text:
# 1 CESR beam parameters at zero bunch current during the time this measurement was made.

CLNS 00/1706

Novel Method of Measuring Electron Positron Colliding Beam Parameters

D. Cinabro, K. Korbiak

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State Univeristy,
Detroit, MI 48202, USA
R. Ehrlich, S. Henderson, N. Mistry

Laboratory of Nuclear Studies, Cornell Univeristy,
Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

(29 November 2000)

## Abstract

Through the simultaneous measurement of the transverse size as a function of longitudinal position, and the longitudinal distribution of luminosity, we are able to measure the $`\beta _y^{}`$ (vertical envelope function at the collision point), vertical emittance, and bunch length of colliding beams at the Cornell Electron-positron Storage Ring (CESR). This measurement is possible due to the significant “hourglass” effect at CESR and the excellent tracking resolution of the CLEO detector.

PACS numbers: 29.27.Fh, 41.75.Ht, 29.40

Submitted to Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment

One of the difficult problems in colliding beam physics is the measurement of beam parameters at the collision point. In this letter, we present a method of making such a measurement using precision measurements of the luminous region with $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events detected by a general purpose high energy physics experiment. Key to this measurement is the detailed geometry of the highly focused colliding beams, which leads to the “hourglass” effect.

Tightly focused beams have a “waist” at the focal point of the final quadrupoles and their size grows away from this waist. The transverse beam size is given by

$$\sigma (z)=\sqrt{ϵ\beta (z)}$$
(1)
where $`\beta (z)`$ is the amplitude or beta function, which depends on the longitudinal position, $`z`$, of the beam and the emittance, $`ϵ`$, which is independent of $`z`$. Near a waist, $`\beta (z)`$ can be written as

$$\beta (z)=\beta ^{}+\frac{(zz_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}})^2}{\beta ^{}}$$
(2)
where $`\beta ^{}`$ is the value of the beta function at the waist and $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}}`$ is the longitudinal position of the waist. Thus the beam in the longitudinal and transverse dimensions forms an hourglass shape with a minimum size at $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}}`$.

The hourglass effect arises from the beam being in Gaussian shaped bunches with length $`\sigma _z`$. If the bunch length is long compared with the dimension of the waist, then little of the beam is colliding where the beam is narrowest. In this case, the longitudinal distribution of luminosity depends not only on $`\sigma _z`$, but also on the horizontal and vertical value of the beta function at the interaction point, $`\beta _x^{}`$ and $`\beta _y^{}`$, respectively. In addition if either $`\beta ^{}`$ is smaller than $`\sigma _z`$, luminosity does not improve as much as naively expected by making $`\beta ^{}`$ smaller.

The luminous region is defined by the overlap integral of two beams. Thus we expect the vertical width of the luminous region as a function of the longitudinal position to be given by

$$\sigma _y(z)=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ_y}{2}\left(\beta _y^{}+\frac{(zz_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}})^2}{\beta _y^{}}\right)},$$
(3)
and similarly for the horizontal width. It is assumed that the emittances and $`\beta ^{}`$’s are the same for the two beams. The beam parameters for the Cornell Electron-positron Storage Ring (CESR) for the data discussed in this paper are given in Table 1.

All the parameters in Table 1 are given at zero bunch current. They are all expected to depend on the bunch current. We have previously observed that $`\beta _x^{}`$ is reduced by roughly a factor of two in colliding beam conditions due to the dynamic beta effect. Likewise, $`\beta _y^{}`$ is expected to be reduced by about 25% due to beam-beam focusing. The vertical emittance depends on the beam-beam tuneshift parameter; for operation in the saturated tuneshift regime, the vertical beam size increases linearly with bunch current. Additionally, there are streak camera observations which show an increase in $`\sigma _z`$ as the bunch current increases. The method described in this paper is aimed at measuring some of these dynamic effects by direct observation of the luminous region.

Note that these measurements are taken over a long time, about four months of CESR and CLEO running, and at many different machine conditions. Thus we expect only rough agreement with the parameters given in Table 1, but we should be sensitive to the dynamic effects discussed above. We expect to observe a larger $`ϵ_y`$ and $`\sigma _z`$, and a smaller $`\beta _y^{}`$ and $`\beta _x^{}`$ than given in Table 1.

Figure 1 shows $`\sigma _y`$ as given by

Equation 3 using the beam parameters given in Table 1. Also shown is the expected longitudinal distribution of luminosity. This is given by

$$\frac{d}{dz}=_0\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(zz_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}})^2}{\sigma _z^2}\right)}{(1+\frac{(zz_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}})^2}{\beta _x^2})^{1/2}(1+\frac{(zz_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}})^2}{\beta _y^2})^{1/2}},$$
(4)
where $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}`$ is the longitudinal position of the bunch-bunch collision. Note the longitudinal distribution of luminosity is expected to significantly depend on $`\beta _y^{}`$, but the $`\beta _x^{}`$ dependence is negligible. This is due to the large size of $`\beta _x^{}`$ as compared to $`\sigma _z`$. Thus we expect a negligible hourglass effect in the horizontal size of the luminous region as a function of longitudinal position. This is also why we consider only one value for $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}}`$ which could, in principle, be different for the horizontal and vertical beta functions.

Our goal is to measure the beam parameters, $`\beta _y^{}`$, $`ϵ_y`$, and incidentally $`\sigma _z`$. We do this with a simultaneous fit to the measured vertical width of the luminous region versus longitudinal position, and the longitudinal distribution of luminosity. The vertical width depends on $`ϵ_y`$, the longitudinal distribution on $`\sigma _z`$ and they both depend on $`\beta _y^{}`$.

CESR has been described in detail elsewhere.  All the data used in this measurement are taken at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collision energy of 10.58 GeV, and with bunch currents in the range of 2.5 to 7.0 mA over a four month period in late 1998 and early 1999. The CLEO detector has also been described in detail elsewhere. All of the data used in this measurement are taken in the CLEO II.V configuration which includes a silicon strip vertex detector which is crucial to the measurement of the luminous region. This consists of three layers of silicon wafers arrayed in an octagonal geometry around the interaction point. The first measurement layer is at a radius of 2.3 cm and the wafers are read out on both sides by strips which are perpendicular to each other. The readout strips have a pitch of about 100$`\mu `$m and with charge sharing the detector has an intrinsic per point resolution of better than 20$`\mu `$m in both the transverse plane and the longitudinal direction

To obtain a resolution of order 10$`\mu `$m on the luminous region, we selected $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events. These are easily selected in CLEO as events with two and only two tracks each with momentum near the beam energy and a small energy deposit in the electromagnetic calorimeter. We chose tracks with 20 or more hits in the main drift chamber, and at least two silicon vertex detector hits in the transverse and longitudinal views. We require that the tracks have opposite charge and that those used for the measurement of the luminous region have at least three silicon vertex detector hits in one of the two views.

We implement a method, called the “box technique,” to obtain measurements of the beam parameters and the resolution. Figure 2

shows how this technique is implemented. First, the size and location of the luminous region are obtained from run average data using hadronic events. A three-dimensional box is then centered about the measured center of the luminous region with sides ten times the measured widths of the luminous region. The average position of a track passing through the box is found. From an ensemble of such positions the size and shape of the luminous region is measured.

Tracks that are parallel to an axis of interest are the most useful for measuring the luminous region. Tracks that are perpendicular to an axis cross the full length of the box in that direction and give no information about the luminous region. We select appropriate tracks by cutting on the direction cosines. Essentially, these cuts are determined by the size of the luminous region, which is roughly 10 $`\mu `$m vertically, 300 $`\mu `$m horizontally, and 10000 $`\mu `$m longitudinally. Thus a tight cut of $`|p_y/p||\mathrm{cos}\theta _y|<0.1`$ is needed to measure the vertical luminous region, a looser cut of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _x|<0.3`$ for horizontal, and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _z|<0.7`$ for longitudinal. For tracks with large $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _z|`$, the resolution degrades, and the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _z|`$ cut of $`0.7`$ is also used on tracks to make vertical and horizontal measures. Because of these direction cosine cuts, a single track can measure, at most, two dimensions.

We tested this method using over 100,000 $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ simulated events. To measure the change in the vertical size of the luminous region as expected from the hourglass effect, a constant vertical resolution is necessary. Thus we made selections in the simulated data to test the stability of the resolution and found significant dependences only on tracks with large values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _z|`$, which are eliminated by the direction cosine cut discussed above, and on the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _y|`$ of the tracks. The $`0.1`$ cut on the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _y|`$ is a compromise between a smaller cut value with improved resolution, and a larger value with increased statistics. Thus the resolution on the vertical luminous region is expected to be $`26.4\pm 0.4\pm 1.5\mu `$m with the first error due to the statistics of the simulation sample and the second due to the sharp dependence on the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _y|`$ cut. This vertical resolution is small enough and there are sufficient data to obtain a statistically useful sample to measure the size of the luminous region at large longitudinal positions. These can be compared with similar measures dominated by the resolution taken at small longitudinal positions. In the analysis, we extract the resolution from the data itself, thus there is no dependence on the prediction from the simulation.

Figure 3 shows the vertical width of the luminous region as a function of its longitudinal position.

This plot clearly shows the vertical distribution growing away from the center. This is evidence of the hourglass effect. We have also repeated this procedure for the horizontal width. We observe a horizontal width of 296 $`\mu `$m and see no significant hourglass effect. These observation both agree with our expectation.

When measuring the longitudinal distribution of luminosity as a function of the longitudinal position, we see a sharp enhancement in the distribution for small values of the longitudinal position. This enhancement is caused by the existence of a non-sensitive region in the center of the detector which greatly diminishes the chance for tracks passing through this region to be accepted for analysis. This geometric effect is accurately modeled in our simulation, and we use it to extract a longitudinal position dependent correction for the longitudinal distribution of luminosity. Applying this efficiency eliminates large systematic effects in our extraction of $`\beta _y^{}`$. The longitudinal distribution of luminosity both before and after the efficiency correction is shown in Figure 4.

