1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %
2: %%
3: %%
4: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
5: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
6: %%
7: %%
8: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
9: %%
10: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
11: %%
12: %
13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0
14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
16: %
17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long
18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.
19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal
21: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
22: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
23: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
24: \documentclass[aps,prc,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
25: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
26: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
27:
28: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
29: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS
30: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line
31: % below if necessary.
32: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
33: \usepackage{graphicx}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report
38: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.
39: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.
40: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults
41: % to display numbers if necessary
42: %\preprint{}
43:
44: %Title of paper
45: \title{General classification and analysis of neutron beta-decay experiments}
46:
47: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
48: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current
49: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail
50: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
51: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information
52: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
53: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the
54: % other information
55: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
56:
57: \author{V. Gudkov }
58: \email[gudkov@sc.edu]{}
59: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina,
60: Columbia, SC 29208 }
61: \author{ G. L. Greene }
62: \email[greenegl@ornl.gov]{}
63: \affiliation{Department of Physics,
64: University of Tennessee,
65: Knoxville, TN, 37996 }
66: \affiliation{Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831}
67: \author{J. R. Calarco }
68: \email[calarco@unh.edu]{}
69: \affiliation{Department of Physics,
70: University of New Hampshire,
71: Durham, NH 03824}
72:
73:
74: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
75: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
76: %used with the \author command).
77: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
78: %\collaboration{}
79: %\noaffiliation
80:
81: \date{\today}
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: A general analysis of the sensitivities of neutron
85: beta-decay experiments to manifestations of possible interaction beyond
86: the Standard Model is carried out.
87: In a consistent fashion, we take
88: into account all known radiative and recoil corrections arising in the
89: Standard Model. This provides a description of angular
90: correlations in neutron decay in terms of one parameter, which is accurate to the level of $\sim 10^{-5}$. Based on this general
91: expression, we present an analysis of the sensitivities to new physics for selected neutron
92: decay experiments.
93: We emphasize that the usual parametrization of experiments in terms of the tree level coefficients $a$, $A$ and $B$ is inadequate when the experimental sensitivities are at the same or higher level relative to the size of the corrections to the tree level description.
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
97: \pacs{13.30.Ce; 23.40.-s; 14.20.Dh; 12.15.Ji}
98: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
99: %\keywords{}
100:
101: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
102: \maketitle
103:
104: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
105: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
106: %\section{}
107: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing
108: %\section{\label{}}
109: %\subsection{}
110: %\subsubsection{}
111:
112: % If in two-column mode, this environment will change to single-column
113: % format so that long equations can be displayed. Use
114: % sparingly.
115: %\begin{widetext}
116: % put long equation here
117: %\end{widetext}
118:
119: % figures should be put into the text as floats.
120: % Use the graphics or graphicx packages (distributed with LaTeX2e)
121: % and the \includegraphics macro defined in those packages.
122: % See the LaTeX Graphics Companion by Michel Goosens, Sebastian Rahtz,
123: % and Frank Mittelbach for instance.
124: %
125: % Here is an example of the general form of a figure:
126: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label
127: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.
128: % Use the figure* environment if the figure should span across the
129: % entire page. There is no need to do explicit centering.
130:
131: % \begin{figure}
132: % \includegraphics{}%
133: % \caption{\label{}}
134: % \end{figure}
135:
136: % Surround figure environment with turnpage environment for landscape
137: % figure
138: % \begin{turnpage}
139: % \begin{figure}
140: % \includegraphics{}%
141: % \caption{\label{}}
142: % \end{figure}
143: % \end{turnpage}
144:
145: % tables should appear as floats within the text
146: %
147: % Here is an example of the general form of a table:
148: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label
149: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.
150: % Insert the column specifiers (l, r, c, d, etc.) in the empty braces of the
151: % \begin{tabular}{} command.
152: % The ruledtabular enviroment adds doubled rules to table and sets a
153: % reasonable default table settings.
154: % Use the table* environment to get a full-width table in two-column
155: % Add \usepackage{longtable} and the longtable (or longtable*}
156: % environment for nicely formatted long tables. Or use the the [H]
157: % placement option to break a long table (with less control than
158: % in longtable).
159: % \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages
160: % \caption{\label{}}
161: % \begin{ruledtabular}
162: % \begin{tabular}{}
163: % Lines of table here ending with \\
164: % \end{tabular}
165: % \end{ruledtabular}
166: % \end{table}
167:
168: % Surround table environment with turnpage environment for landscape
169: % table
170: % \begin{turnpage}
171: % \begin{table}
172: % \caption{\label{}}
173: % \begin{ruledtabular}
174: % \begin{tabular}{}
175: % \end{tabular}
176: % \end{ruledtabular}
177: % \end{table}
178: % \end{turnpage}
179:
180: % Specify following sections are appendices. Use \appendix* if there
181: % only one appendix.
182: %\appendix
183: %\section{}
184:
185: \section{Introduction}
186:
187:
188: The relative simplicity of the decay of the free neutron makes it an
189: attractive laboratory for the study of possible extensions to the
190: Standard Model. As is well known, measurements of the neutron
191: lifetime and neutron decay correlations can be used to determine the
192: weak vector coupling constant, which, in turn, can be combined
193: with information on strange particle decay to test such notions as the
194: universality of the weak interaction or to search for (or put a limit on)
195: nonstandard couplings (see, for example, \cite{gtw2,holsttr,deutsch,abele,yeroz,sg,herc,marc02} and references therein).
