text:
# Skew Loops and Quadric Surfaces

## 1. Introduction

Here we study the relationship between surfaces in $`𝐑^3`$ and closed curves without parallel tangent lines. Examples of such curves, which we call *skew loops*, were first constructed by B. Segre in 1968 111Porter gave an apparently independent construction in 1970 . to disprove a conjecture of H. Steinhaus. Quite recently, Wu constructed skew loops in every knot class , and the first author has written down explicit examples on convex surfaces 222In  skew loops were used to solve the “shadow problem” formulated by H. Wente, which is related to the stability of constant mean curvature surfaces. Despite this general failure of Steinhaus’ conjecture, however, Segre noted that it does hold for loops that lie on ellipsoids, paraboloids, and certain symmetric cylinders. Here we add convex hyperboloids to Segre’s list, show that certain asymmetric cylinders do admit skew loops, and use these facts to prove that the positively curved quadrics are actually *characterized* by the absence of skew loops:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M`$ be a connected $`2`$-manifold, and $`F:M𝐑^3`$ be a $`C^2`$ immersion. Suppose that $`F`$ has positive Gauss curvature at a point of $`M`$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`F(M)`$ lies on a quadric surface.
2. $`F(M)`$ contains no $`C^2`$ skew loops.

In particular, if $`F`$ is a *complete* immersion and admits no $`C^2`$ skew loops, it is an embedding, and $`M`$ is simply connected.

Any loop on a right cylinder over an open planar curve has a pair of vertical tangent lines, and hence cannot be skew. So for purposes of the implication $`21`$ in Theorem 1.1 the assumption of positive curvature at one point is not superfluous. Moreover, since closed surfaces (compact 2-manifolds without boundary) always have such a point, Theorem 1.1 yields:

###### Corollary 1.2.

Ellipsoids are the only closed $`C^2`$ surfaces immersed in $`𝐑^3`$ which admit no $`C^2`$ skew loops.∎

Characterizations of ellipsoids have a long and rich history \[3, p. 151\], , . Most such theorems, however, are stated and proved within the class of convex bodies, where the surfaces are a priori embedded, and topologically spherical. Ours avoids both these restrictions.

We prove Theorem 1.1 by developing a sequence of intermediate results: In Section 2 we use regular homotopy to show that positively curved surfaces admit no skew figure-eights (Proposition 2.5). Applying this fact in Section 3, we then prove that convex quadrics have no skew loops. This involves a Lorentzian generalization, following  and , of Jacobi’s Theorem on indicatrices that bisect the sphere \[22, p.407\]. In Section 4 we prove our asymmetric “cylinder lemma” (Proposition 4.1): *Any cylinder with a strictly convex asymmetric base contains a skew loop.* We then exploit this fact in Section 5, using a stretching argument, to show that surfaces without skew loops have symmetric local cross sections. By a result of W. Blaschke, this property characterizes quadrics, and thus gives Theorem 1.1.

We conclude with three appendices. The first proves a result first stated by Segre, which gives a strong converse to the asymmetric cylinder lemma mentioned above, but still leaves the existence of skew loops on certain cylinders undetermined. We discuss this and other open problems in Appendix B, then conclude with a few historical notes in Appendix C

## 2. Preliminaries: Skew Loops and Their Tantrices

A $`C^k`$ immersed *loop* is a $`C^k`$ mapping $`\gamma :𝐒^1𝐑/2\pi 𝐑^3`$ with nowhere-vanishing velocity $`\gamma ^{}`$. We say $`\gamma `$ is *skew* iff $`k1`$ and

(2.1)
$$\gamma ^{}(t)\times \gamma ^{}(s)0$$

for all distinct $`t,s𝐑/2\pi `$. The *tantrix* of $`\gamma `$ is the mapping $`\tau :𝐒^1𝐒^2`$ given by $`\tau (t):=\gamma ^{}(t)/\gamma ^{}(t).`$

###### Note 2.1.

We will frequently use the following observations: (i) affine bijections of $`𝐑^3`$ map skew loops to skew loops, and (ii) $`\gamma `$ is skew iff $`\tau (𝐒^1)`$ is embedded and disjoint from its antipodal reflection, i.e., $`\tau (t)\pm \tau (s)`$ for all distinct $`t,s𝐑/2\pi `$.

