text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The experimental investigation of lepton deep-inelastic scattering ($`DIS`$) off proton and deuteron targets has provided a wealth of information on parton distributions in the nucleon. In the past few years some selected issues in the kinematical regions corresponding to large values of the Bjorken variable $`x`$ have attracted a lot of theoretical and phenomenological interest; among them one should mention the occurrence of power corrections associated to dynamical higher-twist operators measuring the correlations among partons. The extraction of the latter is of particular relevance since the comparison with theoretical predictions either based on lattice $`QCD`$ simulations or obtained from models of the nucleon structure represents an important test of $`QCD`$ in its non-perturbative regime.

In Refs.  and  the world data on the unpolarized nucleon structure functions $`F_2^N`$ and $`F_L^N`$ have been used to carry out power correction analyses. In this contribution we summarize the main results  of the extension of such a twist analysis to the case of the polarized proton structure function $`g_1^p`$, performed in terms of Nachtmann moments. The latter however require the knowledge of the polarized structure function $`g_1^p`$ in the whole $`x`$-range for fixed values of $`Q^2`$, and therefore a new parameterization of $`g_1^p`$, which describes the $`DIS`$ proton data up to $`Q^250(GeV/c)^2`$ and includes a phenomenological Breit-Wigner ansatz able to reproduce the existing electroproduction data in the proton-resonance regions, has been developed . The interpolation formula for $`g_1^p`$ has been successfully extended down to the photon point, showing that it nicely reproduces the very recent data  on the energy dependence of the asymmetry of the transverse photoproduction cross section as well as the experimental value of the proton Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov ($`DHG`$) sum rule. According to our parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ the generalized $`DHG`$ sum rule is predicted to have a zero-crossing point at $`Q^2=0.16\pm 0.04(GeV/c)^2`$. Finally, the $`Q^2`$ behavior of low-order polarized Nachtmann moments has been obtained in the $`Q^2`$-range between $`0.5`$ and $`50(GeV/c)^2`$.

## 2 Parton-hadron local duality in $`g_1^p`$

An important feature of the results obtained in Ref.  is that the resonant contribution to the polarized Nachtmann moments is negative for $`Q^2`$ few $`(GeV/c)^2`$. This is mainly due to the well established fact  that the proton transverse asymmetry $`A_1^p`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$-resonance regions is negative up to $`Q^23÷4(GeV/c)^2`$. Thus, for $`Q^2`$ few $`(GeV/c)^2`$ the resonant contribution to the polarized proton structure function is opposite in sign with respect to the unpolarized case (see Ref. ).

It is therefore legitimate to ask ourselves whether the parton-hadron local duality, observed empirically  in the unpolarized transverse structure function of the proton, holds as well in the polarized case. To this end we have generated pseudo-data in the resonance regions and in the $`DIS`$ regime via our interpolation formula for $`g_1^p`$. Our results clearly shows that: i) at values of $`Q^2`$ as low as $`0.5(GeV/c)^2`$ there is no evidence at all of an occurrence of the local duality, as in the case of the unpolarized transverse structure function of the proton , and ii) in the kinematical regions where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance is prominently produced, the local duality breaks down at least for $`Q^2`$ up to few $`(GeV/c)^2`$, while in the higher resonance regions for $`Q^2\text{ }>1(GeV/c)^2`$ it is not excluded by our parameterization. Note that in the unpolarized case the onset of the local duality occurs  at $`Q^21÷2(GeV/c)^2`$, including also the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance regions. It should be mentioned that the usefulness of the concept of parton-hadron local duality relies mainly on the possibility to address the $`DIS`$ curve at large $`x`$ through measurements at low $`Q^2`$ in the resonance regions. It is therefore clear that the breakdown of the local duality in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance forbid us to get information from duality on the behavior of the scaling curve at the highest values of $`x`$.

## 3 Twist analysis of the polarized Nachtmann moments

In this Section we present the power correction analysis of the polarized Nachtmann moments, $`M_n^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, obtained in Ref. . The leading twist, $`\mu _n^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, is treated both at next-to-leading ($`NLO`$) order and beyond any fixed order by adopting available soft gluon resummation ($`SGR`$) techniques. As for the power corrections, a phenomenological ansatz is considered, viz.

$`M_n^{(1)}(Q^2)=\mu _n^{(1)}(Q^2)+a_n^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}}\right]^{\gamma _n^{(4)}}+a_n^{(6)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}}\right]^{\gamma _n^{(6)}}`$ (1)
where the logarithmic $`pQCD`$ evolution of the twist-4 (twist-6) contribution is accounted for by an effective anomalous dimension $`\gamma _n^{(4)}`$ ($`\gamma _n^{(6)}`$) and the parameter $`a_n^{(4)}`$ ($`a_n^{(6)}`$) represents the overall strength of the twist-4 (twist-6) term at the renormalization scale $`\mu ^2`$, chosen to be equal to $`\mu ^2=1(GeV/c)^2`$. In order to fix the running of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, the updated $`PDG`$ value $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=0.118`$ is adopted.

In case of the first Nachtmann moment ($`n=1`$) the corresponding leading twist term, $`\delta \mu _1^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, does not receive any correction from $`SGR`$ and therefore at $`NLO`$ it reads as

$`\mu _1^{(1)}(Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{<e^2>}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}+a_0(Q^2)\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }}\right]`$ (2)
The non-singlet moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}`$ is taken fixed at the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}=1.095`$, deduced from the experimental values of the triplet and octet axial coupling constants, with the latter obtained under the assumption of $`SU(3)`$-flavor symmetry. The values of the singlet axial charge $`a_0(\mu ^2)`$ and of the four higher-twist quantities $`a_1^{(4)}`$, $`\gamma _1^{(4)}`$, $`a_1^{(6)}`$ and $`\gamma _1^{(6)}`$ are determined by fitting our pseudo-data, adopting the least-$`\chi ^2`$ procedure in the $`Q^2`$-range between $`0.5`$ and $`50(GeV/c)^2`$. It turns out that the total contribution of the higher twists is tiny for $`Q^2\text{ }>1(GeV/c)^2`$, but it is comparable with the leading twist already at $`Q^20.5(GeV/c)^2`$. Since the first moment basically corresponds to the area under the structure function $`g_1^p`$ (as it is the case of the second moment of the unpolarized structure function $`F_2^p`$), the dominance of the leading twist in $`M_1^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, occurring for $`Q^2\text{ }>1(GeV/c)^2`$, reflects only the concept of global duality and not that of local duality (cf. Ref. ). In our analysis, where the leading and the higher twists are simultaneously extracted, the singlet axial charge (in the $`AB`$ scheme) is determined to be $`a_0(10GeV^2)=0.16\pm 0.09`$, which nicely agrees with many recent estimates appeared in the literature. Our value of $`a_0`$ is therefore significantly below the naive quark-model expectation (i.e. compatible with the well known ”proton spin crisis”), but it does not exclude completely a singlet axial charge as large as $`0.25`$.

In case of higher-order moments ($`n3`$) both the $`NLO`$ approximation and the $`SGR`$ approach have been considered for the leading twist. The comparison of the corresponding twist analyses shows  that, except for the third moment, the contribution of the twist-2 is enhanced by soft gluon effects, while the total higher-twist term decreases significantly after the resummation of soft gluons. Thus, as already observed  in the unpolarized case, also in the polarized one it is mandatory to go beyond the $`NLO`$ approximation and to include soft gluon effects in order to achieve a safer extraction of higher twists at large $`x`$, particularly for $`Q^2`$ few $`(GeV/c)^2`$.

Finally, the twist decomposition of the polarized Nachtmann moments has been compared with the corresponding one of the unpolarized (transverse) Nachtmann moments obtained in Ref.  adopting the same $`SGR`$ technique. It turns out  that the extracted higher-twist contribution appears to be a larger fraction of the leading twist in case of the polarized moments. This findings suggests that spin-dependent multiparton correlations may have more impact than spin-independent ones.


format: text

text:
# Can the clustered dark matter and the smooth dark energy arise from the same scalar field ?

\]http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/ paddy

## Abstract

Cosmological observations suggest the existence of two different kinds of energy densities dominating at small ($`500`$ Mpc) and large ($`1000`$ Mpc) scales. The dark matter component, which dominates at small scales, contributes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.35`$ and has an equation of state $`p=0`$, while the dark energy component, which dominates at large scales, contributes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V0.65`$ and has an equation of state $`p\rho `$. It is usual to postulate weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) for the first component and some form of scalar field or cosmological constant for the second component. We explore the possibility of a scalar field with a Lagrangian $`L=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$ acting as both clustered dark matter and smoother dark energy and having a scale-dependent equation of state. This model predicts a relation between the ratio $`r=\rho _V/\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ of the energy densities of the two dark components and expansion rate $`n`$ of the universe \[with $`a(t)t^n`$\] in the form $`n=(2/3)(1+r)`$. For $`r2`$, we get $`n2`$ which is consistent with observations.

The most conservative explanation of the current cosmological observations will require two components of dark matter. (a) First one is a dust component with the equation of state $`p=0`$ contributing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.35`$. This component clusters gravitationally at small scales ($`l500`$ Mpc, say) and will be able to explain observations from galactic to supercluster scales. (b) The second one is a negative pressure component with an equation of state like $`p=w\rho `$ with $`1<w<0.5`$ contributing about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V0.65`$. There is some leeway in the $`(p/\rho )`$ of the second component but it is certain that $`p`$ is negative and $`(p/\rho )`$ is of order unity (for recent reviews, see sarkar ). The cosmological constant will provide $`w=1`$ while several other candidates based on scalar fields with potentials phiindustry  will provide different values for $`w`$ in the acceptable range. By and large, component (b) is noticed only in the large scale expansion and it does not cluster gravitationally to a significant extent.

Neither of the components (a) and (b) has laboratory evidence for its existence directly or indirectly. In this sense, cosmology requires invoking the tooth fairy twice to explain the current observations. It would be nice if a candidate could be found which can explain the observations at both small and large scales (so that the tooth fairy needs to be invoked only once). The standard cold dark matter model of the 1980’s belongs to this class but – unfortunately – cannot explain the observations. It is obvious from the description in the first paragraph, that any such (single) candidate must have the capacity of leading to different equations of state at different scales and making a transition from $`p=0`$ at small scales to $`p=\rho `$ (say) at large scales. Normal particles (that is, one-particle-excitations of standard quantum field theory) such as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) will usually lead to the equation of state $`p=0`$ at all scales. On the other hand, homogeneous field configurations in scalar field models will behave like dark energy with negative pressure and cannot cluster effectively at small scales.

