text:
# 1 Problem

## 1 Problem

Deduce an axicon solution for a Gaussian laser beam in vacuum, i.e., a beam with radial polarization of the electric field.

## 2 Solution

If a laser beam is to have radial transverse polarization, the transverse electric must vanish on the symmetry axis, which is charge free in vacuum. However, we can expect a nonzero longitudinal electric field on the axis, noting that the projections onto the axis of the electric field vectors of rays all have the same sign, as shown in Fig. 1a. This contrasts with the case of linearly polarized Gaussian laser beams  for which rays at $`0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ azimuth to the polarization direction have axial electric field components of opposite sign, as shown in Fig. 1b. The longitudinal electric field of axicon laser beams may be able to transfer net energy to charged particles that propagate along the optical axis, providing a form of laser acceleration .

Although two of the earliest papers on Gaussian laser beams  discuss axicon modes (without using that term, and without deducing the simplest axicon mode), most subsequent literature has emphasized linearly polarized Gaussian beams. We demonstrate that a calculation that begins with the vector potential (sec. 2.1) leads to both the lowest-order linearly polarized and axicon modes. We include a discussion of Gaussian laser pulses as well as continuous beams, and find in sec. 2.2 that the temporal pulse shape must obey condition (8). The paraxial wave equation and its lowest-order, linearly polarized solutions are reviewed in secs. 2.3-4. Readers familiar with the paraxial wave equation for linearly polarized Gaussian beams may wish to skip directly to sec. 2.5 in which the axicon mode is displayed. In sec. 2.6 we find an expression for a guided axicon beam, i.e., one that requires a conductor along the optical axis.

### 2.1 Solution via the Vector Potential

Many discussions of Gaussian laser beams emphasize a single electric field component such as $`E_x=f(r,z)e^{i(kz\omega t)}`$ of a cylindrically symmetric beam of angular frequency $`\omega `$ and wave number $`k=\omega /c`$ propagating in vacuum along the $`z`$ axis. Of course, the electric field must satisfy the free-space Maxwell equation $`𝐄=0`$. If $`f(r,z)`$ is not constant and $`E_y=0`$, then we must have nonzero $`E_z`$. That is, the desired electric field has more than one vector component.

To deduce all components of the electric and magnetic fields of a Gaussian laser beam from a single scalar wave function, we follow the suggestion of Davis  and seek solutions for a vector potential A that has only a single component. We work in the Lorentz gauge (and Gaussian units), so that the scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is related to the vector potential by

$$𝐀+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}=0.$$
(1)
The vector potential can therefore have a nonzero divergence, which permits solutions having only a single component. Of course, the electric and magnetic fields can be deduced from the potentials via

$$𝐄=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐀}{t},$$
(2)
and

$$𝐁=\times 𝐀.$$
(3)
For this, the scalar potential must first be deduced from the vector potential using the Lorentz condition (1).

The vector potential satisfies the free-space wave equation,

$$^2𝐀=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀}{t^2}.$$
(4)
We seek a solution in which the vector potential is described by a single component $`A_j`$ that propagates in the $`+z`$ direction with the form

$$A_j(𝐫,t)=\psi (r_{},z)g(\phi )e^{i\phi },$$
(5)
where the spatial envelope $`\psi `$ is azimuthally symmetric, $`r_{}=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$, $`g`$ is the temporal pulse shape, and the phase $`\phi `$ is given by

$$\phi =kz\omega t.$$
(6)
Inserting trial solution (5) into the wave equation (4) we find that

$$^2\psi +2ik\frac{\psi }{z}\left(1\frac{ig^{}}{g}\right)=0,$$
(7)
where $`g^{}=dg/d\phi `$.

### 2.2 A Condition on the Temporal Pulse Shape $`g(\phi )`$

Since $`\psi `$ is a function of r while $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ are functions of the phase $`\phi `$, eq. (7) cannot be satisfied in general. Often the discussion is restricted to the case where $`g^{}=0`$, i.e., to continuous waves. For a pulsed laser beam, $`g`$ must obey

$$\left|\frac{g^{}}{g}\right|1$$
(8)
for eq. (7) to be consistent.

It is noteworthy that a “Gaussian” laser beam cannot have a Gaussian temporal pulse. That is, if $`g=\mathrm{exp}[(\phi /\phi _0)^2]`$, then $`\left|g^{}/g\right|=2\left|\phi \right|/\phi _0^2`$, which does not satisfy condition (8) for $`|\phi |`$ large compared to the characteristic pulsewidth $`\phi _0=\omega \mathrm{\Delta }t`$, i.e., in the tails of the pulse.

A more appropriate form for a pulsed beam is a hyperbolic secant (as arises in studies of solitons):

$$g(\phi )=\text{sech}\left(\frac{\phi }{\phi _0}\right).$$
(9)
Then, $`\left|g^{}/g\right|=(1/\phi _0)\left|\mathrm{tanh}(\phi /\phi _0)\right|`$, which is less than one everywhere provided that $`\phi _01`$.

### 2.3 The Paraxial Wave Equation

In the remainder of this paper, we suppose that condition (8) is satisfied. Then, the differential equation (7) for the spatial envelope function $`\psi `$ becomes

$$^2\psi +2ik\frac{\psi }{z}=0.$$
(10)
The function $`\psi `$ can and should be expressed in terms of three geometric parameters of a focused beam, the diffraction angle $`\theta _0`$, the waist $`w_0`$, and the depth of focus (Rayleigh range) $`z_0`$, which are related by

$$\theta _0=\frac{w_0}{z_0}=\frac{2}{kw_0},\text{and}z_0=\frac{kw_0^2}{2}=\frac{2}{k\theta _0^2}.$$
(11)
We therefore work in the scaled coordinates

$$\xi =\frac{x}{w_0},\upsilon =\frac{y}{w_0},\rho ^2=\frac{r_{}^2}{w_0^2}=\xi ^2+\upsilon ^2,\text{and}\varsigma =\frac{z}{z_0},$$
(12)
Changing variables and noting relations (11), eq. (10) takes the form

$$_{}^2\psi +4i\frac{\psi }{\varsigma }+\theta _0^2\frac{^2\psi }{\varsigma ^2}=0,$$
(13)
where

$$_{}^2\psi =\frac{^2\psi }{\xi ^2}+\frac{^2\psi }{\upsilon ^2}=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho \frac{\psi }{\rho }\right),$$
(14)
since $`\psi `$ is independent of the azimuth $`\varphi `$.

The form of eq. (13) suggests the series expansion

$$\psi =\psi _0+\theta _0^2\psi _2+\theta _0^4\psi _4+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
in terms of the small parameter $`\theta _0^2.`$ Inserting this into eq. (13) and collecting terms of order $`\theta _0^0`$ and $`\theta _0^2`$, we find

$$_{}^2\psi _0+4i\frac{\psi _0}{\varsigma }=0,$$
(16)
and

$$_{}^2\psi _2+4i\frac{\psi _2}{\varsigma }=\frac{^2\psi _0}{\varsigma ^2},$$
(17)
etc.

Equation (16) is called the the paraxial wave equation, whose solution is well-known to be

$$\psi _0=fe^{f\rho ^2},$$
(18)
where

$$f=\frac{1}{1+i\varsigma }=\frac{1i\varsigma }{1+\varsigma ^2}=\frac{e^{i\mathrm{tan}^1\varsigma }}{\sqrt{1+\varsigma ^2}}.$$
(19)
The factor $`e^{i\mathrm{tan}^1\varsigma }`$ in $`f`$ is the so-called Guoy phase shift , which changes from 0 to $`\pi /2`$ as $`z`$ varies from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, with the most rapid change near the $`z_0`$.

The solution to eq. (17) for $`\psi _2`$ has been given in , and that for $`\psi _4`$ has been discussed in .