The *curvature* of a $`C^2`$ immersed loop is the speed of its tantrix ($`\tau ^{}(t)`$). In Sections 3 and 5, we need to perturb skew loops while keeping them skew:

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`C^2`$ skew loops with nonvanishing curvature form an open subset in the space of all $`C^2`$ immersed loops in $`𝐑^3`$, relative to the $`C^2`$ topology.

###### Proof.

Let $`\gamma `$ be a $`C^2`$ skew loop with tantrix $`\tau `$ and nonvanishing curvature. Then $`\tau `$ is $`C^1`$ immersed. Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is a $`C^2`$ loop close to $`\gamma `$ in the sense of $`C^2`$ metric on $`C^2`$ loop space. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ has nonvanishing curvature as well, and therefore has a $`C^1`$ immersed tantrix $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Further, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is close to $`\tau `$ in the $`C^1`$ metric. So $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is embedded, because $`\tau `$ is embedded, and embeddings are open in $`C^1`$ immersed loop space \[14, p. 37\]. Finally, since $`\tau `$ avoids its antipodal image, it avoids some neighborhood of that image. So (by the triangle inequality) $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ avoids its antipodal image as well, and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is skew. ∎

Deformations of loops through immersions—*regular homotopies*—arise naturally for us since they continuously deform the tantrix of a loop as well. A basic theorem of H. Whitney  states that in $`𝐑^2𝐂`$, every loop is regularly homotopic to either the figure-eight

$$\gamma _0(e^{it}):=\mathrm{cos}t(1+𝐢\mathrm{sin}t),$$

or to one of the degree-$`k`$ circle coverings given by

$$\gamma _k(e^{it}):=e^{ikt},k=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.$$

On $`𝐒^2𝐂\{\mathrm{}\}`$, however, S. Smale  showed that there are just two regular homotopy classes: that of the figure-eight $`\gamma _0`$, and of the equator $`\gamma _1`$. These facts lead to the following lemmas, useful both here and in Section 3.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Every $`C^2`$ loop on $`𝐒^2`$ is regularly homotopic in $`𝐒^2`$ to its own tantrix.

###### Proof.

The $`C^1`$ homotopy $`h:[0,\pi /2]\times I𝐒^2`$ given by

$$h(\theta ,t):=\sigma (t)\mathrm{cos}\theta +\tau (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta $$

deforms any immersed curve $`\sigma `$ into its tantrix $`\tau :=\sigma ^{}`$. To see that $`h`$ is regular, recall the spherical Frenet equation $`\tau ^{}=\sigma +\kappa _g\nu `$ where $`\kappa _g`$ is the geodesic curvature of $`\tau `$, and $`\nu :=\sigma \times \tau `$. Setting $`\sigma _\theta (t):=h(\theta ,t)`$, we compute

$$\sigma _\theta ^{}(t)=\sigma ^{}(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta +\tau ^{}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta =\tau (t)\mathrm{cos}\theta +\kappa _g\nu (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$

Since $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$, and $`\nu `$ are orthonormal, $`\sigma _\theta ^{}0`$. So $`\sigma _\theta `$ is an immersion. ∎

Lemma 2.3 implies that the tantrix of any $`C^2`$-immersed loop in $`𝐒^2`$ is immersed, a well-known fact  that generalizes to loops on any positively curved surface:

###### Lemma 2.4.

The tantrix $`\tau `$ of *any* $`C^2`$-immersed curve $`\sigma `$ on a positively curved surface $`M`$ is *immersed* in $`𝐒^2`$.

###### Proof.

Parametrize $`\sigma `$ by arclength, so that $`\tau =\sigma ^{}`$. The component of $`\tau ^{}`$ along a unit normal $`𝐧`$ on $`M`$ is then given by $`\left(\tau ^{}\right)^{}=\left(\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\right)^{}=𝗄(\sigma ^{})𝐧`$ where $`𝗄`$ denotes normal curvature. Since $`M`$ is positively curved, $`𝗄0`$. Hence $`\tau ^{}0`$. ∎

A $`C^k`$ *figure-eight* $`\alpha `$ on a surface $`M`$ is any $`C^k`$ loop regularly homotopic to a loop $`\beta `$ in an open coordinate disc $`\varphi :U𝐑^2`$, with $`\varphi \beta =\gamma _0`$ (the “standard” figure-eight above). Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 yield:

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`f:M𝐑^3`$ be a $`C^2`$-immersed, positively curved surface. Then the tantrix of any figure-eight on $`M`$ is again a figure-eight. In particular, $`M`$ admits no skew figure-eights.

