text:
# Scalar Mesons and Glueballs in a Chiral 𝑈(3)×𝑈(3) Quark Model with ’t Hooft Interaction.

## 1.  Introduction

The self-interaction of gluons, a peculiarity of QCD, gave an idea that gluons can form bound states that can propagate particlelike in the space. Unfortunately, because of theoretical problems, there is still no exact answer on do these states really exist or not. However, from recent lattice simulations  one can conclude that it is most probably that glueballs are the reality of our world. Having assumed that glueballs exist, one can try to construct a model to describe their interaction with other mesons, their properties, such as, e.g., the mass and the decay width, and to identify them with observed resonances.

An exact microscopic description of bound gluon states cannot be done systematically in the framework of QCD. In this situation, QCD-motivated phenomenological models are the tool which can help to deal with glueballs as well as with quarkonia which form the most of observed meson states. However, using these models to describe glueballs, we encounter many difficulties concerning, e.g., the ambiguity of the ways of including glueballs into models and identification of experimentally observed meson states. This justifies the variety of points of view on this problem.

First of all, we do not know the exact mass of a glueball. From the quenched QCD lattice simulations, Weingarten (see e.g. ) concluded that the lightest scalar glueball is expected around 1.7 GeV. Amsler  considered the state $`f_0(1500)`$ as a candidate for the scalar glueball. QCD sum rules  and K-matrix method  showed that both $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ are mixed states with large admixture of the glueball component.

All the bound isoscalar $`q\overline{q}`$ states are subject to mixing with glueballs, and their spectrum has many interpretations made by different authors. For instance, Palano  suggested a scenario, in which the states $`a_0(980)`$, $`K_0^{}(1430)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, and $`f_0(1400)`$ form a nonet. The state $`f_0(1500)`$ is considered as the scalar glueball. Törnqvist et al.  looked upon the states $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$ as manifestations of the ground and excited $`s\overline{s}`$ states, and the state $`f_0(4001200)`$ as the ground $`u\overline{u}`$ state. Eef van Beveren et al.  considered the states $`f_0(4001200)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$ as ground $`u\overline{u}`$ states, and the states $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1500)`$ as ground $`s\overline{s}`$ states. Two states for each $`q\overline{q}`$ system occur due to pole doubling, which takes place for scalar mesons in their model. Shakin et al.  obtained from a nonlocal confinement model that the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance is the ground $`u\overline{u}`$ state and $`f_0(1370)`$ is the ground $`s\overline{s}`$ state. The state $`f_0(1500)`$ is considered as a radial excitation of $`f_0(980)`$. They believe the mass of scalar glueball to be 1770 MeV.

In our recent papers , following the methods given in Refs. , we showed that all experimentally observed scalar meson states with masses in the interval from 0.4 GeV till 1.7 GeV can be interpreted as members of two scalar meson nonets — the ground meson nonet and its first radial excitation. We considered all scalar mesons as $`q\overline{q}`$ states and took into account the singlet-octet mixing caused by the ’t Hooft interaction. However, we did not describe the scalar state $`f_0(1500)`$. We supposed that this state contained a significant component of the scalar glueball (see ).

In this work, we introduce the glueball field into our effective Lagrangian as a dilaton and describe it and its mixing with the scalar isoscalar $`q\overline{q}`$ states. We consider only ground $`q\overline{q}`$ states. As a result, we describe three scalar mesons $`f_0(4001200)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, and $`f_0(1500)`$ (or $`f_0(1710)`$). Let us note that the model we present here is just a tentative one. In this model, we probe one of the possible ways of including the scalar glueball into a model that would describe the glueball state and quarkonia simultaneously.

In various works (see e.g. ), the authors introduced the glueball into meson Lagrangians using the principle of scale invariance and the dilaton model. For example, $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ models were considered  and the $`U(3)\times U(3)`$ model, however, without the ’t Hooft interaction was investigated in . Here we follow these works and introduce the scalar glueball state into the Lagrangian constructed in .

In this paper, we introduce the dilaton field into the phenomenological meson Lagrangian obtained from the effective quark interaction of the NJL type after bosonization. We take the meson Lagrangian in a chirally symmetric form (before the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry), where only quadratic meson terms are of scale-noninvariant form, therefore, we introduce the dilaton field only into these (massive) terms. To this Lagrangian, we add the potential describing the dilaton self-interaction in the form given in Ref.  and dilaton kinetic term.

After introducing the glueball into our effective Lagrangian we describe the mixing of three scalar mesons: two scalar isoscalar $`(q\overline{q})`$ states and the glueball. As a result, we obtain the mass spectrum of these scalar meson states and also describe their main strong decays.

We emphasize once more that we do not claim this model to give a quantitative description of experimental data. We do not take into account the states $`f_0(1370)`$ and one of the states $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1710)`$ which could not be neglected if the real meson spectrum were our goal. We intend to obtain rather qualitative estimates that will allow us to choose a more reasonable way of including the scalar glueball field into the effective meson Lagrangian.

In Section 2, we discuss an effective meson Lagrangian with the ’t Hooft interaction. In Section 3, we introduce a dilaton field into the Lagrangian. In Section 4, we derive gap equations for the masses of $`u(d)`$ and $`s`$ quarks. We also deduce a set of equations allowing us to bind two of the three new parameters connected with the dilaton field. In Section 5, we obtain mass formulae for scalar mesons and the dilaton and describe the singlet-octet mixing among quarkonia and the mixing of the dilaton with two isosinglet scalar mesons. Here we fix the new model parameters and give their numerical estimates as well as the estimates for the masses of scalar mesons and the glueball. In Section 6, we calculate the widths of main strong decays of the scalar mesons and the glueball. In the Conclusion, we discuss obtained results.