In this paper we examine the possibility of whether a recently proposed asen  candidate — a rolling tachyon arising from string theory — can explain dark matter observations at both small and large scales.

The structure of this scalar field can be understood by a simple analogy from special relativity. A relativistic particle with (one-dimensional) position $`q(t)`$ and mass $`m`$ is described by the Lagrangian $`L=m\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$. It has the energy $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ and momentum $`p=m\dot{q}/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ which are related by $`E^2=p^2+m^2`$. As is well known, this allows the possibility of having massless particles with finite energy for which $`E^2=p^2`$. This is achieved by taking the limit of $`m0`$ and $`\dot{q}1`$, while keeping the ratio in $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ finite. The momentum acquires a life of its own, unconnected with the velocity $`\dot{q}`$, and the energy is expressed in terms of the momentum (rather than in terms of $`\dot{q}`$) in the Hamiltonian formulation. We can now construct a field theory by upgrading $`q(t)`$ to a field $`\varphi `$. Relativistic invariance now requires $`\varphi `$ to depend on both space and time \[$`\varphi =\varphi (t,𝐱)`$\] and $`\dot{q}^2`$ to be replaced by $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi `$. It is also possible now to treat the mass parameter $`m`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$, say, $`V(\varphi )`$ thereby obtaining a field-theoretic Lagrangian $`L=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$. The Hamiltonian structure of this theory is algebraically very similar to the special relativistic example we started with. In particular, the theory allows solutions in which $`V0`$, $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi 1`$ simultaneously, keeping the energy (density) finite. Such solutions will have finite momentum density (analogous to a massless particle with finite momentum $`p`$) and energy density. Since the solutions can now depend on both space and time (unlike the special relativistic example in which $`q`$ depended only on time), the momentum density can be an arbitrary function of the spatial coordinate. This provides a rich gamut of possibilities in the context of cosmology comment .

To examine this scenario in more detail, we will begin with the action which couples such a scalar field to gravity at low energies:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{R}{16\pi G}V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }\right),$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the field and $`V(\varphi )`$ is the potential. Though motivated from string-theoretic considerations, we shall take this action as the starting point and investigate its consequences without worrying about its origin. (In this spirit, we refer to $`\varphi `$ as simply a scalar field, rather than as a tachyonic field). The Einstein equations are

$$R_k^i\frac{1}{2}\delta _k^iR=8\pi GT_k^i$$
(2)
where the stress tensor for the scalar field can be written in a perfect fluid form

$$T_k^i=(\rho +p)u^iu_kp\delta _k^i$$
(3)
with

$`u_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_k\varphi }{\sqrt{^i\varphi _i\varphi }}};u_ku^k=1`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }}}`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }.`$ (4)
The remarkable feature of this stress tensor is that it could be considered as the sum of two components ($`a`$) and ($`b`$) described in the first paragraph. To show this explicitly, we break up the density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ and write them in a more suggestive form as

$$\rho =\rho _V+\rho _{\mathrm{DM}};p=p_V+p_{\mathrm{DM}}$$
(5)
where

$`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}={\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )^i\varphi _i\varphi }{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }}};`$ $`p_{\mathrm{DM}}=0`$
$`\rho _V=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi };`$ $`p_V=\rho _V`$ (6)
This means that the stress tensor can be thought of as made up of two components – one behaving like a pressure-less fluid, while the other having a negative pressure.

If $`V(\varphi )`$ decreases with $`\varphi `$ and has a minimum at $`V=0`$ as $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ then it is possible to obtain pressure-less dust solutions by taking the limit $`V0`$, $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi 1`$ simultaneously and keeping the energy density finite in the $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ component. If this happens globally at all scales, then — in this limit — the scalar field will behave as pressure-less dust at all scales. In this limit $`\rho _V`$ will vanish. Linear perturbation analysis shows frolov  that this component will cluster gravitationally somewhat similar to dust-like particles. In this scenario, the scalar field will merely act as (yet another) candidate for dark matter frolov . (It may be noted that there are still some subtleties related to clustering properties, time-scales etc. which have to be sorted out. But we believe this is indeed possible. For example, some of the problems related to velocities of the condensate particles can be addressed by using solutions which are Lorentz boosted, as explained in boost ).

It is, however, unlikely that such a scenario will be cosmologically acceptable in the absence of another component (b) with negative pressure described in the first paragraph. Unless the clustering property of this scalar field is sufficiently different from that of matter with $`p=0`$, we will need to still invoke a separate component to describe cosmological observations. More generally, if one assumes that the field $`\varphi `$ has the same configuration at all length scales, then one would end up getting the same density-pressure relation (equation of state) at all scales. However, in the real universe, we know that the dynamics of structure formation and clustering at galactic scales is dominated by the pressure-less fluid component (dark matter), while at large scales, the dynamics of the expansion of the universe is governed by spatially averaged mean density of a pressure-less component and a smooth component with negative pressure. In order to understand these effects, we need to model the scalar field in such a manner that we get different equations of state at different scales. This is possible if we assume that the field $`\varphi `$ has some sort of stochastic behaviour so that its properties at different scales can be obtained by carrying out an averaging over the corresponding scales.

To tackle this complicated issue, we shall define an average of any quantity $`A[\varphi (t,𝐱)]`$ over a length scale $`R`$, such that the averaged quantity describes the behaviour of the field at that length scale. (This is a fairly standard practice in the study of structure formation; see, for example, chapter 5 of paddysfu .) The average of $`A(\varphi )`$ over a length scale $`R`$ is defined by smoothing it with a window function $`W_R`$. Mathematically, this is expressed as

$`A(R)A(\varphi )_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}A_𝐤(\varphi )W_R(𝐤)},`$
$`A_𝐤(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱A(\varphi (𝐱))e^{i𝐤𝐱}},`$ (7)
where $`W_R(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}(k^2R^2/2)`$ if the window function can be taken to be Gaussian, say. In this case, the behaviour at a scale $`R`$ will be described by an average potential $`\overline{V}_R(\overline{\varphi })`$ obtained by eliminating $`R`$ between the average of potential $`\overline{V}(R)`$ and the average of field $`\overline{\varphi }(R)`$ when all the average quantities are obtained using the same window function. In such a description, $`\varphi `$ will sample different parts of $`V(\varphi )`$ at different scales and it is possible to have different equations of state at small and large scales.

To see how it works, consider a simple case in which the field configuration evolves as

$$\varphi (t,𝐱)=A(𝐱)t+\frac{f(𝐱)}{t^3}.$$
(8)
which is a simple generalization of the evolution described in some of the previous works (see, e.g, asen , paddy , gibb , earl ). When averaged over a length scale $`R`$ we obtain an effective field

$$\overline{\varphi }(t,R)=A(R)t+\frac{f(R)}{t^3}$$
(9)
The dependence of $`A(R)`$ and $`f(R)`$ on $`R`$ will determine the behaviour of the field at different scales. The time dependence of the second term is appropriate if the effective potential at scalar $`R`$ behaves as

$$\overline{V}_R(\overline{\varphi }(t,R))=V_0\left(\frac{\varphi _0}{\overline{\varphi }(t,R)}\right)^2$$
(10)
which was considered earlier in paddy , fein . For a different potential, the time dependence will be different but in general for $`t1`$, the second term will be small compared to the first. \[For example, if the potential has the form $`\overline{V}_R(\overline{\varphi })\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\varphi }/\varphi _0)`$, the appropriate form of the second term would be $`f(R)\mathrm{exp}(2t)`$\]. We shall now show that for a particular choice of $`A(R)`$, we shall be able to produce expected behaviour of the equation of state at large as well as galactic scales.

At small scales, evolution could have proceeded to the asymptotic limit so that $`V0,_i\varphi ^i\varphi 1`$ and a dust like component prevails, which would require $`A(R)1`$. Then we get for the average field

$`\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi }`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6f(R)}}{t^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^4}}\right).`$
Thus, at these scales, in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}\frac{V_0\varphi _0^2}{\sqrt{6f(R)}};\rho _V0.$$
(12)
This means that the dynamics at galactic scales is dominated by the pressure-less component, whose the energy density is independent of time asen ; frolov . This resembles the non-interacting dark matter, which can cluster and is crucial for structure formation in the universe. The time dependence of the second term in the right hand side of (8) was chosen so as to make the energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ independent of time. In a more general scenario, this energy density will be time dependent and will represent the standard growth of structure in the dust-like component in an expanding universe.

Let us now turn into large scales to study the expansion of the universe. Since the fluctuations are likely to decrease with the averaging scales, $`\varphi (R)`$ will be a decreasing function of $`R`$ and we expect $`A(R)`$ to have a value less than unity at large scales. Taking $`\dot{\varphi }(R)=A(R)=\mathrm{constant}`$, and $`V=V_0\varphi _0^2/A(R)^2t^2`$ one can find consistent set of solutions for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ FRW model with a power law expansion $`a(t)t^n`$, where (see paddy  for a description of this solution):

$$\varphi (t)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}}t+b_0;V(t)=\frac{3n^2}{8\pi G}\sqrt{1\frac{2}{3n}}\frac{1}{t^2}$$
(13)
with $`b_0`$ being some constant. Our model reproduces the correct behaviour expected at large scales, provided we identify

$$A(R)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}},V_0\varphi _0^2=\frac{n}{4\pi G}\sqrt{1\frac{2}{3n}}.$$
(14)
Thus the average value of $`\varphi `$ being different at different scales allows the possibility of the same scalar field exhibiting different equations of state at different scales. The rate of expansion of the universe is essentially determined by $`A(R)`$ at the larger scales.

Since the same physical entity provides the dark matter at all scales in this scenario, one certainly expects a relation between the energy densities contributed by dark matter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) and dark energy ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$). In our model, the energy densities for the two components are given by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0\varphi _0^2}{\sqrt{1A(R)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}},`$
$`\rho _V`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0\varphi _0^2\sqrt{1A(R)^2}}{A(R)^2t^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3n^2}{8\pi G}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}.`$ (15)
(It may be necessary to choose the value of $`V_0\varphi _0^2`$ in a particular range to match the values of the energy densities we observe today. This could be considered a fine tuning of the parameters, which we need to resort to at this stage in the absence of a more fundamental understanding of the scalar field. It is no worse or better than the fine tuning which is required in any other model for dark energy.) However, the ratio of the energy densities $`\rho _V/\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ is independent of time, and is related to the mean value of the scalar field at large scales by

$$\frac{\rho _V}{\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}}=\frac{1}{A(R)^2}1.$$
(16)
In fact, a similar equation holds for the ratio of the two components at all scales. As one proceeds from smaller to larger scales, the dark matter contribution decreases and the dark energy contribution increases.