To extract the beam parameters, we fit Figure 3 to Equation 3, including resolution smearing. Unfortunately, such a fit does not give a useful measurement of any of the beam parameters, and has nearly 100% correlations among $`\beta _y^{}`$, $`ϵ_y`$, and the resolution. We take advantage of the dependence of the longitudinal distribution of luminosity on $`\beta _y^{}`$ as given in Equation 4, and perform a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to Figures 3 and 4 to Equations 3 and 4. This simultaneous fit gives us an additional constraint on $`\beta _y^{}`$ which breaks the correlations among the parameters.

In this fit we fix the value of $`\beta _x^{}`$ to 417500 $`\mu `$m based on our observation of the horizontal width of the luminous region and the expected $`ϵ_x`$ given in Table 1. The results are not sensitive to the exact value of $`\beta _x^{}`$ used in the fit and change negligibly if $`\beta _x^{}`$ is left to float. If $`\beta _x^{}`$ is left to float the fit returns a value consistent with 417500 $`\mu `$m but with large errors of $`\pm `$500000 $`\mu `$m.

The resolution of the box technique on the longitudinal position of the event production point is better than $`40\mu `$m. This is negligible in comparison with the longitudinal size of the luminous region, which is over one centimeter. In fact, the box technique can be used to make a very high precision measurement of the bunch length, $`\sigma _z`$. As discussed in Reference  the bunch length in CESR is seen to depend on the bunch current and the bunches are asymmetric with their heads being narrower than their tails. Due to the collision of the two bunches this single bunch asymmetry is washed out in the longitudinal distribution of the luminous region. The luminosity distribution would only be distorted away from a Gaussian shape if the single bunch asymmetry were an order of magnitude larger than the observed $`5`$%. If we allow an asymmetry in the luminosity distribution, we observe none with a $`\pm 1`$% accuracy. This also confirms our need for an efficiency correction which takes out a $`1.5`$% asymmetry in the raw data.

We have tested this simultaneous fit procedure with the simulation, and expect that our fit is able to measure the input beam parameters and the resolution. We also derived expectations on the errors and correlations the fit should return based on our data statistics.

Table 2 shows the results of the fit to the data.

From the fit we observe some large correlations. These are between $`\beta _y^{}`$ and $`\sigma _z`$, between $`ϵ_y`$ and the resolution, and between $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}}`$ and $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}`$ These correlations are -88%, -75%, and -85% respectively. They are of the size predicted by our tests on simulated data. All other correlations are smaller than 40% in magnitude..

These are in good agreement with the errors expected from the simulation study, the CESR beam parameters of Table 1, and streak camera observations. Note that we obtain very accurate measures of $`\beta _y^{}`$ and $`\sigma _z`$, along with a resolution from the data consistent with our expectation of $`26.4\pm 1.6\mu `$m from the simulation, but only a 1.4 standard deviation measure of $`ϵ_y`$. The results follow our expectations from the dynamic effects caused by the non-zero bunch current. The value for $`\beta _y^{}`$ is lower than the zero bunch current value, but not as small as the lowest recorded. The value for $`ϵ_y`$ is not measured well enough to make a meaningful test, but it is certainly consistent with an increase. The $`\sigma _z`$ is increased by 6.6% which is consistent with the streak camera observations. The difference between $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}}`$ and $`z_{0\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}`$, $`3740\pm 130\mu `$m, is consistent with known strength differences between the final focus quadrupoles and alignment tolerances between final focus elements and RF cavities which respectively determine the longitudinal position of the beta waist and the center of the bunch collision.

In an attempt to improve the measure of $`ϵ_y`$, we repeat the data fit with the resolution fixed to $`26.4\mu `$m, as predicted by the simulation. This fit does give a slightly improved measurement of $`ϵ_y`$ of $`0.0049\pm 0.0028\mu `$m with the other parameters changing negligibly. When we vary the fixed resolution by $`\pm 1.6\mu `$m as indicated by the simulation studies, this introduces an error of $`\pm 0.0028\mu `$m on $`ϵ_y`$. The combined error of $`\pm 0.0040\mu `$m on $`ϵ_y=0.0049\mu `$m is consistent with, but not a substantial improvement over the results of Table 2. We prefer to quote results for the fit where the resolution is left floating.

We varied the standard fit to test its robustness. We excluded positive $`z`$, negative $`z`$, small $`z`$, and large $`z`$ data from the fit. A $`\chi ^2`$ fit is used rather than a likelihood fit. The only parameters that show significant disagreement with the standard result are $`\beta _y^{}`$ and $`\sigma _z`$. Other facets of the analysis are varied and the procedure is repeated to estimate other systematic effects. Cuts on the direction cosines are varied, $`\pm 0.01`$ on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _y`$ and $`\pm 0.1`$ on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$, we relax the three silicon vertex detector hits in one view to a looser two hit per view requirement, we vary the procedure for applying the efficiency for the luminosity as a function on the longitudinal position, and use the simulation efficiency without errors as an estimate of the effects of our limited simulation statistics. Some of the measured vertical widths are not consistent with their longitudinal neighbors as can be seen in Figure 3. This indicates a systematic error of about two microns in the extraction of the widths with the box method. Including this error has a negligible impact on the results of the fit, increasing the statistical errors by less than 10%. For all these variations, the change in the central values of the beam parameters from the standard procedure is taken as the systematic effect. The combined effects of these variations result in a systematic error of $`\pm 460\mu `$m on $`\beta _y^{}`$, $`\pm 0.0019\mu `$m on $`ϵ_y`$ and $`\pm 200\mu `$m on $`\sigma _z`$.

In conclusion, we use a new box technique to measure the size of the luminous region of CESR at the CLEO interaction region. This new method takes advantage of the hit resolution in the CLEO II.V silicon vertex detector and the well understood CLEO charged particle tracking system in $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events to precisely measure the size of the luminous region. The technique has a resolution of $`25.5\pm 2.0\mu `$m which we extract from a fit to the data. The excellent resolution of the box technique, combined with the large size of the CLEO II.V data set, allows us to make a clear observation of the hourglass effect, the increase in the size of the luminous region away from the focal point. The technique leads to measurement of the CESR beam parameters:

$`\beta _y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(15700\pm 140\pm 460)\mu \mathrm{m},`$ (5)
$`ϵ_y`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0060\pm 0.0045\pm 0.0019)\mu \mathrm{m},`$ (6)
$`\sigma _z`$ $`=`$ $`(19290\pm 40\pm 200)\mu \mathrm{m}.`$ (7)
where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic, in a simultaneous fit of the vertical width of the luminous region as a function of the longitudinal position and of the longitudinal distribution of the luminosity. Note that these measurements imply that the vertical width of the CESR beam at the CLEO collision point is $`6.9\pm 2.8\mu `$m. These measurement are in good agreement with the expectations of the theoretical CESR lattice taking into account the dynamic effects caused by the non-zero bunch current. This technique provides a non-invasive way to measure beam parameters at the collision point, but it requires the comparatively rare $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events and a well understood detector tracking system.


format: text

text:
# Recent results from the canfranc dark matter search with germanium detectors

## 1 Introduction

Substantial evidence exists suggesting most matter in the universe is dark, and there are compelling reasons to believe it consists mainly of non-baryonic particles. Among these candidates, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) and Axions are among the front runners. The lightest stable particles of supersymmetric theories, like the neutralino, describe a particular class of WIMPs.

Direct detection of WIMPs rely on the measurement of their elastic scattering off target nuclei in a suitable detector. Slow moving ($`300`$ km/s) and heavy ($`1010^3`$ GeV) galactic halo WIMPs could make a Ge nucleus recoil with a few keV, at a rate which depends on the type of WIMP and interaction. Ultra–low background detectors with very low energy thresholds are needed for such purpose. Germanium detectors have reached one of the lowest background levels of any type of detector and have a reasonable ionization yield($`0.25`$). Thus, with sufficiently low energy thresholds, they are attractive devices for WIMP direct detection. In addition, solar axions can also been searched  with these crystal detectors by looking for the Primakov conversion into photons and Bragg diffraction.

Two experiments with germanium detectors are currently running at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory: IGEX-DM and COSME-2. Data obtained with both experiments are presented in this work, as well as the WIMP exclusions obtained from the analysis of both sets of data. COSME data has also been analyzed looking for the solar axion signal mentioned above.

## 2 COSME-2 and IGEX-DM experiments

The IGEX experiment, optimized for detecting 76Ge double-beta decay, has been described in detail in refs.. The IGEX detectors are now also being used in the search for WIMPs interacting coherently with germanium nuclei. The COSME detector, which has already been used in the past for dark matter searhces, is now operating in the same shield that IGEX at a deeper location in Canfranc. Details about the features of the detectors as well as the techniques used in their construction can be found in the literature .

The IGEX detector used for dark matter searches, designated RG-II, has an active mass of $`2.0`$ kg. The full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) energy resolution of RG-II was 0.8 keV at the 75-keV Pb X-ray. The COSME detector has an active mass of 234 g and its FWHM energy resolution is 0.43 keV at the 10.37 keV gallium X-ray. Energy calibration and resolution measurements were made every 7–10 days using the lines of 22Na extrapolating to the low energy region using the X-ray lines of Pb.