196: It is less widely appreciated
197: that precision measurements of the correlations in neutron decay
198: can, in principle, be used as a test of the standard model without
199: appeal to measurements in other systems. In particular, the detailed
200: shape of the decay spectra and the energy dependence of the decay
201: correlation are sensitive to non-standard couplings. The extraction
202: of such information in a consistent fashion requires a rather
203: delicate analysis, as the lowest order description of the correlation
204: coefficients (and their energy dependencies) must be modified by a
205: number of higher order corrections that are incorporated within the
206: Standard Model. These include such effects as weak magnetism and
207: radiative corrections. Recently \cite{eftcor} effective field theory
208: has been used to incorporate all standard model effects in a consistent
209: fashion in terms of one parameter with an estimated theoretical accuracy on the order of
210: $10^{-5}$. Because this accuracy is well below that anticipated in the
211: next generation of neutron decay experiments (see, for example, papers in \cite{NISTw}),
212: this analysis provides a useful framework for the exploration of the
213: sensitivity of various experiments to new physics.
214:
215: In this paper, we extend the description of neutron beta-decay of \cite{eftcor} by including the most general non-standard beta-decay interactions. Our framework provides a consistent description of the modifications of the beta-decay observables at a level well below
216: that anticipated in the next generation of experiments. Not
217: surprisingly, we find that the different experimental observables
218: have quite different sensitivities to the form of hypothetical
219: non-standard couplings (i.e. vector, scalar, etc.).
220:
221:
222:
223: \section{Neutron $\beta$-decay beyond the Standard model. }
224:
225: The most general description of neutron $\beta$-decay can be done in terms of low energy constants $C_i$ by the Hamiltonian\cite{ly56,gtw1}
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: H_{int}&=&(\hat{\psi}_p\psi_n)(C_S\hat{\psi}_e\psi_{\nu}+C^\prime_S\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_5\psi_{\nu})\nonumber \\
228: &+&(\hat{\psi}_p\gamma_{\mu}\psi_n)(C_V\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_{\mu}\psi_{\nu}+C^\prime_V\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5\psi_{\nu})\nonumber \\
229: &+&\frac{1}{2}(\hat{\psi}_p\sigma_{\lambda\mu}\psi_n)(C_T\hat{\psi}_e\sigma_{\lambda\mu}\psi_{\nu}+C^\prime_T\hat{\psi}_e\sigma_{\lambda\mu}\gamma_5\psi_{\nu})\nonumber \\
230: &-&(\hat{\psi}_p\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5\psi_n)(C_A\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5\psi_{\nu}+C^\prime_A\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_{\mu}\psi_{\nu})\nonumber \\
231: &+&(\hat{\psi}_p\gamma_5\psi_n)(C_P\hat{\psi}_e\gamma_5\psi_{\nu}+C^\prime_P\hat{\psi}_e\psi_{\nu}) \label{ham} \\
232: &+& \text{Hermitian conjugate}, \nonumber
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: where the index $i=V$, $A$, $S$, $T$ and $P$ corresponds to vector,
235: axial-vector, scalar, tensor and pseudoscalar nucleon interactions.
236: In this presentation, the constants $C_i$ can be considered as effective
237: constants of nucleon interactions with defined Lorentz structure,
238: assuming that all high energy degrees of freedom (for the Standard
239: model and any given extension of the Standard model) are integrated
240: out. In this paper we consider only time reversal conserving
241: interactions, therefore the constants $C_i$ can be chosen to be
242: real. (The violation of time reversal invariance in neutron decay at the level of considered accuracy would be a clear manifestation of new physics and thus does not require an analysis of the form contained here.) Ignoring electron and proton polarizations, the given
243: effective Hamiltonian will result in the neutron $\beta$-decay rate
244: \cite{gtw1}
245: in the tree approximation (neglecting recoil corrections and radiative corrections)
246: in terms of the angular correlations coefficients $a$, $A$, and $B$:
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: \frac{d\Gamma ^3}{dE_ed\Omega_ed\Omega_{\nu}}= \Phi (E_e)G_F^2
249: |V_{ud}|^2 (1+3\lambda^2)
250: \hskip 2cm \nonumber \\
251: \times (1+b\frac{m_e}{E_e}+a\frac{\vec{p}_e\cdot
252: \vec{p}_{\nu}}{E_e
253: E_{\nu}}+A\frac{\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{p}_e}{E_e}
254: +B\frac{\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{p}_{\nu}}{E_{\nu}}),
255: \label{cor}
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: Here, $\vec{\sigma}$ is the neutron spin;
258: $m_e$ is the electron mass, $E_e$,
259: $E_{\nu}$, $\vec{p}_e$, and $\vec{p}_{\nu}$
260: are the energies and momenta of the electron and antineutrino,
261: respectively; and
262: $G_F$ is the Fermi constant of the weak interaction
263: (obtained from the $\mu$-decay rate).
264: The function $\Phi (E_e)$ includes normalization
265: constants, phase-space factors, and standard Coulomb corrections.
266: For the Standard model the angular
267: coefficients depend only on one parameter $\lambda = -C_A/C_V >0$, the ratio of axial-vector to vector nucleon coupling constant ($C_V=C^\prime_V$ and $C_A=C^\prime_A$):
268: \begin{equation}
269: a=\frac{1-\lambda ^2}{1+3\lambda ^2}, \hskip 1cm A= -2\frac{\lambda
270: ^2-{\lambda}}{1+3\lambda ^2}, \hskip 1cm B= 2\frac{\lambda
271: ^2+{\lambda}}{1+3\lambda ^2}. \label{coef}
272: \end{equation}
273: (The parameter $b$ is equal to zero for vector - axial-vector weak interactions.)
