2^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^J)\stackrel{~}{U}^Id_I(H_1^1\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^IH_2^1C^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^J)\stackrel{~}{D}^I$$
(2.2)
and $`𝒲_{\text{/}R}`$ represents the term of R-parity violation,

$$W_{\text{/}R}=ϵ_{ij}(\lambda _{IJK}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{L}_j^J\stackrel{~}{R}^K+\lambda _{IJK}^{}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^J\stackrel{~}{D}^K+ϵ_IH_i^2\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I)+\lambda _{IJK}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{U}^I\stackrel{~}{D}^J\stackrel{~}{D}^K$$
(2.3)
The soft breaking terms can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{soft}\hfill & =\hfill & m_{H^1}^2H_i^1H_i^1m_{H^2}^2H_i^2H_i^2m_{L^I}^2\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{L}_i^Im_{R^I}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^I\stackrel{~}{R}^Im_{Q^I}^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^I\hfill \\ & & m_{D^I}^2\stackrel{~}{D}^I\stackrel{~}{D}^Im_{U^I}^2\stackrel{~}{U}^I\stackrel{~}{U}^I+(m_1\lambda _B\lambda _B+m_2\lambda _A^i\lambda _A^i+m_3\lambda _G^a\lambda _G^a+h.c.)\hfill \\ & & +\{B\mu ϵ_{ij}H_i^1H_j^2+B_Iϵ_Iϵ_{ij}H_i^2\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I+ϵ_{ij}l_{sI}H_i^1\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I\stackrel{~}{R}^I\hfill \\ & & +d_{sI}(H_1^1\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^I+C^{IK}H_2^1\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^K)\stackrel{~}{D}^I+u_{sI}(C^{KI}H_1^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^I+H_2^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^I)\stackrel{~}{U}^I\hfill \\ & & +ϵ_{ij}\lambda _{IJK}^S\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{L}_j^J\stackrel{~}{R}^K+\lambda _{IJK}^S^{}(\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^J\delta ^{JK}\stackrel{~}{L}_2^IC^{JK}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^J)\stackrel{~}{D}^K+\lambda _{IJK}^{S^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{U}^I\stackrel{~}{D}^J\stackrel{~}{D}^K\hfill \\ & & +h.c.\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
In Eqs.(2.2-4), $`L^I,Q^I,H^I`$ represents the SU(2) doublets of lepton, quark and Higgs superfields respectively, while $`R^I,U^I,D^I`$ are the singlets of lepton and quark superfields. The bilinear term $`ϵ_{ij}ϵ_IH_i^2\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I`$ can give neutrinos and make the diagonalization of mass matrix more complexity. In the processes considered in this paper, we assumed their effects negligible. In this paper we consider only the lepton number violation, i.e., $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are assumed to be non-zero while $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ is fixed to be zero.

The main subprocesses for the parent process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ are the following three: (1) $`u\overline{u}e^+e^{}`$, (2)$`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$, (3) $`gge^+e^{}`$. The Feynman diagrams of subprocesses (1) and (2) contributed by R-parity conserving MSSM are plotted in Fig.1(a) and Fig.2(a), respectively. The diagrams of subprocesses (1),(2) involving the R-parity violating interactions are depicted in Fig.1(b) and Fig.2($`bc`$), respectively. The Fig.3 shows the Feynman diagrams of subprocess (3) in the R-parity conserving MSSM at the lowest order. The Feynman diagrams of subprocess (3) involving R-parity violating interactions are given in Fig.4. For simplicity we do not give the diagrams which can be obtained by exchanging the initial gluons in Fig.3 and Fig.4.

