text:
# On the thermal conduction in tangled magnetic fields in clusters of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

In order to solve the problem of electron thermal conduction in a stochastic magnetic field, one should consider separately two effects that reduce the conduction (Pistinner & Shaviv 1996; Chandran & Cowley 1998). The first effect is that the heat conducting electrons have to travel along tangled magnetic field lines, and therefore, they have to travel longer distances between hot and cold regions of space (Tribble 1989, Tao 1995). The second effect is that electrons, while they are traveling along the field lines, become trapped and detrapped between magnetic mirrors, regions of strong magnetic field (Chandran, Cowley, & Ivanushkina 1999).

In our recent paper (Malyshkin & Kulsrud 2000) we studied the second effect, and we found the reduction of the thermal conductivity parallel to the magnetic field lines, $`\kappa _{}`$, relative to the Spitzer value for the thermal conductivity, $`\kappa _\mathrm{S}`$, caused by the presence of magnetic mirrors. In this paper we consider the first effect, and we calculate the further reduction of thermal conduction relative to $`\kappa _{}`$, caused by the tangled structure of the magnetic field lines. As a result, we obtain the total reduction caused by the both effects, and we calculate the effective thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which one has to apply for astrophysical problems. It turns out that there is no an universal definition of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and the result depends on the particular astrophysical problem under consideration.

The structure of this paper is the following. In the next section we consider the random walk of tangled magnetic field lines by making use of a diffusion approximation for this random walk. We find the expressions for the probability distributions of the field line lengths and for the Laplace transform, in the field line length, of these distributions. In Section 3 we use the Laplace transforms to calculate the effective thermal conductivity for our stationary model of a galaxy cluster. In Section 4 we consider a time-dependent model and study the time evolution of temperature in a galaxy cluster. Finally, in Section 5 we discuss our results, compare them with the results reported in previous papers, and consider the applications to cooling flow problem. For two opposite limiting cases our results for $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are: one is similar to that of Tribble (1989), and the other coincides to that of Tao (1995).

## 2 Diffusion approximation for the random walk of magnetic field lines

In a particularly simple approach, the behavior of tangled magnetic field lines can be considered by using the one-dimensional random walk model suggested by Tribble (1989). In this model the lines are assumed to random walk between two infinite boundary plates, which are placed at $`x=0`$ and $`x=X_0`$ perpendicular to the $`x`$-direction. In this section we consider this simple model in order to find the probability distributions of the lengths of the field lines in clusters of galaxies (we then use these distributions to find the effective thermal conductivity in the next sections). Contrary to the discrete calculations of Tribble, we use the continuum diffusion approximation for the random walk of the field lines. This allows us to include a weak homogeneous mean magnetic field component into our calculations.

### 2.1 Diffusion equation

We assume that the mean magnetic field component, $`𝐁`$, is homogeneous, i.e. $`𝐁=\mathrm{const}`$. Let choose the coordinate system in a such way that $`𝐁`$ lies in the $`x`$-$`z`$-plane: $`B_x=B\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`B_y=0`$, $`B_z=B\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Here $`\theta `$ is the angle between the mean field component and the $`x`$-direction. Further, assume that the random component of the magnetic field, $`𝜹𝐁`$, is much stronger than the mean component, i.e. $`B/\delta B1`$. Let express $`x`$-, $`y`$\- and $`z`$-components of $`𝜹𝐁`$ in the spherical system of coordinates: $`\delta B_x=\delta B\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, $`\delta B_y=\delta B\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\psi `$ and $`\delta B_z=\delta B\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\psi `$. The random component is isotropically distributed, so $`\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are uniformly distributed over $`[1,1]`$ and $`[0,2\pi )`$ respectively. Under these assumptions, the cosine of the angle between the total magnetic field, $`𝐁=𝜹𝐁+𝐁`$, and the $`x`$-direction is

$`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\mathrm{cos}\phi +\left[B/\delta B\right]\left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{sin}\psi \right],`$ (1)
where we keep terms only up to first order in $`B/\delta B1`$.

Let the largest scale of the random component of the magnetic field be $`l_0X_0`$. The largest scale component has more magnetic energy in it than all smaller scale components have. Therefore, the decorrelation length of the total random component is $`l_0`$, and over each decorrelation length the random field changes into an entirely new direction. As a result, the mean step and the mean-squared step of the field line random walk in the $`x`$-direction are

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }x& =& l_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\phi ,\psi ,\delta B}\hfill & =& (2/3)l_0ϵ\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill \\ \hfill (\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2& =& l_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _{\phi ,\psi ,\delta B}\hfill & =& (1/3)l_0^2\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
over each decorrelation length. Here, to obtain these final expressions, we average $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha `$ over direction and over absolute value of the field random component (i.e. over $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ and $`\delta B`$). We also introduce the parameter $`ϵ\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}B/\delta B1`$, which is the mean ratio of the magnetic field mean component to the random component.

There is the unique magnetic field line that goes through any given point of space between the two boundary plates. This field line leaves the point along two branches: a positive branch that starts at the initial point and goes always in the direction of the local field, and a negative branch that goes always opposite to the direction of the local field (see Figure 1). Let consider the following problem. Start at point $`(x=X,y,z)`$ and follow the positive branch of the magnetic field line going through this point, i.e. along the field line and always in the direction of the local field. The positive field line branch random walks in space according to equations (4). Let $`P^+(s,x)dsdx`$ be the probability that we are at $`x`$-position $`x[x,x+dx)`$ \[and at any $`y`$-, $`z`$-positions\] after we “have walked” along the line a distance $`s[s,s+ds)`$. The upper index “$`(+)`$” refers to the positive branch of the magnetic field line. Using equations (4), it is straightforward to write the diffusion equation for $`P^+(s,x)`$ as 111 Note that the diffusion approximation is valid if $`xl_0`$ and $`X_0xl_0`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^+}{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^+}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2P^+}{x^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\theta }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^+}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2P^+}{x^2}},`$ (5)
$`P^+(0,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xX).`$ (6)
This is a Fokker-Planck equation. Here, $`\delta (xX)`$ is the Dirac delta-function, and the formula on the second line is the initial condition on $`P^+(s,x)`$, which means we start walking along the field line at $`x=X`$. If we now consider the field line’s negative branch, which goes always opposite to the direction of local field, then we need to replace $`ϵ`$ by $`ϵ`$ in formula (5) in order to obtain the differential equation for the probability function $`P^{}(s,x)`$ for this negative branch. (Note, that this replacement corresponds to the substitution $`\pi \theta `$ for $`\theta `$.)

Hereafter, we use convenient dimensionless variables

$`𝗌=(3X_0^2/l_0)^1s,𝗑=x/X_0,𝖷=X/X_0,𝖯^\pm =X_0P^\pm .`$ (7)
Note that the positions of the boundary plates are $`𝗑=0`$ and $`𝗑=1`$. In these variables

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝖯^\pm }{𝗌}}=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{𝖯^\pm }{𝗑}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝖯^\pm }{𝗑^2}},`$ $`𝖯^\pm (0,𝗑)=\delta (𝗑𝖷).`$ (8)
Here, we introduce an important parameter

$`\beta \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2X_0l_0^1ϵ\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (9)
In the limit $`\beta 1`$, the effect of the mean magnetic field component is negligible and the “diffusion term” $`(1/2)(^2𝖯^\pm /𝗑^2)`$ in equation (8) is dominant. In this small $`\beta `$ limit the random walk of field lines is controlled by their diffusion in space, and for a given $`𝗌1`$, the functions $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)`$ have considerable spreads in $`𝗑`$. On the other hand, in the limit $`\beta 1`$, the effect of the mean magnetic field component is large and the “flux term” $`\beta (𝖯^\pm /𝗑)`$ in equation (8) is dominant. In this large $`\beta `$ limit the probability functions $`𝖯^\pm `$ stay very narrow in $`x`$ for a given value of $`𝗌`$, $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)\delta (𝗑𝖷\beta 𝗌)`$. When $`\beta 1`$, both terms in the right-hand side of equation (8) are equally important. Thus, $`\beta `$ indicates whether the influence of the mean field component on the field line random walk is negligible ($`\beta 1`$), important ($`\beta 1`$) or dominant ($`\beta 1`$).

### 2.2 Boundary conditions and probability fluxes

Equations (8) need the boundary conditions on the probability functions $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)`$ at the two boundary plates. Let assume for definiteness, that the plate at $`𝗑=0`$ represents the boundary of a galaxy cluster, the plate at $`𝗑=1`$ represents the cluster core (see Figure 1), and the mean component of the magnetic field has a positive $`x`$-component, i.e. $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$ (clearly the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ has no bearing on thermal diffusion problem). As we said above, there are two field line branches that we can follow starting at $`𝗑=𝖷`$, the positive branch and the negative branch. Each branch random walks in space, and can reach the cluster boundary at $`𝗑=0`$ and the cluster core at $`𝗑=1`$.

Let first consider the boundary conditions at the cluster core. The core is assumed to be much denser and much colder than the rest of the cluster, so we can neglect the temperature $`T`$ in the core and set it to zero. As a result, whenever the positive or the negative branch reaches the core at $`𝗑=1`$, it looses its thermal energy and cools down to zero temperature immediately. Therefore, there is no any point in following the field line branches after they first reach the core, and the corresponding boundary conditions on the probability functions $`𝖯^\pm `$ at the core are the absorption conditions: $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,1)=0`$.