274:
275: As was shown in \cite{gtw2} the existence of additional
276: interactions modifies the above expressions and can lead to a
277: non-zero value for the coefficient $b$. To explicitly see the influence of a
278: non-standard interaction on the angular coefficients and on the decay rate
279: of neutron one can re-write the coupling constants $C_i$ as a sum of
280: a contribution from the standard model $C^{SM}_i$ and a possible
281: contribution from new physics $\delta C_i$:
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: C_V &=& C^{SM}_V + \delta C_V \nonumber \\
284: C^\prime_V &=& C^{SM}_V + \delta C^\prime_V \nonumber \\
285: C_A &=& C^{SM}_A + \delta C_A \nonumber \\
286: C^\prime_A &=& C^{SM}_A + \delta C^\prime_A \nonumber \\
287: C_S &=& \delta C_S \nonumber \\
288: C^\prime_S &=& \delta C^\prime_S \nonumber \\
289: C_T &=& \delta C_T \nonumber \\
290: C^\prime_T &=& \delta C^\prime_T.
291: \label{consts}
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: We neglect the pseudoscalar coupling constants since we treat\cite{gtw1} nucleons nonrelativistically.
294: Defining the term proportional to the total decay rate in eq.(\ref{cor}) as $\xi = (1+3\lambda^2)$ one can obtain corrections to parameters $\xi$, $a$, $b$, $A$ and $B$ due to new physics as $\delta\xi$, $\delta a$, $\delta b$, $\delta A$ and $\delta B$, correspondingly. Then, using results of \cite{gtw2},
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: \delta\xi &=& {C^{SM}_V}(\delta C_V+\delta C^\prime_V )+ ({\delta C_V}^2+{\delta C^\prime_V}^2+{\delta C_S}^2+{\delta C^\prime_S}^2)/2 \nonumber \\
297: &+& 3 [ {C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_A +\delta C^\prime_A)+ ({\delta C_A}^2+{\delta C^\prime_A}^2+{\delta C_T}^2+{\delta C^\prime_T}^2)/2], \nonumber \\
298: \xi \delta b &=& \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}[{C^{SM}_V}(\delta C_S+\delta C^\prime_S )+\delta C_S \delta C_V+ \delta C^\prime_S \delta C^\prime_V \nonumber \\
299: &+& 3({C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_T +\delta C^\prime_T)+\delta C_T \delta C_A+ \delta C^\prime_T \delta C^\prime_A )], \nonumber \\
300: \xi \delta a &=& {C^{SM}_V}(\delta C_V+\delta C^\prime_V )+({\delta C_V}^2+{\delta C^\prime_V}^2-{\delta C_S}^2-{\delta C^\prime_S}^2)/2 \nonumber \\
301: &-&{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_A +\delta C^\prime_A)-({\delta C_A}^2+{\delta C^\prime_A}^2-{\delta C_T}^2-{\delta C^\prime_T}^2)/2, \nonumber \\
302: \xi \delta A &=& -2{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_A+{\delta C^\prime_A}) + \delta C^\prime_A \delta C^\prime_A -\delta C^\prime_T \delta C^\prime_T \nonumber \\
303: &-& [C^{SM}_V(\delta C_A +\delta C^\prime_A)+{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_V+\delta C^\prime_V )+\delta C_V \delta C^\prime_A +\delta C^\prime_V \delta C_A-\delta C_S \delta C^\prime_T -\delta C^\prime_S \delta C_T], \nonumber \\
304: \xi \delta B &=& \frac{m \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}}{E_e}[2{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_T+\delta C^\prime_T)+{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_S+\delta C^{\prime}_S) + {C^{SM}_V}(\delta C_T+C^\prime_T) \nonumber \\
305: &+& 2 \delta C_T \delta C^\prime_A +2 \delta C_A \delta C^\prime_T +\delta C_S \delta C^\prime_A +\delta C_A \delta C^\prime_S + \delta C_V \delta C^\prime_T +\delta C_T \delta C^\prime_V] \nonumber \\
306: &+&2{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_A+{\delta C^\prime_A})-C^{SM}_V(\delta C_A +\delta C^\prime_A)-{C^{SM}_A}(\delta C_V+\delta C^\prime_V ) \nonumber \\
307: &-& \delta C_S \delta C^\prime_T - \delta C_T \delta C^\prime_S - \delta C_V \delta C^\prime_A - \delta C_A \delta C^\prime_V.
308: \label{nphys}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310:
311: It should be noted that we have neglected radiative corrections and recoil effects for the new physics contributions, because these are expected to be very small. However, Coulomb corrections for the new physics contributions are taken into account since they are important for a low energy part of the electron spectrum.
312:
313: From the above equations one can see that contributions from possible
314: new physics to the neutron decay distribution function is rather complicated.
315: To be able to separate new physics from different corrections to the expression (\ref{cor}), obtained in the tree level of approximation, one must describe the neutron decay
316: process with accuracy which is better than the expected experimental accuracy.
