format: text

text:
# Superradiance from an ultrathin film of three-level 𝑉-type atoms: Interplay between splitting, quantum coherence and local-field effects

## 1 Introduction

After the pioneering work by Kocharovskaya and Khanin , Harris , and Scully, Zhu and Gavrielides , the effects of the light-matter interactions in the presence of low-frequency quantum coherence between sublevels in the ground or excited states have received much attention. There appeared new phenomena such as amplification and lasing without inversion (AWI and LWI), electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT), etc. (see references  for review as well as the topical issue of Quantum Optics ). Optical bistability in $`V`$-type atoms has been considered in reference .

Recently, it was shown that in a close system of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type atoms, the low-frequency coherence may give rise to superradiance without inversion (SRWI) . In reference , the SRWI of an open (i.e. in the presence of a driven field) system of $`V`$-type atoms was discussed. We might stress that the standard superradiance (SR) effect, predicted by Dicke for a collection of two-level atoms , requires an initial inversion of level populations (see the review by Gross and Haroche  and the book by Benedict et al.  for futher details).

The goal of the present paper is to analyze theoretically the features of the SR of a close system of $`V`$-type atoms. This problem was already discussed in the eighties by Crubellier et al  and by Molander and Stroud  within the context of subradiance —collective spontaneous emission from weakly radiating collective states—. This effect has been observed experimentally by Pavolini et al.  in a low-density gas of gallium atoms (the density of gallium atoms in the interaction region was about $`10^{12}`$atoms/cm3). Here, we consider a dense system comprised of $`V`$-type radiators and take into account the local-field correction (LFC) to the averaged Maxwell field. It should be stressed that this correction was neglected in previous theoretical studies , and this approach is then the novelty of the paper. As is well known from the studies of high-density two-level assemblies , the LFC affects significantly the resonant optical response of such systems, especially the response of ultrathin films . LFC in a $`V`$-type medium in the non-cooperative regime has been analyzed in reference . In particular, the effects of the LFC on the SR of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type dense system have been discussed in references . We show that in the case of a dense $`V`$-type system, the interplay between the LFC, doublet splitting and low-frequency coherence dramatically influences the branching ratio of the operating transitions. This efect can be used for controlling the SR by varying the doublet splitting and the degree of coherence between the doublet states.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we present the model we will be dealing with. We derive the truncated equations for the density matrix elements and electric field taking into account the LFC to the Maxwell field, within the rotating wave approximation (RWA). Section 3 is devoted to the particular case of degenerate doublet in the upper state, allowing for an analytical solution of the problem. Results of numerical simulations are described in section 4, where we provide as well interpretations of the peculiarities found numerically. We conclude the paper in section 5 with a brief summary of the results and how these can be related to actual measurements to infer the main characteristics of the LFC.

## 2 Model and truncated equations

We consider a system of three-level atoms with a doublet in the upper state (the so-called $`V`$-configuration, see figure 1), forming an ultrathin film of thickness $`L`$ smaller than the emission wavelength inside the film. This constraints is usually met in experiments and simplify the mathematical description of the model by taking away the propagation effect along the film normal. All the vectors, the SR electric field and transition dipole moments of the operating transitions, $`𝐝_{21}`$ and $`𝐝_{31}`$, are considered to be parallel to each other as well as to the film plane (the transition between the levels of the doublet is not included). Under these assumptions, the vector nature of the above quantities is not important, and the problem is reduced to its scalar form. It is also assumed, without loss of generality, that the transition dipole moments are real and positive: $`d_{21}=d_{12}>0`$ and $`d_{31}=d_{13}>0`$.

We will consider the semiclassical description of the optical dynamics of the system, treating the atom dynamics by means of the density matrix $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }(\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3)`$, i.e., quantum mechanically, while the field evolution is accounted for the Maxwell equation, i.e., classically. The effect of quantum coherence on the spontaneous emission of a single atom is not taken into account since is much weaker than the collective effect.

Under the limitations adopted above, the set of equations for the joint system of the density matrix-Maxwell equations reads

$`\dot{\rho }_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _{31}\rho _{31}i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{31}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{33}\rho _{11})i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{21}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{32},`$ (1)
$`\dot{\rho }_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _{21}\rho _{21}i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{21}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{22}\rho _{11})i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{31}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{23},`$ (2)
$`\dot{\rho }_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _{32}\rho _{32}i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{21}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{31}+i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{31}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12},`$ (3)
$`\dot{\rho }_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{31}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{13}\rho _{31}),`$ (4)
$`\dot{\rho }_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{21}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{12}\rho _{21}),`$ (5)
$`\dot{\rho }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{21}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{12}\rho _{21})i{\displaystyle \frac{d_{31}^{}}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{13}\rho _{31}).`$ (6)
Here, the dot denotes time derivative and $`^{}`$ stands for the acting field

$$^{}=\frac{2\pi L}{c}\dot{𝒫}+\frac{4\pi }{3}𝒫,$$
(7)
where $`L`$ and $`c`$ denote the film thickness and the speed of light, respectively, and $`𝒫=N_0(d_{31}\rho _{31}+d_{21}\rho _{21}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ is the electric polarization of the unit volume, with $`N_0`$ being the atom number concentration. The first term in equation (7) represents the Maxwellian emission field, while the second term is the LFC.

In order to further specify the model we are dealing with, we first stress that it is applicable to the description of SR of a thin dielectric crystalline film rather than a dense gas system. In the latter case, the pressure broadening terms turn out to be important. Having the same nature and order of magnitude as the LFC , these terms have to be added to the equations for the off-diagonal density matrix elements. In solid crystalline media, the levels are usually broadened due to crystal imperfections as well as coupling to phonons. Under specific conditions, the width of the levels is smaller than the LFC (in frequency units). The existence of Frenkel exciton states in dielectric solids, which are due to the interatomic dipolar coupling  or, in other words, due to the LFC, represents an unambiguous confirmation of this fact. Because of that, we do not take into account either relaxation of populations or dephasing of the electric polarization of a single atom, assuming that the SR process is faster (the estimates of the corresponding constants are presented in section 5).

We seek a solution of equations (1)-(6) in the form: $`^{}=E^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _ct)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$$`\rho _{31}=R_{31}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _ct)`$$`\rho _{21}=R_{21}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _ct)`$, where $`\omega _c=(\omega _{31}+\omega _{21})/2`$; $`E^{}`$ and $`R_{31},R_{21}`$ are the complex slowly varying (in the scale $`2\pi /\omega _c`$) amplitudes of the field and of the off-diagonal density matrix elements, respectively. Hereafter the latters will be referred to as optical coherences. Within the RWA, the equations for the amplitudes read

$`\dot{R}_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}R_{31}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)[\mu _{31}(\rho _{33}\rho _{11})`$ (8)
$`+\mu _{21}\rho _{32}](\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31}),`$
$`\dot{R}_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}R_{21}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)[\mu _{21}(\rho _{22}\rho _{11})`$ (9)
$`+\mu _{31}\rho _{23}](\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31}),`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _{32}\rho _{32}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)\mu _{21}R_{31}(\mu _{21}R_{21}^{}+\mu _{31}R_{31}^{})`$ (10)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)\mu _{31}R_{21}^{}(\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31})],`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{31}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)(\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31})R_{31}^{}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (11)
$`\dot{\rho }_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{21}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_L)(\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31})R_{21}^{}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (12)
$`\dot{\rho }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau _R}}|\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31}|^2.`$ (13)
Here we have defined $`\mu _{31}=d_{31}/d`$ and $`\mu _{21}=d_{21}/d`$, where $`d=\sqrt{(d_{31}^2+d_{21}^2)/2}`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=4\pi d^2N_0/3\mathrm{}`$; $`\tau _R^1=2\pi k_cLd^2N_0/\mathrm{},k_c=\omega _c/c`$. When deriving equations (8)-(13), we exploited the fact that the equation for the slowly-varying field amplitude $`E^{}`$ can be cast in the form

$$\frac{dE^{}}{\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{i}{\tau _R}+\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)(\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31}),$$
(14)
and we introduced this expression directly in the density matrix equation. The quantities $`\tau _R^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ represent the magnitudes of the SR field and of the LFC (in frequency units), respectively . Recall that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L>\tau _R^1`$ since the relationship $`k_cL<1`$ holds for an ultrathin film.