## III Calculation

Firstly we consider the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production subprocess via photon and Z boson exchanges in quark-antiquark annihilation as

$$q(p_1)+\overline{q}(p_2)\gamma ,Ze^{}(k_1)+e^+(k_2),(q=u,d).$$
(3.1)
The differential Born cross sections at the parton-level for above subprocesses (1) $`u\overline{u}e^+e^{}`$, (2)$`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$ in the framework of the R-parity conserving MSSM, corresponding to the diagrams Fig.1(a) and Fig.2(a) respectively, are given by

$$d\widehat{\sigma }_{MSSM}^{(i)}=dP_{2f}\frac{1}{12}|A_\gamma ^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_Z^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2,(i=1,2)$$
(3.2)
where the summation is taken over the spin and color degrees of freedom of the initial and final states, and $`dP_{2f}`$ denotes the two-particle phase space element. The factor $`1/12`$ results from the average over the spins and the colors of the incoming partons. The $`A_\gamma ^{(i)}`$ and $`A_Z^{(i)}`$ represent the amplitudes of the photon and Z boson exchange diagrams at tree level, respectively. The Mandelstam kinematical variables in the parton center of mass system are defined as

$$\widehat{s}=(p_1+p_2)^2,\widehat{t}=(p_1k_1)^2,\widehat{u}=(p_1k_2)^2,$$
(3.3)
The expressions of the squared matrix elements for massless external fermions are

$`{\displaystyle |𝒜_\gamma ^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`8Q_q^2Q_l^2(4\pi \alpha )^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2)}{\widehat{s}^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle |𝒜_Z^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi (\widehat{s})|^2}{\widehat{s}^2}}\left[(v_q^2+a_q^2)(v_l^2+a_l^2)(\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2)4v_qa_qv_la_l(\widehat{t}^2\widehat{u}^2)\right],`$
$`2{\displaystyle e(𝒜_Z^{(i)}𝒜_\gamma ^{(i)})}`$ $`=`$ $`64\pi \alpha Q_qQ_la_qa_l\left[v_qv_l(\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2)a_qa_l(\widehat{t}^2\widehat{u}^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{e\chi (\widehat{s})}{\widehat{s}^2}},`$ (3.4)
with

$$v_f=\frac{1}{2s_wc_w}(I_f^32s_w^2Q_f),a_f=\frac{I_f^3}{2s_wc_w},\chi (\widehat{s})=\frac{4\pi \alpha \widehat{s}}{(\widehat{s}m_Z^2+i\widehat{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/m_Z^2)},$$
(3.5)
where $`f=q,l`$.

In the MSSM with the R-parity lepton number violation, the tree level differential cross sections for subprocess (1) and (2) can be expressed as

$$d\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{/}R}^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})=dP_{2f}\frac{1}{12}|A_\gamma ^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_Z^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_{\text{/}R}^{(i)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2(i=1,2),$$
(3.6)
The R-parity violation amplitudes $`A_{\text{/}R}^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{\text{/}R}^{(2)}`$, which correspond to the subprocess (1) $`u\overline{u}e^+e^{}`$ and (2) $`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$ respectively, can be expressed as:

$$A_{\text{/}R}^{(1)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})=A_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^{(1)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u}),A_{\text{/}R}^{(2)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})=A_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^{(2)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^{(2)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})$$
(3.7)
where $`A_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^{(1)}`$, $`A_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^{(2)}`$ and $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^{(2)}`$ are just the contributions from the diagrams Fig.1(b), Fig.2(b) and Fig.2(c), respectively. By using the relevant Feynmann rules, we can easily write down the expressions:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^{(1)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})\hfill & =\hfill & (\lambda _{11j}^{})^2[\overline{v}(p_2)Z_{D_j}^{2i}P_Rv(k_1)]\frac{i}{\widehat{t}m_{\stackrel{~}{d_j}_i}^2}[\overline{u}(k_2)Z_{D_j}^{2i}P_Lu(p_1)]\hfill \\ A_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^{(2)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})\hfill & =\hfill & (\lambda _{1j1}^{})^2[\overline{u}(k_1)Z_{U_j}^{1i}P_Ru(p_1)]\frac{i}{\widehat{u}m_{\stackrel{~}{u_j}_i}^2}[\overline{v}(p_2)Z_{U_j}^{1i}P_Lv(k_2)]\hfill \\ A_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^{(2)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})\hfill & =\hfill & (\lambda _{j11}^{})(\lambda _{j11})[\overline{v}(p_2)P_Lu(p_1)]\frac{i}{\widehat{s}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2+im_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}}[\overline{u}(k_1)P_Rv(k_2)]\hfill \\ & & (\lambda _{j11}^{})(\lambda _{j11})[\overline{v}(p_2)P_Ru(p_1)]\frac{i}{\widehat{s}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}^2+im_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}}}[\overline{u}(k_1)P_Lv(k_2)]\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
where $`Z_{D_k}^{ij}`$ and $`Z_{U_k}^{ij}`$ represent the elements of the matrices used to diagonalize the down-type squark and up-type squark mass matrices, respectively.