317: Assuming that the accuracy in future neutron decay experiments can reach a level
318: of about $10^{-3} - 10^{-4}$, we wish to describe the neutron decay with theoretical
319: accuracy by about $10^{-5}$ and our description must include all recoil and radiative
320: corrections \cite{bilenky,sirlin,holstein,sirlinnp,sirlinrmp,garcia,wilkinson,sir,marciano}. To do this we will use recent results of calculations \cite{eftcor} of
321: radiative corrections for neutron decay in the effective field theory (EFT) with some
322: necessary modifications. The results of \cite{eftcor} can be used since they take into
323: account both recoil and radiative corrections in the same framework of the EFT
324: with estimated theoretical accuracy which is better than $10^{-5}$. However, the EFT
325: approach does not provide all parameters but rather gives a
326: parametrization in terms of a few (two, in the case of neutron decay) low energy constants
327: which must be extracted from independent experiments. Therefore, the neutron $\beta$-decay
328: distribution function is parameterized in terms of one unknown parameter (the second parameter is effectively
329: absorbed in the axial vector coupling constant). If this parameter would be extracted from an independent experiment, it gives a model independent description of neutron beta-decay in the standard model with accuracy better than $10^{-5}$. A rough estimate of this parameter based on a ``natural'' size of strong interaction contribution to radiative corrections gives an accuracy for the expressions for the rate and the angular correlation coefficients which is better than $10^{-3}$ (see \cite{eftcor}). We vary the magnitude of this parameter in a wide range for the given numerical analysis and show that variations of the parameters in the allowed range do not significantly change our results at a level well bellow $10^{-3}$. Also, unlike \cite{eftcor}, we use the exact Fermi function for numerical calculations to take into account all corrections due to interactions with the classical electromagnetic field.
330: This gives us the expression for neutron decay distribution function as
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: \lefteqn{
333: \frac{d\Gamma ^3}{dE_ed\Omega_{\hat{p}_e}d\Omega_{\hat{p}_\nu}}
334: =
335: \frac{(G_FV_{ud})^2}{(2\pi)^5}
336: |\vec{p}_e|E_e(E_e^{max}-E_e)^2 F(Z,E_e)
337: }
338: \nonumber \\ && \times \left\{
339: f_0(E_e)
340: +\frac{\vec{p}_e\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_eE_\nu}f_1(E_e)
341: +\left[\left(\frac{\vec{p}_e\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_eE_\nu}\right)^2
342: -\frac{\beta^2}{3}
343: %\frac{\vec{p}_e^2}{E_e^2}
344: \right]f_2(E_e)
345: \right. \nonumber\\ && \left.
346: + \frac{\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p}_e}{E_e}f_3(E_e)
347: + \frac{\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p}_e}{E_e}
348: \frac{\vec{p}_e\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_eE_\nu}f_4(E_e)
349: + \frac{\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_\nu}f_5(E_e)
350: + \frac{\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_\nu}
351: \frac{\vec{p}_e\cdot\vec{p}_\nu}{E_eE_\nu}f_6(E_e)
352: \right\},
353: \label{eq;theresult}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: where the energy dependent
356: angular correlation coefficients are:
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: \lefteqn{f_0(E_e) = (1+3\lambda^2) \left( 1
359: %
360: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \delta_\alpha^{(1)}
361: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \; e_V^R \right) }
362: \nonumber \\ &&
363: - \frac{2}{m_N}\left[
364: \lambda(\mu_V+\lambda)\frac{m_e^2}{E_e}
365: +\lambda(\mu_V+\lambda)E_e^{max}
366: -(1+2\lambda\mu_V+5\lambda^2)E_e
367: \right] ,
368: \\
369: \lefteqn{f_1(E_e) = (1-\lambda^2)
370: \left( 1
371: %
372: %
373: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi}
374: (\delta_\alpha^{(1)}+\delta_\alpha^{(2)})
375: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \; e_V^R \right) }
376: \nonumber \\ &&
377: +\frac{1}{m_N}\left[
378: 2\lambda(\mu_V+\lambda)E_e^{max}
379: -4\lambda(\mu_V+3\lambda)E_e
380: \right],
381: \\
382: \lefteqn{f_2(E_e) =
383: -\frac{3}{m_N}(1-\lambda^2)E_e , }
384: \\
385: \lefteqn{f_3(E_e) = (-2\lambda^2+2\lambda) \left( 1
386: %
387: %
388: +\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} ( \delta_\alpha^{(1)}
389: +\delta_\alpha^{(2)} )
390: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \; e_V^R \right) }
391: \nonumber \\ &&
392: +\frac{1}{m_N}\left[
393: (\mu_V+\lambda)(\lambda-1)E_e^{max}
394: +(-3\lambda\mu_V+\mu_V-5\lambda^2+7\lambda)E_e
395: \right],
396: \\
397: \lefteqn{f_4(E_e) =
398: \frac{1}{m_N}(\mu_V+5\lambda)(\lambda-1)E_e, }
399: \\
400: \lefteqn{f_5(E_e) = (2\lambda^2+2\lambda) \left(1
401: %
402: %
403: +\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \delta_\alpha^{(1)}
404: + \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \; e_V^R \right) }
405: \nonumber \\ &&
406: +\frac{1}{m_N}\left[
407: -(\mu_V+\lambda)(\lambda+1)\frac{m_e^2}{E_e}
408: -2\lambda(\mu_V+\lambda)E_e^{max}
409: \right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
410: +(3\mu_V\lambda+\mu_V+7\lambda^2+5\lambda)E_e
411: \right] ,
412: \\
413: \lefteqn{f_6(E_e) =
414: \frac{1}{m_N}\left[
415: (\mu_V+\lambda)(\lambda+1)E_e^{max}
416: -(\mu_V+7\lambda)(\lambda+1)E_e
417: \right] \; . }
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: Here $e_V^R$ is the finite renormalized
420: low energy constant (LEC) corresponding to the ``inner"
421: radiative corrections due to the
422: strong interactions in the standard QCD approach;
423: $F(Z,E_e) $ is the standard Fermi function;
424: and the functions
425: $\delta_\alpha^{(1)}$ and
426: $\delta_\alpha^{(2)}$ are:
427: \begin{eqnarray}
428: \delta_\alpha^{(1)} &=&
429: \frac12
430: + \frac{1+\beta^2}{\beta} {\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)
431: - \frac{1}{\beta}{\rm ln}^2\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)
432: + \frac4\beta L\left(\frac{2\beta}{1+\beta}\right)
433: \nonumber \\ &&
434: + 4 \left[\frac{1}{2\beta}{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)
435: -1\right]
436: \left[{\rm ln}\left(\frac{2(E_e^{max}-E_e)}{m_e}\right)
437: %
438: + \frac13 \left(\frac{E_e^{max}-E_e}{E_e}\right)
439: -\frac32
440: \right]
441: \nonumber \\ &&
442: + \left(\frac{E_e^{max}-E_e}{E_e}\right)^2 \frac{1}{12\beta}
443: {\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right) \, .