It is to be noted that equations (8)-(13) have the following integrals of motion:

$`\rho _{11}+\rho _{22}+\rho _{33}=1,`$ (15)
$`\rho _{11}^2+\rho _{22}^2+\rho _{33}^2+2(|\rho _{32}|^2+|R_{31}|^2+|R_{21}|^2)=\mathrm{const},`$ (16)
where the first equation establishes the normalization condition for the total level population, while the second one cannot be interpreted in a simple way.

To complete the mathematical formalism we should specify the initial conditions for equations (8)-(13). We assume that the doublet states are initially populated, i.e., there exist nonzero $`\rho _{33}(0)`$ and $`\rho _{22}(0)`$. We also allow an initial low-frequency coherence $`\rho _{32}(0)`$. In order to trigger the emission process, we set a fixed (not-fluctuating) value for the initial electric polarization in the operating channels, $`R_{31}(0)=R_{21}(0)=R_0`$. This corresponds to triggering the SR by an ultrashort external pulse of a small area, with a duration $`T_p<\mathrm{min}\{2\pi /\omega _{32},\tau _R^1\}`$ .

Equations (8)-(13) are written within the original basis of states $`|1`$, $`|2`$ and $`|3`$. From physical reasons, especially in the case of a degenerated doublet (see below), another set of states turns out to be very useful: $`|1`$, $`|+=(1/\sqrt{2})(\mu _{21}|2+\mu _{31}|3)`$ and $`|=(1/\sqrt{2})(\mu _{21}|3\mu _{31}|2)`$. The convenience of this set is clear from the fact that only the superposition $`|+`$ is coupled to the ground state $`|1`$ (it will be referred to as bright state hereafter), while the remainder one is decoupled (dark state). The dipole moments of the transitions $`|1|+`$ and $`|1|`$ are $`1|\widehat{d}|+=\sqrt{2}d`$ and $`1|\widehat{d}|=0`$. In this regards, the dark channel does not contribute to the SR.

Within the new basis, $`|1,|+,|`$, the density matrix elements can be expressed as follows

$`R_{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mu _{21}R_{21}+\mu _{31}R_{31}),`$ (17)
$`\rho _{++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu _{21}^2\rho _{22}+\mu _{31}^2\rho _{33}+2\mu _{21}\mu _{31}\mathrm{}\rho _{32}),`$ (18)
$`R_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mu _{21}R_{31}\mu _{31}R_{21}),`$ (19)
$`\rho _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu _{21}^2\rho _{33}+\mu _{31}^2\rho _{22}2\mu _{21}\mu _{31}\mathrm{}\rho _{32}),`$ (20)
$`\rho _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mu _{21}\mu _{31}(\rho _{33}\rho _{22})+\mu _{21}^2\rho _{23}\mu _{31}^2\rho _{32}],`$ (21)
where now $`\rho _{++}`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ stand for populations of the bright and dark states, respectively; $`\rho _+`$ represents the low-frequency coherence, while $`R_{+1}`$ and $`R_1`$ describe the coherence of the bright and dark channels, respectively. We stress that $`R_{+1}`$ determines the field, as seen from equation (7). The equations for these matrix elements read

$`\dot{R}_{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{4}}\left[(\mu _{31}^2\mu _{21}^2)R_{+1}+2\mu _{21}\mu _{31}R_1\right]`$ (22)
$`+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)(\rho _{++}\rho _{11})R_{+1},`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}\mu _{21}\mu _{31}\left(\rho _+\rho _+\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{\tau _R}}|R_{+1}|^2,`$ (23)
$`\dot{\rho }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\tau _R}}|R_{+1}|^2,`$ (24)
$`\dot{R}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{4}}\left[(\mu _{21}^2\mu _{31}^2)R_1+2\mu _{21}\mu _{31}R_{+1}\right]+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)R_{+1}\rho _+,`$ (25)
$`\dot{\rho }_+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}\left[(\mu _{21}^2\mu _{31}^2)\rho _++\mu _{21}\mu _{31}(\rho _{++}\rho _{})\right]`$ (26)
$`+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)R_{+1}R_1^{},`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}\mu _{21}\mu _{31}\left(\rho _+\rho _+\right).`$ (27)
As can be seen from equations (22)-(27), the bright channel ($`|+|1`$) is coupled to the dark one ($`||1`$) through $`\omega _{32}`$–terms, and thus, at $`\omega _{32}=0`$, the former turns out to be independent of the latter (see section 3 for more details). At the same time, the behavior of the dark channel is driven by the the bright one even in the presence of degeneracy of the doublet states: the field terms proportional to $`\tau _R^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ play this role.

## 3 Degenerated doublet ($`\omega _{32}=0`$)

We first analyze the degenerated case. Then equations (22)-(27), describing the bright channel and which we are interesting in, reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}|R_{+1}|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\tau _R}}Z|R_{+1}|,`$ (28)
$`\dot{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\tau _R}}|R_{+1}|^2,`$ (29)
$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }_LZ,`$ (30)
where the new variables read $`Z(\rho _{++}\rho _{11})/2`$, and $`\varphi `$ is the phase of $`R_{+1}`$. We stress that equations (28)-(30) are similar to the SR equations of an ultrathin film of two-level atoms , but replacing $`\tau _R`$ by $`\tau _R/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ by $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, which is reasonable due to the presence of two emission channels.

Several qualitative conclusions about the system behavior can be drawn from the direct analysis of equations (28)-(30). First of all, the derivative $`d|R_{+1}|/dt`$ is positive and thus $`|R_{+1}|`$ will give rise to the SR if $`Z(0)>0`$ or, in other words, if there is an initial population inversion between the bright and ground states:

$$\rho _{++}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mu _{21}^2\rho _{22}(0)+\mu _{31}^2\rho _{33}(0)+2\mu _{21}\mu _{31}\mathrm{}\rho _{32}(0)\right]>\rho _{11}(0).$$
(31)
From here it can be shown that, in order to meet this inequality, the total initial population of the doublet, $`\rho _{22}(0)+\rho _{33}(0)`$, must by larger than the population in the ground state, $`\rho _{11}(0)`$. In other words, in contrast to the case of a close $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system where the SRWI can be observed , the SR in a close $`V`$-type system requires the population inversion between actual levels. For the sake of simplicity, let us set $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=\rho _{32}(0)A=(1/2)[1\rho _{11}(0)]`$. It corresponds to the excitation of the bright state $`|+=(1/\sqrt{2})(\mu _{21}|2+\mu _{31}|3)`$ with amplitude $`A`$. Then, the inequality (31) takes the form $`A(1+\mu _{21}\mu _{31})>\rho _{11}(0)`$. Bearing in mind that $`\mu _{21}\mu _{31}<1`$, we get $`2A>\rho _{11}(0)`$, i.e., the total population of the doublet must to be indeed larger than that in the ground state.

With the substitutions $`Z=B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`|R_{+1}|=B\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where $`BZ(0)`$, equations (28)-(30) can be solved analytically, and the solution is

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z(0)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_D}{\tau _R^{}}}\right),`$ (32)
$`|R_{+1}|`$ $`=`$ $`Z(0)\mathrm{sech}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_D}{\tau _R^{}}}\right),`$ (33)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }_L{\displaystyle _0^t}Z(\tau )d\tau =4Z(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_L\tau _R^{}[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_D}{\tau _R^{}}}\right)`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_D}{\tau _R^{}}}\right)],`$
$`t_D`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _R^{}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2Z(0)}{|R_{+1}(0)|}}\right].`$ (35)
As is seen, the SR pulse is characterized by a delay time $`t_D`$ and a duration $`\tau _R^{}=\tau _R/4Z(0)`$. The unique effect of the LFC on the SR from a degenerated $`V`$-system is the SR phase modulation which changes the SR frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\dot{\varphi }=4Z(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{tt_D}{\tau _R^{}}\right),$$
(36)
from $`4Z(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ to $`4Z(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. For this reason, it is similar to what is well known for two-level dense systems , namely within the mean-field approximation we are in fact dealing with, the LFC does not affect the SR kinetics, but determines the width of the SR spectrum.