Now we turn to the calculation of the gluon fusion subprocess. We denote this subprocess (3) as

$$g(p_1,\alpha ,\mu )+g(p_2,\beta ,\nu )e^{}(k_1)+e^+(k_2),$$
(3.9)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are the color indices of initial gluinos, respectively. In the MSSM with R-conserving the differential cross section can be expressed as

$$d\widehat{\sigma }_{MSSM}=dP_{2f}\frac{1}{256}|A_a^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_b^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_c^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_d^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_e^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2,$$
(3.10)
where the sum is again taken over the spin and color degrees of freedom of the initial gluons and final states, and $`dP_{2f}`$ denotes the two-particle phase space element. And $`A_i^{(3)}`$ represent the amplitudes of diagrams in Fig.3(i) (i=a,b,c,d,e). As we can see from Fig.3, all the diagrams are $`Z^0`$/$`\gamma `$ exchanging s-channels. Therefore all these contributions can be neglected. This is the consequence of Furry theorem. The Furry theorem forbids the production of the spin-one components of the $`Z^0`$ and $`\gamma `$, and the contribution from the spin-zero component of the $`Z^0`$ vector boson coupling with a pair of leptons is negligibly small. So we have the amplitudes corresponding to Fig.3(a-e) approaching to zero and the cross section $`\sigma _{MSSM}`$ part with the R-parity conserving interactions (shown in Fig.3) are vanished.

In the case of the R-parity lepton number violation, the differential cross section of subprocess (3) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}d\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{/}R}^{(3)}\hfill & =\hfill & dP_{2f}\frac{1}{256}|A_a^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+\mathrm{}+A_e^{(3)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+A_a^{(4)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+\mathrm{}+A_i^{(4)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2\hfill \\ & =\hfill & dP_{2f}\frac{1}{256}|A_a^{(4)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+\mathrm{}+A_i^{(4)}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})|^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.11)
which has a nonzero result. The total cross section of process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ with the lower cut value of the $`e^+e^{}`$-pair invariant mass $`m_{e^+e^{}}^{cut}`$ can be written as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _{ij}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})=_{(m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})^2/s}^1𝑑\tau \frac{d_{ij}}{d\tau }\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}(\widehat{s}=\tau s),\hfill & & \\ \frac{d_{ij}}{d\tau }=\frac{1}{1+\delta _{ij}}_\tau ^1\frac{dx_1}{x_1}\left\{\left[f(i,x_1,Q^2)f(j,\frac{\tau }{x_1},Q^2)\right]+\left[f(j,x_1,Q^2)f(i,\frac{\tau }{x_1},Q^2)\right]\right\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(3.12)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ are the $`pp`$ collision and subprocess c.m.s. energies respectively, and $`d_{ij}/d\tau `$ is the luminosity of incoming partons. Here, $`i,j`$ represent the partons $`u,d,\overline{u},\overline{d},g`$, $`\tau =x_1x_2`$. The definitions of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ can be seen from Ref., we adopt the CTEQ5 parton distribution function . In $`f(i,x,Q^2)`$, factorization scale Q is taken to be $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. Then we can obtain the cross section for the parent process of $`ppije^+e^{}+X`$ with the dilepton invariant mass $`m_{(e^+e^{})}`$ being larger than $`m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut}`$ :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _{ij}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})=_{m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut}}^\sqrt{s}𝑑\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}(\widehat{s})H_{ij}(\widehat{s}),\hfill & & \\ H_{ij}(\widehat{s})=\frac{1}{1+\delta _{ij}}_{\frac{\widehat{s}}{s}}^1\frac{2dx_1\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{x_1s}\left\{\left[f(i,x_1,Q^2)f(j,\frac{\widehat{s}}{x_1s},Q^2)\right]+\left[f(j,x_1,Q^2)f(i,\frac{\widehat{s}}{x_1s},Q^2)\right]\right\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(3.13)
where $`\sigma ^{(i)}(i=1,2,3)`$ represent the cross sections of processes: (1) $`ppu\overline{u}e^+e^{}+X`$, (2) $`ppd\overline{d}e^+e^{}+X`$, and (3) $`ppgge^+e^{}+X`$, respectively. Then the total cross sections of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production with its invariant mass larger than $`m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut}`$ in the R-violating and R-conserving supersymmetric models can be written as :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _{\text{/}R}(m_{e^+e^{}}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill & =\hfill & \sigma _{\text{/}R}^{(1)}((m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})+\sigma _{\text{/}R}^{(2)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill \\ & +\hfill & \sigma _{\text{/}R}^{(3)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill \\ \sigma _{MSSM}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill & =\hfill & \sigma _{MSSM}^{(1)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})+\sigma _{MSSM}^{(2)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill \\ & +\hfill & \sigma _{MSSM}^{(3)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \sigma _{MSSM}^{(1)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})+\sigma _{MSSM}^{(2)}(m_{(e^+e^{})}m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut})\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.14)
where we used $`\sigma _{MSSM}^{(3)}0`$, which was mentioned above. For presentation of the $`\text{/}R`$ effect of the process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$, we define $`\text{/}R`$ parameter $`\eta `$ as:

$$\eta =\frac{\sigma _{\text{/}R}(m_{(e^+e^{})}200GeV)\sigma _{MSSM}(m_{(e^+e^{})}200GeV)}{\sigma _{MSSM}(m_{(e^+e^{})}200GeV)}.$$
(3.15)
## IV Numerical result and discussion

In the numerical calculation we set the input SM parameters to be : $`m_u=5MeV`$, $`m_d=5MeV`$, $`m_c=1.2GeV`$, $`m_s=120MeV`$, $`m_t=170GeV`$, $`m_b=4.2GeV`$, $`m_Z=91.187GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.49GeV`$. In this work, we do numerical calculation in the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) scenario. In this scenario, only five sypersymmetric parameters should be given which are named $`M_{1/2}`$, $`M_0`$, $`A_0`$, sign of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where $`M_{1/2}`$, $`M_0`$ and $`A_0`$ are the universal gaugino mass, scalar mass at GUT scale and the trilinear soft breaking parameter in the superpotential respectively. As we know that the effects of the R-parity violating couplings on the renormalization group equations(RGE’s) are the crucial ingredient of mSUGRA-type models, and the complete 2-loop RGE’s of the superpotential parameters for the supersymmetric standard model including the full set of R-parity violating couplings are given in Ref.. But in our numerical presentation to get the low energy scenario from the mSUGRA , we ignored those effects in the RGE’s for simplicity and use the program ISAJET 7.44. In this program the RGE’s  are run from the weak scale $`m_Z`$ up to the GUT scale, taking all thresholds into account and using two loop RGE’s only for the gauge couplings and the one-loop RGE’s for the other supersymmetric parameters. The GUT scale boundary conditions are imposed and the RGE’s are run back to $`m_Z`$, again taking threshold into account. The R-parity violating parameters chosen above satisfy the constraints given by Ref..

We take the mSUGRA input parameters as: $`M_{1/2}=150GeV;`$, $`A_0=300GeV`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$, $`\mu >0`$, $`m_t=170GeV`$. The numerical values of $`M_0`$ will be running in a definite range. The ratio of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ decay width to its mass is taken as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=0.07`$. Ref. presents the experimental constraints for the coupling parameters in R-parity violating interactions. According to these upper limitations, we take the relevant R-violating coupling parameters $`\lambda _{ijk}^{^{}}`$ having the values as

$$\lambda _{111}^{^{}}=0.01,$$

$$\lambda _{ijk}^{^{}}=0.04,(whentwoofi,j,k=1),$$

$$\lambda _{ijk}^{^{}}=0.39,(whentwoorthreeofi,j,k=3).$$

And all of the others $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ which we will use in calculation are chosen to be 0.25. For the related coupling parameters $`\lambda _{ijk}`$, we know that the first two indices of parameters $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ are antisymmetric, then the $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ should be zero when $`i=j`$. The others concerned $`\text{/}R`$ coupling parameters $`\lambda _{211}`$ and $`\lambda _{311}`$ are taken to be -0.18.