The detectors shielding is as follows, from inside to outside. The innermost shield consists of 2.5 tons of 2000-year-old archaeological lead (210Pb $`<`$ 10 mBq/kg) forming a 60-cm cube. The detectors fit into precision-machined holes in this central core, which minimizes the empty space around the detectors available to radon. Nitrogen gas, at a rate of 140 l/hour, evaporating from liquid nitrogen, is forced into the detector chambers to create a positive pressure and further minimize radon intrusion. The archaeological lead block hosting the detectors is, at its turn, surrounded by bricks ($`10`$ tons) of low activity lead (210Pb $`<`$ 30 Bq/kg) forming a total cube of 1 m side. A minimum of 15 cm of archaeological lead separates the detectors from the outer lead shield. A 2-mm-thick cadmium sheet surrounds the main lead shield, and two layers of plastic seal this central assembly against radon intrusion. A cosmic muon veto consisting of plastic scintillators covers the top and sides of the central core, except where the detector Dewars are located. An external polyethylene neutron moderator 20 cm thick (1.5 tons) completes the shield. The entire shield is supported by an iron structure resting on noise-isolation blocks. The experiment is located in a room isolated from the rest of the laboratory and has an overburden of 2450 m.w.e., which reduces the measured muon flux to $`2\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

## 3 WIMP exclusion plot

The results presented in this talk correspond to 30 days (60 kg-d) of data obtained with the IGEX RG-II detector as well as 311 days (73 kg-d) obtained with COSME detector. Both spectra are plotted in figure 1. The COSME spectrum shows a threshold of 2.5 keV and a low energy background (2.5 – 10 keV) of 0.7 c/(keV-kg-day). On the other hand, the detector RG-II features an energy threshold of 4 keV and the background rate recorded was $`0.37`$ c/(keV-kg-day) between 4–10 keV, $`0.12`$ c/(keV-kg-day) between 10–20 keV, and $`0.05`$ c/(keV-kg-day) between 20–40 keV.

The exclusion plots are derived from the recorded spectrum in one-keV bins from threshold to 50 keV. The predicted signal in an energy bin is required to be less than or equal to the (90% C.L.) upper limit of the (Poisson) recorded counts. The derivation of the interaction rate signal supposes that the WIMPs form an isotropic, isothermal, non-rotating halo of density $`\rho =0.3`$ GeV/cm3, have a Maxwellian velocity distribution with $`\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{rms}}=270`$ km/s (with an upper cut corresponding to an escape velocity of 650 km/s), and have a relative Earth-halo velocity of $`\mathrm{v}_\mathrm{r}=230`$ km/s. The cross sections are normalized to the nucleon, assuming a dominant scalar interaction. The Helm parameterization is used for the scalar nucleon form factor, and the ionization yield used is 0.25. The exclusion plots derived from the IGEX-DM (RG-II) and COSME data are shown in Fig. 2. In particular, IGEX results exclude WIMP-nucleon cross-sections above $`1.3\times 10^8`$ nb for masses corresponding to the 50 GeV DAMA region. Also shown is the combined germanium contour, including the last Heidelberg-Moscow data (recalculated from the original energy spectra with the same set of hypotheses and parameters, but with a suitable ionization yield), the DAMA experiment contour plot derived from Pulse Shape Discriminated spectra, and the DAMA region corresponding to their reported annual modulation effect. The IGEX-DM exclusion contour improves sizably on that of other germanium ionisation experiments for masses corresponding to that of the neutralino tentatively assigned to the DAMA modulation effect and results from using only unmanipulated data.

Based on present IGEX-DM performance and reduction of the background to $`0.1`$ c/(keV-kg-day) between 4–10 keV, Fig. 2 shows also the projection of IGEX for 1 kg-y of exposure.

## 4 Limit on axion-photon coupling

Crystal detectors provide a simple mechanism for solar axion detection . Axions can pass in the proximity of the atomic nuclei of the crystal where the intense electric field can trigger their conversion into photons. In the process the energy of the outgoing photon is equal to that of the incoming axion. The axion production rate in the Sun –through Primakoff conversion of the blackbody photons in the solar plasma– can be easily estimated  within the standard solar model, resulting in an axion flux of average energy of about 4 keV that can produce detectable X-rays in a crystal detector. Depending on the direction of the incoming axion flux with respect to the planes of the crystal lattice, a coherent effect can be produced when the inverse momentum transfer equals the distance between crystal planes (Bragg condition), leading so to a strong enhancement of the signal. A correlation of the expected rate with the position of the Sun in the sky follows providing a distinctive signature of the axion which can be used, at the least, to improve the signal/backgroung ratio.

A suitable statistical analysis  to look for this signature in the COSME data has been applied, and the negative result leads to a limit on the axion-photon coupling $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }<2.8\times 10^9`$ GeV-1 practically equal to the one obtained by the SOLAX  Collaboration which is the (mass independent but solar model dependent) most stringent laboratory bound for the axion-photon coupling obtained so far for axion masses above 0.26 eV. Below this mass value a recent result from a magnet telescope (the Tokyo helioscope) improves a factor 3-5 the $`g_{a\gamma \gamma }`$ COSME and SOLAX bounds.

## Acknowledgements

The IGEX results presented here have been obtained in collaborative research with I.V. Kirpichnikov, S.B. Osetrov, A.A. Klimenko, A.A. Smolnikov, A.A. Vasenko, S.I. Vasiliev, V.S. Pogosov and A.G. Tamanyan, which have not participated, however, in the COSME WIMP and axion searches. We thank them for allowing the use of IGEX data already published in the open scientific literature .


text:
# Finite size scaling analysis of compact QED

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The determination of the order of phase transitions is of high importance for lattice field theories. For it requires higher than first-order phase transitions to make contact between lattice and continuum physics.

In compact quantum electrodynamics (QED) with Wilson action the order of the transition between the confined and Coulomb phases has been under debate for many years. On the scale of accessible lattice sizes the correlation length is large, but the system exhibits a definite two-peak structure.

In a recent high statistics investigation the latent heat appeared to decrease with the lattice size $`L`$, with a critical exponent $`\nu `$ being neither 0.25 (first order) nor $`0.5`$ (trivially second order), with significant subasymptotic contributions at the studied values of $`L12`$. These findings allow for two scenarios:

1. The observed double peak structure is a finite size effect and vanishes in the thermodynamic limit. The signature of a second-order phase transition would eventually emerge at some $`L_012`$.
2. The phase transition is weakly first-order, i. e., the correlation length $`\xi `$ remains finite, yet large in terms of lattice extensions accessible today; this would fake, on small lattices, the signature of a second-order transition, since the true value of the latent heat would be revealed only in the regime $`L>\xi `$ .

For a class of spin models with strong first-order phase transitions finite size scaling theory has become amenable to quantitive studies through the work of Borgs and Kotecky. There the finite volume partition function at temperature $`\beta `$ in finite volumes with periodic boundary conditions (neglecting interfacial contributions) has the remarkably simple form

$$Z=[e^{Vf_1(\beta )}+e^{Vf_2(\beta )+\mathrm{ln}(X)}].$$
(1)
The functions $`f_1(\beta )`$ and $`f_2(\beta )`$ denote bulk free energy densities in the two coexisting phases 1 and 2. $`X`$ denotes the asymmetry parameter which is nothing but the relative phase weight in the probability distribution $`P(E)`$.

In Ref. the Borgs-Kotecky ansatz has been extended in a heuristic manner to the 3d 3-state Potts model undergoing a weakly first-order phase transition; in this instance detailed consistency checks have been carried out in order to verify the viability of the Borgs-Kotecky approach. Motivated by this success we shall apply in the following this ansatz to compact QED lattice gauge theory.

## 2 SIMULATION DETAILS

We consider 4d pure U(1) gauge theory with standard Wilson action

$$S=\beta \underset{n,\nu >\mu }{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mu \nu }(n)),$$
(2)
where $`\beta `$ denotes the Wilson coupling and $`\theta _{\mu \nu }(n)`$ the plaquette angle. We use a cubic lattice of volume $`V=L^4`$ with periodic boundary conditions.

We have implemented three different algorithms for generating the U(1) gauge field configurations: (a) a local Metropolis (MRS), updating each link separately, (b) a global hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm (HMC) and (c) a combination of the multicanonical and the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm (MHMC). For details we refer to Refs. . Each update of the complete lattice is followed by 3 reflection steps to reduce correlation of successive configurations. The number of generated configurations at each lattice size $`L`$ is $`2.5\times 10^6`$. We additionally measure the number of tunneling events (flips) as control parameter for the mobility of the algorithms.

Our simulation parameters and the statistics achieved are listed in Table 1. As the runs differing by algorithm, HMC parameters or by weight function are independent we do not recombine them into one multihistogram. Rather we treat them separately.

## 3 MEASUREMENTS

Based on the plaquette operator

$$E=\frac{1}{6V}\underset{n,\nu >\mu }{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mu \nu }(n)).$$
(3)
we consider the following cumulants:

$`C_v(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`6\beta ^2V\left(E^2E^2\right),`$ (4)
$`U_2(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{E^2}},`$ (5)
$`U_4(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{E^4}{E^2^2}}\right).`$ (6)
The locations $`(\beta _c,C_{v,max})`$ and $`(\beta _c,U_{i,min})`$ of their extrema are determined by reweighting the measured probability distribution $`P(E)`$ to different couplings $`\beta `$ (see Fig 1). To calculate the estimates of our cumulants at each lattice size $`L`$ we proceed in two steps: i) determine the error of each individual run performing a jackknife error analysis by subdivision of the run into ten blocks; ii) calculate the final result by $`\chi ^2`$-fitting these individual run results to a constant. The $`L`$-dependence of the latter is quoted in Table 2 and 3.

## 4 FINITE SIZE SCALING ANALYSIS

Under the assumption that the phase transition is discontinuous, the Borgs-Kotecky representation of the partition function suggests, that both, the maxima of the specific heat $`C_{v,max}`$ and the pseudocritical $`\beta `$-values can be expanded in terms of th in the inverse volume,

$$\frac{C_{v,max}(V)}{6V}=\frac{1}{4}G^2+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_kV^k$$
(7)
and

$$\beta _c(V)=\beta _T+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_kV^k.$$
(8)
The quantity $`G`$ stands for the infinite volume gap in the plaquette energy and $`\beta _T`$ denotes the infinite volume transition point of the system. We fit our data for $`C_{v,max}`$ and $`\beta _c`$ (given in Table 2) to the parameterizations, Eq. 7 and 8.

In order to expose systematic effects in the fit parameter $`G`$, we vary the fit range with various ranges $`L_{min}L18`$ as well as the truncation parameter $`k_{max}`$. The results in $`G`$ are given in Table 4. It is possible to apply the parameterization of Eq. 7 down to $`L_{min}=6`$ if one increases $`k_{max}`$ such that one degree of freedom remains. It is nice to see that results with $`\chi _{dof}^2<1`$ are completely consistent.

