text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Substantial experimental evidence indicates that most of the mass in the universe is invisible. The determination of the nature of this dark matter is one of the important challenges confronting modern physics. The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) class of cosmological models provides good description for a wide variety of observational results, ranging from the early universe, probed via the microwave background fluctuations to present day observations of galaxies and large scales structure. Flat cosmological models with a mixture of baryonic matter, cold matter and vacuum energy, can account for almost all observations on scales $``$ 1 Mpc. More recently, improved observations and numerical simulations have enabled comparison of CDM models to observations on galactic scales of $``$ few kpc . These studies reveal that the collisionless CDM scenarios, which predict halo density profiles that are singular at the center, are in apparent contradiction with observations, which indicate uniform density cores. This conflict prompted Spergel and Steinhardt  to propose that the cold dark matter is self–interacting with a large scattering cross section but negligible annihilation or dissipation. The key feature of this proposal is that the mean free path of the self–interacting dark matter candidate should be $`1\mathrm{kpc}<\lambda _{\mathrm{free}\mathrm{path}}<1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The effect of the self–interaction would smooth out the central profiles and suppress the number of satellite galaxies, hence improving the agreement with observations .

In view of these developments, it is prudent to explore possible particle dark matter candidates that possess the required properties. One can imagine that to devise a particle with these desired characteristics is by no means too difficult. It is therefore essential to examine whether a particle with the coveted virtues, can be motivated in a larger context. This is for example the situation in the case of the very well motivated Cold Dark Matter candidates, like the neutralino and the axion, which are motivated, respectively, by supersymmetry and the strong CP problem.

In this paper we therefore study self–interacting dark matter which is motivated from string theory. One particular class of string motivated dark matter candidates are the strongly interacting states, the uniton and the sexton, which were proposed in ref. . However, in ref.  it was shown that such states would accumulate in the center of the sun and the earth and would subsequently annihilate into energetic neutrinos at an unacceptable rate. Moreover, even though their self-interaction is sufficiently strong and the scattering cross-section is of the order of hadron-hadron scattering cross-section, their masses are expected to be quite large, which translates into a low number density and very large $`\lambda _{\mathrm{free}\mathrm{path}}`$. What about other strongly interacting candidates, such as gluino LSP scenario, advocated in Refs. ? If the gluino is heavier than 1 GeV, this scenario again could be excluded from the indirect searches of the dark matter via the flux of energetic neutrinos. It seems, however, that if the mass of gluino is really low, i.e. $`1`$ GeV, it will not produce sufficiently energetic neutrinos, the indirect constraints do not apply, and, as was argued in Ref. , direct searches are also not sensitive to gluino–containing hadrons, as they will be considerably slowed down before reaching an underground detector.

Here we study a different type of self–interacting dark matter candidate which comes from the hidden strongly-interacting sector of the theory, reminiscent to what was considered in Ref.  twenty years ago. The existence of such a hidden sector is a generic consequence of the string theory. In particular we examine the case that the lightest hidden sector state is a stable glueball of a non–Abelian hidden gauge group, which arise from the hidden string sector, and interacts with the Standard Model states only via hidden sector heavy matter states. As is frequently the case in semi–realistic heterotic–string derived models, the hidden sector matter states are charged with respect to horizontal $`U(1)`$ symmetries which are broken near the string scale, and under which also the Standard Model states are charged. Therefore, the lightest hidden sector glueball states are strongly interacting among themselves and are very weakly interacting with the Standard Model states, where interactions are mediated by higher dimensional operators, which are suppressed by inverse powers of the string scale. Generically, these hidden sector glueballs are metastable, with strong dependence of the lifetime on the condensation scale.

In view of recent years progress in string theory, one must address the issue of what is the appropriate string scale to use. We pursue the minimalist approach which assumes the big desert scenario as suggested by the Standard Model multiplet structure and grand unification. The relevant framework is that of the heterotic–string and the string scale is of the order $`10^{1617}\mathrm{GeV}`$. We further assume that the Standard Model gauge couplings as well as those of the hidden sector unify near the string scale, and are of the order extracted by the standard extrapolation of the MSSM gauge couplings. We then examine the constraints that are imposed on the possible non–Abelian hidden gauge groups by the results indicated by Spergel and Steinhardt and by the requirement that the lightest stable hidden state constitute the dark matter. We find that this set of assumptions rather tightly constrain the possible hidden sectors that can produce the desired characteristics. We examine the possible emergence of stable hidden states with these virtues from heterotic–theory. We show that a class of three generation free fermionic heterotic string models can in fact produce a hidden sector with the desired properties. The basic features that are needed, and which are reproduced in this class of string models, is a non–Abelian hidden gauge group with a small gauge content and that the hidden matter appears in vector–like representations and can decouple at a sufficiently high scale.

## 2 Hidden glueballs dark matter

Spergel and Steinhardt propose that the dark matter particles should have a mean free path, $`1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}\lambda _{\mathrm{free}\mathrm{path}}1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$. For a particle with mass $`m_x`$ this implies an elastic scattering cross section of

$$\sigma _{XX}=8.110^{25}\mathrm{cm}^2\left(\frac{m_x}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda }{1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^1$$
(2.1)
Assuming that the dark matter particle scatter through strong interactions similar to hadronic scattering, the cross section is approximately equal to the geometric cross section, $`\sigma 4\pi a^2`$, where $`a`$ is the scattering length. Assuming $`a100fm_x^1`$ Spergel and Steinhardt obtain the estimate

$$m_x=4\left(\frac{\lambda }{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/3}f^{2/3}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(2.2)
Here we study the possibility that the self–interacting dark matter (SIDM) comes from the hidden non–Abelian sector of the theory. The effective low–energy gauge symmetry is therefore that of the Standard Model plus an hidden gauge group, which can be $`SU(2)`$, $`SU(3)`$ or another. However, as we elaborate in section 5, inspired from the realistic heterotic–string models, we assume that all the hidden matter fields appear in vector–like representations, and can therefore decouple from the light spectrum at a higher scale. In section 4 we will show that, assuming unification of the Standard Model as well as the hidden sector couplings, strongly constrains the allowed possibilities. If the additional hidden groups are not Higgsed, then at some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, because of asymptotic freedom, the hidden sector gauge coupling, $`g_h`$, becomes large and the hidden gauge group will be in the confining regime. Necessarily it will develop a mass gap in the spectrum $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ and the lowest glueball–like state will be stable. These particles will be strongly interacting among themselves and “almost” non–interacting with the Standard Model particles.

The lightest hidden sector state is non–interacting with the Standard Model states up to higher dimensional operators which are generated at the radiative level. These lowest order terms are of the form

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=C_6\frac{(H^{}H)(G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a)}{M_S^2}+\underset{\mathrm{SM}}{}C_8^i\frac{(G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a)(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })}{M_S^4}+\underset{\mathrm{SM}}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_8^i\frac{(G_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a)(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu })}{M_S^4}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.3)
Here $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the field strength of a non-Abelian gauge group from the hidden sector, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ represents the field strength of the SM gauge groups ($`U(1)`$, $`SU(2)`$, or $`SU(3)`$). The summation runs over the SM gauge groups and ellipses stands for other possible operators. $`C_6`$, $`C_8^i`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_8^i`$ are loop coefficients; $`M_S`$ is a heavy mass scale, associated with the decoupling of the heavy vector–like matter fields, which transform under the hidden gauge group. These fields are also charged under horizontal $`U(1)`$ symmetries, under which also the Standard Model fields are charged. Note that the scale $`M_S`$ does not necessarily coincide with the string scale, although in the simplest scenarios that we consider we will assume that that is the case. We remark that $`C_6`$ may have an additional suppression which depends on the Yukawa couplings. Eq. (2.3) is given in a non-supersymmetric form, and we note that the supersymmetric generalization is straightforward.

It is now possible to make a rough estimate of the lifetime of the hidden glueball, which decay is induced by operators (2.3). Let us assume that the lightest glueball is a scalar. Then, the operator $`(G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a)`$ can annihilate an exotic glueball (exoglueball) with the efficiency

$$<0|G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a|\mathrm{exoglueball}>=f\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3\varphi _h,$$
(2.4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the wave–function of the glueball and $`f`$ is some dimensionless coupling, presumably of the order one. Thus, at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ and below the effective Lagrangian for the interaction of the exotic glueball with the Standard Model states becomes

$$=C_6f\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3}{M_S^2}\varphi (H^{}H)+C_8^if\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3}{M_S^4}\varphi (F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })$$
(2.5)
We first estimate the lifetime expected from the dimension eight operator, involving SM SU(3) fields. This induces hadronic decays of exotic glueballs, with the probability per unit time given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2m_\varphi ^3}{\pi }\left(C_8f\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3}{M_S^4}\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h}{M_S}\right)^8,$$
(2.6)
where we omitted (likely small) numerical coefficients and used the fact that $`m_\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$. Taking $`M_S10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1/\tau _{\mathrm{universe}}=1/(10^{10}\mathrm{yr})`$, we obtain the following condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_h<310^9\mathrm{GeV}$$
(2.7)
Thus, for a reasonable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ the decay rate is smaller than the inverse lifetime of the universe.