Let now consider the boundary conditions at the cluster boundary. We assume that the density drops significantly there. Therefore, the random component of the magnetic field also drops considerably at the cluster boundary, because this random component is believed to be created by MHD dynamo action inside the cluster. On the other hand, the mean component of the field hardly changes at the boundary, because it is associated with the open magnetic field lines that leave the cluster. As a result, the parameter $`\beta `$, given by equation (9), increases and becomes large at the cluster boundary (while the mean field component can still be less than the random component, so that our diffusion approximation is still valid). In other words, we consider $`\beta `$ to be constant inside the cluster and to become large at the boundary. Therefore, at the cluster boundary $`𝗑=0`$, the term $`\beta (𝖯^\pm /𝗑)`$ in equation (8) is always dominant. As a result, the positive field line branch is reflected at the cluster boundary, while the negative branch is absorbed and leaves the cluster.

To summarize, we write the boundary conditions for the positive and negative field line branches as

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝖯^{}(𝗌,0)=0,& \text{absorption of the negative branch at the boundary},\hfill \\ \hfill 𝖯^{}(𝗌,1)=0,& \text{absorption of the negative branch at the core};\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta 𝖯^+(𝗌,0)(1/2)(𝖯^+/𝗑)|_{𝗑=0}=0,& \text{reflection of the positive branch at the boundary},\hfill \\ \hfill 𝖯^+(𝗌,1)=0,& \text{absorption of the positive branch at the core},\hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
see Figure 1.

Let for a moment consider the positive field line branch and integrate the diffusion equation (8) over $`𝗑(0,1)`$, using boundary conditions (15). As a result, we obtain the negative change of the total probability that we are still inside the cluster, $`𝗑(0,1)`$, after we walked a distance $`𝗌`$ along the line’s positive branch:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d𝗌}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝖯^+(𝗌,𝗑)𝑑𝗑={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝖯^+}{𝗑}}|_{𝗑=1}=𝖥_1^+(𝗌).`$ (16)
Here we introduce a “probability flux” into the cluster core at $`𝗑=1`$:

$`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)=(1/2)(𝖯^+/𝗑)|_{𝗑=1}`$ (17)
(the upper index “$`+`$” refers to the field line’s positive branch). Note, that the probability flux across the cluster boundary at $`𝗑=0`$ is zero because of the reflection condition there \[see eqs. (15)\]. The probability, that we leave the cluster and enter the cluster core when $`𝗌[𝗌,𝗌+d𝗌)`$, is equal to $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)d𝗌`$. Therefore, $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$ is the probability distribution of the lengths $`𝗌`$ of all positive field line branches that start at $`𝗑=𝖷`$, random walk in space and finally come to the cluster core at $`𝗑=1`$.

Now consider the negative field line branch. In this case, we integrate the appropriate diffusion equation (8) over $`𝗑(0,1)`$ and use the boundary conditions (12). We find that the negative change of the total probability is now given by the sum of two probability fluxes $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$ into the core (at $`𝗑=1`$) and across the boundary (at $`𝗑=0`$) respectively:

$`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)=(1/2)(𝖯^{}/𝗑)|_{𝗑=1},𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)=(1/2)(𝖯^{}/𝗑)|_{𝗑=0}.`$ (18)
Similarly to the case of the positive branch, $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$ are the probability distributions of the lengths of all negative field line branches that start at $`𝗑=𝖷`$, random walk in space and finally come to either the cluster boundary at $`𝗑=0`$, or to the cluster core at $`𝗑=1`$.

Because the probability fluxes are the probability distributions of the lengths of field line branches, hereafter, we refer to them as to the probability distributions.

### 2.3 Laplace transform solutions

Although equations (8) are linear, they are still difficult to solve analytically for both sets of boundary conditions given by equations (12) and (15). We solve equations (8) numerically in Section 4. However, in some cases we do not need the solution of equations (8) in order to find the effective thermal conductivity in tangled magnetic fields. In the next section we will find this conductivity using a simple stationary model and the Laplace images of the probability distributions $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$, $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$ that we obtain in this section.

To calculate these Laplace images, we first take the Laplace transforms $`𝗌\stackrel{~}{𝗌}`$, $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm (\stackrel{~}{𝗌},𝗑)`$ of equations (8). We have

$`\stackrel{~}{𝗌}\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm \delta (𝗑𝖷)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm }{𝗑}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm }{𝗑^2}}.`$ (19)
The Laplace images $`\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm (\stackrel{~}{𝗌},𝗑)`$ must be continuous functions of $`𝗑`$. Thus, integrating equations (19) across $`𝗑=𝖷`$, i.e. over an infinitesimal interval $`𝗑(𝖷0,𝖷+0)`$, we obtain an additional jump conditions together with the continuity conditions

$`\left[\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm /𝗑\right]_{𝖷\pm 0}=2,\left[\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm \right]_{𝖷\pm 0}=0.`$ (20)
Here, we denote the jump at $`𝗑=𝖷`$ as $`[\mathrm{}]_{𝖷\pm 0}`$.

The boundary conditions on the images $`\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^\pm (\stackrel{~}{𝗌},𝗑)`$ are the same as those on the original functions $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)`$. In the case of the negative branch they are given by equations (12), in the case of the positive branch they are given by equations (15). Equation (19) is a simple linear homogeneous differential equation provided $`𝗑𝖷`$. There are two independent solutions of this equation expressed in terms of hyperbolic functions. We express the two general solutions of this equation in the regions $`0𝗑<𝖷`$ and $`𝖷<𝗑1`$ as two linear combinations of these hyperbolic solutions. Then, we use the appropriate boundary conditions and jump conditions (20) to find the unique continuous solutions of equations (19) for $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)`$ in the whole interval of $`𝗑`$, $`0𝗑1`$. We have

$`\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^+(\stackrel{~}{𝗌},𝗑)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (𝗑𝖷)]}{\xi _0\mathrm{cosh}\xi _0+\beta \mathrm{sinh}\xi _0}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}[\xi _0\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _0𝖷)+\beta \mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝖷)]\mathrm{sinh}[\xi _0(1𝗑)],\hfill & 𝖷𝗑\text{;}\hfill \\ [\xi _0\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _0𝗑)+\beta \mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝗑)]\mathrm{sinh}[\xi _0(1𝖷)],\hfill & 𝗑𝖷\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
for the positive field line branch, and

$`\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝗌},𝗑)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (𝗑𝖷)]}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi _0}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝖷)\mathrm{sinh}[\xi _0(1𝗑)],\hfill & 𝖷𝗑\text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝗑)\mathrm{sinh}[\xi _0(1𝖷)],\hfill & 𝗑𝖷\hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
for the negative branch. Here, we introduce

$`\xi _0(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sqrt{\beta ^2+2\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}.`$ (23)
Now, we substitute these formulas into Laplace transformed equations (17) and (18) to find the Laplace images $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})`$ of the probability distributions $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$, $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$. We have

$`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}𝗌}𝖥_1^+(𝗌)𝑑𝗌`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^+}{𝗑}}|_{𝗑=1}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _0𝖷)+\beta \mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝖷)}{\xi _0\mathrm{cosh}\xi _0+\beta \mathrm{sinh}\xi _0}}e^{\beta (1𝖷)},`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}𝗌}𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)𝑑𝗌`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^{}}{𝗑}}|_{𝗑=1}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _0𝖷)}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi _0}}e^{\beta (1𝖷)},`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝗌})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}𝗌}𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)𝑑𝗌`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝖯}^{}}{𝗑}}|_{𝗑=0}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}[\xi _0(1𝖷)]}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi _0}}e^{\beta 𝖷}.`$ (26)
Here, the integrals are the definition of the Laplace images, and $`\xi _0`$ is given by formula (23).

As is well known from the theory of the Laplace transform \[and can easily be checked by differentiation of equations (24)–(26) with respect to the Laplace variable $`\stackrel{~}{𝗌}`$ and setting $`\stackrel{~}{𝗌}`$ to zero\], the following formulas stand for the integral moments of the probability distributions $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$, $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝗌^n𝖥_1^\pm (𝗌)𝑑𝗌=(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{d^n\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^\pm }{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^n}}|_{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}=0},{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝗌^n𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)𝑑𝗌=(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{d^n\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^n}}|_{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}=0}.`$ (27)
For example, the zeroth integral moment of $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$ is

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝖥_1^+(𝗌)𝑑𝗌=\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+(0)=1,`$ (28)
which means that the total probability for the positive branch to ultimately reach the cluster core is unity, as it should be because positive branches always end up in the core. The zeroth integral moments of $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)𝑑𝗌=\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\beta 𝖷)1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )1}},{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)𝑑𝗌=\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )\mathrm{exp}(2\beta 𝖷)}{\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )1}},`$ (29)
which means that $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)`$ are the probabilities for the negative branch to reach the cluster core (at $`𝗑=1`$) and the cluster boundary (at $`𝗑=0`$) respectively. Note, that the total probability for the negative branch to reach either the core or the boundary, is equal to one, $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)+\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)=1`$, as it should be.

It follows from equations (29) that $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)/\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)/\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)`$ are the normalized (to one) probability distributions of the lengths of only those negative field line branches that reach the cluster core and only those negative branches that reach the cluster boundary respectively (see Section 2.2). The probability distributions of the positive branches, $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$, does not need to be normalized, because all positive branches always end up in the cluster core.

## 3 Stationary model

In this section we consider a stationary one-dimensional temperature distribution in a cluster of galaxies. We assume that there is a stationary homogeneous source of heat $`q`$ between the two Tribble boundary plates, which represent the cluster core and the cluster boundary. The heat is transported by electrons along the tangled magnetic field lines. We further assume that the thermal conductivity parallel to the field lines, $`\kappa _{}`$, is constant. We keep our assumption made in Section 2.2 that the cluster core is cold, i.e. $`T=0`$ at $`𝗑=1`$. On the other hand, the density drops significantly at the cluster boundary, so we use the heat reflection condition there, $`T/s=0`$ at $`𝗑=0`$ (here, $`s`$ is the distance coordinate along a field line).