###### Proof.

By definition, any figure-eight $`\alpha M`$ is regularly homotopic to a copy $`\beta `$ of our “standard” figure-eight $`\gamma _0`$ in a coordinate disc $`U`$. Lemma 2.4 then implies that the tantrix $`\tau _\alpha `$ of $`\alpha `$ is regularly homotopic to that of $`\beta `$: $`\tau _\alpha \tau _\beta `$. It therefore suffices to show that $`\tau _\beta `$ is a figure-eight on $`𝐒^2`$.

After a regular homotopy of $`\beta `$ we may assume that $`U`$ is so small that $`f(U)`$ is a graph over one of its tangent planes. Then, after an affine transformation, $`\beta `$ lies in a coordinate disc $`UM`$ with image $`f(U)`$ contained in the graph of a convex $`C^2`$ function $`h_0:D^2𝐑`$, where $`D^2𝐑^2`$ is the open unit disc. We may then realize $`\beta `$ as a graph, $`\beta _0`$, over a figure-eight $`\gamma :𝐒^1D^2`$:

$$\beta _0(t)=\gamma (t)+h_0\left(\gamma (t)\right)𝐤$$

where $`𝐤:=(0,0,1)`$. We may also assume (dilate further if necessary) that the eigenvalues of the hessian $`D^2h_0`$ lie between 0 and 1 throughout $`D`$. Now express the southern hemisphere of $`𝐒^2`$ similarly as the graph of a function $`h_1:D^2𝐑`$. The eigenvalues of $`D^2h_1`$ are everywhere at least 1, so the graphs of the functions

$$h_ϵ(x):=h_0(x)+ϵ\left(h_1(x)h_0(x)\right)$$

give a deformation of $`f(U)`$ into $`𝐒^2`$ through positively curved surfaces. By Lemma 2.4, the tantrices of the figure-eights $`\beta _ϵ(t):=\gamma (t)+h_ϵ(\gamma (t))𝐤`$ are all immersed. In particular, $`\tau _\beta \tau _{\beta _1}`$. By Lemma 2.3, $`\tau _{\beta _1}\beta _1`$. Thus $`\tau _\beta \beta _1,`$ which is a figure-eight on $`𝐒^2`$. ∎

## 3. Nonexistence of Skew Loops on Quadrics

The tantrix of a $`C^3`$ loop on $`𝐒^2`$, if embedded, bisects the sphere (, ). It follows that the tantrix of a $`C^3`$ loop on $`𝐒^2`$ crosses either itself or its antipodal image, and hence that $`𝐒^2`$ contains no $`C^3`$ skew loops. Segre observed that, by affine invariance, this fact extends to ellipsoids and elliptic paraboloids. Here we sharpen the argument in  to rule out $`C^2`$ skew loops on these same surfaces333The absence of $`C^2`$ skew loops on spheres was also established in 1971 by White ., and craft a Lorentzian version that includes the two-sheeted hyperboloids.

###### Note 3.1.

Our methods in this section do not apply to curves that are only $`C^1`$. Further, we do not know whether $`𝐒^2`$ admits a skew loop which is $`C^1`$ but not $`C^2`$.

Let $`Q`$ denote the symmetric bilinear form on $`𝐑^3`$ characterized by

$$Q(𝐱,𝐱)=x^2+y^2z^2,$$

for all $`𝐱:=(x,y,z)𝐑^3`$. The connected non-singular level sets of $`Q(𝐱,𝐱)`$ are hyperboloids of revolution, each homothetic to one of the following:

(3.1) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`:=`$ $`\{𝐱𝐑^3:Q(𝐱,𝐱)=1,z>0\}\text{(hyperboloid of two sheets)}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ $`:=`$ $`\{𝐱𝐑^3:Q(𝐱,𝐱)=+1\}\text{(hyperboloid of one sheet)}.`$
Differentiating $`Q`$ along an arc $`\sigma `$ immersed in either $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ gives

(3.2)
$$Q(\sigma ^{},\sigma )0.$$

Thus:

###### Lemma 3.2.

Every point $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is *$`Q`$-normal* to that surface at $`p`$.∎

Next, parametrize $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ by $`X:𝐑\times (0,\mathrm{})𝐑^3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}:𝐑\times 𝐑𝐑^3`$ respectively as follows:

$`X(u,v)`$ $`:=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}(u)\mathrm{sinh}(v),\mathrm{sin}(u)\mathrm{sinh}(v),\mathrm{cosh}(v)),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}(u,v)`$ $`:=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}(u)\mathrm{cosh}(v),\mathrm{sin}(u)\mathrm{cosh}(v),\mathrm{sinh}(v)).`$
Since $`Q(X_u,X_u),Q(X_v,X_v)>0`$, and $`Q(X_u,X_v)=0`$, $`Q`$ induces a Riemannian metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$444This is the well-known hyperbolic metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.. So we may define the *$`Q`$-tantrix* of an immersed loop $`\sigma `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via

$$\tau _Q(t):=\frac{\sigma ^{}(t)}{\sqrt{Q(\sigma ^{}(t),\sigma ^{}(t))}}.$$

###### Note 3.3.

Since $`Q(\tau _Q,\tau _Q)=+1`$, the $`Q`$-tantrix of a loop on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Further, $`\tau _Q`$ is the radial projection of the (standard) tantrix $`\tau `$ into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Therefore, much like $`\tau `$, the $`Q`$-tantrix of a skew loop on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is embedded, and avoids its antipodal image.

In contrast to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ inherits a Lorentzian structure from $`Q`$. Indeed, the vectors

(3.3)
$$e^+:=\frac{\stackrel{~}{X}_u}{\mathrm{cosh}(v)},e^{}:=\stackrel{~}{X}_v$$

form a global frame on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, with

(3.4)
$$Q(e^+,e^+)=+1,Q(e^{},e^{})=1,\text{and}Q(e^+,e^{})=0.$$

If we project out the $`Q`$-normal direction, the standard covariant derivative $`D`$ on $`𝐑^3`$ becomes a torsion-free, $`Q`$-preserving connection $``$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Let $`\omega `$ denote the corresponding connection 1-form associated to our frame $`\{e^+,e^{}\}`$ by setting

(3.5)
$$\omega (z):=Q(_ze^+,e^{}),\text{for all}zT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$

One may verify that in the local coordinates associated with $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$,

(3.6)
$$\omega =\mathrm{sinh}(v)du,$$

and that in conjunction with Lemma 3.2, differentiation of (3.4) yields

(3.7)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill _ze^+& =& Q(_ze^+,e^{})e^{}& =& \omega (z)e^{},\hfill \\ \hfill _ze^{}& =& +Q(_ze^{},e^+)e^+& =& \omega (z)e^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.4.

If a loop $`\alpha `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the $`Q`$-tantrix of a $`C^2`$ loop on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`_\alpha \omega =0`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\alpha =\tau _Q`$, the $`Q`$-tantrix of an arc $`\sigma `$ immersed in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`\tau _Q`$ is a multiple of $`\sigma ^{}`$, (3.2) implies that $`Q(\tau _Q,\sigma )0`$. Lemma 3.2 then yields that $`\sigma (t)`$ is tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ at $`\tau _Q(t)`$. So we may expand $`\sigma `$ relative to the frame field given by (3.3). Since $`Q(\sigma ,\sigma )1`$, and $`\sigma `$ is $`C^2`$, this uniquely determines a function $`\theta :𝐒^1𝐑`$ such that

$$\sigma (t)=\mathrm{sinh}\theta (t)e^++\mathrm{cosh}\theta (t)e^{}.$$

Note that we evaluate the frame vectors here at $`\tau _Q(t)`$. Differentiating the above with respect to $`t`$, using (3.7), yields

$$_{\tau _Q^{}}\sigma =\left(\theta ^{}\omega (\tau _Q^{})\right)(\mathrm{cosh}\theta e^++\mathrm{sinh}\theta e^{}).$$

On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2, $`\tau _Q(t)`$ is $`Q`$-normal to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ at $`\tau _Q(t)`$. So

$$0=\left(\sqrt{Q(\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{})}\tau _Q\right)^{}=(\sigma ^{})^{}=\left(D_{\tau _Q^{}}\sigma \right)^{}=_{\tau _Q^{}}\sigma ,$$

which yields that $`\omega (\tau _Q^{})\theta ^{}`$ along $`\tau _Q`$. But the integral of $`\theta ^{}`$ vanishes along $`\tau _Q`$, since $`\theta `$ is continuous and $`\tau _Q`$ is a loop. Hence $`_{\tau _Q}\omega =0.`$

We now have the tools we need to prove that *positively curved quadrics admit no skew loops*, and thereby establish half of our main theorem.