We next turn to estimate the lifetime expected from the dimension six operator. The decay is mediated by the virtual Higgs particle, decaying into all possible channels. Motivated by Spergel and Steinhardt’s proposal, we consider $`m_\varphi `$ in the ballpark of 1 GeV, which means that the decay width is saturated by hadronic channels and the effective Lagrangian can be written in the following form:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=C_6f\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3}{M_{Higgs}^2M_S^2}\frac{3\alpha _3}{8\pi }(F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a),$$
(2.8)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ now is the gluon $`SU(3)`$ field strength. Using same formulae as before, we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =(C_6f)^2\frac{2m_\varphi ^3}{\pi }\left(\frac{3\alpha _3}{8\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^3}{M_S^2M_{Higgs}^2}\right)^210^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^9}{M_S^4M_{Higgs}^4}$$
(2.9)
The condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{\mathrm{universe}}<1`$ yields, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is well above the range for $`m_x`$, required by self–interacting dark matter scenario.

Thus we conclude, that if the requirement of strongly-interacting dark matter is satisfied, and the condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ is around 1 GeV or less, the lifetime of exotic glueballs is much larger than the present age of the Universe, and thus these glueballs might constitute (or partially contribute to) the dark matter. Now we turn to analyzing possible scenarios which could give a required cosmological abundance of these glueballs close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi h^21`$.

## 3 Estimate of primordial abundance

We start this section by noting that there are no “natural” reasons for the mass density of exotic glueballs to be of the order of the required dark matter density. In this respect the situation is quite different from the neutralino LSP dark matter, where a correct abundance follows from the weak–scale annihilation cross section. In the case of exotic glueballs the low-energy annihilation cross section into the SM particles is extremely low, exactly for the same reasons that the decay width of an individual glueball turns out to be so small. When the annihilation cross section is so small, there is always a “danger” of overproducing these particles, so that they overclose the Universe.

It is possible to show on general grounds that the hidden sector cannot be in thermal equilibrium with observable matter. In a deconfining phase the energy density of the exotic gluons scales as $`1/R^4`$ with the size of the Universe $`R`$, and after the phase transition it scales as $`1/R^3`$. Thus, if at some point in the history of the Universe, the exotic gluons were in thermal equilibrium with normal matter, they carried comparable energy density and the confining phase transition should have occurred around the same $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ when the normal radiation–domination $``$ matter–domination phase transition occurs. That is, around $`T_{\mathrm{normal}\mathrm{matter}}5\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and long after nucleosynthesis. It implies that during the nucleosynthesis there were $`2(N_C^21)`$ additional massless degrees of freedom, associated with exotic gluons. For $`SU(2)`$ hidden gauge group we therefore get additional 6 degrees of freedom, seemingly in disagreement with the nucleosynthesis constraints. If the deconfining–confining phase transition occurred before nucleosynthesis, the energy density stored in exotic matter would have been much larger than observable matter density today. Therefore, the exotic gluons could not have been in thermal equilibrium with ordinary matter. Consequently, we have to come up with some mechanism responsible for their dilution and we assume that the exotic gluons were produced after inflation with $`T_{\mathrm{Reating}}<M_S`$.

In that case, several possibilities are open. Some portion of an inflaton could decay directly into the exotic gluons, a straightforward possibility, which requires a fine–tuning of the corresponding coupling. Another, more interesting, case is when the coupling of the inflaton to the exotic sector is nil, and the decay occurs predominantly into the observable sector. Due to the existence of small but non-vanishing couplings between the two sectors, Eq. (2.3), the high-energy scattering of visible sector particles would lead to the creation of hidden sector particles with the efficiency $`C_n^2T_R^{2n+1}/M_S^{2n}`$, where $`n`$ is 2 or 4, depending on the operator, and $`T_R`$ is the temperature of visible sector matter, which defines the energy density of the visible sector matter.

$$\rho _R=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}T_R^4$$
(3.1)
Let us denote the exotic gluon radiation density by $`\rho _g`$ and write down a system of cosmological equations which would determine the evolution of the hot Universe:

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}\left(\rho _R+\rho _g\right)`$ (3.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _R}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`4H\rho _R\alpha C_n^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_R^{2n+5}}{M_S^{2n}}}`$ (3.3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _g}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`4H\rho _g+\alpha C_n^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_R^{2n+5}}{M_S^{2n}}},`$ (3.4)
where $`\alpha `$ is some dimensionless constant, with no parametric dependence on any of the relevant scales in the problem. These equation can be considerably simplified because $`\rho _g`$ gives a negligibly small contribution to the expansion rate of the hot universe, and away from dynamical equilibrium the dilution of $`\rho _R`$ due to the “leakage” into the hidden sector can be safely neglected:

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}\rho _R,`$ (3.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _R}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`4H\rho _R`$ (3.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _g}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`4H\rho _g+\alpha C_n^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_R^{2n+5}}{M_S^2n}}.`$ (3.7)
These equations reduce the problem to finding the energy density $`\rho _g`$ as the function of “external” temperature $`T_R`$, $`\rho _g(t(T_R))`$. Using the relation

$$t=\frac{1}{2}H^1=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{\mathrm{SM}}}}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{T_R^2}$$
(3.8)
we obtain a simple differential equation for $`\rho _g(T_R)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _g}{dt}}=`$ $``$ $`T_R^3{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _g}{dT_R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{\mathrm{SM}}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}=`$ (3.9)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}g_{\mathrm{SM}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_R^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\rho _g+\alpha C_n^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_R^{2n+5}}{M_S^{2n}}}`$
Integrating this equation explicitly, and using the initial condition $`\rho _g(T_{\mathrm{RH}})=0`$, we arrive at

$$\rho _g(T_R)\frac{\alpha C_n^2}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{\mathrm{SM}}}}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_S^{2n}}\frac{1}{2n1}(T_{\mathrm{RH}}^{2n1}T_R^{2n1})T_R^4$$
(3.10)
More accurate treatment would require some knowledge about reheating, as most of $`\rho _g`$ created at $`T_R`$ close to$`T_{RH}`$. As one would naturally expect, soon after the reheating, the ratio of two energy densities becomes proportional to the dimensionless combination of the Plank scale, reheating temperature and $`M_S`$:

$$\frac{\rho _g}{\rho _R}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}T_{\mathrm{RH}}^{2n1}}{M_S^{2n}}.$$
(3.11)
After quick rescattering and thermalization, the exotic gluons will acquire their own temperature $`T_g`$, which will be lower than $`T_R`$, because we explicitly assume that $`\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}T_{\mathrm{RH}}^{2n1}}{M_S^{2n}}<<1`$. After that $`T_g^4`$ and $`T_R^4`$ both scale as $`1/R^4`$, until $`T_g`$ cools down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, where the confining phase transition occurs. From that moment the energy density, stored in exotic glueballs, scales as $`1/R^3`$. After $`T_R5\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}T_{\mathrm{EQ}}`$ both the normal matter and dark matter scale as $`1/R^3`$. This leads to the following final estimate of the abundance,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dark}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}}\frac{T_R(\mathrm{at}T_g=\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)}{T_{\mathrm{EQ}}}\frac{T_{\mathrm{RH}}^{2n1}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_S^{2n}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h}{T_{\mathrm{EQ}}}\left(C_n^2\frac{T_{\mathrm{RH}}^{2n1}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_S^{2n}}\right)^{3/4},$$
(3.12)
which should be of order $`O(10)`$. This relation can viewed as the condition on the reheating temperature, because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ is more or less fixed by the requirement (2.2) and can be further related to $`M_S`$ via the renormalization group flow. Assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{EQ}}5\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, and $`M_S10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, we can get $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}10^4M_S`$ for the $`n=2`$ maximal strength operator, and $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}10^2M_S`$ for $`n=4`$. This range for the reheating temperature is quite reasonable. Scenarios with lower values of $`T_{RH}`$ would require a direct coupling between inflaton and the hidden sector to ensure sufficient abundance of exotic glueballs. On the other hand, scenarios with larger $`T_{RH}`$ in units of $`M_S`$ are excluded as in this case the energy density stored in exotic glueballs would overclose the universe.

## 4 Renormalization Group Analysis

In the previous section we showed that, assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, the exotic glueballs can account for the missing mass, and be in agreement with nucleosynthesis constraints, provided that the reheating temperature is of the order $`O(10^{1214}\mathrm{GeV})`$. In this section we study the evolution of the gauge couplings from the unification scale to the low scale. In this respect we examine which gauge groups, and under what conditions, can produce the exotic glueballs at a scale of the order $`O(1)\mathrm{GeV}`$, as suggested by the cosmological data.

As we discussed in the introduction, in order to make connection with realistic superstring models we assume the framework of the Supersymmetric Standard Model unification, which indicates that the unification scale is of the order $`10^{1617}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Consistently with this assumption, we also assume the framework of the heterotic string, and consequently that the observable and hidden gauge couplings unify at the unification scale. With these assumptions, we extrapolate the hidden sector gauge coupling from the high to low scales. We take the magnitude of the hidden sector gauge coupling at the unification scale to be of the order that is expected by extrapolation of the Supersymmetric Standard Model couplings from the low scale to the unification scale. We divide our analysis into two parts. We first assume that all the vector–like matter states decouple at a scale which is identical with the $`M_S`$ scale. Therefore below the $`M_S`$ scale only the gauge sector contributes to the evolution of the gauge couplings. In the subsequent part we assume that the vector–like matter states decouple at an intermediate scale $`M_h`$, which is below $`M_S`$. In the evolution of the couplings we assume a supersymmetric spectrum. In the next section we will examine the plausibility of obtaining the required particle content from realistic superstring models.