444: \\
445: \delta_\alpha^{(2)} &=&
446: \frac{1-\beta^2}{\beta}{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)
447: +\left(\frac{E_e^{max}-E_e}{E_e}\right)
448: \frac{4(1-\beta^2)}{3\beta^2}
449: \left[\frac{1}{2\beta}{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)-1
450: \right]
451: \nonumber \\ &&
452: +\left(\frac{E_e^{max}-E_e}{E_e}\right)^2
453: \frac{1}{6\beta^2}
454: \left[\frac{1-\beta^2}{2\beta}
455: {\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)-1
456: \right] \; ,
457: \end{eqnarray}
458: where $\beta = p_e/E_e$.
459: The only unknown parameter $e_V^R$ is chosen to satisfy the estimate \cite{sir} for an ``inner'' part of the radiative corrections: $\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \; e_V^R=0.02$.
460: In Eq.(\ref{eq;theresult}) the custom of
461: expanding the nucleon recoil correction
462: of the three-body phase space has been used.
463: %
464: These recoil corrections are included
465: in the coefficients $f_i$, $i=0, 1, \cdots , 6$
466: defined in the partial decay rate expression,
467: Eq.(\ref{eq;theresult}).
468: %
469: It should be noted that the expression for
470: $f_2$ is an exclusive
471: three-body phase space recoil
472: correction, whereas all other $f_i$, $i= 0, 1, 3, \cdots , 6$
473: contain a mixture of regular recoil and phase space
474: $(1/m_N)$ corrections.
475:
476: The above expression presents all contributions from the Standard model. Therefore, the difference between this theoretical description and an experimental result can only be due to effects not accounted for by the Standard model. From the eqs.(\ref{nphys}) we can see that the only contributions from new physics in neutron decay are:
477: \begin{eqnarray}
478: f_0(E_e) &\longrightarrow & f_0(E_e) + \delta\xi + \frac{m}{E_e}\delta b, \nonumber \\
479: f_1(E_e) &\longrightarrow & f_1(E_e) + \delta a , \nonumber \\
480: f_3(E_e) &\longrightarrow & f_3(E_e) + \delta A , \nonumber \\
481: f_5(E_e) &\longrightarrow & f_5(E_e) + \delta B ,
482: \label{cphys}
483: \end{eqnarray}
484:
485: Since possible contributions from models beyond the Standard one are rather
486: complicated, we have to use numerical analysis for
487: calculations of experimental sensitivities to new physics.
488:
489:
490:
491: \section{The analysis of the experimental sensitivity to new physics}
492:
493: To calculate the sensitivity of an experiment with a total number of events $N$ to the parameter $q$ we use the standard technique of the minimum variance bound estimator (see, for example \cite{kend,frod}). The estimated uncertainties provided by this method correspond to one sigma limits for a normal distribution. The statistical error (variance) $\sigma_q$ of parameter $q$ in
494: the given experiment can be written as
495: \begin{equation}\label{sen1}
496: \sigma_q = \frac{K}{\sqrt{N}},
497: \end{equation}
498: where
499: \begin{equation}\label{sen2}
500: K^{-2} = \frac{\int w(\vec{x})\left(\frac{1}{w(\vec{x})}\frac{\partial w(\vec{x})}{\partial q} \right)^2d\vec{x}}{\int w(\vec{x})d\vec{x}}.
501: \end{equation}
502: Here $w(\vec{x})$ is a distribution function of measurable
503: parameters $\vec{x}$. We can calculate the sensitivity of the
504: experiment to a particular
505: coefficient $C_i$ or to a function of these coefficients.
506: The results for these integrated sensitivities for each type of
507: interaction ($C_i$) and for the left-right model are given in the
508: table \ref{ctab} for the standard experiments measuring $a$, $A$ and $B$
509: coefficients in neutron decay, assuming that all coefficients $C_i$ have the same value of $1\cdot 10^{-3}$. The numerical test shows that results for the coefficients $K$ can be linearly re-scaled for the parameters $C_i$ in the range from $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-4}$ with an accuracy of better than $10 \%$.
510: We can see that different experiments have
511: different sensitivities (discovery potentials) for the possible manifestations
512: of new physics.