With the lowest-order spatial function $`\psi _0`$ in hand, we are nearly ready to display the electric and magnetic fields of the corresponding Gaussian beams. But first, we need the scalar potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which we suppose has the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)g(\phi )e^{i\phi },$$
(20)
similar to that of the vector potential. Then,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}=\omega \mathrm{\Phi }\left(1\frac{ig^{}}{g}\right)\omega \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(21)
assuming condition (8) to be satisfied. In that case,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{i}{k}𝐀,$$
(22)
according to the Lorentz condition (1). The electric field is then given by

$$𝐄=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐀}{t}ik\left[𝐀+\frac{1}{k^2}(𝐀)\right],$$
(23)
in view of condition (8). Note that $`(1/k)/x=(\theta _0/2)/\xi `$, etc., according to eqs. (11)-(12).

### 2.4 Linearly Polarized Gaussian Beams

Taking the scalar wave function (18) to be the $`x`$ component of the vector potential,

$$A_x=\frac{E_0}{ik}\psi _0g(\phi )e^{i\phi },A_y=A_z=0,$$
(24)
the corresponding electric and magnetic fields are found from eqs. (3), (23) and (24) to be the familiar forms of a linearly polarized Gaussian beam,

$`E_x`$ $`=`$ $`E_0\psi _0ge^{i\phi }+𝒪(\theta _0^2)E_0fe^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i\phi }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0e^{\rho ^2/(1+\varsigma ^2)}g(\phi )}{\sqrt{1+\varsigma ^2}}}e^{i[kz+\varsigma \rho ^2/(1+\varsigma ^2)\omega t\mathrm{tan}^1\varsigma ]},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0e^{r_{}^2/w^2(z)}g(\phi )}{\sqrt{1+z^2/z_0^2}}}e^{i\{kz[1+r_{}^2/2(z^2+z_0^2)]\omega t\mathrm{tan}^1(z/z_0)\}},`$
$`E_y`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
$`E_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta _0E_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{\xi }}ge^{i\phi }+𝒪(\theta _0^3)i\theta _0f\xi E_x,`$
$`B_x`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`B_y`$ $`=`$ $`E_x,`$ (26)
$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta _0E_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{\upsilon }}ge^{i\phi }=i\theta _0f\upsilon E_x,`$
where

$$w(z)=w_0\sqrt{1+z^2/z_0^2}$$
(27)
is the characteristic transverse size of the beam at position $`z`$. Near the focus (r

<

w0,|z|<z0formulae-sequence

<

subscript𝑟perpendicular-tosubscript𝑤0𝑧subscript𝑧0r_{\perp}\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}w_{0},\left|z\right|<z_{0}), the beam is a plane wave,

$$E_xE_0e^{r_{}^2/w_0^2}e^{i(kz\omega tz/z_0)},E_z\theta _0\frac{x}{w_0}E_0e^{r_{}^2/w_0^2}e^{i(kz\omega t2z/z_0\pi /2)},$$
(28)
For large $`z`$,

$$E_xE_0e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2}\frac{e^{i(kr\omega t\pi /2)}}{r},E_z\frac{x}{r}E_x,$$
(29)
where $`r=\sqrt{r_{}^2+z^2}`$ and $`\theta r_{}/r`$, which describes a linearly polarized spherical wave of extent $`\theta _0`$ about the $`z`$ axis. The fields $`E_x`$ and $`E_z`$, i.e., the real parts of eqs. (29), are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

The fields (25)-(26) satisfy $`𝐄=0=𝐁`$ plus terms of order $`\theta _0^2`$.

Clearly, a vector potential with only a $`y`$ component of form similar to eq. (24) leads to the lowest-order Gaussian beam with linear polarization in the $`y`$ direction.

### 2.5 The Lowest-Order Axicon Beam

An advantage of our solution based on the vector potential is that we also can consider the case that only $`A_z`$ is nonzero and has the form (18),

$$A_x=A_y=0,A_z=\frac{E_0}{k\theta _0}fe^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i(kz\omega t)}.$$
(30)
Then,

$$𝐀=\frac{A_z}{z}ikA_z\left[1\frac{\theta _0^2}{2}f(1f\rho ^2)\right],$$
(31)
using eqs. (11)-(12) and the fact that $`df/d\varsigma =if^2`$, which follows from eq. (19). Anticipating that the electric field has radial polarization, we work in cylindrical coordinates, $`(r_{},\varphi ,z)`$, and find from eqs. (3), (23), (30) and (31) that

$`E_{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_0\rho f^2e^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i\phi }+𝒪(\theta _0^2),`$
$`E_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (32)
$`E_z`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta _0E_0f^2(1f\rho ^2)e^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i\phi }+𝒪(\theta _0^3).`$
The magnetic field is

$$B_{}=0,B_\varphi =E_{},B_z=0.$$
(33)
The fields $`E_x`$ and $`E_z`$ are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The dislocation seen in Fig. 5 for $`\rho \varsigma `$ is due to the factor $`1f\rho ^2`$ that arises in the paraxial approximation, and would, I believe, be smoothed out on keeping higher-order terms in the expansion (15).

The transverse electric field is radially polarized and vanishes on the axis. The longitudinal electric field is nonzero on the axis. Near the focus, $`E_zi\theta _0E_0`$ and the peak radial field is $`E_0/\sqrt{2e}=0.42E_0`$. For large $`z`$, $`E_{}`$ peaks at $`\rho =\varsigma /\sqrt{2}`$, corresponding to polar angle $`\theta =\theta _0/\sqrt{2}`$. For angles near this, $`\left|E_{}\right|\rho \left|f\right|^21/z`$, as expected in the far zone. In this region, the ratio of the longitudinal to transverse fields is $`E_z/E_{}i\theta _0f\rho r_{}/z`$, as expected for a spherical wave front.

The factor $`f^2`$ in the fields implies a Guoy phase shift of $`e^{2i\mathrm{tan}^1\varsigma }`$, which is twice that of the lowest-order linearly polarized beams.

It is noteworthy that the simplest axicon mode (32)-(33) is not a member of the set of Gaussian modes based on Laguerre polynomials in cylindrical coordinates (see, for example, sec. 3.3b of ).

### 2.6 Guided Axicon Beam

We could also consider the vector potential

$$A_r_{}\psi _0ge^{i\phi },A_\varphi =A_z=0,$$
(34)
which leads to the electric and magnetic fields

$$E_r=E_0fe^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i\phi },E_\varphi =0,E_z=i\theta _0f\rho E_r,B_r=0,B_\varphi =E_r,B_z=0,$$
(35)
and the potential

$$A_r_{}=0,A_\varphi \psi _0ge^{i\phi },A_z=0,$$
(36)
which leads to

$$E_r=0,E_\varphi =E_0fe^{f\rho ^2}ge^{i\phi },E_z=0,B_r=E_\varphi ,B_\varphi =0,B_z=i\theta _0\frac{12f\rho ^2}{2\rho }E_\varphi .$$
(37)
The case of eqs. (36)-(37) is unphysical due to the blowup of $`B_z`$ as $`r_{}0`$.

The fields of eqs. (34)-(35) do not satisfy $`𝐄=0`$ at $`r_{}=0`$, and so cannot correspond to a free-space wave. However, these fields could be supported by a wire, and represent a TM axicon guided cylindrical wave with a focal point. This is in contrast to guided plane waves whose radial profile is independent of $`z`$ . Guided axicon beams might find application when a focused beam is desired at a point where a system of lenses and mirrors cannot conveniently deliver the optical axis, or in wire-guided atomic traps . Figures 2 and 3 show the functional form of the guided axicon beam (35), when coordinate $`x`$ is reinterpreted as $`r_{}`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to find the experimentally observable consequences of collective phenomena in the high energy hadrons inelastic collision. We will pay the main attention on the phase transitions, living out other possible interesting collective phenomena.

First of all, the statistics experience dictate that we should prepare the system to the phase transition. The temperature in a critical domain and the equilibrium media are just this conditions. It is evident, they are not trivial requirement considering the hadrons inelastic collision at high energies.