The cross section of the subprocess $`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }^{(2)}`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is given in Fig.5. We can see there is a peck around the vicinity of the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ on the curve for the $`\text{/}R`$-MSSM. Since the energy of this subprocess $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ from incoming protons has a continuous spectrum, it can be estimated that the total cross section and the $`\text{/}R`$ effects of $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ will be greatly enhanced at hadron colliders. The cross section of subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ in $`\text{/}R`$-MSSM as a function of the c.m.s. energy of colliding gluons is depicted in Fig.6. Again we can see the resonance enhancement from $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ exchanging s-channel at the energy position around $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$. Because of the much larger luminosity of gluons in the parton distribution function of proton compared with that of quarks and anti-quarks, the subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ would contribute to the total cross section of $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ at the LHC to some extent. Fig.7 gives the total cross section of the process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ as the function of the lower cut value of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant mass $`m_{(e^+e^{})}^{cut}`$. From this figure, we can see that the $`\text{/}R`$ effect on the production rate of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair is rather large, and gluon fusion subprocess plays a significant role. Now we use the parameter $`\eta `$, which is defined in Eq.(3.15), to represent the effect of $`\text{/}R`$ of parent process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$, and we further denote the $`\text{/}R`$ effect parameters $`\eta _i(i=1,2,3)`$, which correspond to the parent processes in which the $`\text{/}R`$ effect is contributed by the Drell-Yan mechanism, gluon fusion and both subprocesses, respectively. In Fig.8, we depicted the R-violating effect $`\eta `$ as a function of universal scalar mass at GUT scale $`M_0`$, which is related to the mass of supersymmetric neutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$. From Fig.8 we know that effect of R-parity lepton number violating on $`e^+e^{}`$-pair production at the LHC is rather large, especially in the $`M_0`$ range when $`M_0<300GeV`$ . The effect parameter of R-parity violation $`\eta _3`$, which describes the $`\text{/}R`$ effect for process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$, may be over the value of 70$`\%`$. We can see also from Fig.8 that the most part of the R-parity violating effect is contributed by the Drell-Yan subprocess, but the part contributed by gluon fusion subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ is also significant. Fig.9 shows the ratio of the R-parity violating effects contributed by gluon fusion and Drell-Yan subprocesses, as a function of universal scalar mass at GUT scale($`M_0`$). We can see that the smaller the scalar mass $`M_0`$ is, the more contributions to $`\text{/}R`$ effects via subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ are. When $`M_0200GeV`$, the contribution to $`\text{/}R`$ effects from gluon fusion can reach approximately 25$`\%`$ of that from Drell-Yan subprocess. Fig.10 shows the dependence of the ratio of the $`\text{/}R`$ effects via gluon fusion and Drell-Yan mechanism subprocesses on the value of $`\lambda _{233}^{}(=\lambda _{333}^{})`$. It demonstrates that the ratio $`\eta _2/\eta _1`$ is strongly related to the R-parity violating parameters $`\lambda _{233}^{}(\lambda _{333}^{})`$. The larger $`\lambda _{233}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$ are, the more important the contribution to the $`\text{/}R`$ effect via subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ is. From Fig.8, Fig.9 and Fig.10, we can conclude that although the gluon fusion subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ has no tree-level Feynman diagram, its contribution to $`\text{/}R`$ effect is also significant comparing to that via Drell-Yan subprocess in some parameter space of the MSSM with R-parity violating. The reason are in two fields: Firstly, it is due to the large gluon luminosity in hadron collider. Secondly, in the loop-order Feynman diagrams for gluon fusion subprocess, there exist the R-parity lepton number violation interactions involving the third generation particles. While the experimental upper limitations of these coupling strengths are much larger than those, their interacting particles involving only the members of the first two generations.