## 4 Nondegenerated doublet

We show below that the scenario of the SR from a nondegenerated $`V`$-system changes dramatically in the presence of the LFC. It is to be noticed that, concerning the SR from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system, this fact has been already mentioned in references. . In order to investigate systematically the peculiarities of the SR in the case of a $`V`$-system, we perform the numerical solution of equations (8)-(13). In all our calculations, the dipole moments of the operating transitions $`|3|1`$ and $`|2|1`$ are equal to each other, thus implying that $`\mu _{21}=\mu _{31}=1`$. The initial values of amplitudes of the high-frequency coherences are set to $`R_{31}(0)=R_{32}(0)=10^8`$. Time is expressed in units of $`\tau _R`$. The other initial magnitudes, such that the level populations $`\rho _{11}(0),\rho _{22}(0)`$ and $`\rho _{33}(0)`$, the low-frequency coherence $`\rho _{32}(0)`$, the doublet splitting $`\omega _{32}`$ and the LFC $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, will be regarded as variable parameters.

### 4.1 Effects of the low-frequency coherence neglecting the LFC

We first analyze the SR of a nondegenerated $`V`$-system setting, as a first step, the LFC to zero (see also the discussions in references ). In spite of the fact that this assumption might be unphysical for an ultrathin film (recall that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L>\tau _R`$), the analysis of this ideal case will help us in understanding more complicated situations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L0`$. Nondegeneracy means that the magnitude of the splitting $`\omega _{32}`$ is larger than the spectrum width of the SR in the presence of degeneracy. The latter can be estimated on the basis of equations (32)-(35) as $`\tau _{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=4Z(0)\tau _R^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=0`$. Values of $`\omega _{32}`$ about several units of $`\tau _R^1`$ suffice to model the outlined condition as $`4Z(0)2`$.

Figure 2 shows the kinetics of the SR pulse and the level populations calculated for $`\omega _{32}=5\tau _R^1`$ with the following initial conditions: all the population is in the doublet states, $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=0.5`$, and, additionally, there exists a low-frequency coherence, $`\rho _{32}(0)=0.5`$. Within the subspace of states $`|+`$ and $`|`$, this corresponds to the excitation of only the pure bright state $`|+`$ ($`\rho _{++}(0)=1`$), while all other populations and coherences are equal to zero $`\rho _{}(0)=\rho _{11}(0)=\rho _+(0)=0`$ \[see equations (17)-(21)\]. As is seen from figure 2, the SR pulse deactivates completely the state $`|+`$. All the population is finally transferred to the ground state $`|1`$, as it takes place in the case of two-level SR under the condition of total inversion (see, for instance, references ). The modulation of the kinetics with frequency $`\omega _{32}`$ is explained by the fact that at nonzero splitting, the bright state $`|+`$ is not a stationary state: it periodically (with frequency $`\omega _{32}`$, i.e. rapidly in the scale of the SR) exchanges population with the dark state $`|`$. Indeed, keeping in equations (23), (26) and (27) only the terms with the density matrix elements within the subspace of states $`|+`$ and $`|`$ and introducing the notations $`z=\rho _{++}\rho _{}`$ and $`y=i(\rho _+\rho _+)`$, we obtain

$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{32}z,`$ (37)
$`\dot{z}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{32}y.`$ (38)
These equations describe harmonic oscillations, with frequency $`\omega _{32}`$, of a vector $`(y,z)`$ in the $`YZ`$ plane. Values $`z=1,1`$ correspond to the total population of bright and dark states, respectively. The magnitude $`y=2\mathrm{}\rho _+`$ reflects the low-frequency coherence. Note that $`z^2+y^2=\mathrm{const}`$. For the initial conditions we are dealing with ($`z(0)=1`$ and $`y(0)=0`$), approximately one half of the period of these oscillations the system remains in the bright state while the other half does not. This also explains why the delay time of the SR in the present case ($`t_D18\tau _R`$) is two times as large as compared to that time at $`\omega _{32}=0`$. Indeed, using the above initial conditions in equation (35), one obtains $`t_D9\tau _R`$ for a degenerated doublet.

From the above discussion it is clear that changing the sign of the initial low-frequency coherence, i.e. setting $`\rho _{32}(0)=0.5`$ or, in other words, $`\rho _{}(0)=1`$, will not affect the SR kinetics. After a half period of oscillations with frequency $`\omega _{32}`$, the previous initial conditions will be restored.

In figure 3 we depicted the SR kinetics calculated for the same initial conditions as above, except for the low-frequency coherence $`\rho _{32}(0)`$ was set to zero. Within the subspace of states $`|+`$ and $`|`$, they now correspond to the excitation of an incoherent mixture of the bright and dark states: $`\rho _{++}(0)=\rho _{}(0)=0.5`$ and $`\rho _+(0)=0`$ \[see equations (18), (20) and (21)\]. One can notice significant changes in the main features of the SR pulse as compared to the previous case: both the delay time and the pulse duration increased by approximately a factor of two and, in addition, the doublet states remained equally populated after the SR pulse has been emitted: $`\rho _{22}(\mathrm{})=\rho _{33}(\mathrm{})=0.25`$. More specifically, the population of the bright state, i.e. only one half of the total population accumulated in the upper states, is transferred to the ground state during the SR. During the subsequent half remains trapped in the dark state. The increase of the delay time and the duration of the SR pulse by a factor of two is simply explained by the fact that, in the present case, the initial value $`Z(0)=\rho _{++}(0)\rho _{11}(0)=0.5`$ is twice as small as compared to the previous situation. Recall that both $`t_D`$ and $`\tau _R`$ are inversely proportional to $`Z(0)`$.

### 4.2 Effects of the LFC ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_L0`$)

We turn now to studying the LFC effects on the SR kinetics. Therefore, in what follows the magnitude of LFC, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, is regarded as a variable parameter while the doublet splitting, $`\omega _{32}`$, is set to a fixed value. More specifically, we present the results of numerical calculations for $`\omega _{32}=5\tau _R^1`$, meaning that the splitting is larger than the full width of the SR spectrum which is $`2\tau _R^1`$. For small magnitudes of $`\omega _{32}`$ compared to $`\tau _R^1`$, the SR kinetics is well described by equations (32)-(35). We also assume that the total initial population of the system, $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=0.5`$ and $`\rho _{11}(0)=0`$, with equal populations of the doublet states, $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=0.5`$. As we will show below, the output depends on the initial value of the low-frequency coherence, $`\rho _{32}(0)`$, as well. We restrict ourselves to two limiting cases: $`\rho _{32}(0)=0`$ and $`\rho _{32}(0)=\pm \sqrt{\rho _{22}(0)\rho _{33}(0)}=0.5`$. The former corresponds to the initial excitation of incoherent mixture of the doublet states $`|2`$ and $`|3`$, while the latter implies the initial excitation of the pure state $`|+`$. The initial values of the high-frequency coherences are set to $`R_{21}(0)=R_{31}(0)=10^8`$ as before.

#### 4.2.1 SR from an incoherent mixture ($`\rho _{32}(0)=0`$)

Figure 4 shows the SR kinetics calculated for $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=0.5`$ (the total initial inversion) in the absence of the initial low-frequency coherence, $`\rho _{32}(0)=0`$, varying the LFC magnitude, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. As is seen from this figure, increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ affects drastically the SR kinetics. While $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ is smaller than some “critical” value, the scenario of the SR is similar to that described in the previous subsection, i.e., the transitions $`|2|1`$ and $`|3|1`$ evolve synchronously and the doublet states remain equally populated after the SR pulse has been emitted: $`\rho _{22}(\mathrm{})=\rho _{33}(\mathrm{})=0.25`$. For larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, the transition $`|2|1`$ in fact does not evolve, conserving almost all the initial population in the state $`|2`$, while the population of the state $`|3`$ is entirely transferred to the ground state $`|1`$. This explains the changes which occur in the SR kinetics on increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$: disappearance of the oscillatory structure and shortening both the SR pulse duration and delay time by approximately a factor of two. Indeed, as $`|3|1`$ is the only transition contributing to the emission, the problem is reduced to the two-level scheme with parameters $`\tau _R^{}=4Z(0)\tau _R=\tau _R`$ and $`t_D=\tau _R^{}\mathrm{ln}R_{31}(0)17\tau _R`$, which are characteristic for the two-level SR. It worth mentioning that the suppression of the transition $`|2|1`$ occurs at $`d_{21}=d_{31}`$, i.e., under the condition of equivalent coupling of the individual transitions to the field.