Let consider a point $`(𝗑=𝖷,y,z)`$ inside the cluster. The stationary temperature at this point depends on the lengths of the positive and the negative branches of the magnetic field line passing through this point. The positive branch always reaches the cluster core at $`𝗑=1`$, where it is cooled to zero temperature. Let the positive branch have dimensionless length $`𝗌_1^+`$. As for the negative branch, there are two possibilities. First, with probability $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)`$ it reaches the core at $`𝗑=1`$ and cools down to $`T=0`$. In this case we denote the dimensionless length of the negative branch by $`𝗌_1^{}`$. The second possibility is that the negative branch with probability $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)`$ reaches the cluster boundary at $`𝗑=0`$, where $`T/𝗌=0`$. In this case we denote the dimensionless length of the negative branch by $`𝗌_0^{}`$. In any case, the differential equation for the temperature distribution along the field line is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2T}{𝗌^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9X_0^4}{l_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\kappa _{}}}=0,`$ (30)
where $`𝗌`$ is the dimensionless coordinate along the field line, given by equations (7). 222 Our description for the temperature distribution along the field lines really refers to a space average of temperature over a length interval long compared to the field decorrelation length, $`l_0`$. The effect of regions of weak and strong magnetic field (magnetic mirrors) is taken into account by introducing $`\kappa _{}`$, which is reduced relative to the Spitzer conductivity, see Malyshkin and Kulsrud 2000.

Now, let us consider a plane $`𝗑=𝖷`$, which is perpendicular to the $`x`$-direction, and let us find the temperature averaged over points of this plane. We make this averaging by randomly choosing points of the plane, and then, by averaging temperature over the chosen points. 333 Formally, this plane is infinite, so are the number of points and distances between the points.  The lengths $`𝗌_1^+`$, $`𝗌_1^{}`$ and $`𝗌_0^{}`$ of positive and negative branches, going through different points are uncorrelated, and these lengths have the probability distributions $`𝖥_1^+(𝗌)`$, $`𝖥_1^{}(𝗌)`$ and $`𝖥_0^{}(𝗌)`$ respectively. Therefore, the averaged temperature and the averaged temperature squared are

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\kappa _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9X_0^4}{l_0^2}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)𝗌_1^+𝗌_1^{}+\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)\left[(𝗌_1^+)^2+2𝗌_1^+𝗌_0^{}\right]\right\},`$ (31)
$`T^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\kappa _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9X_0^4}{l_0^2}}\right]^2\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)(𝗌_1^+)^2(𝗌_1^{})^2+\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)\left[(𝗌_1^+)^4+4(𝗌_1^+)^3𝗌_0^{}+4(𝗌_1^+)^2(𝗌_0^{})^2\right]\right\}.`$ (32)
Here, the factors multiplying by $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)`$ represent the averaged temperature obtained by solving equation (30) in the case when both the positive and the negative branches reach the cluster core (where $`T=0`$), as shown by the lower field line in Figure 1. The factors multiplying by $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)`$ represent the averaged temperature obtained by solving equation (30) when the positive branch reaches the cluster core and the negative branch reaches the cluster boundary (where $`T/𝗌=0`$), as shown by the upper field line in Figure 1. Remember that $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)`$ are the probabilities for the negative branch to reach the core and the boundary respectively, while the positive branch always reaches the core. All brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ mean averaging over appropriate probability distributions of lengths of branches. Note, that the expressions inside the brackets $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in the equations above are dimensionless, while $`q`$, $`\kappa _{}`$, $`X_0`$ and $`l_0`$ are not.

Now we use equations (27)–(29) to express averaged powers of the branch lengths in the formulas (31) and (32) in terms of the Laplace images of the probability distributions. We obtain

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\kappa _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9X_0^4}{l_0^2}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}\right\}_{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}=0},`$ (33)
$`T^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\kappa _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9X_0^4}{l_0^2}}\right]^2\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^4}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d^3\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}\right\}_{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}=0}.`$ (34)
We can substitute the Laplace images of the three probability distributions given by formulas (24)–(26) into these equations and obtain analytical formulas for $`T`$ and $`T^2`$. However, the resulting expressions are too complicated to be usefully interpreted. Therefore, we calculated all derivatives in the equations above numerically. Figure 2 shows the relative dispersion of the temperature, $`(T^2T^2)/T^2`$, as a function of parameter $`\beta `$ for two choices of $`x`$-position inside the cluster, $`X=0.5X_0`$ and $`X=0.1X_0`$. We see that the dispersion is high for small values of $`\beta `$, while it is $`1/\beta 1`$ when $`\beta 1`$, according to the discussion in the last paragraph of Section 2.1.

If there were no magnetic field at all, the temperature dispersion would be zero and the stationary temperature at $`𝗑=𝖷`$ plane would be

$`T_\mathrm{S}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}}(X_0^2X^2),`$ (35)
where the effective thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ would be equal to the Spitzer thermal conductivity, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa _\mathrm{S}`$. Because there is tangled magnetic field, the actual stationary temperature is given by formula (33) and it is higher. However, instead of using formula (33) we can use the familiar formula (35) for the temperature if we choose the appropriate reduced value of the effective thermal conductivity. Equating formulas (33) and (35), we define the effective thermal conductivity for our stationary model as

$`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa _{}{\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{X_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{X_0^2X^2}{9X_0^2}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^+}{d\stackrel{~}{𝗌}}}\right\}_{\stackrel{~}{𝗌}=0}^1.`$ (36)
The dashed lines in Figures 3(a) and (b) show this effective conductivity normalized to $`\kappa _{}l_0^2/X_0^2`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ for the two choices of position inside the cluster, $`X=0.1X_0`$ and $`X=0.5X_0`$. To obtain the plots we again calculated all derivatives of the Laplace images in equation (36) numerically. Note, that $`\kappa _{}`$ is the parallel thermal conductivity reduced by random magnetic mirrors (Malyshkin and Kulsrud 2000).

Note, that for large values of $`\beta `$ the effective conductivity is independent of $`X`$ and is simply $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa _{}\beta ^2l_0^2/9X_0^2=\kappa _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }x/l_0)^2`$444 This result can be found by the following calculations. The solutions of equations (8) in the limit $`\beta 1`$ are $`𝖯^\pm (𝗌,𝗑)\delta (𝗑𝖷\beta 𝗌)`$. Thus, all positive field line branches reach the core and have dimensionless lengths $`𝗌_1^+(1𝖷)/\beta `$, while all negative branches reach the boundary and have lengths $`𝗌_0^{}𝖷/\beta `$. Substituting these expressions and $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_1^{}(0)0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝖥}_0^{}(0)1`$ into formula (31), and equating the result with formula (35), we obtain $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa _{}\beta ^2l_0^2/9X_0^2=\kappa _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }x/l_0)^2`$, see also eqs. (9) and (4). This result is valid only if $`\beta ^2l_0^2/X_0^21`$, which is equivalent to the assumed condition $`ϵ=B/\delta B1`$, see Sec. 2.1.  This result exactly coincides with that given by the equation (4) of Tao (1995), who gives this result as a lower limit on $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. On the other hand, for small and moderate values of $`\beta `$ the effective conductivity depends on $`X`$ as on a parameter. This dependence results from our definition of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ given above. In other words, the actual value of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ depends on how one defines it for a particular problem under consideration. The calculations in the next section further support this important statement.

## 4 Time evolution of temperature in clusters of galaxies

In the previous section we considered a stationary one-dimensional temperature distribution in a cluster of galaxies, assuming a constant heat source inside the cluster. In this section we solve a time-dependent problem and find the evolution of temperature of the cluster in time. Let assume, that when the cluster was formed at zero time, $`t=0`$, the temperature was homogeneous inside the cluster, i.e. $`T=T_0`$, $`0𝗑1`$ (here $`𝗑`$ is the dimensionless $`x`$-coordinate inside the cluster; $`𝗑=0`$ and $`𝗑=1`$ correspond to the boundary and the core of the cluster respectively, see Figure 1). We assume that the cluster cools down in time by the heat conduction into the dense cluster core. As in the previous section, we again assume that the parallel thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{}`$ is constant, that the core is cold, $`T=0`$ at $`𝗑=1`$, and that there is the heat reflection condition along magnetic field lines at the cluster boundary, $`T/𝗌=0`$ at $`𝗑=0`$ (here $`𝗌`$ is the coordinate along field lines).

Because electrons travel along magnetic field lines, each field line cools down in time individually. Let us consider a temperature evolution at a point $`(𝗑=𝖷,y,z)`$ inside the cluster. There is a single field line going through this point. Initially, at $`t=0`$, the temperature at this point is $`T_0`$. Then, as the field line cools down, the temperature drops in time. It is convenient to introduce a dimensionless time variable

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{X_0^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{}}{\rho C_\mathrm{H}}}t,`$ (37)
where $`\rho `$ and $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ are the mass density and the heat capacity (per unit mass) of gas inside the cluster. For simplicity, we assume that the product $`\rho C_\mathrm{H}`$ is constant. Then, the time evolution of the temperature at the point $`(𝖷,y,z)`$ is given by the following simple equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T(\tau ,𝗌)}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2T}{^2𝗌}},T(0,𝗌)=T_0,`$ (38)
where $`𝗌`$ is the dimensionless distance counted along the field line starting at the point $`(𝖷,y,z)`$, see equations (7).