The collective phenomena by definition suppose that the kinetic energy of particles of media are comparable, or even smaller, than the potential energy of theirs interaction. It is a quite natural condition noting that, for instance, the kinetic motion may destroy, even completely at a given temperature $`T`$, necessary for the phase transition long-range order. This gives, more or less definitely, the critical domain.

The same idea as in statistics seems natural in the multiple production physics. We will assume (A) that the collective phenomena should be seen just in the very high multiplicity (VHM) events, where, because of the energy-momentum conservation laws, the kinetic energy of created particles can not be high.

We will lean at this point on the $`S`$-matrix interpretation of statistics . It based on the $`S`$-matrix generalization of the Wigner function formalism of Carruzers and Zachariazen  and the real-time finite temperature field theory of Schwinger and Keldysh .

First of all, the $`n`$-particle partition function in this approach coincide with the $`n`$ particles production cross section $`\sigma _n(s)`$ (in the appropriate normalization condition). Secondly, $`\sigma _n(s)`$ can be calculated from the $`n`$-point Wigner function $`W_n(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)`$. In the relativistic case $`X_k=(u,q)_k`$ are the 4-vectors. So, the external particles are considered as the ‘probes’ to measure the interacting fields state, i.e. the low mean energy of probes means that the system is ‘cold’.

The multiple production phenomena may be considered also as the thermalization process of incident particles kinetic energy dissipation into the created particles mass. From this point of view the VHM processes are highly nonequilibrium since the final state of this case is very far from initial one. It is known in statistics  that such process aspire to be the stationary Markovian with high level of entropy production. In the case of complete thermalization the final state is equilibrium.

The equilibrium we will classify as the condition in frame of which the fluctuations of corresponding parameter are Gaussian. So, in the case of complete thermalization the probes should have the Gauss energy spectra. In other terms, the necessary and sufficient condition of the equilibrium is smallness of mean value of energy correlators . From physical point of view, absence of this correlators means depression of the macroscopic energy flows in the system.

The multiple production experiment shows that created particles energy spectrum is far from Gauss law, i.e. the final states are far from equilibrium. The natural explanation of this phenomena consist in presence of (hidden) conservation laws in the interacting Yang-Mills fields system: it is known that presence of sufficient number of first integrals in involution prevents thermalization completely.

But nevertheless the VHM final state may be equilibrium (B) in the above formulated sense. This means that the forces created by the non-Abelian symmetry conservation laws may be frozen during thermalization process (remembering its stationary Markovian character in the VHM domain). We would like to take into account that the entropy $`𝒮`$ of a system is proportional to number of created particles and, therefore, $`𝒮`$ should tend to its maximum in the VHM region .

One may consider following small parameter $`(\overline{n}(s)/n)<<1`$, where $`\overline{n}(s)`$ is the mean value of multiplicity $`n`$ at given CM energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. Another small parameter is the energy of fastest hadron $`\epsilon _{max}`$. One should assume that in the VHM region $`(\epsilon _{max}/\sqrt{s})0`$. So, the conditions:

$$\frac{\overline{n}(s)}{n}<<1,\frac{\epsilon _{max}}{\sqrt{s}}0$$
(1.1)
would be considered as the mark of the processes under consideration. We can hope to organize the perturbation theory over them having this small parameters. In this sense VHM processes may be ‘simple’, i.e. one can use for theirs description semiclassical methods.

So, considering VHM events one may assume that the conditions (A) and (B) are hold and one may expect the phase transition phenomena. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2 we will offer the qualitative picture of expected phase transition. In sec.3 we will describe quantitatively this phenomena to find the predictions for experiment. In Sec.4 we will give formal derivation of the formalism used in Sec.3.

## 2 Condensation and singularity at $`z=1`$

The $`S`$-matrix interpretation of statistics is based on following definitions. First of all, let us introduce the generating function :

$$T(z,s)=\underset{n}{}z^n\sigma _n(s).$$
(2.1)
Summation is performed over all $`n`$ up to $`n_{max}=\sqrt{s}/m`$ and, at finite CM energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, $`T(z,s)`$ is a polynomial function of $`z`$. Let us assume now that $`z`$ is sufficiently small and by this reason $`T(z,s)`$ depends on upper boundary $`n_{max}`$ weakly. In this case one may formally extend summation up to infinity and in this case $`T(z,s)`$ may be considered as a whole function. This possibility is important being equivalent of thermodynamical limit and it allows to classify the asymptotics over $`n`$ in accordance with position of singularities over $`z`$.

Let us consider $`T(z)`$ (prove will be given below) as the big partition function, where $`z`$ is ‘activity’. It is known  that $`T(z)`$ should be regular in the circle of unite radii. The leftist singularity lie at $`z=1`$. This singularity is manifestation of the first order phase transition .

The origin of this singularity was investigated carefully in the paper . It was shown that position of singularities over $`z`$ depends on the number of particles $`n`$ in the system: the two complex conjugated singularity moves to the real $`z`$ axis with rising $`n`$ and in the thermodynamical limit $`n=\mathrm{}`$ they pinch point $`z=1`$. More careful analysis  shows that if the system is equilibrium then $`T(z)`$ may be singular at $`z=1`$ and $`z=\mathrm{}`$ only.

The position of singularity over $`z`$ and the asymptotic behavior of $`\sigma _n`$ are related closely. Indeed, for instance, inserting into (2.1) $`\sigma _n\mathrm{exp}\{cn^\gamma \}`$ we find that $`T(z)`$ is singular at $`z=1`$ if $`\gamma <1`$. Generally, using Mellin transformation,

$$\sigma _n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{z^{n+1}}T(z)$$
(2.2)
This integral can be calculated expanding it in vicinity of $`z_c`$, where $`z_c`$ is smallest real positive solution of equation:

$$n=z\frac{}{z}\mathrm{ln}T(z).$$
(2.3)
Then integral (2.2) have following estimation:

$$\sigma _ne^{n\mathrm{ln}z_c(n)},z_c>1.$$
(2.4)
Therefore, to have the singularity at $`z=1`$ we should consider $`z_c(n)`$ as a decreasing function of $`n`$. On other hand, at constant temperature, $`\mathrm{ln}z_c(n)\mu _c(n)`$ is the chemical potential, i.e. is a work necessary for one particle creation. So, the singularity at $`z=1`$ means that the system is unstable: the less work is necessary for creation of one more particle if $`\mu (n)`$ is the decreasing function of $`n`$.

The physical explanation of this phenomena is following, see also . Generating function $`T(z)`$ have following expansion:

$$T(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{l}{}z^lb_l\},$$
(2.5)
where $`b_l`$ are known as the Mayer’s group coefficients. They can be expressed through the inclusive correlation functions and may be used to describe formation of droplets of correlated particles. So, if droplet consist from $`l`$ particles, then

$$b_le^{\beta \xi l^{(d1)/d}}$$
(2.6)
is the mean number of such droplets. Here $`\xi l^{(d1)/d}`$ is the surface energy of $`d`$-dimensional droplet.

Inserting this estimation into (2.5),

$$\mathrm{ln}T(z)\underset{l}{}e^{\beta (l\mu \xi l^{(d1)/d})},\beta \mu =\mathrm{ln}z.$$
(2.7)
First term in the exponent is the volume energy of droplet and being positive it try to enlarge the droplet. The second surface term try to shrink it. Therefore, singularity at $`z=1`$ is the consequence of instability: at $`z>1`$ the volume energy abundance leads to unlimited grow of the droplet.

## 3 Condensation and type of asymptotics over multiplicity

It is important for VHM experiment to have upper restriction on the asymptotics. We wish to show that $`\sigma _n`$ decrease faster than any power of $`1/n`$:

$$\sigma _n<O(1/n).$$
(3.1)
To prove this estimation one should know the type of singularity at $`z=1`$. The detailed derivation of the model used for this purpose we will give in subsequent section.