The physics of such a behavior is as follows. A $`V`$-atom represents two transitions coupled to each other by the common field which includes the emission term ($`\tau _R^1`$) and the LFC ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$) \[see equation (14)\]. In the presence of population inversion, the amplitudes of optical oscillations, $`R_{21}`$ and $`R_{31}`$, grow in time. Their increments are equal to each other, in the absence of the LFC and under the condition $`\mu _{13}=\mu _{12}`$ and $`\rho _{33}(0)=\rho _{22}(0)=0.5`$. However, they become different after appearing the LFC (see below). This makes the transition $`|3|1`$ to evolve faster than $`|2|1`$. The final state of the system depends on the relationship between $`R_{31}`$ and $`R_{21}`$ at those times when the SR pulse is already well developed, i.e., at $`tt_D`$. If $`|R_{21}(t_D)||R_{31}(t_D)|`$ then both transitions still evolve synchronously, while at $`|R_{21}(t_D)||R_{31}(t_D)|`$ the initial population of level $`|3`$ ($`0.5`$ in our case) is transferred to the level $`|1`$ before the oscillations $`|2|1`$ begin to built up. It makes the population inversion between levels $`|2`$ and $`|1`$ equal to zero and thus prevents the superradiant evolution of this channel which explains the disappearance of the oscillations of the SR pulse.

An analysis of the linear stage of the emission, i.e., keeping all the quantities equal to their initial values, except for $`R_{21}`$ and $`R_{31}`$, provides a solid support to the above arguments. Equations (8)-(13), linearized with respect to $`R_{21}`$ and $`R_{31}`$ and adapted to the conditions used in the numerical simulations ($`\mu _{31}=\mu _{21}=1`$, $`\rho _{33}(0)=\rho _{22}(0)`$, $`\rho _{11}(0)=\rho _{32}(0)=0`$), have the form

$`\dot{R}_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)W\right]R_{31}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)WR_{21},`$ (39)
$`\dot{R}_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)W\right]R_{21}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _R}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)WR_{31},`$ (40)
where $`W\rho _{33}(0)\rho _{11}(0)=\rho _{22}(0)\rho _{11}(0)`$. Solving these coupled equations is straightforward. Below, we write down the solution in the limit $`\tau _R^1,\mathrm{\Delta }_L\omega _{32}`$:

$$R_{21}R_0e^{\lambda _1t},R_{31}R_0e^{\lambda _2t},$$
(41)
where

$$\lambda _{1,2}=i\left(\pm \frac{\omega _{32}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_LW\right)+\frac{W}{\tau _R}\left(12W\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{\omega _{32}}\right).$$
(42)
As seen from equation (42), the increment of $`R_{31}`$ is indeed larger than that for $`R_{21}`$, i.e. $`R_{31}`$ grows faster than $`R_{21}`$. Thus, during the linear stage of the SR

$$\frac{|R_{31}|}{|R_{21}|}=\mathrm{exp}\left(4W^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{\omega _{32}}\frac{t}{\tau _R}\right).$$
(43)
Recall that the linear solutions for $`R_{31}`$ and $`R_{21}`$ are valid almost up to the SR pulse maximum (see, for instance, reference ). Then, applying this formula for $`t=t_D`$ and equating the exponent to unity, one obtains an estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^c`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L^c=\frac{\omega _{32}}{4W^2}\frac{\tau _R}{t_D},$$
(44)
which separate two regimes of the SR. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L<\mathrm{\Delta }_L^c`$, both transitions evolve synchronously, while for the opposite sign of the inequality, the transition $`|2|1`$ is blocked for the reasons discussed above.

Concerning numerical data ($`\omega _{32}=5\tau _R^1`$, $`W=0.5`$, and $`t_D35\tau _R`$), equation (44) yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^c=\omega _{32}/35=(1/7)\tau _R^1`$. This estimate is in good agreement with the numerical data (see figure 4). We stress that the estimated value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^c`$ is smaller than the half-width of the SR spectrum given by $`\tau _R^1`$. In other words, even if the LFC (the dynamical resonance frequency shift) are spectroscopically hidden due to the natural pulse broadening, it drastically affects the SR kinetics.

It is to be noticed that the above behavior of the SR of a $`V`$-system resembles the peculiarity of the SR for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-arrangement of nondegenerated levels , namely in the presence of the LFC, all the population from the upper level of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system is transferred to the lower level of the doublet, while the higher doublet level remains unpopulated after the SR pulse has gone.

#### 4.2.2 SR from the pure state ($`\rho _{32}(0)=0.5`$)

Figure 5 shows the effects of the LFC on the SR kinetics obtained for $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{33}(0)=\rho _{32}(0)=0.5`$ or, in other words, when initially the pure bright state $`|+`$ is fully populated, $`\rho _{++}(0)=1`$, while $`\rho _{11}(0)=\rho _{}(0)=\rho _+=0`$. As is seen from figure 5a, the present case differs noticeably from the one where initially no low-frequency coherence is created ($`\rho _{32}(0)=0`$, see previous section). First of all, the LFC does not affect the SR delay time at all. Therefore, the linear stage of the SR is unuseful here in predicting the changes in the SR kinetics, as they occur when the nonlinearity is already well developed.

The changes concern the second half and final stage of the pulse. The pulse shows an oscillatory structure which now cannot be associated with $`\omega _{32}`$-oscillations. The frequency of the oscillations grows upon increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and, in fact, reflects the magnitude of the latter. The populations of the doublet states also undergo antiphased (with respect to each other) oscillations at the same frequency as the pulse does. This indicates that the doublet states start to exchange the population when the SR pulse is developed. A qualitative interpretation of this effect is as follows. Recall that the LFC shifts the frequency of the transitions $`|2|1`$ and $`|3|1`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\rho _{22}\rho _{11})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\rho _{33}\rho _{11})`$, respectively. Initially, these shifts are equal to each other. Figure 5b shows that the transition $`|3|1`$ start to develop first. This reduces the initial detuning, $`\omega _{32}`$, between the transitions. As a result, the radiation, which is emitted via the transition $`|3|1`$, is absorbed by the transition $`|2|1`$. It further reduces the detuning, stronger for larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. After that, the transition $`|2|1`$ starts to emit while $`|3|1`$ to absorb, i.e. the transitions exchange their role.

The initial population is mostly transferred to the ground state, as it takes place for the same initial conditions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=0`$. However, a small part of the population remains trapped in the dark state $`|`$, unlike the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=0`$. This is the reason why the SR pulse has a long tail.

## 5 Summary and concluding remarks

We studied theoretically the SR from an ultrathin film of $`V`$-type atoms taking into account the LFC to the average Maxwell field. We show that the interplay between the doublet splitting, low-frequency coherence (within the subspace of the doublet states) and LFC may significantly affect the scenario of SR. Several conclusion can be drawn from our results:

(i) Under the condition of degeneration, the three-level problem is equivalent to that for a two level system with a renormalized SR time. The role of the LFC is also similar to that for the two-level problem and manifests itself as a phase modulation of the SR pulse.

(ii) For a nondegenerated $`V`$-system, the LFC correction affects drastically the SR scenario, allowing to develop one of the transitions and blocking the other one under specific conditions. This effect may occur even if the LFC is small compared to the SR spectrum, i.e., when the LFC is spectroscopically hidden.

(iii) The SR scenario is sensitive to the amount of low-frequency coherence (within the subspace of the doublet states) as well as to the magnitude of the total inversion, thus providing a way to control the SR regimes.

To conclude, we discuss the conditions required to prove experimentally the predicted regimes of the $`V`$-type SR. First of all, one should look for a dense ensemble of radiators where the LFC is large compared to the line width. In reference , O$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ ions in KCl:O$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ crystals and bound I2 excitons at donor sites in CdS single crystals were considered suitable for observing the LFC effects. In relation to our model, one should bear in mind that in disordered ensembles of dipole radiators, like the case of O$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ centers and bound I2 excitons, the LFC fluctuates. The average LFC drives the level shifts, while the fluctuating part contributes to the dipole-dipole line broadening. It turns out that both shift and line width are of the same order of magnitude , as it takes place in dense gas systems . Because of this fact, these systems can hardly present the effects we are discussing.

Thin films of some organic compounds, such as naphtalene and antracene, as well as materials containing unoccupied $`d`$ or $`f`$ orbitals, such as Cr2O3 or MnO2, might be promising materials for this task. As they are crystalline, the intermolecular dipole-dipole interaction (and, subsequently, the LFC) does not fluctuate. Furthermore, at low temperatures, the optical excitations in these materials are Frenkel excitons . This fact implies that the intermolecular dipole-dipole interaction (the LFC, in other words) dominates over dephasing. As the density of the optically active units in crystals is generally high ($`N_010^{21}10^{22}`$cm-3), the SR time constant $`\tau _R`$ may be small compared to the dephasing time. Indeed, $`\tau _R=\mathrm{}\lambda _c/(2\pi )^2d^2N_0L=(8\pi /3)(N_0\lambda _c^3)^1(\lambda _c/L)\tau _0`$, where $`\lambda _c=2\pi /k_c`$ and $`\tau _0=3\mathrm{}/4d^2k_c^3`$ is the spontaneous emission time of a single emitter. Let us take $`\lambda _c=5\times 10^5`$cm and assume that the transitions are dipole allowed ($`\tau _010^8s`$), which is typically the case for organic crystals. Then, for a film thickness $`L=0.1\lambda _c`$ we estimate $`\tau _R`$ as being of the order of $`10`$fs. The exciton absorption line width is typically about few hundreds cm-1. This gives $`1`$ps as an estimate for the dephasing time, that is, hundreed times longer than $`\tau _R`$. On the other hand, vibronic structure of aromatic crystals seems suitable for forming a $`V`$-configured system. The SR of high density Frenkel excitons was observed in single organic crystals of R-phycoerythrin molecules at room temperature . The SR pulse was found to be phase-modulated, thus indicating the relevance of the LFC. Therefore, R-phycoerythrin single crystals are promising candidates to prove the effects predicted in this work.

V. A. M. acknowledges the financial support through a NATO Fellowship, and la Universidad Complutense de Madrid for hospitality. F. D-A. was supported by DGI-MCyT (Project MAT2000-0734) and CAM (Project 07N/0075/2001). F. Carreño, M. Antón and O.G. Calderón were supported by project no BFM2000-0796 (Spain).

## References

## Figure captions


text:
# Pairs of charged heavy-fermions from an SU(3){_𝐿}⊗U(1)N model at 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ colliders

## I INTRODUCTION

Although the standard electroweak model is very well successful explaining experimental data up to order 100 GeV, there are experimental results on the muon anomalous magnetic moment  and (solar and atmospheric) neutrinos , which suggest no standard interpretation. Some other known experimental facts, such as the proliferation of the fermion generation and their complex pattern of masses and mixing angles, are not predicted in the framework of the standard model. There are no theoretical explanation for the existence of several generations and for the values of the masses. It was established at the CERN $`e^+e^{}`$ collider LEP that the number of light neutrinos is three .

Many models, such as composite models , grand unified theories , technicolor models , superstring-inspired models , mirror fermions  predict the existence of new particles with masses around of the scale of $`1`$ TeV. All these models consider the possible existence of a new generation of fermions.

Heavy-leptons are usually classified in four types: sequential leptons, paraleptons, ortholeptons, and long-lived penetrating particle . In this work we will study the type of heavy leptons which does not belong to any one mentioned above. Consequently, the existing experimental bounds on heavy-lepton parameters do not apply to them. This kind of heavy-leptons are predicted by an electroweak model based on the SU(3)$`{}_{C}{}^{}`$SU(3)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)N (3-3-1 for short) semi simple symmetry group . In this model the new leptons require not new generations, as occur in the most of the heavy-lepton models . It is a chiral electroweak model whose left-handed charged heavy-leptons, which we denote by $`P_a`$ $`=`$ $`E`$, $`M`$ and $`T`$, together in association with the ordinary charged leptons and its respective neutrinos, are accommodate in SU(3)L triplets. So, we will study the production mechanism for these heavy-exotic leptons, together with the exotic quarks and exotic neutrinos, in $`e^{}e^+`$ colliders such as the Next Linear Collider (NLC) ($`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV) and CERN Linear Collider (CLIC) ($`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV).

The outline of this paper is the following. In Sec. II we describe the relevant features of the model. The luminosities of $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma Z`$ and $`ZZ`$ for $`e^{}e^+`$ colliders are given in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we study the production of a pair of exotic-lepton. We summarize the results in Sec. V.

## II Basic facts about the 3-3-1 heavy-lepton model

The most interesting feature of this class of models is the occurrence of anomaly cancellations, which is implemented only when the three fermion families are considered together and not family by family as in the standard model. This implies that the number of families must be a multiple of the color number and, consequently, the 3-3-1 model suggests a route towards the response of the flavor question . The model has also a great phenomenological interest since the related new physics can be expected in a scale near of the Fermi one .

Let us summarize the most relevant points of the model (for details see Ref. ). The left-handed leptons and quarks transform under the SU(3)L gauge group as the triplets

$$\psi _{aL}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\mathrm{}_a\\ \mathrm{}_a^{}\\ P_a^{}\end{array}\right)_L(\mathrm{𝟑},0),Q_{1L}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_1^{}\\ d_1^{}\\ J_1\end{array}\right)_L(\mathrm{𝟑},\frac{2}{3}),Q_{\alpha L}=\left(\begin{array}{c}J_\alpha ^{}\\ u_\alpha ^{}\\ d_\alpha ^{}\end{array}\right)_L(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\frac{1}{3}),$$
(2)
where $`P_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E^{}`$, $`M^{}`$, $`T^{}`$ are the new leptons, $`\mathrm{}_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{}`$, $`\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau ^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ = 2, 3. The $`J_1`$ exotic quark carries $`5/3`$ units of elementary electric charge while $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ carry $``$4/3 each. In Eqs. (II) the numbers 0, 2/3 and $``$1/3 are the U(1)N charges. Each left-handed charged fermion has its right-handed counterpart transforming as a singlet in the presence of the SU(3)L group, i. e.,

$`\mathrm{}_R^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},1),`$ $`P_R^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},1),U_R^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},2/3),`$ (3)
$`D_R^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},1/3),`$ $`J_{1R}(\mathrm{𝟏},5/3),J_{2,3R}^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},4/3).`$ (4)
We are defining $`U=u,c,t`$ and $`D=d,s,b`$. In order to avoid anomalies, one of the quark families must transforms in a different way with respect to the two others. In Eqs. (II) all the primed fields are linear combinations of the mass eigenstates. The charge operator is defined by

$$\frac{Q}{e}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda _3\sqrt{3}\lambda _8\right)+N,$$
(5)
where the $`\lambda `$’s are the usual Gell-Mann matrices. We notice, however, that since $`Q_{\alpha L}`$ in Eqs. (2) are in antitriplet representation of SU(3)L, the antitriplet representation of the Gell-Mann matrices must be used also in Eq. (5) in order to get the correct electric charge for the quarks of the second and third generations.

The three Higgs scalar triplets

$$\eta =\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta ^0\\ \eta _1^{}\\ \eta _2^+\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{𝟑},0),\rho =\left(\begin{array}{c}\rho ^+\\ \rho ^0\\ \rho ^{++}\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{𝟑},1),\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi ^{}\\ \chi ^{}\\ \chi ^0\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{𝟑},1),$$
(6)
generate the fermion and gauge boson masses in the model. The neutral scalar fields develop the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) $`\eta ^0=v_\eta `$, $`\rho ^0=v_\rho `$ and $`\chi ^0=v_\chi `$, with $`v_\eta ^2+v_\rho ^2=v_W^2=(246\text{ GeV})^2`$. Neutrinos can get their masses from the $`\eta ^0`$ scalar. A detailed scheme for Majorana mass generation for the neutrinos in this model is given in Ref. .

The pattern of symmetry breaking is

$`\text{SU(3)}_L\text{U(1)}_N\stackrel{\chi }{}\text{SU(2)}_L\text{U(1)}_Y\stackrel{\eta ,\rho }{}\text{U(1)}_{\mathrm{em}}`$

and so, we can expect $`v_\chi v_\eta ,v_\rho `$. The $`\eta `$ and $`\rho `$ scalar triplets give masses to the ordinary fermions and gauge bosons, while the $`\chi `$ scalar triplet gives masses to the new fermions and new gauge bosons.

Due the transformation properties of the fermion and Higgs fields under SU(3)L \[see Eqs. (II) and (6)\] the Yukawa interactions in the model are

$`_{\mathrm{}}^Y`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ab}\overline{\psi }_{aL}\mathrm{}_{bR}^{}\rho G_{ab}^{}\overline{\psi }_{aL}^{}P_{bR}^{}\chi +\text{H. c.},`$ (8)
$`_q^Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left[\overline{Q}_{1L}\left(G_{1a}U_{aR}^{}\eta +\stackrel{~}{G}_{1a}D_{aR}^{}\rho \right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\overline{Q}_{\alpha L}\left(F_{\alpha a}U_{aR}^{}\rho ^{}+\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha a}D_{aR}^{}\eta ^{}\right)\right]+`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}F_{\alpha \beta }^J\overline{Q}_{\alpha L}J_{\beta R}^{}\chi ^{}+G^J\overline{Q}_{1L}J_{1R}\chi +\text{H. c.}`$
The $`G`$’s, $`F`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$’s are Yukawa coupling constants with $`a,b=1,2,3`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =2,3`$. The interaction eigenstates which appear in Eqs. (II) can be transformed in the corresponding physical eigenstates by appropriated rotations. However, since the cross section calculation imply summation on flavors (see Sec. IV) and the rotation matrix must be unitary, the mixing parameters have not essential effect for our purpose here. So, thereafter we suppress the primes notation for the interactions eigenstates.

The gauge bosons consist of an octet $`W_\mu ^i`$ $`\left(i=1,\mathrm{},8\right)`$ associated with SU(3)L and a singlet $`B_\mu `$ associated with U(1)N. The covariant derivatives are

$$𝒟_\mu \phi _a=_\mu \phi _a+i\frac{g}{2}(\stackrel{}{W}_\mu .\stackrel{}{\lambda })_a^b\phi _b+ig^{}N_\phi \phi _aB_\mu ,$$
(12)
where $`\phi =\eta ,\rho ,\chi `$. The model predicts single charged $`\left(V^\pm \right)`$, double charged $`\left(U^{\pm \pm }\right)`$ vector bileptons and a new neutral gauge boson $`\left(Z^{}\right)`$ in addition to the charged standard gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and the neutral standard $`Z`$. We take from Ref.  the trilinear interactions of the $`Z^{}\left(k_1\right)`$ with the $`V\left(k_2\right)^\pm `$ and $`U^{\pm \pm }\left(k_3\right)`$, in the usual notation that all the quadrimoments are incoming in the vertex,

$$𝒱_{\lambda \mu \nu }=i\frac{g}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{1+3t_W^2}}\left[\left(k_1k_2\right)_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }+\left(k_2k_3\right)_\mu g_{\nu \lambda }+\left(k_3k_1\right)_\nu g_{\lambda \mu }\right]$$
(13)
where

$$t_W^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}.$$
(14)
The relevant neutral vector current interactions are

$`_Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left[a_L\left(f\right)\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)f+a_R\left(f\right)\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)f\right]Z_\mu ,`$ (16)
$`_Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left[a_L^{}\left(f\right)\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)f+a_R^{}\left(f\right)\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)f\right]Z_\mu ^{},`$ (17)
$`_{AP}`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{P}_a\gamma ^\mu P_aA_\mu ,`$ (18)
$`_{ZP}`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\overline{P}_a\gamma ^\mu P_aZ_\mu ,`$ (19)
$`_{Z^{}P}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{2\sqrt{3}t_W}}\overline{P}_a\gamma ^\mu \left[3t_W^21+\left(3t_W^2+1\right)\gamma _5\right]P_aZ_\mu ^{},`$ (20)
$`_{Zq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\overline{q}_a\gamma ^\mu \left(v^a+a^a\gamma ^5\right)q_aZ_\mu ,`$ (21)
$`_{Z^{}q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\overline{q}_a\gamma ^\mu \left(v^a+a^a\gamma ^5\right)q_aZ_\mu ^{},`$ (22)
where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg mixing angle, $`f`$ is any fermion and $`q_a`$ is any quark . The coefficients in Eqs. (16), (17), (21) and (22) are

$`a_L\left(\nu _a^{}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},a_R\left(\nu _a\right)=0,a_L^{}\left(\nu _a^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{3}}},a_R^{}\left(\nu _a^{}\right)=0,`$ (24)
$`a_L\left(e_a^{}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,a_R\left(e_a^{}\right)=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,`$ $`a_L^{}\left(e_a^{}\right)=a_L^{}\left(\nu _a^{}\right),a_R^{}\left(e_a^{}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}{2a_L^{}\left(\nu _a^{}\right)}}`$ (25)
$`a_L\left(E_a^{}\right)=a_R\left(E_a^{}\right)=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,a_L^{}\left(E_a^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{14\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}{3}}},a_R^{}\left(E_a^{}\right)=a_R^{}\left(e_a^{}\right)`$ (26)
$`v^U={\displaystyle \frac{3+4t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},v^D={\displaystyle \frac{3+8t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ $`a^U=a^D=1,v^u={\displaystyle \frac{1+8t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ (27)
$`v^c=v^t={\displaystyle \frac{12t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},v^d={\displaystyle \frac{1+2t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ $`v^s=v^b={\displaystyle \frac{f\left(t_W\right)}{\sqrt{(}3)}},a^u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ (28)
$`a^c=a^t={\displaystyle \frac{1+6t_W^2}{f\left(t_W\right)}},a^d=a^c,`$ $`a^s=a^b=a^uv^{J_1}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left(17t_W^2\right)}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ (29)
$`v^{J_2}=v^{J_3}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left(15t_W^2\right)}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ $`a^{J_2}=a^{J_2}=a^{J_2}=a^{J_1}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1+3t_W^2\right)}{f\left(t_W\right)}},`$ (30)
with $`f^2\left(t_W\right)=3\left(1+4t_W^2\right)`$. As we comment in Sec. I and by inspection of Eqs. (II), (19) and (20), we conclude that the heavy-leptons $`P_a`$ belong to another class of exotic particles differently of the heavy-lepton classes usually considered in the literature. Thus, the present experimental limits do not apply directly to them  (see also Ref. ). Therefore, the 3-3-1 heavy-leptons phenomenology deserves more detailed studies.

## III LUMINOSITIES

We analyze the case of elastic $`e^{}e^+`$ scattering. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ differential luminosity is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{el}}}{d\tau }}\right)_{\gamma \gamma /\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}f_{\gamma /\mathrm{}}(x_1)f_{\gamma /\mathrm{}}(x_2=\tau /x_1),`$ (31)
where $`\tau =x_1x_2`$ and $`f_{\gamma /\mathrm{}}(x)`$ is the effective photon approximation for the photon into the lepton, which is defined by

$`f_{\gamma /\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1x)^2}{x}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{4m_e^2}},`$ (32)
where x is the longitudinal momentum fractions of the lepton carried off by the photon, $`s`$ is the center-of-mass energy of the $`e^{}e^+`$ pair and $`m_e`$ is the electron mass.

The $`ZZ`$ differential luminosity for elastic $`e^{}e^+`$ scattering is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{el}}}{d\tau }}\right)_{ZZ/\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}f_{Z/\mathrm{}}(x_1)f_{Z/\mathrm{}}(x_2=\tau /x_1),`$ (33)
where $`f_{Z/\mathrm{}}(x)`$ is the distribution function for finding a boson Z of transverse and longitudinal helicities in a fermion with energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ in the limit $`\sqrt{s}2M_Z`$ and which have the following forms

$`f_{Z/\mathrm{}}^{\pm T}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\left[\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\pm g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2(1x)^2\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_Z^2}},`$ (34)
$`f_{Z/\mathrm{}}^L(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\left[\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}},`$ (35)
where the $`g_V^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`g_A^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the vector and axial-vector coupling.

And for the $`Z\gamma `$ differential luminosity for elastic $`e^{}e^+`$ scattering we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{el}}}{d\tau }}\right)_{Z\gamma /\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}f_{Z/\mathrm{}}(x_1)f_{\gamma /\mathrm{}}(x_2=\tau /x_1)`$

## IV CROSS SECTION PRODUCTION

### A $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$

Pair production of exotic particles is, to a very good approximation, a model independent process, since it proceeds through a well known electroweak interaction. This production mechanism can be studied through the analysis of the reactions $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$, provided that there is enough available energy ($`\sqrt{s}2M_P`$). We will analyze the following processes for pair production of exotic heavy leptons: $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$, $`e^{}e^+\gamma \gamma P^{}P^+`$, $`e^{}e^+Z\gamma P^{}P^+`$ and $`e^{}e^+ZZP^{}P^+`$, the first process take place through the exchange of a photon, a boson $`Z^0`$ and $`Z_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ in the $`s`$ channel, while the others processes take place through the exchange of heavy lepton in the $`t`$ and $`u`$ channel.

Using the interactions Lagrangians (8a),(8b) and (8c), it is easy to evaluate the cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}P^+P^{}`$, involving a neutral current, from which we obtain:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)_{P^+P^{}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \alpha ^2\pi }{s^3}}\{[2sM_P^2+(M_P^2t)^2+(M_P^2u)^2]`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W\left(sM_{Z,Z^{}}^2+iM_{Z,Z^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}\right)}}[2sM_P^2g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}g_V^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}g_V^{\mathrm{}}[(M_P^2t)^2+(M_P^2u)^2]+g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}g_A^{\mathrm{}}((M_P^2u)^2`$
$`(M_P^2t)^2)]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \pi \alpha ^2}{16\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\left(sM_{Z,Z^{}}^2+iM_{Z,Z^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}\right)^2}}`$
$`\times \{[\left(g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}\right)^2+\left(g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}\right)^2][\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2][(M_P^2u)^2+(M_P^2t)^2]`$
$`+2sM_P^2\left[\left(g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}\right)^2\left(g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}\right)^2\right]\left[\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right]`$
$`+4g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}[(M_P^2u)^2(M_P^2t)^2]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \pi \alpha ^2}{8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _Ws\left(sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\right)\left(sM_Z^{}^2+iM_Z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}\right)}}`$
$`\{2sM_P^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}})(g_V^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}g_A^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP})+(M_P^2t)^2[(\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2)`$
$`g_V^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}+g_A^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_V^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}]`$
$`+(M_P^2u)^2[(\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2)(g_V^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}+g_A^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP})`$
$`+2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_V^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{PP}+2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{PP}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{PP}]\},`$
where

$`g_{V,A}^{PP}={\displaystyle \frac{a_L\pm a_R}{2}},g_{}^{}{}_{V,A}{}^{PP}={\displaystyle \frac{a_L^{}\pm a_R^{}}{2}}.`$

The primes $`({}_{}{}^{})`$ is for the case when we take a boson $`Z^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}`$ are the total width of the boson Z and $`Z^{}`$ , $`\beta =\sqrt{14M_P^2/s}`$ is the velocity of the heavy-lepton in the c. m. of the process, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, which we take equal to $`\alpha =1/128`$, $`g_{V,A}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the standard coupling constants, $`M_Z`$ is the mass of the $`Z`$ boson, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the center of mass energy of the $`e^{}e^+`$ system, $`t=M_P^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )s/2`$ and $`u=M_P^2(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )s/2`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the heavy-lepton and the incident electron, in the c. m. frame. For $`Z^{}`$ boson we take $`M_Z^{}=\left(0.63\right)`$ TeV, since $`M_Z^{}`$ is proportional to VEV $`v_\chi `$ . For the standard model parameters we assume PDG values, i. e., $`M_Z=91.02`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2315`$ and $`M_W=80.33`$ GeV .

Another way to produce a pair of heavy exotic leptons is through the elastic reactions of the type $`e^{}e^+\gamma \gamma P^{}P^+`$, $`e^{}e^+Z\gamma P^{}P^+`$ and $`e^{}e^+ZZP^{}P^+`$

The three processes take place through the exchange of the exotic lepton in the $`t`$ and $`u`$ channels. So the cross section for the production of a pair of $`P^{}P^+`$ in the $`e^{}e^+`$ collisions, we obtained by convoluting the cross section for the subprocess $`\gamma \gamma P^{}P^+`$, $`Z\gamma P^{}P^+`$ and $`ZZP^{}P^+`$, with the two photon, Z$`\gamma `$ and ZZ luminosities in this collisions, that is

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle _{\tau _{min}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dL}{d\tau }}𝑑\tau \widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s}=x_1x_2s)={\displaystyle _{\tau _{min}}^1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{(}\tau )}^{\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{(}\tau )}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}f_{V/\mathrm{}}(x_1)f_{V/\mathrm{}}(x_2){\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{dcos}𝑑cos}`$

where $`V=\gamma ,Z`$. The subprocess cross section for two photon $`P^{}P^+`$ production via elastic collisions of electron-positron is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)_{\gamma \gamma }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \alpha ^2\pi }{s}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(tM_P^2)^2}}(M_P^43M_P^2tM_P^2u+tu)`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(uM_P^2)^2}}(M_P^4M_P^2t3M_P^2u+tu)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(tM_P^2)(uM_P^2)}}(2M_P^4M_P^2tM_P^2u)],`$
where $`M_P`$ is the mass of the exotic lepton, $`\widehat{t}=M_P^2\frac{\widehat{s}}{2}(1\beta cos\theta )`$ and $`\widehat{u}=M_P^2\frac{\widehat{s}}{2}(1+\beta cos\theta )`$ refer to the exchanged momenta squared, corresponding to the direct and crossed diagrams for the two photon, with $`\beta `$ being the $`P`$ velocity in the subprocess c.m. and $`\theta `$ its angle with respect to the incident electron in this frame.

The contribution of the subprocess cross section for $`Z\gamma `$ and $`ZZ`$ luminosities to the total cross section is so small that we not include here the explicit calculation. Even so, we present the results in Fig. $`3`$ for the CLIC.

### B $`e^{}e^+Q\overline{Q}`$

The production of exotic quarks was already studied by both of the autors , so that in this subsection we will study it through the analysis of the reaction $`e^{}e^+Q\overline{Q}`$, provided that there is enough available energy ($`\sqrt{s}2M_Q`$). Such process takes place through the exchange of a photon, Z and a $`Z^{^{}}`$ in the s channel.

Using the interaction Lagrangians, given by Sec. II, we can evaluate the cross section involving a neutral current and obtain

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)_{Q\overline{Q}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c\beta _Q\alpha ^2\pi }{s^3}}\{\left[c_q^2(2sM_Q^2+(M_Q^2t)^2+(M_Q^2u)^2)\right]`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_q}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W\left(sM_{Z,Z^{}}^2+iM_{Z,Z^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}\right)}}[2sM_Q^2g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_V^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_V^{\mathrm{}}[(M_Q^2t)^2+(M_Q^2u)^2]+g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}((M_Q^2u)^2`$
$`(M_Q^2t)^2)]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \pi \alpha ^2}{16\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\left(sM_{Z,Z^{}}^2+iM_{Z,Z^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}\right)^2}}`$
$`\times \{[\left(g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}\right)^2+\left(g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}\right)^2][\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2][(M_Q^2u)^2+(M_Q^2t)^2]`$
$`+2sM_Q^2\left[\left(g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}\right)^2\left(g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}\right)^2\right]\left[\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right]`$
$`+4g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}[(M_Q^2u)^2(M_Q^2t)^2]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \pi \alpha ^2}{8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _Ws\left(sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\right)\left(sM_Z^{}^2+iM_Z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}\right)}}`$
$`\{2sM_Q^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}})(g_V^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}g_A^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}})+(M_Q^2t)^2[(\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2)`$
$`g_V^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}+g_A^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_V^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}]`$
$`+(M_Q^2u)^2[(\left(g_V^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2+\left(g_A^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2)(g_V^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}+g_A^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}})`$
$`+2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_V^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}+2g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{Q\overline{Q}}g_{}^{}{}_{V}{}^{Q\overline{Q}}]\},`$
where $`\beta _Q=\sqrt{14M_Q^2/s}`$ is the velocity of the exotic-quark in the c.m. of the process, $`c_q`$ is the charge of the quark, $`Q`$ is the exotic quark and $`\overline{Q}`$ the exotic antiquark, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the center of mass energy of the $`e^{}e^+`$ system, $`t=M_Q^2\frac{s}{2}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`u=M_Q^2\frac{s}{2}(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the exotic quark and the incident eletron, in the c.m. frame and the couplings $`g_V^{QQ}`$ and $`g_A^{QQ}`$ are given in section II.

In other to analyze the indirect evidence for a boson $`Z^{^{}}`$, we calculate the production of the quarks as in the standard model as in the $`331`$ model, as a result we found that at high energies in the $`331`$ model there will be many more dijets than expected in the scope of the standard model. In Fig. $`4`$, we exhibit the cross section $`\sigma (e^{}e^+q\overline{q}(Q\overline{Q}))`$ as a function of center of mass energy for diferent values of the boson mass $`M_Z^{^{}}`$.

### C $`e^{}e^+N_1N_2`$

In this section we will study the massive neutrinos, due that there are indications for the existence of it mass. This ones are the deficit of solar electron neutrinos which flux is below that predicted by the standard solar model , neutrino oscillations, where the electron neutrinos partially convert to muon neutrinos within the interior of the sun  and the need for explications the hot dark matter .

The production of massive neutrinos we study through the analysis of the reaction $`e^{}e^+N_1N_2`$, this process takes place through the exchange of the bosons $`Z,Z^{^{}}`$ in the s channel. Using the interactions Lagrangians of the Eq. $`..`$, we evaluate the cross section obtaining

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)_{N_1N_2}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _N\alpha ^2\pi }{32s\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(sM_{Z,Z^{}}^2+iM_{Z,Z^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z,Z^{}}\right)}}(2M_N^4(g_{V}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_{A}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (67)
$`2M_N^2t(g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}})^22M_N^2u(g_V^{\mathrm{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}})^2+t^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}})^2+u^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}})^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\right)\left(sM_Z^{}^2+iM_Z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}\right)}}(2M_N^4(g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})`$
$`2M_N^2g_V^{\mathrm{}}(g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})(tu)+2M_N^2g_A^{\mathrm{}}t(g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})2M_N^2g_A^{\mathrm{}}u(g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})`$
$`+t^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})(g_V^{\mathrm{}}g_A^{\mathrm{}})+u^2(g_V^{\mathrm{}^{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}^{}})(g_V^{\mathrm{}}+g_A^{\mathrm{}})],`$
where $`\beta _N=\sqrt{14M_N^2/s}`$ is the velocity of exotic-neutrino in the c.m. of the process, $`M_{Z,Z^{}}`$ is the mass of the boson $`Z(Z^{})`$.

## V RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the following Figures we present the cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}P^+P^{},(\overline{Q}Q),(N_1N_2)`$ for the NLC and CLIC. In all calculations we take $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2315`$, $`M_Z=91.188`$ GeV, and the mass of the heavy exotic lepton equal to $`200`$ GeV

In Fig. $`1`$, we exhibit the cross section $`\sigma (e^{}e^+P^{}P^+)`$ as a function of $`M_P`$. Taking into account that the expected integrated luminosity for the NLC, will be of order of $`6\times 10^4pb^1/yr`$, there will a total of: $`2,5\times 10^4`$ heavy exotic leptons pairs produced per year, considering $`M_Z^{^{}}=1200`$ GeV, while for the $`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV the production will be of order of $`2,2\times 10^4`$.

In Fig. $`2`$, taking into account that the integrated luminosity for the CLIC will be of order of $`2\times 10^5pb^1/yr`$, then the statistics that we can expect for this collider is a little larger. So for the process $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$, considering the mass of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ equal to $`1200`$ GeV, we will have a total of $`2\times 10^5`$ lepton pairs produced per year, while for $`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV will be $`3\times 10^4`$, respectively. For both figures was taken $`M_{J_1}=300`$ GeV, $`M_{J_2}=400`$ GeV, $`M_{J_3}=600`$ GeV and $`M_V=800`$ GeV.

In Fig. $`3`$, we show the pair production of exotic heavy leptons through the elastic reactions, so the statistics that we can expect for the CLIC collider, for photon-photon $`P^{}P^+`$ production, will be of order of $`2\times 10^4`$ lepton pairs produced per year, while for the $`Z\gamma `$ will be of $`200`$ events per year and for the $`ZZ`$ will be very small. It is to note here that it was taken only the transverse helicity of the boson Z, since the longitudinal ones gives a small contribution.

In Fig. $`4`$, we compare the standard cross section $`\sigma (e^{}e^+q\overline{q})`$ with the productions cross section $`\sigma (e^{}e^+q\overline{q}+Q\overline{Q})`$, when the $`331`$ model is applied. We see from these results that using the $`331`$ model we will have more dijets than using the standard model at high energies. This figure was obtained imposing the cut $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.95`$ and assuming three bosons $`Z^{}`$ with masses equal to $`800`$, $`1200`$ and $`2000`$ GeV respectively. This figure still exhibit the resonance peaks associated with the boson $`Z^{}`$. Here was taken for this figure $`M_{J_1}=200`$ GeV, $`M_{J_2}=220`$ GeV, $`M_{J_3}=245`$, whose masses would be accessible to the NLC.

In Figs. $`5`$ and $`6`$ we show the cross sections for the production of exotic quarks $`e^+e^{}\overline{Q}Q`$, in the colliders NLC and CLIC. We see from these results that we can expect for the first collider a total of $`3,6\times 10^5`$ heavy quark pairs produced per year, considering the mass of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ equal to $`1.2`$ and $`2`$ TeV. We see that the cross section for both masses of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ is not different one from another. For the second collider, that is for the CLIC we expect a total of $`2,4\times 10^6`$ exotic quarks for the mass of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ equal to $`1,2`$ TeV, while for $`M_Z^{^{}}=2`$ TeV we obtain $`4\times 10^5`$ events per year. Here the cross sections are different one from another, which is not the case for the NLC, this is due to the propagator, that for the CLIC is larger than for the NLC.

In Figs. $`7`$ and $`8`$ we show the cross section for the production of exotic neutrinos, $`e^+e^{}N_1N_2`$, in the colliders NLC and CLIC. We see from these results that we can expect, in the NLC, a total of around $`1,5\times 10^3`$ heavy neutrinos pairs produced per year for the mass of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ equal to $`1,2`$ TeV, while for the mass equal to $`M_Z^{^{}}=2`$ TeV, the total of events is $`1,3\times 10^3`$. We see that the cross sections are nearly equal. We also have that the CLIC can produce a total of $`2\times 10^4`$ pairs of exotic neutrinos for the mass of the boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ equal to $`1200`$ GeV, while for $`M_Z^{^{}}=2`$ TeV the number of events will be $`5,8\times 10^3`$. The discrepancy between these cross sections in both colliders, has the same reason as above. Here for both figures was taken $`M_{J_1}=300`$ GeV, $`M_{J_2}=400`$ GeV, $`M_{J_3}=600`$ GeV and $`M_V=800`$ GeV.

The main background for the signal, $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+\overline{\nu }\overline{u}J_1(\nu u\overline{J_1})`$, could comes from the process $`e^{}e^+W^{}W^+(ZZ)q\overline{q^{}}q\overline{q^{}}(q\overline{q}q\overline{q})`$, but this background can be eliminated by measuring the undetected neutrino contribution $`p_{\nu T}`$, since all hadrons with appreciable $`p_T`$ are detected. Then the overall $`p_T`$ imbalance for detected particles gives this undetected $`p_{\nu T}`$. Another background such as $`e^{}e^+W^{}W^+(ZZ)e\nu q\overline{q^{}}(e^+e^{}q\overline{q})`$, also can be eliminated, then the number of jets are different.

There is no standard backgrounds for the signal, $`e^{}e^+Q\overline{Q}q\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}(\overline{q}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+)`$, due that in the standard model there is not leptonic number violation , and the backgrounds for heavy neutrinos may be seen in .

In summary, we showed in this work that in the context of the 3-3-1 model the signatures for heavy-fermions can be significant as in NLC as in the CLIC collider. Our study indicates the possibility of obtaining a clear signal of these new particles with a satisfactory number of events.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (M. D. T.) would like to thank the Instituto de Física Teórica of the UNESP, for the use of its facilities and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa no Estado de São Paulo (Processo No. 99/07956-3) for full financial support.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$ as a function of $`M_P`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (solid line), and (b) 2000 GeV (dashed line).

Figure 2: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$ as a function of $`M_P`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (solid line), and (b) $`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (dashed line).

Figure 3: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+P^{}P^+`$ as a function of $`M_P`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV for different elastic production mechanisms: (a) $`\gamma \gamma `$ (dot-dot-dashed line); (b) $`Z\gamma `$ (dashed line); (c) $`ZZ`$ (solid).

Figure 4: Total cross section versus the total c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ for the following masses of the gauge boson $`Z^{^{}}`$ (a) $`M_Z^{}=800`$ GeV (dashed line), (b) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (dot-dot-dashed line), (c) $`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (dot-dashed line), (d) standard model (solid line).

Figure 5: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+Q\overline{Q}`$ as a function of $`M_Q`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (dot-dashed line), (b)$`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (solid line).

Figure 6: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+Q\overline{Q}`$ as a function of $`M_Q`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (dot-dashed line), (b)$`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (solid line).

Figure 7: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+N_1N_2`$ as a function of $`M_N`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (dot-dashed line), (b)$`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (solid line).

Figure 8: Total cross section for the process $`e^{}e^+N_1N_2`$ as a function of $`M_N`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV: (a) $`M_Z^{}=1200`$ GeV (dot-dashed line), (b)$`M_Z^{}=2000`$ GeV (solid line).