There are two possibilities for the field line going through the point $`(𝖷,y,z)`$. First, both the line’s positive branch of length $`𝗌_1^+`$ and the line’s negative branch of length $`𝗌_1^{}`$ reach the cold cluster core (see the lower line in Figure 1). In this case the boundary conditions on the temperature distribution along the line are

$`T(\tau ,𝗌_1^{})=0,T(\tau ,𝗌_1^+)=0.`$
With these boundary conditions the solution of equations (38) for the temperature at the point $`(𝖷,y,z)`$, where $`𝗌=0`$, is

$`T_{11}(\tau ,𝗌_1^{},𝗌_1^+)=T_0{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+2n)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\tau }{9(𝗌_1^{}+𝗌_1^+)^2}}(1+2n)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi 𝗌_1^+}{𝗌_1^{}+𝗌_1^+}}(1+2n)\right].`$ (39)
Here, the index “$`11`$” indicates that both branches reach the core at $`𝗑=1`$. The second possibility is that the line’s negative branch of length $`𝗌_0^{}`$ reaches the cluster boundary, while the line’s positive branch of length $`𝗌_1^+`$ ends up in the cluster core (see the upper line in Figure 1). In this case we have

$`(T/𝗌)|_{𝗌=𝗌_0^{}}=0,T(\tau ,𝗌_1^+)=0,`$
and the solution of equations (38) for the temperature at the point $`(𝖷,y,z)`$, where $`𝗌=0`$, is

$`T_{01}(\tau ,𝗌_0^{},𝗌_1^+)=T_0{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+2n)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\tau }{36(𝗌_0^{}+𝗌_1^+)^2}}(1+2n)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi 𝗌_1^+}{2(𝗌_0^{}+𝗌_1^+)}}(1+2n)\right].`$ (40)
Here, the index “$`01`$” indicates that the negative branch goes to the boundary at $`𝗑=0`$, while the positive branch goes to the core at $`𝗑=1`$.

Now, let find the temperature averaged over all points in the plane $`𝗑=𝖷`$ in the same way as we did in the previous section. We have

$`T(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}T_{11}(\tau ,𝗌_1^{},𝗌_1^+)𝖥_1^{}(𝗌_1^{})𝖥_1^+(𝗌_1^+)𝑑𝗌_1^{}𝑑𝗌_1^++{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}T_{01}(\tau ,𝗌_0^{},𝗌_1^+)𝖥_0^{}(𝗌_0^{})𝖥_1^+(𝗌_1^+)𝑑𝗌_0^{}𝑑𝗌_1^+.`$ (41)
Here, we have averaged over the probability distributions of $`𝗌_1^+`$, $`𝗌_1^{}`$ and $`𝗌_0^{}`$, which are given by equations (17) and (18). The two integrals in formula (41) correspond to the two possibilities for the field line branches, considered above. We have carried out these integrals numerically. Figures 4(a) and (b) show contour plots of $`T(\tau )/T_0`$ in the $`\tau `$$`\beta `$ parameter space for the two choices of $`X`$, $`X=0.5X_0`$ and $`X=0.1X_0`$. To obtain these plots, first, we numerically solved equations (8) with the boundary conditions (12) and (15), by making use of the standard implicit algorithm for partial differential equations. 555 We used a grid with equal steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝗌`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝗑`$ in $`𝗌`$\- and $`𝗑`$-coordinates. The goal was to find the tabulated solution of equation (8) at all grid points. The solution at $`s=0`$ is a delta-function. To find the solution at $`s>0`$, we used a method similar to mathematical induction. This method allowed us, after we obtained the tabulated solution at $`𝗌`$, to find the unknown tabulated solution at $`𝗌+\mathrm{\Delta }𝗌`$ by the following algorithm. First, we wrote equation (8) as a finite difference operators, taking all $`𝗑`$ derivatives at $`𝗌+\mathrm{\Delta }𝗌`$ (the implicit algorithm). As a result, we obtained a system of linear equations, which was a tridiagonal matrix. Second, we solved this system by the method of the Gaussian decomposition with backsubstitution, and found the solution at $`𝗌+\mathrm{\Delta }𝗌`$.  Then we calculated the probability distributions (17) and (18) for different values of $`\beta `$. Finally, we substituted these distributions and formulas (39), (40) into equation (41), and we calculated the temperature for different values of $`\tau `$ and $`\beta `$. (The Laplace transform method was not useful for this problem because we need more than simple moments of the $`𝗌_1^+`$ etc.)

If there were no magnetic field, the time evolution of the temperature would be given by equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\rho C_\mathrm{H}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2T}{^2x}},T(0,x)=T_0,(T/x)|_{x=0}=0,T(t,X_0)=0,`$ (42)
resulting in the following expression for the temperature similar to equation (40):

$`T_\mathrm{S}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`T_0{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+2n)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}t}{X_0^2\rho C_\mathrm{H}}}(1+2n)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (X_0X)}{2X_0}}(1+2n)\right]`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`T_0{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+2n)^1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\tau }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{X_0^2\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}}{l_0^2\kappa _{}}}(1+2n)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (X_0X)}{2X_0}}(1+2n)\right],`$
where we use definition (37). The effective thermal conductivity $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ would be equal to the Spitzer thermal conductivity, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa _\mathrm{S}`$, if there were no magnetic field.

For each set of values $`T`$, $`\tau `$, $`\beta `$ and $`X`$ there is a value of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which makes equations (41) and (43) agree. This value can be taken as the effective thermal conductivity, but it does depend on conditions. In the case of the presence of the tangled magnetic field, instead of using the complicated formula (41) we can use the simple formula (43) with this $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ reduced appropriately from the Spitzer value. To find the reduced effective conductivity, we first choose fixed values of position $`X`$ and temperature $`T`$. Then, we find $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ in a such way, that both formula (41) and formula (43) give the same chosen value of temperature, $`T`$, at the same time $`\tau `$. The calculation of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}(\beta )`$ was done numerically for two choices of $`X`$: $`X=0.5X_0`$ and $`X=0.1X_0`$; and for three choices of $`T`$: $`T=0.03T_0`$, $`T=0.50T_0`$ and $`T=0.90T_0`$. \[In other words, we numerically found such functions $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}(\beta )`$, that the temperature contours $`T/T_0=0.03`$, $`T/T_0=0.50`$ and $`T/T_0=0.90`$ appeared the same on Figures 4 when we used formulas (41) and (43) for the temperature.\] The resulting functions $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}(\beta )`$ normalized to $`\kappa _{}l_0^2/X_0^2`$ are given by the solid lines in Figures 3. We again see, that $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}(\beta )`$ is not an universal function, and that it varies for different choices of $`T`$ and $`X`$, except when the $`\beta `$ is large. For smaller values of temperature the effective conductivity becomes less because very long field lines, which keep the initial temperature, become more important.

## 5 Discussion

We would like to start the discussion with by stressing one of the main results we found: the actual value of this effective conductivity in the tangled magnetic fields depends on how this effective conductivity is defined. In our paper we used two “natural” definitions of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for two very simple models of a cluster of galaxies: a time-independent model in Section 3 and a time-dependent model in Section 4. The results for $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, reported in figures 3(a) and 3(b), are the same only provided $`\beta 1`$, and they are significantly different (by up to a factor of ten) when $`\beta \stackrel{<}{}1`$. We conclude that there does not exist an universal result for the effective conductivity in the tangled magnetic fields. One has to define $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and to calculate it for a particular astrophysical problem that he/she considers. We believe that such calculation is possible for many problems, including numerical simulations of galaxy cluster formation and of cooling flows, by making use of our diffusion approximation method for the random walk of tangled magnetic field lines.

It is useful to compare our results for the effective conductivity in the tangled magnetic fields with those reported in previous papers. As we said in the last paragraph of Section 3, in the limit $`\beta 1`$ our result for $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ coincides with the result obtained by Tao (1995). This simple formula (for $`\beta `$ large) corresponds to lines being in order $`X_0/ϵ`$ in length, a result sometimes believed (remember, that $`ϵ1`$ is the ration of the field mean component to the field random component). But in fact, it is only valid as a lower limit on $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, except for large $`\beta `$. However, we can speculate that it revolves around the very definition of $`ϵ`$. We give $`ϵ`$ first and then impose the statistics of the field. If the statistics is given first and the mean field is defined afterwards, as the rms value of the mean field on the scales $`X_0`$, then $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ would be closer to our results.

In the limit $`\beta 1`$, our result, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}0.1\kappa _{}l_0^2/X_0^2`$, is consistent with the result of Tribble (1989). 666 Tribble has $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=4\kappa _{}l_0^2/X_0^2`$, see his equation (11). The difference arises because: first, our boundary conditions (12) and (15) for the random walk of field lines are different from those of Tribble; second, the magnetic field lines in our model are allowed to random walk in three dimensions, while Tribble considered a restricted one-dimensional random walk.  To the best of our knowledge, there have no results for $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ when $`\beta 1`$ obtained before.

Recently Chandran and Cowley (1998) have suggested that the diffusion of the heat conducting electrons perpendicular to the magnetic field lines is crucially important for the heat transport. In their model the statistically independent random step by the electrons is equal to $`\sqrt{2L_{\mathrm{RR}}l_0}`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{RR}}l_0\mathrm{ln}(l_0/\rho _e)`$ is the Rechester-Rosenbluth length. This length is the distance along magnetic field lines over which a separation between two initially neighboring lines grows exponentially from the electron gyro-radius $`\rho _e`$ up to the field decorrelation length $`l_0`$ (because of the Kolmogorov-Lyapunov exponential divergence of field lines). Chandran and Cowley suggested that the perpendicular diffusion of electrons and this exponential divergence of the magnetic field lines enable the electrons to conduct heat between different field lines, which may enhance the effective thermal conductivity considerably. However, we believe that the picture considered by Chandran and Cowley is rigorously valid only if electrons can move a distance $`L_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ along field lines without collisions. In fact, there are collisions, and if the electron mean free path $`\lambda `$ is less than the Rechester-Rosenbluth length $`L_{\mathrm{RR}}`$, the exponential divergence of field lines does not help electrons to diffuse perpendicular field lines. In clusters of galaxies, the ratio of $`L_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ to $`\lambda `$ is $`L_{\mathrm{RR}}/\lambda 5000(l_0/10\mathrm{kpc})(T/10^7\mathrm{K})^2(n/10^3\mathrm{cm}^3)`$. As a result, the perpendicular heat transport can generally be neglected (we accept $`3`$$`10\mathrm{kpc}`$ as a typical scale for magnetic fields in clusters of galaxies, see Kronberg 1994, Eilek 1999). The Chandran and Cowley’s model can be very important for some other astrophysical problems, but the consideration of their model is beyond of the scope of this paper.