###### Proof of the implication $`12`$ of Theorem 1.1.

There are 3 cases:

*Case 1: Hyperboloids.* Each nappe of a hyperboloid of two sheets is affinely isomorphic to the hyperboloid $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ defined by (3.1). So it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admits no $`C^2`$ skew loops. Suppose, toward a contradiction, that there exists a $`C^2`$ skew loop $`\sigma :𝐒^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`Q`$-tantrix $`\tau _Q`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is diffeomorphic to a plane, and $`\sigma `$ may not be a figure-eight (Proposition 2.5), Whitney’s theorem forces $`\sigma `$ to be regularly homotopic to a $`k`$-fold tracing $`c_k`$ of some horizontal circle, $`k0`$. The $`Q`$-tantrix of $`c_k`$ is then a $`k`$-fold tracing $`\tau _k`$ of the circle $`z0`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has positive curvature, the homotopy $`\sigma c_k`$ induces a regular homotopy $`\tau _Q\tau _k`$ (Lemma 2.4). By Note 3.3, $`\tau _Q`$ is embedded, and disjoint from its own antipodal image. The embeddedness forces $`k=1`$, and along with the antipodal disjointness, this means that $`\tau _Q(𝐒^1)\tau _Q(𝐒^1)`$ bounds an annular domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with $`C^1`$ boundary. Combining Stokes’ Theorem with Lemma 3.4, we then get $`_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\omega =_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega =0.`$ By (3.6), however, $`d\omega =\mathrm{cosh}(v)dudv`$, a non-vanishing 2-form. So the integral of $`d\omega `$ cannot vanish, and we have our contradiction.

*Case 2: Ellipsoids.* All ellipsoids are affinely equivalent, so we need only check the spherical case, which has been discussed by Segre  and White . Alternatively, one can proceed as in Lemma 3.4, replacing $`\mathrm{sinh}`$ and $`\mathrm{cosh}`$ by $`\mathrm{sin}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}`$ respectively. After suitably restricting their domains, the parametrizations $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ now become patches for $`𝐒^2`$. Arguing as in Lemma 3.4, one then shows that the tantrix of a loop on $`𝐒^2`$ must annihilate the integral of the corresponding connection form (which is now $`\mathrm{sin}vdu`$). The final argument of Case 1 then goes over almost verbatim, because $`d(\mathrm{sin}vdu)=\mathrm{cos}vdudv`$ gives the area form on $`𝐒^2`$, except at the poles, which we can avoid with a slight rotation.

*Case 3: Paraboloids.* By affine equivalence, it suffices to rule out skew loops on the graph $`z=x^2+y^2`$. One easily checks that this paraboloid, call it $`P`$, can be $`C^2`$-approximated arbitrarily well on any compact subset by an ellipsoid of the form

(3.8)
$$x^2+y^2+\left(\frac{z}{2r}r\right)^2=r^2.$$

Further note that, since $`P`$ has positive Gaussian curvature, any loop on $`P`$ has nonvanishing curvature. Thus it follows from Lemma 2.2 that for sufficiently large $`r`$, any skew loop on $`P`$ can be perturbed to form a skew loop on one of the ellipsoids defined by 3.8 above. Such a loop would contradict the result of Case 2, so $`P`$ contains no skew loop. ∎

## 4. Asymmetric Convex Cylinders

When a $`C^k`$ loop $`\gamma :𝐒^1𝐑^2`$ bounds a convex domain, we say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\gamma (𝐒^1)`$ is a $`C^k`$ *oval*. We say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is (centrally) *symmetric* when reflection through a point leaves it invariant. Otherwise, it is *asymmetric*. We say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is *strictly* convex if $`\gamma `$ is $`C^2`$ and its curvature never vanishes. Our main aim in this section is to show:

###### Proposition 4.1 (Cylinder Lemma).

The cylinder over any asymmetric, strictly convex $`C^2`$ oval $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐑^2`$ contains a $`C^2`$ skew loop with nonvanishing curvature.