## V Summary

We studied the effects of the R-parity lepton number violation in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) on the parent process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The contribution from the one-loop induced gluon fusion subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$, may contribute to R-parity violating effect significantly in comparing with that via Drell-Yan subprocess. So in studying the effect of R-parity lepton number violation on $`e^+e^{}`$-pair production process, we should figure out the contributions both from Drell-Yan subprocess $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ and gluon fusion subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$. Our calculation shows that the R-parity lepton number violating effect from gluon fusion subprocess can reaches 30$`\%`$ of the corresponding part via Drell-Yan subprocess. We find also that the dependences of R-violating effect on the sneutrino mass and the coupling strength of the R-parity violating interactions are obvious.

Acknowledgement:

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and a grant from the University of Science and Technology of China.

Figure Captions

Fig.1 The relevant Feynman diagrams for the subprocess $`u\overline{u}e^+e^{}`$ in the MSSM at the tree-level: (a) for the Feynman diagrams for R-parity conserved MSSM part; (b) for the Feynman diagrams for R-parity violation MSSM part.

Fig.2 The relevant Feynman diagrams for the subprocess $`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$ in the MSSM at the tree-level: (a) for the Feynman diagrams for R-parity conserved MSSM part; (b) and (c) are for the Feynman diagrams for R-parity violation MSSM part.

Fig.3 The relevant Feynman diagrams for the subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ for the R-parity conserved MSSM part in the MSSM at the lowest level.

Fig.4 The relevant Feynman diagrams for the subprocess $`gge^+e^{}`$ for the R-parity violation MSSM part in the MSSM at the lowest level.

Fig.5 The cross section of subprocess $`d\overline{d}e^+e^{}`$ at the LHC as the function of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$, with the colliding proton-proton energy $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$ and $`M_0=250GeV`$. The full line is for R-conserving MSSM, the dashed line for R-violating MSSM.

Fig.6 The cross section of subprocess $`gge^{}e^+`$ at the LHC as the function of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$, with the colliding energy $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$ and $`M_0=250GeV`$.

Fig.7 The cross section of process $`ppe^+e^{}+X`$ at the LHC as the function of $`m_{e^+e^{}}^{cut}`$, with the colliding energy $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$ and $`M_0=250GeV`$. The full-line is for the R-conserving MSSM. The dashed-line is for the R-violating MSSM, where only $`\text{/}R`$ effect via $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ is taken into account. The dotted-dashed-line is for the R-violating MSSM, where the effects via both Drell-Yan and gluon fusion subprocesses are taken into account.

fig.9 R-parity violating effect parameters $`\eta _i(i=1,2,3)`$ as the functions of $`M_0`$ . The full-line is for $`\eta _1`$ (for case 1: only $`\text{/}R`$ effect via $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ is taken into account). The dotted-dashed-line for $`\eta _2`$ (for case 2: only $`\text{/}R`$ effect via $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ is taken into account). The dashed-line for $`\eta _3`$ (for case 3: the effects via both Drell-Yan and gluon fusion subprocesses are taken into account).

Fig.9 The ratio ($`\eta _2/\eta _1`$) of the R-violating parameters as a function of $`M_0`$ , which shows the importance of the contributions from subprocesses $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}`$ and $`gge^+e^{}`$.

Fig.10 The ratio ($`\eta _2/\eta _1`$) as a function of the R-violating parameters $`\lambda _{233}^{}(\lambda _{333}^{})`$(where we take $`\lambda _{233}^{}=\lambda _{333}^{}`$) with $`M_0=250GeV`$.


text:
# 1 Basis of the Strategy

## 1 Basis of the Strategy

The strategy is based on eight considerations of neutrino physics and neutrino beams:

* Improved measurements of the neutrino mixing parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, as well as new measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, are best accomplished with a detector located at the first oscillation maximum of $`\nu _2\nu _3`$, namely $`L[\mathrm{km}]=1.24E_\nu [\mathrm{GeV}]/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2[\mathrm{eV}^2]500E_\nu [\mathrm{GeV}]`$, supposing $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2.
* Measurements of CP violation are possible (presuming the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem holds) with roughly equal accuracy at any maximum of the $`\nu _2\nu _3`$ oscillation pattern , but best accuracy is obtained at the lowest energy practicable.
* The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ can be determined via matter effects , which grow with distance but are very small for L