To illustrate the fit stability we additionally included the lowest expansion coefficients $`A_1`$ into Table 4. Note that here again $`\chi _{dof}^2<1`$ results exhibit complete stability.

The observed stability pattern supports the validity of the $`V^1`$-expansion. This corroborates the previous analysis  on lattices up to $`L=12`$.

As our final result for the infinite volume gap we obtain

$$G=0.02698(18)(17).$$
(9)
We proceed similarly in fitting the pseudocritical coupling $`\beta _T`$, Eq. 8, with results given in Table 5. From our analysis of $`C_v`$ we obtain the critical Wilson coupling $`\beta _T=1.011122(10)(8)`$.

As a further consistency check we analyze in addition the cumulants $`U_2`$ and $`U_4`$ with parameterizations analogous to Eq. 8.

All three estimates (see Table 6) are in complete agreement within their statistical errors. We view this as a confirmation of the validity of Borgs-Kotecky FSS as applied to compact QED. As final we quote the average of the values given in Table 6.

$$\beta _T=1.011128(11).$$
(10)
It remains to be seen whether our data exclude the possibility of a continuous singular behaviour with a vanishing infinite volume gap. Under this alternative assumption one expects the asymptotic scaling laws

$$C_{v,max}(L)=C_1L^{\frac{2}{\nu }8}$$
(11)
and

$$\beta _c(L)=\beta _T+aL^{\frac{1}{\nu }}.$$
(12)
Here $`\nu `$ denotes the critical exponent of the correlation length as hyperscaling is assumed.

Our data clearly disfavour the validity of Eq. 11 for any range of $`L`$-values. For Eq. 12 however we find the fit parameters as quoted in Table 7.

Note that fit stability cannot be reached under variation of the fit intervals $`L_{min}L18`$, neither in $`\beta _T`$ nor in $`\nu `$. However it cannot be excluded, that corrections to scaling could lead to stable fits also in this scenario.

## 5 DIRECT APPROACH TO LATENT HEAT

Having determined $`\beta _T`$ very accurately within Borgs-Kotecky FSS theory we are now in the position to make a ’direct’ measurement of the latent heat based on our determination of $`\beta _T`$ . Using the conventional canonical algorithm we generate $`O(10^5)`$ configurations of each metastable phase simulating systems of size $`L=6,8,\mathrm{},24,28,32`$ at $`\beta _T`$ as given in Eq. 10 and locate the positions of the energy peaks in the confined and Coulomb phase denoted by $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$. As shown in Fig. 2 we fit our data for each phase separately to a Gaussian of the form $`a\mathrm{exp}(b(EE_i)^2)`$. Note that one cannot extract the relative phase weight from Fig. 2, because it depicts the probability distributions $`P_i(E)`$ of two independent runs $`i=1,2`$ without any flip.

Fig. 3 shows these peak positions $`E_i(L)`$ as a function of lattice size $`L`$. It is a prediction of the Borgs-Kotecky scheme that they deviate from their infinite volume value $`E_i(\mathrm{})`$ by exponentially small terms only. Accordingly we fit both branches to

$$E_i(L)=E_i(\mathrm{})+a_ie^{b_iL},$$
(13)
achieving high fit quality with $`\chi _{dof,1}^2=0.40`$ and $`\chi _{dof,2}^2=0.58`$. Fig. 4 illustrates the data and the fitted branches on an expanded energy scale. Due to the wider distributed peak of the confinement phase the errors of the lower branch $`E_1(L)`$ are larger than in case of $`E_2(L)`$.

With the fit results $`E_i(\mathrm{})`$ we are in the position to present a high precision measurement of the infinite volume energy gap,

$$\widehat{G}=E_2(\mathrm{})E_1(\mathrm{})=0.02667(20).$$
(14)
The estimate obtained from first-order scaling of the specific heat as given in Eq. 9 is in agreement with this result. This presents a further support to the applicability of Borgs-Kotecky FSS to U(1) gauge theory.

## 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

All cumulants investigated in our high statistics analysis at $`L=6,8,10,12,14,16,18`$ are in accord with Borgs Kotecky first-order FSS. Our data does not favour second-order FSS as indicated by large $`\chi ^2`$ and lacking convergence of the critical exponent $`\nu `$. Within the framework of Borgs-Kotecky we determined the infinite volume transition coupling with a relative error of the order of $`10^5`$. A direct investigation of the latent heat at $`\beta _T`$ for system sizes up to $`L=32`$ yields a non-vanishing infinite volume energy gap $`\widehat{G}`$ with an error of 1%. The systematic error of the energy gap due to the error of $`\beta _T`$ is of the same order as its statistical error. The gap $`G=0.02698(18)(17)`$ extracted from first-order FSS of the specific heat is in agreement with the direct measurement of $`\widehat{G}`$.

The material presented here is a progress report. In a forthcoming paper we shall elaborate further on systematic effects.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was done with support from the DFG Graduiertenkolleg ”Feldtheoretische und Numerische Methoden in der Statistischen und Elementarteilchenphysik”. The computations have been done on a Connection Machine CM5 at the university of Erlangen, a Cray T3E at the research center of Juelich and the cluster computer ALiCE at the university of Wuppertal.


text:
# Results from Microlensing Searches for Extrasolar Planets

## 1. Introduction

The first detection of an extrasolar planet around a normal star (Mayor & Queloz 1995) and subsequent deluge of similar discoveries by the radial velocity technique (Marcy, Cochran & Mayor 2000), have taught us that $``$5% of solar type stars harbor planetary systems very unlike our own. What remains to be determined is the abundance of planetary systems similar to that of the Sun’s (eg., terrestrial planets at $``$0.5-2 AU or Jovian analogs at $``$3-12 AU) and the frequency of planets around the most common stars in our Galaxy, M dwarfs. Microlensing is providing the first partial answers to these questions.

## 2. Galactic Planetary Systems As Multiple Microlenses

Microlensing occurs whenever a massive compact object (such as a star, black hole, etc.) passes very near the line-of-sight to a background luminous source. In the case of a single point lens, two images of the source are formed with a separation that scales with the angular radius of the Einstein ring, $`\theta _\mathrm{E}[4GM(1x)/(c^2D_L)]^{1/2}`$, where $`xD_L/D_S`$, and $`M`$, $`D_L`$, and $`D_S`$ are the mass of the lens, its distance, and the distance to the source, respectively. For sources in the Galactic bulge, this separation is $``$1 mas, and thus generally too close to be resolved. The combined image brightness, however, can be observed and is a function of the changing projected distance between the lens and the observer-source line-of-sight. As the source moves through the axisymmetric magnification pattern generated by a single lens, a symmetric light curve results.

This symmetry is destroyed for multiple lenses such as binary star systems or planetary systems. More complicated magnification patterns are formed, and the resulting light curve depends on the angle $`\varphi `$ of the source trajectory. For binary lenses, the topology of the magnification map (Fig. 1) depends on only two parameters: the mass ratio $`qm_1/m_2`$ of the lenses and their projected separation $`da_p/R_\mathrm{E}=a_p/(D_L\theta _\mathrm{E})`$ in units of the Einstein ring radius. For typical Galactic lenses, M dwarfs in the bulge or inner disk, the physical size of the Einstein radius is $`R_\mathrm{E}23`$ AU. Because typical $`R_E`$ are comparable to the orbital radius of many Solar System planets, microlensing is an excellent way to search for planets, as first suggested by Mao & Paczynśki (1991) and further developed by Gould & Loeb (1992).

Figure 1 shows the differential magnification effect of binary lenses as a function of their mass ratio $`q`$ and separation $`d`$. Each panel covers an area $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ on a side centered on the more massive primary lens. The brightness of an image is proportional to $`|detJ|^1`$, where $`J`$ is the Jacobian that describes the coordinate transformation between the image and source planes. The locus of points in the source plane for which $`|detJ|=0`$ is called the “caustic curve.” A source crossing the caustic will be highly magnified.

Since most microlensing events are alerted in real time only when the source lies near or inside $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, a light curve will reveal the binarity of the lens (via an anomaly $`>1\%`$) only if the source trajectory passes over the contours shown in Fig 1. Otherwise, the light curve will be indistinguishable from that due to a single isolated lens. Figure 2 illustrates this effect; two possible source trajectories are shown passing the same distance from the “central” caustic, but different distances from the two, outer “planetary” caustics (all three caustics are caused by the lens-planet combination). The light curve associated with only one of these trajectories betrays the presence of the planet. Since the deviation contours are most extended for $`q`$ and $`d`$ of order unity (Fig. 1), these types of binary lenses will be the easiest to detect.

### 2.1. Sensitivities vs Efficiencies

Even planets as small as the Earth generate caustic structures as they orbit Galactic lenses; background sources passing over or near these caustics will experience a substantial additional microlensing effect due to the binarity of the lens. The cross section of the planetary caustic and thus the probability that a random trajectory will pass over or near it decreases slowly with mass ratio (Dominik 1999). For this reason, microlensing — unlike most other planet detection methods — has sensitivity to terrestrial-mass planets. This sensitivity is limited primarily by the sampling rate and precision of the photometry required to see signals that are reduced in amplitude by finite source effects for $`q10^4`$. The efficiency with which planets of given $`q`$ and $`d`$ can be detected in a given light curve is a statistical quantity that depends on the photometric precision, sampling and duration of the photometric data and on the characteristics of the underlying event sampled, most notably its minimum impact parameter, $`u_o`$, and the amount of blended non-lensed light in the same resolution element (Gaudi & Sackett 2000). Determination of detection efficiencies for individual light curves allows non-detections to be translated into statistical upper limits for a given class of planet.

