text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, in the study of QCD in the Regge limit, a novel element has been defined and computed at the next-to-leading order (NLO). It is the jet vertex , which represents one of the building blocks in the production of Mueller-Navelet jets at hadron hadron colliders and of forward jets  in deep inelastic electron proton scattering. Such processes should provide a kinematical environment for which the BFKL Pomeron  QCD analysis could apply, provided that the transverse energy of the jet fixes a perturbative scale and the large energy yields a large rapidity interval.

In a strong Regge regime important contributions, or even dominant, come, in the perturbative language, from diagrams beyond NLO and NNLO at fixed order in $`\alpha _s`$. This is the main reason for considering a resummation of the leading and next-to-leading logarithmic contributions as computed in the BFKL Pomeron framework. The lackness of unitarity, if the related corrections are not taken into account, forces one to consider an upper bound on the energy to suppress them. It is already known that the leading logarithmic (LL) analysis is not accurate enough , being the kinematics selected by experimental cuts far from any asymptotic regime. Moreover at this level of accuracy there is a maximal dependence in the different scales involved (renormalization, collinear factorization and energy scales). For the Mueller-Navelet jet production process the only element still not known at the NLO level was the “impact factor”, which describes the hadron emitting one inclusive jet when interacting with the reggeized gluon which belongs to the BFKL ladder, accurate up to NLL . The jet vertex, now computed, is the building block of this interaction. For the so called forward jet production in DIS the extra ingredient necessary is the photon impact factor, whose calculation is currently in progress . Let us also remind that NLL BFKL approach has recently gained more theoretical solidity since the bootstrap condition in its strong form, which is the one necessary for the self-consistency of the assumption of Reggeized form of the production amplitudes, has been stated and formally proved . This relation is a very remarkable property of QCD in the high energy limit.

A theoretical challenge, interesting by itself and appearing in the calculation, is related to the special kinematics. The processes to be analyzed is illustrated in Fig.1: the lower parton emitted from the hadron $`H`$ scatters with the upper parton $`𝗊`$ and produces the jet $`J`$. Because of the large transverse momentum of the jet the parton is hard and the collinear factorization allows for a partonic scale dependence described by the DGLAP evolution equations . Above the jet, on the other hand, the kinematics chosen requires a large rapidity gap between the jet and the outgoing parton $`𝗊`$: such a situation is described by BFKL dynamics. Therefore the jet vertex lies at the interface between DGLAP and BFKL dynamics, a situation which appears for the first time in a non trivial way. As an essential result of our analysis we find that it is possible to separate, inside the jet vertex, the collinear infrared divergences that go into the parton evolution of the incoming gluon/quark from the high energy gluon radiation inside the rapidity gap which belongs to the first rung of the LO BFKL ladder.

## 2 Jet Vertex: definition and outline of the derivation

Let us consider, for the process illustrated in Fig. 1, the kinematic variables

$`p_H`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{s/2},0,\mathrm{𝟎}),p_𝖺=xp_H,p_𝖻=(0,\sqrt{s/2},\mathrm{𝟎})`$
$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`E_i(\mathrm{e}^{y_i}/\sqrt{2},\mathrm{e}^{y_i}/\sqrt{2},\mathit{\varphi }_i),s\text{:}=(p_H+p_𝖻)^2.`$ (1)
We study the partonic subprocess $`𝖺+𝖻X+\mathrm{𝑗𝑒𝑡}`$ in the high energy limit

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2E_J^2t(\mathrm{fixed})s\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
Starting from the parton model, we assume the physical cross section to be given by the corresponding partonic cross section $`\mathrm{d}\widehat{\sigma }`$ (computable in perturbation theory) convoluted with the parton distribution densities (PDF) $`f_𝖺`$ of the partons $`𝖺`$ inside the hadron $`H`$. A jet distribution $`S_J`$, with the usual infrared safe behaviour, selects the final states contributing to the one jet inclusive cross section that we are considering. We choose, as jet variables, rapidity, transverse energy and azimuthal angle and the one jet inclusive cross section initiated by quarks and gluons in hadron $`H`$ is therefore written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J}\text{:}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{𝖻H}}{\mathrm{d}y_J\mathrm{d}E_J\mathrm{d}\varphi _J}=\underset{𝖺=𝗊,𝗀}{}dxd\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{𝖻𝖺}}(x)S_J(x)f_𝖺^{(0)}(x).$$
(3)
At the lowest order the jet cross section, dominated by a $`t`$-channel gluon exchange, can be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J}{}_{}{}^{(0)}=\underset{𝖺=𝗊,𝗀}{}\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}𝒌h_𝖻^{(0)}(𝒌)V_𝖺^{(0)}(𝒌,x)f_𝖺^{(0)}(x)$$
(4)
where $`V_𝖺^{(0)}(𝒌,x)=h_𝖺^{(0)}(𝒌)S_J^{(2)}(𝒌,x)`$ is the jet vertex induced by parton $`𝖺`$, $`h_𝖺^{(0)}(𝒌)`$ is the partonic impact factor (generally expressed in $`D=4+2\epsilon `$ dimensions for regularization pourposes at the NLO) and $`f_𝖺^{(0)}(x)`$ is the parton distribution density (PDF). The jet distribution is in this case trivial

$$S_J^{(2)}(𝒌,x)\text{:}=S_J^{(2)}(p_1,p_2;p_𝗀,p_𝗊)=\delta \left(1x_J/x\right)E_J^{1+2ϵ}\delta (𝒌𝒌_J)$$
(5)
with $`x_J\text{:}=E_J\mathrm{e}^{y_J}/\sqrt{s}`$.

In the NLO approximation virtual and real corrections enter in the calculation of the partonic cross section $`\mathrm{d}\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{𝖻𝖺}}`$. The three partons, produced in the real contributions, in the upper, and lower rapidity region are denoted by $`2`$ and $`1`$ respectively, while the third, which can be emitted everywhere in rapidity, by $`3`$. Moreover we shall call $`k=p_𝖻p_2`$ and $`k^{}=p_1p_𝖺`$ and $`q=kk^{}`$. A Sudakov parametrization is chosen

$`k=\overline{w}p_𝗀+wp_𝗊+k_{},k_{}=(0,0,𝒌)`$ (6)
$`k^{}=zp_𝗀+\overline{z}p_𝗊+k_{}^{},k_{}^{}=(0,0,𝒌^{})`$ (7)
with the typical inequalities $`\overline{w}\overline{z}wz1`$ valid in the multi Regge kinematics (MRK). Dimensional regularization is used, as usual, to trace the infrared and ultraviolet divergences. On taking into account the infrared (IR) properties of the jet distribution $`S_J^{(3)}`$, the following structure is matched exactly up to NLO (i.e. $`\alpha _s^3`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J}=\underset{𝖺=𝗊,𝗀}{}dxd𝒌d𝒌^{}h_𝖻(𝒌)G(xs,𝒌,𝒌^{})V_𝖺(𝒌^{},x)f_𝖺(x),$$
(8)
where

$`h=h^{(0)}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}h^{(1)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`V=V^{(0)}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}V^{(1)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`f=f^{(0)}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}f^{(1)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`G(xs,𝒌,𝒌^{})\text{:}=\delta (𝒌𝒌^{})+\alpha _\mathrm{s}K^{(0)}(𝒌,𝒌^{})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{xs}{s_0}}+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
The partonic impact factor correction in forward direction $`h^{(1)}`$ is well known , the PDF’s $`f_𝖺`$ are the standard ones satisfying DGLAP evolution equations

$$\alpha _\mathrm{s}f_𝖺^{(1)}(x,\mu _F^2)\text{:}=\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\left(\frac{\mu _F^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^\epsilon \underset{𝖻}{}P_{\mathrm{𝖺𝖻}}f_𝖻^{(0)}$$
(10)
with $`\mu _F`$ the collinear factorization scale, and the BFKL Green’s function $`G`$ is defined by the LO BFKL kernel $`K^{(0)}`$. The new element is the correction to the jet vertex $`V^{(1)}`$ whose expressions can be found in .

Let us note that the previous form in (8) is clearly suggested by the structure of the leading logarithmic part, but at this level it is not a trivial ansatz. Only after a proper treatment of all the IR singular terms one will be able to extract and define the jet verteces initiated by quarks and gluons in the hadron.

The NLO virtual corrections in the high energy limit are relatively simple and they can be summarized in the following expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J}}{}_{}{}^{(\mathrm{virt})}=`$ $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle dxd𝒌h_𝗊^{(0)}(𝒌)\left[2\omega ^{(1)}(𝒌)\mathrm{log}\frac{xs}{𝒌^2}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝖻(𝒌)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝖺(𝒌)\right]}`$ (11)
$`\times V_𝖺^{(0)}(𝒌,x)f_𝖺^{(0)}(x),`$
where $`\omega ^{(1)}(𝒌)`$ is the 1-loop reggeized gluon trajectory and the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i(𝒌)`$ are related to the part constant in energy, after having performed the ultraviolet (UV) $`\epsilon `$-pole subtraction occuring in the renormalization of the coupling.

The NLO real corrections, even in the high energy limit, are much more involved since the interplay of different IR soft and collinear singularities follows a more complicated pattern.

One starts from the partonic differential cross sections $`\mathrm{d}\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{𝖻𝖺}}(x)`$, appearing in (3), which have been also computed in the high energy regime , since in such a case all terms suppressed by powers of $`s`$ may be neglected. The form of the partonic differential cross section turns out to be quite simple when restricted to one of the two halves of the phase space, which are obtained introducing the rapidity $`y^{}=y+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{x}`$ “measured” in the partonic center of mass frame, and splitting the phase space into two semispaces defined by $`y_1^{},y_3^{}>0`$ (lower half) and $`y_3^{}<0<y_1^{}`$ (upper half).

In the quark initiated case one obtains for both regions a reasonable simple expression, while for the gluon initiated part it is convenient to consider separately the $`𝗊\overline{𝗊}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝗀𝗀}`$ final state cases.

The “upper half region”, with $`y_3^{}<0`$, leads to the rederivation of the partonic $`𝖻`$-impact factor, already well known at NLL. The “lower half region”, wherein $`y_3^{}>0`$, which corresponds to $`z>z_{\mathrm{cut}}\text{:}=\frac{E_3}{\sqrt{xs}}`$ is precisely the one from which we are able to extract the jet verteces.

A very important ingredient, as previosly mentioned, is given by the jet definition $`S_J^{(n)}`$. As usual it selects from a generic $`n`$-particle final state the configurations contributing to our one jet inclusive observable and it must be IR safe. The last requirement simply corresponds to the fact that emission of a soft particle cannot be distinguished from the analogous state without soft emission. Furthermore, collinear emissions of partons cannot be distinguished from the corresponding state where the collinear partons are replaced by a single parton carrying the sum of their quantum numbers.