513:
514: \begin{table}
515: \centering
516: \caption{Relative statistical error ($K$) of the standard experiments to different types of interactions from new physics ($C_i$ constants) provided that these constants have the same values of $1\cdot 10^{-3}$.}
517: \label{ctab}
518: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
519: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
520: \hline
521: Interactions & $a$ & $A$ & $B$ \\
522: \hline
523: $V$ & 5.26 & 3.60 & 6.95 \\
524: $A$ & 1.73 & 1.90 & 1.91 \\
525: $T$ & 2.59 & 7.25 & 1.50 \\
526: $S$ & 8.70 & 26.70 & 1.46 \\
527: $V+A$ & 2.01 & 1.58 & 3.86 \\
528: \hline
529: \end{tabular}
530: \end{table}
531:
532:
533: The given description of neutron $\beta$-decay experiments in terms of low energy constants related to the Lorentz structure of weak interactions is general and complete. All models beyond the Standard one (new physics) contribute to the $C_i$ values in different ways. Therefore, each model can be described by a function of the $C_i$ parameters. To relate these $C$-coefficients explicitly to the possible models beyond the Standard one we can use the parametrization of reference \cite{herc}. It should be noted that the definitions of reference \cite{gtw1} used for the $C_i$ coefficients are the same as in \cite{herc}, except for the opposite sign of $C^\prime_V$, $C^\prime_S$, $C^\prime_T$ and $C_A$. Therefore, we can re-write the relations of the $\delta C_i$, which contain contributions to the $ C_i$ from new physics, in terms of the parameters $\bar{a}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{jl}$ defined in the paper \cite{herc} as:
534: \begin{eqnarray}
535: % \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
536: \delta C_V &=& C^{SM}_V (\bar{a}_{LL}+\bar{a}_{LR}+\bar{a}_{RL}+\bar{a}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
537: \delta C^\prime_V &=& -C^{SM}_V (-\bar{a}_{LL}-\bar{a}_{LR}+\bar{a}_{RL}+\bar{a}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
538: \delta C_A &=& -C^{SM}_A (\bar{a}_{LL}-\bar{a}_{LR}-\bar{a}_{RL}+\bar{a}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
539: \delta C^\prime_A &=& C^{SM}_A (-\bar{a}_{LL}+\bar{a}_{LR}-\bar{a}_{RL}+\bar{a}_{RR}) \nonumber \\
540: \delta C_S &=& g_S (\bar{A}_{LL}+\bar{A}_{LR}+\bar{A}_{RL}+\bar{A}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
541: \delta C^\prime_S &=-& g_S (-\bar{A}_{LL}-\bar{A}_{LR}+\bar{A}_{RL}+\bar{A}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
542: \delta C_T &=& 2 g_T (\bar{\alpha}_{LL}+\bar{\alpha}_{RR}), \nonumber \\
543: \delta C^\prime_T &=& -2 g_T (-\bar{\alpha}_{LL}+\bar{\alpha}_{RR}).
544: \label{carel}
545: \end{eqnarray}
546:
547: The parameters $\bar{a}_{jl}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{jl}$ describe
548: contributions to the low energy Hamiltonian from current-current
549: interactions in terms of $j$-type of leptonic current and $i$-type
550: of quark current. For example, $\bar{a}_{LR}$ is the contribution to
551: the Hamiltonian from left-handed leptonic current and right-handed quark current
552: normalized by the size of the Standard Model (left--left current)
553: interactions.
554: $g_S$ and $g_T$ are formfactors at zero-momentum transfer in the nucleon matrix element of scalar and tensor currents. For more details, see the paper \cite{herc}. It should be
555: noted, that $\delta C_i + \delta C^\prime_i $ involve left-handed
556: neutrinos and $\delta C_i - \delta C^\prime_i $ is related to right-handed
557: neutrino contributions in corresponding lepton currents. The analysis of the three
558: experiments under consideration ($a$, $A$ and $B$ coefficient measurements) in terms of
559: sensitivities ($K^{-1}$) to $\bar{a}_{jl}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{jl}$
560: parameters is presented in the table \ref{atab}. For the sake of easy comparison the sensitivities in this table are calculated under assumptions that all parameters ($\bar{a}_{jl}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{jl}$) have exactly the same value, $1\cdot 10^{-3}$. The expected values of these parameters vary over a wide range from $0.07$ to $10^{-6}$ (see table \ref{nptab} and, paper \cite{herc} for the comprehensive analysis). The numerical results for the coefficients $K$ in the table can be linearly re-scaled for the parameters $\bar{a}_{ij}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{ij}$ in the range from $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-4}$ with an accuracy better than $10 \%$.
561: The relative statistical errors presented in the Table demonstrate discovery potentials of different experiments to new physics in terms of parameters $\bar{a}_{ij}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{jl}$ and $\bar{A}_{ij}$. It should be noted, that the parameter $\bar{a}_{LR}$ cannot provide sensitive information on new physics at the quark level, unless we obtain the axial-vector coupling constant $g_A$ from another experiment, since in correlations $\bar{a}_{LR}$ appears in a product with $g_A$ (see \cite{herc}). For discussion of significance of each of these parameters to models beyond the standard one see \cite{herc}.
562:
563:
564: \begin{table}[h]
565: \centering
566: \caption{Relative statistical error ($K$) of the standard experiments to different
567: types of interactions from new physics ($\bar{a}_{ij}$ constants) provided that these constants have the same values of $1\cdot 10^{-3}$.}
568: \label{atab}
569: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
570: \hline
571: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
572: & $\bar{a}_{LL}$ & $\bar{a}_{LR}$ & $\bar{a}_{RL}$ &$\bar{a}_{RR}$& $\bar{A}_{LL}$ & $\bar{A}_{LR}$ & $\bar{A}_{RL}$ & $\bar{A}_{RR}$ & $\bar{\alpha}_{LL}$ & $\bar{\alpha}_{RR}$\\
573: \hline
574: a & 0.17 & 0.25 & 135 & 487 & 1.43 & 1.43 & 283 & 283 & 0.19 & 79 \\
575: A & 1.53 & 0.63 & 423 & 1026 & 13.1 & 13.1 & 860 & 860 & 1.82 & 223 \\
576: B & 0.58 & 1.21 & 89 & 347 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 958 & 958 & 0.37 & 59 \\
577: \hline\end{tabular}
578: \end{table}
579:
580:
581:
582: It should be noted the results in the tables \ref{ctab} and \ref{atab} are calculated with the estimated value of the parameter $( \alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R=0.02$. Numerical tests show that a change of this parameter by a factor two leads to changes of results in the tables by about $1\%$.