This follows easily once we prove three preliminary results. Our strategy boils down to the careful analysis of a classical parametrization: Recall that when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is strictly convex, its outward unit normal $`n:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐒^1`$ is injective. We may therefore employ the *support parametrization* $`\gamma :𝐑𝐑^2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, given by

(4.1)
$$\gamma (t):=n^1(e^{it}).$$

Note that one loses a derivative in passing from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`\gamma `$. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is merely $`C^2`$, this somewhat complicates the proof that $`\gamma `$ is an immersion:

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐑^2`$ be a strictly convex $`C^2`$ oval, with support parametrization $`\gamma `$. Then $`v:=\gamma ^{}0`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is symmetric if and only if $`v`$ is $`\pi `$-periodic.

###### Proof.

Define the *support function* of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ via

(4.2)
$$h(t):=e^{it},\gamma (t)$$

(real inner product). Since $`\{e^{it},ie^{it}\}`$ is a basis for $`𝐑^2`$, we then have a $`2\pi `$-periodic $`C^1`$ function $`\mu :𝐑𝐑`$ such that

(4.3)
$$\gamma (t)=\left(h(t)+i\mu (t)\right)e^{it}.$$

By (4.1), $`e^{it}`$ is normal to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`\gamma (t)`$, so we also have

(4.4)
$$\gamma ^{}(t)=v(t)ie^{it}.$$

Now differentiate (4.3) and compare with (4.4) to see that $`\mu =h^{}`$ and

(4.5)
$$\gamma (t)=\left(h(t)+ih^{}(t)\right)e^{it}.$$

As $`\gamma `$ is $`C^1`$, this shows that $`h`$ is $`C^2`$. Further, differentiating (4.5) and using (4.4), we get

$$v=h^{\prime \prime }+h.$$

We now make indirect use of the curvature formula $`\kappa :=\gamma ^{\prime \prime },i\gamma ^{}/\gamma ^{}^3`$ to show that $`v0`$. If $`\gamma `$ is $`C^2`$, one can differentiate (4.4) to evaluate $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$, and directly calculate $`\kappa =1/v`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is strictly convex, we have $`\kappa 0`$, and hence $`v0`$, as claimed. Here $`\gamma `$ is only $`C^1`$, so we first approximate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`C^2(𝐒^1,𝐑^2)`$ by a sequence of $`C^3`$ ovals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$. The support parametrization of each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ will then be $`C^2`$, so that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, we do have $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=1/v_{\mathrm{}}`$. But the curvatures $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}`$ and speeds $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$’s converge uniformly to $`\kappa `$ and $`v`$ respectively. In the limit, we therefore obtain $`\kappa =1/v`$ as claimed.

To get our final conclusion, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is symmetric about the origin. The reflection $`\rho (x)=x`$ then sends the tangent line at $`\gamma (t)`$ to some parallel line tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Given (4.1), the only such tangency occurs at $`\gamma (t+\pi )`$. Thus

$$\gamma (t+\pi )=\gamma (t)$$

for all $`t𝐑`$. By (4.2) this forces both $`h`$ and $`v=h^{\prime \prime }+h`$ to be $`\pi `$-periodic.

Conversely, suppose $`v`$ is $`\pi `$-periodic. Then all its odd Fourier coefficients must vanish. Since $`h^{\prime \prime }+h=v`$, the same must hold for $`h`$, modulo a solution $`w,e^{it}`$ of the homogeneous equation $`h^{\prime \prime }+h=0`$. By (4.2), however, we eliminate this anomaly if we translate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`w`$. Doing so makes $`h`$ $`\pi `$-periodic, and by virtue of (4.5), the oval parametrized by $`\gamma `$ is now $`\rho `$-invariant. The original (untranslated) oval $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is then symmetric. ∎

We shall define and denote the *even* and *odd* parts of a function $`f:𝐒^1𝐑`$ by

$$f_+(t):=\frac{f(t)+f(t+\pi )}{2},\text{and}f_{}(t):=\frac{f(t)f(t+\pi )}{2},$$

respectively, identifying $`𝐒^1`$ with $`𝐑/2\pi `$ via $`e^{it}t`$. With this notation, we can give a simple condition for the skewness of a “graphical” loop $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ on the cylinder over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

###### Lemma 4.3.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐑^2`$ is a strictly convex $`C^2`$ oval with support parametrization $`\gamma `$. Let $`z:𝐒^1𝐑`$ be $`C^1`$, and set $`v:=\gamma ^{}`$, $`𝐤:=(0,0,1)`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t):=\gamma (t)+z(t)𝐤`$ is a skew loop if and only if for all $`t𝐑`$, we have

$$v_+(t)z_+^{}(t)v_{}(t)z_{}^{}(t)0.$$

Further, if $`z`$ is $`C^2`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ has nonvanishing curvature.