## 2. Chiral effective Lagrangian with ’t Hooft interaction

A $`U(3)\times U(3)`$ chiral Lagrangian with the ’t Hooft interaction was investigated in paper . It consists of three terms as shown in formula (1). The first term represents the free quark Lagrangian, the second is composed of four-quark vertices as in the NJL model, and the last one describes the six-quark ’t Hooft interaction that is necessary to solve the $`U_A(1)`$ problem.

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}(i\widehat{}m^0)q+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{8}{}}}[(\overline{q}\lambda _aq)^2+(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\lambda _aq)^2]`$ (1)
$`K\left\{det[\overline{q}(1+\gamma _5)q]+det[\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)q]\right\}.`$
Here $`\lambda _a(a=1,\mathrm{},8)`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices and $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{2/3}`$1, with 1 being the unit matrix; $`m^0`$ is a current quark mass matrix with diagonal elements $`m_u^0`$, $`m_d^0`$, $`m_s^0`$ $`(m_u^0m_d^0)`$.

The standard treatment for local quark models consists in replacing the four-quark vertices with bosonic fields (bosonization). The final effective bosonic Lagrangian appears as a result of the calculation of the quark determinant. First of all, using the method described in , we go from Lagrangian (1) to a Lagrangian which contains only four-quark vertices222 In addition to the one-loop corrections of constants of four-quark vertices, we allow for two-loop contributions from the ’t Hooft interaction that modify the current quark masses. Thus, we avoid the problem of double counting of the ’t Hoot contribution in gap equations which was encountered by the author in .

$`L=\overline{q}(i\widehat{}\overline{m}^0)q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[G_{ab}^{()}(\overline{q}\tau _aq)(\overline{q}\tau _bq)+G_{ab}^{(+)}(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\tau _aq)(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\tau _bq)],`$ (2)
where

$`\tau _a=\lambda _a(a=1,\mathrm{},7),\tau _8=(\sqrt{2}\lambda _0+\lambda _8)/\sqrt{3},`$
$`\tau _9=(\lambda _0+\sqrt{2}\lambda _8)/\sqrt{3},`$
$`G_{11}^{(\pm )}=G_{22}^{(\pm )}=G_{33}^{(\pm )}=G\pm 4Km_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s),`$
$`G_{44}^{(\pm )}=G_{55}^{(\pm )}=G_{66}^{(\pm )}=G_{77}^{(\pm )}=G\pm 4Km_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u),`$
$`G_{88}^{(\pm )}=G4Km_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s),G_{99}^{(\pm )}=G,`$
$`G_{89}^{(\pm )}=G_{98}^{(\pm )}=\pm 4\sqrt{2}Km_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)`$
$`G_{ab}=0(ab;a,b=1,\mathrm{},7),`$ (3)
$`\overline{m}_u^0`$ $`=`$ $`m_u^032Km_um_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s),`$ (4)
$`\overline{m}_s^0`$ $`=`$ $`m_s^032Km_u^2I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)^2.`$ (5)
Here $`m_u`$ and $`m_s`$ are constituent quark masses and the integrals

$`I_n^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_a)={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d_e^4k\frac{\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2)}{(k^2+m_a^2)^n}}`$ (6)
are calculated (for simplicity) in the Euclidean metric and regularized by a simple $`O(4)`$-symmetric ultra-violet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The mass $`m_a`$ can be $`m_u`$ or $`m_s`$.

Now it is necessary to bosonize Lagrangian (2). After bosonization and renormalization of the meson fields, we obtain

$`L(\sigma ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_ag_b}{2}}\left(\sigma _a(G^{()})_{ab}^1\sigma _b+Z\varphi _a(G^{(+)})_{ab}^1\varphi _b\right)`$
$`i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\widehat{}m}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{9}{}}}g_a\tau _a(\sigma _a+i\gamma _5\sqrt{Z}\varphi _a)\right\},`$ (7)
where $`(G^{(\pm )})^1`$ is the inverse of $`G^{(\pm )}`$, and $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\sigma _a`$ are the pseudoscalar and scalar fields, respectively.

$`g_1^2=g_2^2=g_3^2=g_8^2=g_u^2=[4I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)]^1,`$
$`g_4^2=g_5^2=g_6^2=g_7^2=[4I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u,m_s)]^1,`$
$`g_9^2=g_s^2=[4I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)]^1,`$
$`I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u,m_s)={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d_e^4k\frac{\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2)}{(k^2+m_u^2)(k^2+m_s^2)}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{(4\pi )^2(m_s^2m_u^2)}}\left[m_s^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_s^2}}+1\right)m_u^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_u^2}}+1\right)\right],`$ (8)
$`Z=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{6m_u}{M_{A_1}^2}}\right)^11.44,`$ (9)
where $`M_{A_1}`$ is the mass of the axial-vector meson.

In the one-loop approximation the meson Lagrangian looks as follows333 The expression under Tr in (10) is written formally for the reason of being concise and is not ready for practical use. One will find which $`g_a`$ should be taken, considering the corresponding quark-loop diagrams.

