text:
# Nonlinearity without Superluminality

## I Motivations

There are at least three good reasons to look for alternatives to quantum theory: the measurement problem, the difficulty in reconciling quantum theory with general relativity, and the desirability of finding new classes of theories against which certain quantum principles, such as linearity, can be tested. Yet it has proved rather difficult to find alternatives to quantum theory which respect the relativity principle and do not allow some form of superluminal signalling. For this and other reasons, the subtle relationship between quantum theory and special relativity is a source of continuing fascination.

Special relativity is not necessarily sacrosanct, of course, and moreover superluminal signalling need not be inconsistent with the relativity principle aksignal . But the motivations just given suggest that alternatives to quantum theory which respect the relativity principle and do not allow superluminal signalling may be especially interesting and valuable hartle . If the aim is to unify quantum theory and general relativity, abandoning the relativity principle or Minkowski causality seems an unpromising start. Also, one would prefer to test principles such as linearity by varying as little else as possible. For instance, if a test confirms a theory which respects linearity and relativity against a theory which respects neither, it is not so clear whether to interpret this as a confirmation of linearity or of relativity. And then, the very fact that respecting relativity and Minkowski causality seems to be difficult could be a hint that it is necessary. Constraints which are difficult (but not impossible) to satisfy are particularly interesting, since it would be nice to believe that the fundamental theory of nature is defined by a few compelling principles, rather than chosen arbitrarily from a large class of equally plausible possibilities.

All these points suggest reconsidering the relation between quantum theory and relativity.

## II Zweisteine’s state readout machine

Your colleague Zweisteine has long been a zealous admirer of special and general relativity but robustly sceptical about quantum theory. He reserves a special venom for the treatment of measurement within quantum theory. Naturally, the imprecision of the notion of measurement has not escaped his attention, and he believes that quantum theory needs to be augmented by a precise theory of state reduction. But he maintains also a less widely held view. He feels it is inconceivable that nature can have created objects so subtly intricate as quantum states, in such a form that we can access them only by the brutally destructive process encapsulated in the projection postulate. Positive operator valued measurements make him no happier: he sees them merely as projections applied to a larger Hilbert space, bringing essentially the same unsatisfactory tradeoff between limited information gain and significant disturbance.

It must, he believes, be possible to access the information encoded in a state more directly and less destructively. Accordingly, he has for some years been working on a quantum state readout machine. This is supposed to accept a qubit — Mark I will be restricted to two dimensional systems — which it returns unaltered after printing out a high precision description.

Quite some time ago, you drew his attention to the no-cloning theorem wz  and related work day . He replied that these results illuminate very elegantly the limitations of quantum theory, and more generally the poverty of a universe limited to unitary or linear evolution laws. Fortunately, he added with an admonitory wag of the finger, we know from general relativity that nature is essentially non-linear.

More recently, after a particularly fraught departmental meeting, you were tactless enough to mention various papers that discuss the relation of quantum nonlinearity to superluminal signalling czachor ; gisinrel ; polchinski ; sbg  and even query whether a natural construction of nonlinear theories is possible mielnik . These cumulatively cast him into a state of great gloom, from which even the visit of an eminent Everettian, with whom he would normally have delighted in fencing, failed to rouse him.

Yet today, the spring is again in his step, a gleam of triumph in his eye. He has seen a way around the no-superluminal signalling constraint, he announces, and his state readout machine is complete. What can you do but indulge him? You prepare a qubit in state $`|\psi =a|0+b|1`$ in your lab, $`a`$ being positive real and $`b`$ complex, each specified to several decimal places. You bring it across, feed it into the machine. The printout reads $`a|0+b|1`$. You test the returned qubit, measuring $`P_\psi `$, and get the answer $`1`$. A lucky guess, perhaps. After several similar experiments, though, another explanation seems required.

Whatever trickery is afoot, you know how to expose it. Your old colleague Isabelle, now based on Callisto, is happy to assist. This evening, she prepares a pair of particles in a singlet state,

$$(1/\sqrt{2})(|0|1|1|0)$$

and sends you the second particle. At noon tomorrow, universal time, she will carry out a projective measurement, in a basis of her choice, on the first particle. If she then reported the basis and result immediately by radio, the signal would reach you at 1pm. Guided by some faint premonition, though, you ask her to delay sending the signal for half an hour.

The next morning, you feed the entangled qubit into Zweisteine’s machine. It whirrs, while you watch in amusement, and then prints out something surprising:

$$1/2|00|+1/2|11|.$$

Taking the returned qubit, you wait till $`12.01`$, for the crucial test, and resubmit the qubit. The machine’s opinion is unaltered:

$$1/2|00|+1/2|11|.$$

Aha! The machine’s failed, as expected. The qubit is now in a pure state, not a mixture. You explain this, and your arrangement with Isabelle, to Zweisteine, who listens intently, and asks you nonetheless to continue.

So, at $`12.59`$pm, you feed the qubit in again, and again read

$$1/2|00|+1/2|11|.$$

At $`1.01`$pm you try once more, and for the second time that day are surprised by the printout:

$$c|0+d|1,$$

an opinion which the machine maintains as you desultorily resubmit the qubit over the next half hour. When Isabelle’s radio message arrives at $`1.30`$, you find she measured in the basis $`c|0+d|1,\overline{d}|0\overline{c}|1`$, and obtained the second state.

This can’t be fraud. Isabelle and Zweisteine have never met, and anyway she is entirely trustworthy. You remind yourself that, for all his eccentricities, and despite his scandalous neglect of the quant-ph arxiv, Zweisteine is a dedicated scientist, and a good one. He has been exploring unfamiliar physics, ranging from quantum effects in neurophysiology and consciousness to strong-field gravity, and not without success. In fact, some recent effects he’s discovered are said by experts to be inexplicable by conventional theory. And his lab has, come to think of it, lately taken delivery of some specially bioengineered neural circuits and premium grade black holes.

You begin to reconsider$`\mathrm{}`$

## III What could a pure state readout device describe?

Zweisteine’s machine appears to be functioning as a genuine quantum state readout machine for pure states. When presented with a state of an entangled subsystem, it appears to recognise that it is entangled. However, it is apparently unaware of distant measurements that disentangle the state, until the point when information about those measurements could have reached it by light speed communication. What principles could it be following, consistent with quantum theory and relativity?

To simplify the notation, consider distinguishable pointlike particles located at fixed points $`\underset{¯}{x}_1,\underset{¯}{x}_2,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{x}_N`$ in some inertial coordinate system $`(\underset{¯}{x},t)`$, and that the particles’ spatial wave function spread is negligible throughout the following discussion. The particles have some internal degrees of freedom, and their joint state is, we’ll assume, entangled at $`t=0`$:

$$|\psi (0)=\underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}{}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}|i_1_1\mathrm{}|i_N_N.$$

Suppose also that the particles have no mutual interactions and have been undisturbed, prior to $`t=0`$, for a time long compared to their spatial separation, and remain so up to time $`t_1>0`$:

$$|\psi (t)=|\psi (0)\mathrm{for}T<t<t_1,$$

where $`T\mathrm{max}_{i,j}(\underset{¯}{x}_i\underset{¯}{x}_j)`$.

What is the state of particle $`1`$ at $`t=0`$? The standard textbook answer is that it has no pure state, but is in an (improper) mixed state:

$$\rho _1(0)=\mathrm{Tr}_{2,\mathrm{},N}(|\psi (0)\psi (0)|).$$

We now want to consider how measurements affect the state. It will be assumed that measurement is an objectively definable process, and that a genuine state vector reduction takes place during measurement. That is, the quantum state of the measured system alters to one of the possible measurement outcomes; it does not enter into an entangled superposition with the apparatus which includes all the possible results. Of course, this is not everyone’s favoured approach to the measurement problem. But it is one of the standard options. The aim here is to explore the scope for hypothetical readout devices and nonlinear theories under the assumption that it is correct.

Suppose now that a projective measurement is carried out on particle $`2`$ at time $`t_1>0`$, and it is found to be in state $`|j_2`$. Write $`P^j=|jj|`$ and $`P_2^j=IP_jI\mathrm{}I`$. The textbook version of the projection postulate, the state of the full system is now, up to a normalisation factor,

$$|\psi (t_1)=P_2^j|\psi (0),$$

and the state of particle $`1`$ is now, again up to normalisation,

$$\rho _1(t_1)=\mathrm{Tr}_{2,\mathrm{},N}(|\psi (t_1)\psi (t_1)|).$$

Generally, $`\rho _1(t_1)`$ and $`\rho _1(0)`$ will be different. On this account, the state of particle $`1`$ has instantaneously changed as a result of a distant measurement on particle $`2`$.

Of course, had we used a different reference frame, we would have found the state of particle $`1`$ changing instantaneously at a different point on its worldline. Hence, famously, we cannot consistently maintain both the relativity principle and that the state of particle $`1`$ — as defined by these calculations — represents an objective physical fact about the particle. In particular, if we go further and postulate a hypothetical device that reads out the value of the state as we have defined it, we need to assume the device functions with respect to some preferred reference frame, and it then allows instantaneous signalling in that frame over arbitrary distances.

The dilemma pointed out by EPR, of course, is that there is a plausible-seeming reason to think that the physical state of particle $`1`$ really might be objectively defined by $`\rho _1(t_1)`$, not $`\rho _1(t_0)`$ after the measurement (and so one might think any sensible hypothetical state readout device should output $`\rho _1(t_1)`$ after the measurement ). Namely, measurements on particle $`1`$ after time $`t_1`$ have outcome probabilities in accordance with $`\rho _1(t_1)`$, not $`\rho _1(t_0)`$, and so the state of the particle, which is supposed to be the best available physical description, should be $`\rho _1(t_1)`$. But then the relativity principle suggests the state of particle $`1`$ should have been $`\rho _1(t_1)`$ before time $`t_1`$. This leads us to introduce a local hidden variables hypothesis, and then Bell’s theorem seems to refute this whole line of thought.

Could there, though, be a genuinely objective description of each of the particles that is weaker — in the sense that it is not always sufficient to reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory — but is consistent with relativity? Yes: in fact, there is a natural candidate, defined as follows. (See Figure 1.)

Consider $`C`$, the surface of the past light cone of particle $`1`$ at time $`t`$. Take a family $`\{H_n:n=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of spacelike hypersurfaces which go through $`(\underset{¯}{x_1},t)`$ and which asymptotically tend to $`C`$. Let $`|\psi ^n`$ be the state vector of the joint system on $`H_n`$, and define

$$\rho ^n=\mathrm{Tr}_{2,\mathrm{},N}(|\psi ^n\psi ^n|).$$

Finally, define the local state of particle $`1`$ at time $`t`$ to be

$$\rho _1^{loc}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^n.$$

In words: the particle’s local state is given by taking the joint wave function of the complete system, defined by allowing for only those projective measurements in the past light cone of the particle, and then tracing out the rest of the system.

Clearly, $`\rho _1^{loc}`$ is Lorentz invariant. It also has a natural physical interpretation: $`\rho _1^{loc}(\underset{¯}{x_1},t)`$ is the best possible description of the state obtainable by an observer located at $`(\underset{¯}{x_1},t)`$. Such an observer can obtain $`\rho _1^{loc}`$ by knowing the initial state and having arranged for radio signals of all measurement outcomes to be sent to him as soon as the measurements take place: he will thus have details of all measurements within the past light line cone of $`(\underset{¯}{x_1},t)`$.

## IV Local state readout does not allow superluminal signalling

The above construction of $`\rho ^{loc}`$ has another significant implication. Assuming that standard quantum theory is correct, that we know the initial state of a system, and that we can identify all measurement events on that system and obtain their results, we could in principle construct a local state readout machine emulator for the system — that is, a device that will have the same operational action as a local state readout device for local subsytems.

To do this would require complete information about the system’s hamiltonian and ideal technology — communication devices set up everywhere that broadcast signals reporting the results of measurements at light speed in all directions, and computers set up everywhere that carry out arbitrarily fast calculations. Given these things, and the value of the initial state, we can program the computers to take account of all measurement results as soon as the signal reporting them arrives, and use these together with knowledge of the hamiltonian evolution in the past light cone to calculate the local state and print it out. All of this can be done classically: the computers do not need to carry out any additional measurements on the system or disturb its quantum state in any way. Hence they emulate the state readout device, as required, by producing the state’s value while leaving it undisturbed.

Obviously, these assumptions are unrealistic. We do not know the initial state of the universe, nor can we identify all measurements in our past light cone, nor can we construct the ideal technology required. But none of these assumptions contradicts standard quantum theory: each of them can consistently be added to it without changing the underlying theory. Hence, since standard quantum theory does not allow superluminal signalling, nor does quantum theory augmented by devices which emulate local state readout machines. And since there is no operational distinction between a local state readout machine emulator and a local state readout machine, quantum theory augmented by genuine local readout readout machines does not allow superluminal signalling either (happily for Zweisteine).

## V Emulating nonlinear theories

Given the hypothesis of local state readout machines, we can go further and devise experiments in which the hamiltonian acts on the quantum state as usual defined, but is defined in terms of fields which depend locally on the local quantum state. To construct such experiments, we would simply need to connect the readout to another device which controls an applied field. For instance, given a system of separated qubits and with some fixed basis, we could arrange for the hamiltonian to include a term $`\pi /40|\rho _{\mathrm{loc}}|0\sigma _z`$. More generally, we could implement any locally varying nonlinear evolution laws of our choice provided that the nonlinearity arises through dependence on the local state.

Now, we have already seen that a device operationally indistinguishable from a local state readout device could be constructed within standard quantum theory, given sufficient knowledge and computational power, and hence that such a device does not allow superluminal signalling. It follows that superluminal signalling cannot be possible in any experiment of this type. But these experiments emulate a situation in which nature (through presently unknown physics) uses locally varying nonlinear evolutions that depend on the local state. Hence no theory of this type can allow superluminal signalling either.

## VI Conclusions

Could Zweisteine be right? Might unknown physics give a direct way of carrying out local state readout, or at least some partial information about the local state, on general quantum systems? Despite the lessons of Bell’s theorem and experimental verifications of quantum nonlocality, there is still some attraction in the idea that there is something objectively “there” in a localised part of an entangled quantum system. If not the local state, what?

Suppose, for instance, that, as has sometimes been speculated, that the gravitational field is actually fundamentally classical, while matter is quantum. The gravitational field then has to couple to some object defined by the quantum realm, and the local state seems a plausible candidate. One might also wonder whether a theory of consciousness, which (according to one line of thought) has to attach consciousness to some definite physical quantity, might possibly use local quantum states.

The problem, of course, in taking these thoughts beyond coffee table speculation into specific detail is that infinitely many local state dependent evolution laws could be written down. One of the initial hopes — that requiring consistency with special relativity might reduce the number of nonlinear theories to a few candidates — has not been fulfilled. Perhaps it might be possible to identify a restricted class of sensible ansätze for coupling the local state to gravity, though.

These speculations aside, the fact remains that a theory which implies nonlinear evolution of pure quantum states need not allow superluminal signalling, or otherwise violate relativity. With this concern lifted, testing quantum linearity seems a more respectable enterprise than it has lately been painted.

## VII Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship, the European project EQUIP and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. I thank the Perimeter Institute for support while the final version of the paper was completed. Zweisteine thanks Harvey Brown’s character Keinstein brown  for helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Although the quantum field theory made a great success, there is no consistent scenario in which the quantum gravity is included. The most promising framework that could help in this direction would be the string theory, whose consistency is maintained by the requirement of additional dimensions. At first the sizes of extra dimensions had been assumed to be $`M_p^1`$, however it has been observed later that there is no obligation to consider such a tiny compactification radius. The large compactification scale may solve or weaken the traditional hierarchy problem. If we denote the volume of the $`n`$-dimensional compact space by $`V_n`$, the observed Planck mass $`M_p`$ is obtained by the relation $`M_p^2=M_{}^{n+2}V_n`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental scale of gravity. If one assumes more than two extra dimensions, $`M_{}`$ can be very close to the electroweak scale without conflicting any observable bounds.

Although such a low fundamental scale considerably improves the standard situation of the hierarchy problem, the scenario requires some degrees of fine tuning, which is apparently a modification of old hierarchy problems. The most obvious example of such fine tuning is the largeness of the quantity $`V_n`$. There are other aspects of fine tuning, which are common to conventional scenarios of grand unified theories. In particular, the problem of obtaining sufficient baryon number asymmetry of the Universe while keeping protons stable should be one of the most serious problems in models with low fundamental scale. In standard GUT theories, the proton stability is usually achieved by increasing the mass of the GUT particles that mediate the baryon number violating interactions. At the same time, the GUT-scale heavy particles assist the non-equilibrium production of the baryon number asymmetry. However, in theories with low fundamental scale, the suppression can not be achieved by merely increasing the mass scale. In this respect, some non-trivial mechanism is needed to solve this problem.

Recently an interesting mechanism was suggested in ref., where a dynamical mechanism of localizing fermions on the thick wall is adopted to solve the problem of fast proton decay. In this scenario, leptons and baryons are localized at displaced positions in the extra space, where the smallness of their interaction is insured by the smallness of the overlap of their wavefunctions along the extra dimension.

On the other hand, to explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe, baryon number violating interactions must have been effective but non-equilibrium in the early Universe, because the production of net baryon asymmetry requires baryon number violating interactions, C and CP violation and a departure from the thermal equilibrium. If the fundamental mass scale is sufficiently high, the first two of these ingredients are naturally contained in conventional GUTs. The third can be realized in an expanding universe where it is not uncommon that interactions come in and out of equilibrium, producing the stable heavy particles or cosmological defects. In the original and simplest model of baryogenesis, a heavy GUT gauge or Higgs boson decays out of equilibrium producing a net baryon asymmetry.

In models with large extra dimensions, however, the situations are rather involved because of the low fundamental scale and the requirement for the low reheating temperature. Such a low reheating temperature makes it much more difficult to produce the baryon asymmetry while achieving the proton stability in the present Universe.222Aspects of baryogenesis with large extra dimensions are already discussed by many authors. For example, in ref., it is argued that the Affleck-Dine mechanism can generate adequate baryogenesis. In ref., the global-charge non-conservation due to quantum fluctuations of the brane surface is discussed. The baryogenesis by the decay of heavy X particle is discussed in ref.. In ref., it is argued that a dimension-6 proton decay operator, suppressed today by the mechanism of quark-lepton separation in extra dimensions can generate baryon number if one assumes that this operator was unsuppressed in the early Universe due to a time-dependent quark-lepton separation. In this respect, it is very important to propose ideas to enhance the baryon number violating interactions that can take place even in the models with low reheating temperature.

In this paper we propose a mechanism where the enhancement of the baryon number violating interaction is realized by the cosmological defect.

The plan of our paper is the following. In section 2 we show how to enhance the baryon number violating interaction in the background of a string. Although the mechanism might seem similar to the one in the standard GUT string, there is a crucial difference. In the standard scenario of the GUT string, the cross section for the baryon number violating interactions mediated by the string is usually enhanced by the factor $`\left(\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_{proton}}\right)^2`$. We stress that one cannot reproduce this enhancement in models with extra dimensions merely extrapolating the analyses on the standard GUT string. We also make a brief comment on the scenario for leptogenesis with low reheating temperature. If the maximum temperature is lower than the temperature for the electroweak phase transition, sphalerons cannot convert existing leptons into baryons, which is a serious problem for leptogenesis. Even if sphalerons are not activated, strings with enhanced baryon number violation can mediate the baryon number production. In section 3 we comment on baryogenesis from the decaying cosmological defect. Cosmic strings are not effective in generic cases, but domain walls are promising.

## 2 Defects and enhanced baryon number violation

Our first task is to review the old issues of enhanced baryon number violation due to conventional GUT strings. Then we extend these analyses to models with extra dimensions, where the fast proton decay is suppressed in the present Universe due to the localized wavefunctions along extra dimension. One can easily find why the naive application cannot reproduce the enhancement of the baryon number violation that appears in standard GUT strings. We solve this problem, and construct strings with enhanced baryon number violation in models with extra dimensions. Our idea is based on the idea of ref.. We stress that our mechanism works without GUT symmetry, but some extensions are required for the standard model.

### 2.1 Enhanced baryon number violation in standard GUT strings

In the interior of a string formed after GUT symmetry breaking, there are fields that carry both baryon and lepton number. Thus a quark comes into the core of such strings will interact with the background core fields, scattered to emerge as a lepton, and vice versa. A GUT string therefore is a candidate source for baryon number violating processes in the early Universe. This reminiscents of the Rubakov-Callan effect, where the baryon number violating interaction is mediated by monopoles.

To be more specific, inside the core of the string there are quark-lepton transition mediated by $`X^\mu `$ and $`Y^\mu `$ gauge bosons, or Yukawa couplings to charged scalar fields $`\varphi _X`$ that may condensate within the string core.

Denoting the scalar field that forms the string by $`\varphi _{string}`$, a perturbative calculation of the scattering cross-section per unit length $`(d\sigma /dl)`$ for a scalar particle $`\varphi `$ coupled as $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{}|\varphi _{string}|^2\varphi ^2`$ reveals that

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{dl}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda ^{}}{\lambda }\right)^2E^1,$$
(2.1)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the self-coupling constant of $`\varphi _{string}`$.

Fermions have different couplings and different phase spaces, and require more discussions. With a simple coupling, $`g\varphi _{string}^{}\overline{\psi }^c\psi `$, the cross-section per unit length is calculated as ,

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{dl}\right)\left(\frac{g}{\lambda }\right)^2\frac{E}{M_{GUT}^2},$$
(2.2)
which is “not enhanced”. However, there is a crucial factor in the calculation for gauge strings. If the charge of the string field $`\varphi _{string}`$ is $`e`$, the resulting cross-section depends strongly on the ratio $`q/e`$, where $`q`$ is the charge of the scattered particle under the generator of the broken $`U(1)`$. The elastic scattering cross-section depends crucially on the ratio $`q/e`$, since it controls the amplification of the scattering wave-function at the core of the string. In general, the cross section also depends on the type of the interaction, whether it is mediated by a scalar or a vector field. A vector field produces its maximum effect for integer $`q/e`$, then the baryon-number violating scattering cross section per unit length $`\sigma _{/B}`$ becomes $`E^1`$. The baryon-number violating cross-section from a core scalar field takes it maximum value for half-integer $`q/e`$, then it reaches $`E^1`$.

We shall consider a simple example. Here we follow the settings and analysis in ref. and show the outline of the argument. We consider a straight string formed by a $`U(1)_S`$-charged scalar field $`\varphi _{string}`$, which condensates outside the string, i.e., $`<\varphi _{string}>\eta `$. This $`U(1)_S`$ is orthogonal to electromagnetic $`U(1)_{em}`$. We include a second scalar field $`\varphi _X`$ that is not charged under $`U(1)_S`$, carries baryon number, and condensates within the string core. The Lagrangian includes Yukawa interactions

$$=\lambda (\varphi _X\overline{\chi }\psi +\varphi _X^{}\overline{\psi }\chi )$$
(2.3)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ are both fermions of $`U(1)_S`$ charge. In ref., the cross section for the production of $`\chi `$ in the scattering of $`\psi `$ fermions off a string is calculated. The Dirac equations for $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ have off-diagonal element $`\lambda <\varphi _X>`$, which vanishes outside the string but becomes non-zero in the string core. Schematically, the Direc equations are written by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}i/i/Am_\psi & \lambda <\varphi _X>^{}\\ \lambda <\varphi _X>^{}& i/i/Am_\chi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)=0$$
(2.4)
where

$$A=\frac{1}{gr^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ y\\ x\end{array}\right),\lambda <\varphi _X>=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& for[r>R]\\ v,& for[r<R].\end{array}$$
(2.5)
The result is interesting, since the cross sections for these processes are generically enhanced by the large factor over the naive geometrical cross section. They have explicitly calculated the cross section for quarks and leptons, which are denoted by $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ in eq.(2.3), and found that the enhance factor becomes up to $`\left(\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_{proton}}\right)^2`$. In ref., the baryon-number violating processes including couplings to core gauge fields $`X^\mu `$ and $`Y^\mu `$ are also calculated and found that these scattering cross sections are enhanced by the same factor.

With this in mind, it is natural to ask whether a similar effect occurs for cosmic strings in models with extra dimensions. In the models with localized wavefunctions along the extra dimension, the baryon-number breaking interactions, such as $`\lambda ^{}\varphi _X\overline{\psi }\chi `$ must be suppressed exponentially in the true vacuum so as to ensure the proton stability. In this case, even if the charged scalar $`\varphi _X`$ condenses in the core of the string, $`\lambda ^{}<\varphi _X>`$ remains negligibly small. Thus in the naive setup, the baryon number violating interaction mediated by the string with extra dimensions is exponentially suppressed and phenomenologically negligible.

In the next subsection we show that we can improve this disappointing result if the idea of ref. is taken into account.

### 2.2 Defects in models with extra diemnsions

Now we want to construct viable models for cosmic strings that can mediate baryon number violation in models with extra dimensions. Although the TeV scale unification is already discussed by many authours, a naive extrapolation of the standard GUT string cannot madiate baryon-number violating interactions, from the reason that we have discussed above. In the following, we do not assume explicit realization of GUT, since one may include baryon-number breaking couplings without assuming GUT embeddings. These baryon-number violating couplings must be suppressed in the vacuum to prevent fast proton decay.

In ref., we have proposed a new scenario of baryon number violation, which can be utilized to solve this dilemma. To show the elements of our idea, here we limit ourselves to constructions with fermions localized within only one extra dimension and show how the tiny couplings can be enhanced in the defect.

To localize fields in the extra dimension, it is necessary to break higher dimensional translation invariance, which is accomplished by a spatially varying expectation value of the five-dimensional scalar field $`\varphi _A`$ of the thick wall along the extra dimension. If the scalar field $`\varphi _A`$ couples to the five-dimensional fermionic field $`\psi `$ through the five-dimensional Yukawa interaction $`g\varphi _A\overline{\psi }\psi `$, whose expectation value $`<\varphi _A>`$ varies along the extra dimension but is constant in the four-dimensional world, it is possible to show that the fermionic field localizes at the place where the total mass in the five-dimensional theory vanishes. For definiteness, we consider the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi _i}\left(i/_5+g_i\varphi _A(y)+m_{5,i}\right)\psi _i`$ (2.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\nu \varphi _A^\nu \varphi _A`$
$`V(\varphi _A),`$
where $`y`$ is the fifth coordinate of the extra dimension. For the special choice $`\varphi _A(y)=2\mu ^2y`$, which corresponds to approximating the kink with a straight line interpolating two vacua, the wave function in the fifth coordinate becomes gaussian centered around the zeros of $`g_i\varphi _A(y)+m_{5,i}`$. It is also shown in ref. that a left handed chiral fermionic field in the four-dimensional representation can result from the localization mechanism. The right handed part remains instead delocalized in the fifth dimension. When leptons and baryons have the five-dimensional masses $`m_{5,l}`$ and $`m_{5,q}`$, the corresponding localizations are at $`y_l=\frac{m_{5,l}}{2g_l\mu ^2}`$ and $`y_q=\frac{m_{5,q}}{2g_q\mu ^2}`$, respectively. The shapes of the fermion wave functions along the fifth direction are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{1/2}}{(\pi /2)^{1/4}}}exp\left[\mu ^2(yy_l)^2\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_q(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{1/2}}{(\pi /2)^{1/4}}}exp\left[\mu ^2(yy_q)^2\right].`$ (2.7)
Even if the five-dimensional theory violates both baryon and lepton number maximally, the dangerous operator in the effective four-dimensional theory is safely suppressed. For example, we can expect the following dangerous operator in the five-dimensional theory,

$$𝒪_5d^5x\frac{QQQL}{M_{}^3}$$
(2.8)
where $`Q,L`$ are five-dimensional representations of the fermionic fields. The corresponding four-dimensional proton decay operator is obtained by simply replacing the five-dimensional fields by the zero-mode fields and calculating the wave function overlap along the fifth dimension $`y`$. The result is

$$𝒪_4ϵ\times d^4x\frac{qqql}{M_{}^2},$$
(2.9)
where $`q,l`$ denotes the four-dimensional representation of the chiral fermionic field. The overlap of the fermionic wavefunction along the fifth dimension is included in $`ϵ`$,

$$ϵ𝑑y\left(e^{\mu ^2(yy_q)^2}\right)^3e^{\mu ^2(yy_l)^2}.$$
(2.10)
For a separation $`r=|y_qy_l|`$ of $`\mu r=10`$, one can obtain $`ϵ10^{33}`$ which makes this operator safe even for $`M_{}`$TeV. On the other hand, however, this suppression prevents the required baryon-number violating interaction of the form

$`_{\varphi _Xlq}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}\varphi _Xlq,`$ (2.11)
where $`\lambda ^{}`$ is exponentially suppressed.

To construct defect configurations, we extend the above idea to include another scalar field $`\varphi _B`$ that determines the five-dimensional mass $`m_5`$. This additional field $`\varphi _B`$ determines the position of the center of the fermionic wavefunction along the fifth dimension. We assume that $`\varphi _B`$ does not make a kink configuration along the fifth dimension, but does make a defect configuration in the four-dimensional spacetime. For definiteness, we consider the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi _i}\left(i/_5+g_i\varphi _A(y)+m(\varphi _B)_{5,i}\right)\psi _i`$ (2.12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\nu \varphi _k^\nu \varphi _k`$
$`V(\varphi _k),`$
where indices represent $`i=q,l`$ and $`k=A,B`$. Here $`\varphi _A`$ makes the kink configuration along the fifth dimension while $`\varphi _B`$ develops defect configuration in the four-dimensional spacetime. We note that $`\varphi _B`$ plays the role of $`\varphi _{string}`$ in the previous arguments.

Now we consider the simplest case where $`m_{5,i}`$ are given by $`m(\varphi _B)_{5,i}=k_i\varphi _B`$, and the potential for $`\varphi _B`$ is given by the double-well potential of the form;

$$V_B=m_B\varphi _B^2+\lambda _B\varphi _B^4.$$
(2.13)
In this simplest example, because of the effective $`Z_2`$ symmetry, the resultant defect is the cosmological domain wall. One can easily extend the model to have the string or the monopole configuration in four-dimensional spacetime, if the appropriate symmetry is imposed on the scalar field $`\varphi _B`$. For example, one can consider the form

$$m(\varphi _B)_{5,i}=k_i\frac{|\varphi _B|^2}{M_{}}$$
(2.14)
where $`\varphi _B`$ is charged with $`U(1)_S`$.

In any case, the center of the fermionic wavefunction in the fifth dimension can be shifted by the defect configuration in the four-dimensional spacetime. Because of the volume factor suppression, the largest contribution is expected in the quasi-degenerated vacuum surrounded by the cosmological domain-wall that interpolates between $`\varphi _B=\pm v`$. Let us consider the case where the wavefunctions of quarks and leptons are localized at the opposite side of the $`\varphi _A`$ kink. It can be realized if their couplings to $`\varphi _B`$ have opposite signs. In the core of the $`\varphi _B`$ string, the centers of the quarks and leptons move toward the origin. Then the distances between quarks and leptons become $`r=0`$ in the core of the string, which drastically modifies the magnitude of the baryon number violating interactions mediated by the string.

If one assumes GUT unification, the origin of such strings becomes clear. For the simplest example, we shall follow ref. and show how one can realize the localization in GUT embeddings. The embedding of SM gauge groups in some grand unified group is an interesting issue. However, the most serious obstacle for the low energy unification is the problem of proton stability, which prevents such embedding at low GUT scale. If the quarks and leptons are unified into the $`SU(5)`$ multiplets $`\overline{5}`$ and $`10`$, then the heavy gauge bosons $`X`$ and $`Y`$ must mediate the fast proton decay. In ref., GUT models with stable proton are constructed by using the mechanism of localized wavefunctions. In the bulk, Dirac masses residing in quintuplets and decuplets can be split as a result of GUT symmetry breaking according to the following equations:

$`\overline{5}\left(<\mathrm{\Sigma }>+M_5+\varphi _A\right)5`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\overline{10}\left(<\mathrm{\Sigma }>+M_{10}+\varphi _A\right)10`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
where $`<\mathrm{\Sigma }>=v\times diag(2,2,2,3,3)`$. In this model any transition between quarks and leptons in four dimensions is naturally suppressed by the exponential factor. In this GUT example, $`<\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ plays the role of $`m_{5,i}`$ in the previous discussions. Although it requires some extensions to larger gauge groups than $`SU(5)`$, GUT string can be formed as in the standard GUT scenarios, and the GUT symmetry is restored inside the core of the string. Thus in the GUT models for wavefunction localization, it is natural to expect that the positions of the fermionic wavefunctions along the fifth dimension are modified in the background of the GUT defects in the four-dimensional spacetime.

Although it seems rather difficult to produce these defects merely by the thermal effect after inflation, nonthermal effect may create such defects during preheating period of inflation. Nonthermal creation of matter and defects has raised a remarkable interest in the last years. In particular, efficient production of such products during the period of coherent oscillations of the inflaton has been studied by many authors.333 There is an another possibility that the defects are generated after the first brane inflation, while the reheat temperature after the second thermal brane inflation is kept much lower than the electroweak scale.

Thermal effect becomes important if one considers the supersymmetric extension with intermediate mass scale, i.e., $`M_{}>>TeV`$, where the position of the localized matter field can be parameterized by the flat direction. In this case, one can expect thermal symmetry restoration at the temperature much lower than the cut-off scale, which is accessible in realistic scenarios. During thermal symmetry restoration, if the five-dimensional mass terms $`m_{5,i}`$ is determined by a field $`\varphi _B`$ that parameterizes the flat direction, the center of the wavefunction is shifted along extra dimension, which results in the huge enhancement in the exponential factor. Then the baryon number violation can become effective till $`TO(10^2GeV)`$. In this case, the defect formation is not the sole candidate that enhances the baryon number violation.

## 3 Comments on baryogenesis

In this section we make some comments on baryogenesis that is mediated by cosmological defects in models with extra dimensions.

### 3.1 Particle scattering and baryon number violation

The effect of the baryon number violation is greatest when the density of the string is greatest, which in general occurs soon after the phase transition. Unlike conventional GUT strings, the string with extra dimensions is formed at much lower energy scale, and remains friction-dominated. If the string is the effective source of the baryon number violation, any existing baryon number asymmetry in the Universe may be washed out. On the other hand, if there is no effective source of the baryon number violation other than the Yukawa coupling $`\varphi _Xql`$ that is enhanced by the string, and also if the reheating temperature is too low to activate the sphalerons, the string cannot washout the existing asymmetry, but converts the existing leptons into baryons, and vice versa. In this case the strings can be utilized for leptogenesis with low reheat temperature. 444 Leptogenesis in theories with extra dimensions is already discussed in ref.. In this scenario the reheating temperature should be higher than 10 GeV or so, which gives rise to constraints on the model parameters and the quantum gravity scale. The observed baryon asymmetry can still be generated by out-of-equilibrium, exponentially suppressed B+L-violating sphaleron interactions.

Denoting the correlation length of the string network by $`\xi (t)`$, and the baryon-number violating cross section per unit length by $`\sigma _{/B}`$, one obtains

$$\frac{dn_B}{dt}\overline{v}\sigma _{/B}\frac{1}{\xi ^2}n_L,$$
(3.1)
where $`n_B(n_L)`$ is the baryon(lepton) number density and $`\overline{v}`$ is the thermally averaged relative velocity of the particles and strings, which is of order $`1`$. We can take $`\sigma _{/B}T^1`$ and $`\xi (t)t^p`$, where $`p=5/4`$ in the friction-dominated phase.

In models with large extra dimensions, the lepton number will be produced by the decay of the relics of the inflation, such as the Affleck-Dine field, or the inflaton, which will have large densities. In this case one can naturally assume that the lepton number production and the formation of the string occur at almost the same time, which makes our scenario plausible. If the lepton number production occurs before the string formation, the conversion is promising because the scattering is greatest just after the string formation. On the other hand, if the strings are formed before the lepton number production, the conversion is not trivial. The conversion is greatest just after the time of the lepton production, $`t_L`$. Then one can obtain the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_B}{n_L}|_{t_L}\frac{1}{T(t_L)}\left(\frac{1}{\xi _0\left(\frac{t_L}{t_0}\right)^p}\right)^2t_L,$$
(3.2)
where $`t_0`$ and $`\xi _0`$ are the time of the string formation and the initial correlation length of the string, respectively. The scattering is important when $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_B}{n_L}|_{t_L}O(1)`$. Using the above relations, one can easily find that the scattering process is activated just after the string formation and then lasts for a short period. If the sphalerons and other baryon-number violating interactions are not activated at the time of the string formation, which may occur in the scenario of defect formation during preheating, these strings can convert existing leptons into baryons without washout. We believe that our idea can help to solve the difficulty in leptogenesis for models with large extra dimensions related to the low reheat temperature that suppresses the sphaleron-mediated interactions.555In ref., sphaleron transitions that may proceed during matter-dominated phase is discussed. In our model, the reheating process must be different from the one discussed in ref. to avoid washout of the existing asymmetry.

### 3.2 Baryogenesis from collapsing strings

At first we shall review the basics of the standard scenario of baryon number generation from the decaying GUT strings. Baryon number asymmetry produced by strings are important when the number density of existing heavy $`X`$ particle is less than the one produced by the decaying strings. In the standard GUT baryogenesis it is well known that the predicted baryon to entropy ratio is exponentially suppressed if $`T_d`$, which is the temperature at the time when the baryon number violating processes fall out of thermal equilibrium, is less than the mass of the heavy X particle $`m_X`$. For example, if the temperature $`T_d`$ at the time $`t_d`$ is greater than the mass $`m_X`$ of the superheavy particles, then it follows that $`n_Xs`$. However, if $`T_d<m_X`$, the number density of $`X`$ is diluted exponentially, which results in the exponential suppression of the produced baryon to entropy ratio:

$$\frac{n_B}{s}ϵ\frac{1}{g^{}}\lambda ^2exp\left(\frac{m_X}{T_d}\right),$$
(3.3)
where $`g^{}`$ is the number of spin degrees of freedom in thermal equilibrium at the time of the phase transition, $`\lambda `$ is the coupling constant of the baryon number violating process, and $`ϵ`$ demotes the effective CP violation. If the exponential suppression is tiny, the standard GUT baryogenesis mechanism is ineffective.

However, topological defects may solve this problem in standard GUT. The collapse of cosmic string can produce baryon asymmetry if the $`\varphi _X`$-boson, which couples to both baryons and leptons through Yukawa coupling of the form $`\lambda \varphi _Xql`$, forms or couples to the cosmic string. The important ingredient in the quantitative calculation is the time dependence of the correlation length $`\xi (t)`$, which parameterizes the separation between defects. Just after the phase transition, the separation is expected to be $`\xi (t_0)\lambda ^1\eta ^1`$. The time period of relevance for baryogenesis, $`\xi (t)`$ approaches the Hubble radius according to the following equation

$$\xi (t)\xi (t_0)\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{5}{4}}.$$
(3.4)
After some algebra, one can obtain the baryon to entropy ratio:

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\lambda ^2\frac{T_d}{\eta }\frac{n_B}{s}|_0$$
(3.5)
where $`\frac{n_B}{s}|_0`$ is the unsuppressed value of GUT baryogenesis, and $`\eta `$ denotes the square root of the energy density per length. Thus in the standard GUT models, one can see that the superheavy particles produced by the succeeding decay of the cosmic strings can overcome the exponential suppression.

The domain wall, which seems much more effective for producing particles, is ruled out by the cosmological requirement.666 However, we should stress that in models with extra dimensions the mass scale of the domain wall is much lowered, thus they can survive till the time period of relevance for baryogenesis. We shall discuss on this issue in the next subsection.

Then what is the difference between the defect mediated baryogenesis in the standard GUT and the one with extra dimensions? The most obvious difference is the reheating temperature, which must be much lower than the scale of the string formation. In scenarios for string mediated baryogenesis, the greatest contribution appears just after they have formed. Regarding to the baryon number production by the decaying strings, later contribution cannot exceed the initial one, because of the rapid growth of their correlation length and the dilution by the redshift. Then the low reheating temperature is problematic, since there should be a large amount of dillution by the decaying field in the time period between string formation and reheating.777 We shall consider two separated situations. In one case, preheating is not effective and the maximum temperature during reheating can be much greater than the reheating temperature. This may happen when the reheating is far from being an instantaneous process, and the decay products of the relevant scalar field thermalize rapidly before the Universe becomes radiation dominated. They have calculated the dillution factor of the baryon to entropy ratio, which is produced before the Universe becomes radiation dominated;
$$\frac{n_B}{s}B_0\left(\frac{T_R}{T_B}\right)^5,$$
(3.6)  where $`T_B`$ denotes the temperature when the baryon number asymmetry is produced. In the most naive case, when $`T_B10TeV`$, and $`T_R1GeV`$, the dillution factor is crucially small. If the potential for $`\varphi _{string}`$ is sufficiently flat, which may occur in supersymmetric extensions of the model, the time of the string formation is delayed and one can improve the result. However, the supersymmetric extension seems far from being attractive for scenarios with TeV scale unification. Otherwise, one should fine tune the self-coupling constant, which makes this scenario unsatisfactory. One can consider another scenario for string formation. Preheating after inflation may lead to nonthermal phase transitions with defect formation. The time of the string formation may be delayed so that the string formation occurs just before the reheating, but it requires the fine tuning of the coupling constants, which makes this scenario unattractive.

### 3.3 Baryogenesis from unstable Domain walls

Unlike the strings that we have discussed above, unstable domain walls are the efficient source of baryon number asymmetry, if they decay after reheating.

In most cases, the domain walls are dangerous for the standard evolution of the Universe. However, if some criteria are satisfied, unstable domain walls that disappear at $`t<t_c(G\sigma )^1`$ can exist. When the discrete symmetry is not the exact symmetry, it may be broken by the interactions suppresses by the cut-off scale. Then the degeneracy is broken and the energy difference $`ϵ0`$ appears. Regions of the higher density vacuum tend to collapse when the pressure induced by the energy difference becomes dominant. The corresponding force per unit area of the wall is $`ϵ`$. The energy difference $`ϵ`$ becomes dynamically important when this force becomes comparable to the force of the tension $`f\sigma /R_w`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the surface energy density of the wall and $`R_w`$ denotes the typical scale for the wall distance. For walls to disappear, this has to happen before they become harmful. On the other hand, the domain wall network is not a static system. In general, the initial shape of the walls right after the phase transition is determined by the random variation of the scalar VEV. One expects the walls to be very irregular, random surfaces with a typical curvature radius, which is determined by the correlation length of the scalar field. To characterize the system of domain walls, one can use a simulation. The system will be dominated by one large (infinite size) wall network and some finite closed walls (cells) when they form. The isolated closed walls smaller than the horizon will shrink and disappear soon after the phase transition. Since the walls smaller than the horizon size will efficiently disappear so that only walls at the horizon size will remain, their typical curvature scale will be the horizon size, $`RtM_p/g_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}T^2`$. Since the energy density of the wall $`\rho _w`$ is about

$$\rho _w\frac{\sigma }{R},$$
(3.7)
and the radiation energy density $`\rho _r`$ is

$$\rho _rg_{}T^4,$$
(3.8)
one sees that the wall dominates the evolution below a temperature $`T_w`$

$$T_w\left(\frac{\sigma }{g_{}^{1/2}M_p}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(3.9)
To prevent the wall domination, one requires the pressure to have become dominant before this epoch,

$$ϵ>\frac{\sigma }{R_{wd}}\frac{\sigma ^2}{M_p^2},$$
(3.10)
which is consistent with the criterion in ref.. Here $`R_{wd}`$ denotes the horizon size at the wall domination. A pressure of this magnitude would be produced by higher dimensional operators, which explicitly break the effective discrete symmetry.

The criterion (3.10) seems appropriate, if the scale of the wall is higher than $`(10^5GeV)^3`$. For the walls below this scale ($`\sigma (10^5GeV)^3`$), there should be further constraints coming from primordial nucleosynthesis. Since the time associated with the collapsing temperature $`T_w`$ is $`t_wM_p^2/g_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma 10^8\left(\frac{(10^2GeV)^3}{\sigma }\right)`$sec, the walls $`\sigma (10^5GeV)^3`$ will decay after nucleosynthesis. In this case, one must consider stronger constraint.

The cosmological domain wall that we consider in this paper will have the surface energy density $`\sigma M_{}^3(10^2TeV)^3`$, which can decay after or just before the reheating. When they decay, their energy density $`\rho _w`$ can be comparable to the energy density of the radiation. Moreover, their baryon number violating decay is enhanced if the center of the wavefunction of baryons and leptons along extra dimension coincides in the core of the defect. There may be other source of the enhancement in the false vacuum domain where the center of the wavefunctions may be shifted by O(1).

We can calculate the baryon to entropy ratio as

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{\rho _w/m_X}{T_d^3}ϵ\frac{T_d}{m_X}ϵ$$
(3.11)
where $`T_d`$ denotes the temperature when walls decay. The effective CP violation and the difference between the rates of the decays is included in $`ϵ`$. The mass of $`X`$ boson that mediates the baryon number violating decay is assumed to be $`m_XM_{}`$. If the baryon number violating interaction is not enhanced in the background of the wall configuration, the exponential suppression in $`ϵ`$ reduces the baryon number asymmetry, which is very similar to the situation discussed in ref.. However, there should be a huge enhancement of the baryon number violating interactions in our model. In the most optimistic case, where $`ϵ10^4`$, one can obtain the desired baryon to entropy ratio for $`T_d10^1GeV`$ and $`m_X10^5GeV`$.

## 4 Conclusions and Discussions

In the standard grand unified theories, various types of baryon number violating processes are expected in the early Universe. On the other hand, in models with large extra dimensions, it is difficult to realize baryon number violation even in the background of a string. In this paper we argue that in the background of a cosmic string with extra dimensions the baryon number violating interactions are enhanced if the proton decay is suppressed by the machanism of localized wavefunctions. We also make some comments on baryogenesis mediated by cosmological defects. At least two scenarios will be successful. One is the scenario of leptogenesis where the required lepton number conversion is mediated by the string, and the other is the baryogenesis from the decaying cosmological domain wall. Both scenarios are new and are not discussed in the past. These mechanisms predicts sufficient baryon number production even if the reheating temperature is much lower than the temperature of the electroweak phase transition.

## 5 Acknowledgment

We wish to thank K.Shima for encouragement, and our colleagues in Tokyo University for their kind hospitality.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been increasing interest in “Quantum-Gravity Phenomenology” , the research programme that attempts to identify aspects of quantum gravity that can be tested experimentally and to identify some of the corresponding experiments that can do significant tests with presently-available technological capabilities. Examples of possible experimental searches have been considered in Refs.  and (with an emphasis not directly related to quantum properties of space-time) in Refs. . Recent reviews of the status of this field can be found in Refs. .

Here we want to draw a sharper distinction between analyses that consider “systematic” quantum-gravity effects and analyses that consider “non-systematic” quantum-gravity effects. The theoretical prediction that does not include the effects of quantum gravity is characterized, with respect to a given observable $`\widehat{X}`$, by a prediction $`X`$ and, possibly, a fundamental (quantum mechanical) uncertainty $`\delta X`$. The effects of quantum gravity in general then should lead  to a new prediction $`X^{}`$ and a new uncertainty $`\delta X^{}`$. One would attribute to quantum gravity the effects $`(\mathrm{\Delta }X)_{QG}X^{}X`$ and $`(\delta X)_{QG}\delta X^{}\delta X0`$. One can speak of purely systematic quantum-gravity effect when $`(\mathrm{\Delta }X)_{QG}0`$ and $`(\delta X)_{QG}=0`$, while the opposite case, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }X)_{QG}=0`$ and $`(\delta X)_{QG}>0`$, can be qualified as purely non-systematic. One might expect both types of effect to be present simultaneously, as it is emerging from certain developing formalisms , but in a given phenomenological programme the focus may be put on one or the other case. For example, the type of in-vacuo dispersion studies described in Refs.  focuses on a purely systematic effect, while the space-time-foam interferometric studies described in Ref.  focus on a purely non-systematic effect.

We intend to characterize more carefully the differences between these two types of quantum-gravity effects, even though, depending on the specifics of the physical context, the signatures to be sought experimentally may or may not be sharply different. Our analysis will mainly rely on the case study provided by one of the possible quantum-gravity predictions which has recently attracted most attention: the possibility of quantum-gravity implications for the kinematical threshold for certain particle-physics processes. In that context, which we will review in the next section, both types of effects can be meaningfully considered. We will discuss their different manifestations, and in particular we will argue that the characteristic signatures of nonsystematic effects have a stronger tendency to depend on some nontrivial features of the underlying dynamical theory, whereas in some cases systematic effects can be studied with the exclusive guidance of symmetry principles. These points we will articulate in Section 3, while Section 4 is devoted to some closing remarks.

## 2 Quantum-gravity-induced threshold anomalies

In two different regimes, UHECRs and multi-TeV photons, the universe appears to be more transparent than expected. UHECRs should interact with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and produce pions. TeV photons should interact with the Far Infra Red Background (FIRB) photons and produce electron-positron pairs. These interactions should make observations of UHECRs with $`E>510^{19}`$eV (the GZK limit) or of gamma-rays with $`E>10`$TeV from distant sources unlikely. Still UHECRs above the GZK limit and Mk501 photons with energies up to 24 TeV have been observed.

A CMBR photon and a UHE proton with $`E>510^{19}`$eV should satisfy the kinematic requirements (threshold) for pion production. UHE protons should therefore loose energy, due to photopion production, and should slow down until their energy is below the GZK energy. At higher energies the proton’s mean free path decreases rapidly and it is down to a few Mpc at $`310^{20}`$eV. Yet more than 15 CRs have been observed with nominal energies at or above $`10^{20}\pm 30\%`$ eV. There are no astrophysical sources capable of accelerating particles to such energies within a few tens of Mpc from us. Furthermore, if the CRs are produced homogeneously in space and time, we would expect a break in the CR spectrum around the GZK threshold, which is not seen.

HEGRA has detected high-energy photons with a spectrum ranging up to 24 TeV from Markarian 501 (Mk501), a BL Lac object at a redshift of 0.034 ($`157`$ Mpc). This observation might indicate a second paradox of a similar nature. A high energy photon with energy $`E`$ can interact with a FIRB photon with wavelength $`\lambda 30\mu m(E/10TeV)`$ and produce an electron-positron pair. The mean free path of TeV photons depends on the spectrum of the FIRB. Recent data from DIRBE and from ISOCOM  suggest that the mean free path for 20TeV photons should be much shorter than the one of 10TeV photons. However, no apparent break is seen in the spectrum of Mk501 in the region $`10`$-$`20`$TeV.

The UHECR paradox is well established. Numerous theoretical models, mostly requiring new physics, have been proposed for its resolution (see Ref. for a recent review). With much less data, and with some uncertainty on the FIRB, the Mk501 TeV-photon paradox is less established111For an analysis of the Mk501 experimental situation that does not advocate threshold anomalies see, e.g., Ref. .. However, if indeed this must be considered as a paradox, there are no models for its resolution, apart from the possibility that the FIRB estimates are too large. Planned experiments will soon provide us better data on both issues. At present it appears reasonable to explore the possibility that both paradoxes are real.

One natural interpretation of these paradoxes relies on quantum gravity effects : both classes of puzzling observations, cosmic rays and Mk501 photons, at the theoretical level involve the evaluation of a particle production threshold. The relevant threshold conditions are nothing but a statement about the symmetries of classical Minkowski spacetime. It is therefore conceivable that one might explain the puzzling observations in terms of a quantum-gravity-induced ”threshold anomaly” , i.e., a different prediction for thresholds which might result from quantum properties of spacetime. In both paradoxes, low-energy photons interact with high energy particles. The relevant reactions should take place at a kinematic threshold. In both cases, the center-of-mass threshold energies are rather modest and the physical processes involved are well tested and understood. These observations appears to encourage the hypothesis that quantum-gravity-induced deviations from ordinary Lorentz invariance might be responsible for both paradoxes222It is of course also possible to consider deviations from Lorentz invariance that do not have quantum-gravity origin, but, as discussed in Refs., the idea of a quantum-gravity origin, besides being conceptually appealing, leads to a natural estimate for the magnitude of the effects, and this estimate appears to fit well the observations (while non-quantum-gravity approaches host a large number of parameters which have to be freely adjusted to obtain the needed magnitude of departures from Lorentz-invariance)..

Most studies have considered the possibility that quantum-gravity effects might shift the threshold systematically (in the language adopted in the introduction, this would be a ”systematic” quantum-gravity effect). In order to illustrate this systematic mechanism of threshold anomalies, let us consider, for example, the case in which quantum-gravity effects are assumed to induce a deformation of the dispersion relations of the type

$$E^2\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2+\eta \stackrel{}{p}^2\left(\frac{E}{E_p}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(1)
where $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ are the energy and the (3-component) momentum of the particle, $`E_p`$ is the Planck energy scale ($`E_p10^{16}`$TeV), $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ are free parameters characterizing the deviation from ordinary Lorentz invariance.333Space-time structures leading to (1) do not necessarily reflect a loss of symmetry with respect to ordinary Minkowski space-time. For example, with $`\alpha =1`$, (1) can characterize certain quantum spacetimes as an observer-independent property , and in those spacetimes one still has a (modified) concept of Lorentz invariance which amounts to as many symmetries as in the ordinary classical-spacetime case. In this Section we are, however, effectively considering a broken-symmetry case; in fact, we assume ordinary conservation of energy-momentum, while the case in which a dispersion relation (1) does not lead to symmetry loss involves  a corresponding deformation of energy-momentum conservation.

Experimental tests of the predictions of (1) were first proposed in Ref. , for the case $`\alpha =1`$, and in Ref. , for generic $`\alpha `$.

Let us consider the implications of (1) for the kinematics of the process of electron-positron pair production, which is relevant for the Mk501 paradox. Combining (1) with ordinary energy-momentum conservation rules, one can establish that, for the case $`\alpha =1`$, at threshold the energy $`E`$ of the hard Mk501 photon and the energy $`ϵ`$ of the soft background photon satisfy the relation $`Em_e^2/ϵ\eta m_e^6/(8E_pϵ^4)`$. For negative $`\eta `$ (and $`|\eta |1`$), the correction $`\eta m_e^6/(8E_pϵ^4)`$ is indeed sufficient to push the threshold energy upwards by a few TeV, consistently with observations. As shown in Refs. (and references therein), an analogous result holds for the photopion threshold, which is relevant for the cosmic-ray paradox.

This type of analysis shows that the two paradoxes might indeed be a manifestation of a quantum (Planck-length related) property of spacetime.

We have so far assumed that the quantum-gravity effect responsible for the puzzling observations in cosmic-ray and Mk-501 physics is of the systematic type, but in Ref.  some non-systematic quantum-gravity effects were considered in relation with these same observations. Our main objective here is to compare the non-systematic effects with the already understood systematic effects.

## 3 Non-systematic effects and threshold anomalies

In the previous Section, we have reviewed the use of a systematic quantum-gravity effect, a systematically deformed dispersion relation, for the solution of threshold anomalies. One can easily construct an alternative scheme in which the systematic effect responsible for the anomalies appears in energy-momentum conservation (or both in the dispersion relation and in energy-momentum conservation), but we shall not be concerned with these alternatives, since our focus is on distinguishing between systematic and non-systematic effects.

Accordingly, in this Section, we consider the case of a non-systematic quantum-gravity-induced deformation of the dispersion relation, more specifically, the case in which the classical relation $`E^2=p^2+m^2`$ still holds on average, but in a given physical realization $`E`$ will be related to $`p^2`$ in a way that can be slightly different from the average relation: $`E^2=p^2+m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\eta \stackrel{}{p}^2(E/E_p)^\alpha <\mathrm{\Delta }<\eta \stackrel{}{p}^2(E/E_p)^\alpha `$.

As we shall see, the implications of these non-systematic effects may depend heavily on the mechanism by which the uncertainty (the non-systematic effect) is attributed in a given physical process. In preparation for that discussion it is useful to consider a simplified problem, which captures some aspects of the threshold-anomaly problem here of interest.

### 3.1 A useful analogy

The observation of cosmic-rays or photons above threshold is puzzling because they come from far away and they should have disappeared (or ”degraded”, in the case of cosmic rays) along the way, by encountering appropriate ”sinks” (the soft background photons).

For the purpose of the analysis we are reporting here, it is useful to consider a much simplified analogous problem. Consider a setup in which wheels, of diameter $`D_w`$, are sent from point $`A`$ to point $`B`$. On the path from $`A`$ to $`B`$, there are some holes of diameter $`D_h`$. If $`D_w<D_h`$ the wheels will disappear in the first hole encountered and will not reach point $`B`$. If $`D_w>D_h`$ the wheels will safely reach point $`B`$.

One can speak of a threshold anomaly for the case in which the classical predictions for $`D_w`$ and $`D_h`$ are such that $`D_w<D_h`$, but some wheels still reach point $`B`$ from $`A`$. We are assuming that the number of wheels sent from $`A`$ toward $`B`$ per unit time is not known. In the case of the ”classical” prediction $`D_w<D_h`$ the ignorance about this frequency of emission is not significant: in the case $`D_w<D_h`$ no wheels should reach $`B`$. If some wheels are observed at $`B`$ something must be wrong with the ”classical theory”.

Such an anomaly could be explained as a systematic ”non-classical” effect: one could argue that either the correct (non-classical) value of the wheel diameter $`D_w^{}`$ is such that $`D_w^{}>D_h>D_w`$ or that the correct value of the hole size $`D_h^{}`$ is such that $`D_h^{}<D_w<D_h`$ (in other words one should assume that the classical estimate, $`D_w`$, $`D_h`$, is systematically incorrect, and that the correct values of wheel diameter and the whole size are some $`D_w^{}`$, $`D_h^{}`$ such that $`D_h^{}<D_w^{}`$).

One can also advocate non-systematic effects. Assume for example that, while the classical estimate of the hole size $`D_h`$ is correct, the correct non-classical description of the mechanism that sends wheels from $`A`$ to $`B`$ is such that not all wheels have the same diameter $`D_w`$, but any given wheel has a diameter $`D_w^{}`$ with $`D_w\mathrm{\Delta }<D_w^{}<D_w+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, according to some probability law. Then it would not be surprising to observe some wheels arriving at $`B`$, since some of the wheels do have a diameter $`D_w^{}`$ such that $`D_w^{}>D_h`$. This would provide an explanation of the threshold anomaly.444This is analogous to the non-systematic effect advocated in Ref. .

On the other hand, if the classical estimate of $`D_w`$ is correct but a non-classical uncertainty affects $`D_h`$, one does not necessarily obtain an explanation of the threshold anomaly. The holes found on the way between point $`A`$ and point $`B`$ may not all have the same size $`D_h`$, but instead the i-th hole has size $`D_h^i`$ with value somewhere in the range $`D_h\mathrm{\Delta }<D_h^i<D_h+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, according to some probability distribution. In this case, if only one (or a few) hole is encountered on the way from $`A`$ to $`B`$, there will be a significant portion of the wheels that reachs $`B`$, providing an explanation for the threshold anomaly. But if the number of holes found on the way from $`A`$ to $`B`$ is large, then there will only be a negligibly small probability for a wheel to reach point $`B`$; in fact, out of many holes there will easily be at least one with size $`D_h^i`$ such that $`D_w<D_h^i`$. A non-systematic effect, even one that at first sight might appear well suited for providing an explanation for the threshold anomaly, is not necessarily sufficient to solve the threshold anomaly.

In closing this Subsection, let us consider a scenario in which both systematic and non-systematic effects coexist. Let us assume that the classical estimate $`D_w`$ of the size of the wheels is incorrect and must be replaced systematically with the estimate $`D_w^{}`$, and that $`D_w^{}>D_h`$. Moreover, let us assume that the size of the holes is $`D_h`$ only on average, but the i-th hole has size $`D_h^i`$ with value somewhere in the range $`D_h\mathrm{\Delta }<D_h^i<D_h+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, according to some probability distribution. In such a situation it is crucial to establish whether $`D_w^{}`$ is greater than $`D_h+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, because, in spite of the fluctuations in the sizes of the holes, this would mean that the wheels can get safely from $`A`$ to $`B`$. But, if $`D_w^{}<D_h+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the number of holes is large, it is then likely that the wheel will encounter on the way from $`A`$ to $`B`$ at least one hole large enough for the wheeel to disappear into it. This scenario is interesting because it shows that, for theories with both systematic and nonsystematic effects, one should really do a careful analysis: it is not sufficient to analyze the systematic effects. We have seen, via this analogy, that non-systematic effects can in some situations give rise to a systematic result (in our analogy, if the number of holes is large the wheel will disappear into one of the holes, nearly systematically). And non-systematic effects can counter-act the action of systematic effects (in our analogy, the systematic effect in the wheel diameter, which would have explained the threshold anomaly, is offset by the non-systematic effect on the sizes of the holes).

### 3.2 Threshold anomalies and non-systematic quantum-gravity effects

In Section 2 we have reviewed the most common use of quantum-gravity ideas in relation with the threshold anomalies: a systematic quantum-gravity effect on the dispersion relation, which affects the threshold prediction. In Ref.  another type of quantum-gravity effects was preliminarily considered in relation with the threshold anomalies: the possibility of a new uncertainty principle between energy and momentum.

Motivation for these new uncertainty principles can be found in Ref. . For the purposes of the present study it is significant that a new uncertainty principle introduces new non-systematic effects in quantum-gravity phenomenology. The analogy drawn in the previous Subsection will help us quickly analyze the possible implications of such non-systematic effects for threshold anomalies.

For simplicity, let us focus on some non-systematic effects that are the natural counterpart for the systematic effects described by Eq. (1) for the case $`\alpha =1`$. Whereas, according to Eq. (1), the relation between energy and momentum at high energies is systematically deformed to

$$E|\stackrel{}{p}|+\frac{m^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}|}+\frac{\eta }{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{E_p},$$
(2)
in an uncertainty-relation-based scheme for non-systematic quantum-gravity effects one can assume that on average the classical-spacetime relation between energy and momentum is still satisfied, but for a given particle with large momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, energy would be somewhere in the range

$$|\stackrel{}{p}|+\frac{m^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}|}\frac{|\eta |}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{E_p}E|\stackrel{}{p}|+\frac{m^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}|}+\frac{|\eta |}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{E_p},$$
(3)
with some (possibly gaussian) probability distribution. The given quantum-gravity theory will host a fundamental value of $`\eta `$ (reasonably conjectured to be of order $`1`$ ), but each given particle will satisfy a dispersion relation of the type

$$E|\stackrel{}{p}|+\frac{m^2}{2|\stackrel{}{p}|}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{E_p},$$
(4)
with $`|\eta |\stackrel{~}{\eta }|\eta |`$.

Let us again focus on the example of electro-positron pair production in a head-on photon-photon collision, again assuming that (as relevant for the analysis of Mk501 observations) one of the photons is very hard while the other one is very soft. To leading order, the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ for the given soft photon is not important, only the energy $`ϵ`$ of the soft photon is significant. The soft photon can, in leading order, be treated as satisfying a classical dispersion relation. In a quantum-gravity theory predicting such non-systematic effects, the hard photon is mainly characterized by its energy $`E`$ and its value of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$. In order to establish whether a collision between two such photons can produce an electron-positron pair, one should establish whether, for some admissable values of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$ (the values of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ pertaining to the positron and the electron respectively), the conditions for energy-momentum conservation can be satisfied. The process will be allowed if

$$E\frac{m^2}{ϵ}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{4}\frac{E^3}{ϵE_p}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }_++\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}}{16}\frac{E^3}{ϵE_p}.$$
(5)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$ are bound to the range between $`|\eta |`$ and $`|\eta |`$, the process is only allowed, independently of the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, if the condition

$$E\frac{m^2}{ϵ}\frac{3|\eta |}{8}\frac{E^3}{ϵE_p}$$
(6)
is satisfied. This condition defines the actual threshold in the non-systematic-effect scenario we are considering. Clearly in this sense the threshold is inevitably decreased by the non-systematic effect. However, there is only a tiny chance that a given photon would have $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=|\eta |`$, since this is the limiting case of the range allowed by the uncertainty principle that is inducing the non-systematic effect, and unless $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=|\eta |`$ the process will still not be allowed even if

$$E\frac{m^2}{ϵ}\frac{3|\eta |}{8}\frac{E^3}{ϵE_p}.$$
(7)
Moreover, even assuming $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=|\eta |`$, the energy value described by (7) will only be sufficient to create an electron positron pair with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+=|\eta |`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}=|\eta |`$, which again are isolated points at the extremes of the relevant probability distributions. Therefore the process becomes possible at the energy level described by (7) but it remains extremely unlikely, strongly suppressed by the small probability that the values of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$ would satisfy the kinematical requirements.

With reasoning of this type, one can easily develop an intuition for the dependence on the energy $`E`$, for fixed value of $`ϵ`$ (and treating $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$ as totally unknown), of the likelihood that the pair-production process can occur: (i) when (6) is not satisfied the process is not allowed; (ii) as the value of $`E`$ is increased above the value described by (7), pair production becomes less and less suppressed by the relevant probability distributions for $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$, but some suppression remains up to the value of $`E`$ that satisfies

$$E\frac{m^2}{ϵ}+\frac{3|\eta |}{8}\frac{E^3}{ϵE_p};$$
(8)
(iii) finally for energies $`E`$ higher than the one described by (8), the process is kinematically allowed for all values of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$, and therefore the likelihood of the process is just the same as in the classical-spacetime theory.

Up to this point we have analyzed a single photon-photon collision, focusing on the kinematic requirements for electron-positron pair production. This process is relevant for understanding certain astrophysical observations, such as the Mk501 photons. For a Mk501 photon with energy of some 10 or 20 TeV, there are many opportunities to collide with soft photons with energy suitable for pair production to occur (the mean free path is much shorter than the distance between the source and the Earth). Thus one expects (in the same sense illustrated through the analogy discussed in the previous Subsection for the case of many holes between points $`A`$ and $`B`$) that even a small probability of producing an electron-positron pair in a single collision would be sufficient to lead to the disappearance of the MK501 hard photon before reaching our detectors. The probability is small in a single collision with a soft background photon, but the fact that there are, during the long journey, many such pair-production opportunities renders it likely that in one of the many collisions the hard photon would indeed disappear into an electron-positron pair. For the specific scheme of non-systematic effects which we have used as illustrative example in this Subsection, it appears therefore that a characteristic prediction is that the Mk501 should start being sharply suppressed already at the energy level described by (7), below the threshold corresponding to the classical-spacetime kinematics. Of course, completely analogous arguments apply to the analysis of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Since the present interpretation of these observations is that the particle flux is unsuppressed even beyond the classical-spacetime prediction, the type of non-systematic scheme considered here appears not to provide an explanation of the data. This of course does not exclude altogether the idea that non-systematic effects might be responsible for those observations: the non-systematic scheme considered in this Subsection corresponds, in the analogy of the preceding Subsection, only to the case in which non-systematic effects affect the sizes of the many holes between points $`A`$ and $`B`$, while the wheel diameter is fixed; but one could look for schemes in which other types of non-systematic effects are present. If one could replicate the situation which, in our analogy, involves fixed sizes for the holes but varying diameters for the wheels affected by non-systematic effects, the phenomenological implications for Mk501 observations (and cosmic-ray observations) would be different: one would still expect a suppression of the flux to start occurring below the classical threshold, albeit only a small suppression (which could fall within the accuracy of present measurements), and the flux would then be expected to extend even beyong the classical threshold, although with increasingly large suppression. In this sense, such an alternative non-systematic-effect scheme would provide a solution of the threshold paradoxes.

### 3.3 Interplay between systematic and non-systematic effects

Our analysis of the example of non-systematic effects on particle kinematics may also be relevant for certain systematic-effect schemes for solving the threshold paradoxes. In fact, it appears plausible  that in quantum spacetime one would find deformed symmetries, possibly leading to a systematic deformation of the dispersion relation, as well as new uncertainty principles, possibly affecting in non-systematic fashion the $`Ep`$ relation established by the dispersion relation. It is therefore important to understand the implications of non-systematic effects, and in particular we should try to understand how systematic effects and nonsystematic effects can combine in physical contexts such as the ones pertaining to the paradoxes we have considered.

As discussed in the analogy introduced in Subsection 3.1, nonsystematic effects can effectively counter-act the implications of systematic effects of comparable magnitude. Following the reasoning described in Subsection 3.1, the reader can easily realize that it is plausible that one can have a theory in which spacetime symmetries would be such that the dispersion relation is deformed in the direction of inducing an increase of the threshold with respect to the classical-spacetime prediction, but then there might also be non-systematic effects that (with however small probability) can render particle-production processes possible even below the new threshold.

A systematic effect may well raise the threshold for a particle-production process, but in the presence of an accompanying non-systematic effect, this increase of the threshold will have to be interpreted only in a statistical sense: processes with energetics below the new higher threshold can still (with however small probability) occur. If the size of the upward shift in the threshold is comparable to the size of the uncertainties to be taken into account in threshold analysis, the minimum required energetic configuration required by the process will be basically unchanged; the only net implication of the two effects combined would be a probabilistic modulation (of the type discussed in the previous Subsections) of the particle-production probability. When many collision opportunities are encountered by a high-energy particle on its way from the source to the Earth, even a small probability of particle production in each collision may be sufficient for particles below threshold to be involved in at least one particle-production process, and this can counter-act the upward shift of the threshold induced by the systematic effects.

## 4 Closing remarks

The illustrative example of quantum-gravity-induced threshold anomalies has allowed us to show that the analysis of non-systematic quantum-gravity effects can be non-trivial and neglecting such effects in favour of accompanying systematic effects may lead to unreliable conclusions. The stochastic/probabilistic nature of the effects induced by quantum-gravity uncertainty principles can be strengthened in some cases by the fact that several such probabilistic imprints can characterize a given observation. For example, in certain models the probability of particle-production below threshold may be extremely small, but in certain situations, as in the case of high-energy particles reaching us from far away astrophysical sources, this small probability applies only to a single opportunity of collision with a soft background photon, while the overall probability of particle production, considering that a large number of particle-production opportunities are encountered by the high-energy particle on its way to our detectors, may still be large.

In light of our analysis, it appears that attempts to explain the debated threshold anomalies for cosmic rays and Mk501 photons that rely exclusively on non-systematic effects are probably problematic; but this type of solution cannot be excluded in general a priori, as the careful reader will deduce from some of the remarks in Subsection 3.1. We have also provided motivations for a more careful study of threshold anomalies in contexts in which both systematic and non-systematic effects are expected, especially since it is not always possible to assume that non-systematic effects are negligible with respect to systematic ones.

Acknowledgments

G.A.-C. greatfully acknowledges conversations with Tsvi Piran. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Bahnson Fund of the University of North Carolina.