583:
584: \begin{table}
585: \centering
586: \caption{Possible manifestations of new physics}
587: \label{nptab}
588: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
589: \hline
590: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
591: Model & L-R & Exotic Fermion & Leptoquark & Contact interactions & SUSY & Higgs \\
592: \hline
593: $\bar{a}_{RL}$ & 0.067 & 0.042 & & & & \\
594: $\bar{a}_{RR}$ & 0.075 & & 0.01 & & & \\
595: $\bar{A}_{LL}+\bar{A}_{LR}$ & & & & 0.01 & $7.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $3\cdot 10^{-6}$ \\
596: $\bar{A}_{RR}+\bar{A}_{RL}$ & & & & 0.1 & & \\
597: $-\bar{A}_{LL}+\bar{A}_{LR}$ & & & $3\cdot 10^{-6}$ & & & \\
598: $\bar{A}_{RR}-\bar{A}_{RL}$ & & & $4\cdot 10^{-4}$ & & & \\
599: \hline\end{tabular}
600: \end{table}
601:
602: The calculated integral sensitivities of different experiments to a
603: particular parameter related to new physics can be used for the
604: estimation of the experimental sensitivity when the experimental
605: statistics is not good enough. For the optimization of experiments
606: it is useful to know how manifestations of new physics contribute to the
607: energy spectrum of the measurable parameter. As an example, the
608: contributions from $\bar{a}_{LR}$, $\bar{a}_{RL}$ and $\bar{a}_{RR}$
609: to the spectra for the $a$, $A$ and $B$ correlations are shown on
610: figures (\ref{fig-a-aLR}) - (\ref{fig-B-aRR}). For uniform presentation all graphs on the figures are normalized by $N_f=G_F^2|V_{ud}|^2 \int f(E) dE$, where $f(E)$ is $a(E_p)$, $A(E_e)$ and $A(E_e)$, correspondingly.
611: \begin{figure}
612: \includegraphics{aLRforSMALLa.eps}
613: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{LR}$-type interactions on the $a$ coefficient. }
614: \label{fig-a-aLR}
615: \end{figure}
616: \begin{figure}
617: \includegraphics{aRLforSMALLa.eps}
618: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{RL}$-type interactions on the $a$ coefficient. }
619: \label{fig-a-aRL}
620: \end{figure}
621: \begin{figure}
622: \includegraphics{aLRforLargeA.eps}
623: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{LR}$-type interactions on the $A$ coefficient. }
624: \label{fig-A-aLR}
625: \end{figure}
626: \begin{figure}
627: \includegraphics{aRLforLargeA.eps}
628: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{RL}$-type interactions on the $A$ coefficient. }
629: \label{fig-A-aRL}
630: \end{figure}
631: \begin{figure}
632: \includegraphics{aRRforLargeA.eps}
633: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{RR}$-type interactions on the $A$ coefficient. }
634: \label{fig-A-aRR}
635: \end{figure}
636: \begin{figure}
637: \includegraphics{aLRforLargeB.eps}
638: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{LR}$-type interactions on the $B$ coefficient. }
639: \label{fig-B-aLR}
640: \end{figure}
641: \begin{figure}
642: \includegraphics{aRLforLargeB.eps}
643: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{RL}$-type interactions on the $B$ coefficient. }
644: \label{fig-B-aRL}
645: \end{figure}
646: \begin{figure}
647: \includegraphics{aRRforLargeB.eps}
648: \caption{Manifestation of $a_{RR}$-type interactions on the $B$ coefficient. }
649: \label{fig-B-aRR}
650: \end{figure}
651: One can see that
652: these contributions have different shapes and positions of maxima
653: both for different model parameters and for different angular
654: correlations. This gives the opportunity for fine tuning in the
655: search for particular models beyond the Standard one in neutron
656: decays.
657:
658: Using the approach developed here one can calculate the exact spectrum for a given model. For example, manifestations of the Left-Right model ($\bar{a}_{RL}= 0.067$ and $\bar{a}_{RR}=0.075$) in the measurements of the $A$ and $B$ coefficients are shown in solid lines on figures \ref{fig-A-asym} and \ref{fig-B-asym}.
659: \begin{figure}
660: \includegraphics{AsymforLargeA.eps}
661: \caption{Contributions from radiative and recoil corrections (dashed line) and from the left-right model (solid line) to the $A$ coefficient. The curves are explained in the text.}
662: \label{fig-A-asym}
663: \end{figure}
664: \begin{figure}
665: \includegraphics{AsymforLargeB.eps}
666: \caption{Contributions from radiative and recoil corrections (dashed line) and from the left-right model (solid line) to the $B$ coefficient. The curves are explained in the text.}
667: \label{fig-B-asym}
668: \end{figure}
669: The dashed lines show contributions from recoil effects and radiative corrections (without Coulomb corrections) assuming that $( \alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R) = 0.02$. From these plots one can see the importance of the corrections at the level of the possible manifestations of new physics.