One can imagine that the points, where the external particles are created, form the gas system. Here we assume that this system is equilibrium, i.e. there is not in this system macroscopical flows of energy, particles, charges and so on.

The lattice gas approximation is used to describe such system. This description is quite general and did not depend on details. Motion of the gas particles leads to necessity sum over all distributions of the particles on cells. For simplicity we will assume that only one particle can occupy the cell.

So, we will introduce the occupation number $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ in the $`i`$-th cell: $`\sigma _i=+1`$ we have not particle in the cell and $`\sigma _i=1`$ means that the particle exist. Assuming that the system is equilibrium we may use the ergodic hypothesis and sum over all ‘spin’ configurations of $`\sigma _i`$, with restriction: $`\sigma _i^2=1`$. It is well known  this restriction introduce the interactions.

Corresponding partition function in temperature representation

$$\rho (\beta ,H)=D\sigma e^{S\lambda (\sigma )}$$
(3.2)
where integration is performed over $`|\sigma (x)|\mathrm{}`$ and, considering the continuum limit, $`D\sigma =_xd\sigma (x)`$. The action

$$S_\lambda (\sigma )=𝑑x\left\{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma )^2\omega \sigma ^2+g\sigma ^4\lambda \sigma \right\}$$
(3.3)
where

$$\omega \left(1\frac{\beta _{cr}}{\beta }\right),g\frac{\beta _{cr}}{\beta },\lambda \left(\frac{\beta _{cr}}{\beta }\right)^{1/2}\beta H.$$
(3.4)
and $`1/\beta _{cr}`$ is the critical temperature.

### 3.1 Unstable vacuum

We start consideration from the case $`\omega >0`$, i.e. assuming that $`\beta >\beta _{cr}`$. In this case the ground state is degenerate if $`H=0`$. The extra term $`\sigma H`$ in (3.3) can be interpreted as the interaction with external magnetic field $`H`$. This term regulate number of ‘down’ spins with $`\sigma =1`$ and is related to the activity:

$$z^{1/2}=e^{\beta H},$$
(3.5)
i.e. $`H`$ coincide with chemical potential.

The potential

$$v(\sigma )=\omega \sigma ^2+g\sigma ^4,\omega >0,$$
(3.6)
has two minimums at

$$\sigma _\pm =\pm \sqrt{\omega /2g}.$$

If the dimension $`d>1`$ no tunnelling phenomena exist. But choosing $`H<0`$ the system in the right minimum (it correspond to the state without particles) becomes unstable. The system tunneling into the state with absolute minimum of energy.

The partition function $`\rho (\beta ,z)`$ becomes singular at $`H=0`$ because of this instability. The square root branch point gives

$$\mathrm{Im}\rho (b,z)=\frac{a_1(\beta )}{H^4}e^{a_2(\beta )/H^2},a_i>0.$$
(3.7)
Note, $`\mathrm{Im}\rho (b,z)=0`$ at $`H=0`$. Deforming contour of integration in (2.2) on the branch line,

$$\rho _n(\beta )=\frac{1}{\pi }_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{z^{n+1}}\frac{8a_1\beta ^4}{\mathrm{ln}^4z}e^{4a_2\beta ^2/\mathrm{ln}^2z}.$$
(3.8)
In this integral

$$z_c\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{8a_2\beta ^2}{n}\right\}^{1/3}$$
(3.9)
is essential. This leads to following estimation:

$$\rho _ne^{3(a_2\beta ^2)^{1/3}1/3n^{2/3}}<O(1/n).$$
(3.10)
It is useful to note at the end of this section that
(i) The value of $`\rho _n`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{Im}\rho (b,z)`$ and the metastable states, decay of which gives contribution into $`\mathrm{Re}\rho (b,z)`$, are not important.
(ii) It follows from (3.9) that in the VHM domain

$$HH_c\mathrm{ln}z_c(1/n)^{1/3}0.$$
(3.11)
So, the calculations are performed for the week external field case, when the degeneracy is weekly broken. It is evident that the life time of the unstable (without particles) state is large in this case and by this reason the used semiclassical approximation is rightful. This is important consequence of (1.1).

### 3.2 Stable vacuum

Let us consider now $`\omega <0`$, i.e. $`\beta \beta _{cr}`$. Potential (3.6) have only one minimum at $`\sigma =0`$ in this case. Inclusion of external field shifts the minimum to the point $`\sigma _c=\sigma _c(H)`$. In this case the expansion in vicinity of $`\sigma _c`$ should be useful. In result,

$$\rho (\beta ,z)=\mathrm{exp}\{𝑑x\lambda \sigma _cW(\sigma _c)\},$$
(3.12)
where $`W(\sigma _c)`$ can be expanded over $`\sigma _c`$:

$$W(\sigma _c)=\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{l}\underset{k}{}\{dx_k\sigma _c(x_k;H)\}\stackrel{~}{b}_l(x_1,\mathrm{},x_l).$$
(3.13)
In this expression $`\stackrel{~}{b}_l(x_1,\mathrm{},x_l)`$ is the one-particle irreducible $`l`$-point Green function, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{b}_l`$ is the virial coefficient. Then $`\sigma _c`$ can be considered as the effective activity of the correlated $`l`$-particle group.

The sum in (3.13) should be convergent and, therefore, $`|s_c|\mathrm{}`$ if $`|H|\mathrm{}`$. But in this case the virial decomposition is equivalent of the expansion over inverse density of particles . In the VHM region it is high and the mean field approximation becomes rightful. In result,

$$\sigma _c\left(\frac{|\lambda |}{4g}\right)^{1/3}:|s_c|\mathrm{}\mathrm{if}|\lambda |\mathrm{},$$
(3.14)
and

$$\rho (\beta ,z)e^{\frac{3|\lambda |^{4/3}}{(4g)^{1/3}}}\left\{12g\left(\frac{|\lambda |}{4g}\right)^{2/3}\right\}^{1/2}.$$
(3.15)
We can use this expression to calculate $`\rho _n`$. In this case

$$z_ce^{4gn^3}\mathrm{}\mathrm{at}n\mathrm{},$$
(3.16)
is essential and in the VHM domain

$$\rho _ne^{gn^4}<O(e^n).$$
(3.17)
This result is evident consequence of vacuum stability. It should be noted once more that the conditions (1.1) considerably simplify calculations.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion we wish to formulate once more the main assumptions.

(I). It was assumed first of all that the system under consideration is equilibrium. This condition may be naturally reached in the statistics, where one can wait the arbitrary time till the system becomes equilibrium. Note, in the critical domain the time of relaxation $`t_r(T_c/(TT_c))^\nu `$, $`(TT_c)+0`$, $`\nu >0`$, $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature.

We can not give the guarantee that in the high energy hadron collisions the final state system is equilibrium. The reason of this uncertainty is the finite time the inelastic processes and presence of hidden (confinement) constraints on the dynamics.

But we may formulate the quantitative conditions, when the equilibrium is hold . One should have the Gauss energy spectra of created particles. If this condition is hardly investigated on the experiment, then one should consider the relaxation of ‘long-range’ correlations. This excludes usage of relaxation condition for the ‘short-range’ (i.e. resonance) correlation

(II). The second condition consist in requirement that the system should be in the critical domain, where the (equilibrium) fluctuations of system becomes high. Having no theory of hadron interaction at high energies we can not define where is lie the ‘critical domain’ and even exist it or not.