Finally, let estimate the importance of the heat conduction for the formation and evolution of galaxy clusters, using figures 4. The parameter $`\beta `$ and the dimensional time $`\tau `$, given by equations (9) and (37), can be estimated as

$`\beta =20{\displaystyle \frac{X_0}{1\mathrm{Mpc}}}{\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{kpc}}{l_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mathrm{cos}\theta }{0.1}},\tau =5\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{}}{\kappa _\mathrm{S}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{10^{10}\mathrm{yrs}}}{\displaystyle \frac{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}{n}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^7K}}\right]^{5/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{10\mathrm{kpc}}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{Mpc}}{X_0}}\right]^4.`$
The reduction of the parallel thermal conductivity relative to the Spitzer value, caused by magnetic mirrors, depends on the ratio $`l_0/\lambda =160(l_0/10\mathrm{kpc})(T/10^7\mathrm{K})^2(n/10^3\mathrm{cm}^3)`$ \[Malyshkin & Kulsrud 2000\]. The typical values are $`\kappa _{}/\kappa _\mathrm{S}1/10`$ for the hot and low-density halo of a galaxy cluster, and $`\kappa _{}/\kappa _\mathrm{S}1`$ for the cluster central region. We see that for the halo, where $`X_01\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`l_010\mathrm{kpc}`$, $`T5\times 10^7\mathrm{K}`$ and $`n2\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$, we have $`\beta 20`$ and $`\tau 10^4`$. Thus, according to figures 4, the heat conduction is unimportant there, while according to figures 3, the effective thermal conductivity is reduced by a factor of $`2000`$. At the same time, for the cluster central region we have $`X_00.1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`l_03\mathrm{kpc}`$, $`T2\times 10^7\mathrm{K}`$, $`n10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\beta 7`$ and $`\tau 0.03`$, so the heat conduction is important there, and the effective thermal conductivity is reduced by a factor of $`200`$. This conclusion agrees with those of Tau (1995) and of Rosner and Tucker (1989). Thus, with certain parameters, such as these, thermal conduction can be important even with such a large reduction factor. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) give the direct temperature evolution without reference to reduction factors, and perhaps because of the sensitivity of the reduction factor to its definition, they are probably the more useful expressions of thermal evolution.

Suginohara and Ostriker in their hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy cluster formation encountered a “cooling catastrophe”, which appears as a steep non-realistic rise in the density profile of the relaxed core of a galaxy cluster because of the fast cooling in the core (Suginohara & Ostriker 1998). The heat conduction into the core was among solutions suggested by them. However, they believed that the conduction can be neglected if it is reduced by a factor of $`30`$ or more. In this paper we find that the thermal conduction is very important in the cluster central region, despite the fact that in our models it is reduced by a factor of $`200`$. Thus, the conduction should be included in hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy clusters, even when the reduction factor is large.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to especially thank my advisor, Professor Russell Kulsrud, for suggesting this problem, for many interesting and very fruitful discussions of it, and for reading carefully this manuscript. I would also like to thank Professors Jeremiah Ostriker, Jeremy Goodman and David Spergel for their insightful comments. I am also very grateful to Professor Bruce Drain for financial support under NSF grants AST-9619429 and AST-9988126.


format: text

text:
# Sub-millimeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law: a search for “large” extra dimensions

## Abstract

Motivated by higher-dimensional theories that predict new effects, we tested the gravitational $`1/r^2`$ law at separations ranging down to 218 $`\mu `$m using a 10-fold symmetric torsion pendulum and a rotating 10-fold symmetric attractor. We improved previous short-range constraints by up to a factor of 1000 and find no deviations from Newtonian physics.

04.80.Ce,04.80.-y

It is generally assumed that non-relativistic gravity obeys an inverse-square law for all distances greater than the Planck length $`R_\text{P}=\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^3}=1.6\times 10^{33}`$ cm. However, the gravitational interaction has only been tested with good precision for separations greater than 1 cm and, as summarized in Ref. , very little is known about gravity at length scales below a few mm. Recently theorists, using several different arguments, have suggested that the unexplored short-range regime of gravitation may hold profound surprises, i.e. that the gravitational interaction could display fundamentally new behavior in the mm regime.

Many of these arguments are based on the notion, intrinisic to string or M theory, of more than 3 spatial dimensions. To maintain consistency with a vast body of observations the extra dimensions must be “curled up” in very small regions, usually assumed to be comparable to $`R_\text{P}`$, or else hidden in some other way . It has recently been noted that the enormous discrepancy between natural mass scales of the Standard Model of particle physics ($`M_{\text{SM}}1`$ TeV) and of gravity (the Planck mass $`M_\text{P}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}=1.2\times 10^{16}`$ TeV) could be eliminated if gravity propagates in all the space dimensions while the other fundamental interactions are constrained to the three familiar dimensions. This unification scenario requires that some of the extra dimensions have radii $`R^{}`$ that are large compared to $`R_\text{P}`$ with

$$R^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{M^{}c^2}\left(\frac{M_\text{P}}{M^{}}\right)^{2/n},$$
(1)
where $`M^{}`$ is the unification scale (usually taken as $`M_{\text{SM}}`$) and $`n`$ is the number of large extra dimensions. The scenario with $`n=1`$ is ruled out by astronomical data. If there are 2 large extra dimensions, $`R^{}`$ must be about 1 mm, and the gravitational inverse-square law (which follows from Gauss’s Law in 3 spatial dimensions) will turn into a $`1/r^4`$-law (Gauss’s Law in 5 dimensions) at distances much smaller than $`R^{}`$.

Other theoretical considerations also suggest that new effects may show up at short distances; string theories predict scalar particles (dilatons and moduli) that generate Yukawa interactions which could be seen in tests of the $`1/r^2`$ law. If supersymmetry is broken at low energies these scalar particles would produce mm-scale effects. Finally, there may be some significance to the observation that the gravitational cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }3`$ keV/cm3, deduced from distant Type 1A supernovae corresponds to a length scale $`\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{}c/\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.1`$ mm. These, and other, considerations suggest that the Newtonian gravitational potential should be replaced by a more general expression

$$V(r)=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r}(1+\alpha e^{r/\lambda }).$$
(2)
The simplest scenario with 2 large extra dimensions predicts $`\lambda =R^{}`$ and $`\alpha =3`$ or $`\alpha =4`$ for compactification on an 2-sphere or 2-torus, respectively, while dilaton and moduli exchange could produce forces with $`\alpha `$ as large as $`10^5`$ for Yukawa ranges $`\lambda 0.1`$ mm.

This letter reports results of a test of gravitational inverse-square law at length scales well below 1 mm. Our instrument is shown in Fig. 1.

An 82 cm-long $`20\mu `$m-diameter tungsten fiber, hanging from an $`x`$-$`y`$-$`z`$-$`\vartheta `$ stage, supported a torsion pendulum with 10-fold rotational symmetry. The pendulum was placed above a 10-fold symmetric attractor that rotated slowly about the vertical axis of the pendulum. The active component of the pendulum was a 2.002 mm thick aluminum annulus containing ten equally-spaced 9.528 mm diameter holes, centered on a 55.33 mm diameter circle. The active component of the attractor consisted of two coaxial copper disks. The 1.846 mm thick upper disk had ten 9.535 mm diameter holes centered on a 55.31 mm circle, while the 7.825 mm thick lower disk had ten 12.690 mm diameter holes centered on a 55.33 mm circle. The holes in the lower disk were rotated azimuthally by 18 degrees compared to the upper holes; this geometry substantially reduced the signal from Newtonian gravity but had little effect on a short-range signal.

We measured the torque on the pendulum, produced by the interactions between the holes in the attractor and the pendulum for pendulum-to-attractor vertical separations, $`\zeta `$, down to 218 $`\mu `$m. Because of the 10-fold rotational symmetry of the instrument this torque varied at 10 times the attractor rotation frequency $`\omega `$. Spurious torques from electrical forces were minimized by placing a tightly stretched, 11.4 cm diameter, 20 $`\mu `$m thick beryllium-copper membrane between the attractor and pendulum, 48 $`\mu `$m above the upper surface of the attractor. The pendulum, mirrors, membrane and upper surface of the attractor were coated with gold, and the pendulum and membrane were surrounded by a gold-plated copper enclosure. Crucial dimensions of the pendulum and attractor were good to $`\pm 2.5\mu `$m, and the membrane, which had a mirror-like finish, was flat to within $`\pm 15\mu `$m.

The torque on the pendulum was inferred from the pendulum twist angle, $`\theta `$, which we measured by reflecting an autocollimator light beam twice from either of 2 flat mirrors mounted on the pendulum. The attractor rotation period, $`\tau _\text{A}`$, was set to $`17\tau _0`$, where $`\tau _0=2\pi /\omega _0399.6`$ s was the period of pendulum’s free torsional oscillations. The attractor angle, $`\varphi =\omega t`$, and signals from the autocollimator, the ion-pump pressure gauge, a 2-axis electronic level on the instrument, and 8 temperature sensors were digitized at regular intervals, typically $`\tau _\text{D}=\tau _0/36`$, and stored in a small computer. Data, acquired continuously, were broken into “cuts” each of which had exactly 2 oscillations of the $`10\omega `$ signal. For each “cut”, the filtered pendulum twist $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$ was fitted with

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\varphi )=\underset{n}{}\left[b_n\mathrm{sin}n\varphi +c_n\mathrm{cos}n\varphi \right]+\underset{m=0}{\overset{2}{}}d_mP_m,$$
(3)
where the first sum ran over $`n`$=1, 3, 10, 20 and 30. The floating $`n`$=10, 20 and 30 terms yielded the fundamental and leading harmonics of the torque signal; the small $`n=1`$ and $`n=3`$ terms were fixed by fitting data covering one complete revolution of the attractor. The $`n`$=3 coefficients accounted for the 3-fold symmetry of the attractor drive system and the $`n`$=1 coefficients, typically consistent with zero, were used for diagnostic purposes. The $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ polynomial coefficients allowed for the slow unwinding of our torsion fiber ($`0.2\mu `$r/h).