### 2.2. Detection vs Characterization

In principle, the detection of a microlensing anomaly can be quantified statistically, but its clear identification with a planetary lens relies on the characterization of the planet through determination of $`q`$ and $`d`$. Since any given event will not repeat, characterization must be obtained at the time of detection, and will require better data. With sufficient data quality, both $`d`$ and $`q`$ can be determined from light curve modeling, although in some cases the well-known $`dd^1`$ “degeneracy” (Griest & Safizadeh 1998; Dominik 1999) will prevent a unique identification. High magnification events are sensitive and reasonably efficient to the detection of small mass planets since their small $`u_o`$ brings them close to the central caustic generated by companions (Griest & Safizadeh 1998). Unfortunately, such detections may be particularly difficult to characterize, since all planets orbiting the primary lens will distort the central caustic (Gaudi, Naber & Sackett 1998); more massive ones will have an effect over a larger range of $`d`$. Di Stefano and Scalzo (1999) point out that current programs typically halt intensive monitoring when $`u1`$; extended high-precision monitoring may detect and characterize planets at larger separation from their host lenses.

## 3. Have Exoplanets been Discovered with Microlensing?

Of 21 light curves consistent with binary lenses analyzed by MACHO, two produced acceptable fits with companion masses as small $`0.05M_{}`$ (Alcock et al. 2000). The first suggestion of possible planetary-mass lenses (Bennett et al. 1997) came from MACHO survey data for MACHO 1994-BLG-4, which could be modelled as an M-dwarf/5$`M_J`$ pair, and MACHO 1995-BLG-3, a very short duration event modelled as an isolated 2$`M_J`$ lens. However, many alternate interpretations were allowed by the infrequently sampled light curves inherent to survey data (which must sample $``$$`10^6`$ stars nightly!); no firm planetary detection was claimed in either case.

The timescale $`t_\mathrm{E}=\theta _\mathrm{E}/\mu `$ ($`\mu `$ is the relative proper motion of lens and source) of typical Galactic microlensing events is weeks to months; whereas planetary ($`q0.01`$) anomalies would have durations of hours to days. The necessity of round-the-clock monitoring for detection and characterization of short-lived planetary deviations prompted the establishment of international collaborations such as MPS (Rhie et al. 2000) and PLANET (Albrow et al. 1998), which obtain sub-day to sub-hourly photometry on events discovered by the survey teams MACHO, OGLE and EROS. Although tantalizing hints have been seen in some light curves (see below), no clear planetary anomaly has been detected.

MACHO 1997-BLG-41:  The very unusual event MACHO 1997-BLG-41 caused a stir in the community: although clearly multiple lens microlensing, static stellar binary models did not fit the data. Bennett et al. (1999) interpreted the double caustic structure as coming from a static triple system, a Jovian planet orbiting a stellar binary. The PLANET team, modeling their own data, instead showed that the light curve could be fit as a normal stellar binary (Albrow et al. 2000a) whose rotation brings one of the triangular caustics across the source trajectory (Fig. 3). The proposed binary+Jovian model was incompatible with PLANET data.

OGLE 2000-BUL-12:  Recently, Yock et al. (2000) have suggested that a planet may be orbiting the primary lens of event OGLE 2000-BUL-12, based on analysis of public domain OGLE data (Udalski & Szymanski 2000) that displayed a possible anomaly at peak. Unpublished PLANET team data indicates no anomaly and much smaller scatter at the same temporal position (Fig. 4).

MACHO 1998-BLG-35:  Although ruling out a large class of high-mass planets orbiting the lens of MACHO 1998-BLG-35 (§4.1), the MPS and MOA groups (Rhie et al. 2000) noticed a weak anomaly near the peak of this high amplification event that they interpreted as intriguing evidence of a low-mass companion with $`4\times 10^5<q<2\times 10^4`$. The signal fell below the formal MPS/MOA detection limit. PLANET team data for this event did not confirm this detection; the PLANET light curve was consistent with an isolated point lens (Albrow et al. 2000c).

## 4. Limits on the Abundance of Jovian Planets in the Galaxy

Current microlensing planet searches have appreciable efficiency for the detection of companions with mass ratio $`q10^4`$, ie., planets with masses of order $`m_p0.1M_J`$. The lack of detected perturbations consistent with planets in this mass range allows constraints to be placed on the abundance of Jovian analogs around typical stars (ie, lenses) in the Milky Way.

The first published exclusion diagram (Fig. 5) for companions in an individual lensing system was presented by the MPS/MOA collaborations for MACHO 98-BLG-35 (Rhie et al. 2000). Due to the high amplification of this event, the source would have passed very near any (central) caustic structure due to massive companions. Since no anomaly consistent with Jovian-mass companions was seen, exclusion contours could be derived as a function of $`q`$ and $`d`$ for this lensing system (Fig. 5). The PLANET collaboration performed a similar analysis for another high amplification event, OGLE 1998-BUL-14 (Albrow et al. 1999b). When converted to parameters appropriate to a solar-type lens in the bulge and averaged over all orbital inclinations, the exclusion contours for Jovian and super-Jovian planets in the OGLE 1998-BUL-14 overlap the region of parameter space inhabited by current planet detections by the radial velocity technique (Fig. 5). For the most part, however, microlensing is sensitive planets at larger orbital radii (1-10 AU) than is the Doppler technique.

Based on 43 microlensing events collected from five years of photometric observations, the PLANET team has recently announced constraints on the abundance of Jovian and super-Jovian planets orbiting typical stars (ie., lenses) in the Galaxy (Gaudi 2000, Albrow et al. 2000c). No clear planetary anomalies were observed in these 43 events, implying that less than one-third of $``$0.3 M stars have Jovian-mass companions with semi-major axes in the range 1.5 AU$`<a<`$4 AU (Fig. 6). Weaker limits are placed on the existence of Jovian planets orbiting in the range 1 AU$`<a<`$7 AU. These are the first constraints on exoplanets orbiting the most common of Galactic stars: M-dwarfs.

## 5. Prospects for the Future

As with all techniques, microlensing has advantages and disadvantages. In the cadre of exoplanet search techniques, it offers the opportunity to detect and characterize Jovian planets at large orbital radius (1-10 AU) without waiting for one or more orbital periods. Currently, it also has more sensitivity to Neptune-mass planets than any other ground-based search technique. In the future, this sensitivity may be enhanced and extended with new facilities on the ground (Peale 1997, Sackett 1997) and in space (Rhie, this conference). Several challenges must be overcome to detect and characterize Earth-mass planets with reasonable efficiency, including the diluting effect of finite source size on the magnification gradient due to small caustics (Bennett & Rhie 1996, Gaudi & Sackett 2000).

Currently, the mass ratio (but not the mass) and the projected separation in units of $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ (but not in AU) of a lensing planet can be determined from an anomaly. More information may be forthcoming in the future. Large-aperture spectroscopy of an event may yield spectroscopic identification of the faint primary lens against the sea of source star light (Mao, Reetz & Lennon 1998), thereby allowing the mass of the primary and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ to be estimated. Measurement of the photometric centroid motion due to the changing position and brightness of the microimages (astrometric microlensing), could yield the mass of the lens (Dominik & Sahu 2000, Han 2000, Gould & Han 2000), and a more robust determination of planetary parameters (Safizadeh, Dalal & Griest 1999).

#### Acknowledgments.

I am grateful to my PLANET colleagues for permission to display unpublished data for OGLE 2000-BUL-12.

## References

Albrow, M.D., et al. 2000a, ApJ, 534, 894

Albrow, M.D., et al. 2000b, ApJ, 535, 176

Albrow, M.D., et al. 2000c, ApJ Letters, submitted (astro-ph/0008078)

Alcock, C. et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 270

Bennett, D.P. & Rhie, S.H. 1996, 472, 660

Bennett, D.P., et al. 1997, ASP Conf. Prof. 119, 95 (astro-ph/9612208)

Bennett, D.P., et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 57

Di Stefano, R., & Scalzo 1999, ApJ, 512, 579

Dominik, M., 1999, A&A, 349, 108

Dominik, M., & Sahu, K. 2000, ApJ, 534, 213

Gaudi, B.S. 2000, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University

Gaudi, B.S., Naber & Sackett, 1998, ApJ Letters, 502L, 33

Gaudi, B.S., & Sackett, P.D. 2000, ApJ, 528, 56

Gould, A., & Han, C. 2000, ApJ, 538, 653

Gould, A., & Loeb, A. 1992, ApJ, 396, 104

Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, ApJ, 500, 37

Han, C., in A New Era of Microlensing Astrophysics, ASP Conf. Series, eds. Menzies & Sackett, in press (astro-ph/0003369)

Marcy, G., Cochran, W.D. & Mayor, M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. Mannings, Boss & Russell (U. of Arizona Press: Tucson) p. 1285

Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

Mao, S. & Paczynśki, B. 1991, ApJ Letters, 374L, 37

Mao, S., Reetz, J., & Lennon, D.J. 1998, A&A, 338, 56

Peale, S. 1997, Icarus, 127, 269

Rhie, S.H. et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 378

Sackett, P.D. 1997, ESO Document: SPG-VLTI-97/002 (astro-ph/9709269)

Safizadeh, N., Dalal, N. & Griest, K. 1999, ApJ, 522, 512

Udalski, A. & Szymanski, M. 2000, http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/ ftp/ogle/ogle2/ews/ews.html


text:
# Hybrid Pixel Detector Development for the Linear Collider Vertex Tracker

## 1 Introduction

The physics programme at future high energy linear colliders, designed to deliver $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at centre-of mass energies $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 0.3 - 3 TeV with luminosities in excess to $`10^{34}`$ cm-2 s-1, largely relies on the ability to identify the flavour of final state fermions with high efficiency and purity challenges . This task must be accomplished in a challenging environment due to the large track density from highly collimated hadronic jets and the accelerator induced backgrounds. The estimated track density, $``$ 1 hit mm-2, requires the adoption of pixel detector technology. The target performance for the resolution on the track impact parameter, defined as the distance of closest approach to the $`e^+e^{}`$ collision point, has been obtained from detailed studies of jet tagging performances in a variety of physics reactions. These results indicate that a resolution of 5 $`\mu `$m $``$ 15 $`\mu `$m / $`p_t`$ (GeV/c), or better, has to be achieved. Several conceptual designs have been proposed so far, relying on three alternative sensor technologies: Charge Coupled Devices (CCD) ccd , Hybrid Pixels vertex99  and Monolithic CMOS sensors cmos . This paper summarises recent results on the development of hybrid pixel sensors for the future linear collider applications.

## 2 Hybrid Pixel Sensor Design

Hybrid pixel sensors, pioneered in fixed target and LEP experiments and further developed for their application in the LHC Vertex Detectors, have several features of interest for application in the linear collider Vertex Tracker. Fast time-stamping capabilities and sparse data scan read-out allow to minimise the effect of beam backgrounds, while their radiation hardness ensures a significant safety margin compared to the anticipated neutron fluence in the linear collider interaction region. At present, their main limitation comes from the achievable single point resolution. A resolution $`<10\mu `$m, required to match the needed impact parameter accuracy, can be obtained by sampling the diffusion of the carriers generated along the particle path and adopting an analog read-out to interpolate the signals of neighbouring cells. Since the charge diffusion r.m.s. in 300 $`\mu `$m thick silicon is $``$ 8 $`\mu `$m, its efficient sampling requires a pixel pitch below 50 $`\mu `$m. As the most advanced read-out electronics have a cell dimension of 50 $`\times `$ 300 $`\mu `$m2, this represents the present limit to the pixel pitch. Future developments in deep sub-micron VLSI vlsi  may help overcoming this limit. However it is interesting to independently explore sensor designs improving the pixel sensor performances in terms of single point resolution.

The proposed pixel detector design exploits a layout, already successfully adopted in Silicon microstrip detectors, where only one-out-of-$`n`$ implants is read-out. In such a configuration, charge carriers generated underneath one of the interleaved pixel cells induce a signal on the capacitively coupled read-out pixels. The ratio of the signal amplitudes at the left- and right-hand side of the read-out pixels is proportional to the distance of the position of crossing of the particle from the read-out node. In this design the sampling of the charge carrier distribution is achieved by the implant pitch and the analog cell size has to fit the wider read-out pitch. The ratio between the inter-pixel, $`C_{ip}`$, and the pixel-to-backplane, $`C_{bp}`$, capacitances defines the signal amplitude reduction by charge loss to the backplane. This signal reduction and the two track separation performances limit the number $`n`$ of interleaved pixels.

## 3 Hybrid Pixel Sensor Tests

Prototypes of detectors with interleaved pixels have been designed and manufactured sitges . Thirty-six test structures have been fit on a 4$`^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ wafer, consisting of detectors with 0 to 3 interleaved pixels defining a VLSI cell size of either 200 $`\times `$ 200 $`\mu `$m2 or 300 $`\times `$ 300 $`\mu `$m2. The structures have been characterised by electrostatic tests. About half of the tested structures exhibit a leakage current of 10 nA/cm2, or less, at full depletion and a breakdown point well beyond the full depletion voltage. The inter-pixel and backplane capacitances, crucial to determine the feasibility of the proposed sensor layout, have been directly measured on different structures and the results compared to a numerical estimate obtained by solving the Laplace equation inside a 5$`\times `$5 pixel matrix with a finite element analysis package opera . The results have been found to be in fairly good agreement. The computed values for the single pixel capacitance are summarised in Table 1.

From these values, the charge loss to backplane has been estimated to be $``$ 50% for the geometries adopted in the present test structures, thus allowing an effective signal interpolation.

The charge collection properties of the test sensors have been directly studied by shining an infrared diode spot on the backplane of a structure with 60 $`\mu `$m implant width, 100 $`\mu `$m implant pitch and 200 $`\mu `$m read-out pitch. At the diode wavelength of $`\lambda `$ = 880 nm, the penetration depth in the silicon substrate corresponds to 10 $`\mu `$m. The IR light has been focused to a spot size of $``$ 80 $`\mu `$m and its position parallel to the detector plane controlled by a 2-D stage allowing to scan the pixel array with micro-metric accuracy parallel and orthogonal to the pixel rows. A matrix of 4 $`\times `$ 7 read-out pixels has been wire-bonded to a VA-1 chip. For each spot position, 1000 events have been recorded. The common mode, pedestal and noise calculation has been initialised for the first 300 events. In the subsequent events light was injected every 10 events, allowing for continuous pedestal tracking. Because of the limited data volume, no on-line suppression has been applied and the data reduction and cluster search has been performed off-line. Results have been averaged over the 70 recorded light pulses. Figure 1 shows the recorded pulse height as a function of the scan position. The charge loss has been measured by comparing the cluster pulse height for the laser spot positioned on either an interleaved or a readout pixel. The results are shown in Figure 1, where pulse heights are normalised to their maximum value. The observed charge loss does not exceed 50 %, in agreement with the expectations from the capacitance measurements.

The charge sharing can be characterised by the shape of the $`\eta `$ distribution defined as $`\eta =\frac{PH_i}{PH_{tot}}`$, where $`PH_i`$ is the pulse height recorded on the ith read-out pixel in the cluster and $`PH_{tot}`$ the total cluster pulse height. The measured curve, shown in Figure 1, exhibits the expected correlation between the distance of the point of charge creation from the leftmost strip and the $`\eta `$ response, where $`\eta =1`$ corresponds to the particle hitting the ith pixel and $`\eta =0.5`$ to the particle traversing the sensitive volume half-way between the ith and the (i+1)th read-out pixel. The observed functional dependence can be interpreted as the superposition of the effects of the charge diffusion and the capacitive charge sharing.

## 4 Conclusions

Prototype pixel detectors with interleaved pixel cells, aimed at improving their single point resolution to match the requirements for applications at the future linear collider, have been designed and manufactured. The results of their electrostatic characterisation and the preliminary charge collection studies have confirmed the validity of this detector concept.


text:
# On Dynamical Models for Radio Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

We do not yet fully understand the dynamics and evolution of radio galaxies. Classifying sources on the basis of their morphology has been one useful approach to this question. Such work by Fanaroff & Riley (“FR”; ) has stimulated discussion and simple models of the sources. FR Type II sources are generally accepted to arise from a collimated, supersonic jet which impacts the ambient medium, resulting in a hot spot at the end of the jet, and leaving behind a cocoon which surrounds the jet. This model is qualitatively attractive and leads to possible quantitative predictions. Our picture of FR Type I sources, however, is much less complete. It has been suggested that Type I’s are subsonic, turbulent plumes. This model does not, however, seem able to account for the range of phenomena seen in the data; nor has it been developed quantitatively to a point which would allow specific predictions of source evolution. We find this frustrating, as Type I sources are much more common in the universe than Type II’s, and show much more diversity.

We present two figures which illustrate how rare classical Type II’s are. First, one of us  has used the LRL, B2 and GB samples  to calculate 1.4 GHz luminosity functions separately for Type II and Type I sources, shown in Figure 1. It is apparent that Type I’s dominate Type II’s below $`P_{1.4}10^{32}`$W/Hz, and strongly dominate in total numbers (integrated over radio flux). Second, only 13 of 197 resolved sources in a new data set are classic II’s. This data set is the Ledlow-Owen sample of radio sources in clusters of galaxies (shown in Figure 2; ). Our work in this paper uses this sample.

What questions would we like to answer regarding the dynamics of radio sources? Many spring to mind:

* How does a radio source evolve in linear size, volume, morphology?
* How does the luminosity of a radio source evolve with time?
* How can we explain the observed distribution of sources in the (size, power) or (power, galaxy magnitude) planes?
* What physical factors determine the morphology of a radio source? That is, why does it become Type I or Type II in the FR classification? Alternatively, why does it become Straight or Tailed, the types introduced in this paper?
* Does the morphology of a particular source change with time? Does a source change from FR type II to I, or from Straight to Tailed?

In order to address these questions, we have undertaken a program of study based on a new data set, the Ledlow-Owen sample  of radio sources in clusters of galaxies. We expected that the evolution of a source should be determined by such factors as its jet power, age, parent galaxy size, and the density or pressure of the surrounding medium. To this end, we gathered radio, optical and X-ray data on the sources in the sample, and have searched for trends which might answer the questions above.

In this process, we found that the Ledlow-Owen sources fall clearly into two morphological classes. This was not what we expected. Nearly all of the sources in this sample would be called FR Type I, based on their lack of outer hot spots, and their position in the (power, magnitude) diagram (as presented by ). Our work with the images made it clear that the sources are not a uniform sample, but rather divide nicely into two groups. These groups are not well described by the two well-known FR types. In fact, it now seems that the two FR types might more properly be described as “classic Type II’s” (the rare sources with clear outer hot spots) and “all other sources” (the more common sources, without outer hot spots, and including the diversity of source types we find).

## 2 The Data

We worked with the Ledlow-Owen cluster sample (cf.  and references therein). The sample consists of 219 radio sources above 10 mJy in the inner region of nearby Abell clusters ($`z<0.09`$), and a representative sample of 48 sources above 200 mJy in more distant clusters ($`0.09<z<0.25`$). These data were supplemented by images from the ROSAT all-sky survey for a subset of the nearby sample . Details of the sample and our analysis of it are given in . The data we have measured or compiled are:

* Radio power at 1.4 GHz ($`P_{1.4}`$), .
* Radio images, also at 1.4 GHz, taken with the VLA .
* Optical magnitude of the parent galaxy, within an isophote at 24.5 mag asec-2 in the R band ($`M_{24.5}`$); .
* Radio flux sizes (the radius which includes $`\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}90}`$% of the 1.4 GHz flux) .
* Source offset from the cluster X-ray peak (central or nearest peak, depending on the cluster) .
* Characteristic size of the X-ray cluster, measured in terms of the radius which contains 50% of the flux .
* Density of the cluster gas at the radio source position (using simple deprojections of the X-ray data) .

Our initial goal was to use these data to address the fundamental questions listed above. This has not proved overly successful; indeed, we found very few significant correlations in these quantities. We do find a slight correlation between radio power and radio size – higher power sources tend to be larger. In general, however, statistical studies of the full sample do not shed great light on the problems we set out to study.

However, in this process we did find one very striking pattern. Figure 2 shows the full sample in the $`(P_{1.4},M_{24.5})`$ plane. As noted above, most of the sources fall in the “Type I region” as defined by . Thus, we thought when we began that we were studying Type I sources. We found, however, a more complex situation. Nearly all of the resolved sources fall neatly into two morphological classes. The existence of these two classes does not seem to have been noticed before. We believe it is a significant clue to understanding the nature, and thus evolution, of radio galaxies in general.

## 3 The Two Classes

To be specific: 197 of the sources have VLA images good enough to estimate the source morphology. (For the rest, 21 were unresolved, and 48 were marginally resolved but too faint or too small to allow us to determine the morphology). Of the 197 well-resolved sources, 188 can easily be put into one of our two classes.111The remaining 9 include 6 amorphous, cluster-center sources – a different group interesting in their own right – and 3 true “oddballs”. Our criterion for classification is, how far does the jet propagate undisturbed?. Based on this, our two classes are as follows.

Type A, or Straight, Sources. In these sources, the jet retains its identity all the way to the outer end of the source, where it may or may not end in an outer bright spot. The end of the flow – what might be called a “working surface” – is apparent in most of the images; there is no continuation of the jet flow into an outer tail, as there is in Tailed sources. The inner jet is generally embedded in a lobe or cocoon (although this may be faint and hard to detect in some of the sources). The jet can be more or less collimated, depending on the source. These sources as a class are not strongly bent. The presence, or absence, of an outer hot spot is not critical to this class. Sources with and without external hot spots share all other characteristics. Classical FR Type II sources fall into this category, as do many sources which would be called FR Type I. About 1/3 of the sample (61/197) fall into this category. Thirteen of these have clear outer hot spots which would make them classical FR Type II’s.

Type B, or Tailed, Sources. In these sources, the jet begins narrow and well-collimated. It soon undergoes a dramatic transition at an inner hot spot, where the flow becomes broader and brighter. High resolution images show complex structure within these hot spots. The flow does not disrupt, however; it continues on, past the hot spot, into a radio tail. In some sources the end of the tail is seen, while the surface brightness of other sources fades too fast to allow us to see the end. This outer flow can sometimes be seen to have a two-part structure: an inner channel embedded in an outer lobe. Sources which have been called Wide-Angle Tail or Narrow-Angle Tail fall into this category. We note, however, that while these sources are often bent, they need not be. Some Tailed sources display the jet-hot spot transition without bending. About 2/3 of the sample (127/197) fall into the Tailed category; about 4/5 of these are strongly bent.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate one example of each class; more are illustrated in , where we also present our classification of each source in the sample.

We only have radio data at one frequency for this sample, so we cannot draw general conclusions about the spectral properties of our two classes. However, other work provides hints. Based on two-frequency spectral maps, Parma etal  find that FR Type I sources divide into two spectral types: those in which the spectrum steepens going away from the core, and those in which it flattens. Inspection of the individual sources in their work suggests that their two spectral types correlate with our two morphological types. Based on their smaller sample, we speculate that our Straight sources will turn out to have spectra which flatten going away from the galactic core (much as the spectra of FR Type II sources do). We further speculate that our Tailed sources will turn out to have spectra which steepen going away from the core. This speculation is also supported by the earlier work of O’Donoghue etal , who found that the radio spectra of Wide-Angle Tail sources steepen going away from the core.

We believe the clear division of the sample into Straight and Tailed sources is telling us something about the underlying physics of the sources. We were disappointed, however, to find that simple statistical tests were inconclusive. We might have expected, for instance, that the sources would divide by radio size (perhaps one type might be younger, or might evolve into the other?), or would divide by radio power (a stronger jet might lead to different flow dynamics?). Alternatively, we might have expected the two types of sources to sit in different cluster environments (perhaps high or low ambient density might lead to different flow dynamics?). We were surprised to find that such simple ideas were not borne out. We looked for differences between the two classes in each of the quantities listed above, with little luck. To zeroth order, Tailed and Straight sources have the same radio power, same radio size, same parent galaxies, and live in the same ranges of X-ray offsets and local gas densities.

Thus, we have not been able to determine from our data a simple observational factor, or factors, that relate to a source becoming Tailed or Straight. We must go a step further and consider the physics of the jet flow. In the next section we look to possible physical mechanisms for the two dynamical classes.

## 4 Dynamical Interpretation

Our work with radio galaxies in clusters has uncovered a significant point. Two morphological (and therefore dynamical) classes of radio galaxy exist. One class we call Straight (Type A). In these sources the jet sits inside a lobe or cocoon, and continues mostly undisturbed all the way from the core to the outer edge of the source. The other we call Tailed (Type B). In these the jet flow changes dramatically at an inner hot spot, but the flow continues on well past this point into a tail (which also sits inside a larger cocoon). We note that our new groupings do not correlate particularly well with FR types I and II. All of our Tailed sources would be FR Type I; however our Straight sources contain both FR types.

What determines whether a source is Type A or Type B? We were rather disappointed to find that two classes do not separate in any of our measured quantities. They do not depend on jet power (unless the conversion efficiency from jet to radiated power is quite different for the two types). They do not depend on local density or galaxy mass (magnitude). They are not a function of the source age (unless the two types of sources reach the same linear size at very different rates). It follows that several simple arguments fail. For instance, we cannot say that Straight sources evolve into Tailed; if that were the case, we would have found that Tailed sources are larger than Straight. Nor can we argue that something in the environment (such as ambient pressure or density) gives rise to the difference; there is no evidence that the two source types are found in different regions of their clusters.

This leaves us only with the option of an internal variable. That is, some internal feature of the jet flow must determine whether the source becomes Tailed or Straight. We suggest this is a matter of the stability of the flow. Our hypothesis is as follows (cf.  for a more detailed discussion).

* All young sources must start out with a “straight” configuration. That is, they begin with a jet propagating out into the local ambient medium, and depositing material into a slower-moving cocoon which surrounds the jet. The young source will develop according to the usual arguments based on momentum and energy conservation (for instance in , ). At some point in this evolution, internal factors decide whether the source becomes Straight or Tailed.
* Straight sources result when the jet remains essentially stable. In these sources, the jet has not undergone dramatic disruptions. Rather, it continues to propagate more or less undisturbed all the way to the end of the source, reaching current lengths of several tens of kpc to a few hundred kpc. At the end of the source, the jet impacts the ambient medium, slows down and deposits material in a larger cocoon. The lack of bent sources in this category requires that the undisurbed jet remain rigid, and thus not susceptible to deflection by external forces. If the jet remains highly supersonic, an outer shock (hot spot) will form. If it is only subsonic or transonic, the outer jump will be smaller and not necessarily radio bright. Thus, classic FR Type II sources may develop in this type of source, but need not do so.
* Tailed sources result when the jet undergoes a strong instability. The instability develops when the jet reaches a few tens of kpc from the galactic nucleus. The location of the instability is apparent in images of these sources, where the jet enters the inner hot spots and broader tails. When such an instability sets in and grows to large amplitude, it distorts and disrupts the flow. This results in side-to-side “flapping” of the ordered jet flow which can be seen in good images. In addition, the instability appears to saturate at some large amplitude. The flow is not totally disrupted, but is able to continue on to form a (quasi-stable) tail. The images show that such radio tails are often embedded in outer envelopes, which we suspect act as “cocoons” for these flows. When Tailed sources are strongly bent, the bends occur at the hot spots: the change in flow properties there seems to make the flow more susceptible to deflection.

### 4.1 Stabilty of a Radio Jet

What governs the instability? We consider the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability as a concrete example. This may very well be the most important instability in jet dynamics; considering it as an example allows us to take advantage of substantial work available in the literature222Current-driven instabilities may also exist, of course. We expect their behavior to be qualitatively similar to that of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, although with different governing parameters. Based on the work of Hardee and his colleagues (cf. , , and references therein), three factors are critical to the jet’s stability:

* The jet magnetic field. A strong parallel field (compared to the jet’s kinetic energy) will stabilize the flow. The Alfven Mach number (ratio of flow speed to Alfven speed) is critical here. As a general statement, we can say that subAlfvenic flow is stable, while superAlfvenic is not. This is modified by the jet density: a jet denser than its surroundings will remain stable to a somewhat higher Alfven Mach number. This is also extended by the field structure: a strong helical field will be more effective at stablizing than a fully parallel field.
* The jet density. Jets which are heavy relative to their surroundings are more stable. This helps in two ways. (1) A heavy jet can remain stable even if somewhat superAlfvenic. (2) Potentially disruptive perturbations on a linearly unstable jet will grow more slowly if the jet is heavy. We emphasize that it is the cocoon density, not the ambient density, which is relevant here.
* The jet speed. Instabilities in fast jets disrupt the flow more slowly. The distance over which an instability grows to important levels, after it sets in, is proportional to the jet Lorentz factor and to the jet magnetosonic Mach number (defined as the ratio of jet speed to magnetosonic wave speed).

A change in any one of these quantities can change a jet flow from being nearly stable to being dramatically unstable. For instance, it may be that Straight sources result from more strongly magnetized jets, and Tailed sources from jets with weaker fields. Or, it may be that Straight sources result from faster (or more relativistic) jets, while Tailed sources are produced by slower (or subrelativistic) jets. Or, it may be that Straight sources result when the cocoon is underdense relative to the jet, and Tailed sources when the (young) cocoon is overdense. We have not yet identified which of these possibilities is the crucial one; it may be that all three contribute to the dynamics of real radio sources.

### 4.2 Consequences of this picture

How does this new picture impact arguments about source evolution and global dynamics? In particular, how do we address the questions raised in §1? The large-scale evolution of both Type A and Type B sources must be governed by the outflow, following models originally developed for FR Type II sources. The linear size evolution will be determined by the jet thrust (balanced against the density of the ambient medium). The energy described by the jet power will be partly deposited in the cocoon (the rest going to expansion work and radiative losses). Such models should be relevant to both classes of sources we find, but must differ in application to the two classes. For Straight sources, the thrust and power are those of the jet as it emerges from the galactic core (perhaps on a kpc scale). For Tailed sources, the thrust and power are those of the tail, established after the flow has reorganized itself at the inner hot spots.