But anyway, having the VHM ‘cold’ final state we can hope that the critical domain is achieved. Moreover, noting that the entropy reach its maximum at given incident energy, we can hope that the VHM state is equilibrium.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to V.G.Kadyshevski for interest to discussed in the paper questions. We would like to note with gratitude that the discussions with E.Kuraev was interesting and important.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY), as one of the most attractive options beyond the standard model (SM), has been studied for the past few decades . From the theoretical point of view it offers a solution to the hierarchy problem. On the other hand, a lot of effort has been devoted to looking at the phenomenological consequences of SUSY both in low-energy processes and at high-energy colliders . One of the candidates for a realistic model is the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM. In the SM, it is not possible to write down interactions which violate baryon number ($`B`$) or lepton number ($`L`$). In the SUSY version of the SM, particle spectrum is doubled and baryon number and lepton number are assigned to the supermultiplets, leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ interactions in the Lagrangian. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) it is assumed that $`B`$ and $`L`$ are conserved quantum numbers. This is ensured by imposing a discrete multiplicative symmetry called $`R`$ parity  which is defined as

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

where $`S`$ is the intrinsic spin of the particle.

It can be checked very easily that $`R`$ equals +1 for standard model particles and -1 for the superpartners. An immediate consequence of $`R`$-parity conservation is that the sparticles appear in pair at each interaction vertex. This leads to the fact that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable. The interactions of the LSP must be of weak strength because they are mediated by virtual sparticles which are known to be quite heavy (of the order of the electroweak scale). The most favorite candidate to become an LSP is the lightest neutralino and the search strategies for supersymmetry guided by the principle of $`R`$-parity conservation are to look for signals with large missing energy and momentum carried by an undetected neutralino . Also the LSP is a good candidate for the cold dark matter of the universe .

The conservation of $`R`$ parity, however, is not prompted by any strong theoretical reason, and theories where $`R`$ parity is violated through nonconservation of either $`B`$ or $`L`$ have been considered. Such scenarios can be studied by generalizing the MSSM superpotential to the following form :

$$W=W_{MSSM}+W_{\mathit{}},$$
(1)
with

$$W_{MSSM}=\mu \widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2+h_{ij}^l\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_1\widehat{E}_j^c+h_{ij}^d\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_1\widehat{D}_j^c+h_{ij}^u\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_2\widehat{U}_j^c$$
(2)
and

$$W_{\mathit{}}=\lambda _{ijk}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{L}_j\widehat{E}_k^c+\lambda _{ijk}^{}\widehat{L}_i\widehat{Q}_j\widehat{D}_k^c+ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_2+\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\widehat{U}_i^c\widehat{D}_j^c\widehat{D}_k^c.$$
(3)
Here, $`\widehat{H}_1`$, $`\widehat{H}_2`$ are the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ doublet Higgs superfields which give rise to the masses of down-type and up-type quark superfields, respectively, and $`\widehat{L}`$ $`(\widehat{Q})`$ denote lepton (quark) doublet superfields. $`\widehat{E}^c`$, $`\widehat{D}^c`$, $`\widehat{U}^c`$ are the singlet lepton and quark superfields. $`i,j,k`$ are the generational indices and we have suppressed the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ indices. The $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ are antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$ while the $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ are antisymmetric in $`j`$ and $`k`$. The first three terms in $`W_{\mathit{}}`$ violate lepton number and the last term violates baryon number. It is obvious that both the $`L`$ and $`B`$ violating terms cannot be present if the proton is stable. In order to get a large proton lifetime ($`10^{40}`$ s)  it is sufficient to demand that either $`L`$ or $`B`$ be violated which in turn breaks $`R`$ parity. $`R`$-parity violation leads to considerable changes in the phenomenology. The most important consequence is that the LSP can decay now. Also, the lightest neutralino need not be the LSP because it is no longer a stable particle. The lepton number and baryon number violating terms mentioned above have received a lot of attention and constraints have been derived on these new couplings from present experimental data . Prospects of $`R`$-parity violation have been studied in the context of following present and future colliders: CERN $`e^+e^{}`$ collider LEP, DESY $`ep`$ collider HERA, $`p\overline{p}`$ at Fermilab Tevatron, CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`e\gamma `$ Next Linear Collider (NLC) \[ReferencesReferences\]. Here we investigate the signatures of $`R`$-parity breaking at future $`e^{}e^{}`$ linear colliders. Our aim is to study the pair production of right selectrons ($`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$) which will then decay into an electron and a neutralino. Finally the neutralino will decay into multifermions through different $`R`$-parity-violating couplings.

In this paper we shall discuss the $`R`$ violation in three separate categories for the convenience of the analysis. We will consider, in turn, $`W_{\mathit{}}`$ with either the $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, or $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ terms existing in the superpotential at a time. The bilinear term $`ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_2`$ is also a viable agent for $`R`$-parity breaking which can induce vacuum expectation values for the sneutrino fields and generates a tree-level mass for one of the neutrinos . This scenario has been studied by several authors in the context of recent results from SuperKamiokande (SK) data on atmospheric neutrinos  and attempts have been made to find the correlation between the given pattern of neutrino masses and mixings and collider signatures of supersymmetry . So far, no work has been reported which includes the study of $`R`$-parity violation through the bilinear term in the context of $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders and we wish to discuss it in our future work which requires a separate analysis altogether .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the physics goals of $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders and their advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of a supersymmetry search. In Sec. 3 we will discuss the numerical results followed by our conclusions in Sec. 4.

## 2 Search for supersymmetry at $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider

As we know, the current $`e^+e^{}`$ collider at LEP is at the verge of its closing. Apart from putting some lower bounds on different SUSY particles, there has been no sign of new physics beyond the SM from LEP. Perhaps one can hope to see some signals beyond the SM at run II of Tevatron and, of course, the LHC, but the clean environment of the next generation $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider will definitely complement the signatures from hadron colliders. Even if SUSY is discovered at LHC, NLC can be used as a machine for precision measurements for different SUSY parameters .

Before going on to the discussion of the supersymmetry search, let us first mention in brief the unique features of an $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider which establishes its importance in order to make model independent measurements at future high-energy physics experiments . First of all, it should be emphasized that at linear colliders the replacement of a beam of positrons with a beam of electrons can be achieved in a rather straightforward manner and can lead to the option of colliding electron beams.

At $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders, the initial energy is well known and both $`e^{}`$ beams can be highly polarized so that the initial states are specified. The backgrounds are, in general, extremely suppressed and they can be reduced further with specific choices of the beam polarizations. However, the total electric charge $`Q`$ and total lepton number $`L`$ of $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders forbid the pair production of most of the superpartners by virtue of total charge and lepton number conservation. This is one disadvantage of $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders where only selectrons can be pair produced through the exchange of a Majorana neutralino in the $`\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\mathrm{u}`$ channels  as shown in Fig. 1. In contrast, at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, selectron pair production occurs through $`\mathrm{s}`$-channel $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange as well as through $`\mathrm{t}`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ exchange. The interference between the $`\mathrm{s}`$\- and $`\mathrm{t}`$-channel diagrams is always destructive for $`\sqrt{s}>m_Z`$ . In the $`e^{}e^{}`$ mode, since the $`\mathrm{u}`$-channel diagram is present along with the $`\mathrm{t}`$-channel diagram and the interference between them is constructive, the production cross section is always larger compared to the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode. This cross section can be further increased by choosing the initial electron beam polarization properly. It has been shown  that the right selectron pair production cross section is largest for the right-polarized initial electron beam. This can be explained from the fact that in most of the MSSM parameter space the LSP is B-ino dominated, which has a larger coupling with $`e_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ compared to $`e_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$. Furthermore, it turns out that the selectron pair production cross section for the unpolarized initial state is smaller than that of right-polarized electron beams.

Another important feature of the $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider is its behavior near threshold which shows a sharp rise in the selectron pair production cross section . This enables one to measure the selectron masses very accurately. In contrast, at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider the threshold measurement is rather poor, which compels one to determine the $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ mass (with an error of few GeV) from the measurement of the electron end point energy . The study of slepton flavor violation can also be done very effectively in an $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider.

In Fig. 2, we present contours for the cross section (in fb) for the production of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}`$ final states in the ($`\mu ,M_2`$) plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,20,40`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. The mass of the right selectron is assumed to be 150 GeV for the plots in the left column and 200 GeV for the plots in the right column.