This result can be converted into a clear prediction for cosmology by expressing the above equation in terms of the rate of expansion $`n`$:

$$n=\frac{2}{3}\left(1+\frac{\rho _V}{\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}}\right).$$
(17)
For the values accepted at present $`\rho _V/\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}2`$, we get $`a(t)t^2`$. Such a rate of growth is consistent with supernova observations. (The age of the universe in any accelerating model \[with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1,a(t)t^n,n>1`$\] will be $`t_0n/H_0`$, which is higher than the conventional models with $`t_01/H_0`$. Any model which agrees with the SN observations and has entered an accelerating phase in the recent past will have this feature and our model with $`n2`$ is no different.) This relation between (i) the amounts of dark matter and dark energy present in the universe and (ii) the expansion rate is potentially testable by observations. It may be stressed that in our model, the evolution of the single scalar field governs the time dependence of both $`\rho _{DM}`$ and $`\rho _V`$. This is equivalent to saying that there is interaction and energy exchange between the two components and the energy is *not* conserved locally for the dark matter and dark energy components separately (which would imply $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}a^3`$ and $`\rho _V=`$ constant).

Incidentally, it may be possible to put constraints on $`n`$ from CMB observations as well. The pressure term in the linear perturbation equation in this model has a factor $`(1\dot{\varphi }^2)k^2`$ where $`k`$ is the wave number frolov . For the solution (13), this factor is $`[1(2/3n)]k^2`$ and the standard results can be used with a rescaling of $`k`$. But since the angular scales of features in CMB anisotropy depends on this rescaling, it will lead to an $`n`$ dependent rescaling of Doppler peaks etc. paddyone . Hence, CMB observations can provide another constraint on $`n`$.

The really serious test of the model will arise from the non-linear small scale dynamics of the clustering and galaxy formation scenarios. This is a hard problem which we have not studied in this paper; instead we have introduced an ansatz for the form of scalar field at different scales by hand. It is necessary to investigate this model further and show that the basic ansatz is correct and the details do not run into any contradiction. While this remains to be done, we consider it very attractive that the single entity can possibly exhibit different equations of state at different scales in the universe. Such a scenario has nuances (for example, for CMB observations paddyone ) which have not been explored in conventional cosmology before.

We thank Ashoke Sen for useful discussions. T.R.C. is supported by the University Grants Commission, India.


text:
# Amplitude coda of classical waves in disordered media

## Abstract

The propagation of classical waves in the presence of a disordered medium is studied. We consider wave pulses containing a broad range of frequencies in terms of the configurationally averaged Green function of the system. Damped oscillations in the time-dependent response trailing behind the direct arrival of the pulse (coda) are predicted, the periods of which are governed by the density of scatterers.

Wave propagation in disordered media is a broad research topic, with many applications. Electron transport in mesoscopic systems, light diffusion in opaque media, or acoustic propagation in the subsurface of the earth are examples of the interdisciplinary character of this general subject. All these examples share a number of common properties, the most important being that they are governed by wave equations. Methods and techniques used in one field of study can in principle be applied to others, and such an approach has proved successful in the past. Anderson localization for instance, was originally discovered in the quantum realm of electrons but later understood to be a general wave phenomenon.

Other contributions from traditionally quantum methods into the study of classical waves are the diagrammatic perturbation technique and the random matrix theory. Whereas the latter explains some universal features in the response of a disordered environment which are independent of the detailed structure of the system, the microscopic nature of the former allows a more specific modelling of the medium. If one wishes to image the medium by observing the signal which is generated by a source and scattered by the system inhomogeneities, the desired information must be sought in the non-universal part of the measurements.

In addition to studies of classical wave propagation based on nearly monochromatic sources, the time-dependent response of a short pulse containing a broad range of frequencies is also of considerable interest. This is typically the case in seismic studies of the earth. Excited either by earthquakes or by artificially controlled explosions, seismic waves travel long distances before being registered by an array of detectors. The measurements consist of time-dependent functions describing how the subsurface responds to the excitations. The portion of the wave lagging behind the first arrivals (the so-called coda) is delayed by being repeatedly scattered by interfaces and inhomogeneities and therefore carries information about the medium. Only recently it has been realized that the coda of seismic waves can be used for mapping the subsurface of the earth as well as locating earthquake centres.

Unlike their quantum counterparts, the amplitude of classical waves can be probed quite trivially. This is the case for seismic and acoustic waves in general. Ultrasonic wave amplitudes are also observable and have been used to investigate multiple scattering effects in disordered media. Amplitude and phase of electromagnetic waves have also been measured in the microwave region and used to treat dynamical aspects of the propagation. Such a wide applicability motivates us to study the time evolution of the wave amplitude within a disordered medium.

Bearing in mind the microscopic approach mentioned above, we have recently investigated the time response of a disordered medium composed of small spheres (Rayleigh scatterers). The scatterer is characterized by a set of resonances which appear as poles of the scattering matrix on the lower half of the complex frequency-plane. A simple expression for the time-dependent wave amplitude is obtained when all but the lowest order poles are discarded. We subsequently considered an ensemble of randomly placed identical scatterers and related some features of the response to the microscopic details of the structure.

In this paper we extend this idea by accounting for all poles of the scattering matrix. On the one hand we loose the simplicity of the single pole approximation, but on the other the single scatterer contribution is better described by considering scattering events previously neglected. In spite of the somewhat more complicated formalism, we are still able to relate the delayed-time response to the microscopic parameters of the system in the limit of impenetrable scatterers. Oscillations in the time-dependent amplitude of the wave are identified, the periods of which depend on the concentration of scatterers.

We consider a general scalar wave equation in the frequency-domain given by the following eigenvalue equation

$$\left\{^2+V(\stackrel{}{r},\omega )\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\stackrel{}{r},\omega )=E_m(\omega )\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},\omega ),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\stackrel{}{r},\omega )`$ is the wave field for a frequency $`\omega `$ at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. Both the energy $`E_m`$ and the potential energy $`V`$ are frequency-dependent and given by $`V(\stackrel{}{r},\omega )=\frac{\omega ^2}{c_0^2}\left(1\frac{c_0^2}{c^2(\stackrel{}{r})}\right)`$ and $`E_m(\omega )=\frac{\omega ^2}{c_0^2}`$. The wave velocity $`c(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is position-dependent, $`c_0`$ being the velocity for the homogeneous background medium. Associated with Eq. (1) there is a Green function $`G`$ given by

$$G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}_0,\omega )=\underset{m}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_m(\stackrel{}{r},\omega )\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_0,\omega )}{\frac{\omega ^2}{c_0^2}E_m(\omega )+i\eta sgn(\omega )},$$
(2)
where $`\eta `$ is a positive infinitesimal number. $`G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}_0,\omega )`$ represents the response measured at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ due to a stationary perturbation of frequency $`\omega `$ produced at $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$. For the sake of simplicity we assume $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ at the origin throughout this paper. The Fourier transform to time-domain gives the physically relevant quantity $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, namely the response to a pulse containing the full spectrum of frequencies. From this quantity a simple convolution gives the wave amplitude for a pulse of arbitrary shape.

For a disordered system with many scatterers we focus on the configurationally averaged Green function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. In wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and frequency space, it is given by

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )=\frac{1}{\left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)^2k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )},$$
(3)
where the so-called self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{k},\omega )`$ is a complex quantity. The solution to the disordered problem is determined by the behaviour of the self-energy. For spherically symmetric scattering cross sections (s-wave) and within the independent scatterer approximation, valid for a low concentration of small defects $`n`$, the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependence of the self-energy disappears and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=\frac{nc_0(S_0(\omega )1)}{2i\omega },$$
(4)
where $`S_0(\omega )`$ is the s-wave scattering matrix for the individual scatterers. Note that equations (3) and (4) bridge the gap between the microscopic scale, in terms of $`S_0`$ of a single impurity, and the macroscopic medium, described by the average Green function $`G`$.

The scatterers are modelled by small spherical regions within which the waves propagate with velocity $`c`$. The corresponding S-matrix is given by

$$S_0(\omega )=e^{i\omega d/c_0}\left(1+\frac{2i}{\frac{c_0}{c}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\omega d}{2c_0}\right)i}\right),$$
(5)
where $`d`$ is the diameter of the scatterer. $`S_0`$ has an infinite number of poles in the frequency-domain, each one of them on the lower half of the complex frequency-plane. As shown in Ref. , a simple expression for the response is obtained when all but the lowest order poles are neglected. Here we want to include all poles of the S-matrix and investigate the effect this may bring to the final response. After substituting Eq. (5) into (4), the Fourier transform of Eq. (3) yields the average Green function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ in position and time domain. Alternatively, we can look at the scattered response $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, defined as the difference in amplitude between the total signal and the impurity-free response, which describes how the scattered portion of the waves evolves in time. Figure 1 shows the calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ for a random medium with identical scatterers at $`n=5\times 10^2`$ and $`n=10^1`$ volume concentrations and $`c=0`$ and $`c=\frac{1}{5}`$. $`n`$ and $`c`$ are expressed in units of $`(1/d^3)`$ and $`c_0`$, respectively, whereas the time is in units of $`d/c_0`$. The distance $`r`$ to the source is arbitrarily fixed at $`r=10d`$. As expected, the direct arrival of the wave is followed by an exponentially decaying response whose features depend on $`n`$ as well as on the scattering strength. In addition, clear oscillations in the scattered response can be seen in the insets of figure 1. Although not shown in the figure, oscillations are also present when $`c>c_0`$.