Figure 2 shows a typical segment of fitted autocollimator data.

The resulting $`n=10`$, 20 and 30 torques are

$$T_n=I|(\stackrel{~}{b}_n+i\stackrel{~}{c}_n)(\omega _0^2n^2\omega ^2+2i\gamma n\omega )|\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\pi n\omega }{2\omega _0}),$$
(4)
where $`I=128.4`$ g-cm2 is the calculated rotational inertia of the pendulum, the superscript tildes on the $`b`$ and $`c`$ coefficients indicate corrections for electronic time constants (see Ref. ), and the damping coefficient $`\gamma 5\times 10^6`$ s-1 is the reciprocal of the observed decay time of the free torsional amplitude. We measured $`\omega _0`$ for each data point and found it was constant to within 0.3%.

Our data sets consisted of the $`T_{10}`$, $`T_{20}`$ and $`T_{30}`$ torques as functions of separation. Clearly, compared to Newtonian gravity, a short-range $`1/r^2`$-violating force will have both a higher harmonic content and a stronger dependence on $`\zeta `$. Data taken at $`\zeta `$’s ranging from 218 $`\mu `$m to 10.78 mm and at several horizontal displacements $`x`$ and $`y`$, were compared to calculations of the signals expected from the potential of Eq. 2. The expected Newtonian (Yukawa) twists were computed to a precision better than 0.1(0.3$`\alpha `$) nrad while a typical measured point had a statistical error of 8 nrad. We found analytic solutions for 4 of the Newtonian integrals and 2 of the Yukawa integrals and evaluated the remaining integrals numerically. Figure 3 shows the $`T_{10}`$, $`T_{20}`$ and $`T_{30}`$ torques together with the Newtonian predictions. We fitted these data, for a series of $`\lambda `$ values, with the physics parameter $`\alpha `$ and 4 constrained and 2 unconstrained parameters describing the instrument. The constrained instrumental parameters (the gap $`ϵ=10\pm 10\mu `$m between the two attractor disks, the ratio of the “masses” of the holes in the upper and lower disks $`\rho =0.1329\pm 0.0001`$, a factor $`f=1.000\pm 0.003`$ representing the uncertainties in the torque scale and the “mass” of the pendulum holes, and $`z_0=910\pm 5\mu `$m the $`z`$-micrometer reading at $`\zeta =0`$) were determined by auxilliary measurements described below. The unconstrained intrumental parameters $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ were the centered values of $`x`$ and $`y`$ micrometers. In all cases, the best-fit values of the constrained experimental parameters agreed with their nominal values, the average and maximum deviations were 1.3$`\sigma `$ and 1.9$`\sigma `$, respectively. Our data are well described by Newtonian gravity with a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 1.03 with a probability of 41%. The resulting contraints on new physics of the form given in Eq. 2 are shown in Fig. 4; scenarios with $`\alpha 3`$ are excluded at 95% confidence for $`\lambda 190\mu `$m.

Accurate alignment and control of the pendulum and attractor geometry and precise calibrations were essential in this experiment.

The attractor geometry parameters were determined using a measuring microscope, and the “masses” of the pendulum and attractor holes were computed from their dimensions and the measured densities of the active components of the pendulum and attractor. The torque scale was calibrated gravitationally. Two small aluminum spheres, inserted into diametrically opposite holes in a similar pendulum annulus, gave it a known $`q_{22}`$ spherical multipole moment. A $`Q_{22}`$ attractor moment was created by two bronze spheres, centered on the torsion pendulum and separated by 27.965 cm. These spheres were rotated around the pendulum axis by a turntable to produce a $`(4.010\pm 0.001)\times 10^7`$ dyne-cm $`2\omega `$ torque on the pendulum.

The $`z`$-micrometer setting at vanishing vertical pendulum-to-membrane separation was inferred from the capacitance between the pendulum and the membrane. (The membrane and the upper fiber attachment, which were normally grounded to the vacuum can, were electrically isolated for these measurements.) We fitted the capacitance as a function of the $`z`$-micrometer setting, see Fig. 5, with an expression for a plane electrode parallel to an infinite plate. (The function, which contained a leading-order expression for the fringing fields, was integrated over the pendulum’s sinusoidal “bounce” motion.) The fixed vertical separation between the membrane and attractor ($`48\pm 3\mu `$m) and their parallelism (misalignment $`0.2`$ mrad) were measured using depth micrometers and a special jig that could be substituted for the membrane. A capacitive measurement gave a consistent value for this separation. The peak-to-peak vertical runout and “wobble” as the attractor rotated were $`1.3\mu `$m and $`5\mu `$m, respectively.

The pendulum plane was adjusted to be horizontal to $`<0.2`$ mrad by temporarily replacing the normal membrane with 2 isolated semicircular copper disks that, together with the pendulum, formed a differential capacitor. We then monitored the the $`1\omega `$ differential capacitance signal as $`\vartheta `$ was rotated at a steady rate and adjusted the pendulum’s small trim screws (shown in Fig. 1) to minimize this signal. (The leveling precision was limited by the $`\pm 74\mu `$m horizontal runout of the fiber as $`\vartheta `$ was rotated.) The semicircular disks were removed and the reinstalled membrane was made parallel to the pendulum (to within $`<0.1`$ mrad) by tilting the entire instrument and finding the angle that gave the smallest capacitance for a fixed value of $`z`$. Then the $`x`$ and $`y`$ micrometers were adjusted to recenter the pendulum on the attractor by maximizing the $`10\omega `$, $`20\omega `$, and $`30\omega `$ signals.

We checked that likely non-gravitational sources of systematic error had negligible effects on our results. The attractor drive mechanism was largely nonmagnetic; the amplitude of magnetic field variations at the site of the pendulum was $`0.6\mu `$G at the signal frequency. The measured sensitivity of the pendulum to magnetic field variations at the signal frequency was $`57`$ nrad/mG, corresponding to a magnetic systematic error of 0.03 nrad. The energy dissipated in the attractor motor warmed the attractor slightly. A 5-fold increase in the motor’s temperature rise, produced by attaching heat-dissipating resistors to the motor housing, changed $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{10}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{20}`$ by $`17\pm 11`$ nrad and $`4\pm 9`$ nrad respectively. We found that an overall 98 mK change of the instrument’s temperature changed the equilibrium twist of the fiber by 1.17 $`\mu `$rad. During normal operation, none of the sensors on the instrument had temperature variations at the 10$`\omega `$ signal frequency that exceeded 100 $`\mu `$K, indicating that spurious signals from temperature variations were $`1`$ nrad. When the attractor rotation period was changed from $`7\tau _0`$ to $`43\tau _0`$ (the normal period was $`17\tau _0`$), $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{10}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{20}`$ were unchanged to within $`5\pm 15`$ nrad and $`11\pm 31`$ nrad, respectively.

Our results, interpreted in the simplest unification scenario with 2 equal large extra dimensions, imply a unification scale given in Eq. 1 of $`M^{}3.5`$ Tev. We are now preparing a second-generation experiment with a different pendulum and attractor that should provide higher precision and better sensitivity at small $`\lambda `$.

We thank Profs. David Kaplan and Ann Nelson for helpful discussions, and Nathan Collins, Angela Kopp and Deb Spain for assistance with the experiment. This work was supported primarily by the NSF (Grant PHY-9970987) and secondarily by the DOE.


text:
# 1 Numerical results for 𝜎 (see text).

Comment on “Analytic Structure of One-Dimensional Localization Theory: Re-Examining Mott’s Law”

The low-frequency conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of a disordered Fermi gas in one spatial dimension is governed by the Mott–Berezinskii law Mott\_68 ; Berezinskii\_73 ; Comment\_on\_log

$$\sigma (\omega )=\sigma _0\{2\zeta (3)\epsilon \epsilon ^2[\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon +(23)\mathrm{ln}\epsilon c]\},$$
(1)
Here $`\sigma _0`$ is the Drude conductivity, $`\epsilon =2i\omega \tau `$ is a small parameter in the problem, $`\tau `$ is the elastic scattering time, $``$ is the Euler constant, and $`c=O(1)`$ is another constant. In a recent Letter Gogolin\_00  Gogolin claimed that the expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon `$ inside the square brackets in Eq. (1) starts with $`\mathrm{ln}^3\epsilon `$ term, challenging our basic ideas about disordered systems Mott\_68 , as well as previous analytical Berezinskii\_73 ; Abrikosov\_77 ; Gorkov\_83  and numerical Gogolin\_78  work. Below we reinstate the validity of Mott–Berezinskii law by pointing out two calculational errors in Gogolin’s paper. We also present numerical results for $`\sigma `$, which fully agree with Eq. (1).

Gogolin expresses $`\sigma (\omega )`$ as a sum over certain matrix elements $`f_n`$ of the eigenfunctions of Berezinskii’s second-order differential equation:

$$\sigma (\omega )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n,f_n=\frac{\pi ^2\sigma _0\epsilon }{\mathrm{cosh}^3\pi k_n}\frac{B_{n\epsilon }^2}{k_n^2+\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(2)
The wavenumbers $`k_n`$ are to be determined from the equation $`g(k_n)=2\pi n`$, where

$$g(k)=2ki\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+ik)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}ik)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ik)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+ik)}\right]$$
(3)
and $`=\mathrm{ln}(16/\epsilon )`$. The Poisson summation formula brings Eq. (2) to the form

$$\sigma (\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑kf(k)e^{ipg(k)}g^{}(k).$$
(4)
The third power of $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon `$ was obtained in Ref. Gogolin\_00  because $`g(k)=2k`$ was used instead of the full expression (3). This is the crucial mistake in that paper.

To get the correct coefficient in front of the subleading term in Eq. (1), one more mistake has to be rectified. Namely, one has to use the following expression for the normalization factor $`B_{n\epsilon }`$:

$$\frac{1}{B_{n\epsilon }^2}=\frac{\pi }{2k_n\mathrm{sinh}\pi k_n}\frac{\pi }{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{ik_n}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4}\frac{ik_n}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{ik_n}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4}\frac{ik_n}{2})}.$$
(5)
Gogolin retains only the first term, presumably because it contains the large logarithm $``$. However, the second term diverges at the point $`k_n=i/2`$ where the integrand in Eq. (4) has a pole. Therefore, this term must be retained. Substituting more accurate expressions (3) and (5) into Eqs. (2) and (4), we recover Eq. (1).

As a final check, we solved Berezinskii’s recursive equations Berezinskii\_73 ; Gogolin\_00  numerically for small real $`\epsilon `$, slightly refining the algorithm described in Ref. Gogolin\_78 . The solid line in Figure 1 is the best fit of $`\sigma (\epsilon )`$ to the form $`\sigma _B(\epsilon )=8\zeta (3)\epsilon /\pi \beta \epsilon ^2(\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon \gamma \mathrm{ln}\epsilon +\delta )`$ ($`\sigma _0=4/\pi `$ in our system of units), which is provided by $`\beta =1.272(5)`$, $`\gamma =1.85(1)`$, and $`\delta =2.11(1)`$, in excellent agreement with $`\beta =4/\pi =1.2732\mathrm{}`$, $`\gamma =32=1.8456\mathrm{}`$ predicted by Eq. (1). In the inset, we plot $`[\sigma (\epsilon )\sigma _B]/\epsilon ^2`$ using the latter values of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta =0`$. This quantity tends to a constant at small $`\epsilon `$ in accordance with Eq. (1).

Acknowledgements. M. M. F. is supported by Pappalardo Fellowship in Physics at MIT and Z. W. by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-99ER45747.

Michael M. Fogler and Ziqiang Wang
Department of Physics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

On subbatical leave from
Department of Physics
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467


text:
# Democratic Neutrino Mixing and Radiative Corrections

## Abstract

The renormalization effect on a specific ansatz of lepton mass matrices, arising naturally from the breaking of flavor democracy for charged leptons and that of mass degeneracy for light neutrinos, is studied from a superhigh energy scale $`M_010^{13}`$ GeV to the electroweak scale in the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. We find that the democratic neutrino mixing pattern obtained from this ansatz may in general be instable against radiative corrections. With the help of similar flavor symmetries we prescribe a slightly different scheme of lepton mass matrices at the scale $`M_0`$, from which the democratic mixing pattern of lepton flavors can be achieved, after radiative corrections, at the experimentally accessible scales.

preprint:     hep-ph/0011217  LMU-00-15

Recently a number of models of lepton mass matrices have been proposed at low energy scales , at which their consequences on the spectrum of neutrino masses and the mixing of lepton flavors can directly be confronted with the robust Super-Kamiokande data on atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations . From the theoretical point of view, however, a phenomenologically-favored scheme of lepton mass matrices might only serve as the low-scale approximation of a more fundamental theory responsible for the lepton mass generation and flavor mixing at superhigh energy scales. It is therefore desirable to investigate the scale dependence of lepton mass matrices with the help of the renormalization-group equations. So far some attempts have been made in this direction .

In this Brief Report we aim to study whether the democratic neutrino mixing pattern, which is indeed a nearly bi-maximal mixing pattern of lepton flavors arising from the breaking of flavor democracy for charged leptons and that of mass degeneracy for light neutrinos, can be stable or not against the effect of radiative corrections from a superhigh energy scale $`M_010^{13}`$ GeV to the electroweak scale $`M_Z`$ in the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. We find that the democratic neutrino mixing pattern at $`M_0`$ is no longer of the same form at $`M_Z`$. But it can still be obtained at low energy scales, if an additional term preserving the symmetry of flavor democracy is introduced to the original neutrino mass matrix at the scale $`M_0`$. Therefore the democratic neutrino mixing pattern at the experimentally accessible scales might hint at certain lepton flavor symmetries at a superhigh scale, at which viable models of lepton mass matrices can naturally be built.

Let us begin with a brief retrospection of the specific model of democratic neutrino mixing proposed first in Ref.  at low energy scales. The essential idea of this model is that the realistic textures of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices might arise respectively from the breaking of $`\mathrm{S}(3)_\mathrm{L}\times \mathrm{S}(3)_\mathrm{R}`$ and S(3) flavor symmetries:

$`M_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_l^{}}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }M_l,`$ (1)
$`M_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`c_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu ,`$ (2)
where $`c_l^{}`$ and $`c_\nu `$ measure the corresponding mass scales of charged leptons and neutrinos. The explicit symmetry-breaking term $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_l`$ is responsible for the generation of muon and electron masses, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu `$ is responsible for the breaking of neutrino mass degeneracy. The lepton flavor mixing matrix results from the mismatch between the diagonalization of $`M_l`$ and that of $`M_\nu `$, therefore its pattern depends crucially on the forms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu `$. It has been shown in Ref.  that current data on solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations seem to favor the following forms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu `$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_l^{}}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}i\delta _l& 0& 0\\ 0& i\delta _l& 0\\ 0& 0& \epsilon _l^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`c_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _\nu & 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _\nu & 0\\ 0& 0& \epsilon _\nu \end{array}\right),`$ (4)
where $`(\delta _l,\epsilon _l^{})`$ and $`(\delta _\nu ,\epsilon _\nu )`$ are dimensionless perturbation parameters of small magnitude. It is easy to obtain $`m_\tau c_l^{}`$, $`m_\mu 2|\epsilon _l^{}|m_\tau /9`$, and $`m_e|\delta _l|^2m_\tau ^2/(27m_\mu )`$ in the lowest order approximation. As for neutrino masses, we have $`m_1=c_\nu (1\delta _\nu )`$, $`m_2=c_\nu (1+\delta _\nu )`$, and $`m_3=c_\nu (1+\epsilon _\nu )`$. The simultaneous diagonalization of $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ leads to the lepton flavor mixing matrix $`V`$, which links the neutrino flavor eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ to the neutrino mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }V,$$
(5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=i\xi _V^{}\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}+\zeta _V^{}\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }$$
(6)
holds in the next-to-leading order approximation with

$`\xi _V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
$`\zeta _V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
This is just a nearly bi-maximal lepton mixing pattern with large CP violation . Neglecting the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, which is remarkably suppressed by the small quantities $`\sqrt{m_e/m_\mu }0.07`$ and $`m_\mu /m_\tau 0.06`$ , one often refers to $`V`$ as the democratic neutrino mixing pattern.

Now we prescribe the same ansatz of lepton mass matrices, as that introduced above, at superhigh energy scales. To be specific, we only consider the simple possibility that the typical mass scale of light Majorana neutrinos is determined via the conventional seesaw mechanism  by the mass of a heavy right-handed neutrino $`M_010^{13}`$ GeV; namely $`c_\nu v^2/M_0`$ , where $`v`$ is the electroweak vacuum expectation value. The mass degeneracy of three active neutrinos is broken by the perturbative term $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu `$ in Eq. (1) at the scale $`M_0`$. Below this typical scale, the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ and the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_l`$ have quite simple running behaviors in the framework of the standard electroweak model or its minimal supersymmetric extension. The relevant renormalization-group equations, which describe the radiative corrections to lepton mass matrices from the superhigh scale $`M_0`$ to the electroweak scale $`M_Z`$, have been derived by a number of authors in Refs. . Subsequently we investigate whether the democratic neutrino mixing pattern $`V`$ in Eq. (3) is stable or not against radiative corrections in the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM).

For simplicity we choose a specific flavor basis, in which the lepton mass matrix $`M_l`$ is diagonal (namely, $`M_l`$ is transformed into the diagonal form $`\widehat{M}_l=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau \}`$) at the scale $`M_0`$. In this basis and at the same scale, the corresponding neutrino mass matrix takes the form $`\widehat{M}_\nu =V^{}M_\nu V^{}`$. Running $`\widehat{M}_l`$ and $`\widehat{M}_\nu `$ down to the scale $`M_Z`$ by use of the renormalization-group equations in the framework of MSSM, one obtains the new lepton mass matrices $`\widehat{𝐌}_l`$ and $`\widehat{𝐌}_\nu `$. Obviously $`\widehat{𝐌}_l`$ remains diagonal, but its mass eigenvalues are in general different from those of $`\widehat{M}_l`$ due to radiative corrections . At the scale $`M_Z`$, the form of $`\widehat{𝐌}_\nu `$ reads explicitly as

$$\widehat{𝐌}_\nu =\left(I_gI_t^6\right)T_l\widehat{M}_\nu T_l$$
(9)
with

$$T_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_e& 0& 0\\ 0& I_\mu & 0\\ 0& 0& I_\tau \end{array}\right),$$
(10)
in which $`I_g`$, $`I_t`$, and $`I_\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) denote the corresponding evolution functions of the gauge couplings $`g_1^{}`$ and $`g_2^{}`$, the top-quark Yukawa coupling $`f_t`$, and the charged lepton Yukawa couplings $`f_e`$, $`f_\mu `$ and $`f_\tau `$:

$`I_g`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}M_Z}^{\mathrm{ln}M_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2(\chi )+6g_2^2(\chi )\right)d\chi \right],`$ (11)
$`I_t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}M_Z}^{\mathrm{ln}M_0}}f_t^2(\chi )d\chi \right],`$ (12)
$`I_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}M_Z}^{\mathrm{ln}M_0}}f_\alpha ^2(\chi )d\chi \right].`$ (13)
Note that the power of $`I_t`$ in the expression of $`\widehat{𝐌}_\nu `$ depends on the definition of $`I_t`$ in Eq. (8). The overall factor $`(I_gI_t^6)`$ in Eq. (6) does not affect the relative magnitudes of the matrix elements of $`\widehat{M}_\nu `$. Only the matrix $`T_l`$, which amounts to the unity matrix at the energy scale $`M_0`$, can modify the texture of the neutrino mass matrix from $`M_0`$ to $`M_Z`$. The magnitude of $`I_\tau `$ may somehow deviate from unity, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values in the MSSM) takes large values. In contrast, $`I_eI_\mu 1`$ is an excellent approximation. Denoting $`\kappa I_e/I_\tau 1I_\mu /I_\tau 1`$, one arrives from Eq. (8) at

$$\kappa \frac{m_\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2v^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_0}{M_Z}.$$
(14)
It turns out that $`\kappa 0.03`$ for $`M_010^{13}`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =60`$.

With the help of Eqs. (3) and (6), one can straightforwardly figure out the explicit expression of $`\widehat{𝐌}_\nu `$ at the scale $`M_Z`$. To a good degree of accuracy, the small term $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ of $`V`$ (namely, the small corrections from the ratios of charged lepton masses) is negligible in the calculation. We then make the transformations $`V^{}\widehat{𝐌}_lV𝐌_l`$ and $`V^\mathrm{T}\widehat{𝐌}_\nu V𝐌_\nu `$ at the scale $`M_Z`$. Of course $`𝐌_l`$ should have a quasi-democratic texture in the lowest order approximation, just as $`M_l`$. The neutrino mass matrix $`𝐌_\nu `$ takes the following form:

$$𝐌_\nu \left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left[M_\nu +2\kappa \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu \right)\right],$$
(15)
where the $`\kappa `$-induced term signifies the renormalization effect, and the constant matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ read as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ $``$ $`c_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_\nu }{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (17)
In obtaining Eqs. (10) and (11), we have neglected the small contributions of $`𝒪(\kappa ^2)`$, $`𝒪(\kappa \epsilon _\nu )`$ and $`𝒪(\kappa \delta _\nu )`$. Note that the factor $`I_\tau ^2`$ in $`𝐌_\nu `$ comes from the product of two $`T_l`$ matrices on the right-hand side of $`\widehat{𝐌}_\nu `$. Comparing $`𝐌_\nu `$ with $`M_\nu `$, we see that the diagonal texture of $`M_\nu `$ is not affected by the radiative correction term $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, which is also diagonal. The latter modifies three neutrino mass eigenvalues of $`M_\nu `$ with the same magnitude (proportional to $`2\kappa c_\nu `$). In contrast, the diagonal texture of $`M_\nu `$ is spoiled by the other radiative correction term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$, which has a democratic form. As a consequence of the appearance of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ in $`𝐌_\nu `$, the corresponding lepton flavor mixing matrix $`𝐕`$, which arises from the mismatch between the diagonalization of $`𝐌_l`$ and that of $`𝐌_\nu `$ at the electroweak scale $`M_Z`$, may substantially deviate from the original flavor mixing matrix $`V`$ at the superhigh scale $`M_0`$. Unless $`\kappa `$ is negligibly small, the democratic neutrino mixing pattern is expected to be instable against radiative corrections.

The sensitivity of a nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing pattern to the renormalization effect is of course not a big surprise . However, it is not impossible to find out the appropriate textures of lepton mass matrices, which are essentially stable against radiative corrections . As the democratic neutrino mixing pattern is only favored at the experimentally accessible energy scales, the question turns out to be whether there is a scheme of lepton mass matrices at the superhigh scale $`M_0`$, from which the democratic mixing pattern of lepton flavors can be obtained at the electroweak scale $`M_Z`$. We find that such a scheme of lepton mass matrices does exist and it is very similar to that discussed above.

To be specific, let us prescribe the new ansatz of lepton mass matrices at the scale $`M_0`$. We take the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_l^{}`$ to have the same form as $`M_l`$ in Eq. (1); namely, $`M_l^{}=M_l`$ has the $`\mathrm{S}(3)_\mathrm{L}\times \mathrm{S}(3)_\mathrm{R}`$ flavor symmetry in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_l=0`$. The corresponding neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu ^{}`$ is a linear combination of $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (1) and an additional term, which preserves the symmetry of flavor democracy:

$$M_\nu ^{}=M_\nu +c_\nu ^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
Obviously $`M_\nu ^{}`$ has the same S(3) flavor symmetry as $`M_\nu `$ in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\nu =0`$. One can therefore see much similarity between the new ansatz and the old one. The coefficient $`c_\nu ^{}`$ is a free parameter , but its value may be physically nontrivial, as we shall see below.

Following the same procedure as outlined above, we calculate the counterpart of $`M_\nu ^{}`$ at the electroweak scale $`M_Z`$. We obtain

$$𝐌_\nu ^{}\left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left[M_\nu ^{}+2\kappa \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu \right)\right],$$
(19)
where $`\kappa `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ have been given in Eqs. (9) and (11). Note that the texture of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ is essentially the same as that of $`M_\nu `$ (the first term of $`M_\nu ^{}`$), and the texture of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ is essentially the same as that of the second term of $`M_\nu ^{}`$. Therefore the basic texture of $`𝐌_\nu ^{}`$ is the same as that of $`M_\nu ^{}`$. In other words, the structure of $`M_\nu ^{}`$ is stable against radiative corrections.

It is particularly interesting that the second term of $`M_\nu ^{}`$ and the term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ in $`𝐌_\nu ^{}`$ are possible to cancel eath other. Indeed the cancellation between these two terms takes place, if the coefficient $`c_\nu ^{}`$ satisfies the condition $`c_\nu ^{}/c_\nu =2\kappa /3`$. In this case, the resultant neutrino mass matrix reads as

$$𝐌_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left(M_\nu +2\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu \right),$$
(20)
which is diagonal at the scale $`M_Z`$. Since the corresponding charged lepton mass matrix $`𝐌_l^{}`$ is of a quasi-democratic form at the same scale, just as $`𝐌_l`$ discussed above, the simultaneous diagonalization of $`𝐌_l^{}`$ and $`𝐌_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ must lead to the democratic flavor mixing pattern $`V`$ in the lowest order approximation (namely, in the approximation of neglecting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ term).

One might question whether the condition $`c_\nu ^{}/c_\nu =2\kappa /31`$ suffers from fine-tuning or not. Indeed it is rather natural to expect $`c_\nu ^{}c_\nu `$ in the model under consideration, because this hierarchy assures the near degeneracy of three neutrino masses. On the other hand, a relation between $`c_\nu ^{}`$ and $`c_\nu `$ allows us to reduce the number of free parameters in $`M_\nu ^{}`$ from four to three, which can fully be determined by three neutrino mass eigenvalues $`𝐦_i^{}`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) at low energy scales. Indeed we obtain

$`𝐦_1^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left(1+2\kappa \delta _\nu \right)c_\nu ,`$ (21)
$`𝐦_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left(1+2\kappa +\delta _\nu \right)c_\nu ,`$ (22)
$`𝐦_3^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2\right)\left(1+2\kappa +\epsilon _\nu \right)c_\nu .`$ (23)
Note that the overall factor $`(I_gI_t^6I_\tau ^2)`$ takes approximate values 0.80 and 0.63, respectively, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`60`$ . The present Super-Kamiokande  and CHOOZ  data favor the approximate decoupling between solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations, which are respectively attributed to $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transitions in the framework of three active neutrinos.Thus one may take $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2=|(𝐦_2^{})^2(𝐦_1^{})^2|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=|(𝐦_3^{})^2(𝐦_1^{})^2|`$. Taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ into account , we arrive at

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\frac{2|\delta _\nu |}{|\epsilon _\nu +\delta _\nu |}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\frac{|\delta _\nu |}{|\epsilon _\nu |}.$$
(24)
This result implies that the observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ are completely insensitive to the small parameter $`\kappa `$. Given the energy scale at which the proposed textures of $`M_ł^{}`$ and $`M_\nu ^{}`$ hold, $`\kappa `$ is a well-defined quantity in respect to the fixed value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ within the MSSM or other extensions of the standard electroweak model. Therefore we think that the condition $`c_\nu ^{}/c_\nu =2\kappa /3`$ is plausible for our new ansatz of lepton mass matrices at a superhigh energy scale, from which the democratic neutrino mixing pattern can be obtained, after radiative corrections, at the experimentally accessible energy scales.

In summary, we have investigated the renormalization effects on lepton mass matrices and flavor mixing from a superhigh energy scale to the electroweak scale in the framework of MSSM. We find that the democratic neutrino mixing pattern may in general be instable against radiative corrections. A new ansatz of lepton mass matrices, based on the breaking of flavor democracy for charged leptons and the mass degeneracy for light neutrinos, has been prescribed at superhigh scales. Taken the effect of radiative corrections into account, this ansatz can lead to the democratic mixing pattern of lepton flavors at low energy scales. We expect that the forthcoming neutrino oscillation experiments will provide a stringent test of the democratic neutrino mixing pattern and other nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing schemes, from which one can get more hints to explore possible flavor symmetries and to build viable models of lepton mass matrices at appropriate superhigh energy scales.

The author would like to thank H. Fritzsch, N. Haba, and M. Tanimoto for useful discussions. He is also grateful to K.R.S. Balaji for helpful comments.