The extraction of all the IR singularities from the real contributions and the matching with the virtual ones is done on employing the standard subtraction method. This consists in approximating the amplitudes in any singular region in order to extract the exact analytic singular behavior, and in leaving the remaining finite part in a form suitable for numerical integration, since normally a full analytical computation is tecnically impossible. The analytic singular terms of both virtual and real contributions are therefore combined. Moreover, with respect to standard NLO jet analysis, one has also to deal with the leading logarithmic terms which are entangled to the other IR singular terms. For the process considered it can be shown  that finally one is left with the collinear singularities associated to the impact factor of the parton $`𝖻`$, to the definition of the distribution function for the parton $`𝖺`$ in $`H`$ and to the BFKL kernel term. The finite remaning parts correspond to the impact factors and jet verteces.

We recall that the jet distribution functions become essential in disentangling the collinear singularities, the soft singularities, and the leading $`\mathrm{log}s`$ pieces when the particle $`3`$ is a gluon. The same basic mechanism may be used for both the quark and the gluon initiated cases.

* When the outgoing parton $`1`$ is in the collinear region of the incoming parton $`𝖺`$, i.e., $`y_1\mathrm{}`$, it cannot enter the jet; only gluon 3 can thus be the jet, $`y_3`$ is fixed and no logarithm of the energy can arise due to the lack of evolution in the gluon rapidity. No other singular configuration is found when $`J=\{3\}`$.
* In the composite jet configuration, i.e., $`J=\{1,3\}`$, the gluon rapidity is bounded within a small range of values, and also in this case no $`\mathrm{log}s`$ can arise. There could be a singularity for vanishing gluon $`3`$ momentum: even if the $`13`$ collinear singularity is absent, we have seen that, at very low $`z`$, a soft singular integrand arises. However, the divergence is prevented by the jet cone boundary, which causes a shrinkage of the domain of integration $`z^2`$ for $`z0`$ and thus compensates the growth of the integrand.
* The jet configuration $`J=\{1\}`$ corresponds to the situation wherein gluon $`3`$ spans the whole phase space, apart, of course, from the jet region itself. The LL term arises from gluon configurations in the central region. Therefore, it is crucial to understand to what extent the differential cross section provides a leading contribution. It turns out that the coherence of QCD radiation suppresses the emission probability for gluon $`3`$ rapidity $`y_3`$ being larger than the rapidity $`y_1`$ of the parton $`1`$, namely an angular ordering prescription holds. This will provide the final form of the leading term, i.e., the appropriate scale of the energy and, as a consequence, a finite and definite expression for the one-loop jet vertex correction.

It is therefore clear that the energy scale $`s_0`$ associated to the BFKL rapidity evolution plays a crucial role. The calculations show a natural choice, due to angular ordered preferred gluon emission and the presence of the jet defining distribution, which is also crucial to obtain the full collinear singularities which factorize into the PDF’s. In particular, on considering the term giving the real part of the LL contribution, one can see that outside the angular ordered region

$$\frac{E_3}{z}>\frac{E_1}{1z}\theta _3>\theta _1y_3<y_1,$$
(12)
there is a small contribution to the cross section. This ordering sets the natural energy scale which, for example, leads to the expression of the jet vertex for the case $`s_0(𝒌,𝒌^{})\text{:}=(|𝒌^{}|+|𝒒|)(|𝒌|+|𝒒|)`$. A mild modification of such a scale can be performed without introducing extra singularities, contrary to what happens for a generic choice. In any case the use of a different scale requires the introduction of modifing terms. For the useful symmetric Regge type energy scale $`s_R=|𝒌||𝒌^{}|`$, one has

$$G(xs,𝒌,𝒌^{})=(\mathrm{𝟏}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}H_L)\left[\mathrm{𝟏}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}K^{(0)}\mathrm{log}\frac{xs}{|𝒌||𝒌^{}|}\right](\mathrm{𝟏}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}H_R),$$
(13)
where $`H_L(𝒌,𝒌^{})=K^{(0)}(𝒌,𝒌^{})\mathrm{log}(|𝒌|+|𝒒|)/|𝒌|)=H_R(𝒌^{},𝒌)`$.

We do not present the final vertex expressions here, they can be found in .

## 3 Remarks and final formulas

In order to extend the results of the two loop calculations, which have allowed to obtain the full NLL partonic cross sections, to our inclusive jet production case, it is necessary to check the relation between the partonic impact factors and the jet verteces. More precisely one may define the one loop correction to the “jet impact factor” as $`[Vf]^{(1)}=V^{(1)}f^{(0)}+V^{(0)}f^{(1)}`$. This latter object and the corrections to the partonic impact factor $`h^{(1)}`$ are different in one important aspects, i.e. their collinear singularities. Essentially the IR singularity associated to the LL real term is absent (subtracted) in the partonic impact factors, while this does not happen in the “jet impact factors” due to the constraining presence of the jet. In the “jet impact factors” are therefore hidden the full collinear singularities which should be factorized to obtain the right behavior of the PDF’s satisfying the DGLAP evolution equations.

Apart from this important difference there is a full correspondence, as shown in , between these two objects. In particular the same angular ordering mechanism, which sets a reference for the energy scale, is present. Thus any tuning of the BFKL kernel energy scale is done precisely in the same way for both impact factors and jet vertices and, thanks to the Regge factorization property valid up to NLL in QCD, one is allowed to use the known form of the NLL BFKL Green’s function setting the scale to $`s_R`$, as previously discussed.

From a two loop analysis, up to $`\alpha _s^4`$ order, one expects to find the contributions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _\mathrm{s}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{xs}{s_R}}h^{(0)}K^{(0)}K^{(0)}V^{(0)}f^{(0)}+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{xs}{s_R}}[h^{(1)}K^{(0)}V^{(0)}f^{(0)}`$ (14)
$`+h^{(0)}\left(H_LK^{(0)}+K^{(0)}H_R+K^{(1)}\right)V^{(0)}f^{(0)}+h^{(0)}K^{(0)}V^{(1)}f^{(0)}`$
$`+h^{(0)}K^{(0)}V^{(0)}f^{(1)}],`$
where the first term on the RHS is LL while the terms collected in the square brackets are NLL.

Consequently, to obtain the jet cross section with accuracy up to NLL terms, one has to consider the NLL BFKL kernel

$$K=\alpha _\mathrm{s}K^{(0)}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2K^{(1)}$$
(15)
which has been computed with the Regge type scale $`s_R=|𝒌_1||𝒌_2^{}|`$ and leads to a Green’s function, which resums all terms up to NLL in (8),

$$G(xs,𝒌_1,𝒌_2)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi \mathrm{i}}\left(\frac{xs}{s_R}\right)^\omega 𝒌_1|(\mathrm{𝟏}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}H_L)[\omega K]^1(\mathrm{𝟏}+\alpha _\mathrm{s}H_R)|𝒌_2.$$
(16)
The formula for the Mueller-Navelet jets  can be easily derived symmetrizing the formula (8) for the two jet case. More precisely one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma }{\mathrm{d}J_1\mathrm{d}J_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝖺,𝖻}{}}{\displaystyle dx_1dx_2d𝒌_1d𝒌_2f_𝖺(x_1)V_𝖺(𝒌_1,x_1)}`$ (17)
$`G(x_1x_2s,𝒌_1,𝒌_2)V_𝖻(𝒌_2,x_2)f_𝖻(x_2)`$
where $`𝖺,𝖻=𝗊,𝗀`$, and the subscripts $`1`$ and $`2`$ refer to jet $`1`$ and $`2`$ in hadron $`1`$ and $`2`$, resp. Once the definition of the jets is given, all the elements are known and a definitive computation may be carried on.

Regarding the Green’s function, two more remarks should be made. Since the high energy asymptotic regime is far, a few iterations of the kernel instead of a full resummation, as given in eq. (16), may be of some interest in a phenomenological application. The known large corrections of the BFKL kernel are related to the presence of large logs. This problem has been solved using optimal renormalization scale methods  or by considering an improved version of the kernel, equivalent at NLL level, but including correcting higher order terms, following a collinear prescription .

## 4 Conclusions

A brief review of the definitions and calculations at the NLO accuracy of the jet vertex relevant for the Mueller-Navelet jets at hadron-hadron colliders and for forward jets in deep inelastic electron-proton scattering has been given. This object, defined for high energies, due to specific kinematics, lies at the interface between DGLAP and BFKL dynamics. Being known all the ingredients, it is now possibile to perform a numerical analysis of the production of Mueller-Navelet jets at NLL. For the forward jet processes further theoretical studies on the NLL photon impact factors are still required.

## Acknowledgments

The results discussed have been obtained in collaboration with J. Bartels and D. Colferai .


format: text

text:
# Far-UV FUSE Spectra of Peculiar Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables

## 1. Introduction

Among magnetic cataclysmic variables (MCV), three Polars (BY Cam, V1309 Ori, MN Hya) and one intermediate polar (AE Aqr) have been discovered to exhibit very peculiar NV and CIV UV resonance line intensities, with a NV/CIV ratio much greater than the typical value $``$ 0.5 (Bonnet-Bidaud & Mouchet 1987 (BM87), Skzody & Silber 1996, Schmidt & Stockman 2001, Jameson et al. 1980). Anomalous UV line strengths might result from non-solar abundances in the accreting matter or from peculiar ionization conditions in the emitting regions (BM87, Mouchet et al. 2003). In order to have access to the OVI resonance lines at 1032-1038Å, we obtained FUSE spectra of three of these sources, BY Cam, V1309 Ori and AE Aqr.

In addition to these abnormal UV line intensities, all three sources exhibit peculiarities. BY Cam is enigmatic in several respects, being slightly de-synchronized, and possessing a very high hard X-ray-to-optical luminosity ratio (Kallman et al. 1996). Among more than fifty Polars, only five, including the nova magnetic system V1500 Cyg, have been found to be slightly de-synchronized. BY Cam has two close periods near 3.3 h that differ by only $``$ 1% (Silber et al. 1992, Mouchet et al. 1997). V1309 Ori is also very peculiar, having the longest orbital period for a Polar (P$`{}_{\mathrm{orb}}{}^{}=7.98`$ h, Garnavich et al. 1994, Walter et al. 1995), revealing a very high soft-to-hard X-ray luminosity ratio and a strong flaring X-ray variability (Walter et al. 1995, de Martino et al. 1998). AE Aqr exhibits several unique properties (see e.g. detailed introduction in Welsh et al. 1998). It has been detected in all energy bands, from TeV to radio wavelengths. This binary displays a wide range of variability, both coherent and incoherent, on various timescales. The spin period of the white dwarf (33 s) is the fastest among IPs and the spin-to-orbital period ratio (33s/9.88h $``$ 10-3) is the smallest. Strong aperiodic recurrent flares of about one-hour duration have been recorded in all wavelength bands. To account for this strong variability and a very low X-ray luminosity, Wynn et al. (1997) proposed that the gas flow consists of blobs which are propelled out of the system by the rapidly rotating magnetosphere.

## 2. Average FUSE spectra

Far UV observations at high spectral resolution in the range 905-1185Å have been performed with the FUSE satellite using the time-tag mode and the large aperture ($`30{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 30^{\prime \prime }`$) (Moos et al. 2000). Total exposure times of 20 ks, 12 ks and 40 ks split into 5, 5 and 14 exposures were obtained respectively for BY Cam, V1309 Ori and AE Aqr. The spectra of BY Cam mostly acquired during “day time” are strongly affected by geocoronal lines.