670: \begin{figure}
671: \includegraphics{CorrforLargeB.eps}
672: \caption{Contributions from radiative and recoil corrections to the $B$ coefficient for $ (\alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R)=0.01$ (dashed-doted line), $( \alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R)=0.02$ (dashed line), and $ (\alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R)=0.03$ (solid line).}
673: \label{fig-B-corr}
674: \end{figure}
675: The figure \ref{fig-B-corr} shows how these corrections for the coefficient $B$ affected by the value of the parameter $( \alpha /(2 \pi) \; e_V^R)$ related to nuclear structure: dashed-doted, dashed and solid lines correspond to $0.01$, $0.02$ and $0.03$ values for the parameter.
676:
677: We presented here results of analysis for only a number of parameters $\bar{a}_{ij}$ to illustrate a different level of sensitivities of experiments to the parameters. For the complete analysis of future experiments all $\bar{a}_{ij}$, $\bar{\alpha}_{ij}$ and $\bar{A}_{ij}$ parameters should be analyzed with a specific experimental conditions taken into account.
678:
679: \section{Conclusions}
680:
681: The analysis presented here provides a general basis for comparison of different experiments of neutron $\beta$-decay from the point of view of the discovery potential for new physics. It is also demonstrates that various parameters measured in experiments have quite different sensitivities to the detailed nature of the (supposed) new physics and can, in principle be used to differentiate between different extensions to the Standard Model. Thus neutron decay can be considered as a promising tool to search for new physics, which may not only detect the manifestations of new physics but also define the source of the possible deviations from predictions of the Standard model. Our results can be used for optimization of new high precision experiments to define important directions and to complement high energy experiments. Finally we emphasize that the usual parametrization of experiments in terms of the tree level coefficients $a$, $A$ and $B$, is inadequate when experimental sensitivities are comparable or better to the size of the corrections to the tree level description. This is expected in the next generation of neutron decay experiments. Therefore, such analysis is needed for these experiments. One has to use the full expression for neutron beta-decay in terms of the coupling constants. In other words, the high precision experiments should focus on the parameters important for physics rather than on the coefficients $a$, $A$ and $B$ which are sufficient only for low-accuracy measurements.
682:
683:
684: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.
685:
686: \begin{acknowledgments}
687: VG thanks to P. Herczeg for helpful discussions.
688: This work was supported by the DOE grants no. DE-FG02-03ER46043 and DE-FG02-03ER41258.
689: \end{acknowledgments}
690:
691:
692: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
693:
694: \bibitem{gtw2}J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman and H. W. Wyld, Jr.,
695: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 4}, 206 (1957).
696: \bibitem{holsttr} B. R. Holstein and S. B. Treiman, Tests of spontaneous left-right-symmetry breaking,{\it Phys. Rev., D}{\bf 16}, 2369 (1977).
697: \bibitem{deutsch} J. Deutsch, in: {\it Fundamental Symmetries and Nuclear Structure}, eds. J. N. Ginocchio and S. P. Rosen, p.36,World Scientific, 1989.
698: \bibitem{abele} H. Abele, The Standard Model and the neutron $\beta$-decay , {\it NIM, A}{\bf 440}, 499 (2000).
699: \bibitem{yeroz}B. G. Yerozolimsky, Free neutron decay: a review of the contemporary situation, {\it NIM, A}{\bf 440}, 491 (2000).
700: \bibitem{sg} S. Gardner and C. Zhang, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 86} 5666, (2001).
701: \bibitem{herc} P. Herczeg, Prog. in Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 46}, 413 (2001).
702: \bibitem{marc02} W. J. Marciano, RADCOR 2002: Conclusions and Outlook,
703: {\it Nucl. Phys., B} (Proc. suppl.) {\bf 116}, 437 (2003).
704: \bibitem {eftcor} S. Ando, H.~W. Fearing, V. Gudkov, K. Kubodera, F. Myhrer, S.
705: Nakamura and T. Sato, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 595}, 250 (2004 ).
706: \bibitem{NISTw} Proceedings ``Precision Measurements with Slow Neutrons'', National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, April 5-7, 2004.
707: \bibitem{ly56}T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. {\bf 104}, 254 (1956).
708: \bibitem{gtw1}J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman and H. W. Wyld, Jr.,
709: Phys. Rev. {\bf 106}, 517 (1957).
710:
711: \bibitem{bilenky} S.~M. Bilen'kii, R.~M. Ryndin, Ya.~A. Saoridinski\v{i}, and Ho Tso-Hsiu,
712: Sovi. Phys. JETP {\bf 37} (1960) 1241.
713: \bibitem{sirlin}
714: A. Sirlin, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf 164} (1967) 1767.
715: \bibitem{holstein} B.~R. Holstein,
716: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 46} (1974) 789;
717: Erratum ibid {\bf 48} (1976) 673.
718: \bibitem{sirlinnp}
719: A. Sirlin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 71} (1974) 29.
720: \bibitem{sirlinrmp}
721: A. Sirlin, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. {\bf 50} (1978) 573.
722: \bibitem{garcia} A. Garc\'{i}a and M. Maya,
723: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17} (1978) 1376.
724: \bibitem{wilkinson} D.~E. Wilkinson, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 377} (1982) 474.
725: \bibitem{sir} W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections to beta decay and the possibility of a fourth generation, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 56}, 22 (1986).
726: \bibitem{marciano} W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 3629.
728: \bibitem{kend} A. Stuart, J. K. Ord, S. Arnold, Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics: Classical Inference and and the Linear Model, v.2A, 6th eds., Arnold Publishers, 1998.
729: \bibitem{frod}A. G. Frodesen, Probability and Statistics in Particle Physics, Oxford University Press, 1979.
730:
731:
732:
733:
734:
735:
736: \end{thebibliography}
737:
738:
739:
740:
741: \end{document}
742: %
743: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
744: