text:
# Visions: The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics

## 1 Galileo’s Three Revolutions

In this talk, I want to evoke some of the revolutionary developments I believe will come over the next two decades in particle physics. To set the context, and because we find ourselves in Italy, I’d like to begin by recalling three revolutions we identify with Galileo and his time.

Eppur si muove. In the public mind and in popular literature, Galileo is remembered chiefly for his part in completing the Copernican revolution, establishing that humans do not occupy a privileged location in the universe. It’s a great achievement and a good story, given texture by Galileo’s complex persona and by the richness of his relationship with the inquistorial Church .

Cimenti. The Copernican revolution is a scientific movement accomplished. We scientists revere Galileo no less for his contribution to the scientific method. For it was during Galileo’s time that humans found the courage to reject Authority. They learned instead to read nature by doing experiments, subjecting their hypotheses to unremitting trials by ordeal that Galileo called cimenti. The notion that experiment, not eloquence, is the arbiter of what is true revolutionized mankind’s relationship with nature.

The minute particular. An essential element of civilization is human curiosity about the world and a thirst to comprehend nature. Until five centuries ago, the questions our ancestors wondered about were broad and the explanations they advanced were sweeping but vague. Asking great questions—seeking to explain everything about the world all at once—led to extremely limited answers. Science as we know it took shape in Galileo’s time when humans learned that asking limited questions could lead them to universal insights. In contemporary American discourse at least, the received wisdom holds that all the great questions have been answered and that today’s scientists—gifted though they might be—are dealing with ever narrower research topics. This canard betrays an ignorance of how science has been done ever since it became worthy of the name. You can help explain to the world what science is. To be most effective, you must make the connection between your own minute particular (the search for the Higgs boson, the width of the $`W`$, the mass of the top, or whatever) and the universal understanding we are trying to build.111A recent article in FermiNews  makes the challenge uncomfortably plain.

Are all the great scientific revolutions in the distant past? Not at all: We are here to discuss the revolution-in-progress that we expect experiments with the Large Hadron Collider to complete. This is the radically new and simple conception of matter brought about by the development of gauge theories and the recognition that quarks and leptons are the basic constituents of matter—at the current limits of our resolution. The gauge-theory synthesis is part of a larger change that we are living through—no, making—in the way humans think about their world. The recognition that the human scale is not privileged, that we need to leave our familiar surroundings the better to understand them, has been building since the birth of quantum mechanics. As it emerges whole, fully formed, in our unified theories and renormalization group equations, the notion seems to me both profound and irresistible. I find it fully appropriate to compare this change in perception with the shifts in viewpoint we owe to Copernicus and Einstein.

## 2 Our Picture of Matter

We base our understanding of physical phenomena on the identification of a few constituents that seem elementary at the current limits of resolution of about $`10^{18}\text{ m}`$, and a few fundamental forces. The constituents are the pointlike quarks {$`(u,d)_L`$, $`(c,s)_L`$, $`(t,b)_L`$} and leptons {$`(\nu _e,e)_L`$, $`(\nu _\mu ,\mu )_L`$, $`(\nu _\tau ,\tau )_L`$}, with strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions specified by $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetries.

The electroweak theory is founded on the weak-isospin symmetry embodied in the quark and lepton doublets and weak-hypercharge phase symmetry, plus the idealization that neutrinos are massless.222For surveys of the electroweak theory, with references, see Ref. . In its simplest form, with the electroweak gauge symmetry broken by the Higgs mechanism, the $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ theory has scored many qualitative successes: the prediction of neutral-current interactions, the necessity of charm, the prediction of the existence and properties of the weak bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$. Over the past ten years, in great measure due to the beautiful experiments carried out at the $`Z`$ factories at CERN and SLAC, precision measurements have tested the electroweak theory as a quantum field theory, at the one-per-mille level . Last year, our colleagues working at LEP made a heroic push to discover the Higgs boson . The search will intensify again in a few years at the Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider.

The quark model of hadron structure and the parton model of hard-scattering processes have such pervasive influence on the way we conceptualize particle physics that quantum chromodynamics, the theory of strong interactions that underlies both, sometimes is taken for granted. QCD is a remarkably simple, successful , and rich theory of the strong interactions . The perturbative regime of QCD exists, thanks to the crucial property of asymptotic freedom, and describes many phenomena in quantitative detail. The strong-coupling regime controls hadron structure and gives us our best information about quark masses. Unfamiliar régimes of high density and high temperature contain riches we have only begun to explore.

The physics curriculum in the 1898–99 University of Chicago catalogue begins with a very triumphalist Victorian preface :

> “While it is never safe to affirm that the future of the Physical Sciences has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice …. An eminent physicist has remarked that the future truths of Physical Science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.”

As the ink was drying on these earnest words, Röntgen discovered x rays and published the epoch-making radiograph of his wife’s hand, Becquerel and the Curies explored radioactivity, Thomson discovered the electron and showed that the “uncuttable” atom had parts, and Planck noted that anomalies in the first place of the decimals required a wholesale revision of the physicist’s conception of the laws of Nature.

We have the benefit of a century of additional experience and insight, but we are not nearly so confident as our illustrious Victorian ancestors were that we have uncovered “most of the grand underlying principles.” Indeed, while we celebrate the insights codified in the standard model of particle physics and look forward to resolving its puzzles, we are increasingly conscious of how little of the physical universe we have experienced and explored. Future truths are still to be found in precision measurements, but the century we are leaving has repeatedly shown that Nature’s marvels are not limited by our imagination. Exploration can yield surprises that completely change what we think about—and how we think.

### 2.1 Precision Measurements of Electroweak Observables

The beautiful agreement between the electroweak theory and a vast array of data from neutrino interactions, hadron collisions, and electron-positron annihilations at the $`Z^0`$ pole and beyond means that electroweak studies have become a modern arena in which we can look for new physics “in the sixth place of decimals.” Classic achievements include determining of the number of light neutrino species and inferring the mass of the top quark.333These are reviewed in §4.1 of my TASI 2000 Lectures, Ref. .

The comparison between the electroweak theory and a considerable universe of data is shown in Figure 1 , where the pull, or difference between the global fit and measured value in units of standard deviations, is shown for some twenty observables.

The distribution of pulls for this fit, due to the LEP Electroweak Working Group, is not noticeably different from a normal distribution, and only a couple of observables differ from the fit by as much as two standard deviations. Whether the outliers ($`A_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,b}`$ and the NuTeV determination  of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}(\nu N)`$) contribute much-needed $`\chi ^2`$ or point to new physics remains an open question .

### 2.2 Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Masses

Elucidating the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking is the most urgent problem in particle physics, and the centerpiece of the LHC science program. The exploration of the 1-TeV scale that will be needed to get to the bottom of electroweak symmetry breaking is frequently abbreviated as the search for the Higgs boson. That’s a convenient sound bite, but we mustn’t let the shorthand narrow our view of the task—and opportunity—we face. “The search for the Higgs boson” also fails to convey the full majesty of what we hope we will learn: why this world of stable structures—of diversity and change—is as we observe it to be, and not a formless fog of interchangeable parts flying about at the speed of light.

Another sound bite is even more pernicious because it is false: that is the bald assertion that the Higgs boson is the source of all mass. It is not. There are, in fact, several kinds of mass—so several sources of mass—and we have many interesting stories to tell.

The masses of the hadrons are (in principle, and with increasing precision in practice) understood from QCD in terms of the energy stored to confine a color-singlet configuration of quarks in a small volume . To say it another way: quantum chromodynamics explains nearly all of the visible mass in the universe. This is a remarkable achievement, and we should not be hiding it.

The Higgs boson is an essential part of the analogy to the Meissner effect in superconductivity that leads us to an excellent understanding of the masses of the electroweak gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ as consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking. At tree level in the electroweak theory, we have444Although for the moment we take the weak mixing parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ from experiment, we understand how it arises in a unified theory. Moreover, in a unified theory we can hope to understand the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ that sets the scale of the hadron masses.

$`M_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`g^2v^2/2=\pi \alpha /G_F\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`M_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_W^2/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W,`$
where the electroweak scale $`v=(G_F\sqrt{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}246\text{ GeV}`$ is set by the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.

Interactions with the Higgs field may also generate quark and (charged) lepton masses; however, our understanding of these fermion masses is considerably more primitive. For each fermion mass, we require not just the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking, but a distinct and apparently arbitrary Higgs-fermion-antifermion Yukawa coupling to reproduce the observed mass. In the electroweak theory, the value of each quark or charged-lepton mass is set by a new, unknown, Yukawa coupling. Taking the electron as a prototype, we define the left-handed doublet and right-handed singlet

$$𝖫=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e\end{array}\right)_L,𝖱e_R.$$

Then the Yukawa term in the electroweak Lagrangian is

$$_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}^{(e)}=\zeta _e[\overline{𝖱}(\phi ^{}𝖫)+(\overline{𝖫}\phi )𝖱],$$

where $`\phi `$ is the Higgs field, so that the electron mass is $`m_e=\zeta _ev/\sqrt{2}`$.555Here I have taken the Yukawa coupling $`\zeta _e`$ to be real. For neutrinos, which may be their own antiparticles, there are still more possibilities for new physics to enter. Inasmuch as we do not know how to calculate the fermion Yukawa couplings $`\zeta _f`$, I believe that we should consider the sources of all fermion masses as physics beyond the standard model. It is even conceivable that fermion masses arise from some entirely distinct mechanism.

The values of the Yukawa couplings are vastly different for different fermions: for the top quark, $`\zeta _t1`$, for the electron $`\zeta _e3\times 10^6`$, and if the neutrinos have Dirac masses, presumably $`\zeta _\nu 10^{10}`$.666I am quoting the values of the Yukawa couplings at a low scale typical of the masses themselves. What accounts for the range and values of the Yukawa couplings? Our best hope until now has been the suggestion from unified theories that the pattern of fermion masses simplifies on high scales. The classic intriguing prediction of the $`SU(5)`$ unified theory involves the masses of the $`b`$ quark and the $`\tau `$ lepton, which are degenerate at the unification point for a simple pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The different running of the quark and lepton masses to low scales then leads to the prediction $`m_b3m_\tau `$, in suggestive agreement with what we know from experiment .

Complex Yukawa couplings are a source of CP violation. Consider the piece of the Yukawa Lagrangian that gives masses to down-type quarks,

$$_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}^{(d)}=\zeta _{ij}^d(\overline{𝖫}_{q_i}\phi )𝖱_{d_j}+\zeta _{ij}^d\overline{𝖱}_{d_j}(\phi ^{}𝖫_{d_i}),$$

where the two terms are related by CP interchange. If the Yukawa coupling is not a real number, i.e., if $`\zeta _{ij}^d\zeta _{ij}^d`$, then CP is not a symmetry of $`_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}^{(d)}`$. According to my convention that the sources of all fermion masses relate to physics beyond the standard model, the CP violation that we catalogue “within the standard model,” which is to say arising from the quark mixing matrix (hence, the Yukawa couplings), is itself a window on physics beyond the standard model. Can we learn to read it for clues?

### 2.3 $`\nu `$ Oscillation News

The science that grew into particle physics began with found beams—the emanations from naturally occurring radioactive substance and the cosmic rays—and found beams still provide us with important windows on the universe. One of the great scientific detective stories of the recent past is the developing case for neutrino oscillations: the evidence that neutrinos produced as one flavor ($`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, or $`\nu _\tau `$) actually morph into other flavors. Long known as a theoretical possibility, neutrino oscillation is now all but established by the Super-Kamiokande experiment’s observation of an up-down asymmetry in the flux of muon neutrinos produced by the interaction of cosmic rays in the atmosphere . By far the most graceful interpretation is that muon neutrinos produced on the far side of the Earth oscillate during flight in significant numbers into tau neutrinos.

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory has added an important new element to our understanding of the longstanding puzzle of the solar neutrino deficit . SNO reports an impressively precise measurement of the solar neutrino charged-current cross section on the heavy-water that serves as their target-Cherenkov detector. The measured rate implies a $`\nu _e`$ flux

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{SNO}}^{\mathrm{CC}}(\nu _e)=1.75\pm 0.07_{0.11}^{+0.12}\pm 0.05\times 10^6\text{ cm}^2\text{ s}^1,$$

where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic, and theoretical. They have also measured the solar neutrino elastic ($`\nu _xe`$) cross section with limited precision, and extracted from it the flux of solar neutrinos of all active flavors,

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{SNO}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(\nu _x)=2.39\pm 0.34_{0.14}^{+0.16}\times 10^6\text{ cm}^2\text{ s}^1.$$

The SNO experimenters are in the right place at the right time, because the Super-K experiment has already given a very precise measurement of the solar neutrino flux from elastic ($`\nu _xe`$) scattering ,

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{SK}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(\nu _x)=2.32\pm 0.03_{0.07}^{+0.08}\times 10^6\text{ cm}^2\text{ s}^1.$$

The difference between the flux of active neutrinos and the flux of electron neutrinos,

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{SK}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(\nu _x)\varphi _{\mathrm{SNO}}^{\mathrm{CC}}(\nu _e)=0.57\pm 0.17\times 10^6\text{ cm}^2\text{ s}^1,$$

demonstrates at $`3.3\sigma `$ that active neutrinos other than $`\nu _e`$, namely $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, arrive at Earth. Since the nuclear processes that power the Sun yield only $`\nu _e`$, this new result rules in favor of neutrino oscillations as the explanation for the solar neutrino puzzle.

### 2.4 Clues about the Higgs-Boson Mass

Of particular interest in the realm of electroweak measurements is the constraint on the mass of the Higgs boson. Figure 2 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ curve derived from precision electroweak measurements performed at LEP—and by SLD, CDF, DØ, NuTeV, and others—as a function of the Higgs-boson mass, within the standard model. The preferred value for the Higgs-boson mass, corresponding to the minimum of the curve, is around $`85\text{ GeV}/c^2`$, with an experimental uncertainty of $`+54`$ and $`34\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ at 68% confidence level. This estimate is not materially affected by the NuTeV measurement discussed above.

Finding quantitative evidence that the virtual contributions of the Higgs boson are required to describe the observed constellation of electroweak data supports the theoretical contention that (something like) the Higgs boson must exist.777Developed in §5.1 of my TASI 2000 lectures, Ref. . It also directs our attention for the search into a narrower range than general theoretical arguments are capable of suggesting. The precision electroweak measurements tell us that the mass of the standard-model Higgs boson is lower than about $`196\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ (one-sided 95% confidence level upper limit including both the experimental and the theoretical uncertainty). Since the direct searches at LEP  have concluded that $`m_H>114.1\text{ GeV}/c^2`$, excluding much of the favored region, either the Higgs boson is just around the corner, or the standard-model analysis is misleading. One way or another, things will soon be popping!

## 3 Big Questions

In organizing my thoughts about the future agenda of particle physics, I find it useful to proceed from broad scientific themes to the specific questions—the minute particulars—that will illuminate them, and then to instruments and technology development. Here it will suffice to cite the main themes and develop them briefly.

Elementarity. Are the quarks and leptons structureless, or will we find that they are composite particles with internal structures that help us understand the properties of the individual quarks and leptons?

Symmetry. One of the most powerful lessons of the modern synthesis of particle physics is that (local) symmetries prescribe interactions. Our investigation of symmetry must address the question of which gauge symmetries exist (and, eventually, why). We have learned to seek symmetry in the laws of Nature, not necessarily in the consequences of those laws. Accordingly, we must understand how the symmetries are hidden from us in the world we inhabit. For the moment, the most urgent problem in particle physics is to complete our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking by exploring the 1-TeV scale. With the passing of LEP2, this is the business of the experiments at the Tevatron Collider and the Large Hadron Collider.

Unity. In the sense of developing explanations that apply not to one individual phenomenon in isolation, but to many phenomena in common, unity is central to all of physics, and indeed to all of science. At this moment in particle physics, our quest for unity takes several forms.

First, we have the fascinating possibility of gauge coupling unification, the idea that all the interactions we encounter have a common origin and thus a common strength at suitably high energy.

Second, there is the imperative of anomaly freedom in the electroweak theory, which urges us to treat quarks and leptons together, not as completely independent species. Both of these ideas are embodied, of course, in unified theories of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions, which imply the existence of still other forces—to complete the grander gauge group of the unified theory—including interactions that change quarks into leptons.

The third aspect of unity is the idea that the traditional distinction between force particles and constituents might give way to a unified understanding of all the particles. The gluons of QCD carry color charge, so we can imagine quarkless hadronic matter in the form of glueballs. Beyond that breaking down of the wall between messengers and constituents, supersymmetry relates fermions and bosons.

Finally, we desire a reconciliation between the pervasive outsider, gravity, and the forces that prevail in the quantum world of our everyday laboratory experience.

Identity. We do not understand the physics that sets quark masses and mixings. Although we are testing the idea that the phase in the quark-mixing matrix lies behind the observed CP violation, we do not know what determines that phase. The accumulating evidence for neutrino oscillations presents us with a new embodiment of these puzzles in the lepton sector. At bottom, the question of identity is very simple to state: What makes an electron and electron, and a top quark a top quark?

Topography. “What is the dimensionality of spacetime?” tests our preconceptions and unspoken assumptions. It is given immediacy by recent theoretical work. For its internal consistency, string theory requires an additional six or seven space dimensions, beyond the $`3+1`$ dimensions of everyday experience. Until recently it has been presumed that the extra dimensions must be compactified on the Planck scale, with a stupendously small compactification radius $`RM_{\mathrm{Planck}}^1=1.6\times 10^{35}\text{ m}`$. Part of the vision of string theory is that what goes on in even such tiny curled-up dimensions does affect the everyday world: excitations of the Calabi–Yau manifolds determine the fermion spectrum.

We have come to understand lately that Planck-length compactification is not—according to what we can establish—obligatory, and that current experiment and observation admit the possibility of dimensions not navigated by the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions that are almost palpably large. A whole range of new experiments will help us explore the fabric of space and time, in ways we didn’t expect just a few years ago .

## 4 The Role of Gravity

### 4.1 The Vacuum Energy Problem

I want to spend a moment to revisit a longstanding, but usually unspoken, challenge to the completeness of the electroweak theory as we have defined it: the vacuum energy problem . I do so not only for its intrinsic interest, but also to raise the question, “Which problems of completeness and consistency do we worry about at a given moment?” It is perfectly acceptable science—indeed, it is often essential—to put certain problems aside, in the expectation that we will return to them at the right moment. What is important is never to forget that the problems are there, even if we do not allow them to paralyze us.

For the usual Higgs potential, $`V(\phi ^{}\phi )=\mu ^2(\phi ^{}\phi )+\left|\lambda \right|(\phi ^{}\phi )^2`$, the value of the potential at the minimum is

$$V(\phi ^{}\phi _0)=\frac{\mu ^2v^2}{4}=\frac{\left|\lambda \right|v^4}{4}<0.$$
(1)
Identifying $`m_H^2=2\mu ^2`$, we see that the Higgs potential contributes a field-independent constant term,

$$\varrho _H\frac{m_H^2v^2}{8}.$$
(2)
I have chosen the notation $`\varrho _H`$ because the constant term in the Lagrangian plays the role of a vacuum energy density. When we consider gravitation, adding a vacuum energy density $`\varrho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is equivalent to adding a cosmological constant term to Einstein’s equation. Although recent observations888For a cogent summary of current knowledge of the cosmological parameters, including evidence for a cosmological constant, see Ref. . raise the intriguing possibility that the cosmological constant may be different from zero, the essential observational fact is that the vacuum energy density must be very tiny indeed,999For a useful summary of gravitational theory, see the essay by T. d’Amour in §14 of the 2000 Review of Particle Physics, Ref. .

$$\varrho _{\mathrm{vac}}<10^{46}\text{ GeV}^4.$$
(3)
Therein lies the puzzle: if we take $`v=(G_F\sqrt{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}246\text{ GeV}`$ and insert the current experimental lower bound  $`m_H>114\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ into (2), we find that the contribution of the Higgs field to the vacuum energy density is

$$\varrho _H>10^8\text{ GeV}^4,$$
(4)
some 54 orders of magnitude larger than the upper bound inferred from the cosmological constant.

What are we to make of this mismatch? The fact that $`\varrho _H\varrho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ means that the smallness of the cosmological constant needs to be explained. In a unified theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions, other (heavy!) Higgs fields have nonzero vacuum expectation values that may give rise to still greater mismatches. At a fundamental level, we can therefore conclude that a spontaneously broken gauge theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions—or merely of the electroweak interactions—cannot be complete. Either we must find a separate principle to zero the vacuum energy density of the Higgs field, or we may suppose that a proper quantum theory of gravity, in combination with the other interactions, will resolve the puzzle of the cosmological constant. The vacuum energy problem must be an important clue. But to what?

### 4.2 Neglecting Gravity

It is entirely natural to neglect gravity in most particle-physics applications, because the coupling of a graviton $`𝒢`$ to a particle is tiny, generically of order $`(E/M_{\mathrm{Planck}})`$ where $`E`$ is a typical energy scale of the problem. Thus, for example, we expect the branching fraction $`B(K\pi 𝒢)(M_K/M_{\mathrm{Planck}})^210^{38}`$. And yet we cannot put gravity entirely out of our minds, even if we restrict our attention to standard-model interactions at attainable energies.

The great gap between the electroweak scale of about $`10^3\text{ GeV}`$ and the Planck scale of about $`10^{19}\text{ GeV}`$ gives rise to the hierarchy problem of the electroweak theory : how to protect the Higgs-boson mass from quantum corrections that explore energies up to $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$. The conventional approach to the hierarchy problem has been to ask why the electroweak scale (and the mass of the Higgs boson) is so much smaller than the Planck scale. Framing the issue this way leads us to change the electroweak theory to include supersymmetry , or technicolor , or some other extension . Supersymmetry posits one or more new quantum dimensions, and entails a fermion-boson doubling of the particle spectrum. Superpartners on the 1-TeV scale resolve the hierarchy problem by balancing the contributions of fermion and boson loops to the Higgs-boson mass renormalization. Models descended from technicolor ascribe the breaking of electroweak symmetry to a new strong interaction that becomes strong on the weak scale, making a composite Higgs boson. Many models developed over the past decade accord a privileged role to the top quark and third generation.

Over the past few years, we have begun instead to ask why gravity is so weak. This question motivates us to consider changing gravity to understand why the Planck scale is so large . Now, elegant experiments that study details of Casimir and van der Waals forces tell us that gravitation closely follows the Newtonian force law down to distances on the order of $`0.3\text{ mm}`$ , which corresponds to an energy scale of only about $`10^{12}\text{ GeV}`$! At shorter distances (higher energies), the constraints on deviations from Newton’s inverse-square force law deteriorate rapidly, so nothing prevents us from considering changes to gravity even on a small but macroscopic scale.

One way to change the force law is to imagine that gravity can propagate into extra dimensions. To respect the stronger constraints on the behavior of the standard-model interactions, we suppose that the $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge fields, plus needed extensions, reside on $`(3+1)`$-dimensional branes, not in the extra dimensions.

What difference do extra dimensions make? The dimensional analysis (Gauss’s law, if you like) that relates Newton’s constant to the Planck scale changes. If gravity propagates in $`n`$ extra dimensions with radius $`R`$, then

$$G_{\mathrm{Newton}}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}^2M^{n2}R^n,$$

where $`M^{}`$ is gravity’s true scale. Notice that if we boldly take $`M^{}`$ to be as small as $`1\text{ TeV}/c^2`$, then the radius of the extra dimensions is required to be smaller than about $`1\text{ mm}`$, for $`n2`$. If we use the four-dimensional force law to extrapolate the strength of gravity from low energies to high, we find that gravity becomes as strong as the other forces on the Planck scale. If the force law changes at an energy $`1/R`$, as the large-extra-dimensions scenario suggests, then the forces are unified at lower energy $`M^{}`$. What we know as the Planck scale is then a mirage that results from a false extrapolation: treating gravity as four-dimensional down to arbitrarily small distances, when in fact—or at least in this particular fiction—gravity propagates in $`3+n`$ spatial dimensions. The Planck mass is an artifact, given by $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}=M^{}(M^{}R)^{n/2}`$. If the true scale of gravity were close to $`m_H`$, the hierarchy problem would recede.

“Large” extra dimensions present us with new ways to think about the exponential variation of the Yukawa couplings that determine fermion masses. If the standard-model brane has a small thickness, the wave packets representing different fermion species might have different locations within the extra dimension . On this picture, the Yukawa couplings measure the overlap in the extra dimensions of the left-handed and right-handed fermion wave packets and the Higgs field, presumed pervasive. Exponentially large differences might then arise from small offsets in the new coordinate(s). True or not, it is a mind-expanding way to look at an important problem.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

In the midst of a revolution in our conception of Nature, we confront many fundamental questions about our world of diversity and change. Are the quarks and leptons elementary or composite? What are the symmetries of Nature, and how are they hidden from us? Will we find new forms of matter, like the superpartners suggested by supersymmetry? Will we find additional fundamental forces? What makes an electron an electron and a top quark a top quark? What is the dimensionality of spacetime, what is its shape?

These are themselves great questions and, in the usual way of science, answering them can lead us toward the answers to yet broader and more cosmic questions. I believe that we are on the threshold of a remarkable flowering of experimental particle physics, and of theoretical physics that engages with experiment. Over the next decade or two, we may hope to

> Understand electroweak symmetry breaking, Observe the Higgs boson, Measure neutrino masses and mixings, Establish Majorana neutrinos through the observation of neutrinoless double-beta decay, Thoroughly explore CP violation in $`B`$ decays, Exploit rare decays ($`K`$, $`D`$, …), Observe the neutron’s permanent electric dipole meoment, and pursue the electron’s electric dipole moment, Use top as a tool, Observe new phases of matter, Understand hadron structure quantitatively, Uncover the full implications of QCD, Observe proton decay, Understand the baryon excess of the universe, Catalogue the matter and energy of the universe, Measure the equation of state of the dark energy, Search for new macroscopic forces, Determine the gauge symmetry that unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions, Detect neutrinos from the universe, Learn how to quantize gravity, Learn why empty space is nearly weightless, Test the inflation hypothesis, Understand discrete symmetry violation, Resolve the hierarchy problem, Discover new gauge forces, Directly detect dark-matter particles, Explore extra spatial dimensions, Understand the origin of the large-scale structure of the universe, Observe gravitational radiation, Solve the strong CP problem, Learn whether supersymmetry operates on the TeV scale, Seek TeV-scale dynamical symmetry breaking, Search for new strong dynamics, Explain the highest-energy cosmic rays, Formulate the problem of identity, …

…and learn the right questions to ask.101010The vigorous discussion following my talk raised a number of other fascinating issues that will surely be much on our minds—whether we have the means to answer them soon, or not!

As we contemplate the interplay between experiment and theory that will lead us to a new, far-reaching understanding, it is inspiring to remember the words Michael Faraday recorded in his Research Notes of 19th March 1849:

> “Nothing is too wonderful to be true,
> if it be consistent with the laws of nature …
> Experiment is the best test …”

Before closing, I’d like to step back from the specific aspirations of particle physics to recall the larger significance—the significance for human society—of what we do. In his millennial column in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis writes ,

> “\[T\]here has been one transforming change over this thousand years. It is the adoption of the scienti c method: the commitment to experiment, to test every hypothesis. But it is broader than science. It is the open mind, the willingness in all aspects of life to consider possibilities other than the received truth. It is openness to reason.”

Niels Bohr characterized the goal of science as the gradual reduction of prejudice. When we are at our best—when we are truest to our ideals—this spirit is what we offer to science, and to humanity.

$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$

What will we find at the LHC? Here is Cecil Frank Powell, recalling the wonders revealed in the first emulsions exposed on the Pic du Midi:

> “It was as if, suddenly, we had broken into a walled orchard, where protected trees had flourished and all kinds of exotic fruits had ripened in great profusion.”

I expect wonders no less astonishing in the first collisions from the LHC. I look forward, with you, to breaking into a new walled orchard and feasting our eyes—and our minds—on the exotic fruits we will find there.

## Acknowledgment

It is a great pleasure to thank our hosts and organizers for the stimulating program and excellent welcome in Sardinia. I’d especially like to thank Gino Saitta and Carlo Bosio for their many contributions to the success of the workshop. I’m also grateful to Roger Cashmore for CERN’s generous support of my participation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most interesting candidates for dark matter is a long-lived or stable weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP). WIMPs can remain from the earliest moments of the Universe in sufficient number to account for a significant fraction of relic density. These particles would form not only a background density in the Universe, but also would cluster gravitationally with ordinary stars in the galactic halos. This raises the hope of detecting relic WIMPs directly, by observing their elastic scattering on target nuclei through nuclear recoils . In fact, one of the current experiments, the DAMA collaboration, reported recently  data favoring the existence of a WIMP signal. It was claimed that (at 4$`\sigma `$ C.L.) the preferred range of the WIMP-nucleon cross section is $`10^6`$-$`10^5`$ pb for a WIMP mass between 30 and 200 GeV. Unlike this spectacular result, other collaborations, CDMS , EDELWEISS , and IGEX , claim to have excluded regions of the DAMA parameter space.

In any case, due to these and other projected experiments, it seems very plausible that the dark matter will be found in the near future. In this situation, and assuming that the dark matter is a WIMP, it is natural to wonder how big the cross section for its direct detection can be. The answer to this question depends on the particular WIMP considered. The leading candidate in this class is the lightest neutralino , a particle predicted by the supersymmetric (SUSY) extension of the standard model (SM).

In the simplest SUSY extension, the so-called minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), there are four neutralinos, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0(i=1,2,3,4)`$, since they are the physical superpositions of the bino ($`\stackrel{~}{B}^0`$), of the neutral wino ($`\stackrel{~}{W}_3^0`$), and of the neutral Higgsinos ($`\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0`$). In most of the parameter space of the MSSM, the lightest neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). When R-parity is imposed this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is absolutely stable, and therefore a dark matter candidate.

In this paper we will analyze this SUSY scenario in the framework of supergravity (SUGRA), and in particular several constructions proposed recently in the literature (for a review see ref. ), where the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$-nucleon cross section can be enhanced, and might be of the order of $`10^6`$ pb, i.e., where current dark matter detectors are sensitive. First, in Section 2, we will briefly introduce the SUGRA framework. In Section 3 we will describe the most recent experimental constraints which can affect the computation of the cross section. Then, in the rest of the sections, we will re-evaluate previous computations, taking into account these constraints. In particular, in Section 4 we will review the value of the cross section when universal soft SUSY-breaking terms are assumed, and how this value is modified when this assumption is relaxed . In Section 5 we will consider the case of an intermediate unification scale . Finally, in Section 6, we will study superstring scenarios with D-branes .

## 2 SUGRA framework

Working in the framework of SUGRA one makes several assumptions. In particular, the soft parameters, i.e., gaugino masses, scalar masses, and trilinear couplings, are generated once SUSY is broken through gravitational interactions. They are denoted at the grand unification scale, $`M_{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, by $`M_a`$, $`m_\alpha `$, and $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ respectively. Likewise, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking is imposed, i.e., the Higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ is determined by the minimization of the Higgs effective potential. This implies

$$\mu ^2=\frac{m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_u^0/H_d^0`$ is the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values.

The soft SUSY-breaking terms will have in general a non-universal structure in the framework of SUGRA . For the case of the observable scalar masses, this is due to the non-universal couplings in the Kähler potential between the hidden sector fields breaking SUSY and the observable sector fields. For the case of the gaugino masses, this is due to the non-universality of the gauge kinetic functions associated to the different gauge groups. Explicit string constructions, whose low-energy limit is SUGRA, exhibit these properties .

With these assumptions, the SUGRA framework still allows a large number of free parameters. In particular, it contains more than 100 parameters. In order to have predictive power one usually assumes in addition that the above soft parameters are real and universal at $`M_{GUT}`$. This is the so-called minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) scenario, where there are only four free parameters: $`m`$, $`M`$, $`A`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In addition, the sign of $`\mu `$ remains also undetermined. It is worth noticing that explicit string constructions with these characteristics can also be found .

## 3  Experimental constraints

Here we list the most recent experimental results which might be relevant when computing the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$-nucleon cross section in the context of SUGRA. In particular, they may produce important constraints in the parameter space, forbidding for example points with a large cross section.

* Higgs mass

Whereas in the context of the SM, the negative direct search for the Higgs at the LEP2 collider implies a precise lower bound on its mass of 114.1 GeV, the situation in SUSY scenarios is more involved. In particular, in the framework of mSUGRA, one obtains  for the lightest CP-even Higgs mass $`m_h>114.1`$ GeV when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <50`$, and $`m_h>91`$ GeV when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger. Let us remark that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is constrained to be smaller than 60 since otherwise the condition of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking cannot be fulfilled.

On the other hand, when the mSUGRA framework is relaxed the above SUSY bounds must be modified. In particular, for the benchmark scenarios studied in ref.  one obtains $`m_h>114.1`$ GeV when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <8`$, and $`m_h>91`$ GeV when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger.

Let us finally remark that in our computation below we evaluate $`m_h`$ using the program FeynHiggsFast, a simplified version of the updated program FeynHiggs  which contains the complete one-loop and dominant two-loop corrections. The value of $`m_h`$ obtained with FeynHiggsFast is approximately 1 GeV below the one obtained using FeynHiggs. In addition, we should also keep in mind that the value of $`m_h`$ obtained with FeynHiggs has an uncertainty of about 3 GeV, due e.g. to higher-order corrections.
* Top mass

Needless to say we use as input for the top mass throughout this paper the central experimental value $`m_t(pole)=175`$ GeV. However, let us remark that a modification in this mass by $`\pm 1`$ GeV implies, basically, a modification also of $`\pm 1`$ GeV in $`m_h`$.
* SUSY spectrum

We impose the present experimental lower bounds on SUSY masses coming from LEP and Tevatron. In particular, using the low-energy relation from mSUGRA, $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2`$, one obtains for the lightest chargino mass the bound  $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>103`$ GeV. Likewise, one is also able to obtain the following bounds for sleptons masses : $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}>99`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}>96`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}>87`$ GeV. Finally, we use the following bounds on the masses of sneutrino, the stop, the rest of squarks, and gluinos: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}>50`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}>95`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}>150`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>190`$ GeV.
* $`bs\gamma `$

The measurements of $`BX_s\gamma `$ decays at CLEO  and BELLE , lead to bounds on the branching ratio $`bs\gamma `$. In particular we impose in our computation $`2\times 10^4BR(bs\gamma )4.1\times 10^4`$, where the evaluation is carried out at the NLO accuracy in the SM , while for the SUSY contributions only the 1-loop diagrams have been taken into account .
* $`g_\mu 2`$

The new measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$, in the E821 experiment at the BNL  implied apparently a 2.6$`\sigma `$ deviation from the SM predictions. In particular, taking a 2$`\sigma `$ range around the E821 central value one would have $`11\times 10^{10}a_\mu (E821)a_\mu (SM)75\times 10^{10}`$. However, recent theoretical computations  have shown that a significant part of this discrepancy was due to the evaluation of the hadronic light-by-light contribution . As a consequence, assuming that the possible new physics is due to SUGRA, we impose in our computation the current constraint $`7\times 10^{10}a_\mu (SUGRA)57\times 10^{10}`$ at the 2$`\sigma `$ level.
* LSP

The LSP must be an electrically neutral (also with no strong interactions) particle, since otherwise it would bind to nuclei and would be excluded as a candidate for dark matter from unsuccessful searches for exotic heavy isotopes . As mentioned in the Introduction, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is the LSP in most of the parameter space of SUGRA. However, in some regions the stau can be lighter than the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. Following the above argument, we discard these regions.

Other cosmological constraints, as e.g. the observational bounds on the relic $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ density, $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.3`$, will not be applied. The computation of the relic $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ density depends on assumptions about the evolution of the early Universe, and therefore different cosmological scenarios give rise to different results .

## 4 SUGRA predictions for the neutralino-nucleon cross section

The cross section for the elastic scattering of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ on nucleons has been examined exhaustively in the literature (for a recent re-evaluation see ref. ). Let us recall that the relevant effective Lagrangian describing the elastic scattering of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ on protons and neutrons has a spin-independent (scalar) interaction and a spin-dependent interaction. However, the contribution of the scalar one is generically larger and therefore we will concentrate on it. This scalar interaction includes contributions from squark exchange and neutral Higgs exchange. Let us also remark that the scalar cross sections for both, protons and neutrons, are basically equal.

In what follows we will review the possible value of the cross section in the framework of SUGRA. First we will consider the mSUGRA scenario, where the soft terms are assumed to be universal, and we will later relax this condition allowing non-universal soft masses.

### 4.1 mSUGRA scenario

In the mSUGRA scenario $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is mainly bino. This result can be qualitatively understood from the well known evolution of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ with the scale. It becomes large and negative at low scales. Then $`|\mu |`$ given by eq. (1) becomes also large, and in particular much larger than $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. Thus, the lightest neutralino will be mainly gaugino, and in particular bino, since, as mentioned in the previous section, at low energy $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_20.5M_2`$.

When $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is basically bino scattering channels through Higgs ($`h`$, $`H`$) exchange are highly suppressed, and as a consequence, the predicted scalar $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$-proton cross section is well below the accessible experimental regions for low and moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . Although the cross section increases entering in the DAMA region  when the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases , the experimental constraints discussed in Section 3 exclude this possibility . We show this fact in Fig. 1. There the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$-proton cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of the neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and 35 is plotted.

Concerning the parameter space of the figure, we use the following values. For the soft scalar mass 0$`m600`$ GeV, where the curve associated to $`m=600`$ GeV corresponds to the minimum values of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ in the figure. Note that in order to avoid the stau being the LSP not very small values of $`m`$ are in fact allowed. The cross section is not very sensitive to the specific values of $`A`$ in a wide range. In particular, we have checked that this is so for $`A/M<4`$. In the figure we fix $`A=M`$, corresponding to the maximum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$. On the other hand, the gaugino mass $`M`$ is essentially fixed for a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. We consider only positive values of $`M`$, since negative ones correspond to smaller cross sections. Finally, we choose to plot only the case $`\mu >0`$ since for negative values of $`\mu `$ the cross section is smaller. In addition, constraints coming from the $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$ processes highly reduce the $`\mu <0`$ parameter space. Let us remark that we are using the conventions for the SUGRA parameters entering in the Lagrangian explained in ref. .

Concerning the experimental constraints, the lower bound in the figure $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>50`$ GeV is obtained imposing the experimental bound on the lightest chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>90`$ GeV. However, as mentioned in Section 3, the most recent bound in the context of mSUGRA is now  $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>103`$ GeV, and we show it with a dotted line. We also show in Fig. 1 several values of the Higgs mass with dashed lines. In addition the region to the left of the dot-dashed curve is excluded by $`bs\gamma `$, and the region above the solid line is excluded by $`g_\mu 2`$.

As we can see, the present experimental lower limit for the Higgs mass in mSUGRA when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <50`$, $`m_h>114.1`$ GeV, is the most important constraint, implying that only the solid region where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<10^8`$ pb survives. Obviously, in this mSUGRA case, more sensitive detectors producing further data are needed. Fortunately, many dark matter detectors are being projected. Particularly interesting is the GENIUS detector , where values of the cross section as low as $`10^9`$ pb will be accessible, as shown in the figure.

Very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, like $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$, have also been considered . Although it was found, as expected, that the cross section is enhanced, the well known experimental limits coming from $`bs\gamma `$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, lead to severe constraints on the parameter space. In particular, these constraints imply $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<10^7`$ pb.

### 4.2 Scenario with non-universal soft terms

It was shown recently that non-universality allows to increase the neutralino-proton cross section. The key point consists of reducing the value of $`|\mu |`$. Following the discussion in the previous subsection, the smaller $`|\mu |`$ is, the larger the Higgsino components of the lightest neutralino become. Eventually, $`|\mu |`$ will be of the order of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ will be a mixed Higgsino-gaugino state. Indeed scattering channels through Higgs exchange are now important and their contributions to the cross section will increase it. This can be carried out with non-universal scalar masses  and/or gaugino masses .

We can have a qualitative understanding from the following. When $`m_{H_u}^2`$($`m_{H_d}^2`$) at $`M_{GUT}`$ increases(decreases), its negative(positive) contribution at low energy in eq. (1) is less important. Likewise, when $`m_{Q_L}^2`$ and $`m_{u_R}^2`$ at $`M_{GUT}`$ decrease, due to their contribution proportional to the top Yukawa coupling in the RGE of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ the negative contribution of the latter to $`\mu ^2`$ is again less important.

This effect can be seen in Fig. 2, where a scatter plot of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for a scanning of the soft scalar masses is shown. This scanning is explained in detail e.g. in ref. . As in Fig. 1, we are taking $`A=M`$. For comparison we superimpose also the region (green area) obtained in Fig. 1 with universality. We see that non-universal scalar masses help in increasing the value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$. In the figure we only plot the points of the parameter space fulfilling $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$. In particular, the big (red) dots correspond to points with $`m_h114`$ GeV. As a conservative approach, we also plot with small (blue) dots those points with $`91<m_h<114`$ GeV (as discussed in Section 3, this possibility may arise when the mSUGRA scenario is relaxed). For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, both kind of points enter in the DAMA region. In particular, those with $`m_h<114`$ GeV have an upper bound for the cross section $`10^5`$ pb, whereas for those with $`m_h>114`$ GeV the upper bound is $`10^6`$ pb. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$, the area of points entering in the DAMA region increases a lot, and now, even points with $`m_h>114`$ GeV can have $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}10^5`$ pb. Let us finally remark that the non-universality in the Higgs sector gives the most important effect, and the non-universality in the sfermion sector only increases slightly the cross section.

On the other hand, concerning gaugino masses, it is worth noticing that $`M_3`$ appears in the RGEs of squark masses, so e.g. their contribution proportional to the top Yukawa coupling in the RGE of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ will do this less negative if $`M_3`$ is small, and therefore $`\mu ^2`$ will become smaller in this case. Taking into account this effect, we show in Fig. 3, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and 35, a scatter plot of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for the scanning of the parameters $`M_3`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_1`$ explained in ref. . Although points with a large cross section entering in the DAMA region do exist , they are, at the end of the day, forbidden when $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$ constraints are imposed.

Clearly, in this sense, SUGRA scenarios with non-universal scalars are favored with respect to scenarios with non-universal gauginos.

## 5 Scenario with intermediate unification scale

The analyses of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ in SUGRA, described in the previous section, were performed assuming the unification scale $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV. However, there are several interesting arguments in favor of SUGRA scenarios with scales $`M_I10^{1014}`$ GeV. These can be found e.g. in ref.  and references therein. Thus to use the value of the initial scale, say $`M_I`$, as a free parameter for the running of the soft terms is particularly interesting. In this sense, it was recently pointed out  that $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is very sensitive to the variation of the initial scale for the running of the soft terms. For instance, by taking $`M_I=10^{1012}`$ GeV rather than $`M_{GUT}`$, regions in the parameter space of mSUGRA can be found where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is two orders of magnitude larger than for $`M_{GUT}`$.

The fact that smaller initial scales imply a larger $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ can be understood from the variation in the value of $`\mu `$ with $`M_I`$. One observes that, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ fixed, the smaller the initial scale for the running is, the smaller the numerator in the first piece of eq.(1) becomes. This can be understood qualitatively from the well known evolution of $`m_{H_d}^2`$ and $`m_{H_u}^2`$ with the scale. Clearly, the smaller the initial scale is, the shorter the running becomes. As a consequence, also the less important the positive(negative) contribution $`m_{H_d}^2`$($`m_{H_u}^2`$) to $`\mu ^2`$ in eq.(1) becomes. Thus $`|\mu |`$ decreases, and therefore, as discussed in the previous section, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ increases. This is shown in Fig. 4, where the result for the scale $`M_I=M_{GUT}`$ is compared with the result for the intermediate scale $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV.

Clearly, in the latter scenario the Higgs mass decreases and all points would be excluded if we impose the mSUGRA bound $`m_h>114`$ GeV. On the other hand, taking into account the conservative approach discussed in Section 3, since all points in the figure have $`m_h>100`$ GeV we will not discard them. Then, the most important constraint for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ is due to $`g_\mu 2`$, excluding a large area of points in the DAMA region. We can understand this from the results of ref. . There, $`a_\mu `$ versus $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is plotted, and one can observe that for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}150`$ GeV and $`m`$ small too large values of $`a_\mu `$, beyond the experimental upper bound, are obtained. Note that the area left in DAMA by this constraint and the mSUGRA one $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>103`$ GeV may be increased if we relaxed the latter bound to e.g. 90 GeV. We see in Fig. 4 that the range 75 GeV $`<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<`$ 125 GeV is now consistent with DAMA limits. However, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ all points in the DAMA region are excluded because of $`bs\gamma `$.

Given the above situation concerning the enhancement of the neutralino-proton cross section through non-universal scalars and intermediate scales, it is worth analyzing the combination of both possibilities. This is shown in Fig. 5. Although no points with $`m_h>114`$ GeV enter in the DAMA region, many points with $`91<m_h<114`$ GeV do enter and are allowed by all the other constraints. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ the allowed area is extremely large and we can even have points entering in the region excluded by CDMS.

## 6 Superstring scenario with D-branes

In the previous section the analyses were performed assuming intermediate unification scales. In fact, this situation can be inspired by superstring theories, since it was recently realized that the string scale may be anywhere between the weak and the Plank scale. For example, embedding the SM inside D3-branes in type I strings, the string scale is given by $`M_I^4=\alpha M_{Planck}M_c^3/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the gauge coupling and $`M_c`$ is the compactification scale. Thus one gets $`M_I10^{1012}`$ GeV with $`M_c10^{810}`$ GeV. In addition, D-brane constructions are explicit scenarios where not only intermediate scales arise naturally but also non-universality.

The crucial point in these analyses is the D-brane origin of the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge group as a combination of other $`U(1)`$’s, and its influence on the matter distribution in these scenarios. In particular, scenarios with the gauge group and particle content of the SUSY SM lead naturally to intermediate values for the string scale, in order to reproduce the value of gauge couplings deduced from experiments. In addition, the soft terms turn out to be generically non-universal. Due to these results, large cross sections can be obtained .

Let us consider for example a type I string scenario where the gauge group $`U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)`$, giving rise to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^3`$, arises from three different types of D-branes, and therefore the gauge couplings are non-universal. Here $`U(1)_Y`$ is a linear combination of the three $`U(1)`$ gauge groups arising from $`U(3)`$, $`U(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ within the three different D-branes. As shown in ref. , this leads to the string scale $`M_I=10^{12}`$ GeV. Likewise, assuming that only the dilaton ($`S`$) and moduli ($`T_i`$) fields contribute to SUSY breaking, it was found that the soft terms are generically non-universal.

Fig. 6 displays a scatter plot of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of the neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for a scanning of the parameter space described in ref. . In particular, the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}300`$ GeV is taken, since larger values will always produce a cross section below DAMA limits. The cases $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and 15 are shown in Fig. 6. Although regions of the parameter space consistent with DAMA limits exist, the $`bs\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$ constraints forbid most of them. The latter are shown with small (green) points, and they have $`91<m_h<114`$ GeV. For example, to understand this result for $`g_\mu 2`$ is simple. In ref.  $`a_\mu `$ versus $`m_{3/2}`$ is plotted, and one can observe that for $`m_{3/2}<300`$ GeV too large values of $`a_\mu `$, beyond the experimental upper bound, are obtained. In Fig. 6 only regions with big (red and blue) dots fulfil the above mentioned constraints. The red ones correspond to points with $`m_h114`$ GeV whereas the blue ones correspond to points with $`91<m_h<114`$ GeV. It is worth noticing that the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is, the smaller the regions allowed by the experimental constraints become. For example, increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the value of $`a_\mu `$ turns out to be larger and may exceed the experimental bounds.

## 7 Conclusions

We have reviewed the direct detection of supersymmetric dark matter in the light of recent experimental results. They require a large cross section of the order of $`10^6`$ pb. Although in the context of the mSUGRA scenario one cannot obtain this value once the experimental constraints are imposed, this is possible for other scenarios. This is the case of SUGRA models with non-universal soft scalar masses. Likewise, scenarios with intermediate unification scale may also produce this value if some experimental bounds are relaxed.

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Khalil and E. Torrente-Lujan as co-authors of some of the works reported in this paper. D.G. Cerdeño acknowledges the financial support of the Comunidad de Madrid through a FPI grant. E. Gabrielli is grateful to the CERN Theory Division and the Department of Theoretical Physics of Madrid Autónoma University, where part of this work has been done, for their warm hospitality. The work of C. Muñoz was supported in part by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under contract FPA2000-0980, and the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148.


text:
# Optical and Infrared Observations of Radioactive Elements in Supernovae.

## 1 Introduction

Optical and infrared observations of core-collapse supernovae provide crucial clues about the formation of radioactive nuclei. Although we read in astronomy text books that the elements in the universe are constantly created and expelled in supernova explosions, the hard, observational, evidence for this story may not be as compelling as we would like (e.g., Kirshner 1996). Determining the ejected masses of radioactive material from the energy budget in late light curves is one of the most direct pieces of evidence that explosive nucleosynthesis is indeed taking place in supernovae. I will present two supernovae that ejected substantially different amounts of 56Ni than did the ’canonical’ SN 1987A. I will also report on our non-detections of SN 1987A with the Infrared Space Observatory, and how these observations were used to obtain an upper limit on the amount of ejected radioactive 44Ti.

## 2 Nickel masses in core-collapse supernovae

If the optical depth in the ejecta is high enough to trap the energetic gamma-rays from the decaying radioactive elements, the late supernova light curve decline will reflect the half life time of the element decay rate. The most important radioactive isotopes for supernova powering are 56Ni, 57Ni, and 44Ti, dominating at successively later phases. Only for SN 1987A have all three decays been observed to power the light curve. Observations of other SNe usually cover only the 56Ni phase, as revealed in the bolometric light curve by a fading of 0.98 magnitudes every 100 days. With a handle on the gamma-deposition, we need to determine the bolometric luminosity to deduce the mass of ejected nickel. This has been determined for a dozen supernovae. Table 1 shows an incomplete sample, obtained with varying degrees of sophistication. Patat et al. (1994) presented 8 Type IIP SNe with late time absolute V-magnitudes. Here, I have assumed the same bolometric correction as for SN 1987A, i.e., a linear scaling with $`0.071\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 56Ni. This gives a mean value for these 8 SNe of $`0.075\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 56Ni with a standard deviation of only $`0.03\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In fact, the number 0.07 occurs rather frequently in Table 1. Though there exist no theoretical justification for this number, only the Australian group around Brian Schmidt seemed to find supernovae with varying yields of nickel.

## 3 The low amount of 56Ni in SN 1994W

But not all supernovae eject the same amount of 56Ni. SN 1994W ejected significantly less nickel than the canonical 0.07$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Sollerman, Cumming $`\&`$ Lundqvist 1998, hereafter SCL98). This discovery was later followed by another low-nickel supernova, SN 1997D (Turatto et al. 1998). This is important for understanding the galactic iron-enrichment, but may also tell us something about the explosion mechanism itself, and possibly even about the nature of the compact remnant formed in the supernova explosion.

We know that fall-back is an important process taking place after a successful shock has been launched in the supernova explosion. The innermost material falling back onto the newly formed neutron star will largely be made up of 56Ni. It is also clear that a substantial amount of fall-back may trigger a collapse of the neutron star into a black hole. The quantitative features of this scenario may be difficult to calculate, but the main consequences are clear. A supernova for which fall-back is efficient enough to form a black hole will have a diminished amount of radioactive material ejected. An underluminous light curve tail from a Type IIP supernova may therefore be the signature of a supernova that formed a black hole (Woosley $`\&`$ Timmes 1996). SN 1994W, discovered on 1994 July 29 in NGC 4041 may indeed be such a case. At the plateau stage this supernova was very luminous, but then showed an unprecedented drop in the light curve (see Fig. 1 in SCL98). In 12 days the supernova faded by 3.5 magnitudes, and then continued to fade rapidly on the light curve tail.

The absolute R-band magnitudes of SN 1994W are significantly fainter than those of the well observed SN 1987A. This tells us that SN 1994W ejected less radioactive nickel than the canonical $`0.07\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The exact amount of nickel somewhat depends on the interpretation of the fast decline rate on the light curve tail, as detailed in SCL98. However, regardless of the interpretation, the mass of ejected 56Ni was very low, $`<0.015\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In fact, the observations are consistent with a scenario where all nickel fell back onto the neutron star, perhaps causing it to implode to a black hole, and where the late emission is due to explosion energy diffusing out of the denser core/mantle region (Woosley $`\&`$ Weaver 1986).

Clearly this is not an unambiguous proof of black hole formation. However, if a massive star would form a black hole due to extensive fall back, the observational consequence should be a light curve that looks pretty much like that observed for SN 1994W. These discoveries have triggered some interesting theoretical investigations. Zampieri et al. (1998) have discussed the prospects of directly observing the black hole accretion luminosity emerging at late phases for supernovae with low input of radioactive heating. Keeping an observational eye on also the faint supernovae may thus be rewarding.

## 4 SN 1998bw - The most nickel rich supernova to date

SN 1998bw was probably associated with the Gamma-ray burst GRB 980425. Early modeling implied a very energetic explosion ejecting some $`0.50.7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 56Ni, an order of magnitude more than for SN 1987A (Iwamoto et al. 1998; Woosley, Eastman & Schmidt 1999). However, Höflich et al. (1999) noted that if SN 1998bw were an asymmetric explosion the early light curve may give an erroneous estimate of the nickel-mass. We obtained late time observations to model the supernova at phases when the ejecta are optically thin, and the effects of asymmetry should be minimal (Sollerman et al. 2000).

Using the massive CO-star models of Iwamoto et al. (1998) and Woosley et al. (1999), we modeled the late time emission in detail. To successfully reproduce the peaked line profiles in the spectra we had to macroscopically mix the original structure and increase the inner densities. Having a handle on the distribution of material in the supernova, we could then accurately calculate the gamma-deposition and thus determine the nickel-mass required to power the late light curve. We obtained $`0.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in one model, and $`0.9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in the other. Independent of the exact number, simple arguments show that SN 1998bw ejected at least $`0.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 56Ni, significantly more than the $`0.07\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of SN 1987A. Together with SN 1994W, it is thus clear that core-collapse supernovae can eject very different amounts of nickel.

Due to the high velocities the ejecta of SN 1998bw became almost completely transparent to the gamma-rays at later phases, and the energy input should eventually be dominated by the kinetic energy from the positrons emitted in the radioactive decays. Then the nickel-mass is directly given by the bolometric luminosity. A preliminary bolometric light curve is reported in Patat et al. (2001) and modeled by Nakamura et al. (2001). We are currently trying to improve on this.

This is because the background of SN 1998bw is very complex and even PSF-subtraction is likely to overestimate the luminosity of the SN at late phases. Figure 1 shows three subsequent HST/STIS images of the region with a scale of merely $`1.5^{\prime \prime }\times 1.5^{\prime \prime }`$. It is clear that several objects will fall into any ground based PSF. These images also show that one of the objects is still fading, confirming the SN identification made by Fynbo et al. (2000). To assess the problem of background subtraction in greater detail we have obtained late VLT template images to subtract from our earlier images, a technique utilized in the High-z supernova context (Fig. 2).

Moreover, including our late VLT-IR photometry and the HST photometry we can construct a better late time light curve to address the importance of positron deposition at this very late stage. A preliminary attempt is shown in figure 3.

## 5 The amount of 44Ti in SN 1987A

The emission of SN 1987A at very late times ($`1500`$ days) is powered by the decay of 44Ti. This nucleus is also produced in the very center of the supernova, and thus probes the early phases of the explosion.

At these very late phases most of the supernova light emerges outside the bands observable from ground. Only a few percent of the emission emerges in the UVOIR and constructing a bolometric light curve from such observations is utterly difficult. The most sensitive way to determine the powering at this stage should instead be in the far-IR. The emission line of \[Fe II\] $`26\mu `$m appears to be the ideal probe and accounts for almost half of the supernova emission at these phases. This line was observable by the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) which was therefore pointed toward SN 1987A. However, no emission from the supernova was detected (Lundqvist, Sollerman, Kozma et al. 1999). From the upper limit on this emission, together with detailed modeling of the supernova, we achieved an upper limit on the amount of titanium powering the late emission. Including a number of possible uncertainties (atomic data, distance, mixing etc.) resulted in an upper limit of 44Ti of $`<1.5\times 10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ from the non-detection at day 3999.

However, Borkowski et al. (1997) indicated that another set of ISO data reached a ten times lower limit, severely challenging estimates from explosion models. We analyzed these data when they became available from the ISO data archive. Again, no emission from the supernova was observed, but the obtained upper limit on the flux was indeed lower. With an updated code for the modeling, we arrived at an upper limit of $`8\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ from the non-detection at day 3425 (Lundqvist, Kozma, Sollerman $`\&`$ Fransson 2001).

In the new investigation we furthermore analyzed several systematic effects that could affect the far-IR lines. We found that a certain type of positron-escape from the iron-rich gas to the macroscopically mixed Si-gas rich regions could decrease the flux in the $`26\mu `$m line by some $`30\%`$ without significantly altering the optical bands that are indeed well reproduced by the model. Including this effect we conclude that no more than $`1.1\times 10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 44Ti was ejected from SN 1987A.


text:
# Using NMR to Measure Fractal Dimensions

(19 April 2002 v3)

In a recent Letter Stallmach et al. (2002), Stallmach et al. reported pulsed field gradient (PFG) NMR measurements of the time-dependent diffusion constant $`D(t)`$ in packings of water saturated sands. According to theory Mitra et al. (1992), $`D(t)`$ decreases from the bulk water value $`D_0`$ with increasing observation time $`t`$ due to restrictions imposed by the pore surface:

$$\frac{D(t)}{D_0}=1\frac{4S}{9\sqrt{\pi }V}\sqrt{D_0t}+\text{higher order terms.}$$
(1)
Here $`S/V`$ is the surface-to-volume ratio of the pore space and $`r=\sqrt{D_0t}`$ is the diffusion length. Stallmach et al. studied samples with different grain diameters $`d_g`$ and found that $`S/Vd_g^{0.7}`$, which they interpreted with a fractal picture. If $`d_g`$ is identified as the upper cut-off scale $`L`$ for a fractal surface of dimension $`D_s`$, one expects $`S/Vd_g^{D_S3}`$. In this Comment, we argue that the analysis of Ref. Stallmach et al., 2002 is flawed and we propose an alternative.

The key point is that Eq. 1 was derived for a *nonfractal* surface such that $`S/V`$ is constant as the length scale $`r`$ varies. In Ref. Stallmach et al., 2002, Eq. 1 is used for $`2\mu \text{m}<r<10\mu \text{m}`$ while $`d_g`$ is in the range 100-1000 $`\mu `$m. For the analysis to be valid, the surface would have to be smooth below 10 $`\mu `$m and abruptly turn into a fractal above this scale. This is implausible as sands and rocks are known to have fractal surfaces below 1 $`\mu `$m Wong (1988). For example, BET measurements on rocks (for which the measurement scale is $`r0.4`$ nm) yield $`S/V`$ values one to two orders of magnitude greater than PFG NMR results Hürlimann et al. (1994).

To show how Eq. 1 is modified for fractal surfaces, we note that the term $`4Sr/9\sqrt{\pi }V`$ arises because molecules within a layer of volume $`V_BSr`$ can on average reach the pore surface within time $`t`$. Following Ref. Wong and Bray, 1988 and allowing for $`d_g>L`$, it is easy to see that $`V_B(d_g/L)^2(L/r)^{D_s}r^3/(3D_s)`$. Hence Eq. 1 becomes

$$\frac{D(t)}{D_0}=1\frac{A}{3D_s}\left(\frac{L}{d_g}\right)^{D_s2}\left(\frac{d_g}{r}\right)^{D_s}\left(\frac{r}{d_g}\right)^3+\text{}$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is a constant. This expression makes it clear that the analysis of Ref. Stallmach et al., 2002 requires $`Ld_g`$, but also $`r`$ to be independent of $`d_g`$. For a given sample with fixed $`d_g`$ and $`L`$, the limiting form of $`D(t)`$ at short times is

$$1D(t)/D_0r^{3D_s}t^{(3D_s)/2}.$$
(3)
To illustrate this method, we show some preliminary PFG NMR data on Indiana limestone and a packing of plastic beads; experimental details are given elsewhere Ding and Candela (1996). Figure 1 shows a log-log plot of $`1D(t)/D_0`$ vs. $`r`$. For a fractal surface, the data should fall on a straight line with slope $`3D_s`$. As seen in previous studies, the data for smooth plastic beads are consistent with $`D_s=2`$. However, the limestone data fall on a line with distinctly smaller slope, giving $`D_s=2.58\pm 0.14`$. Optical micrographs of this limestone reveal that the pore surface has a wide range of features on scales above 1 $`\mu `$m. Although these data span less than a decade of length scales, the difference in slope between limestone and plastic beads is unmistakable. If the grain surfaces studied in Ref. Stallmach et al., 2002 were truly fractal, they would show $`D(t)`$ time dependence similar to the limestone data in Fig. 1.


text:
# Interstellar Scintillation of PSR J0437-4715 on Two Scales Observations made with the US VLBA. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we report measurement of the interstellar scattering by plasma along the line of sight to pulsar J0437$``$4715. This is one of the closest pulsars. It has distance $`R=150`$ pc, and its transverse velocity is 100 km/sec (van Straten Van01 (2001)). It is quite strong over a wide range of observing frequencies. Its proximity, and its intensity, make it an important probe of the local interstellar plasma.

We describe observations of the scattering parameters of J0437$``$4715, made at 327 MHz. We find two scales of scintillation, corresponding to two scales of structure in the pulsar’s dynamic spectrum. Multiple scales are not uncommon for nearby pulsars (see, for example, Stinebring et al. Sti01 (2001), Hill et al. hil03 (2003)), although scales separated by more than an order of magnitude are unusual. Comparison with other pulsars of similar distance and dispersion measure shows that this pulsar has relatively less scattering than expected on the basis of a model for homogeneous turbulence. In this paper, we discuss the observations and comparison with other pulsars. We discuss comparison with previous observations of scintillation of J0437$``$4715, and interpretation of the measurements, in an accompanying paper (Smirnova et al. smi06 (2006)), hereafter Paper 2).

## 2 Observations and Analysis

### 2.1 Data Collection and Calibration

We observed PSR J0437$``$4715 at two epochs using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). On 5 November 1996, we observed the pulsar over four 33-minute scans, using 25-meter telescopes at Fort Davis, Mauna Kea, Pie Town, and St. Croix, with a 32-MHz bandwidth centered at 332 MHz, and with a 250-kHz spectral resolution. Between the scans, we observed extragalactic sources for calibration purposes. On 8 April 1999, we observed the target for two 44-minute scans and one 33-minute scan, using the telescopes at Fort Davis, Kitt Peak, Los Alamos, Mauna Kea, Owens Valley, Pie Town, and St. Croix, with a bandwidth of 32 MHz centered at 328 MHz, and with a spectral resolution of 125 kHz. Mutual visibility is short, particularly on long baselines, because the source lies at low declination; this limited the useful time span of the observations. To increase the signal-to-noise ratio, the data for this observation were correlated using a gate which covered 12% of the pulse period and which isolated the central peak of the pulse profile. Scans of a calibrator source preceded and succeeded the observations of the pulsar. For both observations, we aggregated the 32-MHz bandwidth using four 8-MHz intermediate-frequency (IF) bands.

We performed the first half of the calibration using NRAO’s Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS). The data from both observations were marred by radio-frequency interference (RFI). The second observation in particular suffered badly from RFI, forcing us to eliminate the Kitt Peak and Owens Valley antennas from the outset. The interference also tainted some measurements of system temperature. The system temperature should not change abruptly, so if an isolated reading clearly departed from an otherwise smooth trend, we removed that value. In two IFs, however, rampant corruption due to RFI obliterated evidence of a smooth evolution in system temperature. For these two IFs, we copied the system temperatures from an adjacent IF.

We examined the remaining visibilities and flagged channels and time ranges to eliminate data corrupted by very strong, narrow-band signals typical of man-made sources. We applied the usual corrections for the effects of antenna parallactic angles, digital sampler bias, system temperature, and gain calibration. We then performed a manual phase calibration by running a fringe fit on a thirty-second interval of calibrator data to determine the electronic delay differences between IFs, and we removed the resulting phase differences from the pulsar and calibrator data. The final procedure done using AIPS was a fringe fit on each source to remove phase slopes due to the residual fringe rate and delay.

To perform a bandpass calibration, we averaged, for each baseline, the complex visibilities from a ten-minute interval of calibrator data. Deviations from a flat amplitude and phase spectrum reflected the non-ideal frequency response of the baseband converters. The gain of the filters drops off at the ends of each IF, significantly reducing the signal-to-noise ratio in the first and last channel of each IF; consequently, we omitted these channels in our subsequent analysis. We then smoothed the data using boxcar averaging with a one-minute window to further increase the signal-to-noise ratio. We then exported the data from AIPS and continued calibration using custom software.

At our observing frequency, propagation through the ionosphere significantly affects the visibility phases in both time and frequency (Thompson et al. Tho86 (1986)). Data from both observations exhibited broadband variations in phase of order half a radian over a time scale of about fifteen minutes, as would be expected for ionospheric path changes. We approximated and removed these temporal variations using an eighth-order polynomial fit to amplitude-weighted phase averages calculated for each time point.

The ionosphere also introduces a nonlinear variation of phase with frequency (Thompson et al. Tho86 (1986)). The fringe fit removes only a linear dependence of phase on frequency. Usually, the bandwidth is small enough compared to the observing frequency that the higher-order terms are not important. However, in our case, the bandwidth was approximately 10% of the observing frequency, and the resulting 1% second-order correction would be of order a radian for typical values of total electron content for the ionosphere. We fit the amplitude-weighted phase averages calculated for each channel to a quadratic polynomial and used this polynomial to calculate the appropriate phase to subtract from the visibilities in each channel. This yielded the amplitude as a function of frequency, as shown for example in Figure 1 for the short Fort Davis-Pie Town baseline.

To verify that our calibration procedure did not introduce any unintended biases, we calculated two-dimensional autocorrelation functions (ACF) for each data set using the visibilities from a calibrator source. As expected, we obtained results flat in both time and frequency lags, except for a spike at small time and frequency lags due to the effects of noise, broadened from a delta-function by smoothing.

### 2.2 Observational Results

#### 2.2.1 Dynamic Spectra

Initially, we had hoped to measure the angular broadening of the pulsar by measuring the phase variations of the diffraction pattern; however, several complications derailed our efforts. Most significantly, the scintillation bandwidth was much larger than expected. As the phase variations of the diffraction pattern have this characteristic bandwidth (Desai et al. Des92 (1992)), they could not be distinguished from ionospheric phase, phase slope, and curvature. Moreover, the angular scale inferred from the scintillation bandwidth is so small that we would not expect to detect phase variations on any Earth-based baseline, at 327 MHz or higher observing frequency.

We chose to focus on the Fort Davis-Pie Town baseline, which had the least interference and best signal-to-noise ratio. Figure 1 shows plots of the visibility amplitudes for the pulsar on this baseline for both epochs. The white vertical lines correspond to the channels omitted at the ends of each IF, and the white horizontal lines correspond to breaks in the scan or to time ranges flagged because of RFI. At both epochs, we detected scintillation maxima that typically persist for ten to twenty minutes and that span several IFs, suggesting a characteristic width in frequency on the order of ten megahertz.

#### 2.2.2 Scintillation Bandwidth and Timescale

We formed autocorrelation functions of the data shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows an example, a composite autocorrelation function formed for all the data. We then fit models to the autocorrelation functions, using the form expected for Gaussian spectra: a Lorentzian for differences in frequency and a Gaussian for differences in time (see Gwinn et al. Gwi98 (1998)). We found values for the decorrelation bandwidth of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =14.7\pm 0.5\mathrm{MHz}`$ for the first epoch and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =16.5\pm 0.5\mathrm{MHz}`$ for the second, measured as the half-width at half maximum of the autocorrelation function in frequency. A fit to a composite autocorrelation function, using all of our data, yielded $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =15.7\pm 0.2\mathrm{MHz}`$. This composite function is the sum of the autocorrelation functions for the two epochs, weighted by the number of samples. The quoted errors are standard errors for the fits; we discuss the expected uncertainties further below. The scintillation timescale $`t_{ISS}`$ was about 1000 sec, as discussed below. Table 1 summarizes the results.

As Figure 1 shows, the number of independent samples with dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \times t_{ISS}`$ is small, so that the accuracy of our measurement is limited by number of samples. Phillips & Clegg (Phi92 (1992)) argue that the fractional accuracy of such a measurement is given by the number of independent samples, so that

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }\nu )^2/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =1/(N_t\times N_f)=t_{ISS}/T\times \mathrm{\Delta }\nu /B.$$
(1)
For our observations, $`N_t=T/t_{ISS}14`$, and $`N_f=B/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 2`$. We thus expect $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }\nu )(1/\sqrt{28})\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 3`$ MHz.

Because the total bandwidth is only twice the decorrelation bandwidth, we used Monte Carlo simulations with a range of parameters to estimate errors as well. Using the stationary-phase technique (Gwinn et al. Gwi98 (1998)), we formed 1500 dynamic spectra with the same $`N_t`$ and $`N_f`$ as our observations, with “true” decorrelation bandwidth evenly distributed between 0 and 50 MHz. We then found the autocorrelation function for these synthetic spectra, and fitted for the decorrelation bandwidth, as described above for the actual data. We then found the distribution of “true” decorrelation bandwidth that contributed to Monte Carlo results close to our measured value. Thus, we inferred a parent distribution for our observed value.

We found that the parent distribution was sharply peaked near the measured value of 16 MHz, but had an extended tail toward larger values. Of those spectra that yielded values near our measured value, 67% came from the interval between 13 MHz and 23 MHz. The endpoints of this interval have about equal probability, according to our Monte Carlo simulations; their asymmetry about the most probable value of 16 MHz reflects the tail toward larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. The fact that we obtain values close to 16 MHz independently, from both of our observing epochs, provides additional evidence that 16 MHz is the “true” underlying value; we did not demand that our Monte Carlo simulations reproduce this additional fact, to keep them manageably simple. This simulation suggests that the uncertainty suggested by Eq. 1 is approximately correct, with additional probability on the side toward larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. The last line in Table 1 indicates our adopted values for uncertainties, from the Monte Carlo simulations, of $`16_3^{+8}`$ MHz.

The Monte Carlo simulations indicate that the actual decorrelation bandwidth is unlikely to be about 1 MHz, as would be expected from some previous measurements (Paper 2). To test this hypothesis, we formed 1000 spectra with true decorrelation bandwidth of 1 MHz, and then found the autocorrelation function and fitted value for the decorrelation bandwidth. None approached 16 MHz. The largest value obtained was 4.7 MHz. We conclude that the probability of the decorrelation bandwidth actually being close to 1 MHz is much less than 0.1%.

Similarly, we measured the scintillation timescale as the half-width at half-maximum of the time correlation function with time. The measured scintillation time scales were $`t_{ISS}=885\pm 9\mathrm{s}`$ for the first epoch and $`t_{ISS}=1630\pm 80\mathrm{s}`$ for the second. The composite autocorrelation function yielded a time scale of $`t_{ISS}=1020\pm 70\mathrm{s}`$. The expression of Phillips & Clegg (Phi92 (1992)) would indicate that the true value was $`1000\pm 200\mathrm{s}`$. Monte Carlo simulations of the parent distribution indicate a confidence interval of $`t_{ISS}=1000_{250}^{+350}\mathrm{s}`$. The larger estimated errors we find from Monte Carlo simulations, for both $`t_{ISS}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, may result from departures of the correlation function from its expected form, for small $`N_t`$ and $`N_f`$. We adopt the central value from the composite autocorrelation function in time, and the uncertainty from Monte Carlo simulations or the expression of Phillips & Clegg, as shown by the last line in Table 1.

#### 2.2.3 Fine-Scale Scintillation

A finer-scale variation within the scintillation maxima is apparent within the large-scale structures in Figure 1. This variation is not noise: it is a real modulation of intensity. Figure 3 shows an expanded view of part of a scintillation maximum in Figure 1. These finer-scale scintillations are also visible in the autocorrelation function, when the domain of integration is limited to a single peak of the scintillation spectrum in Figure 1. Analysis indicates that they have bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 0.5\mathrm{MHz}`$ and time scales of 1 to 3 minutes. The modulation index of this finer-scale structure is $`m_f0.2`$. These values are in approximate agreement with the scintillation parameters other groups have reported for PSR J0437$``$4715, as we discuss further in Paper 2.

For the fine-scale scintillations, the autocorrelation function shows differences from the forms described in §2.2.2 above, even when the reduced modulation index is taken into account. These might arise from the modulation introduced by the larger-scale scintillation; or by variations in the characteristic scales of the fine-scale scintillation, perhaps similar to those described by by Gothoskar & Gupta (got00 (2000)), but within a single observation. The number of independent samples of the fine-scale scintillation is large enough to have negligible contribution to the expected errors. We adopt the standard errors for our fits, as our best estimates. Variations of the properties of small-scale scintillation with epoch, as Gothoskar & Gupta observe, could be greater than these errors, but we cannot assess them from our data. In practice, longer and greater-bandwidth observations of this pulsar, or observations at lower frequencies where scales are smaller, are probably required to understand statistics of the finer-scale scintillation. We discuss a possible explanation of the fine- and wide-scale scintillation in Paper 2.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Scintillation Velocity

The combination of scintillation bandwidth and time scale yields an estimated velocity for the scintillation pattern, usually dominated by the velocity of the pulsar. The relation (Gupta et al. Gup94 (1994)):

$$V_{ISS}=A_V\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}DX}}{ft_{ISS}}$$
(2)
connects scintillation velocity $`V_{ISS}`$ to the observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}`$ and $`t_{ISS}`$, along with the distance of the pulsar $`D`$, a constant $`A_V`$, observing frequency $`f`$, and $`X`$, the ratio of the distance from observer to scattering material to that from scattering material to pulsar. For material halfway $`X=1`$; for material close to the observer $`X<1`$.

The calculated scintillation velocity $`V_{ISS}`$ varies along with the scintillation bandwidth. Gothoskar et al. (got00 (2000)) and Nicastro et al. (nic95 (1995)) both report variation of the inferred $`V_{ISS}`$ by about a factor of 2, as inferred from individual observations. The $`V_{ISS}`$ obtained for our adopted values for the wide-band scintillation in Table 1, with $`A_V=3.85\times 10^4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\times (1\mathrm{GHz}1\mathrm{sec})(1\mathrm{MHz}1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^{1/2}`$ (Gupta et al. Gup94 (1994)), and an assumed distance of 150 pc (van Straten Van01 (2001)), and $`X=1`$, is $`180_{50}^{+75}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is close to the average value of $`170\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ reported by Johnston et al. (joh98 (1998)), and consistent with the $`231\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ reported by Gothoskar & Gupta (got00 (2000)). The proper-motion velocity is $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (van Straten et al. Van01 (2001)). The values calculated from our two epochs separately, $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`110\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, differ with marginal significance from the adopted value; more extensive observations could reveal whether the time-variability observed by Gothoskar & Gupta holds for the wide-band scintillation. Gothoskar & Gupta (got00 (2000)) inferred from the relatively high scintillation velocity that the fractional distance of the scattering material, $`x`$ (see Eq. 2), was larger than 1, and surmised that the scattering material likely lies at the surface of the Local Bubble. As discussed in Paper 2, some evidence suggests that the scattering lies in a thin layer, $`10`$ pc from the Sun.

### 3.2 Comparison with Other Pulsars

PSR J0437$``$4715 has among the lowest dispersion measures of strong pulsars, and it is perhaps unsurprising that the scintillation bandwidth is among the broadest observed, scaled to a single frequency. Comparisons with other pulsars are usually done by the typical pulse broadening time $`\tau `$ (actually the time required for a broadened pulse to reqch $`1/e`$ of its maximum) (Pynzar’ & Shishov pyn97 (1997)). The scintillation bandwidth is related to the typical pulse broadening time, $`\tau `$, by the equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}\tau =C_1/(2\pi )$$
(3)
where $`C_1`$ is a constant of order unity (see Taylor et al. tay93 (1993), Lambert & Rickett lam99 (1999)). We follow Pynzar’ & Shishov (pyn97 (1997)) and adopt $`C_1=1.0`$, and scale to observing frequency $`f_0=330`$ MHz using $`\tau f^{4.4}`$. Figure 4 compares the scintillation parameters of PSR J0437$``$4715 with those of other pulsars. The broader-$`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}`$ scattering of PSR J0437$``$4715 falls below the scaling found by Pynzar’ & Shishov (pyn97 (1997)) for nearby pulsars, as does the scattering of PSR B0950$`+`$08 (Phillips & Clegg Phi92 (1992)). Interestingly, some earlier measurements of the scintillation properties of PSR B0950$`+`$08 found spectral structures that would indicate much larger $`\tau `$, placing it near the line extrapolated from other nearby pulsars. Those measurements also indicated frequency and time structures unexpected for scintillation, and large variations with observing epoch (Roberts & Ables rob82 (1982)). The fine-scale structure we observe for PSR J0437$``$4175 lies above this extrapolated line, although observations of this object by others yield values close to the line. We discuss observations of PSR J0437$``$4715 by other groups, and present a possible interpretation, in Paper 2.

## 4 Conclusions

We find two scales of scattering for the nearby pulsar PSR J0437$``$4715. The broader scale has scintillation bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}=16_3^{+8}`$ MHz, and time scale $`t_{ISS}=1000_{250}^{+350}`$ sec. The narrower scale has $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{ISS}=0.5\pm 0.1`$ MHz, and time scale $`t_{ISS}=90\pm 20`$ sec. Both yield scintillation velocities close to the proper-motion velocity found by van Straten (Van01 (2001)). The pulse broadening time inferred from the broader scintillation bandwidth is less than that expected on the basis of observations of other nearby pulsars.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the U.S. National Science Foundation for supporting this work.