$`L(\sigma ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[(_\mu \sigma _a)^2+(_\mu \varphi _a)^2]+`$
$`+\left[(m_um_u^0)(G^{()})_{88}^1{\displaystyle \frac{m_sm_s^0}{\sqrt{2}}}(G^{()})_{98}^18m_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)\right]g_8\sigma _8`$
$`+\left[(m_u\overline{m}_u^0)(G^{()})_{89}^1{\displaystyle \frac{m_s\overline{m}_s^0}{\sqrt{2}}}(G^{()})_{99}^1+8{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{\sqrt{2}}}I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)\right]g_9\sigma _9`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}g_ag_b\left[\sigma _a(G^{()})_{ab}^1\sigma _b+Z\varphi _a(G^{(+)})_{ab}^1\varphi _b\right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\{g^2[8I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m)(\sigma ^2+Z\varphi ^2)`$
$`(\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\{M,\sigma \}_+}{g}}+Z\varphi ^2)^2+[(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}),\varphi ]_{}^2]\},`$ (10)
$`C_a=0(a=1,\mathrm{},7),C_8=1,C_9={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (11)
It is useful to notice that Lagrangian (10) can be given a chirally symmetric form. For this purpose, we introduce fields $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma mg^1`$ that have nonzero expectation values, $`<\sigma ^{}>_00`$ . Here

$$g=g_8\tau _8\frac{g_9\tau _9}{\sqrt{2}};m=m_u\tau _8+\frac{m_s\tau _9}{2}.$$
(12)
This is the form of the effective Lagrangian in the case of unbroken chiral symmetry:

$`L(\sigma ^{},\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[(_\mu \sigma _{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{})^2+(_\mu \varphi _a)^2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}\left[\left(g_a\sigma _a^{}+\mu _a\right)(G^{()})_{ab}^1\left(g_b\sigma _b^{}+\mu _b\right)+Zg_ag_b\varphi _a(G^{(+)})_{ab}^1\varphi _b\right]+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{8g^2(I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m)+m^2I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m))(\sigma ^2+Z\varphi ^2)g^2[(\sigma ^2+Z\varphi ^2)^2Z[\sigma ^{},\varphi ]_{}^2]\right\},`$ (13)
$`\mu _a=0(a=1,\mathrm{},7),\mu _8=\overline{m}_u^0,\mu _9={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_s^0}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (14)
where $`\sigma ^{}=_{a=1}^9\sigma _a\tau ^a`$ and $`\varphi =_{a=1}^9\varphi _a\tau ^a`$. From (13), one can see that, in the one-loop approximation, our Lagrangian does not violate chiral symmetry if $`m^0=0`$, and the ’t Hooft interaction is switched off. Let us require the chiral and scale invariance both to be properties of the effective Lagrangian. We remind that the QCD Lagrangian satisfies this requirement in the chiral limit ($`m^0=0`$). The scale invariance of the effective meson Lagrangian is restored by means of a dilaton field  introduced into the Lagrangian so that it provides a proper dimension for each Lagrangian term. The dilaton field is introduced only into the mass terms. We also introduce the dilaton potential intended to reproduce QCD scale anomaly .

## 3. Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with dilaton

Following earlier works devoted to dilatons, we introduce a color singlet dilaton field $`\chi `$ that experiences a potential

$`V(\chi )=B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\chi _0}}\right)^4[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\chi _0}}\right)^41].`$ (15)
It has a minimum at $`\chi =\chi _0`$, and the parameter $`B`$ represents the vacuum energy, when there are no quarks. The curvature of the potential at its minimum determines the bare glueball mass

$`m_g={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{B}}{\chi _0}}.`$ (16)
To introduce the dilaton field into the effective meson Lagrangian (13), we use the following principle. Insofar as the QCD Lagrangian, with the current quark masses equal to zero, is chiral and scale invariant, we suppose that our effective meson Lagrangian, motivated by QCD, has also to be chiral and scale invariant in the case when the current quark masses and the ’t Hooft interaction are equal to zero. Then, instead of Lagrangian (13), we obtain

$`L(\sigma ^{},\varphi ,\chi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[(_\mu \sigma _{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{})^2+(_\mu \varphi _a)^2]`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[(g_a\sigma _a^{}+\mu _a)(G^{()})_{ab}^1(g_b\sigma _b^{}+\mu _b)+Zg_ag_b\varphi _a(G^{(+)})_{ab}^1\varphi _b]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{8g^2(I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m)+m^2I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m))(\sigma ^2+Z\varphi ^2)\right\}\left\}\right({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\chi _c}})^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{g^2[(\sigma ^2+Z\varphi ^2)^2Z[\sigma ^{},\varphi ]_{}^2]\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \chi )^2V(\chi ),`$ (17)
where $`\chi _c`$ is the vacuum expectation value of dilaton fields $`\chi =\overline{\chi }+\chi _c`$, $`<\chi >_0=\chi _c`$ and $`<\overline{\chi }>_0=0`$.444 Since the mass of current quark explicitly breaks the scale invariance of the model, there is no need to make these terms scale invariant, using the dilaton fields.