<

1000

<

𝐿1000L\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}1000 km.
* If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is at or above the upper limit of the presently allowed value in the LMA solution, as should be clarified in a year or two by KamLAND , then two scales of oscillation will be discernible in very long baseline experiments .
* Accelerator-based neutrino beams from pion (and kaon and muon) decay are dominantly $`\nu _\mu `$ (from positive mesons, and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ from negative mesons) with admixtures of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ at the one percent level. These backgrounds limit the sensitivity of measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and CP violation, which rely on detection of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations. Furthermore, if the beam energy is high enough that $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations can materialize as $`\tau `$ leptons, the semileptonic decay $`\tau eX`$ causes undesirable backgrounds.
* Accelerator-based neutrino beams will have a broad energy distribution, unless special efforts are made to reduce this, which leads to background to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal from $`\nu _\mu `$ neutral-current interactions, and $`\nu _\tau `$ charged-current interactions, of higher than nominal energy.
* If we are confident about the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$, it is therefore advantageous to narrow the energy spectrum of the beam, which can be accomplished for low-energy neutrinos by use of an off-axis neutrino beam  that enhances the neutrino flux at an angle $`\theta 2^{}/E_\nu [\mathrm{GeV}]`$ (due to the Jacobian peak in the two-body decay kinematics of the pion), as shown in Fig. 1.
* Interactions of neutrino of energies below about 700 MeV with nucleons are primarily quasi-elastic with two body final states that permit further suppression of neutral-current backgrounds . A remaining troublesome background is inelastic scatters with a single $`\pi ^0`$ in the final state, whose decay photons can be mistaken for electrons.

## 2 Phase I of the Program

In Phase I a 20-30 kton liquid argon detector is built at a site near Soudan but $`1^{}`$ off axis from the NUMI beam, with emphasis on measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$.

Based on the considerations of sec. 1, Phase-I of the measurement strategy is formulated as follows:

* The broadest program of measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters in accelerator experiments should emphasize a low-energy beam, $`E_\nu <1`$ GeV, and a detector at distance $`<400`$ km, while retaining the option for studies at longer baselines.
* However, to begin the program in a timely manner, it should start by using the NUMI beam from FNAL, whose spectrum drops rapidly below 2 GeV, even when enhanced by going $`1^{}`$ off axis.
* Hence, the program should begin with a new detector, sited about $`1^{}`$ off the nominal NUMI line, at about 700 km from FNAL so as to be near the first oscillation associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$. A suitable site would be near Silver Creek, MN (lat. 47.11, long. $`91.58^{}`$ , 640 km from FNAL), where a horizontal tunnel could be dug into a bluff next to Lake Superior to provide $`400^{}`$ overburden. See Fig. 2.
* Among various types of detectors, a liquid argon time projection chamber  has the best rejection of background due to neutral-current interactions and low-energy $`\pi ^0`$’s. This permits measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and CP violation via $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations with a much smaller detector mass of argon, as illustrated in Fig. 3 from a recent study .
* A 300-ton liquid argon detector has recently begun operation , with high-quality tracking of particle interactions as shown in Fig. 4. To extend measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters beyond those that will be obtained by other experiments in the next decade, the initial detector mass must be at least 20 kton. In later phases it will be desirable to increase the detector mass to 100-200 kton, possibly at a new site. Cost are minimized when the detector is built as a single module, such as that sketched in Fig. 5 .
* The detector for an accelerator-based neutrino experiment could be located on the surface of the Earth (or with a cover of $`100`$ m to suppress the cosmic-ray rate) because the beam duty factor is $`10^6`$. Because of its excellent characterization of events, even with only 100-m overburden a large liquid argon detector can provide essentially background-free sensitivity to proton decay via the modes $`pe^+\pi ^0`$ and $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ . A 25 kton liquid argon detector yield a factor of 10 improvement in the sensitivity over present limits to proton decay via the mode $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$  that is favored in generic SO(10) supersymmetric grand-unified models .

## 3 Phase II of the Program

The first phase of the program, with a 20-30 kton liquid argon detector sited 640 km from FNAL in a $`1^{}`$ off-axis NUMI beam, will clarify whether the next step is a) continued search for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ as it is very small; b) measurement of the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$; c) measurement of CP violation. All three options will require increased neutrino flux and will benefit from a larger detector. Option 2 will require a longer baseline to enhance the matter effects, while option 3 would benefit from a shorter baseline and lower energy beam.