The average spectra obtained by combining all detectors and exposures are reported in Fig.1 where the strongest geocoronal lines have been removed. For comparison the FUSE average spectrum of AM Her (Hutchings et al. 2002) retrieved from the archives, is also plotted. The level of the continuum is consistent with the extrapolation of the power law fitting the IUE or HST spectra obtained during high states of accretion for the two polars, and during quiescent states for AE Aqr. Broad emission lines are present, including the resonance doublet OVI and strong lines of HeII and NIII. Note the absence of the CIII 1175Å line and the weakness of CIII at 975Å. Interstellar lines of ArI, FeII and SiII are detected in BY Cam, and of HI, CII, OI and NII in AE Aqr. Pronounced H2 molecular lines are also clearly present in the spectrum of BY Cam (see Section 3). Contrary to AM Her, a narrow component in the OVI line is not seen in BY Cam, and is much weaker in AE Aqr, while the spectrum of V1309 Ori is too noisy to distinguish several components in the OVI profile. The dereddened total OVI line intensities are respectively of 2.5$`\times `$10-13, 4$`\times `$10-13 and 27$`\times `$10-13 erg s-1 cm-2 for BY Cam, V1309 Ori and AE Aqr. In the case of BY Cam, the redward component of the doublet is strongly affected by the presence of H2 molecular lines. We have derived the flux of this line taking into account this strong absorption (Mouchet et al. 2003). A modelisation of the resonance UV CNO lines measured in BY Cam is presented in Bonnet-Bidaud & Mouchet (these proceedings).

## 3.  H2 molecular lines in BY Cam

Several H2 absorption lines of the Lyman and Werner bands are clearly detected in the average FUSE spectrum of BY Cam. The equivalent width measurements of the strongest H2 lines absorbed from the J=0, 1, and 2 levels in the v’-0 Lyman bands with v’ = 0 to 4, have been compared with those of models computed for specific values of the total column density, a temperature of 80 K and a Doppler factor of 10 km s-1, using recent molecular data given by Abgrall et al. (2000). A best fit value is obtained for a H2 column density N$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ of $`3\times 10^{19}`$ molecules cm-2. This model for the first lines of the Lyman (0,0) and (1,0) bands is displayed in Fig.2, together with the corresponding parts of the observed spectrum. From the absorption bump around 2200 Å, an upper limit of E$`{}_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}}{}^{}`$ 0.05 has been derived for the source (BM87), which corresponds to a neutral H density N$`{}_{\mathrm{H}_1}{}^{}2.6\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (Shull & Van Steenberg 1985). This value is consistent with the equivalent neutral H column density N$`{}_{\mathrm{H}_1}{}^{}(12)\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 derived from the absorption cut-off in the X-ray spectra (Kallman et al. 1996). This implies a very high N$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$/N$`_{\mathrm{H}_1}`$ ratio in the direction of the source, which is unexpected for a relatively nearby source. It may be due to the presence of a molecular cloud in the line of sight but it may also be linked with dense matter close to the source, possibly ejected during a prior nova event. Note that such H2 absorption has also being detected in the FUSE spectra of the supersoft binary QR And and may originate in a circumbinary location (Hutchings et al. 2001).

## 4. Far-UV variability of AE Aqr

We obtained 14 spectra of AE Aqr with exposure times in the range 2500 s ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}=0.7`$) to 3400 s ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{orb}}=0.10`$). They are regularly spaced, covering 2.2 orbital cycles. In order to describe the OVI doublet, the profile has been fitted using one narrow ($``$ 450 km s-1) and one broad ($``$ 1300 km s-1) gaussian for each component. Such components could not be detected in the HST low resolution spectra (Eracleous & Horne 1996). Another broad component has also been added to take into account the Ly$`\beta `$ contribution as well as an absorption contribution for the interstellar CII line at 1036Å. All phases quoted below refer to Casares et al. (1996) ephemeris with zero phase defined as the time at which the secondary is closest to the observer (blue-to-red crossing of the secondary absorption line radial velocities).

### 4.1. Flaring activity

In Fig. 3 the continuum measured at 1010Å is plotted versus the OVI line intensity and the OVI line profiles of the 14 spectra are displayed in Fig. 4. A large flare occurs at $`\varphi `$=1.94, with an increase by a factor 9 in the continuum flux and 5 in the OVI line flux. The line width is also enhanced up to 2400 km s-1. Both broad and narrow components are more intense and wider. A possible delay between the lines and the continuum, as observed in the optical, but not in the HST data, will be investigated by reconstructing spectra at higher temporal resolution. In addition the continuum and line fluxes increase by a factor 1.5-2 during four other exposures ($`\varphi `$ = 0.41, 1.60, 1.77, 2.60). These moderate flares are quite similar to those observed in the UV range with IUE (de Martino et al. 1995).

### 4.2. Search for orbital variability

The continuum flux of the remaining nine quiescent spectra shows a weak tendency for a minimum at phase 0.0, similar to the optical light curve. The narrow component intensity also tends to be lower at this phase, while the broad component flux does not show any regular orbital modulation. The radial velocities (RVs) have been derived for all components used to describe the OVI profile. While the interstellar CII RVs are stable (dispersion less than 5 km s-1), those of the OVI broad components are modulated. The corresponding sinusoidal parameters are K = 192$`\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}`$ km s-1, $`\gamma =93\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}`$ km s-1 and $`\varphi _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.74}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.05}`$ where $`\varphi _0`$ is the blue-to-red crossing phase. Note that the RV of the flare spectrum does not depart from the orbital modulation. These values are marginally consistent with those obtained for the UV lines (K $``$ 110-330 km s-1, $`\varphi _0`$ 0.62-0.73, Eracleous & Horne 1996). However they contrast with the X-ray line RVs which exhibit a much larger amplitude (see Osborne & Wynn these proc.).
The RV measurements of the narrow component show much scatter with a $`\varphi _0`$ value close to 0, indicating an emitting region in phase with the secondary motion, such as the irradiated hemisphere of the companion. The exact location cannot be ascertained without a precise evaluation of the K and $`\gamma `$ velocities.

While the phasing and the RV amplitude of the broad OVI components are consistent with blobby gas having passed the closest approach to the white dwarf (Wynn et al. 1997), the large width of the OVI line would require a significant contribution of individual blobs at high velocities. Such blobs are not predicted in large numbers by the propeller-driven collisional model (Welsh, Horne & Gomer 1998). Besides such high velocities are easily reached close to the magnetosphere radius. In addition, the UV line intensities can be accounted for by material collisionally heated at temperatures $``$ 5 105 K, however with a non-solar chemical composition (Mouchet et al. in prep.). Such abundances can be obtained as the result of nuclear evolution of the donor in the framework of evolutionary models in which AE Aqr would descend from a supersoft X-ray binary (Schenker et al. 2002, and these proc.)

#### Acknowledgments.

We are very grateful to Sandrine Maloreau for her participation in the reduction and analysis of the AE Aqr spectra.

## References

Abgrall, H., Roueff, E., Drira, I. 1000, A&AS, 141, 297

Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Mouchet, M. 1987, A&A, 188, 89

Casares, J., Mouchet, M., Martinez-Pais, I., Harlaftis, E.T. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 182

Eracleous, M., Horne K. 1996, ApJ, 471, 427

Garnavich, P.M., Szkody, P., Robb, R.M., Zurek, D.R., Hoard, D.W. 1994 ApJ, 435, L141

Hutchings, J.B., Crampton, D., Cowley, A.P., Schmidtke, P.C., Fulleton, A.W. 2001, AJ, 122, 1572

Hutchings, J.B., Fullerton, A.W., Cowley, A.P., Schmidtke, P.C. 2002, AJ, 123, 2841

Jameson, R.F., King, A.R., Sherrington, M.R. 1980, MNRAS, 191, 590

Kallman, T.R., Mukai, K., Schlegel, E.M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 466, 973

de Martino, D., Wamsteker, W., Bromage, G. 1995, in proc. of the “Cape Workshop on Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables”, eds D.A.H. Buckley and B. Warner A.S.P. Conf. series 85, 388

de Martino, D., Barcaroli, R., Matt, G. et al. 1998, A&A, 332, 904

Moos, H.W., Cash, W.C., Cowie, L.L. et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, L1

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Roueff, E. et al. 2003, A&A, submitted

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Somov, N.N., Somova, T. A. 1997, A&A, 324, 109

Schenker, K., King, A.R., Kolb, U., Wynn, G.A., Zhang, Z. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1105

Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S. 2001, ApJ, 548, 410

Shull, J.M., Van Steenberg, M.E. 1985, ApJ, 294, 599

Silber, A., Bradt, H.V., Ishida, M. et al. 1992, ApJ, 389, 704

Szkody, P., Silber, A. 1996, AJ, 112, 239

Walter, F.M., Wolk, S.J., Adams, N.R. 1995, ApJ, 440, 834

Welsh, W.F., Horne, K., Gomer, R. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 285

Wynn, G.A., King, A.R., Horne, K. 1997 MNRAS, 286, 436


text:
# Supersymmetry breaking and 4 dimensional string models

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we will study a family of superpotentials which may be relevant to supersymmetry (susy) breaking in 4 dimensional (0,1) heterotic string models, and which generalise those given in . By 4 dimensional string models we have in mind that the extra string degrees of freedom are subject to twisted boundary conditions in such a way that no ‘breathing’ modes for extra dimensions appear in the level zero spectrum . Stability of compactification is a feature of such $`D=4`$ string models, for which decompactification cannot take place. The gauge coupling, related to string topology through the genus expansion, is dependent only on the dilaton multiplet in these models, indicating a special role for this multiplet . The origin of susy breaking is often ascribed to the gaugino condensation mechanism . This relies on a variation of the gauge coupling with a scalar field, which can thus be identified as the dilaton in these models . A vanishing, or almost vanishing, 4 dimensional cosmological constant seems possibly more natural in a model without extra dimensions. For the present, we will consider the scalar fields only for simplicity. A vanishing cosmological constant may be viewed as a balance between local and global susy breaking. This can be described geometrically as a requirement that the field-space vector formed by all auxiliary fields be null. In terms of the geometry of the chiral scalar fields, this is equivalent to the superpotential $`G`$ having a critical slope of $`\sqrt{3}`$ in field space. The polarization of positive and negative energy auxiliary fields due to this local/global susy breaking is much greater than the energy due to non-cancellation between bosons and fermions from global susy breaking. A small adjustment of the balance between gravitational and other auxiliaries would cancel the residue to keep $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. We will assume that such a balancing mechanism applies. A small failure of the balance mechanism could give a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as may be the actual case in cosmology, but we will not attempt to understand this here.