To understand the origin of those oscillations it is helpful to simplify the problem and assume that the wave velocity vanishes inside the scatterers, i.e., $`c=0`$. This is equivalent to a set of obstacles which are impenetrable to the waves, modelling for instance strong discontinuities in the constitutive parameters. One example is a solid porous medium filled with rarefied air, or any other environment with scatterers of relative low sound velocity. Alternatively, in the case of electromagnetic waves, obstacles with high refractive index are required. With this simplification, the concentration $`n`$ and the diameter $`d`$ are the only variable parameters and the S-matrix becomes $`S_0=e^{i\omega d/c_0}`$. The response $`G(\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ in wave-number and time domain is an intermediate step towards $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and results from the time Fourier transform of Eq. (3), given by

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)\left\{\frac{e^{i\omega t}}{\left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)^3\left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)k^2+\frac{n}{2i}\left[e^{i\omega d/c_0}+1\right]}\right\}.$$
(6)
Although the spatial part of the Fourier transform remains to be done, Eq. (6) is useful for understanding the time dependence of the response. The frequency integral can be evaluated by contour integration. The poles are at $`k`$-dependent frequency values which govern the actual dispersion relation of the wave motion. In the absence of scatterers ($`n=0`$) for instance, the poles are at $`\omega =c_0k`$ and a further Fourier transform into space-domain gives the usual free-space solution $`𝒢(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{c_0}{4\pi r}\delta (c_0tr)`$. For $`n0`$, the poles acquire a concentration dependence $`\omega _j(k,n)`$, where $`j`$ is a labeling index. In general, the residue $``$ associated with a first-order pole $`\omega _j(k,n)`$ is given by

$$[\omega _j(k,n)]=\frac{\omega _j(k,n)e^{i\omega _j(k,n)t}}{2\pi c_0\varphi _j^{}},$$
(7)
where $`\varphi _j^{}`$ stands for the $`\omega `$ derivative of $`\varphi =\left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)^3\left(\frac{\omega }{c_0}\right)k^2+\frac{n}{2i}\left[e^{i\omega d/c_0}+1\right]`$ evaluated at $`\omega =\omega _j(k,n)`$. The time dependence of the residue is entirely in the exponential $`e^{i\omega _j(k,n)t}`$. The integral of Eq. (6), written as a sum of residues, is

$$G(\stackrel{}{k},t)=\frac{i}{c_0}\underset{j}{}\frac{\omega _j(k,n)e^{i\omega _j(k,n)t}}{\varphi _j^{}}.$$
(8)
In this equation each term gives an exponentially damped oscillatory contribution, whose period and rate of decay depend on the real and imaginary parts of $`\omega _j(k,n)`$, respectively. Whether this time dependence persists in the final response depends on the spatial Fourier transform.

After integrating over the angular variables, the remaining transform becomes

$$G(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{j}{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k𝒜(k,r)e^{i\omega _j(k,n)t},$$
(9)
where $`𝒜(k,r)=\frac{ik^2\mathrm{sin}(kr)\omega _j(k,n)}{c_0r\varphi _j^{}}`$. Except for the damping component induced by the imaginary part of the pole, the integrand in Eq. (9) is a periodic function of $`t`$, oscillating with a frequency given by the real part of $`\omega _j(k,n)`$ and with an amplitude governed by $`𝒜(k,r)`$. For large values of $`t`$ the exponential oscillates rapidly as a function of $`k`$ and the dominant contribution to the integral comes from the vicinity of $`k`$-points at which $`\omega _j(k,n)`$ is stationary. In other words, the values of $`k`$ that effectively contribute to the integral are those satisfying the condition $`\frac{d\omega _j}{dk}=0`$. Although each pole in Eq. (6) contributes with a different term in (9), those meeting the stationary phase condition will dominate the signal.

The existence of such stationary points is implied by the oscillations found in Fig. 1 and we now try to locate them. A closer look at Eq. (6) shows that the poles $`\omega _j(k,n)`$ are functions of $`k^2`$. Therefore, $`k=0`$ always satisfies the stationary phase condition $`\frac{d\omega _j}{dk}=0`$. We assume this value of $`k`$ as a possible candidate for explaining the observed results in Fig. 1. The corresponding poles are the solutions of a transcendental equation, which can be further simplified if we expand the S-matrix for small $`\omega `$. Assuming that $`n`$ is small, which is the basic condition for the validity of the independent scatterer approximation, the zero order term is sufficient and we find for the real part of the pole that $`\mathrm{}[\omega _j(k=0,n)]=\frac{c_0\sqrt{3}}{2}(n)^{1/3}`$. Associated with this pole is a simple expression for the oscillation period $`T`$ given by

$$T=2\pi /\mathrm{}[\omega _j(k=0,n)]=\left(\frac{4\pi }{c_0\sqrt{3}}\right)\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{n}}.$$
(10)
The predicted oscillation periods based on the stationary phase argument, shown as a continuous line in figure 2, agree very well with the observed periods obtained by numerical integration of the Green function, represented by the points. Although the stationary phase approximation provides no information about the respective weight of the oscillations, it is sufficient to explain their existence in the time response $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. With such a simple expression for the period, the oscillations are easily related to a microscopic structural parameter of the system, namely the average separation $`a=1/\sqrt[3]{n}`$ between scatterers.

A simple physical picture for the oscillations in the time-dependent amplitude is as follows. When scattered only once, the S-matrix $`S_0`$ induces a phase shift in the wave corresponding to a sign change. A second scattering event restores the original sign, which is again changed by a third scatterer, and so on. In this way, positive and negative contributions to the scattered response occur, depending on the number of scattering events. The maximum probability of being scattered a certain number of times depends on the time lapse, and therefore dictates the overall sign of the final response. For that reason the sign of the response changes as a function of time and we can also understand why the average distance between scatterers appears as the period of the oscillations. On the opposite side of the velocity spectrum, infinitely large values of $`c`$ lead to $`S_0=e^{i\omega d/c_0}`$, causing no sign change in individual scattering events. In this case, no oscillation should occur and, indeed, are not observed in the numerical solution for this limiting case.

Therefore, according to Eq. (10), it might be possible to obtain the values of $`a`$ and $`n`$, once such oscillations in $`G(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ are observed. Whether this structural information can be extracted from an actual measurement depends on the type of disorder in the system. Within the conditions for the validity of the present model, i.e., $`\omega d1`$ and $`a/d1`$, the oscillations do not depend on the distribution of the size of the scatterers.

Well defined oscillations in the time-delayed response have been recently observed in ultrasonic waves transmitted across a 2-dimensional disordered structure. They have a different origin, but we suspect that the superimposed beating pattern reflects the physics discussed here. This hypothesis could be tested by systematic experiments with different concentration of scatterers.

In summary, we have observed oscillations in the time dependent response of a system composed of randomly placed spherical scatterers. Based on the stationary phase approximation, we have identified the origin of the oscillations and derived a simple expression for the periods in the limit of impenetrable scatterers, whose dependence on the mean separation between obstacles was established. It is suggested that such oscillations should be observable in disordered systems providing an indirect way of measuring the density of scatterers. When the scatterers are penetrable the simple analytical result presented here has to be modified, but can still be useful in the comparison to the numerical results.

We thank Cees Wapenaar for critically reading the manuscript. This work is part of the research program of the “Stichting Technische Wetenschappen” (STW) and the “Stichting Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM). G.B. acknowledges support by the NEDO program NAME.


text:
# Bosonic Supersymmetry? Getting Fooled at the LHC

## I Introduction

The new ideas of extra dimensions and localized gravity have recently attracted a lot of interest. They not only offer exciting new avenues for theoretical exploration but also predict signals which can soon be tested at the upcoming collider experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The focus of this paper is on Universal Extra Dimensions (UEDs) Appelquist:2001nn , a model in which all Standard Model fields propagate in extra dimensions of size $`R^1`$ TeV. Although there are many theoretical reasons for studying UEDs (electroweak symmetry breaking Arkani-Hamed:2000hv , proton decay Appelquist:2001mj , the number of generations Dobrescu:2001ae , neutrino masses Appelquist:2002ft , etc.), we are primarily motivated by their collider phenomenology. Experimental bounds allow Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes in UEDs to be as light as a few hundred GeV Appelquist:2001nn ; Agashe:2001xt ; Appelquist:2001jz . The production cross section at the LHC for KK excitations of quarks and gluons weighing only a few hundred GeV is enormous. However, as we discuss in this paper, their subsequent detection is non-trivial because they decay nearly invisibly. The phenomenology of UEDs shows interesting parallels to supersymmetry. Every Standard Model field has KK partners. The lowest level KK partners carry a conserved quantum number, KK parity, which guarantees that the lightest KK particle (LKP) is stable. Heavier KK modes cascade decay to the LKP by emitting soft Standard Model particles. The LKP escapes detection, resulting in missing energy signals.

In the following section we define Minimal Universal Extra Dimensions (MUEDs). The model is defined in five dimensions with one dimension compactified on an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold. All fields propagate in the bulk and have KK modes with masses approximately equal to the compactification scale. The Lagrangian of the model includes interactions which are localized at the boundaries of the orbifold. These boundary terms lead to mass splittings between KK modes and affect their decays. In Sections III (and IV) we discuss the phenomenology of the first (and second) level KK states. We identify possible decay modes and branching ratios, and we estimate the discovery reach at the Tevatron and the LHC. Section V contains our conclusions and speculations about the cosmology of UEDs.

## II Minimal Universal Extra Dimensions

The simplest UED scenario has all of the Standard Model fields (no supersymmetry) propagating in a single extra dimension. In 4+1 dimensions, the fermions \[$`Q_i,u_i,d_i,L_i,e_i,i=1,2,3`$, where upper (lower) case letters represent $`SU(2)`$ doublets (singlets)\] are four-component and contain both chiralities when reduced to 3+1 dimensions. To produce a chiral 4d spectrum, we compactify the extra dimension on an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold. Fields which are odd under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry do not have zero modes, hence the unwanted fields (zero modes of fermions with the wrong chiralities and the 5th component of the gauge fields) can be projected out. The remaining zero modes are just the Standard Model particles in 3+1 dimensions.

The full Lagrangian of the theory comprises both bulk and boundary interactions. Gauge and Yukawa couplings and the Higgs potential are contained in the bulk Lagrangian in one-to-one correspondence with the couplings of the Standard Model. The boundary Lagrangian interactions are localized at the orbifold fixed points and do not respect five dimensional Lorentz invariance.

Ignoring the localized terms for the moment, the mass of the $`n`$-th KK mode is

$$m_n^2=\frac{n^2}{R^2}+m_0^2,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the compact dimension, and $`m_0`$ is the zero mode mass. The spectrum at each KK level is highly degenerate except for particles with large zero mode masses ($`t,W,Z,h`$). The bulk interactions preserve the 5th dimensional momentum (KK number). The corresponding coupling constants among KK modes are simply equal to the SM couplings (up to normalization factors such as $`\sqrt{2}`$). The Feynman rules for the KK modes can easily be derived (e.g., see Ref. Macesanu:2002db ; Dicus:2000hm ).

In contrast, the coefficients of the boundary terms are not fixed by Standard Model couplings and correspond to new free parameters. In fact, they are renormalized by the bulk interactions and hence are scale dependent Georgi:2001ks ; Cheng:2002iz . One might worry that this implies that all predictive power is lost. However, since the wave functions of Standard Model fields and KK modes are spread out over the extra dimension and the new couplings only exist on the boundaries, their effects are volume suppressed. We can get an estimate for the size of these volume suppressed corrections with naive dimensional analysis by assuming strong coupling at the cut-off. The result is that the mass shifts to KK modes from boundary terms are numerically equal to corrections from loops $`\delta m_n^2/m_n^2g^2/16\pi ^2`$.