Finally, what can be said about the radio power? Predicting the evolution of radio power remains, as always, one of the hardest questions. We must remember that radio emission is a sensitive, nonlinear, variable-gain tracer of the flow dynamics. Synchrotron emission depends on a complex convolution of the magnetic field strength and structure with the relativistic particle distribution in space and in energy. We remain cautious about connecting dynamical models to emission models in any simple way.

This work was partially supported by NSF grant AST-9720263.


text:
# References

KOBE-TH-00-07

MIT-CTP-3038

SUSY BREAKING THROUGH COMPACTIFICATION 111Talk given at XXXth International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 27-August 2, 2000, Osaka, Japan
Makoto Sakamoto(a) 222E-mail:sakamoto@phys.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp, Motoi Tachibana(b) 333E-mail:motoi@@mitlns.mit.edu on leave from Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan

and

Kazunori Takenaga(c) 444E-mail:takenaga@synge.stp.dias.ie

(a) Department of Physics, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe 657-8501, Japan

(b) Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

(c) Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 10 Burlington Road, Dublin 4, Ireland

Abstract

We propose a new mechanism of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. The existence of extra dimensions with nontrivial topology plays an important role. We investigate new features resulting from this mechanism. One noteworthy feature is that there exists a phase in which the translational invariance for the compactified directions is broken spontaneously. The mechanism we propose also yields quite different vacuum structures for models with different global symmetries. It is thought that (super)string theories  (and/or more fundamental theories, such as M-theory) are plausible candidates to describe physics at the Planck scale. In general these theories are defined in more than $`4`$ space-time dimensions because of the consistency of the theories.

In the region of sufficiently low energy, however, it is known that our space-time is $`4`$ dimensions, so that extra dimensions must be compactified by some mechanism , and supersymmetry (SUSY) that is usually possessed by these theories has to be broken  because it is not observed in the low energy region. At this stage, the mechanism of compactification and SUSY breaking are not fully understood.

It may be interesting to consider the quantum field theory in space-time with some of the space coordinates being multiply-connected. This is because such a study may shed new light on unanswered questions concerning the (supersymmetric) standard model and/or elucidate some new dynamics which are worth seeking and understanding new physics beyond it. Actually, it has been reported that flavour-blind SUSY breaking terms can be induced through compactification by taking account for possible topological effects of the multiply-connected space . Therefore, it is important to investigate the physics possessed by the quantum field theory considered in such a space-time.

We consider supersymmetric field theories in space-time with one of the space coordinates being compactified. One has to specify the boundary conditions of fields for the compactified direction when the compactified space is multiply-connected. In contrast to finite temperature field theory, we do not know a priori what they should be. We shall relax the conventional periodic boundary condition to allow nontrivial boundary conditions for the fields . One of the possible physical origins of the nontrivial boundary condition comes from the quantization ambiguity of the theory in multiply-connected space. An undetermined parameter, which appears as the consequence of the ambiguity, twists the boundary condition of the field555In a SUSY quantum mechanical system on a multiply-connected space, it has been shown that the ground state wave function is actually twisted by the parameter.

As a noteworthy consequence of our mechanism, there appears a nontrivial phase structure with respect to the size of the compactified space. Namely, the translational invariance for the compactified direction is broken spontaneously 666Models which cause the spontaneous breakdown of the translational invariance are discussed . when the size of the compactified space exceeds a certain critical value. The curious vacuum structures resulting from the mechanism also have an influence on the mass spectrum of the theory. Depending on the size of the compactified space, we have a mass spectrum full of variety. The mass spectrum includes Nambu-Goldstone bosons (fermions) corresponding to the breakdown of the global (super) symmetries of the theory.

Let us discuss a basic idea of our SUSY-breaking mechanism briefly. Let $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ be a superpotential consisting of the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$. The scalar potential is then given by

$$V(A)=\underset{j}{}\left|F_j\right|^2=\underset{j}{}\left|\frac{W(A)}{A_j}\right|^2,$$
(1)
where $`A_j(F_j)`$ denotes the lowest (highest) component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$. Supersymmetry would be unbroken if there exist solutions to the $`F`$-term conditions

$$F_j^{}=\frac{W(A)}{A_j}|_{A_k=\overline{A}_k}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}j,$$
(2)
since such solutions would lead to $`V(\overline{A})=0`$. Our idea for supersymmetry breaking is simple: We impose nontrivial boundary conditions on the superfields for the compactified direction. They must be consistent with the single valueness of the Lagrangian but inconsistent with the $`F`$-term conditions (2). Then, no solution to the $`F`$-term conditions will be realized as a vacuum configuration of the model. Thus, we expect that $`V(A)>0`$ (because $`A_j\overline{A_j}`$) and that supersymmetry is broken spontaneously.

In order to realize such a mechanism, let us consider a theory in one of the space coordinates, say $`y`$, being compactified on a circle $`S^1`$ whose radius is $`R`$. Since $`S^1`$ is multiply-connected, we must specify boundary conditions for the $`S^1`$ direction. Let us impose nontrivial boundary conditions on superfields defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x^\mu ,y+2\pi R)=e^{2\pi i\alpha _j}\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x^\mu ,y).$$
(3)
The phase $`\alpha _j`$ should be chosen such that the Lagrangian density is single-valued, i.e.

$$(x^\mu ,y+2\pi R)=(x^\mu ,y).$$
(4)
In other words, the phase has to be the symmetry degrees of freedom possessed by the theory. Suppose that $`\overline{A_j}`$, which is a solution to the $`F`$-term conditions, is a nonzero constant for some $`j`$. It is easy to see that if

$$e^{2\pi i\alpha _j}1,$$
(5)
then the vacuum expectation value $`A_j`$ is strictly forbidden to take the nonzero constant value $`\overline{A_j}`$, because this is inconsistent with the boundary condition (3). In this way, our idea is realized by the mechanism that the nontrivial boundary conditions imposed on the fields play the role of preventing the vacuum expectation values of the fields from being solutions to the $`F`$-term conditions.

Note that the above result does not always lead us to the conclusion that $`A_j=0`$, though it is always consistent with (3). Certainly, if the translational invariance for the $`S^1`$ direction is not broken, $`A_j`$ has to vanish because of (3) with (5). If the translational invariance for the $`S^1`$ direction is broken, however, vacuum expectation values will no longer be constants, and some of the $`A_j`$ can depend on the coordinate of the compactified space as an energetically favourable configuration. One should include the contributions from the kinetic terms of the scalar fields in addition to the scalar potential in order to find the true vacuum configuration.

Let us illustrate how to realize the above idea. For simplicity, here we consider $`j=1`$ case. First we expand the complex scalar field $`A(x^\mu ,y)`$ in Fourier modes

$$A(x^\mu ,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A^{(n+\alpha )}(x^\mu )e^{i\frac{n+\alpha }{R}y}.$$
(6)
Note here that due to the twisted boundary condition (3) there are no zero modes. Moreover, we introduce dimensionally reduced “effective” potential defined by

$`𝒱_{eff}[A]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}𝑑y\left[|_yA|^2+V(A)\right]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+\alpha }{R}}\right)^2\mu ^2\right]|A^{(n+\alpha )}|^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{R}}\right)^2\mu ^2\right]|A^{(\alpha )}|^2+\mathrm{},`$
where $`A^{(\alpha )}`$ is the lowest mode and the dots denote higher order modes and terms including the quartic term of $`A^{(\alpha )}`$. The $`\mu ^2`$ term comes from the potential $`V(A)`$ which is assumed to include a negative mass squared term. From the potential it is easy to find that if $`R<R^{}\frac{\alpha }{\mu }`$, the curvature at the origin of the potential is positive so that $`A(x^\mu ,y)`$ vanishes and $`A(x^\mu ,y)=0`$ becomes a stable vacuum. Thus, in this case, the translational invariance for the $`S^1`$ direction is not broken. On the other hand, if $`R>R^{}`$, the curvature becomes negative and the potential becomes the double-well type. Then the vacuum expectation value of $`A(x^\mu ,y)`$ does not vanish but rather has $`y`$-dependence. In this case, the translational invariance for the $`S^1`$ direction is spontaneously broken. See Fig.1 below. The vacuum configuration for $`R>R^{}`$ is not a solution of the $`F`$-term condition, so the SUSY is spontaneously broken.

Fig.1 The “effective” potential $`𝒱_{eff}(A^{(\alpha )})`$.

Finally we should comment on the Scherk-Schwarz (S-S) mechanism . One might impose nontrivial boundary conditions associated with a $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry. In that case, bosonic components of superfields may satisfy boundary conditions different from the fermionic ones. A crucial difference between the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism and ours is that the breaking à la Scherk-Schwarz is explicit, rather than spontaneous, at the level of global supersymmetry. Another difference is that the S-S mechanism will work for any choice of superpotentials, while ours will not. The boundary conditions (3) we consider in this paper are consistent with supersymmetry. When a space is multiply-connected, and hence has nontrivial topology, the configuration space can also have nontrivial topology. Then, it turns out that undetermined parameters like the $`\alpha _j`$ in (3) inevitably appear as the ambiguity in quantizing the theory on such a space, and the boundary conditions are twisted in accordance with the parameters . Therefore, even though we impose nontrivial boundary conditions on the fields here, these boundary conditions have a firm foundation that is clarified when one studies the theory on multiply-connected space.

It may be interesting to ask how our mechanism works on more complex manifolds, such as a torus. We expect that there will appear rich phase structures, depending on the size of their compactified spaces and on how we impose nontrivial boundary conditions on superfields. In the previous papers , we studied the $`Z_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ models and found that the vacuum structures of the models are quite different from each other. We think the rich vacuum structure is a general feature of our mechanism. We can also study models with non-abelian global symmetries, such as $`SU(N)`$ and $`O(N)`$. In addition, it is important to study gauge theories and to see how our mechanism works and what new dynamics are hidden in them. It may also be interesting to investigate how partial SUSY breaking occurs in gauge theories in connection with the well-known BPS objects.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research (No.12640275) from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan (M.S) and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Grant No. 3666 (M.T). K. T. would like to thank DIAS, Niels Bohr Institute and INFN, Sezione di Pisa for warm hospitality.