In $`N=1`$ susy, we may make a decomposition of the chiral fields into the Goldstino $`z`$ and other fields $`s_i`$,where $`z`$,$`s_i`$ are orthogonal at the vacuum expectation values $`z_0,s_0`$,

$$\frac{^2G}{zs_i^{}}(z_0,s_0)=\frac{G}{s_i}(z_0,s_0)=0$$
(1)
We propose that the Goldstino scalar $`z`$ can be approximated by the spin 0 part of the dilaton supermultiplet, which may be regarded as scalar and pseudoscalar components of the graviton, as we can form a massive gravitino multiplet, or extended graviton multiplet by taking the full content of the spin $`(1)_L(11/2)_R`$ heterotic level zero fields. Our motivation is that the dilaton multiplet in $`D=4`$ is naturally present, and has a flat potential, or critical-slope superpotential (implementing the local/global balance principle) in the absence of other sources of susy breaking . The pseudoscalar graviton mass is zero, protected by a gauge invariance, and therefore the pseudoscalar part of $`z`$ will be a pseudo-Goldstone boson with a relatively long range. Mixings between the gravitational and other scalars will be suppressed by factors of $`1/m_{3/2}`$, since the contributions of different superfields to the Goldstone supermultiplet would be in proportion to their auxiliary components. CP violation may give a small scalar component to the pseudo-Goldstone boson, but we will neglect this below. The situation in realistic models where there are also terms in $`V`$ from the gauge auxiliary $`D`$ fields is more complicated, but providing that the local/global balance principle applies, there will again be zero cosmological constant with a small mixing $`O(1/m_{3/2})`$ between $`z`$ and other superfields.

## 2 Derivation of the Superpotentials

Decomposing $`z`$ into scalar and pseudoscalar parts, we have $`z=x+\mathrm{i}y`$ where

$$dy=(dB+\omega _{GS})+O(1/m_{3/2})$$
(2)
($`\omega _{GS}`$ is the Green-Schwarz 3-form) so that under the transformation $`yy+ϵ`$, $`\delta G=ϵO(G/m_{3/2})`$ or

$$\frac{G(z)}{y}=O(G/m_{3/2}),\frac{G(z)}{y}(z_0,s_0)=0$$
(3)
i.e. $`G(z)=G(x)+O(G/m_{3/2})`$. For any function $`h(z)`$ which depends only on $`x`$ we have

$$\frac{h(x)}{z}=\frac{h(x)}{z^{}}=1/2\frac{dh}{dx}\frac{h^{^{}}}{2}$$
(4)
so that the potential for $`x`$ becomes (neglecting for now the contribution from other fields)

$$V(x)=\mathrm{e}^G(\frac{G^{}_{}{}^{}2}{G^{^{\prime \prime }}}3)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^G}{G^{^{\prime \prime }}}(G^{}_{}{}^{}23G^{^{\prime \prime }}).$$
(5)
Introducing the notation

$$G^{^{}}=g(x)$$
(6)
we can write

$$g^23g^{^{}}=f^2.$$
(7)
For a vanishing cosmological constant, we require that $`f`$ should have a zero. The simplest ansatz with this property is essentially

$$f^2=\alpha (g3)^2.$$
(8)
Here we have used the linear transformation $`xax+b`$ to arrange $`x=0,g=3`$ at $`f=0`$ without loss of generality (these values are chosen to simplify the formulas below). The case $`\alpha =0`$ gives the flat, no-scale solution

$$G=3\mathrm{ln}(x),V=0.$$
(9)
We will now derive the solution corresponding to eq.(8). Rearranging eq.(7) gives the first order differential equation

$$\frac{dx}{dg}=\frac{1}{(1\alpha )g^2+6\alpha g9\alpha }$$
(10)
with solution

$$x=\mathrm{tan}^1(\frac{1\alpha }{3\alpha }g+1)\mathrm{tan}^1(\frac{1}{\alpha })$$
(11)
giving

$$g=\frac{3\alpha }{1\alpha }(\mathrm{tan}(x+c)1)$$
(12)
where

$$c=\mathrm{tan}^1(\frac{1}{\alpha }).$$
(13)
Now

$$G(x)=_{u=0}^xg(u)𝑑u+G_0$$
(14)
where the constant of integration $`G_0`$ gives the value of $`\mathrm{ln}(m_{3/2}^2)`$ at the potential minimum. We have

$$G=G_0+\frac{3\alpha }{1\alpha }(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sec}(x+c)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sec}(c)x)$$
(15)
and using

$$G^{^{\prime \prime }}=g^{^{}}=\frac{3\alpha }{1\alpha }\mathrm{sec}^2(x+c)$$
(16)
gives us, on eliminating $`c`$ by using elementary identities,

$$V=3\mathrm{e}^{G_0}\frac{(1+\alpha ^2)}{1\alpha }[\mathrm{e}^x(\mathrm{cos}(x)\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(x))]^{\frac{3\alpha }{\alpha 1}}\mathrm{sin}^2(x).$$
(17)
Here $`x`$ will be confined to the range where $`V`$ is finite i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}(x)<\alpha `$ for $`0<\alpha <1`$. For the mass of the scalar $`x`$ we have

$$m_S^2=\frac{V^{^{\prime \prime }}}{G^{^{\prime \prime }}}|_{x=0}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{G_0}}{G^{^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{(f^{^{}})^2}{G^{^{\prime \prime }}}|_{x=0}=\alpha m_{3/2}^2$$
(18)
giving the interpretation of the parameter $`\alpha `$ as $`m_S^2/m_{3/2}^2`$. As argued above the mass of the pseudoscalar $`y`$ will be

$$m_P^2=O(m_{3/2}^4).$$
(19)
The solution eq.(17) may be written implicity as a function of the sigma model parameter

$$\varphi (x)=_{u=0}^x\sqrt{2G^{^{\prime \prime }}(u)}𝑑u=\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{sec}(x+c)+\mathrm{tan}(x+c)}{\mathrm{sec}(c)+\mathrm{tan}(c)})$$
(20)
with standard kinetic term. Now consider the limit $`\alpha 1`$ corresponding to the physically interesting case $`m_S=m_{3/2}`$. Going back to eq.(7) with $`\alpha =1`$ gives

$$x=1/2\mathrm{ln}(2g/31).$$
(21)
Introducing an alternative parametrization by

$$w=\mathrm{exp}(z),|w|=\mathrm{exp}(x)$$
(22)
(so that $`y`$ and $`y+2\pi n`$ are identified), which is natural when we recall the origin of $`x`$ as the 4 dimensional dilaton, gives the solution

$$V=\frac{3\mathrm{e}^{G_0}}{4}(|w|^2\mathrm{exp}(|w|^21))^{3/4}(|w||w|^1)^2.$$
(23)
Here the value of $`w`$ is kept away from zero by the divergence in $`V(0)`$. In this case the sigma model field is $`\varphi =\sqrt{6}|w|`$, so that if we write $`\psi =|w|`$ we can write the Lagrangian terms for $`\psi `$ as

$$L_\psi =3\sqrt{g}((\psi )^2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{G_0}}{4}(\psi ^2\mathrm{exp}(\psi ^21))^{3/4}(\psi \psi ^1)^2).$$
(24)
(Here $`g`$ is the usual $`D=4`$ metric determinant.) An interesting feature of this model is that the scalar and pseudoscalar fields will be described by a sigma model with the flat Kahler metric

$$d\sigma ^2=6dwdw^{}=6(d\psi ^2+\psi ^2d\theta ^2).$$
(25)
We will now consider the origin of the integration constant $`G_0`$, which determines $`m_{3/2}`$. Suppose that, near $`(z_0,s_0)`$, $`G`$ takes the form

$$G(z,s)=G_g(z)+G_s(s)+H(z,s)=G_g(z)+K(s)+\mathrm{ln}(|W(s)|^2)+H(z,s)$$
(26)
solving eq.(1), where $`G_g(z)`$ takes the form discussed above and for the remaining chiral fields $`s`$, $`K(s)`$ is the Kahler potential (generating the field kinetic terms) and $`W(s)`$ represents the chiral scalar superfield interactions. $`H(z,s)`$ represents mixing terms of higher order in $`1/m_{3/2}`$ relative to $`G(z,s)`$, with $`H(z_0,s_0)=0`$. We expect $`K_00`$, giving

$$\mathrm{exp}(G_0)|W_0|^2$$
(27)
where $`W_0`$ is the minimum value of $`W(s)`$ \- since the vacuum represents the minimum of $`G`$ w.r.t. $`s`$, it also represents the minimum of $`W(s)`$. Now the leading renormalizable contribution gives $`Wg_4X_1X_2X_3`$ where $`X_i`$ may acquire expectation values by a Coleman-Weinberg mechanism well below the string tension scale. For $`m_{3/2}`$ 1TeV, the $`X_{i0}`$ may come from GUT symmetry breaking, a neutrino mass see-saw mechanism or some other hidden sector. String diagrams with zero background field give $`V(z)=0`$. While this may represent the $`\alpha 0`$ limit of the family of models represented by eq.(8), it may alternatively represent the limit $`\mathrm{exp}(G_0)0`$, in particular with $`\alpha =1`$, allowing stable supersymmetry breaking in 4 dimensional string models. For $`\alpha 1`$, $`m_{3/2}`$ is prevented from running away to zero, so that it is natural in this scenario for susy breaking to survive inflation.

References

 J.Polonyi, Budapest Preprint KFKI-1997-93.

 E.Cremmer, S.Ferrara, C.Kounnas, and D.V.Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett B133 (1983) 61.

 H.Kawai, D.C.Lewellen and S.H.H.Tye, Nucl. Phys. B288 (1987) 1.

 S.Ferrara, L.Girardello and H.P.Nilles, Phys. Lett B125 (1983) 457.

 M.Dine, R.Rohm, N.Seiberg and E.Witten, Phys. Lett B156 (1985) 55.

 E.S.Fradkin, A.A.Tseytlin, Phys. Lett B160 (1985) 69.

 M.Dine and N.Seiberg, Phys. Rev. Lett57 (1986) 2625.


text:
# Tracing a planet’s orbit with a straight hedge and a compass with the help of the hodograph and the Hamilton vector

## I Introduction

One way of solving the Kepler problem is to determine the path of the planet in velocity space. This path is called the hodograph.hamilton  Although this way of solving the problem apparently involves a detour, it ends up being one of the simplest ways of finding the orbit.milnor ; gutz90 ; moreno ; abelson ; us96 ; butikov00 ; derbes01 ; maxwell ; thomsontait ; anicin ; feynman ; sivardiere ; us98 ; newtonianrmf ; scatteringrmf ; ejp00 . Moreover, this approach makes it straightforward to obtain an additional constant of the motion, namely the Hamilton vector. A recent contribution to using the hodograph is the interesting paper by Derbes.derbes01  This discussion is beautifully conducted using Euclidian geometry, but some people may be confounded by the use of such arguments.

We discuss a different geometrical approach for tracing a planet’s orbit that also uses the hodograph. Our method can be cast as a series of steps starting from the initial position and velocity of the planet. Then using the Hamilton vector and the hodograph, the method directly leads to the points on the planetary orbit. In addition to constructing the orbits, we discuss other features of the motion that follow naturally from our approach.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the analytical basis of the hodographic method is expounded. We introduce the Hamilton vector, an interesting conserved quantity that is rarely used today. We then obtain the hodograph and some of the features of the motion that can be obtained from it. The geometrical method for determining the orbit is the subject of Sec. III. We describe a straight edge and compass method for finding both the hodograph and the planet’s orbit starting from its initial position and velocity. The technique can be made simple enough to be used to teach some of the underpinnings of planetary motion — especially if it is used with a computer program for visualizing the constructions.butikov99 ; geometers  In Sec. IV we show geometrically that the orbit is indeed elliptical and that the direction of the velocities calculated from it correspond to those directly obtained from the hodograph. Finally, in Sec. V we make some concluding remarks and suggest some problems that can be solved with the methods presented in the paper.

## II The analytic approach to the hodograph

The geometrical argumentsmoreno ; derbes01  used for establishing the circularity of the Kepler problem hodograph can be stated analytically as follows.us96 ; ejp00  The equation of motion of a planet of mass $`m`$ in the gravitational field of the sun is

$$m\frac{d𝐯}{dt}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}\widehat{𝐞}_r$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the sun, $`r`$ is the distance between the sun and the planet, and $`\widehat{𝐞}_r`$ is a unit vector that points in the radial direction from the sun toward the planet. We work in a polar coordinate system where the basis vectors $`\widehat{𝐞}_r`$, $`\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi `$, and $`\widehat{𝐞}_z`$ satisfy $`\widehat{𝐞}_r=\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi \times \widehat{𝐞}_z`$. Hence, using the polar identity $`\dot{\widehat{𝐞}}_\varphi =\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐞}_r`$ and the conservation of angular momentum (so that $`L=mr^2\dot{\varphi }`$ is a constant), we can eliminate $`r`$ and the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐞}_r`$, and replace them by $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\widehat{𝐞}}_\varphi `$. In this way we can express Eq. (1) in the form

$$\frac{d}{dt}(𝐯u\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi )=\frac{d}{dt}(𝐯𝐮)=0,$$
(2)
where we have defined the constant $`uGMm/L`$ which has dimensions of velocity and the rotating vector of constant magnitude $`𝐮=u\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi `$.ejp00 ; butikov99  Equation (2) shows that the Hamilton vector,

$$𝐡𝐯𝐮=𝐯+\frac{u}{rL}(𝐫\times 𝐋),$$
(3)
is a constant of the motion in the Kepler problem.

The constancy of $`𝐡`$ is an exclusive feature of the $`1/r^2`$ force and is related to its extraordinary symmetries.us92  Equation (2) shows that $`𝐡`$ is in the plane of the orbit and orthogonal to $`𝐋`$. Equation (3) also shows that the hodograph has a dynamical symmetry axis that is defined by $`𝐡`$. The axis is dynamical in the sense that the constant Hamilton vector (3) is defined using the dynamical variables $`𝐫`$, and $`𝐯`$. Hence, the orbit also has to have a dynamical symmetry axis which must be orthogonal to $`𝐡`$. The orbit’s symmetry axis can be defined by any vector constant orthogonal to $`𝐡`$ and in the orbital plane. An obvious choice is $`𝐀=𝐡\times 𝐋=𝐯\times 𝐋𝐫(uL/r)`$, which is the Laplace or Runge-Lenz vector.us92  Another consequence of Eq. (3) is that every bounded orbit has to be not only planar but periodic.

From the definition (3) we can express the velocity as a rotating vector with fixed magnitude, $`u\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi `$, superimposed on the constant Hamilton vector

$$𝐯=𝐡+u\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi .$$
(4)
As can be seen from Eq. (4) (by evaluating h for $`\varphi =0`$), $`𝐡`$ is parallel to the velocity at the perihelion $`𝐯_p`$. Equation (4) also shows that the hodograph is an arc of a circle of radius $`u`$ with its center located at the tip of $`𝐡`$, that is, it is not centered at the origin in velocity space. The hodograph is always concave toward the origin when the interaction is attractive as is the case of planetary motion (see Fig. 1).

The velocity vector does not necessarily traverse the entire hodographic circle during the motion; it may just move on a circular arc. To see this, we write Eq. (4) in cartesian coordinates using $`𝐡`$ to define the $`x`$-axis: $`v_x=u\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ and $`v_y=u\mathrm{cos}\varphi +h`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐡`$. These expressions for $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$ imply that the equation of the hodograph can be written as $`v_x^2+(v_yh)^2=u^2`$, which represents a circle of radius $`u`$ centered at the point $`(0,h)`$ in velocity space. If we make a simple substitution for the components, the speed $`v=\sqrt{v_x^2+v_y^2}`$ can be written as

$$v=u\sqrt{1+ϵ^22ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi },$$
(5)
where $`ϵh/u`$. Equation (5) shows that the polar angle is limited to the interval $`|\varphi |\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ when $`ϵ1`$, where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{arccos}(1/ϵ)`$. That is, the hodograph coincides with the entire circle only when $`ϵ<1`$. When $`|\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}|`$ is approached, the velocity becomes tangent to the hodograph and the speed reaches a limiting value $`v_{\mathrm{}}=u\sqrt{ϵ^21}`$. We conclude from this expression that when $`ϵ>1`$, the planet is unbounded and moves asymptotically (as $`t\mathrm{}`$) toward a point in velocity space that we correspondingly call $`𝐯_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Another interesting relation exists between the hodograph radius $`u`$ and the speeds at the perihelion $`v_p`$ and at the aphelion $`v_a`$:

$$u=\frac{1}{2}(v_a+v_p).$$
(6)
To derive Eq. (6) we need to equate the total energy evaluated at these two special positions on the orbit, solve the resulting equation for $`u`$, and then substitute the angular momentum evaluated at the perihelion. Moreover, $`𝐡`$ can be expressed in terms of the sum of these two velocities: $`𝐡=(𝐯_p+𝐯_a)/2`$, and its magnitude can be expressed in terms of the difference of the corresponding speeds: $`h=(v_pv_a)/2`$.tiberiis  These results are easily seen geometrically from Fig. 1.

The orbit of the planet can be obtained by projecting $`𝐡`$ onto $`\widehat{𝐞}_\varphi `$ to obtain

$$r=\frac{L/m}{u+h\mathrm{cos}\varphi },$$
(7)
which is the polar equation of a conic with semilatus rectum $`L/mu`$ and eccentricity $`ϵ=h/u`$. The angle $`\varphi `$, which has the same meaning in both Eqs. (7) and (5), is usually called the true anomaly in celestial mechanics. Therefore, the possible orbits are ellipses when $`h>u`$ ($`ϵ<1)`$, parabolas when $`h=u`$ ($`ϵ=1)`$, and hyperbolas when $`h<u`$ ($`ϵ>1)`$. If the orbit is elliptical, the hodograph traverses the entire circle. In any other case the hodograph traverses just an arc of the circle — although in the parabolic case, it only misses a single point on it.

By using Eqs. (5) and (7) in the bounded case, we can easily check that $`v_p/v_a=r_a/r_p`$, where $`r_a`$ and $`r_p`$ are, respectively, the distances to the planet at the aphelion and perihelion. This relation also follows from angular momentum conservation. We may also write the energy of the planet as

$$E=\frac{m}{2}(h^2u^2).$$
(8)
From Eq. (8) we immediately see that the orbit is elliptical if $`E<0`$, parabolic if $`E=0`$, and hyperbolic if $`E>0`$. We may also see from Eq. (8) that in the hyperbolic case, we can write $`h^2=u^2+v_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. That is, the limiting velocity $`𝐯_{\mathrm{}}`$, the Hamilton vector $`𝐡`$, and the limiting vector $`𝐮`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ ($`𝐮_{\mathrm{}}`$), always form a right triangle with $`𝐡`$ as the hypotenuse. This result comes in handy for deriving geometrically the Rutherford relation for the scattering of celestial bodies off the sun,newtonianrmf ; scatteringrmf  as is the case for comets moving in hyperbolic orbits.

## III Tracing the orbit from the initial conditions

Geometrical methods are powerful and intuitive,chandra  although some students may find them unfamiliar and hence confusing. Nevertheless, these methods can be used to find $`𝐡`$, the hodograph, and then to trace the orbit starting with an initial position $`𝐫_0`$ and velocity $`𝐯_0`$. If this method is properly presented, it can be very concrete because students can draw, point by point, any orbit by themselves.

The method can be described as follows: Given $`𝐫_0`$ and $`𝐯_0`$, we can obtain the magnitude of the planet’s angular momentum $`L=mr_0v_0\mathrm{sin}\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is the angle between $`𝐫_0`$ and $`𝐯_0`$ (see Fig. 1), or as the area spanned by these same two vectors (area $`VOO^{}C`$ in Fig. 1). Once $`L`$ is known, the hodograph radius $`u=GMm/L`$ can be calculated.

We next select a point $`F`$ on the plane as the origin of the coordinates, that is, as the position of the center of force. From this origin we draw a line segment $`\overline{FR}`$ (parallel to $`𝐫_0`$) representing the initial position. The line $`\overline{FR}`$ can be extended to the position we choose for the velocity space origin $`O`$. From $`O`$ we also draw the segment $`\overline{OV}`$ corresponding to the initial velocity. Then we draw, perpendicular to $`\overline{FR}`$, a line segment $`\overline{OO^{}}`$ of length $`u`$. Using the parallelogram rule, we add the segments $`\overline{OV}`$ and $`\overline{OO^{}}`$ to obtain the line $`\overline{OC}`$ corresponding to Hamilton’s vector. It is now a matter of tracing a circle of radius $`u`$ centered at point $`C`$, the tip of Hamilton’s vector. This circle is the hodograph. Notice that the points marked $`V_p`$ and $`V_a`$ correspond, respectively, to the velocities at the perihelion and at the aphelion. The velocity vectors at the aphelion and perihelion are necessarily orthogonal to the symmetry axis ($`\overline{FP}`$) of the orbit. This construction is illustrated in Fig. 1. The symmetry axis has the direction of the Runge-Lenz vector (shown in Fig. 2).

Figures 2, 3, and 4 include the same information as Fig. 1, but have certain features that have been added or removed to focus the reader on a particular point. We have packed much information in Figs. 1 and 2. Angular momentum conservation is explicitly included because we have assumed that the orbit lies in a plane. The flatness of all the orbits can be shown to imply the central nature of the force.urbankte

Given the amount of information in Fig. 1, it is not surprising that we can determine from Fig. 1 the bounded or unbounded nature of the orbit stemming from $`𝐫_0`$ and $`𝐯_0`$: if the point $`O`$, the origin in velocity space, is within the hodographic circle, the orbit is necessarily elliptical and hence bounded, otherwise, the orbit is hyperbolic or parabolic (and hence unbounded). The parabolic case only occurs if $`O`$ sits exactly on the hodographic circle, a property that follows directly from Eq. (8). For a circular orbit the center of the hodograph $`C`$ coincides with the velocity space origin $`O`$, that is, $`h=0`$, which means that the speed equals the constant hodograph radius $`u`$.

To completely determine the orbit (elliptical, in this case) with the information shown in Fig. 1, we proceed as follows (see Fig. 2). Trace the line $`\overline{FP}`$ that is perpendicular to the line $`\overline{OC}`$ and passes through $`F`$. This line is the symmetry axis of the orbit, as follows from the orthogonality property mentioned earlier. By using the holograph and the symmetry axis of the orbit, we can begin to locate points on the planet’s orbit. In Fig. 2 the points marked $`O`$, $`V`$, $`F`$, $`R`$, and $`C`$, have the same interpretation as in Fig. 1; for example, the segment $`\overline{OC}`$ represents the Hamilton vector $`𝐡`$.