We will assume that the boundary terms are symmetric under the exchange of the two orbifold fixed points, which preserves the KK parity discussed below. Most relevant to the phenomenology are localized kinetic terms for the SM fields, such as

$$\frac{\delta (x_5)+\delta (x_5\pi R)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[G_4(F_{\mu \nu })^2+F_4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i/D\mathrm{\Psi }+F_5\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5_5\mathrm{\Psi }\right],$$
(2)
where the dimensionless coefficients $`G_4`$ and $`F_i`$ are arbitrary and not universal for the different Standard Model fields. These terms are important phenomenologically for several reasons: (i) they split the near-degeneracy of KK modes at each level, (ii) they break KK number conservation down to a KK parity under which modes with odd KK numbers are charged, (iii) they introduce possible new flavor violation.

Since collider signatures depend strongly on the values of the boundary couplings it is necessary to be definite and specify them. A reasonable ansatz is to take flavor-universal boundary terms. Non-universalities would give rise to FCNCs as in supersymmetry with flavor violating scalar masses. This still leaves a large number of free parameters. For definiteness, and also because we find the resulting phenomenology especially interesting, we make the assumption that all boundary terms are negligible at some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>R^1`$. This defines our model.

Note that this is completely analogous to the case of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) where one has to choose a set of soft supersymmetry breaking couplings at some high scale, before studying the phenomenology. Different ansaetze for the parameters can be justified by different theoretical prejudices but ultimately one should use experimental data to constrain them. In a sense, our choice of boundary couplings may be viewed as analogous to the simplest minimal supergravity boundary condition – universal scalar and gaugino masses. Thus the model of MUEDs is extremely predictive and has only three free parameters:

$$\{R,\mathrm{\Lambda },m_h\},$$
(3)
where $`m_h`$ is the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson.

The low energy KK spectrum of MUEDs depends on the boundary terms at low scales which are determined from the high energy parameters through the renormalization group. Since the corrections are small we use the one-loop leading log approximations. In addition to the boundary terms we also take into account the non-local radiative corrections to KK masses. All these were computed at one-loop in Cheng:2002iz .

A typical spectrum for the first level KK modes is shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 shows the dependence of the splittings between first level KK modes on the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Typically, the corrections for KK modes with strong interactions are $`>10\%`$ while those for states with only electroweak interactions are a few percent. We find that the corrections to the masses are such that $`m_{g_n}>m_{Q_n}>m_{q_n}>m_{W_n}m_{Z_n}>m_{L_n}>m_\mathrm{}_n>m_{\gamma _n}`$. The lightest KK particle $`\gamma _1`$, is a mixture of the first KK mode $`B_1`$ of the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson $`B`$ and the first KK mode $`W_1^0`$ of the $`SU(2)_W`$ $`W^3`$ gauge boson. (The possibility of the first level KK graviton being the LKP is irrelevant for collider phenomenology, since the decay lifetime of $`\gamma _1`$ to $`G_1`$ would be of cosmological scales.) We will usually denote this state by $`\gamma _1`$. However, note that the corresponding “Weinberg” angle $`\theta _1`$ is much smaller than the Weinberg angle $`\theta _W`$ of the Standard Model Cheng:2002iz , so that the $`\gamma _1`$ LKP is mostly $`B_1`$ and $`Z_1`$ is mostly $`W_1^0`$. The mass splittings among the level 1 KK modes are large enough for the prompt decay of a heavier level 1 KK mode to a lighter level 1 KK mode. But since the spectrum is still quite degenerate, the ordinary SM particles emitted from these decays will be soft, posing a challenge for collider searches.

The terms localized at the orbifold fixed points also violate the KK number by even units. However, assuming that no explicit KK-parity violating effects are put in by hand, KK parity remains an exact symmetry. The boundary terms allow higher ($`n>1`$) KK modes to decay to lower KK modes, and even level states can be singly produced (with smaller cross sections because the boundary couplings are volume suppressed). Thus KK number violating boundary terms are important for higher KK mode searches as we will discuss in Section IV.

## III First KK level

Once the radiative corrections are included, the KK mass degeneracy at each level is lifted and the KK modes decay promptly. The collider phenomenology of the first KK level is therefore very similar to a supersymmetric scenario in which the superpartners are relatively close in mass - all squeezed within a mass window of 100-200 GeV (depending on the exact value of $`R`$). Each level 1 KK particle has an exact analogue in supersymmetry: $`B_1`$ bino, $`g_1`$ gluino, $`Q_1(q_1)`$ left-handed (right-handed) squark, etc. The decay cascades of the level 1 KK modes will terminate in the $`\gamma _1`$ LKP (Fig. 3). Just like the neutralino LSP is stable in $`R`$-parity conserving supersymmetry, the $`\gamma _1`$ LKP in MUEDs is stable due to KK parity conservation and its production at colliders results in generic missing energy signals.

It is known that supersymmetry with a stable neutralino LSP is difficult to discover at hadron colliders if the superpartner spectrum is degenerate. Hence the discovery of level 1 KK modes in MUEDs at first sight appears problematic as well – the decay products resulting from transitions between level 1 KK states may be too soft for reliable experimental observation at hadron colliders. This issue is the subject of this Section.

Before we address the possible level 1 discovery channels in some detail, we need to determine the allowed decays at level 1 and estimate their branching fractions. For any given set of input parameters (3) the mass spectrum and couplings of the KK modes in MUEDs are exactly calculable Cheng:2002iz . Hence one obtains very robust predictions for the main branching ratios of interest for phenomenology.

KK gluon.— The heaviest KK particle at level 1 is the KK gluon $`g_1`$. Its two-body decays to KK quarks $`Q_1`$ and $`q_1`$ are always open and have similar branching fractions: $`B(g_1Q_1Q_0)B(g_1q_1q_0)0.5`$.

KK quarks.— The case of $`SU(2)`$-singlet quarks ($`q_1`$) is very simple – they can only decay to the hypercharge gauge boson $`B_1`$, hence their branchings to $`Z_1`$ are suppressed by the level 1 Weinberg angle $`\theta _1\theta _W`$: $`B(q_1Z_1q_0)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _110^210^3`$ while $`B(q_1\gamma _1q_0)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _11`$. Thus $`q_1`$ production yields jets plus missing energy, the exception being $`t_1W_1^+b_0`$ and $`t_1H_1^+b_0`$ (the latter will be in fact the dominant source of $`H_1^+`$ production at hadron colliders).

$`SU(2)`$-doublet quarks ($`Q_1`$) can decay to $`W_1^\pm `$, $`Z_1`$ or $`\gamma _1`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _11`$ $`SU(2)_W`$-symmetry implies

$$B(Q_1W_1^\pm Q_0^{})2B(Q_1Z_1Q_0)$$
(4)
and furthermore for massless $`Q_0`$ we have

$$\frac{B(Q_1Z_1Q_0)}{B(Q_1\gamma _1Q_0)}\frac{g_2^2T_{3Q}^2(m_{Q_1}^2m_{Z_1}^2)}{g_1^2Y_Q^2(m_{Q_1}^2m_{\gamma _1}^2)},$$
(5)
where $`g_2`$ ($`g_1`$) is the $`SU(2)_W`$ ($`U(1)_Y`$) gauge coupling, and $`T_3`$ and $`Y`$ stand for weak isospin and hypercharge, correspondingly. We see that the $`Q_1`$ decays to $`SU(2)`$ gauge bosons, although suppressed by phase space, are numerically enhanced by the ratio of the couplings and quantum numbers. With typical values for the mass corrections from Fig. 2, eqs. (4) and (5) yield $`B(Q_1W_1^\pm Q_0^{})65\%`$, $`B(Q_1Z_1Q_0)33\%`$ and $`B(Q_1\gamma _1Q_0)2\%`$.

KK $`W`$\- and $`Z`$-bosons.— With their hadronic decays closed, $`W_1^\pm `$ and $`Z_1`$ decay democratically to all lepton flavors: $`B(W_1^\pm \nu _1L_0^\pm )=B(W_1^\pm L_1^\pm \nu _0)=\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`B(Z_1\nu _1\overline{\nu }_0)=B(Z_1L_1^\pm L_0^{})\frac{1}{6}`$ for each generation. $`Z_1\mathrm{}_1^\pm \mathrm{}_0^{}`$ decays are suppressed by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1`$.

KK leptons.— The level 1 KK modes of the charged leptons as well as the neutrinos decay directly to $`\gamma _1`$. As a result $`W_1^\pm `$ and $`Z_1`$ always effectively decay as $`W_1^\pm \gamma _1L_0^\pm \nu _0`$ and $`Z_1\gamma _1L_0^\pm L_0^{}`$ or $`Z_1\gamma _1\nu _0\overline{\nu }_0`$, with relatively large $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ yields.

KK Higgs bosons.— Their decays depend on their masses. They can decay into the KK $`W`$, $`Z`$ bosons or KK $`t`$, $`b`$ quarks if they are heavier and the phase space is open. On the other hand, if they are lighter than $`W_1`$, $`Z_1`$, $`t_1`$, $`b_1`$ (as in the example of Fig. 1), their tree-level two-body decays will be suppressed. Then they will decay to $`\gamma _1`$ and the corresponding virtual zero-level Higgs boson, or to $`\gamma _1\gamma _0`$ through a loop.

We are now in shape to discuss the optimum strategy for MUEDs KK searches at hadron colliders. Level 1 KK states necessarily have to be pair produced, due to KK parity conservation. The approximate mass degeneracy at each level ensures that strong production dominates, with all three subprocesses (quark-quark, quark-gluon and gluon-gluon) having comparable rates Rizzo:2001sd ; Macesanu:2002db .

For an estimate of the reach at the Tevatron or the LHC, we need to discuss the final state signatures and the related backgrounds. The signature with the largest overall rate is $`\overline{)}E_T+N2`$ jets, which is similar to the traditional squark and gluino searches squarks . It arises from inclusive (direct or indirect) $`q_1q_1`$ production. Roughly one quarter of the total strong production cross-section $`\sigma _{tot}^{had}`$ materializes in $`q_1q_1`$ events. However, in spite of the large missing mass in these events, the measured missing energy is rather small, since it is correlated with the energy of the relatively soft recoiling jets. As a conservative rough guide for the discovery reach we can use existing studies of the analogous supersymmetric case. One might expect that Run II can probe $`R^1300`$ GeV Abel:2000vs  while the LHC reach for $`R^1`$ is no larger than 1.2 TeV Bityukov:1999am . While the jetty signatures can be potentially used for discovery, further studies in an MUEDs context are needed. Here we prefer to discuss the much cleaner multilepton final states arising from diboson ($`W_1^\pm `$ or $`Z_1`$) production.

Consider inclusive $`Q_1Q_1`$ production, whose cross-section also roughly equals $`\frac{1}{4}\sigma _{tot}^{had}`$. The subsequent decays of $`Q_1`$’s yield $`W_1^\pm W_1^\pm `$, $`W_1^\pm Z_1`$ and $`Z_1Z_1`$ pairs in proportion $`4:4:1`$. The $`W_1^\pm `$ and $`Z_1`$ decays in turn provide multilepton final states with up to 4 leptons plus missing energy, all of which may offer the possibility of a discovery. In the following we concentrate on the gold-plated $`4\mathrm{}\overline{)}E_T`$ signature.

We shall conservatively ignore additional signal contributions from direct diboson production and $`Q_1W_1^\pm `$ or $`Q_1Z_1`$ processes. For the Tevatron we use the single lepton triggers $`p_T(\mathrm{})>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta (e)|<2.0`$, $`|\eta (\mu )|<1.5`$; or the missing energy trigger $`\overline{)}E_T>40`$ GeV. Because the channel is very clean, we use relatively soft off-line cuts, $`p_T(\mathrm{})>\{15,10,10,5\}`$ GeV, $`|\eta (\mathrm{})|<2.5`$ and $`\overline{)}E_T>30`$ GeV. The remaining physics background comes from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}4\mathrm{}\overline{)}E_T`$ where $`Z`$ stands for a real or virtual $`Z`$ or $`\gamma `$ Matchev:1999yn , and can be reduced by invariant mass cuts for any pair of opposite sign, same flavor leptons: $`|m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}M_Z|>10`$ GeV and $`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}>10`$ GeV. As a result, the expected background is less than 1 event in all of Run II and we require 5 signal events for discovery. The reach is shown in Fig. 4.

We see that Run IIb of the Tevatron will go slightly beyond the current indirect bounds ($`R^1>300`$ GeV) from precision data Appelquist:2001nn .

For the LHC we use $`p_T(\mathrm{})>\{35,20,15,10\}`$ GeV with $`|\eta (\mathrm{})|<2.5`$, which is enough for the single lepton trigger. In addition, we require $`\overline{)}E_T>50`$ GeV and the same dilepton invariant mass cut. There are now several relevant background sources, including multiple gauge boson and/or top quark production Barger:1991jn , fakes, leptons from $`b`$-jets etc. We conservatively assume a background level of 50 events after cuts per 100 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (1 year of running at high luminosity). Our LHC reach estimate is presented in Fig. 4. Without combining experiments, we plot the total integrated luminosity $`L`$ required for either an observation of 5 signal events or a $`5\sigma `$ excess over the background. The reach, shown as a solid line, is defined as the larger of the two and extends to $`R^11.5`$ TeV.

Other leptonic channels such as two or three leptons with $`\overline{)}E_T`$ may also be considered. They have more backgrounds but take advantage of the larger branching fraction for $`Q_1W_1^\pm Q_0^{}`$ and offer higher statistics, which may prove useful especially for the case of the Tevatron.

In conclusion, note that at a hadron collider all signals from level 1 KK states look very much like supersymmetry – all SM particles have “partners” with similar couplings, and identifying the extra-dimensional nature of the new physics becomes rather challenging. Nevertheless, there are three features which distinguish the MUEDs scenario from ordinary supersymmetry. First, the spins are different, but this “bosonic” nature of the newly discovered “supersymmetry” will most likely escape detection at a hadron collider. Second, the analogy with the MSSM is incomplete, as MUEDs do not have analogues of the “heavy” Higgs bosons of the MSSM. To be more precise, the level 1 KK modes of the Higgs have exactly the same gauge quantum numbers as the MSSM Higgs bosons $`H^0,A^0,H^\pm `$. But since they carry KK parity, their behavior is similar to that of higgsinos instead. Now recall that there are regions of the MSSM parameter space where the LHC can only discover the SM-like Higgs boson, and misses the other three Higgs states of the MSSM. MUEDs could easily be confused with this scenario. This leaves us with the single smoking gun signature for MUEDs – the presence of higher level KK modes.

## IV Second KK level

Through KK number preserving interactions a level 2 KK state can decay to two level 1 KK modes, or to another level 2 KK state and a SM particle. For example, the level 2 fermion decay widths (for massless $`f_0`$ and in leading order of $`\widehat{\delta }m`$) are easily computed at tree level using the Feynman rules for KK modes. We find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2V_2f_0)\frac{3c^2g^2m_{f_2}}{8\pi }\left(\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_2}}{m_2}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{V_2}}{m_2}\right)^2,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2V_1f_1)\frac{11c^2g^2m_{f_2}}{16\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_2}}{m_2}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{V_1}}{2m_1}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_1}}{2m_1}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{\delta }m`$ represents the total mass correction and $`c`$ is a Clebsch factor. For a level 2 gauge boson

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_2f_2f_0)\frac{c^2g^2m_{V_2}}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{V_2}}{m_2}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_2}}{m_2}\right)^2,$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_2f_1f_1^{})\frac{c^2g^2m_{V_2}}{6\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{V_2}}{m_2}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_1}}{2m_1}\frac{\widehat{\delta }m_{f_1^{}}}{2m_1}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},$$
(9)
counting both KK chiralities in the last case. All of the decays (6-9) are phase space suppressed, once again leaving rather little visible energy deposited in the detector.

A level 2 KK gauge boson, however, can also decay directly to two SM particles via KK number violating interactions Cheng:2002iz . The width is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_2f_0f_0)\frac{c^2g^2m_{V_2}}{12\pi }\left(\frac{\overline{\delta }m_{V_2}}{m_2}\frac{\overline{\delta }m_{f_2}}{m_2}\right)^2,$$
(10)
where $`\overline{\delta }m`$ only contains the mass corrections due to the boundary terms (though typically $`\widehat{\delta }m\overline{\delta }m`$.) These decays are not phase space suppressed, and deposit a lot of energy, hence they offer the best opportunity for a level 2 discovery.

Level 2 KK gauge bosons can be pair-produced through KK number preserving interactions, or singly produced through their suppressed KK number violating couplings to SM quarks and leptons. We first concentrate on the $`g_2`$ signal. Using eqs. (8-10), we find $`B(g_2Q_0Q_0,q_0q_0)0.1`$. The production of $`g_2`$ in association with another level 2 colored particle then yields a unique $`\overline{)}E_T+N>2`$ jet signature, where the invariant mass of the two leading jets reconstructs to $`m_{g_2}`$. In the absence of a problematic physics background, we require 10 events before cuts and efficiencies for discovery, leaving us with a reach for $`R^1`$ of just below 1 TeV. $`W_2^\pm `$, $`Z_2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ searches in their hadronic modes will be very similar. Branching fractions to leptonic decay modes are very small and do not permit a significant reach. Notice that $`\gamma _2`$ has no KK preserving decay modes left open, hence $`_fB(\gamma _2f_0f_0)1`$.

The usual $`W^{}/Z^{}`$ and coloron searches are sensitive to singly produced level 2 KK gauge bosons. However, the reach is inferior due to the smallness of the KK number violating couplings, which are only a fraction of the SM gauge couplings – typically 10-20% for quarks and only a few percent for leptons.

## V  conclusions

Universal extra dimensions with compactification radius near the TeV scale promise exciting phenomenology for future colliders. All Standard Model particles have KK partners which can be produced with enormous cross sections at the LHC. As we showed in this paper, the detection of KK particles at the LHC is non-trivial as they decay to very soft Standard Model particles which are difficult (but not impossible) to see above background. Clearly, more realistic simulations of the phenomenology of MUEDs are necessary and studies for different values of the boundary couplings would be of interest as well.

A lepton collider running at the center of mass energy of the second level photon or $`Z`$ is ideal for measuring the small mass splittings between states and determining spins. However, the required center of mass energy ($`2R^1`$) may be too high for the next generation linear collider.

Finally, we note that similarly to the neutralino LSP in supersymmetry, the $`\gamma _1`$ LKP of MUEDs is a great cold dark matter candidate, whose annihilation rate is not helicity suppressed. A study of the resulting abundance and detection opportunities is underway darkm .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank M. Chertok, B. Dobrescu and B. Schumm for useful discussions, and D. E. Kaplan for suggesting the catchy title. We also thank the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality during the initial stage of this work. H.-C. C. is supported by the Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-90ER-40560. M.S. is supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG02-91ER-40676.


text:
# The cosmological constant, neutrino masses and parity symmetry in 6+1 dimensions

## Abstract

In this paper we propose that the cosmological constant scale and neutrino masses have a common origin: a new spontaneously broken scalar field. This hypothesis is implemented in a six-space dimensional model that restores the parity symmetry. This new 6-dimensional parity symmetry gives a natural mechanism for the smallness of the vacuum energy density.

PACS numbers : 11.30.-j, 98.80.Cq, 14.60.St

It is well known that we have two very small scales in present day physics. One is the cosmological constant scale and the other is the recent experimentally observed neutrino mass.

It is an old problem  the fact that the cosmological constant term in Einstein’s equation is related to the vacuum energy density with a small value $`\rho _{vac}=(\lambda )^4`$ with $`\lambda =10^3eV`$ . The problem is that all the known physical scales give an enormously larger number. It is generally expected that some symmetry will help in understanding why all the known physical mass scales such as Fermi’s scale, QCD, GUT, supersymmetry and so on, do not contribute to $`\rho _{vac}`$. Yet, a detailed analysis done by Weinberg  more than a decade ago found no simple explanation for this property. A more recent analysis shows that this situation has not changed .

On the other hand, the recent experimental results on solar and atmospheric neutrino properties  confirm that neutrinos have small masses and oscillate. There is some theoretical dependence on the interpretation of these results. Oscillation experiments give only $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. But it is consistent with the experimental data  that neutrino masses are on a scale $`m_{neutrino}=10^210^4`$ eV.

The fact that these two scales are very close, if not identical, has so far been considered as a simple coincidence. Our first hypothesis is that the cosmological constant scale and neutrino masses have a common origin: they result from a new scalar field with a spontaneously broken scale $`\lambda =10^3eV`$ . It is very simple to generate Majorana and/or Dirac masses from singlet scalar fields, but this hypothesis alone is not sufficient to take into account of the cosmological constant problem.

We now turn our attention to the idea that nature can have more than three spacial dimensions. There are theoretical motivations for enlarging the number of dimensions in order to incorporate gravity with the other gauge forces in a consistent way. The possibility of phenomenological tests of these ideas at the TeV scale is a promising point. If extra dimensions are non-compact it is possible to localize our known fundamental fields on a thin three-dimensional brane. The possibility of new space dimensions opens an interesting mechanism for the smallness of the vacuum energy density. The usual three dimensional integration over the vacuum energy density must be enlarged for the new extra dimensions. The vanishing of some of the known physical scales could then be a consequence of the ”n” dimensional space properties and not only of internal symmetries.

In this paper we will put forward the possibility that new extra 3-space dimensions $`𝐲_𝐢(i=4,5,6)`$ could be connected to our known 3-dimensional $`𝐱_𝐣(j=1,2,3)`$ world by a discrete six-dimensional parity transformation $`𝐱_𝐢𝐲_𝐣`$. That parity symmetry is connected with the number of space dimensions can be seen in a simple example. In our three space dimensional world, spatial reflections and space rotations are different, unconnected transformations. Also, for some reason not explained in the standard model scenario, parity is not a symmetry of nature. But if we turn off one space dimension, and restrict physics in a two-dimensional world, then space reflections and rotations are identical operations and we have no place for parity violation. If we now follow the inverse road, and enlarge the number of space dimensions, we can expect that in higher space dimensions parity is to be conserved. It is the confinement in a three dimensional brane that makes parity to break.

In this scenario, ordinary matter must be trapped in our three dimensional $`𝐱_𝐢`$ brane. The left-right 6-dimensional symmetry is restored by attaching new fermions with opposite chirality in a new $`𝐲_𝐣`$ brane.

The most appealing feature of this model is that we have a natural mechanism that vanishes the contribution of the known physical scales to the cosmological constant. All the vacuum energy densities must be integrated over the six-dimensional coordinates. By the 6-parity symmetry the new volume is ”negative”. If we postulate that the fields that are to be broken at the known physical scales are even under 6-dimensional parity, then their contribution vanishes identically. The only exception to this rule is a new scalar field ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ” that breaks at a scale $`\lambda =10^3eV`$. It must be a pseudo-scalar and it is the only field that contributes to the cosmological constant. This pseudo-scalar field is a natural candidate to implement the idea of quintessence .

In order to generate a solution to the hierarchy problem, some models  were proposed with an orbifold geometry that locates a positive energy brane at one point and a negative energy brane at the second point. As a consequence we have a positive cosmological constant at one brane and a negative one at the other brane. In our model the ”negative” cosmological constant is a natural result from the 6-parity symmetry and we must have exactly $`\lambda _𝐱\lambda _𝐲`$, without any fine tuning imposition.

It is known that extra dimensions  have a profound effect on the gauge coupling unification. In ref.8, the authors developed a general approach to estimate the cut-off dependence of the gauge couplings $`\alpha _i^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ due to new extra dimensions. This scheme, very similar to the renormalization group technique, includes quantum corrections to the standard model gauge couplings. If we take the standard model three fermionic generations plus one Higgs doublet at one brane and three new generations with opposite chirality plus a new Higgs doublet at the other brane we have $`(b_1,b_2,b_3)=(41/10,1,3)`$. In the minimal scenario of no chiral fermions Kaluza-Klein excitations we have $`(\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2,\stackrel{~}{b}_3)=(1/10,41/6,21/2)`$. With these values for the $`b_i`$ coefficients, the extra dimensions at a scale $`\mu _0=R^1=1TeV`$ and the approach of ref. 8, we have the results shown in figure 1 for the gauge coupling evolution with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The model has far reaching consequences. First of all, we can have a physical insight into the nature of extra dimensions. String theory requires that in order to have anomaly cancelation there must be at least six or seven new extra dimensions. In order to prevent anomalies we can include a new 3-brane that must not be connected by an n-dimensional parity to the previous $`𝐱_𝐢`$ and $`𝐲_𝐣`$ branes. In this picture, we have three 3-space branes, two of then connected by a parity symmetry. Gravitational and neutrino fields could connect the bulk of this nine-space dimensional world. An important point is that all fields that contribute to the vacuum structure must be defined in both $`𝐱_𝐢`$ and $`𝐲_𝐣`$ branes. This will imply in new restrictions on phenomenological models. As this point probably has no unique answer, we will not pursue any further along these lines.

Neutrino masses and oscillations  can be generated in different ways. If we introduce a right-handed singlet in our $`𝐱_𝐢`$ brane, then the 6-parity symmetry requires a left-handed neutrino singlet in the $`𝐲_𝐣`$ brane. One can then generate Dirac mass terms, Majorana mass terms and combinations of both that are to be coupled to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

With a small number of extra dimensions, the model also allows to address fermion mass hierarchy , charge quantization  and supersymmetry breaking .

In conclusion, the 6-parity symmetry can give a deeper insight into the nature of extra dimensions. Besides restoring the left-right symmetry it gives a new perspective on the connection between the cosmological constant scale and neutrino masses.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPERJ.We thanks F.M.L. Almeida Jr. and Y.A. Coutinho for their help during the preparation of this article.

Figure Caption

1. Cut-off dependence of the Standard Model couplings with 3 extra space dimensions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a pure glue SU($`N`$) gauge theory one expects an asymptotic area law for large Wilson loops in the fundamental representation of the group and, in general, in all representations with nonzero ‘$`N`$-ality’. A representation is said to have zero $`N`$-ality if it transforms trivially under the center of the group $`Z_N`$, or, equivalently, if it is contained in the direct product of some number of adjoint representations. Wilson loops in $`N`$-ality-zero representations cannot exhibit the asymptotic area law since the static source in such representations can be screened by gluons in the adjoint representation.

From the confinement point of view, a special role is played by representations given by rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric tensors, with $`k=1,\mathrm{},(N1)`$. The value $`k=1`$ corresponds to the fundamental representation whereas $`k=N1`$ corresponds to the representation conjugate to the fundamental. In general, the rank-$`(Np)`$ antisymmetric representation is complex conjugate to the rank-$`p`$ one, and has the same dimension. The dimension of the rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric representation is

$$d(k,N)=C_N^k=\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}.$$
(1)
Normalizing the generators in the rank-$`k`$ representation as

$$[T^aT^b]=if^{abc}T^c,f^{abc}f^{dbc}=\delta ^{ad}N,$$
(2)
one finds the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator to be

$$T^aT^a=\frac{N+1}{2N}k(Nk)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(3)
None of the $`k`$-representations are contained in the direct product of adjoint representations, so they have a nonzero $`N`$-ality. Furthermore, any $`N`$-ality nonzero representation is contained in a direct product of a certain rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric representation and some number of adjoint representations. In other words, all representations are equivalent, from the confinement point of view, to some rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric representation. (If $`k=0`$, it is a $`N`$-ality-zero representation.) Therefore, all Wilson loops fall into $`N`$ classes according to what $`k`$-representation is the given source equivalent to, modulo adjoint representations. Correspondingly, there are only $`N`$ string tensions $`\sigma (k,N),k=1\mathrm{}N,`$ to characterize confinement in all possible representations of the trial source, with $`\sigma (N,N)=0`$ and $`\sigma (1,N)=\sigma _{\mathrm{fund}}(N)`$. $`\sigma (k,N)`$ can be interpreted as the tension of a string connecting $`k`$ quarks to $`k`$ antiquarks. Clearly, such a configuration is stable only if the energy is less than the energy of $`k`$ fundamental strings connecting the same color sources. The symmetry under charge conjugation, already mentioned above, implies that $`\sigma (k,N)=\sigma (Nk,N)`$, leaving only $`\left[N/2\right]`$ independent quantities. Finally, it is worthwhile to remember that exact factorization in the large-N limit requires:

$$R(k,N)=\frac{\sigma (k,N)}{\sigma (1,N)}\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{}k.$$
(4)
In this work, we examine the vortex contribution to rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric Wilson loops, which leads to a prediction for $`\sigma (k,N)`$ as a function of the density of $`l`$-vortices carrying flux $`l`$. By comparing this prediction with recent numerical results for the $`k`$-string tensions , we are able to actually compute the vortex densities that are needed to fit the results from Monte Carlo simulations.

## 2 Wilson loops in $`k`$-representations

Let the Wilson loop in the fundamental representation be some unitary matrix $`U_\beta ^\alpha `$. In $`k=2`$ antisymmetric representation the same Wilson loop is then $`U_{[\beta _1\beta _2]}^{[\alpha _1\alpha _2]}=\frac{1}{2}\left(U_{\beta _1}^{\alpha _1}U_{\beta _2}^{\alpha _2}U_{\beta _2}^{\alpha _1}U_{\beta _1}^{\alpha _2}\right)`$. For a general rank-$`k`$ representation one has to antisymmetrize the product of $`k`$ fundamental unitary matrices $`U_\beta ^\alpha `$. We introduce the trace of the Wilson loop $`W(k,N)`$ in the $`k`$-representation, normalized in such a way that all $`W`$’s are unity at $`U=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. We have:

$`W(1,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\text{Tr}U,`$
$`W(2,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N(N1)}}\left((\text{Tr}U)^2\text{Tr}U^2\right),`$
$`W(3,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d(3,N)}}\left((\text{Tr}U)^32\text{Tr}U^2\text{Tr}U+3\text{Tr}U^3\right),`$ (5)
and so on.

We now turn to the center vortices; there are also $`(N1)`$ types of them and we shall name them $`l`$-vortices, $`l=1,\mathrm{},(N1)`$. By definition of an $`l`$-vortex, the Wilson loop in the fundamental representation of the SU($`N`$) gauge group, winding around the $`l`$-vortex in the transverse plane is gauge-equivalent to a diagonal unitary matrix being a non-trivial element of the group center, as the radius of the Wilson loop tends to infinity:

$$U_\beta ^\alpha =\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}iA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}z_N^l& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & z_N^l\end{array}\right)Z(N),z_N^le^{2\pi il/N}.$$
(6)
From Eq. (5) we immediately find the corresponding traces of Wilson loops in the $`k`$-representation:

$$W(k,N)=z_N^{kl}=e^{2\pi ikl/N}.$$
(7)
## 3 Area law for $`k`$-loops from $`l`$-vortices

Let us consider the following simplest scenario: The Yang–Mills vacuum is populated by random center $`l`$-vortices. Let us assume the vortices are statistically independent. The probablility that $`n_l`$ vortices pierce a given Wilson loop is then given by the Poisson distribution,

$$P_{n_l}=\frac{\overline{n}_l^{n_l}}{n_l!}e^{\overline{n}_l},\underset{n_l}{}P_{n_l}=1,$$
(8)
where the average number of $`l`$-vortices going through a surface spanned over the Wilson loop is

$$\overline{n}_l=\rho (l,N)\mathrm{Area}$$
(9)
where $`\rho (l,N)`$ is the average density of $`l`$-vortices in the SU($`N`$) gauge theory, piercing any two-dimensional plane; its dimension is $`1/\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