By rewriting this Lagrangian in terms of quantum fields $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ with vacuum expectations equal zero, we finally obtain

$`L(\sigma ,\varphi ,\overline{\chi })=L(\sigma ,\varphi )+\mathrm{\Delta }L(\sigma ,\varphi ,\overline{\chi }),`$ (18)
where $`L(\sigma ,\varphi )`$ equals Lagrangian (10), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L(\sigma ,\varphi ,\overline{\chi })`$ has the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }L(\sigma ,\varphi ,\overline{\chi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \overline{\chi })^2V^{}(\overline{\chi }+\chi _c)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\chi }}{\chi _c}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\chi }}{\chi _c}}\right)`$
$`\times \{8g_8m_u^3I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)\sigma _8+8g_9{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^3I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)}{\sqrt{2}}}\sigma _9`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{9}{}}}g_ag_b\left[\sigma _a(G^{()})_{ab}^1\sigma _b+Z\varphi _a(G^{(+)})_{ab}^1\varphi _b\right]`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{9}{}}}g_a^2𝒥_a(\sigma _a^2+Z\varphi _a^2)\},`$ (19)
where

$`𝒥_a=I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)+m_u^2I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u),(a=1,2,3,8),`$
$`𝒥_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)+I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_u+m_s)^2}{4}}I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u,m_s)\right),(a=4,5,6,7),`$
$`𝒥_9=I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)+m_s^2I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s),`$ (20)
and we used gap equations (25) in the terms linear over $`\sigma _a`$. The potential $`V^{}(\chi )=V(\chi )`$ \+ $`(\chi /\chi _c)^2A`$, where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\sigma _a(G^{()})_{ab}^1\sigma _b4𝒥_8m_u^22𝒥_9m_s^2.`$ (21)
From this Lagrangian, one can obtain the system of equations determining constituent quark masses (gap equations) and dilaton potential parameters $`\chi _0`$, $`\chi _c`$ and $`B`$.

## 4. Equations for the quark masses (gap equations) and dilaton potential parameters $`\chi _0`$, $`\chi _c`$ and $`B`$

The conditions for linear terms being absent in our Lagrangian

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{\delta \sigma _8}}|_{\varphi ,\sigma ,\overline{\chi }=0}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{\delta \sigma _9}}|_{\varphi ,\sigma ,\overline{\chi }=0}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{\delta \chi }}|_{\varphi ,\sigma ,\overline{\chi }=0}=0`$ (22)
lead us to the following equations

$`(m_u\overline{m}_u^0)(G^{()})_{88}^1{\displaystyle \frac{m_s\overline{m}_s^0}{\sqrt{2}}}(G^{()})_{89}^18m_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
$`(m_s\overline{m}_s^0)(G^{()})_{99}^1\sqrt{2}(m_u\overline{m}_u^0)(G^{()})_{98}^18m_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (24)
$`4B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _c}{\chi _0}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi _0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _c}{\chi _0}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{2A}{\chi _c}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (25)
An additional equation follows from the relation between the divergence of dilaton current $`S_\mu `$ and the gluon condensate

$`_\mu S^\mu _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\chi {\displaystyle \frac{V(\sigma ^{},\chi )}{\chi }}+{\displaystyle \underset{a=8}{\overset{9}{}}}\sigma _a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{V(\sigma ^{},\chi )}{\sigma _a^{}}}4V(\sigma ^{},\chi )\right)|_{\begin{array}{c}\chi =\chi _c\hfill \\ \sigma _a^{}=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a/g_a\hfill \end{array}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`𝒞_g2m_u^0\overline{u}u_0m_s^0\overline{s}s_0,`$ (29)
$`𝒞_g`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{24}}N_c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}N_f\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}G_{\mu \nu }^2_0,`$ (30)
where $`V(\sigma ^{},\chi )`$ is the potential corresponding to Lagrangian (17) at $`\varphi =0`$, and

$`𝒞_g2m_u^0\overline{u}u_0m_s^0\overline{s}s_0`$ $`=`$ $`4B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _c}{\chi _0}}\right)^4+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=8}{\overset{9}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a\mu _a)\left(G^{()}\right)_{ab}^1\mu _b`$ (31)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_8=m_u,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_9=\frac{m_s}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(32)
The terms proportional to current quark masses on the right hand side of (31) cancel the quark condansate contribution on the left hand side, therefore we have

$`𝒞_g`$ $`=`$ $`4B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _c}{\chi _0}}\right)^4.`$ (33)
Using (4) and (5), one can rewrite the gap equations (23) and (24) in a well-known form

$`m_u^0`$ $`=`$ $`m_u8Gm_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)32Km_um_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s),`$ (34)
$`m_s^0`$ $`=`$ $`m_s8Gm_sI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)32K(m_uI_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u))^2.`$ (35)
To define all three parameters of the dilaton potential $`(\chi _0,\chi _c,B)`$, we have to use, in addition to equations (23)–(30), the equation for the bare glueball mass to be be given in the next Section.

## 5. Mass formulae for scalar isoscalar mesons and glueball

The free part of the Lagrangian (18) has the form

$`L^{(2)}(\sigma ,\varphi ,\overline{\chi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_8^2[(G^{()})_{88}^18I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)+4m_u^2]\sigma _8^2`$ (36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_9^2[(G^{()})_{99}^18I_1^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)+4m_s^2]\sigma _9^2`$
$``$ $`g_8g_9(G^{()})_{89}^1\sigma _8\sigma _98(𝒞_gA)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\chi }}{\chi _c}}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{\chi _c}}\left[g_8m_u^3I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_u)\sigma _8g_9{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^3I_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_s)}{\sqrt{2}}}\sigma _9\right]\overline{\chi }.`$
The dilaton and its interaction with quarkonia does not change the model parameters $`m_u`$, $`m_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, and $`K`$ fixed in our earlier paper

$`m_u=280\text{MeV},m_s=420\text{MeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.25\text{ GeV},`$
$`G=4.38\text{GeV}^2,K=11.2\text{GeV}^5.`$ (37)
After the dilaton field is introduced into our model, there appear three new parameters: $`\chi `$, $`\chi _c`$, and $`B`$. To determine these parameters, we use two equations (25) and (30) and the bare glueball mass

$$m_g^2=4\frac{(𝒞_gA)}{\chi _c^2}.$$
(38)
We adjust it so that, in the output, the mass of the heaviest meson would be 1500 MeV or 1710 MeV and thereby fix $`\chi _c`$. For the glueball condensate, we use the value $`(390MeV)^4`$ . The result of our fit is presented in Table 1 where we show the spectrum of three physical scalar isoscalar states $`\sigma _I`$, $`\sigma _{II}`$ and $`\sigma _{III}`$.

The parameters $`\chi _0`$ and $`B`$ are fixed by the gluon condensate and constituent quark masses

$$\chi _0=\chi _c\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{A}{2𝒞_g}\right),$$
(39)
$$B=\frac{𝒞_g}{4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2A}{𝒞_g}\right).$$
(40)
It is worth noting that the mixing of the glueball with quarkonia shifts the quarkonia mass spectrum. They become lighter, whereas the glueball becomes heavier. This is good for our model because, in previous paper , the mass of $`\sigma _{II}`$ associated with $`f_0(980)`$ was exaggerated.

## 6. Decay widths

Once all parameters are fixed, we estimate decay widths for the major strong decay modes of the scalar mesons: $`\sigma _a\pi \pi `$ and $`\sigma _aKK`$. We neglect decays into $`\eta \eta `$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ as they are small. The results are displayed below. The state $`\sigma _I`$ that we identify with $`f_0(4001200)`$ decays mostly into a pair of pions, and this process determines the width of $`\sigma _I`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _I\pi \pi }600\text{ MeV}.$$
(41)
The decay of the state $`\sigma _{II}`$ that we identify with $`f_0(980)`$ into pions is noticeably enhanced by the glueball component because of mixing with the $`s\overline{s}`$ quarkonium. We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{II}\pi \pi }=140\text{ MeV}$$
(42)
if $`\sigma _{III}f_0(1500)`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{II}\pi \pi }=120\text{ MeV}$$
(43)
if $`\sigma _{III}f_0(1710)`$. From experiment, we know that its decay width lies within the interval from 40 MeV to 100 MeV.

The decay width of $`\sigma _{III}`$ is slightly different for both cases. In case $`\sigma _{III}`$ is $`f_0(1500)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{III}\pi \pi }=96\text{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{III}KK}=176\text{MeV},$$
(44)
and in the other case ($`\sigma _{III}f_0(1710)`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{III}\pi \pi }=120\text{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{III}KK}=160\text{MeV}.$$
(45)
As one can see, we obtained reasonable values for the states which are mostly quarkonia and overestimated decay width for the state $`\sigma _{III}`$. This can be explained by that the mixing of $`s\overline{s}`$ quarkonium with the glueball in this type of model is too large (it is proportional to the cubed mass of strange quark, see (36)). As a result, the decay $`\sigma _{III}KK`$ is large. This mixing becomes a bit less, when we fit the paramers for a higher glueball mass.

Let us note also that we do not include the decay into $`4\pi `$. This process is not dominant in our model (contrary to Ref. ). Our estimates are based on the assumption that the process $`\sigma _{III}4\pi `$ occurs through two intermediate $`\sigma `$ resonances $`\sigma _{III}\sigma \sigma 4\pi `$. We found that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _{III}4\pi }`$ does not exceed 20 MeV. Therefore, in both the cases, the total width of $`\sigma _{III}`$ is approximately $`300`$ MeV.

## 7. Conclusion

In this work, we investigated a possible way of including the glueball into an effective chirally symmetric meson Lagrangian. This Lagrangian was studied in Ref.  where the masses and strong decay widths of the ground scalar meson states were estimated in the NJL model with the ’t Hooft interaction taken into account. Now, following Ref. , we considered the interaction of the glueball with the ground scalar isoscalar $`q\overline{q}`$ states $`f_0(4001200)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$. The mixing of the glueball with radially excited states $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ (if $`\sigma _{III}f_0(1500)`$) was not taken into account. However, their mixing is very important and will be considered in subsequent works. Therefore, the results obtained here are tentative and are not claimed for a quantitative explanation of experimental data on scalar resonances.

As it was mentioned in the Introduction, nowadays there are many papers devoted to the description of the scalar glueball in the framework of an effective meson Lagrangian . The way, we introduce the scalar glueball, is closer to that used in Ref. , but our work differs in two points. First, we take into account the ’t Hooft interaction leading to the singlet-octet mixing of the scalar isoscalar quarkonia. The glueball is also involved in this mixing and changes it. Next, we introduce the glueball as a dilaton field into the Lagrangian written in a chirally symmetric form corresponding to the phase with chiral symmetry not broken spontaneously. Thereby, the Lagrangian is given a highly symmetric form that keeps both the chiral symmetry and scale invariance. In this form the dilaton fields are introduced only into the mass terms of meson Lagrangian. The rest of Lagrangian terms are scale invariant except the term with the current quark mass which explicitly breaks both the chiral symmetry and scale invariance.

As a result, we obtain reasonable estimates for the masses of the scalar mesons $`f_0(4001200)`$, $`f_0(980)`$555In Ref. , the ground $`q\overline{q}`$ scalar states were presented by $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(1300)`$ as $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ quarkonia mixed with the glueball., and the glueball $`f_0(1500)`$ (or $`f_0(1710)`$) and also for their strong decay widths. But we have to point out that the width of the $`f_0(1500)`$ (or $`f_0(1710)`$) resonance is, possibly, overestimated ($`300`$ MeV), however, it can change after the states $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ (or $`f_0(1500)`$) are included into the whole picture.

The results that we obtained in this work, as one can see, are not enough to answer the question: which of the states $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ is the scalar glueball? We hope to make closer towards the solution of this problem in our further works, where alternative ways of including the glueball into an effective meson Lagrangian will be investigated, radially excited meson states will be considered as well as the ground states, and the mixing of five scalar isoscalar states $`f_0(4001200)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, and $`f_0(1710)`$ will be taken into account.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Prof. S.B. Gerasimov and Dr. A.Dorokhov for useful discussions. The work is supported by RFBR Grant 00-02-17190, Heisenberg-Landau program 2000 and by the Slovak Grant Agency for Science, Grant 2/7157/20.


format: text

text:
# Small Deviations from Gaussianity and The Galaxy Cluster Abundance Evolution

## 1 Introduction

Generally, the problem of structure formation is associated to the gravitational growth of small density fluctuations generated by physical processes in the very early universe. Also, these fluctuations are supposed to build a Gaussian random field (GRF), where the Fourier components $`\delta _k`$ have independent, random and uniformly distributed phases. Such a condition means that phases are non-correlated in space and assures the statistical properties of the GRF are completely specified by the two-point correlation function or, equivalently, by the power spectrum $`P(k)=|\delta _k|^2`$, which contains information on the density fluctuation amplitude of each scale $`k`$. This makes the choice of a GRF the simplest initial condition for structure formation studies from the mathematical point of view. At the same time, the GRF simplicity is vindicated by a great number of inflationary models that predict a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of Gaussian density perturbations from quantum-mechanical fluctuations in the field that drives inflation (Guth & Pi 1982). Likewise, the central limit theorem guarantees a GRF if a wide range of random physical processes acts on the distribution of matter in the early universe.

However, a number of mechanisms can generate non-Gaussian density fluctuations. For instance, they arise in some inflation models with multiple scalar fields (e.g. Salopek, Bond & Bardeen 1989); or after phase transitions when different types of topological defects can be formed (Kibble 1976); still, by any discrete, random distributed seed masses like primordial black holes and soliton objects (Sherrer & Bertschinger 1991); as well as in astrophysical processes during the non-linear regime where early generations of massive stars produce shocks which sweep material on to giant blast waves triggering formation of large-scale structure (Ostriker & Cowie 1981). Thus, in order to better understand the process of structure formation, it is necessary to investigate the possibility of the non-Gaussian statistics contribution to the density fluctuation field.

Due to the difficulty to work with generic statistical models, the usual approach is to examine specific classes of non-Gaussian distributions. Examples of these efforts are the studies carried out by Weinberg & Cole (1992) that studied non-Gaussian initial conditions generated by a range of specific local transformations of an underlying Gaussian field; Moscardini et al. (1991) investigated whether non-Gaussian initial conditions can help to reconcile the CDM models with observations; and Kayama, Soda & Taruya (1999), who used data on the abundance of clusters at three different redshifts to establish constraints on structure formation models based on chi-squared non-Gaussian fluctuations generated during inflation.

In this work, we propose a new approach to this problem, exploring the hypothesis that initial conditions for structure formation do not build a single GRF, but a combination of different fields, produced by different physical mechanisms, whose resultant effect presents an arbitrarily small departure from the strict Gaussianity. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we introduce the statistical analysis of finite mixture distributions and present a two-component mixture model; in Sections 3, we apply the model to the cluster abundance evolution; in Section 4 we summarize and discuss our results.

## 2 Mixture Distributions Models: The Positive Skewness Case

Suppose the density fluctuations field, given by the density contrast $`\delta =(\rho (r)\overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$, is a random variable which takes values in a sample space $`\mathrm{}`$, and that its distribution can be represented by a probability density function of the form

$$p(\delta )=\alpha _1f_1(\delta )+\mathrm{}+\alpha _kf_k(\delta )(\delta \mathrm{})$$
$`(2.1)`$
where

$$\alpha _j>0,j=1,\mathrm{},k;\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k=1$$

and

$$f_j(\delta )0,_{\mathrm{}}f_j(\delta )𝑑\delta =1,j=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

When this happens, we say that $`\delta `$ has a finite mixture distribution defined by (2.1), where the components of the mixture are $`f_1(\delta ),\mathrm{},f_k(\delta )`$ and the mixing weights are $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ (e.g. Titterrington, Smith & Makov 1985). Note that we are not using here the central limit theorem. Mathematically, this will be valid only when $`k\mathrm{}`$ and the weights have similar values, so that one process has no more importance than the others. We are not making these hypotheses here and, consequently, the summation of processes will not necessarily converge to a Gaussian.

Statistical evidence for a small level of non-Gaussianity in the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation temperature has been found in the COBE 4 year maps (e.g. Ferreira, Magueijo & Gósrki 1998; Pando, Valls-Gabaud & Fang 1998; Magueijo 1999). Non-Gaussian statistics is also expected in the framework of biased models of galaxy formation (Bardeen et al. 1986). In this case, analytical arguments show that non-Gaussian behaviour corresponds to a threshold effect superimposed on the Gaussian background (Politzer & Wise 1984; Jensen & Szalay 1986). In the same way, hybrid models show that it is possible for structure to be seeded by a weighted combination of adiabatic perturbations produced during inflation and active isocurvature pertubations produced by topological defects generated at the end of the inflationary epoch (e.g. Battye & Weller 1998). Thus, a very compelling way to simplify our model is to apply (2.1) to the combination of only two fields: a GRF plus a second field, where the latter will represent a small departure from the strict Gaussianity. This can be posed as

$$p(\delta )=\alpha f_1(\delta )+(1\alpha )f_2(\delta )$$
$`(2.2)`$
The first field will be always the Gaussian component and a possible effect of the second component is to modify the GRF to have positive and/or negative tails. The parameter $`\alpha `$ in (2.2) allow us to modulate the relative importance between the two components. It represents an arbitrarily small departure from the strict Gaussianity and can be due to some primordial mechanism acting on the energy distribution. Such a two-component random field can be generated by taking $`\delta _k^2=P(k)\nu ^2`$, where $`\nu `$ is a random number with distribution given by (2.2). Then we have

$$\delta ^2(r)=\frac{V}{(2\pi )^3}_kP(k)\left[_\nu [\alpha f_1(\nu )+(1\alpha )f_2(\nu )]\nu ^2𝑑\nu \right]d^3k$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`V`$ is the volume of an arbitrarily large region of the universe. The quantity in the brackets will be defined as the mixture term

$$T^{mix}_\nu [\alpha f_1(\nu )+(1\alpha )f_2(\nu )]\nu ^2𝑑\nu $$
$`(2.4)`$
so that $`P(k)^{mix}P(k)T^{mix}`$, for the case where $`\alpha `$ is not scale-dependent. In the same way, the $`rms`$ mass overdensity within a certain scale $`R`$ will be $`\sigma ^2(R)^{mix}\sigma ^2(R)T^{mix}`$.

As an ilustration, in this work we explore the case of a positive skewness model, where the second field adds to the Gaussian component a positive tail representing a number of rare peaks in the density fluctuation field. A simple way to obtain this effect is to take the well known lognormal distribution as the second component. Besides its mathematical simplicity, this distribution seems to play an important role over the non-linear regime for a wide range of physical scales (e.g. Coles & Jones 1991, Plionis & Vardarini 1995, Bi & Davidsen 1997). Accordingly, our mixture becomes

$$f_1(\nu )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2}\mathrm{and}f_2(\nu )=\frac{1}{\nu \sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{2}(ln\nu )^2}$$
$`(2.5)`$
(for the case of mean zero). Introducing (2.5) in (2.4), we find

$$T^{mix}=_\nu \left[\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2}+\frac{(1\alpha )}{\nu \sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{2}(ln\nu )^2}\right]\nu ^2𝑑\nu $$
$`(2.6)`$
Resolving this integral we have

$$T^{mix}=\left[\alpha +\frac{e^2}{2}(1\alpha )\right]$$
$`(2.7)`$
Hence, if $`\alpha 1`$, then $`P(k)^{mix}P(k)`$ and $`\sigma ^2(R)^{mix}\sigma ^2(R)`$, which means that a sufficiently small contribution of the second field leaves the amplitude and shape of the power spectrum and the mass fluctuation practically unchanged.

## 3 Cluster Abundance Evolution

The correct framework to describe the evolution of non-linear objects in the context of this model requires a generalization of the Press & Schechter formalism (Press & Schechter 1974) in order to take into account the second field. Assuming that only regions with $`\nu >\nu _c`$ will form gravitationally bound objects with mass larger than $`M`$ by the time $`t`$, the fraction of these objects can be calculated through

$$F(M)=_{\nu _c}^{\mathrm{}}p(\nu )𝑑\nu ,$$
$`(3.1)`$
where $`\nu =\delta /\sigma _R`$. This quantity is transformed into the comoving number density of objects with mass between $`M`$ and $`M+dM`$ by taking $`F/M`$ and dividing it by $`(M/\rho _b)`$. Thus,

$$n(M)dM=2\left(\frac{\rho _b}{M}\right)\frac{}{M}\left[_{\nu _c}^{\mathrm{}}p(\nu )𝑑\nu \right]dM$$
$`(3.2)`$
where $`\rho _b`$ is the background density and the number 2 comes from the correction factor $`[_0^{\mathrm{}}p(\nu )𝑑\nu ]^1=2`$, which takes into account all the mass of the universe. If $`p(\nu )`$ is given by (2.2), then (3.2) can be written as

$$n(M)dM=2\left(\frac{\rho _b}{M}\right)\frac{}{M}\left[_{\nu _c}^{\mathrm{}}[\alpha f_1(\nu )+(1\alpha )f_2(\nu )]𝑑\nu \right]dM$$
$`(3.3)`$
Now, introducing (2.5) in (3.3) we have

$$n(M)dM=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\frac{\rho _b}{M}\right)\left[\alpha \left(\frac{\nu _c}{M}\right)e^{\frac{\nu _c^2}{2}}+(1\alpha )\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\nu _c}{M}\right)e^{\frac{(\mathrm{ln}\nu _c)^2}{2}}\right]dM$$
$`(3.4)`$
Following Sasaki (1994), we rewrite (3.4) to give the density of objects with mass in the range $`dM`$ about $`M`$ which virialize at the redshift $`z`$ and survive until the present epoch without merging with other systems. It becomes

$$n(M,z)=F(\mathrm{\Omega })\left(\frac{M}{M_{}(z)}\right)^{\frac{(n+3)}{3}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\frac{\rho _b}{M^2}\right)\frac{(n+3)}{6}\left[\alpha A(M,z)+(1\alpha )B(M,z)\right]$$
$`(3.5)`$
where

$$F(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\frac{(1+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega })}{(1+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }z)^2}\right],A(M,z)=\left(\frac{M}{M_{}(z)}\right)^{\frac{(n+3)}{6}}exp\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}(z)}\right)^{\frac{(n+3)}{3}}\right],$$

$$B(M,z)=exp[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}(z)}\right)^{\frac{(n+3)}{6}}]^2\mathrm{and}M_{}(z)=M_{}(1+z)^{6/(n+3)}$$

Eq.(3.5) allows us to compare the cluster abundance evolution with observational data. Clusters, as the most massive collapsed structures, correspond to rare peaks in the primordial density field and so their abundance is sensitive to the occurence of non-Gaussianity in the density fluctuation distribution. Also, cluster evolution provides a constraint on the amplitude of the mass fluctuation at 8 $`h^1`$ Mpc scale, $`\sigma _8`$, and on the cosmological density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, through the relation $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.5}0.5`$ (e.g. Henry & Arnaud 1991; Pen 1998). In a recent work, Bahcall (1999) shows that several independent methods based on clusters data indicate a low mass densitiy in the universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.2`$ and, in consequence, $`\sigma _81.2`$, breaking the degeneracy between these parameters.

Here, we compare the behaviour of the cluster abundance evolution given by (3.5) with data compiled by Bahcall & Fan (1998). As an example, we plot in Figure 1a some fits to the observational data for two different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (0.2 and 1.0). Note that our model is very sensitive to the parameter $`\alpha `$. Even for $`(1\alpha )10^310^4`$ (i.e., almost Gaussian initial conditions), the curves diverge significantly from the strict Gaussian cases. This means that even very small deviations from Gaussianity may introduce a significant change in the cluster abundance. Actually, the presence of the second field tends to slow down the cluster abundance evolution at high redshifts. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ this effect is dramatic for $`z>0.3`$, while in the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ the difference is less pronounced and it is clearer for $`z0.6`$. Indeed, by plotting the 68% confidence limits around the curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$, we see that Gaussian and non-Gaussian models are not clearly distinguishable for $`z1`$ (see Figure 1b). This is associated to the small number of observational points and, possibly, to the simplicity of our model. However, even considering these caveats, our results seem to indicate that small deviations from the strict Gaussianity may play an important role in the cluster abundance evolution.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

We presented the first results of a study concerning small deviations from Gaussianity in the primordial density field. Using very simple arguments, we developed a model based on the combination of two random fields in order to take into account the non-Gaussianity effects. This model is physically motivated in the context of hybrid models, as well as in the framework of biased scenarios for structure formation. The weighted combined field involves a parameter $`\alpha `$ which modulates the relative importance of its components. For $`\alpha 1`$, we preserve the amplitude and shape of $`P(k)`$ and $`\sigma (R)`$ almost the same as in the Gaussian case. At the same time, our results suggest that even very small values of $`(1\alpha )`$ can introduce a significant change in the cluster abundance evolution. This effect seems to be stronger in high density universes (at $`z1`$) than in low density universes where the effect probably turns more important at higher redshifts.

The model has some drawbacks. Firstly, it depends on the choice and amplitude of the second component of the combined field. Our choice of the lognormal function had a mathematical criterion of simplicity. A detailed investigation of the use of different distribution functions as the second component will be the subject of future works. However, the reasonable agreement between the model and the data gives some support to our arbitrary choice. Other possible limitation of this work comes from the use of the analytical approximation to the density of non-linear objects following Sasaki (1994). A more accurate description of the cluster abundance evolution requires the utilization of numerical methods. But Blain & Longair (1993), also working in the Press & Schecter framework, found results numerically similar to Sasaki’s, so it seems that using this analytical approximation does not introduce any systematical error. Finally, we should keep in mind that our results are preliminary and both theoretical and observational efforts are necessary in order to confirm or disproof the hypothesis that the primordial density field can be described as a slightly non-Gaussian distribution.

We thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions. A.L.B. Ribeiro and P.S. Letelier thank the support of FAPESP. P.S. Letelier also thanks the support of CNPq.

Fig. 1a - Galaxy cluster abundance in the two-component model for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ with $`\alpha =0.9990`$ (solid) and $`\alpha =1`$ (dashed) and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ with $`\alpha =0.9999`$ (solid) and $`\alpha =1`$ (dashed). The curves, normalized at $`z=0`$, correspond to $`n=1.0`$, $`M_{}=10^{14}h^1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M>8\times 10^{14}h^1M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The observational points were taken from Bahcall & Fan (1998).

Fig. 1b - Galaxy cluster abundance in the two-component model for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ with $`\alpha =0.9990`$ (solid) and $`\alpha =1`$ (dashed). The dotted lines are the 68% confidence limits around the non-Gaussian fit. The observational points were taken from Bahcall & Fan (1998).