To locate any point on the orbit, extend the line $`\overline{VO}`$ back until it intercepts the hodograph at point $`V_s`$. Trace a segment that is perpendicular to $`\overline{CV_s}`$ and passes through $`R`$. This line intercepts the symmetry axis at the point $`F^{}`$. To locate the point on the orbit corresponding to any given point on the hodograph, we notice that we already have one such pair of points, namely the initial conditions (points $`R`$ and $`V`$ in Fig. 2). We choose another point, $`V^{}`$, on the hodograph, and extend the straight line $`\overline{OV^{}}`$ until it again intersects the hodograph at point $`V_s^{}`$. Draw two perpendiculars, one to $`\overline{CV^{}}`$ and the other to $`\overline{CV_s^{}}`$, passing through $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$, respectively. The intersection, $`R^{}`$, of these two perpendiculars is the required point on the orbit. This construction is similar to the case of lines $`\overline{CV}`$ and $`\overline{CV_s}`$ that meet at the initial condition $`R`$.

This process is repeated for every point on the hodograph and in this way we can trace the complete orbit starting with the initial conditions and using only a straight edge and a compass. This last feature is a manifestation of the extreme regularity of the orbit.us92  We should note that parabolic and hyperbolic orbits can also be traced using variants of the method described above.

## IV The shape of the orbit and the associated velocities

Our method for drawing an orbit is fully contained in Sec. III. Here we will address two loose ends that are not important if you are only interested in tracing the orbit. What is the shape of the orbit and how can we be sure that the points we have found on the orbit are the required points for the velocity vectors as required by the dynamics?

That the loci of the points found by the method of Sec. III is indeed an ellipse can be seen as follows. We first draw a circular arc $`F^{}W`$ centered at point $`R`$ with radius $`\overline{RF^{}}`$; this arc helps trace an auxiliary circle centered at $`F`$ with a radius equal to the sum of the lengths of the lines $`\overline{FR}`$ and $`\overline{RF^{}}`$, that is, the length of $`\overline{FW}`$. This radius equals the length of the orbit’s major axis, that is, the line $`\overline{P_aP_p}`$, in Fig. 3. The points $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ are, respectively, the intersections of lines $`\overline{FR}`$ (the initial condition) and $`\overline{FR^{}}`$ (the calculated point on the orbit) with the auxiliary circle.

The isosceles triangles $`\mathrm{}CV^{}V_s^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}R^{}W^{}F^{}`$ in Fig. 3 are similar to each other, because the line $`\overline{FR^{}}`$ makes the same angle with line $`\overline{FF^{}}`$ as the line $`\overline{CV^{}}`$ makes with the line $`\overline{OC}`$. Thus the point $`R^{}`$ on the orbit is at the same distance from both $`W^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$. So we must have that $`\overline{FR^{}}+\overline{R^{}F^{}}=\overline{FR}+\overline{RF^{}}=\overline{P_aP_p}`$. This description shows that the sum of the distances from points on the orbit, such as $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$, to the points $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ is a constant; this equality is precisely the defining property of an ellipse. Therefore, the planets travel on elliptical paths and the sun (the origin) is located at the position of one of the foci of the ellipse, $`F`$ in Figs. 1, 2, and 3; $`F^{}`$ is the other focus of the ellipse.

Once the shape of the orbit has been established, we can check that the velocities, as defined by points on the hodograph, are parallel to the tangents at the corresponding points on the ellipse. For example, in Fig. 3, point $`V`$ on the hodograph and the tangent to the ellipse at point $`R`$ are parallel.

Figure 4 is similar to Fig. 3 with certain lines added and others removed with the purpose of explaining what follows. The argument relies on identifying the three similar triangles, $`\mathrm{}WFW^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}WRF^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{}F^{}R_sW_s`$, which by construction are isosceles, and on the fact that a triangle inscribed in a circle (for example, $`\mathrm{}WW^{}W_s`$) whose diameter coincides with one of the sides of the triangle, is necessarily a right triangle. Trace the lines $`\overline{WW_s}`$ through $`F^{}`$, $`\overline{W_sW^{\prime \prime }}`$ through $`F`$, and $`\overline{W^{\prime \prime }W}`$ which closes the right triangle. Now trace lines $`\overline{MR}`$ and $`\overline{M_sR_s}`$. These are, respectively, perpendicular bisectors of the lines $`\overline{WF^{}}`$ and $`\overline{F^{}W_s}`$, and at the same time, bisectors of the angles $`\mathrm{}WRF^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}F^{}R_sW_s`$. These properties guarantee that $`\overline{MR}`$ and $`\overline{M_sR_s}`$ are parallel to the the tangents to the orbit at the points $`R`$ and $`R_s`$. To see that $`\overline{MR}`$ and $`\overline{M_sR_s}`$ are parallel to $`\overline{VO}`$ and $`\overline{OV_s}`$, respectively, it suffices to understand that $`\overline{WF^{}}`$ is perpendicular to $`\overline{VV_s}`$. This argument establishes that the tangent to any point on the orbit is necessarily parallel to the corresponding velocity on the hodograph.

## V Concluding Remarks

The geometrical approach described in this paper is simple and direct and can serve to explain, even to beginning students, how to trace a planet’s orbit from the initial conditions. If presented with no further explanations, the approach may be regarded as being similar to the idea described by the Mayan astronomer analogy as told by Richard Feynman.feynman85  Our method is an attempt to exhibit in simple terms the geometric beauty of dynamics — beauty that captured the heart of Newton himself.milnor ; moreno ; chandra ; us98

Our method can be profitably applied to other related problems. For example, what if we wish to describe the trajectory of a comet? How can the hodographic method be used when the initial conditions lead to a hodographic circle that does not surround the velocity space origin $`O`$? The extension of the method to parabolic or hyperbolic orbits can be a relatively simple project for interested students. Would it be possible to account for the untraversed branch of the hyperbola? Can this branch have some physical interpretation?

We also can take advantage of the right triangle formed by $`𝐡`$, $`𝐮`$, and $`𝐯_{\mathrm{}}`$ to derive the cross section for comets bouncing off the sun. To begin with, the angle $`\xi `$ between the vectors $`𝐯_+\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝐯_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the scattering angle. Then, after drawing the hodograph, the Hamilton vector $`𝐡`$, and the two velocity vectors $`𝐯_\pm \mathrm{}`$, it is a simple matter of geometry to obtain the relation

$$L=\frac{GM}{v_{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{cot}(\xi /2),$$
(9)
from which the scattering cross section follows.ll  Equation (9) is usually called the Rutherford relation.scatteringrmf

A slightly more ambitious project would be to obtain astronomical data for a planet and use this information to determine the initial position and the initial velocity of the planet. Then the student could trace the orbit with the method described in this paper and then to check such theoretical orbit against the experimental data. That is, to compare the orbit determined directly from the astronomical data with the orbit traced with our method starting from just the initial conditions. A direct way of performing this comparison is to use widely distributed data as that in the Orbit of Mars Experiment of the Project Physics Course ppc , which includes photography of the night sky containing planet Mars and detailed instructions for reconstructing its orbit from such images.

###### Acknowledgements.

HNN-Y and ALS-B have been partially supported by a PAPIIT-UNAM research grant. We acknowledge with thanks the Ricardo J. Zevada Foundation for the graphics software used in this work. We also want to thank P. Weiss, M. Percy, E. Hera, J. E. Juno, R. Zeus, K. Bielii, G. Gorbe, M. Botitas, Z. Ita, M. Crida, P. Schwartz, A. Saltarín, C. Schrödie, and P. M. Zura and her family. We dedicate this work to the memories of F. C. Bonito (1987–2002), M. Osita (1990–2001), and Ch. Shat (1991–2001).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Dualized Standard Model (DSM) suggested a few years ago  has scored some, to us, notable successes in explaining the intricate and otherwise mysterious mass and mixing patterns of quarks and leptons. With only 3 adjustable parameters, the model is able to reproduce already at 1-loop level the following mass and mixing parameters all to within present experimental errors : all 9 CKM matrix elements $`|V_{rs}|`$ for quarks , the 2 MNS lepton mixing matrix elements $`|U_{\mu 3}|`$ and $`|U_{e3}|`$ bounded by neutrino oscillation experiments with respectively atmospheric  and reactor neutrinos , plus the 3 mass ratios $`m_c/m_t,m_s/m_b`$ and $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$ , together accounting for 8 independent parameters of the Standard Model. However, the treatment so far published, culminating in  to which we refer the reader for details, contains some shortcomings which were not apparent at the beginning but have since, with time, been recognized and remedied. In particular, (a) some assumptions were made in $`\nu `$ oscillations which are later found to be unnecessary, (b) the limitations of the 1-loop approximation made which were not recognized before are now seen to explain why the other masses and mixing angles: $`m_u,m_d,m_e,U_{e2}`$, were not well reproduced, while (c) the results obtained only numerically before are now seen to follow also from simple analytic considerations. The purpose of this note is to remove these old shortcomings, resulting in both a tighter and a more transparent scheme, while affording at the same time an analytic check on the previous numerical results.

We begin with a very brief summary of the basic features of the DSM scheme necessary for our presentation. For explanations and details, the reader is referred to the literature cited. The DSM scheme is based on a nonabelian generalization of electric-magnetic duality  which offers an explanation for the existence of exactly 3 fermion generations and a suggestion of how the generation symmetry is broken. This leads in turn to the construction of a Higgs potential and Yukawa coupling which give the tree-level fermion mass matrix a factorized form  and allows its radiative corrections to be calculated. Further, the fermion mass matrix is found to retain a factorized form even after 1-loop radiative corrections:

$$m=m_T\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right)(x,y,z),$$
(1)
where only the normalization $`m_T`$ depends on the fermion species, i. e. $`U`$ or $`D`$ type quarks, or charged leptons $`L`$ or neutrinos $`N`$. The vector $`(x,y,z)`$, however, now rotates in generation space with changing scales $`\mu `$, and satisfies the RG equation:

$$\frac{d}{d(\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2)}\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right)=\frac{3}{64\pi ^2}\rho ^2\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{y}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{z}_1\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_1=\frac{x(x^2y^2)}{x^2+y^2}+\frac{x(x^2z^2)}{x^2+z^2},\mathrm{cyclic},$$
(3)
and $`\rho ^2`$ the Yukawa coupling strength 111There was an error in the coefficient of the right-hand side of eq. (2) as given in , which means that the numerical value of $`\rho `$ given in  and  should be multiplied by a factor of $`\sqrt{5/3}`$. Other results in these references are not affected.. In (2), one sees that the vector $`(x,y,z)`$, taken to be normalized from now on, is stationary in orientation with respect to change in $`\mu `$ at $`(x,y,z)=(1,0,0)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$, which means that these are to be interpreted as fixed points of rotation. Further, the sign of the derivative is such that as $`\mu `$ changes, the vector $`𝐫=(x,y,z)`$ traces out a trajectory on the unit sphere in 3-D generation space starting from the “high-energy” fixed point $`(1,0,0)`$ at infinite scale and ending at the “low-energy” fixed point $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$ at zero scale.

The fact that the mass matrix rotates with changing scales means that the usual definition of the 3 generation states as mass eigenstates has to be refined since it will have to be specified at what scales they are to be so defined. An analysis of the situation, defining each state at its own mass scale, leads to the following conclusion . For each fermion species $`T`$ (i.e. whether $`U,D,L`$ or $`N`$) the state vectors for the 3 generations form an orthonormal triad in generation space which is given in terms of the rotating vector $`𝐫(\mu )`$ as follows:

$`𝐯_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫_1,`$
$`𝐯_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_1(𝐫_1𝐫_2)}{|𝐫_1(𝐫_1𝐫_2)|}},`$
$`𝐯_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_1𝐫_2}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}}`$ (4)
where $`𝐫_i=𝐫(m_i)`$ is the rotating vector $`𝐫(\mu )`$ taken at the scale $`\mu =m_i`$, with $`m_i`$ being the physical mass of the $`i`$th generation labelled from the heaviest (1) to the lightest (3). The elements of the mixing matrix (whether CKM  for quarks or MNS  for leptons) are then given as the scalar products between the up-states $`𝐯_i`$ and the down states $`𝐯_j^{}`$, thus:

$$V_{ij}=𝐯_i.𝐯_j^{}.$$
(5)
Furthermore, for the fermion species $`U,D`$ and $`L`$, the mass of the $`i`$th generation state is given as the solution for $`m_i`$ to the equation:

$$m_i=m_T|𝐫_i.𝐯_i|^2.$$
(6)
This criterion for determining the masses of the 3 generations, however, does not apply to neutrinos which, because of a likely see-saw mechanism , may have physical masses different from the Dirac masses appearing in the above equation and hence require a special treatment to be explained later. With the above formulae, once given the trajectory for $`𝐫`$, mixing matrix elements and mass ratios between generations can be evaluated, excepting for the moment where neutrinos are involved.

The trajectory for $`𝐫(\mu )`$ depends on only 3 parameters, two of them corresponding to the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields which specify the rotation trajectory, and the third being the Yakawa coupling strength $`\rho `$ in (2) which governs the rotation speed. The first 2 parameters are independent of the fermion species $`T`$, while the third $`\rho `$ can in principle depend on $`T`$ but, for consistency with the above prescription for defining masses of the generations, it was found that $`\rho `$ has also to be $`T`$-independent (see  and later). In , these 3 parameters were fitted to $`m_c/m_t,m_\mu /m_\tau `$ and the Cabibbo angle, which then allows one to calculate the whole trajectory via (2). The result is shown in Figure 1 where from the location of the various states each marked at its own mass scale, the rotation speed with respect to $`\mu `$ can be gauged. From this, the CKM matrix for quarks was calculated using (5), and gave, as already mentioned, all elements within present experimental limits.

## 2 $`\nu `$ Oscillations

Neutrinos require a special treatment because of the see-saw mechanism which is likely to give them physical masses different from the Dirac mass appearing in the mass matrix (1). On the one hand, the state vectors for neutrinos, in parallel to other fermions, ought to be defined at the scales of their physical masses, while on the other the equation (6) applies only to states whose physical and Dirac masses coincide, and hence not directly to neutrinos. It would appear therefore that some additional assumption will have to be made on the relationship between the physical and Dirac masses of neutrinos before the above scheme can be applied, and this was the approach we took in .

It turns out, however, that as far as reproducing the MNS mixing matrix elements is concerned, which is at present our main conern, then no such new assumption is needed. This arises as follows. The electron neutrino mass is now restricted by e.g. tritium decay experiments to below 3 eV , while oscillation experiments on solar  and atmospheric  neutrinos limit the mass differences between generations to less than 0.05 eV, implying that all 3 generations have masses of at most order eV. According to the calculation cited in Figure 1, however, at scales of order eV, the vector $`𝐫`$ is already so close to the low energy fixed point $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$ as to be indistinguishable in the figure. Referring next to the definition of the state vectors in (4), one sees that in this situation when all 3 generations are close together, the 3 vectors in the triad become respectively just the position vector, the tangent vector to the trajectory, and the vector normal to both the above, all taken at the same point. In other words, one has in particular for the state vector of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$ just:

$$𝐯_1=𝐯_{\nu _3}=𝐫_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1).$$
(7)
(Notice that neutrinos are conventionally labelled in the opposite order to that adopted in (4) above, i.e. from the lightest ($`\nu _1`$) to the heaviest ($`\nu _3`$)).

Charged leptons being ordinary Dirac particles, their state vectors can be calculated by the method detailed in the preamble above in the same manner as for quarks. The result of the calculation performed in  and cited in Figure 1 gave:

$`|\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(0.996732,0.076223,0.026756),`$
$`|\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0.075925,0.774100,0.628494),`$
$`|e`$ $`=`$ $`(0.027068,0.628482,0.777354).`$ (8)
From these and (7) above, using (5), one easily obtains the MNS mixing matrix elements:

$`U_{\mu 3}=\mu |\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`0.7660,`$
$`U_{e3}=e|\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`0.1016,`$ (9)
which are seen to be within the experimental limits obtained for these quantities by respectively the atmospheric  and reactor  neutrino experiments:

$`|U_{\mu 3}|`$ $``$ $`0.560.83,`$
$`|U_{e3}|`$ $``$ $`0.000.15.`$ (10)
One notices that the above result is independent of any assumptions about the Dirac masses of neutrinos, in contrast to the previous treatment of . In particular, because of the assumptions made then on neutrino masses, the treatment in  is valid only for the range of masses permitted by the “vacuum oscillation” solution to the solar neutrino problem. The present result in (9), on the other hand, having been derived independently of assumptions on neutrino masses, is valid for any solution to the solar neutrino problem, in particular for the large mixing angle MSW  solution. This is of great practical significance, given the increasing preference of recent data for the LMA solution to the exclusion of the others .

In principle, one can use the trajectory calculated in  and displayed in Figure 1 to evaluate also the tangent and normal vectors at the low energy fixed point $`𝐫_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$, namely the state vectors $`𝐯_{\nu _2}`$ and $`𝐯_{\nu _1}`$, and hence all the other elements of the MNS mixing matrix, in particular the solar neutrino angle $`U_{e2}`$. However, as we shall see in the next section, due to the limitations of the 1-loop calculation so far performed, such results would be unreliable.

## 3 Limitations of 1-loop

The 1-loop approximation with the parameters fitted as above and as in  is valid only near the fixed point $`(1,0,0)`$ where the rotation is slow. Away from the fixed point, the RGE will receive large logaritmic terms from higher-loop contributions. As seen in Figure 1, however, down to the top mass scale at 175 GeV, the vector $`𝐫`$ has rotated from the fixed point at infinite scale by an angle of only about 0.012 radians, while even from the top mass scale to that at the muon mass at 105 MeV, the vector has rotated by only about another 0.3 radians. For scales above the muon mass, therefore, one can hope a 1-loop approximation to have some validity. But at scales much below the $`\mu `$ mass, the 2-loop correction, which is expected to be of the order of the square of the 1-loop result, will become increasingly significant, thus making the 1-loop result unreliable.

Given then the limited validity range for the 1-loop calculation so far performed, one has to re-examine the results obtained to ascertain which could be regarded as reliable. Let us accept for present purposes the 1-loop approximation as sufficiently accurate for scales down to about the muon mass, in which range would then be included the 2 heavier generations of the 3 fermion species $`U,D,L`$, i.e. all species except the neutrinos. We notice from (4), however, that for $`U,D,L`$, the triad of state vectors for all 3 generations are in fact already determined in this range, the vector $`𝐯_3`$ for the lightest generation being given as the normal once the vectors for the 2 heavier generations are specified. Hence, given the triads for both the $`U`$ and $`D`$ quarks, one can evaluate the whole CKM matrix with confidence. Indeed, this is born out by the comparison given in  of the calculation result:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|V_{ud}|& |V_{us}|& |V_{ub}|\\ |V_{cd}|& |V_{cs}|& |V_{cb}|\\ |V_{td}|& |V_{ts}|& |V_{tb}|\end{array}\right)=`$ (18)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97450.9762\hfill & 0.2170.224\hfill & 0.00430.0046\hfill \\ 0.2170.224\hfill & 0.97330.9756\hfill & 0.03540.0508\hfill \\ 0.01200.0157\hfill & 0.03360.0486\hfill & 0.99880.9994\hfill \end{array}\right),`$
with the then available experimental numbers quoted from the databook :

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97450.9760\hfill & 0.2170.224\hfill & 0.00180.0045\hfill \\ 0.2170.224\hfill & 0.97370.9753\hfill & 0.0360.042\hfill \\ 0.0040.013\hfill & 0.0350.042\hfill & 0.99910.9994\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (22)
which are seen also to be within the most recent limits . On the other hand, the masses for the lightest generation, according to (6), requires running the vector $`𝐫`$ down to the mass scales of the lightest generation, and hence cannot be achieved reliably by the 1-loop approximation. And indeed, the value obtained in  for the electron mass was 6 MeV, to be compared with the correct empirical value of 0.5 MeV. The mass values for the light quarks $`u,d`$ were also not well reproduced, but that may be due to intrinsic ambiguities in defining light quark masses.

Next, turning to the MNS mixing matrix for leptons, we note first that the state vectors for all 3 charged leptons $`\tau ,\mu ,e`$ as quoted in (8) ought, according to the above criterion, be reliable. The same, however, cannot be said for the state vectors of neutrinos, the mass scales of which are all way outside the range of validity of the 1-loop calculation. The only exception is the vector for the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$ which, as noted in the previous section, can be identified to a good approximation with the low energy fixed point $`𝐫_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)`$ known to be valid beyond 1-loop . In consequence, one obtains the result (9) in good agreement with experiment. The other 2 vectors in the neutrino triad both depend on the tangent vector to the trajectory and hence cannot be reproduced by the 1-loop calculation. Indeed, the value obtained in  for the solar neutrino angle $`U_{e2}`$, which depends on the state vector for the second heaviest neutrino $`\nu _2`$, is about 0.23 and lies outside the experimental limits of about 0.4 to 0.7.

In other words, the results of the 1-loop calculation on fermion mass and mixing parameters have now all been checked to agree with present experiment in the range they are expected to be valid, and are seen to deviate from data only outside the expected validity range.

It should be emphasized, however, that this apparent success achieved by calculating only the diagram with a single (dual colour) Higgs loop makes sense only if one regards both the mass hierarchy and mixing as consequences of the mass matrix rotation. As far as the orientation of the rotating vector $`𝐫(\mu )`$ rotation is concerned, it was shown in  that radiative corrections due to standard model particles are zero, and those due to other dual colour particles are small, leaving thus the calculated (dual colour) Higgs loop with no competition. The same approximation, however, would not be applicable, for example, to the normalization of the rotating vector.

## 4 Analytic Approach

Previous calculations with the DSM scheme, e.g. , were done numerically, on which calculations the above remarks also rely. It is found, however, that with some simple yet quite reasonable approximations, an analytic approach is possible which provides first a check on the numerical results, and second an easier means for the reader to scrutinize and verify them. It also gives algebraic relations between fermion mixing elements and mass ratios which may be useful for certain purposes.

First, let us parametrize the vector $`𝐫(\mu )`$ in terms of the usual polar co-ordinates, thus:

$$𝐫(\mu )=(\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mu ),\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mu )\mathrm{cos}\varphi (\mu ),\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mu )\mathrm{sin}\varphi (\mu )),$$
(23)
and denote by $`\theta _i,\varphi _i`$ the corresponding angles taken at the scale $`\mu =m_i`$ with $`m_i`$ being the mass of the state $`i`$. Next, we recall from the last section that the 1-loop approximation is valid only in the region near the high energy fixed point $`(1,0,0)`$ so that there is no loss of generality at 1-loop to make a small angle approximation, i.e. assuming that all $`\theta `$’s are small and that, although the $`\varphi `$’s are in principle arbitrary, their differences are small. In the same spirit, we assume also that $`\theta _1`$ is small compared to $`\theta _2`$. In this approximation then, one has:

$`𝐯_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1^2}{2}},\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1),`$
$`𝐯_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2)`$
$`+\theta _1(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _2\varphi _1),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta _2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta _2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2),`$
$`𝐯_3`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2)`$ (24)
$`+\theta _1\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta _2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta _2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2).`$
Using (24) and (5), one obtains the approximate forms of the CKM matrix elements:

$`V_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _b\theta _t)^2,`$
$`V_{cs}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _t}{\theta _c}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _c\varphi _t){\displaystyle \frac{\theta _b}{\theta _s}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _b)\right\},`$
$`V_{ud}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{cs},`$
$`V_{cd}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _b}{\theta _s}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _b){\displaystyle \frac{\theta _t}{\theta _c}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _c\varphi _t)\right\},`$
$`V_{us}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{cd},`$
$`V_{ts}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _b\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _s\varphi _b)+\theta _t\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _s\varphi _t),`$
$`V_{cb}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _b\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _c\varphi _b)\theta _t\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _c\varphi _t),`$
$`V_{td}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _b\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _b)\theta _t\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _t),`$
$`V_{ub}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _b\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _c\varphi _b)+\theta _t\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _c\varphi _t).`$ (25)
From these formulae, one deduces immediately that:

$`|V_{tb}|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1,`$
$`|V_{cs}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{ud}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )1,`$
$`|V_{cd}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{us}|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )\mathrm{small},`$
$`|V_{ts}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{cb}|\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{small},`$
$`|V_{td}|`$ $`=`$ $`|V_{ub}|\theta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )\mathrm{very}\mathrm{small}.`$ (26)
In other words, simply on the premises of a rotating mass matrix as given in (1) without using even the evolution equation (2) for the rotating vector $`𝐫`$ apart from the condition that $`𝐫`$ should remain near the high energy fixed point $`(1,0,0)`$, one has already derived the well-known, and long-wondered at, hierarchy of CKM elements as observed in experiment. This result was anticipated already using some elementary differential geometry in  but is here now made completely explicit.

Next, let us rewrite the evolution equation (2) for the unnormalized vector $`(x,y,z)`$ as:

$$\frac{1}{x}\frac{dx}{dt}=f_1,\frac{1}{y}\frac{dy}{dt}=f_2,\frac{1}{z}\frac{dz}{dt}=f_3,$$
(27)
with $`t=\mathrm{ln}\mu ,k=3\rho ^2/(32\pi ^2)`$, where

$$f_1=k\left(\frac{x^2y^2}{x^2+y^2}+\frac{x^2z^2}{x^2+z^2}\right),\mathrm{cyclic}.$$
(28)
To get rid of the normalization, we take differences of these equations, so that we can still use the parametrization (23), which, with arbitrary $`\varphi `$ and small $`\theta `$, becomes:

$$𝐫(1,\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ),$$
(29)
and

$$f_12k,f_2k(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi 1),f_3k(1+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi ).$$
(30)
Hence we get for $`f_1f_3`$ and $`f_2f_3`$ respectively:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d(\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi )}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`k(3+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi ),`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d(\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d(\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi )}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2k\mathrm{cos}2\varphi ,`$ (32)
which simplify to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \mathrm{cos}2\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`k,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`k(2+\mathrm{sin}^22\varphi ),`$ (34)
giving

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}2\varphi }{\mathrm{tan}2\varphi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\mu }}\right)^{2k},`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\theta _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{\mu }}\right)^{2k}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _0}{\mathrm{cos}2\varphi }}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (36)
Equation (36) reduces to

$$\frac{\theta }{\theta _0}=\left(\frac{\mu _0}{\mu }\right)^{2k}$$
(37)
if we further assume that $`\varphi ^2`$ is small.

With this solution, one easily checks that, for consistency with (6), $`\rho `$ has to be the same for all fermion species $`T`$ to a good approximation, a result first found in  numerically, as follows. From (6), one has:

$$m_2=m_1\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _2\theta _1),$$
(38)
or else, recalling $`\theta _2\theta _1`$, which is an approximation numerically similar to that for obtaining the linearized solution (37) above:

$$m_2m_1\theta _2^2.$$
(39)
Hence, using (37), one has:

$$\sqrt{\frac{m_2}{m_1}}\theta _I\left(\frac{\mu _I}{m_2}\right)^{2k},$$
(40)
with $`\theta _I`$ being the value of $`\theta `$ at some chosen (large) initial value $`\mu _I`$. Applying the formula (40) to successively the fermion species $`U,D,L`$ and eliminating $`\theta _I`$, one obtains:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_b}{m_tm_s}}\right)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{m_c}}\right)^{2k_U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{\mu _I}}\right)^{2k_D},`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_\tau }{m_tm_\mu }}\right)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{m_c}}\right)^{2k_U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{\mu _I}}\right)^{2k_L},`$ (41)
which is consistent for arbitrary $`\mu _I`$ only when $`k_U=k_D=k_L`$, as required. We note that this result is independent of the choice of the 3 model parameters.

Turning next to parameter-dependent results, we shall first determine the parameter values by fitting them to the 3 best known empirical quantities as was done in , namely the 2 mass ratios $`m_c/m_t`$ and $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$, and the Cabbibo angle. From (40) using the $`t`$ scale as $`I`$, one deduces the approximate relations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _t^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_c}}\right)^{4k},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _t^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_\mu }}\right)^{4k}.`$ (42)
Inputting then the empirical values in GeV of $`m_t175,m_c1.25,m_\tau 1.777,m_\mu 0.105`$, one easily obtains;

$$k0.21,\theta _t0.011.$$
(43)
These values compare very well with the values $`k0.20,\theta _t0.012`$ obtained before from the numerical fit of , affording thus a check on both the present approximation and the previous numerical result. The good agreement is actually a little fortuitous, being beyond what can be expected from the crudeness of the approximations made in deriving the formulae used above.

With now $`k`$ and $`\theta _t`$ as 2 of our parameters, we can next proceed to evaluate other mass ratios and mixing matrix elements which depend only on $`\theta `$. For mass ratios within the range of validity, we have only one relation (from (41) using $`m_b=4.2`$ GeV):

$$m_sm_c\left(\frac{m_b}{m_t}\right)^{1/(4k+1)},$$
(44)
giving $`m_s160\mathrm{MeV}`$ (cf. 75 to 170 MeV ). For the CKM matrix elements, we have:

$$V_{tb}1\theta _b^2/21\frac{1}{2}\frac{m_c}{m_t}\left(\frac{m_c}{m_b}\right)^{4k},$$
(45)
giving $`V_{tb}10.001`$ (cf. 0.9990 to 0.9993 ), and

$$V_{ts}=V_{cb}\theta _b+\theta _t\sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}}\left(\frac{m_c}{m_b}\right)^{2k},$$
(46)
giving $`V_{ts}=V_{cb}0.05`$ (cf. 0.035 to 0.043 ). These number also agree well with those obtained from the numerical result of  quoted in (18).

Inputting next the Cabbibo angle $`V_{us}0.22`$ to determine the last parameter which we can take as $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)`$ and which for small $`\varphi `$ differences, according to (25), can be take approximately as:

$$\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)=\frac{V_{us}}{1+\left(m_s/m_b\right)^{2k}},$$
(47)
we obtain $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)0.18`$. With this value fixed, we can now evaluate the remaining CKM matrix elements, thus:

$$V_{ud}V_{cs}1\frac{1}{2}V_{us}^2,$$
(48)
giving $`V_{ud}V_{cs}0.976`$ (cf. 0.9734 to 0.9749 ),

$$V_{td}\theta _b\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)\sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}}\left(\frac{m_c}{m_b}\right)^{2k}\frac{V_{us}}{1+\left(m_s/m_b\right)^{2k}},$$
(49)
giving $`V_{td}.009`$ (cf. 0.004 to 0.014 ), and

$$V_{ub}\theta _b\frac{\theta _c\theta _b}{\theta _s}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)\sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}}\left(\frac{m_s}{m_b}\right)^{2k}\frac{V_{us}}{1+\left(m_s/m_b\right)^{2k}},$$
(50)
giving $`V_{ub}0.004`$ (cf. 0.002 to 0.005 ). Again, these estimates agree well with the values (18) obtained before numerically in . Contrary to usual belief the CKM matrix elements appear related to the ratios of the two heaviest generations, which is expected if both come from a rotating mass matrix.

Finally, using the values of the parameters determined, one can calculate also from (24) the 3 vectors $`𝐯_\tau ,𝐯_\mu `$ and $`𝐯_e`$ for the charged leptons, as explained in the section above. We notice in (24), however, that these vectors depend on the angles $`\varphi _i`$ which may not be small, not just on their differences. These can be determined by solving equation (35) and using the result $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _s\varphi _c)0.18`$. This gives 2 solutions, $`\varphi _s0.61,0.35`$, of which the fit in  correspond to the former. With the values $`\theta _t0.011`$ obtained before and $`\varphi _s0.61`$, one can then evaluate the corresponding angles for $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$, and hence the vectors $`𝐯_\tau ,𝐯_\mu ,𝐯_e`$. One obtains:

$`|\tau `$ $`=`$ $`(0.994,0.070,0.029),`$
$`|\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0.074,0.757,0.657),`$
$`|e`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0188,0.657,0.757),`$ (51)
not far from the values quoted in (8) from , and corresponding to the MNS lepton mixing matrix elements:

$`U_{\mu 3}=\mu |\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`0.77,`$
$`U_{e3}=e|\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`0.07,`$ (52)
which is seen to compare well with (9) and (10) above.

Hence, one sees that all the previous results obtained numerically before together with their agreement with experiment have now been confirmed by analytic considerations although in a rather crude approximation.

In summary, we conclude that a closer examination of the tenets of the DSM scheme has removed a previous restriction on its predictions on neutrino oscillations, making them now consistent with the favoured LMA solution for solar neutrinos. It has also explained away the couple of discrepancies noted before as limitations of the 1-loop calculation so far performed, which is seen otherwise to be in full agreement with experiment within its perceived range of validity. Furthermore, all previous numerical results have now been confirmed by analytic considerations.