The explanation of the variation of cross section with the parameters which appear in the neutralino mass matrix, as shown in Fig. 2, is as follows. The area ruled out by LEP-2 represents the region which is disallowed by the chargino search at LEP-2 and corresponds to a mass of the lighter chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$) less than 98 GeV . This limit comes purely from kinematic considerations and does not depend on whether $`R`$ parity is conserved or violated. The area which is marked as $`X`$ in the figure is not allowed because here the selectrons become lighter than the LSP and hence the selectron decaying to the lightest neutralino is forbidden 111In $`R`$-parity-violating models, it is also possible that the selectron, rather than the lightest neutralino, is the LSP, and can decay directly into two leptons (quarks) through the $`\lambda _{ijk}(\lambda _{ijk}^{})`$ couplings, respectively.. Since we are considering right selectron pair production, the contribution to the cross section comes mainly from the lightest neutralino which is dominated by a B-ino over a large part of the parameter space. Here we assume the grand unified theory (GUT) relationship between the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ gaugino soft mass parameters $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$, $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2`$. As the value of $`M_2`$ increases, the lightest neutralino starts becoming more and more B-ino dominated and hence the strength of the $`e_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ coupling increases at the same time. Also, the amplitude in this case requires a $`\mathrm{t}`$-channel neutralino mass insertion. These two effects combined together lead to an increase in the cross section when $`M_2`$ is increased for a fixed value of $`\mu `$ . This feature is evident from Fig. 2. For lower values of $`\mu `$, the B-ino component in the lightest neutralino starts decreasing which means a fall in the cross section and hence in order to get the same cross section the value of $`M_2`$ (consequently the value of $`M_1`$) must be increased. With the increase in selectron mass the available phase space reduces and in order to get the same cross section as in the left column one must go to higher values of $`M_2`$.

The decay of right selectron yields following final state:

$`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0.`$ (4)
This will give rise to two like-sign electrons and large $`p_T/`$ signature. This kind of a signal as shown in Eq. (4) and the relevant backgrounds have been well studied .

In light of the above discussion, the next question which comes to mind is what could be the potential signatures at an $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider when $`R`$ parity is violated. Recently, the effect of $`R`$ parity violation has been studied for the production process $`e_L^{}e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}`$ . In this work we will consider the pair production of right selectrons assuming $`90\%`$ right-polarized electron beams because of the larger cross section in this case. The subsequent analysis will not depend on the choice of initial electron polarization. As we will see in the following section, since the lightest neutralino will decay, it will lead to multilepton final states with missing energy almost free from standard model backgrounds. However, right selectrons can also decay into heavier neutralino states, if it is allowed by kinematics. In that case, the cascade decays of heavier neutralino will produce more complex signals. For the simplicity of our analysis, we will not consider such decay patterns here.

## 3 Decay of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and associated signals

In this section we will discuss the possible signatures arising from the decay of the LSP through different $`R`$-parity-violating interactions, through sfermion (sleptons and squarks) exchange diagrams. These Feynman diagrams and the amplitudes can be found in the literature . Here, we make the assumption that of all the couplings which violate $`R`$ parity, only one is dominant at a time, which is motivated from the fact that in the SM top quark Yukawa coupling is much larger than the others. Furthermore, we assume these couplings to be much smaller than the gauge couplings, though we require them to be large enough to make the LSP decay inside the detector. A generic $`R`$-parity-violating coupling should be larger than $`10^5`$ to satisfy the above requirement . In our subsequent analysis we take these couplings in the range $`10^1`$ \- $`10^2`$. If the $`R`$-parity-violating operator is of the type $`LLE^c`$, the final states will have two charged leptons and a neutrino. The flavor of these leptons are determined by the type of $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ coupling. If the $`R`$-parity-violating operator is of the type $`LQD^c`$, the final sates will have either one charged lepton or a neutrino associated with two quarks. Finally in the presence of baryon number violating coupling $`U^cD^cD^c`$, the final state will have three quarks. Throughout this analysis we assume 250 GeV left-slepton mass \[sneutrino mass is related to left-slepton mass through the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ relation\] and 500 GeV squark mass. All the squarks have been assumed to be degenerate in mass. In our parton level Monte Carlo analysis we treat quarks/partons as jets, and the direction of jets is same as that of the initial quarks/partons. We impose following selection criteria for these leptons and jets:

$`p_T^{\mathrm{}}>5\mathrm{GeV},|\eta _{\mathrm{}}|<3,`$ (5)
$`p_T^j>15\mathrm{GeV},|\eta _j|<3.`$ (6)
We merge two jets into a single jet if their angular separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}<0.7`$, where $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )_{jj}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{jj})^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{jj}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{jj}`$ being the difference of pseudorapidities and azimuthal angles, respectively, corresponding to two jets. The lepton is isolated from a jet if $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jl}>0.4`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jl}`$ is defined in the same way as above.

### 3.1 Signals from $`\lambda `$-type couplings

Let us now discuss the signals which can be looked for when $`R`$ parity is violated through the terms of the type $`\lambda LLE^c`$. The pair-produced LSPs from the decay of the two right selectrons will lead to the final state consisting of $`e^{}e^{}+4\mathrm{}^\pm +p_T/`$. The flavor of the leptons coming from the neutralino decay will depend on the particular type of coupling involved. For example, $`\lambda _{123}`$ coupling gives

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _e\mu ^{}\tau ^+,e^{}\nu _\mu \tau ^+,\overline{\nu }_e\mu ^+\tau ^{},e^+\overline{\nu }_\mu \tau ^{},`$ (7)
with equal probabilities. Here, for simplicity we have considered a common value for all $`\lambda `$-type couplings taken to be $`0.07(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}/100\mathrm{GeV})`$, close to the existing indirect bounds relevant for most of those couplings. In order to tag the lepton flavor one must multiply the signal cross section with the efficiency of the corresponding lepton flavor identification.

Since there are two neutrinos in the final states, reconstructing the mass of the LSP in such a case is not possible. However, the kind of final state mentioned above is spectacular in the sense that it is free from standard model background and permits easy detection at a 500 GeV $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider.

In Fig. 3, we have shown the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) distribution of the charged leptons produced in the final state for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=150`$ GeV, and the following the set of input parameters $`\mu =450`$ GeV, $`M_2=200`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$. For this set of parameter points $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=103`$ GeV and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}=206`$ GeV. For later studies of the distributions we will use this set of input parameters. It is easy to see from this distribution that all six leptons survive the $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}>5`$ GeV cut. Out of six leptons, two come from the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$; the remaining four leptons come from the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$.

We display in Table 1, some representative values of the cross sections in order to get an idea about the strength of the signal. In obtaining these numbers, we required six leptons satisfying the criteria given in Eq. (5), and in addition imposed that $`p_T/>15`$ GeV. The $`p_T/`$ requirement ensures that the signal is SM background free. Two values of the right selectron mass, namely, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=150`$ (GeV) and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=200`$ (GeV), have been considered for the calculation of the cross sections. We have considered the actual branching ratios of the decays of right selectrons including the direct decays through $`R`$-parity-violating couplings as well as decays into heavier neutralinos. It has already been mentioned that if the decays into heavier neutralino states are allowed kinematically, they will lead to more complex signals which we have not considered in this work. For a fixed value of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with increasing $`M_2`$, the LSP mass increases; hence the MSSM decay of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decreases because of phase-space suppression, favoring the direct decay of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ through $`R`$-parity-violating $`\lambda _{231}`$, which in turn reduces our signal. As is evident from this table, large cross sections may be obtained for a considerable region of the parameter space and with a projected integrated luminosity of 50 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at an $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider one could see some thousands of events. It must be noted at this point that if taus are produced in the final state, they would decay mainly into hadrons, but that requires a separate analysis.