Assuming that there are no intermediate scales between $`M_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, the scale at which the hidden $`SU(n)`$ gauge group becomes strongly interacting is given by,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_h=M_S\mathrm{Exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{(\frac{1}{2}N_f3N_C)}\frac{(1\alpha _0)}{\alpha _0}\right),$$
(4.1)
where $`N_c=n`$ is the number of colors, $`N_f`$ is the number of spin 1/2 fundamental multiplets, and $`\alpha _0`$ is the value of gauge coupling at the scale $`M_S`$. Assuming that all matter states decouple at $`M_S`$ gives $`N_f=0`$. Then for the lowest possibility with $`N_C=2`$, and taking and $`M_S10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1`$ GeV, we obtain the required initial value of the gauge coupling, $`\alpha _01/36`$. This value of the coupling is 1.5 times smaller than conventional value $`\alpha _01/24`$, suggested by the unification of coupling constants from the observable sector. If we take $`1/24`$ for the value of the coupling, the transition to the strong coupling regime for the hidden sector will occur at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h310^{15}`$ GeV, which is, clearly, too high a scale to satisfy the strongly–interacting dark matter criterion.

However, although this scenario is appealing in its simplicity, a likely outcome suggested by realistic string models is that the hidden matter states decouple at an intermediate energy scale which is slightly or several orders of magnitude below the string scale. We will discuss the relevant string framework in the subsequent section. Here we continue with our qualitative analysis. We therefore assume that the matter vector–like states decouple at an intermediate energy scale and study the conditions for obtaining $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.

With this assumptions the one–loop Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) for the hidden group gauge coupling is given by

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _h(\mu )}=\frac{1}{\alpha _0}\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2}N_f3N_C\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_h}{M_S}\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(3N_C\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_h}{M_h}$$
(4.2)
Writing $`M_h=10^h\mathrm{GeV}`$, and taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h=1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$; $`\alpha _h(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)=1`$; $`\alpha _0=1/24`$, we obtain a relation between $`N_f`$, $`N_c`$ and $`h`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}N_f(16h)=48N_C\frac{46\pi }{\mathrm{ln}10}$$
(4.3)
First we see that, since $`0<h<16`$ for any $`N_C`$ there will be solutions to this equation, which depend on the number of flavors. This is of course true, as for any $`N_C`$ we can add a number of flavor multiplets that slow the evolution of the gauge couplings. For larger $`N_C`$ we, of course, have to add more flavor multiplets. The more constraining framework then has to be sought in the context of the realistic superstring models.

For $`SU(2)`$ from eq. (4.3) we see that if the intermediate scale $`M_h`$ is just an order of magnitude below the MSSM unification scale, we need approximately 66 flavors in order for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ to be of order $`1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, 16 flavors if $`M_h10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 8 flavors if $`M_h10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$. For $`SU(3)`$ we need 162 flavors for $`M_h10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$, 40 flavors for $`M_h10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, and 20 flavors for $`M_h10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$. The number of needed flavors, of course, grows rapidly with increasing $`N_c`$. In the next section we examine the feasibility of obtaining the needed spectrum in realistic string models. However, we can already infer that the desirable gauge group should have the smallest number of colors, i.e. $`SU(2)`$.

## 5 String origins

In the previous section we showed that in order to get a hidden sector which becomes strongly interacting at the GeV scale requires that the hidden gauge group has a small gauge content and the existence of the hidden vector–like matter states at an intermediate energy scale. In this section we examine whether these needed characteristics can be obtained from realistic heterotic string models. From a purely field theoretic point of view we can of course construct a model with any number of colors and flavors, and a potential that will generate the required scales. The resulting model may be rather contrived, but not impossible to conceive. The more constraining framework can therefore be sought in the context of string theory. The class of string models that are of most interest in this respect are those that can potentially reproduce the observed physics of the standard particle model. It is then of great interest to examine if such models can produce a hidden sector with the characteristics that we discussed in the previous sections.

Examples of semi–realistic string models were constructed in the orbifold and free fermionic formulations. The most realistic models constructed to date are the free fermionic models which utilize the NAHE<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*NAHE=pretty in Hebrew. The NAHE set was first employed by Nanopoulos, Antoniadis, Hagelin and Ellis in the construction of the flipped $`SU(5)`$ heterotic–string model . Its vital role in the realistic free fermionic models has been emphasized in ref. . set of boundary condition basis vectors . These constructions naturally give rise to three generation models with the standard $`SO(10)`$ embedding of the Standard Model spectrumIt is interesting to note that among the perturbative heterotic–string orbifold models the free fermionic models are the only ones which have yielded three generations with the canonical $`SO(10)`$ embedding. Furthermore, one of the generic features of semi–realistic string vacua is the existence of numerous massless states beyond the MSSM spectrum, some of which carry fractional electric charge and hence must decouple from the low energy spectrum. Recently, and for the first time since the advent of string phenomenology, it was demonstrated  in the FNY free fermionic model , that free fermionic models can also produce models with solely the MSSM states in the light spectrum.

The realistic free fermionic models are defined in terms of a set of boundary condition basis vectors for all the world–sheet fermions, and the one–loop GSO amplitudes . The physical massless states in the Hilbert space are obtained by acting on the vacuum with bosonic and fermionic operators and by applying the generalized GSO projections. The basis is constructed in two stages. The first stage consists of the NAHE set , which is a set of five boundary condition basis vectors, $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},S,b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. The gauge group after the NAHE set is $`SO(10)\times SO(6)^3\times E_8`$ with $`N=1`$ space–time supersymmetry. The space–time vector bosons that generate the gauge group arise from the Neveu–Schwarz (NS) sector and from the sector $`\zeta \mathrm{𝟏}+b_1+b_2+b_3`$. The NS sector produces the generators of $`SO(10)\times SO(6)^3\times SO(16)`$. The sector $`\zeta `$ produces the spinorial $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$ of $`SO(16)`$ and completes the hidden gauge group to $`E_8`$. The sectors $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$ produce 48 spinorial $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$’s of $`SO(10)`$, sixteen from each sector $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$.

The second stage of the basis construction consist of adding three additional basis vectors to the NAHE set typically denoted by $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \}`$. Three additional vectors are needed to reduce the number of generations to three, one from each sector $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$. At the same time the additional boundary condition basis vectors break the gauge symmetries of the NAHE set. The $`SO(10)`$ symmetry is broken to one of its subgroups. The flavor $`SO(6)^3`$ symmetries are broken to product of $`U(1)`$’s, and the hidden $`E_8`$ is broken to one of its subgroups. In addition to the spin one and two multiplets, the Neveu–Schwarz (NS) sector produces three pairs of electroweak doublets, $`\{h_1,h_2,h_3,\overline{h}_1,\overline{h}_2,\overline{h}_3\}`$, three pairs of $`SO(10)`$ singlets with $`U(1)`$ charges, $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12},\mathrm{\Phi }_{23},\mathrm{\Phi }_{13},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{12},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{23},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{13}\}`$, and three singlets of the entire four dimensional gauge group, $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3\}`$. This generic structure is common to a large number of three generation models which differ in their detailed phenomenological characteristics. The analysis of the models proceeds by analyzing the cubic level and higher order terms in the superpotential and by imposing that the string vacuum preserves $`N=1`$ space–time supersymmetry. By studying specific models in this fashion, it was demonstrated that these models can potentially reproduce the fermion mass spectrum, and also produce models with solely the MSSM spectrum in the observably charged sector.

The fact that the free fermionic models produce models that look tantalizingly realistic renders the search for possible signatures beyond the observed spectrum much more appealing. In this paper we focus on the possibility of the strongly interacting dark matter.

The basis vectors $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \}`$, which break the observable gauge group, also break the hidden $`E_8`$ gauge group to one of its subgroups. This is a necessary consequence of the perturbative string consistency conditions, i.e. of modular invariance. The resulting hidden gauge groups which arise depend on the specific models and are quite varied. We will comment more on this below. In addition to the generic spectrum from the NS sector and the sectors $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$, outlined above, the models typically also contain additional massless states, which arise from the basis vectors which extend the NAHE set. The three sectors $`b_j+2\gamma `$ produce hidden matter states that fall into the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ representation of the $`SO(16)`$ subgroup of the hidden $`E_8`$, decomposed under the final $`E_8`$. These states are $`SO(10)`$ singlets but are charged under the horizontal $`U(1)`$ symmetries. In addition, vectors that are combinations of the NAHE set basis vectors and of the basis vectors $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \}`$, produce additional massless sectors which break the $`SO(10)`$ symmetry explicitly. Some of these states are Standard Model singlets and can therefore also remain in the light spectrum.

The discussion above summarizes the general structure of the realistic free fermionic models. Our next task is then to make a survey of several models and to examine whether there exist, if any, models that can produce the characteristics desired for the self–interacting dark matter. As we discussed in section 4 to obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ we need a non–Abelian gauge group with small gauge content and matter spectrum at an intermediate mass scale. The prerequisite from the string model perspective is that the hidden $`E_8`$ gauge group is broken to a sufficiently small factor. Most favorably the hidden sector should contain an $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(3)`$ gauge groups. The second condition is that there should be a sufficient number of hidden matter multiplets to slow down the evolution of the gauge coupling.

The revamped flipped $`SU(5)`$ model of ref.  produces a hidden sector with $`SO(10)\times SO(6)`$ gauge group. The model contains 5 multiplets in the 10 vectorial representation of the hidden $`SO(10)`$; 5 multiplets in the 6 vectorial representation of the hidden $`SU(4)`$ and 5 multiplets in the $`(1,4)(1,\overline{4})`$ representations. For $`SO(10)`$ we find that even if we assume that all the matter states remain massless, the theory becomes strongly interacting at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h510^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ (taking $`M_S=10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$). For $`SU(4)`$ we have that taking all the spectrum to remain massless gives $`b_{SU(4)_h}=2`$, which may result in a sufficiently low scale for the hidden $`SU(4)`$. However, in the revamped flipped $`SU(5)`$ model the $`4+\overline{4}`$ states carry fractional electric charge and therefore must either decouple or the theory must confine at a much higher scale .

We next turn to the $`SO(6)\times SO(4)`$ model of ref. . In this model the hidden gauge group is $`SU(8)`$ and there are 5 multiplets in the $`8+\overline{8}`$ representations. This again yields $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h510^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ (taking $`M_S10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, even if we assume that all of the matter states remain massless.

Next we turn to the case of the string Standard–like Models . These models represent the most interesting possibilities for the strongly interacting dark matter for the following reason. As we discussed above it is desirable to have a hidden gauge sector that contains small group factors, like $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. In the string standard–like models the observable gauge group is broken by two subsequent basis vectors. The modular invariance constraints then impose that similarly the hidden gauge group in these models has to be broken by the same two basis vectors. This means that in the string standard–like models small hidden group factors can indeed naturally arise. The same argument also applies to the left–right symmetric models of ref. . On the other hand in the $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ or $`SO(6)\times SO(4)`$ type models, the observable $`SO(10)`$ gauge group is broken by a single basis vector. Consequently, the hidden gauge group in these models contains larger group factors.

Turning then to the string standard–like models we find that indeed $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ hidden group factors frequently arise. For example, in the model of ref.  the hidden gauge group is $`SU(5)\times SU(3)\times U(1)^2`$. There exist 8 multiplets in the $`3+\overline{3}`$ representations, producing $`b_{SU(3)_h}=1`$. Of those five carry fractional electric charge and therefore must decouple at a high scale. If we take the scale $`M_I`$ at which all the hidden matter fields decouple as in section 4, then requiring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ imposes $`M_h10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the intermediate energy scale. If on the other hand we assume that the electrically neutral states remain light down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ and that the fractionally charged states decouple at the scale $`M_I`$ then we find that $`M_I10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which seems more reasonable. All in all this qualitative analysis suggests that models with a hidden $`SU(3)`$ group factor may have enough flexibility to allow a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$.

Next we turn to the model of ref. . The hidden gauge group in this model is $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^4`$. Each hidden $`SU(2)`$ gauge group contains 10 multiplets in the fundamental representation, which are all electrically neutral. If we assume that all the matter states decouple at an intermediate scale $`M_I`$, then imposing $`\lambda _h1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ we obtain $`M_h10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$. This model therefore demonstrates that hidden gauge group with a low confining scale and with matter which decouples at a much higher scale may indeed arise in realistic string models.

## 6 Discussion

The proposal of the self–interacting dark matter is a new interesting development which can help to reconcile computer–simulated features of galactic substructures with observations. Whether the self-interacting dark matter represents a considerable improvement over a more conventional cold dark matter scenario is, of course, an open question, which we are not trying to address here. Nevertheless, it is interesting to explore a possibility of having self–interacting dark matter within a particle physics context.

In this paper we argued that a naturally self–interacting dark matter can arise from the hidden sector gauge group. If this gauge group is not Higgsed, it will enter a strongly–interacting regime at some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, hadronize and develop a mass gap. A lightest particle, with the mass presumably of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, will be stable and will have an elastic cross section roughly on the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^2`$. If this scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ is 1 GeV or smaller, these glueballs may fit into self–interacting dark matter criterion, put forward by Spergel and Steinhardt. The connection between the hidden and visible sectors may occur due to exotic heavy matter states, charged under the SM and hidden gauge groups, which decouple at a very high scale $`M_S`$, presumably comparable to unification scale. As a result, this connection is mediated by dimension 8 operators (dimension 6, if the SM Higgs has couplings to the exotic matter states). This induces a decay of exotic glueballs, suppressed by the eighth (fourth) power of the heavy scale. Consequently, if the condition on the self–interacting dark matter is satisfied, this suppression makes the life time of exotic glueballs to be much larger than the present age of the Universe.

The extreme smallness of the coupling between the visible and hidden sector at low energies poses certain difficulties in explaining the cosmological abundance of exotic glueballs, close to a required value. Indeed, since there is no ways of diluting the energy stored in the hidden sector through the decay into the SM particles, we conclude that the visible and hidden sectors have never been in thermal equilibrium. Consequently, we have to assume that the energy was stored in the hidden sector soon after inflation, either due to a direct coupling of the inflaton into exotic gluons or through the annihilation of the visible sector particles into exotic gluons. The efficiency of a latter process is governed again by the same effective operators, which connect the visible and hidden sectors. This process puts an upper limit on the reheating temperature, $`T_{RH}10^4M_S`$ for dimension 6 operators and $`T_{RH}10^2M_S`$ for dimension 8.

Choosing a specific gauge group, we can connect the two scales, $`M_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$. If we insist on the unification of couplings at $`M_S`$, the condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ is many orders of magnitude larger than desirable value of 1 GeV even for the minimal gauge group $`SU(2)`$. This problem can be cured only if one assumes a number of matter-like thresholds at some intermediate scale which would reduce the initial value of the coupling constant.

The cold dark matter candidates, like the axion and the neutralino, are well motivated by theoretical considerations. Does the stable hidden glueball have a similar appealing theoretical motivation? We believe that the the answer is indeed affirmative. The existence of the hidden sector is a natural consequence of string theory, the only prevalent theory that at present offers a viable framework for quantum gravity. Realistic string models that reproduce the general structure of the Standard Model spectrum and have the potential of explaining its detailed features, also produce a hidden sector with the general characteristics that we assumed in this paper. Namely, a non–Abelian hidden gauge group with matter states in vector–like representations. It is then most intriguing that the models that come the closest to being fully realistic also produce the hidden gauge group with small gauge content, as is required if the hidden gauge group is to confine at the hadronic scale. Further exploration to reveal whether other classes of string models  can produce a hidden sector with similar characteristics are of enormous interest. Finally, at the turn of the new millenium it seems that a burning question in physics is: What is the universe made of? The answer to this question, whether in the direction advocated in this paper or otherwise, will have profound implications on our basic understanding of fundamental physics.

Acknowledgments

We are pleased to thank Keith Olive and Misha Voloshin for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. DOE Grant No. DE-FG-02-94-ER-40823 and a PPARC advanced fellowship (AEF).


format: text

text:
# Effects of Instantons on the YN Interaction

## 1 Introduction

A valence quark model with I I I contains four terms in the quark hamiltonian: the kinetic term, the confinement term, and the one-gluon exchange (OGE) term, and the I I I term. It was found that this model can reproduce rough feature of the YN systems as well as the NN scattering data . In ref. , we demonstrated that a valence quark model with I I I gives the small LS splitting of the excited baryons and the large LS force between two-nucleons, which are difficult to be described simultaneously. Thus, introducing I I I enables us to see the spin-orbit force from a more fundamental viewpoint. In this work, we discuss the spin-orbit problem in the YN system.

## 2 Model

Here we employ a valence quark model to investigate the properties of the spin-orbit force in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N systems. The short range feature is supplied by the quark degrees of freedom with the gluonic potentials. The intermediate and long-range interaction is supplied by the meson-exchange: the flavor-singlet and octet scalar mesons, the pseudo-scalar, and the vector mesons. We use some of the coupling constants and masses of the mesons as fitting parameters, which are taken to reproduce the NN phase shifts and the low-energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p cross section and the phase shifts. The NN phase shift can be reproduced well: all the partial wave phase shifts at $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}=5150`$ MeV do not deviate more than 4 degrees away from the results of the phase-shift analysis up to the $`F`$-wave. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift is about 10 degrees higher than that of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, which is suggested by the experiments .

## 3 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-orbit force

In a quark-meson hybrid model, there are two origins of ALS. One comes from the gluonic interaction; the symmetric LS force between quarks produces both of the antisymmetric and the symmetric LS between baryons. The other is the meson-exchange interaction; the tensor couplings of the vector-meson exchange can produce ALS . Both of them survive at the flavor SU(3) limit and therefore are rather large.

From the observed levels of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hypernuclei, it is believed that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-orbit force is small comparing to that between two nucleons . Since the spin of u- and d-quark in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particle is zero, only the s-quark contributes to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-orbit force. Because of this, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N spin-orbit force (= $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N SLS + $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N ALS) is small in a quark model, though each SLS or ALS can be large. As seen in table 1, however, this cancellation seems not enough. Moreover, strong ALS seen in the model can cause a bump in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p elastic cross section, which is excluded by the experiments.

## 4 Coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel

The RGM equation of the quark cluster model, $`(HEN)\psi =0`$, can be rewritten as the “Schrödinger” equation, $`(\overline{H}E)\overline{\psi }=0`$, with $`\overline{H}=N^{1/2}HN^{1/2}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }=N^{1/2}\psi `$. The coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel is large in the quark model. To $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N LS force should be modified as:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{H}_{11}\overline{H}_{12}(\overline{H}_{22}E_0)^1\overline{H}_{21}`$ (1)
where the channel 1  denotes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N \[$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N\] channel. At $`E_0=E`$, eq. (1) is equivalent to the coupled-channel calculation. As $`E_0`$ deviates from $`E`$, the result deviates from the exact one, which can be seen, e.g. in the scattering phase shift (Fig. 1).

To see rough size of the effect of the coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel, we evaluate the hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{N}}`$ by the quark-cluster wave functions. Their size corresponds to the ones with $`b_{\mathrm{baryon}}`$=1.35 fm, with an extra potential between the baryons. In table 1, we list that of SLS and ALS separately by three parameter sets of QCM  (QCM-B has the meson ALS similar to NSC97f, QCM-C \[D\] without \[with\] I I I with no meson ALS). $`H_{SLS}`$ and $`H_{ALS}`$ stand for the SLS and ALS terms in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N force, whereas $`\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha `$ stands for the contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel to each LS term. The size of the total LS, which consists of SLS and ALS with the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N effect, is listed under the entry $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha `$.

The effect of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel is important; it reduces SLS ($`\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_{SLS}`$) and enhances ALS ($`\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_{ALS}`$) largely, so that the size of the whole LS term decreases considerably ($`\stackrel{~}{H}_{LS}`$). The adiabatic LS potentials obtained from the eq. (1) are shown in Fig. 2, which also indicate that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel effect is large.

## 5 Summary

In this work, we investigate the effect of coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N channel on the spin-orbit force in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction. The effect seems important, which reduces the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle LS force largely.


text:
# State Transitions as Morphisms for Complete Lattices

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we present a construction that abstracts the concept of ‘state transition’ as introduced in (Amira et al., 1998) and (Coecke and Stubbe, 1999a; 1999b), making it applicable to any subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$. We compare this construction, the result of which is a quantaloid that we call $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$, with two other quantaloidal extensions that arise naturally when considering the action of the power-functor on $`𝒜`$. In fact, one of these natural extentions is functorial, we denote it by $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$, and the other, called $`𝒬^+𝒜`$, is contextual in the sense that its construction relies entirely on the fact that $`𝒜`$ is a $`𝒫arset`$-concrete category. The main result of this paper is then that in all non-trivial cases $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ lies strictly between $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ and $`𝒬^+𝒜`$.

Applying the construction $`𝒬^{st}`$ to the category $`𝒫rop`$, which was introduced in (Moore, 1995; 1999), reveals that the latter has to be ‘enriched’ in order to constitute an appropriate mathematical object for defining ‘state transitions’. However, it must be noted that the physical inspiration for ‘our’ categories is essentially different from Moore’s: $`𝒫rop`$ is constructed to express the equivalence of a property lattice and a state space description for a physical system as a categorical equivalence of $`𝒫rop`$ and $`𝒮tate`$, inspired by a similar situation for categories for projective geometries (Faure and Frölicher, 1993; 1994), and delivers the mathematical context that embeds the proof of Piron’s representation theorem (Piron, 1964; 1976). On the contrary, we propose a dualization/generalization for the notion of property transition, previously motivated to be a join-preserving map (Pool, 1968; Faure et al., 1995; Amira et al., 1998).

## 2 ‘Enriching’ $`𝒫arset`$-concrete categories

For a general overview of the theory of categories we refer to (Adamek et al., 1990; Borceux, 1994). For quantaloids we refer to (Pitts, 1988; Rosenthal, 1991).

###### Definition 1

. A ‘quantaloid’ is a category such that:

(i) every hom-set is a complete lattice, its join is usually denoted by $``$;

(ii) composition of morphisms distributes on both sides over arbitrary joins.

Let $`𝒬`$ and $`𝒬^{}`$ be quantaloids. A ‘quantaloid morphism’ from $`𝒬`$ to $`𝒬^{}`$ is a functor $`F:𝒬𝒬^{}`$ such that on hom-sets it induces join-preserving maps $`𝒬(A,B)𝒬^{}(FA,FB)`$.

For example, $`𝒥𝒞at`$ is the quantaloid of complete lattices and join-preserving maps in which the join of maps is computed pointwise. A quantaloid with one object is commonly known as a ‘unital quantale’, a quantaloid morphism between two one-object quantaloids is known as a ‘unital quantale morphism’ (Rosenthal, 1990). Any subcategory of a quantaloid that is closed under the inherited join of morphisms, is a subquantaloid. Thus any full subcategory of a quantaloid is a subquantaloid, and selecting from a given quantaloid certain morphisms but keeping all the objects, gives rise to a subquantaloid if and only if the inherited join of morphisms is internal.

Let $`𝒫arset`$ denote the category of sets $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ and partially defined functions $`f:AKB`$ — where $`KA`$ is called the ‘kernel’ of the partially defined function $`f`$, also written as $`\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}f`$. Then the power-functor is defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒫& :& 𝒫arset𝒥𝒞at\hfill \\ & :& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& & 2^A\hfill \\ \hfill f:AKB& & 𝒫f:2^A2^B:T\{f(t)tTK\}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

that is, sets are mapped onto their powersets, partially defined functions are mapped onto the ‘direct image mapping’ which is indeed a union-preserving map. This functor is faithful and injective, but neither full nor surjective.

For any $`𝒫arset`$-concrete category $`𝒜`$, that is a category that comes equipped with a faithful functor $`U:𝒜𝒫arset`$, we can compose functors $`𝒜\stackrel{U}{}𝒫arset\stackrel{𝒫}{}𝒥𝒞at`$ and use this to define a category that we shall denote by $`𝒫𝒜`$: it has the same objects as $`𝒜`$, and for the hom-sets we define:

$$𝒫𝒜(A,B)=\{(𝒫U)(f)f𝒜(A,B)\}.$$

So in particular the hom-sets are posets for the pointwise order. Any functor $`F:𝒜`$ between two such categories $`𝒜\stackrel{U}{}𝒫arset`$ and $`\stackrel{V}{}𝒫arset`$ defines a functor

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒫F& :& 𝒫𝒜𝒫\hfill \\ & :& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& & FA\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒫Uf:2^{UA}2^{UB}& & 𝒫VFf:2^{VFA}2^{VFB}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

which goes to say that $`𝒫`$ is functorial on the quasi-category of $`𝒫arset`$-concrete categories111Remark that $`𝒮et`$ is the subcategory of $`𝒫arset`$ with the same objects but of which all morphisms have an empty kernel, and that the domain restriction of $`𝒫`$ to $`𝒮et`$ yields that, for any morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`𝒮et`$, $`𝒫f:2^{UA}2^{UB}`$ is a union-preserving map that maps only the emptyset on the emptyset: $`(𝒫f)(T)=\mathrm{}T=\mathrm{}`$..

Since $`𝒫𝒜(A,B)𝒥𝒞at(2^{UA},2^{UB})`$ for any two $`𝒫𝒜`$-objects $`A`$ and $`B`$, we can define a category $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ with the same objects as $`𝒫𝒜`$ (thus the same objects as $`𝒜`$) but of which the hom-sets are precisely

$$𝒬^+𝒜(A,B)=𝒥𝒞at(2^{UA},2^{UB}).$$

Explicitly this means that a morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ is determined by an underlying union-preserving map $`f:2^{UA}2^{UB}`$. So $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ is a quantaloid with respect to the pointwise union of maps. Secondly, by $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ we shall denote the category with the same objects as $`𝒫𝒜`$ (thus the same objects as $`𝒜`$ and as $`𝒬^+𝒜`$), but of which the hom-sets are the complete lattices that one obtains if one closes the $`𝒫𝒜`$-hom-sets for (arbitrary) pointwise unions of maps: a morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is thus determined by an underlying map $`_i𝒫Uf_i`$, the join of maps being their pointwise union, for a set of $`𝒜`$-morphisms $`\{f_i:AB\}_i`$. If $`𝒜`$ is a category in which every hom-set contains a non-zero element — that is, for any two objects $`A`$, $`B`$ of $`𝒜`$ there is an $`f𝒜(A,B)`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}Uf\mathrm{𝖽𝗈𝗆}Uf`$ — then any hom-set of $`𝒫𝒜`$ contains a non-zero map, thus any hom-set of $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is a complete lattice (the condition on the hom-sets of $`𝒜`$ makes sure that any hom-set of $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ contains at least distinct bottom and top which we require for any complete lattice), so $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is a quantaloid with respect to pointwise union of morphisms. For a functor $`F:𝒜`$ between two such categories $`𝒜\stackrel{U}{}𝒫arset`$ and $`\stackrel{V}{}𝒫arset`$, we can define a corresponding quantaloid morphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒬^{}F& :& 𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{}\hfill \\ & :& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& & FA\hfill \\ \hfill _i𝒫Uf_i:2^{UA}2^{UB}& & _i𝒫VFf_i:2^{VFA}2^{VFB}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

which translates the idea that the construction of $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is functorial. Note that no such functor can exist for the $`𝒬^+`$-case because in $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ there may be morphisms for which there exists no connection at all with $`𝒜`$-morphisms! So we could say that $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is a ‘functorial’ enrichment of $`𝒜`$, and $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ merely a ‘contextual’ enrichment.

By construction, $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒬^+𝒜`$ since the hom-sets of the former are join-sublattices of the hom-sets of the latter (they have the same objects). For an important class of categories this inclusion is strict: we will consider a category $`𝒜`$ of which the objects are bounded posets (partially ordered sets with a greatest element $`1`$ and a least element $`0`$, these elements being different) and the morphisms are isotone mappings that map least elements onto least elements (that is, $`00`$), together with a forgetful functor

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U& :& 𝒜𝒫arset\hfill \\ & :& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (A,)& & A_0\hfill \\ \hfill f:(A,)(B,)& & Uf:A_0KB_0:tf(t)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`K=\{tA_0f(t)=0\}=\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}Uf`$ and $`A_0=A\{0\}`$. From now on, we will always assume that every hom-set has at least one non-zero element, this to assure that the construction $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ yields a quantaloid.

###### Proposition 1

. For such a category $`𝒜`$, $`𝒬^{}𝒜=𝒬^+𝒜`$ if and only if all objects of $`𝒜`$ are 2-chains.

Proof : If $`𝒜`$ contains an object $`(A,)`$ in which there exists $`0<a<1`$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}f:2^{A_0}2^{A_0}:& \{\begin{array}{ccc}T\{a\}\hfill & & \hfill aT\\ T\mathrm{}\hfill & & \hfill aT\end{array}\end{array}$$

is trivially a union-preserving map, thus $`f𝒬^+𝒜(A,A)`$. For this $`f`$ to be a morphism of $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ as well, there must be a set of $`𝒜`$-morphisms $`h_i:AA`$ such that precisely $`f=_i𝒫Uh_i`$:

$$T2^{A_0}:f(T)=_i\{Uh_i(t)tT\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}Uh_i\}.$$

Since $`f(\{1\})=\mathrm{}`$, we must have that $`h_i(1)=0`$ for all those $`h_i`$, but on the other hand $`f(\{a\})=\{a\}`$, which means that at least one $`h_k`$ is such that $`h_k(a)=a`$. But this contradicts with the isotonicity of the $`𝒜`$-morphism $`h_k`$. If on the contrary the category $`𝒜`$ contains only posets which are (isomorphic to) 2-chains then it is merely an observation that the functorial and the contextual enrichment are the same. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$

As an example, consider:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U& :& 𝒥𝒞at𝒫arset\hfill \\ & :& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (L,)& & L_0\hfill \\ \hfill f:(L,)(M,)& & Uf:L_0\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}UfM_0:tf(t)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

With respect to this faithful functor we have the following categories, all three with as objects complete lattices:

* $`𝒫𝒥𝒞at`$: a morphism $`f:(L,)(M,)`$ corresponds to the image $`𝒫Uf:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ of a join-preserving map $`f:LM`$ (thus the underlying map preserves unions).
* $`𝒬^{}𝒥𝒞at`$: a morphism $`f:(L,)(M,)`$ corresponds to a map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ that can be written as the pointwise union of $`𝒫𝒥𝒞at`$-maps (then it automatically preserves unions).
* $`𝒬^+𝒥𝒞at`$: a morphism $`f:(L,)(M,)`$ corresponds to a map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ that preserves unions.

As a corollary of proposition 1 the quantaloid inclusion

$$𝒬^{}𝒥𝒞at𝒬^+𝒥𝒞at$$

is strict. In the next section we introduce the notion of ‘state transition’ as morphism between complete lattices, and show that these can organize themselves in a quantaloid that lies between $`𝒬^{}𝒥𝒞at`$ and $`𝒬^+𝒥𝒞at`$.

## 3 ‘State transitions’ as morphisms between complete lattices

Given two complete lattices $`(L,)`$, $`(M,)`$ and a map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ that preserves unions, it is easy to verify that if there exists a map $`g:LM`$ that makes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{g}{}& M\\ & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{f}{}& 2^{M_0}\end{array}$$

commute — the vertical uparrows denoting, for the respective lattices, the maps $`TT`$ — then this map $`g`$ is a unique $`𝒥𝒞at`$-morphism. Therefore the following definition makes sense:

###### Definition 2

. Given a subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ and two of its objects $`(L,)`$, $`(M,)`$, a union-preserving map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ is called ‘state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$’ if there exists an $`𝒜`$-morphism $`f_{pr}:LM`$ that makes the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{f_{pr}}{}& M\\ & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{f}{}& 2^{M_0}\end{array}$$

commute. This (unique) morphism $`f_{pr}`$ is then called the ‘property transition corresponding to $`f`$’.

For a given subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ all morphisms of $`𝒫𝒜`$ are state transitions with respect to $`𝒜`$:

###### Proposition 2

. For every $`𝒜`$-morphism $`f`$ we have that $`(𝒫Uf)_{pr}=f`$. For every set $`\{f_i\}_{iI}`$ of parallel $`𝒜`$-morphisms we have that $`(_i𝒫Uf_i)_{pr}=_if_i`$, these joins being computed pointwise.

Proof : For $`f:(L,)(M,)`$ in $`𝒜`$ the direct image map $`𝒫Uf:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ is union-preserving, and for any $`T2^{L_0}`$: $`𝒫Uf(T)=\{Uf(t)tT\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝗋}Uf\}=\{f(t)tT\}=f(T)`$. The second assumption can be proven likewise. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$

This proposition does not say that any $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$-morphism — which is by definition an arbitrary pointwise union of $`𝒫𝒜`$-morphisms — is a state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$, for it may very well be that, even with all $`f_i`$ in $`𝒜`$, the corresponding property transition $`(_i𝒫Uf_i)_{pr}=_if_i`$ is not an $`𝒜`$-morphism. So in general any $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$-morphism is a state transition only with respect to $`𝒥𝒞at`$. But it follows immediately that:

###### Corollary 1

. Every $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$-morphism is a state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$ if and only if $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$.

For any state transition $`f`$ (the subcategory $`𝒜`$ is of no importance here) and any $`T,T^{}2^{L_0}`$ we have

$$T=T^{}f(T)=f(T^{}),$$
(1)
because $`f(T)=g(T)=g(T^{})=f(T^{})`$. But also a converse is true: any union-preserving map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ that meets eq(1) is a state transition with respect to $`𝒥𝒞at`$, since in this case the map

$$f_{pr}:LM:t=Tf(T)$$

is a well-defined $`𝒥𝒞at`$-morphism that makes the square commute. Thus:

###### Proposition 3

. A map $`f:2^{L_0}2^{M_0}`$ is a state transition with respect to $`𝒥𝒞at`$ if and only if it preserves unions and meets the condition of eq(1).

In fact, this proposition was taken as definition for ‘state transition (with respect to $`𝒥𝒞at`$)’ in (Coecke and Stubbe, 1999a; 1999b) and, under a slightly different form, in (Amira et al., 1998). Remark that the conditions in this proposition are also necessary for $`f`$ to be a state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$, a subcategory of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, but in general not sufficient. This will prove its use in proposition 4.

By pasting together commuting diagrams it is easily seen that the composition of any two state transitions (with respect to a certain $`𝒜`$) is again a state transitions (with respect to that same $`𝒜`$) with corresponding property transition $`(gf)_{pr}=g_{pr}f_{pr}`$. Trivially also the diagram with identities commutes, thus identities on powersets are state transitions (with respect to whatever $`𝒜`$) with corresponding property transition $`(id_{2^{L_0}})_{pr}=id_L`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}L& \stackrel{f_{pr}}{}& M& \stackrel{g_{pr}}{}& N\\ & & & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{f}{}& 2^{M_0}& \stackrel{g}{}& 2^{N_0}\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{id_L}{}& L\\ & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{id_{2^{L_0}}}{}& 2^{L_0}\end{array}$$

This means that for a given subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ we can define a category $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ with the same objects as $`𝒜`$, in which a morphism $`f:(L,)(M,)`$ is determined by an underlying state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$. This category contains $`𝒫𝒜`$ (by proposition 2) and is in turn a subcategory of $`𝒬^+𝒜`$:

$$𝒫𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒬^+𝒜.$$

The foregoing is best summarized by the functor

$$\begin{array}{cc}F_{pr}:𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒜:& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (L,)& & (L,)\hfill \\ \hfill f& & f_{pr}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

which is full because $`F_{pr}𝒫:𝒜𝒜`$ is the identity (see proposition 2); this fact expresses explicitly the duality of state transitions and property transitions (with respect to $`𝒜`$).

## 4 State transitions and quantaloids

If moreover $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ then commutation of the left diagram for each $`iI`$ implies commutation of the right diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{f_{i,pr}}{}& M\\ & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{f_i}{}& 2^{M_0}\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{_if_{i,pr}}{}& M\\ & & \\ 2^{L_0}& \stackrel{_if_i}{}& 2^{M_0}\end{array}$$

since these joins of maps are computed pointwise, which goes to say that, if $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ then $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ is a quantaloid and the functor $`F_{pr}:𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒜`$ is a full quantaloid morphism. $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ is then a subquantaloid of $`𝒬^+𝒜`$, and it contains $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ as subquantaloid (by virtue of corollary 1 and the fact that in all three quantaloids joins of morphisms are computed as pointwise unions):

$$𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒬^+𝒜.$$

Next we point out in detail the relations between these three different constructions.

###### Proposition 4

. For a subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, $`𝒬^{st}𝒜=𝒬^+𝒜`$ if and only if all objects of $`𝒜`$ are 2-chains.

Proof : If $`𝒜`$ contains an object in which there is a chain $`0<a<1`$. With the “same” counterexample as in the proof of proposition 1 it can be seen that $`f(\{1\})=\mathrm{}=0a=\{a\}=f(\{a,1\})`$ although $`\{1\}=\{a,1\}`$, which contradicts proposition 3, such that $`f`$ cannot be a state transition with respect to $`𝒥𝒞at`$ and a fortiori $`f`$ cannot be a state transition with respect to $`𝒜`$, a subcategory of $`𝒥𝒞at`$. Conversely, if $`𝒜`$ contains only two-chains, then it is trivial that $`𝒬^{st}𝒜=𝒬^+𝒜`$. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 5

. For a subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ if there is an $`𝒜`$-object $`(L,)`$ in which there exist elements $`a,b,c`$ such that $`a<bc`$, $`ab`$, $`ac`$.

Proof : Consider the map

$$\begin{array}{cc}f:2^{L_0}2^{L_0}:& \{\begin{array}{c}\{t\}\{t\}\mathrm{for}tbc\hfill \\ \{bc\}\{a,b,c\}\hfill \\ T_{tT}f(\{t\})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

for which clearly $`f_{pr}=id_L`$, thus it is a state transition (with respect to whatever $`𝒜`$). Let $`g:LL`$ be a join-preserving map that maps $`aa`$, then $`𝒫gf𝒫g(\{bc\})f(\{gc\})g(b)g(c)\{a,b,c\}g(a)g(bc)=g(b)g(c)\{a,b,c\}`$ and $`g(a)=aa=g(b)g(c)g(b)a\mathrm{and}g(c)a`$. Should $`g(b)=a`$ then $`𝒫g(\{b\})=\{a\}`$ and thus $`𝒫gf`$. If on the contrary $`g(b)<a`$ then $`g(c)=a`$, because $`g(c)<a`$ would imply that $`g(b)g(c)<a`$, but then $`𝒫g(\{c\})=\{a\}`$ and thus $`𝒫gf`$. Therefore, for any $`g𝒥𝒞at(L,L)`$ such that $`𝒫gf`$ we necessarily have that $`g(a)=0`$. But then it is impossible to ever write a pointwise union $`f=_i𝒫g_i`$ with $`\{g_i\}_i𝒥𝒞at(L,L)`$, because the join on the right hand side always fails to map $`\{a\}\{a\}`$. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2

. If $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ that contains an object in which there exist elements $`a,b,c`$ such that $`a<bc`$, $`ab`$, $`ac`$, then both the inclusions of quantaloids $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒬^+𝒜`$ are strict.

As $`𝒥𝒞at`$ is a trivial subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, we have the full quantaloid morphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}F_{pr}:𝒬^{st}𝒥𝒞at𝒥𝒞at:& \{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (L,)& & (L,)\hfill \\ \hfill f& & f_{pr}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

expressing explicitly the duality between state transitions and property transitions. Since $`𝒬^{st}𝒥𝒞at`$ contains $`𝒬^{}𝒥𝒞at`$, which in turn contains $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ for any subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, we can consider $`F_{pr}𝒬^{}𝒜`$, the image of $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ through this functor: this is the smallest subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ that contais $`𝒜`$, it emerges by closing all hom-sets $`𝒜(A,B)𝒥𝒞at(A,B)`$ for arbitrary (pointwise) joins. Evidently, if $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, then and only then $`𝒜=F_{pr}𝒬^{}𝒜`$. It can be verified straightforwardly that the assignment $`𝒜F_{pr}𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is functorial; we will denote the corresponding functor (that thus acts on subcategories of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ and functors between these) as $``$ and we will refer to $`𝒜`$ as the ‘pre-enrichment’ of $`𝒜`$. Obviously the quantaloid $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$ is included in $`𝒬^{}𝒜`$, so we can write the following inclusion of quantaloids as generalization of the previous material:

$$𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒬^+𝒜.$$

Using the various previous propositions, conditions may be given for these inclusions to be strict.

## 5 Conclusion and examples

###### Theorem 1

. For any subcategory $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ that contains an object in which there exist elements $`a,b,c`$ such that $`a<bc`$, $`ab`$, $`ac`$, the quantaloid inclusions $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜𝒬^+𝒜`$ are strict. Here $``$ stands for the minimal extension of $`𝒜`$ to a quantaloid, $`𝒜F_{pr}𝒬^{}𝒜`$. If moreover $`𝒜`$ is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, then $`𝒜=𝒜`$.

The essence of having an inclusion $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ — or forcing it as $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ — should be understood in the following way: The join of maps in $`𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ physically stands for a lack of knowledge on possible state transitions (Amira et al., 1998; Coecke and Stubbe, 1999a). Therefore, any general collection of state transitions should be closed under joins, which in the case of a categorical formulation leads to a quantaloid structure. The inclusion $`𝒬^{}𝒜𝒬^{st}𝒜`$ then follows by corollary 1.

Let us now apply all this to some particular categories that have applications in physics. Consider the subcategory $`𝒥𝒞at_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ introduced in (Coecke and Moore, 1999) with as objects complete lattices $`L_i`$ with ‘fixed’ top $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and an element $`1_i`$ such that $`a_i\mathrm{𝟏}:a_i1_i`$, and as morphisms join preserving maps with $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or maps of which the image is $`\{0\}`$. Since it is a subquantaloid of $`𝒥𝒞at`$, being itself also a quantaloid for pointwise order, all the above considerations that apply to $`𝒥𝒞at`$ apply to $`𝒥𝒞at_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Let $`𝒥𝒞𝒜at`$ be the category of complete atomistic lattices with as morphisms join-preserving maps that assign atoms to atoms or the least element (Faure and Frölicher, 1993; 1994). If we apply $``$ to this category we obtain a full subcategory $`𝒥𝒞𝒜at`$ of $`𝒥𝒞at`$ as pre-enrichment. This is the minimal extension of $`𝒥𝒞𝒜at`$ that assures that all by $`𝒬^{}`$ induced morphisms are state transitions. Since the category $`𝒫rop`$ introduced in (Moore, 1995) is a full subcategory of $`𝒥𝒞𝒜at`$ by restricting objects complete orthocomplemented atomistic lattices, all the above applies to it, i.e., within this context one should rather consider $`𝒫rop`$.

## Acknowledgments

We thank F. Borceux, Cl.-A. Faure, D.J. Moore and J. Paseka for discussing aspects of this paper. I.S. thanks VUB-FUND-DWIS for logistic and financial support.

## References

Adamek, J., Herrlich, H. and Strecker, G.E. (1990) Abstract and Concrete Categories, J. Wiley & Sons Inc.

Amira, H., Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1998) Helv. Phys. Acta 71, 554.

Borceux, F. (1994) Handbook of Categorical Algebra 1 and 2, Cambridge University Press.

Coecke, B. and Moore, D.J. (1999) ‘Operational Galois adjunctions’, In : B. Coecke, D.J. Moore and A. Wilce, (Eds.), Current Research in Operational Quantum Logic: Algebras, Categories and Languages, pp.195–218, Kluwer Academic Publishers; quant-ph/0008021.

Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1999a) Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 29; quant-ph/0008020.

Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1999b) Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 3269.

Faure, Cl.-A. and Frölicher, A. (1993) Geom. Dedicata 47, 25.

Faure, Cl.-A. and Frörlicher, A. (1994) Geom. Dedicata 53, 273.

Faure, Cl.-A., Moore, D.J. and Piron, C. (1995) Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 150.

Moore, D.J. (1995) Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 658.

Moore, D.J. (1999) Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 793.

Piron, C. (1964) Helv. Phys. Acta 37, 439.

Piron, C. (1976) Foundations of Quantum Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

Pitts, A.M. (1988) Proc. London Math. Soc. 57, 433.

Pool, J.C.T. (1968) Comm. Math. Phys. 9, 118.

Rosenthal, K.I. (1990) Quantales and their Applications, Pitman Research Notes in Math. 234, Longman.

Rosenthal, K.I. (1991) J. Pure Appl. Alg. 77, 67.


text:
# Theoretical Models of Photodissociation Fronts

## 1 Introduction

A significant fraction of the ultraviolet radiation emitted by massive stars impinges on the molecular gas associated with star formation. The resulting photodissociation regions (PDRs) therefore play an important role in reprocessing the energy flow in star-forming galaxies. Modelling these PDRs is therefore an important theoretical challenge, both to test our understanding of the physical processes in interstellar gas, and to interpret observations of star-forming galaxies.

It is frequently the case that the illuminating star is hot enough to produce an H II region, in which case the photodissociation region is bounded on one side by an ionization front, and on the other by cold molecular gas which has not yet been appreciably affected by ultraviolet radiation. The $`h\nu <13.6`$eV photons propagating beyond the ionization front raise the fractional ionization, photoexcite and photodissociate the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$, and heat the gas via photoemission from dust and collisional deexcitation of vibrationally-excited H2. Figure 1 shows the different layers within a PDR.

## 2 PDR Thermometry

The lower rotational levels of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ tend to be in LTE (except perhaps for the ortho/para ratio, which adjusts relatively slowly), so we can use the relative level populations of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ as a PDR thermometer.

We can also use the absolute column densities $`N(v,J)`$ to tell us how much molecular gas is at different temperatures. Because the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ quadrupole vibration-rotation lines are generally optically thin, only dust extinction affects the radiative transfer.

The level populations $`N(v,J)`$ can be studied using vibrational transitions (ground-based K,H,J,I,R band spectroscopy) or $`v`$=0–0 pure rotation lines (some from the ground, but mainly from space, with ISO or SIRTF, or from the stratosphere, with SOFIA).

## 3 Modeling PDRs

The central physical process in a PDR is the photoexcitation and photodissociation of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ through the Lyman and Werner band lines of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$, and it is therefore important to model this process accurately. In our models (Draine & Bertoldi 1996) we explicitly include radiative transfer in the 28765 permitted Lyman and Werner band lines between $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ levels with $`J29`$, using wavelengths and oscillator strengths from Abgrall & Roueff (1989) and Abgrall et al. (1993a,b). The lines are treated independently assuming Voigt line profiles and attenuation by dust, but we include a a statistical correction for the effects of line overlap of the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ lines (Draine & Bertoldi 1996).

Lyman and Werner band photons are absorbed by $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ in the ground electronic state X$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}`$, resulting in excitation to vibration-rotation levels of either the B$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ or C$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{u}^{\pm }`$ electronic states. The electronically-excited state will decay by spontaneous emission of an ultraviolet photon. About 85% of the downward transitions will be to a bound $`(v,J)`$ level of the ground electronic state, but about 15% of the transitions will be to the vibrational continuum of the ground electronic state, producing two H atoms, typically moving apart with a kinetic energy of a fraction of $``$1 eV (Stephens & Dalgarno 1973).

Bertoldi & Draine (1996) discussed the propagation of coupled ionization-dissociation fronts, and showed that except when the PDR is driven by radiation from a very hot star, it is usually the case that the PDR moves into the molecular cloud slowly enough that thermal and chemical conditions are close to being in steady-state balance: most importantly, $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ destruction is nearly balanced by $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ formation, and heating is nearly balanced by cooling. It is then convenient to approximate the structure of the PDR by requiring precise thermochemical steady state at each point. The $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ abundance is therefore determined by a balance between destruction by photodissociation and formation on grains,

$$R_{gr}n_\mathrm{H}n(\mathrm{H})=\zeta _{pd}n(\mathrm{H}_2)$$
(3.1)
where $`\zeta _{pd}`$ is the local rate for photodissociation of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$, and $`R_{gr}`$ is the rate coefficient for $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ formation on grains, with the grain abundance assumed proportional to $`n_\mathrm{H}2n(\mathrm{H}_2)+n(\mathrm{H})+n(\mathrm{H}^+)`$. We solve for the steady-state populations of the 299 bound $`(v,J)`$ levels with $`J29`$, including UV pumping, spontaneous decay, and collisional transitions. The distribution over $`(v,J)`$ of newly-formed $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ produced on grain surfaces is uncertain; our models allow us to consider various possibilities.

The gas is heated primarily by photoelectrons ejected from dust grains, and (for densities $`n_\mathrm{H}\stackrel{>}{}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$) collisional deexcitation of vibrationally-excited $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ resulting from UV pumping. In our models we use photoelectric heating rates estimated by Weingartner & Draine (2000a); we assume dust with $`R_V=5.5`$ with 5% of the solar carbon in ultrasmall carbonaceous grains.

The cooling of the gas is dominated by \[CII\]158$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, \[SiII\]35$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, \[OI\]63$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, and \[FeII\]26$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The \[OI\]63$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ line is often optically thick; we use an escape probability treatment.

## 4 NGC 2023: A Test Case

The B1.5V star HD 37903 is situated just outside the surface of the L1630 molecular cloud, resulting in the famous reflection nebula NGC 2023. Many emission lines of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ have now been measured for NGC 2023, making it an ideal test for PDR models. High resolution images of NGC 2023 in the 1-0S(1) line have recently been published (Rouan et al. 1997; Field et al. 1998; McCartney et al. 1999), showing pronounced filamentary structure, notably strong emission along the “southern bar” 78′′ south of HD 37903.

Black & van Dishoeck (1987) produced the first models to explain the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ fluorescence from NGC 2023. Their favored model assumed cold $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ with a density $`n_\mathrm{H}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and an ultraviolet radiation field enhanced by a factor $`\chi 700`$ relative to the Habing (1968) intensity. Draine & Bertoldi (1996) argued that some warm gas with $`T5001000`$K with density $`n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ was required to explain the observed line ratios.

New observations have become available both from the ground (Burton et al. 1998; McCartney et al. 1999) and from ISO (Bertoldi et al. 2000a). From ground-based spectrophotometry of the bright “southern emission bar” it is now clear that the foreground extinction at K is $`A_K0.5`$mag, implying a far-red extinction $`A_{0.8\mu \mathrm{m}}2.7`$mag. For each observed $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ emission line we compute the column density $`N(v,J)`$ in the excited state required to reproduce the observed surface brightness, for an assumed foreground extinction $`A_K=0.5`$mag.

A detailed discussion of our modelling of NGC 2023 will be reported elsewhere, but here we show one example of a model developed to reproduce the observations of the southern emission bar. We assume the incident radiation field to be enhanced by a factor $`\chi 5000`$ relative to the Habing (1968) flux, and a gas density $`n_\mathrm{H}=5\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The PDR is assumed to be plane-parallel, inclined relative to the line of sight with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.2`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the normal to the PDR (= the direction from the PDR to the illuminating star) and the direction to the Earth.

In Figures 24 we show $`N(v,J)/g_J`$ for the model together with the observed level populations, versus the energy $`E(v,J)`$ of the excited state. Open symbols are model results; filled symbols are observations. The model is seen to be in quite good agreement with the populations of the vibrationally-excited levels all the way up to $`v=12`$! The generally excellent agreement between model and observations indicates that the description of the ultraviolet pumping process is basically sound. The fact that for a given vibrational level the rotational level populations appear to be in good agreement with observations indicates that the model has approximately the correct temperature and density. Only for a few weak lines are the reported fluxes very different from the model predictions: 12-6 Q(5)$`\lambda =0.8225\mu \mathrm{m}`$, where the reported flux is a factor of 20 stronger than expected, and 9-4 S(11)$`\lambda =0.7663\mu \mathrm{m}`$, where the observed flux is a factor $``$7 stronger than expected. With so many other lines in good agreement, perhaps these lines have been misidentified. Note, however, that these are the only two lines from levels with $`E(v,J)/k>48\times 10^3`$K, so perhaps there are processes populating these very high energy levels which have not been included in the model (see Bertoldi et al. 2000b).

Figure 5 shows the $`v=0`$ level populations for our model, together with the level populations inferred from the ISO observations toward NGC 2023 (Bertoldi et al. 2000a), except that the surface brightnesses measured by the relatively large ISO beam have been arbitrarily increased by a factor 1.8 – the reasoning here is that the bright southern bar represents a region with unusually high limb-brightening, probably about a factor of 2 higher than the average over the ISO beam. With this adjustment, we obtain quite good agreement for most of the rotational levels; the largest discrepancy is for $`J3`$, where the model surface brightness is about twice the observed value. Note that the observed emission from the $`J=15`$ level is in excellent agreement with the model! The level populations obviously depart strongly from a single-temperature fit; this is mainly due to the range of gas temperatures present (see Figure 6) and the excitation of newly-formed $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ leaving grain surfaces.

The model is shown in Figure 6. Photoelectric emission from dust grains dominates the heating over much of the PDR, but for $`10^{19}\stackrel{<}{}N_\mathrm{H}\stackrel{<}{}10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ the dominant heat source is collisional deexcitation of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ which has been vibrationally excited by UV pumping. The combination of photoelectric heating and heating by deexcitation of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ manages to maintain a gas temperature of $`10^3`$K over a substantial zone, with the gas temperature still as high as $`700`$K when the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ fraction has risen to 10%.

The model assumes gas phase abundances C/H=$`1.4\times 10^4`$ (1/3 solar), O/H= $`3.2\times 10^4`$ (1/2 solar), Si/H=$`9.0\times 10^7`$ (1/40 solar), Fe/H=$`1.3\times 10^7`$ (1/250 solar). Predicted fine structure line intensities for the bright southern bar (for limb-brightening $`1/\mathrm{cos}\theta =5`$) are given in Table 1. Most of the lines are not yet observed, but the intensity measured by ISO for \[SiII\]34.8$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ is only 1/25 of the model prediction! Part of the discrepancy can be attributed to beam dilution: the ISO beam is 660$`\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$, whereas the bright bar is only $``$50$`\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. However, there presumably is \[Si II\] emission away from the bar, so it appears likely that the Si is depleted by $``$400 relative to solar. It is interesting to compare this with the S140 PDR, where the inferred Si abundance was 1/40 solar (Timmermann et al. 1996). Walmsley et al. (1999) have recently discussed the puzzling variations in Si abundance observed in PDRs.

## 5 Discussion

There are a number of areas for improvement in our modelling of PDRs:

* We need accurate cross sections for collisional excitation and dexcitation of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$.
* We need to understand the details of the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ formation process in PDRs – the overall rate and the $`(v,J)`$ distribution of newly-formed $`\mathrm{H}_2`$.
* The rate of photoelectric heating by dust is critical, particularly since drift of the dust grains can alter the dust/gas ratio in the PDR (Weingartner & Draine 1999, 2000b).
* Finally, we need more accurate spectroscophotometry, with refined angular resolution, to allow us to understand the geometry of the filaments and sheets which are apparent in high-resolution images of NGC 2023 and other PDRs.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by NSF grant AST96-19429.