According to eq. (7) each $`l`$-vortex contributes to the $`k`$-loop a factor $`z_N^{kl}`$. Assuming the Poisson distribution of the vortices (8) we get for the average $`k`$-loop:

$`W(k,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{n_l}\left(z_N^{kl}\right)^{n_l}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\overline{n}_l+\overline{n}_lz_N^{kl})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{Area}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\rho (l,N)(1z_N^{kl})\right].`$
This is the area law with the string tension

$$\sigma (k,N)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\rho (l,N)\left(1e^{2\pi ikl/N}\right).$$
(11)
Using the fact that $`\rho (l,N)=\rho (Nl,N)`$, the above equation can be rewritten as

$$\sigma (k,N)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\left[N/2\right]}{}}2\rho (l,N)\left(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi kl}{N}\right)$$
(12)
if $`N`$ is odd, while for even $`N`$ one gets:

$$\sigma (k,N)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N/21}{}}2\rho (l,N)\left(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi kl}{N}\right)+\rho (\frac{N}{2},N)\left(1(1)^k\right).$$
(13)
In both cases, one obtains explicitely a positive, real number for the string tension. In particular, for the SU(2) gauge group there is only one type of center vortex with $`l=1`$ and $`z_2=1`$, and only one non-trivial representation with $`k=1`$, the fundamental one. In this case we recover the well-known result:

$$\sigma (1,2)=2\rho (1,2).$$
(14)
In SU(3) one can have $`k,l=1,2`$; however $`k=2`$ is the antitriplet which is conjugate to the fundamental representation, while $`l=2`$ corresponds to the vortices conjugate to those with $`l=1`$ so that their densities must be equal, $`\rho (1,3)=\rho (2,3)`$. In this case we get from eq. (11) only one non-trivial string tension:

$$\sigma (1,3)=\sigma (2,3)=3\rho (1,3)=3\rho (2,3).$$
(15)
Starting from SU(4) there are different types of $`l`$-vortices and correspondingly different string tensions for $`k`$-loops. One could naively assume that the vortex density is independent of $`l`$, i.e. $`\rho (l,N)=\rho _N`$. This oversimplified scenario can be immediately ruled out by noting that it leads to $`k`$-string tensions that are independent of $`k`$ and proportional to $`N`$, namely $`\sigma (k,N)=\rho _NN`$, for each $`k`$. The inconsistency of this result with large-$`N`$ factorization immediately points toward more refined scenarios. The next Section is devoted to the determination of the vortex densities needed to reproduce the $`k`$-string tensions recently computed by numerical simulations.

## 4 Two scenarios

Two types of behaviour of the $`k`$-strings have been discussed in the literature: the “sine” regime ,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{sin}}(k,N)=\sigma _1\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi k}{N}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{N}},$$
(16)
and the “Casimir” regime ,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{cas}}(k,N)=\sigma _1\frac{k(Nk)}{N1}.$$
(17)
Recent numerical simulations show that the “sine” scaling hypothesis provides an accurate description of the $`k`$-string spectrum to the level of a few percent . On the other hand, even the Casimir scaling formula turns out to be a good approximation at the level of 10% . In both cases $`\sigma _1`$ is the string tension in the fundamental representation of the SU($`N`$) group; it may depend somewhat on $`N`$ but asymptotically it is believed that $`\sigma _1=O(N^0)`$, i.e. that it is independent of $`N`$. The two formulae are plotted in Fig. 1.

The two regimes for the string tension correspond to two different types of behaviour for the two-dimensional center vortices densities $`\rho (l,N)`$, as functions of their ‘flux number’ $`l`$. To find $`\rho (l,N)`$, one needs to equate the general expression (11) to the appropriate string tension, eq. (16) or eq. (17). Eq. (11) is in fact a Fourier series, and it is not difficult to calculate $`\rho (l,N)`$ from the inverse Fourier transformation. We find:

$`\rho _{\mathrm{sin}}(l,N)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{N}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi l}{N}}},`$ (18)
$`\rho _{\mathrm{cas}}(l,N)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi l}{N}}}.`$ (19)
The two formulae are plotted in Fig. 2. In both cases one reproduces the relation $`\rho (l,N)=\rho (Nl,N)`$, as it should be since $`(Nl)`$-vortices are complex conjugate to the $`l`$-vortices. The asymptotics of eqs. (18,19) at large $`N`$ and fixed $`l`$ are:

$`\rho _{\mathrm{sin}}(l,N)`$ $``$ $`\sigma _1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{\pi ^2(4l^21)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6N}}{\displaystyle \frac{4l^2+1}{4l^21}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\right)\right],`$ (20)
$`\rho _{\mathrm{cas}}(l,N)`$ $``$ $`\sigma _1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2(N1)\pi ^2l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(N1)}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\right)\right].`$ (21)
Since the string tension in the fundamental representation $`\sigma _1=O(N^0)`$, we see that both regimes above require the two-dimensional densities of vortices to grow linearly with $`N`$. At the same time, the transverse sizes of vortices are stable in $`N`$, as it follows from the dimensional analysis of ref. . It means that at large $`N`$ center vortices are inevitably strongly overlapping, and the notion of vortices looses sense.

In principle, one can imagine a regime where the density of vortices does not grow with $`N`$. For example, one can assume, as a matter of an exercise, that only maximal-flux $`l`$-vortices exist, with $`l\frac{1}{2}N`$. Apart from being a rather unnatural hypothesis, it is in contradiction with the $`k`$-string tensions measured in lattice simulations .

## 5 Conclusions

From the viewpoint of the confinement behaviour, sources in various representations of the SU($`N`$) gauge group fall into $`N`$ classes with the same string tension $`\sigma (k,N)`$ for all representations belonging to the same $`k`$-class. The value $`k=0`$ (or equivalently $`k=N`$ since $`\sigma (k,N)=\sigma (Nk,N)`$) labels $`N`$-ality zero representations i.e. adjoint and those which arise in a direct product of any number of adjoint representations. The string tension here is zero as sources in such representations are screened by gluons. Sources in $`N`$-ality nonzero representations can be partially screened: the representation belongs to the class of the rank-$`k`$ antisymmetric tensor if it is found in the direct product of that representation with some number of adjoint ones. Therefore, the $`k`$-string tensions $`\sigma (k,N)`$ are the only fundamental ones which can appear in the asymptotic area law. The dynamics of confinement is encoded in these numbers.

Assuming that confinement is driven by center vortices populating the Yang–Mills vacuum, one derives relations between the surface densities of $`l`$-vortices piercing any given two-dimensional plane, where $`l=1,\mathrm{},(N1)`$ is the flux of an SU($`N`$) center vortex. In fact, these densities $`\rho (l,N)`$ are Fourier coefficients of the $`k`$-string tensions $`\sigma (k,N)`$. We have found the densities needed to reproduce two popular regimes for $`k`$-strings: the “sine” and the “Casimir” regimes, see Figs. 1,2. In both cases we find that the density of vortices should rise linearly with $`N`$. It means that the vortex scenario of confinement can hardly be stable in $`N`$: at large enough $`N`$ vortices have to overlap, and the vortex language probably becomes senseless.

Acknowledgements
LDD thanks the Niels Bohr Institute for hospitality in the early stages of this work.


text:
# Untitled Document

## Abstract

Two alternative hypotheses try to explain the origin of the continuum. The present communication gives new argument in favor of the dimer hypothesis. This argument is based on the existence of the wide component of line in absorption spectrum of polyatomic molecules.

Problem of water vapor absorption continuum in atmospheric windows. Return of dimer hypothesis.

V.A.Kuz’menko

Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research,

Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190, Russian Federation.

The continuum of water vapor absorption in the region of atmospheric windows (8–14 and 3–5 $`\mu m`$) was found in 1938 . The first explanation of its nature was that continuum is the sum of far wings of collisionally broadened lines of rotational and vibrational-rotational transitions in water molecules.

Afterwards an anomalously strong square dependence of absorption on water vapor pressure was observed along with its exponential negative temperature dependence . The slope of the exponent is 5 kcal/mole and is thus equal to the binding energy of molecules in a dimer of water. These are strong arguments in favor of the dimer hypothesis which assumes that the continuum is caused by the presence of water dimers in the gas. But these are indirect proofs. In succeeding years no new facts in favor of the dimer hypothesis were found. But it was definitely determined that no intensive absorption bands of water dimer molecules are present in the region of atmospheric windows. This is considered to be the main argument against the dimer hypothesis. In addition, the shape of the continuum corresponds better to far wings of the lines than to some local bands of molecules absorption. As a result, in succeeding years most scientists again gave preference to the monomer hypothesis .

Thus, it became a deadlock situation. There existed explicit indirect indications of the dimer hypothesis. Direct spectroscopic studies seem contradict it and show the validity of the monomer hypothesis, which fails to explain satisfactorily the temperature dependence.

The present communication is aimed at drawing the attention of scientists to a new argument in favor of the dimer hypothesis. A rather elegant way to end the deadlock now exists: the continuum is actually formed by far wings of molecule absorption lines. But these are mainly the wings of absorption lines of water dimer molecules. The lines of dimer molecules have intensive Lorentzian wings, whose absorption cross section can be several orders of magnitude higher than for monomers.

Such unconventional supposition has come from another field of scientific investigations, namely, from those of IR multiple-photon excitation of molecules. The existence of broad intensive line wings (or wide component of line) in the absorption spectrum of polyatomic molecules was shown in . There are many proofs of the existence of these wings. For example, for number of polyatomic molecules the far Lorentzian wings of absorption bands in the gaseous phase were founded. Their intensity is in good agreement with the data on the saturation degree of a linear spectrum of molecules absorption by a pulse $`CO_2`$-laser radiation at low gas pressure. On the basis of these data the relative integral intensity of line wings can easily be evaluated. It is $`0.6\%`$ for $`SF_6`$ and $`SiF_4`$ molecules, $`11\%`$ for $`CH_3SiF_3`$ molecules, $`90\%`$ for $`(CF_3)_2O`$ and $`(CF_3)_2CO`$ molecules and $`>90\%`$ for $`C_6H_5SiF_3`$ molecules.

One can see that the intensity of the line wings grows rapidly with the number of atoms in a molecule. Accordingly, it can be expected that in molecule dimers the intensity of line wings will be considerably higher than for monomers. No data are available yet on the intensity of line wings in water dimers. But for ethylene dimers the published experimental results \[6–8\] allow such evaluation to do. Nearly 80% of the integral intensity of the absorption line of ethylene dimers is in it wings.

Thus, the problem of the continuum of water vapor absorption will be totally clarified when the width and the intensity of the line wings of rotational and vibrational-rotational transitions of water dimer molecules are measured . For their detection more powerful lasers (CO and HF-lasers) should be used than that used in the work .