### 3.2 Signals from $`\lambda ^{}`$-type couplings

The decay pattern of the LSP changes as we go on to the $`R`$-parity-violating couplings of the type $`\lambda ^{}LQD^c`$. For example, $`\lambda _{123}^{}`$ coupling gives

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _es\overline{b},e^{}cb,\overline{\nu }_e\overline{s}b,e^+\overline{c}b.`$ (8)
As before, we again consider a common value for all $`\lambda ^{}`$-type couplings. To identify the final state flavors one has to take into account the reduction in cross section due to flavor tagging efficiency. It should be mentioned at this point that unlike the $`\lambda `$ case here all final states are not equiprobable. We categorize the signals in the following manner. All these states are assumed to be accompanied by two like-sign dielectrons arising from $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ decay: (1) $`2\mathrm{}^\pm `$ \+ jets; both $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^\pm jj`$; (2) jets + $`p_T/`$ ; both $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu jj`$; (3) $`\mathrm{}^\pm +\mathrm{jets}+p_T/`$ ; one $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^\pm jj`$, the other $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu jj`$.

The last channel will be enhanced by a combinatoric factor of 2. We have folded the cross section with the branching fraction of the LSP. The selection cuts (as discussed earlier) are applied to the leptons and jets. After the energy ordering ($`E_{j_1}>E_{j_2}>E_{j_3}>E_{j_4}`$), we study the jet $`p_T`$ distribution as shown in Fig. 4. These jets and charged leptons are also associated with large $`p_T/`$ arising from neutrinos for channels ($`2`$) and ($`3`$) listed above. The $`p_T/`$ distribution is shown in Fig. 5. The distribution $`a`$ corresponds to the case when both the LSP decays into the $`\nu jj`$ channel, where as $`b`$ represents the $`p_T/`$ distribution when one of the LSP decays through the $`\nu jj`$ mode and the other one through the $`\mathrm{}^\pm jj`$ mode.

Finally in Table 2 we give cross sections for signals for two $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ masses 150 GeV and 200 GeV. We required four jets and, respectively, four, three, or two leptons satisfying the criteria given in Eqs. (6) and (5), for channels ($`1`$), ($`2`$), and ($`3`$) listed above. In addition, $`p_T/>15`$ GeV is imposed for channels ($`2`$) and ($`3`$). Cross sections for heavier right-selectron mass ($`=200`$ GeV) are lower than the corresponding quantities for 150 GeV $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ mass, just because of a lack of enough phase space. The difference in the three cross sections in each row can be explained from the branching ratio of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in two different channels $`\mathrm{}^\pm jj`$ and $`\nu jj`$. The inputs remain same as in Table 1. The cross sections for these various channels are fairly large over a wide region of parameter space which is accessible in a 500 GeV $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider. Signals corresponding to $`e^{}e^{}+\mathrm{jets}+p_T/`$ and $`e^{}e^{}+\mathrm{}^\pm +\mathrm{jets}+p_T/`$ final states may have the standard model background coming from $`W^{}W^{}ZZ`$ production. But this cross section is found to be too low ($`<40`$ fb) and does not affect the signal in a significant way.

If the produced LSP is highly relativistic, then its decay products will be confined within a narrow cone around the direction of the LSP. In that case, the lepton (decaying from LSP) in a particular hemisphere is identified and its invariant mass is constructed with all jets in the same hemisphere. A similar thing is done in the opposite hemisphere. Then we demand that these two invariant masses should lie within 10 GeV of each other. If these two invariant masses are equal or nearly equal, we can say that they arise from the same parent particle. In Fig. 6(a) we represent such an invariant mass distribution, which shows a distinct peak at the LSP mass ($`=103`$ GeV). In order to get an estimate of the mass resolution, we have used Gaussian smearing  of the energies of jets and leptons to “mimic” the response of a detector:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_j/E_j=0.4/\sqrt{E_j}+0.02,\mathrm{\Delta }E_l/E_l=0.15/\sqrt{E_l}+0.01.`$ (9)
In Fig. 6(b), we show the mass distribution after energy smearing. The LSP mass determined in this way has resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/M=4\%`$. It should also be noted that for about 80$`\%`$ of the total events the mass reconstructed in both sides lies within 10 GeV of each other. In principle one can also reconstruct the selectron mass in this way, but a more precise determination can be done by a threshold scan .

### 3.3 Signals from $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$-type couplings

Finally, the presence of $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ in the superpotential can induce $`B`$ number violating decay of the LSP. In this case, the LSP will simply decay into three hadronic jets:

$`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}+\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}e^{}+e^{}+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}e^{}+6\mathrm{jets},`$ (10)
where the sets of three jets have invariant mass peaking at the neutralino mass (assuming all jets are seen). As before, we impose the selection cuts on leptons and at least four jets. From the $`p_T`$ distribution of six jets in Fig. 7 it is clear that for this value of the LSP mass ($`=103`$ GeV), most of the jets are hard enough to satisfy the jet trigger requirement as discussed previously. From the jet number distributions in Fig. 8, we see that most of the time the cross section prefers to peak at the five-jet channel ($`44.69\%`$ of the events), followed by the six-jet ($`42.86\%`$ of the events) and four-jet ($`11.83\%`$ of the events) channels. The three-jet fraction of the cross section is less than $`0.5\%`$. Imposition of $`p_T^j>15`$ GeV and $`|\eta _j|<3`$ cuts on the jets reduces the jet number. Finally we also merge two jets into a single jet if their angular separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}<0.7`$. The probability of jet merging is highly dependent on the mass of the parent particle from which the jets originate and also on $`\sqrt{s}`$. The larger the boost of the parent particle, the higher the probability of jet merging. In this case, a 103 GeV LSP is produced from the decay of a 150 GeV right selectron. Each of these LSPs then decays into three jets with a reasonable boost, leading six jets to merge into five jets and occasionally into four and three jets.

In Table 3 we give signal cross sections for some representative values of parameters. In this case, we assume the squark mass to be 500 GeV, which enters as a propagator in the decay LSP. One can also reconstruct the LSP mass using the following strategy: selecting the hardest jet in the final state, its invariant mass is then constructed with all other jets in that hemisphere. A similar thing is done in the opposite hemisphere. Then we demand that these two invariant masses should lie within 10 GeV of each other. If these two invariant masses are equal or nearly equal, we can say that they arise from the same parent particle. Though we will not present here the invariant mass distribution, similar kinds of studies have been done by other authors and also by the ALEPH Collaboration in their study of the (now defunct) four-jet anomaly .

Before we conclude, we would like to mention the possible SM backgrounds in this case. We have earlier found that most of the time the signal cross section prefers to peak around five and six jets, free from any SM background. However, there is a small fraction of cross section that goes into four-jet channels, which is less important for our purpose as far as the SM backgrounds are concerned. This particular signal has SM backgrounds from (a) $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}ZZ`$, (b) $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}Z^{}Z`$, and (c) $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}Z^{}Z^{}`$, with hadronic decay of $`Z`$ (assuming all jets are seen).

One can make a rough estimate for this background. After putting the selection cuts and including the relevant branching ratios the cross section for $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}Z`$ is of the order of $`100`$ fb. This cross section will get electroweak suppression if another $`Z`$ boson is radiated; moreover, the $`\mathrm{Br}.(Zq\overline{q})`$ will further reduce this. After all these, if this background is still comparable to the signal, then this can be eliminated by imposing the condition that the pair of dijet invariant mass $`M_{jj}`$ should not peak around $`M_Z`$. However, this may reduce the signal cross section in the region of parameter space where the LSP mass is nearly degenerate with $`M_Z`$. The detailed calculation of the other two backgrounds \[(b) and (c)\] is very cumbersome and we will not perform this here. In this case, our main thrust will be to count the jets in the final state (associated with two electrons) to distinguish it from the background.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discussed the pair production of right selectrons at a 500 GeV $`e^{}e^{}`$ linear collider in the $`R`$-parity-violating supersymmetric model. The decay of right selectrons can yield a final state with an electron and a neutralino, mostly the LSP. Hence, we have two like-sign dielectrons and neutralinos in the final state. We have assumed that $`R`$ parity is weakly violated and thus only the LSP will decay into multifermion states. Different possibilities have been considered and it seems that rather optimistic signals can be seen for this kind of model. The decay of the LSP gives charged leptons, jets, and neutrinos in the final state. The behavior of these leptons, jets, and missing transverse momentum (mainly due to neutrinos) has been analyzed using a parton level Monte Carlo event generator. This also enables us to study the approximate distributions for different kinematic variables of leptons and jets. The decay of the LSP through $`L`$-number-violating coupling ($`\lambda `$) leads to a very distinct signal with hard isolated leptons and large missing transverse momentum. There are no SM processes which can mimic this signal. Similarly, for $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ couplings, the signal basically consists of charged leptons, multiple jets, and/or missing transverse momentum. In addition to this, the Majorana nature of the LSP gives rise to like-sign dilepton signals with practically no SM backgrounds. It has been demonstrated that the reconstruction of the lepton-jet invariant mass can give a rough estimate for the LSP mass. For $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ coupling, the final state will have multiple jets associated with like-sign dielectrons. We have shown that proper jet counting is required to distinguish the signal from the SM backgrounds. In this case also it might be possible to determine the LSP mass from the jet invariant mass reconstruction.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya and Sreerup Raychaudhuri for helpful discussions.


text:
# 1 a) The quantized Prisoner’s Dilemma, as described in []. The pair of qubits are prepared in the unentangled state |𝐶𝐶⟩ and then sent through the entangling gate 𝐽̂. Players 𝐴 and 𝐵 then apply their local unitary operations 𝐴̂⊗𝐼̂ and 𝐼̂⊗𝐵̂, respectively. A gate inverse to 𝐽̂ is applied before the final measurement. b) The Prisoner’s Dilemma pay-off table chosen in [].

Comment on “Quantum Games and Quantum Strategies”

In a recent Letter, Eisert et al.  presented a quantum mechanical generalization of Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the classical form of this game, rational analysis leads the two players to ‘defect’ against one-another in a mutually destructive fashion . A central result of Eisert et al.’s Letter is the observation that their quantum variant, illustrated in Figure 1, can avoid the ‘dilemma’: the mutually destructive outcome is replaced with an effectively cooperative one. Specifically, it is asserted that the maximally entangled game’s unique Nash equilibrium  occurs when both players apply the strategy $`\widehat{Q}=i\sigma _z`$, yielding a pay-off equivalent to cooperative behaviour in the classical game.

In this Comment we show that their observation is incorrect. The mistake follows from the following erroneous assertion:

> It proves to be sufficient to restrict the strategic space to the 2-parameter set of unitary 2 x 2 matrices,
>
> $$\widehat{U}(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta /2& \mathrm{sin}\theta /2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta /2& e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta /2\end{array}\right),$$
> (1)
> with $`0\theta \pi `$ and $`0\varphi \pi /2`$.

Here we explicitly consider the complete set of *all* local unitary operations (*i.e.* all of $`SU(2)`$), finding that the properties of the game are wholly different: the strategy $`\widehat{Q}`$ is not an equilibrium; indeed, there is no equilibrium in the space of deterministic quantum strategies. Moreover, it seems unlikely that the restriction to the set $`\widehat{U}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ can reflect any reasonable physical constraint (limited experimental resources, say) because this set is not closed under composition. An ideal counter strategy to $`\widehat{Q}`$, for example, is $`i\sigma _x`$, which is equal to $`\widehat{U}(0,\pi /2)\widehat{U}(\pi ,0)`$. The game of  therefore does not constitute a reasonable variant of the general case we consider here.

We will write the operations applied by the players in the form $`\widehat{A}\widehat{B}`$, where $`\widehat{A}`$ is applied to the qubit controlled by $`A`$ and similarly for $`\widehat{B}`$. Suppose that player $`A`$ applies transformation $`\widehat{X}`$ to her qubit, prepared as the first qubit in the maximally entangled state

$$\widehat{J}|CC=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|CC+i|DD),$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{J}=\mathrm{exp}\{i\pi \widehat{D}\widehat{D}/4\}`$ and $`\widehat{D}=i\sigma _y`$ is the ‘defect’ matrix of . The most general $`\widehat{X}SU(2)`$ is of the form $`\widehat{X}=(x_{ij})`$, where $`x_{11}=x_{22}^{}`$, $`x_{12}=x_{21}^{}`$ and $`det\widehat{X}=1`$. Therefore, $`A`$ produces the state $`(\widehat{X}\widehat{I})\widehat{J}|CC=(I\widehat{Y})J|CC`$ for $`\widehat{Y}=(y_{ij})SU(2)`$, where $`y_{11}=x_{11}`$ and $`y_{12}=ix_{12}`$. In other words, any unitary transformation which $`A`$ applies locally to her qubit is actually equivalent to a unitary transformation applied locally by $`B`$. Consequently, if $`B`$ were to choose $`\widehat{D}\widehat{Y}^{}`$, we would have a final state $`\widehat{J}^{}(\widehat{X}\widehat{D}\widehat{Y}^{})\widehat{J}|CC=\widehat{J}^{}(\widehat{I}\widehat{D}\widehat{Y}^{}\widehat{Y})\widehat{J}|CC=|CD`$, the optimal outcome for $`B`$. Thus, for any given strategy of $`A`$, there is an ideal counter-strategy for $`B`$, and vice-versa; there is no Nash equilibrium of the kind suggested by Eisert et al. .

To obtain such equilibria we must extend the abilities of the players: it suffices to allow them to make probabilistic choices (rather than the full formalism of completely positive maps considered in footnote 14 of ). Suppose that $`A`$ adopts the following strategy: she will choose a move $`\widehat{X}SU(2)`$ at random with respect to the Haar measure on $`SU(2)`$. If $`B`$ responds with $`\widehat{Y}_0SU(2)`$ then the probability that outcome $`i\{CC,CD,DC,DD\}`$ will be measured is

$`P_i(\widehat{Y}_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}\left|i\left|\widehat{J}^{}(\widehat{X}\widehat{Y}_0)\widehat{J}\right|CC\right|^2𝑑\widehat{X}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}\left|i\left|\widehat{J}^{}(\widehat{X}\widehat{X}_0^{}\widehat{X}_0I)\widehat{J}\right|CC\right|^2𝑑\widehat{X}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{SU(2)}}\left|i\left|\widehat{J}^{}(\widehat{X}\widehat{I})\widehat{J}\right|CC\right|^2𝑑\widehat{X}`$
$`=P_i(\widehat{I}),`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{X}_0SU(2)`$ is chosen such that $`(\widehat{X}_0\widehat{I})\widehat{J}|CC=(\widehat{I}\widehat{Y}_0)\widehat{J}|CC`$ and we have used the right invariance of the Haar measure, assumed to be normalized such that the volume of $`SU(2)`$ is $`1`$. Thus, $`B`$’s choice of strategy does not matter; regardless of his choice, his expected pay-off is simply an unbiased average over the classical pay-offs. Therefore, the situation where both players adopt this random strategy is a Nash equilibrium: neither player can improve his or her payoff by unilaterally altering choice of strategy.

As a final point, we note that one can construct Prisoner’s Dilemma-type pay-off tables for which the quantum equilibrium pay-off we describe above is below the classical equilibrium pay-off, or above it, or even above the classical cooperative pay-off. In this last case the ‘dilemma’ may be said to have been removed . To this extent the behavior of the quantum generalization is qualitatively different from the classical case, although in a way that is perhaps less surprising than originally suggested by Eisert *et al.*

We thank Neil Johnson for helpful conversations. SB is supported by EPSRC. PH acknowledges the support of the Rhodes Trust.

Simon C. Benjamin and Patrick M. Hayden

Centre for Quantum Computation

University of Oxford

Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road

Oxford OX1 3PU, UK

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 02.50.Le, 03.65.Bz