A way of characterizing the goal of Phase II is 10 times the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ as in Phase I. Since measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is background limited, a factor of 10 improvement in sensitivity requires a factor of 100 improvement in the product of neutrino flux and detector mass. Thus, the general strategy is to upgrade the neutrino beam by a factor of 10 (from a 0.4 MW proton driver to a 4 MW one), and also to increase the detector mass by 10 (from 20 to 200 kton).

There is considerable flexibility in the order of implementation of the components of phase II. The major choices are:

1. Build a new large detector close to FNAL, upgrade the FNAL beam to operate at higher intensity and lower neutrino energy to study $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and CP violation, and build a neutrino beam at BNL pointing to the new detector to study the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$.
2. Build a new large detector close to BNL, build a new neutrino beam at BNL to study $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and CP violation in the new detector, and build an option into the BNL neutrino beam to be deflected slightly to the Silver Creek detector to study the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$.

If it appears appropriate to pursue measurement of the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$ before CP violation, the second scenario would be favored.

Scenario 1 is more costly than scenario 2 in that beam upgrades at both BNL and FNAL are required. The advantage of scenario 1 is more continuous operation of the program, and the greater ultimate flexibility of having two high-performance beams with different baselines to a single high-quality detector (plus continued operation of the Phase-I detector at a 3rd baseline intermediate between the other two). Scenario 2 has the “cultural” advantage that the new detector could be located close to Cornell University, while the new detector in scenario 1 will of necessity be at a somewhat remote location.

### 3.1 Phase II with a New Detector near FNAL

The ingredients of this scenario are:

1. A 100-200 kton liquid argon detector sited closer to the neutrino source so that lower-energy neutrinos can be used. An example site is under a bluff at lat. $`43.954^{}`$, long. $`89.585^{}`$ near Adams, WI, as shown in Fig. 2 , where a horizontal tunnel could be dug into the hillside to provide $`100`$ m rock overburden. This site is 260 km from FNAL, and $`2.2^{}`$ off the NUMI beam axis, which is appropriate for a neutrino beam of $`700`$ MeV.
2. Upgrade of the FNAL proton driver to 4 MW. As neutrinos of $`700`$ MeV are desired, the proton beam energy need not be higher than 8 GeV. Hence, the needed proton driver upgrade is based on a high-performance 8-GeV booster .
3. Construction of a new neutrino beam at BNL with a proton driver of power 0.5-4 MW as the physics warrants . With this beam pointing to the site of the new large detector, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$ can be measured, and additional data taken towards the measurement of CP violation.

### 3.2 Phase II with a New Detector near BNL

The ingredients of this scenario are:

1. The new 100-200 kton liquid argon detector could be sited in or near the Cargill Salt Mine in Lansing, NY, lat. $`42.509^{}`$, long. $`76.517^{}`$, 350 km from BNL, as shown in Fig. 2 . The working depth of the mine is about $`1700^{}`$. This site is in the municipality immediately north of Cornell University.
2. Upgrade of the BNL proton driver to 4 MW, and construction of a new neutrino beam . The beam would be pointed about $`2^{}`$ below the direction Lansing to obtain an enhancement of neutrino flux near 900 MeV.
3. The angle between BNL-Lansing and BNL-Silver Creek is $`5.9^{}`$ although the azimuthal angle between Lansing and Silver Creek with respect to BNL is only $`1^{}`$. Thus, neutrinos $`4^{}`$ off-axis from the nominal beam to Lansing would arrive at the Silver Creek detector. This angle is slightly too large to provide a useful neutrino flux. Rather, when it is desired to study the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{23}^2`$ with a beam from BNL to the Silver Creek detector, the magnets of the target station would have to be rotated downwards by about $`23^{}`$. That is, useful data could not be taken simultaneously at the Lansing detector and the Silver Creek detector with a beam from BNL. Of course, the Silver Creek detector can continue to take data with the NUMI beam from FNAL at all times.

The conference version of this paper includes additional cartographical information: http://www.hep.princeton.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$mcdonald/nufact/neutrinotrans12.pdf