###### Proof.

Expressing $`\gamma ^{}`$ as in (4.4) above, and using the identity $`ie^{i\tau }\times 𝐤=e^{i\tau }`$, we compute that

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(t)\times \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma ^{}(t)\times \gamma ^{}(s)\right)+\left(z^{}(s)\gamma ^{}(t)z^{}(t)\gamma ^{}(s)\right)\times 𝐤`$
$`=`$ $`v(t)v(s)e^{it}\times e^{is}+v(t)z^{}(s)e^{it}v(s)z^{}(t)e^{is}`$
$`=`$ $`v(t)v(s)\mathrm{sin}(ts)𝐤+v(t)z^{}(s)e^{it}v(s)z^{}(t)e^{is}.`$
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ fails to be skew whenever this quantity vanishes for some $`t`$, $`s𝐑`$, with $`ts`$ mod $`2\pi `$. Since the $`𝐤`$ component vanishes only when $`st+\pi `$ mod $`2\pi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is thus skew if and only if

$$v(t)z^{}(t+\pi )+v(t+\pi )z^{}(t)0$$

for all $`t𝐑`$. Now note that for any function $`f:𝐑/2\pi 𝐑`$, we have the identities

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f(t)=f_+(t)+f_{}(t),\hfill & f_+(t+\pi )=f_+(t),& \\ f(t+\pi )=f_+(t)f_{}(t),\hfill & f_{}(t+\pi )=f_{}(t).& \end{array}$$

Applying these to $`v`$ and $`z^{}`$ in the preceding formula establishes the first conclusion of the lemma. Finally, note that, since $`\gamma `$ is strictly convex, $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(t)0`$. Thus, if $`z`$ is $`C^2`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\prime \prime }(t)0`$ as well. So $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ has nonvanishing curvature. ∎

The technical result below will provide the key constructive step in our proof of the cylinder lemma.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`e`$, $`o:𝐒^1𝐑`$ be continuous functions which are even and odd respectively, and suppose that $`e+o>0`$. Then either $`o0`$, or we have a continuous function $`\mu :𝐒^1𝐑`$, such that:

$$(1)_{𝐒^1}\mu =0,(2)\mu iseven,and(3)e\mu >o^2.$$

###### Proof.

Assume $`o0`$, and identify $`𝐒^1`$ with $`𝐑/2\pi `$ as usual. To prove the lemma we will construct a continuous function $`\mu :[0,\pi ]𝐑`$ with

$$(1^{})\text{ }_0^\pi \mu (t)𝑑t=0,(2^{})\text{ }\mu (\pi )=\mu (0),\text{and}(3^{})\text{ }e\mu >o^2\text{ on }[0,\pi ].$$

The even extension of this function to all of $`𝐒^1`$ then clearly has the properties (1), (2), and (3) that we seek.

To begin, observe that our hypotheses automatically imply $`e>0`$ throughout $`𝐒^1`$. Otherwise, the evenness of $`e`$ would imply $`e0`$ at both points of some antipodal pair $`t,t𝐒^1`$. Since we assume $`e+o>0`$ everywhere, this would force $`o>0`$ at both $`t`$ and $`t`$, contradicting the oddness of $`o`$. We thus have positivity of $`e`$, which allows us to define

$$\tau :=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi \left(\frac{o(t)^2}{1+e(t)}\right)𝑑t>0.$$

Next, note that the zero set of an odd function is both nonempty, and invariant under reflection through the origin. After a rotation, we may therefore assume $`o(0)=o(\pi )=0`$, and define the function we seek:

$$\mu (t):=\tau \frac{o^2(t)}{1+e(t)}.$$

Clearly, $`\mu `$ satisfies $`(1^{})`$. And we arranged that $`o(0)=o(\pi )=0`$, so we have $`\mu (0)=\mu (\pi )=\tau `$, which gives $`(2^{})`$. Finally, we obtain $`(3^{})`$ by combining our definition of $`\mu `$ with the positivity of $`e`$ and $`\tau `$:

$$e(t)\mu =e(t)\tau \left(\frac{e(t)}{1+e(t)}\right)o(t)^2>\left(\frac{e(t)}{1+e(t)}\right)o(t)^2>o(t)^2.$$

This proves the Lemma. ∎

We now prove the main result of this section, our cylinder lemma:

###### Proof of Proposition 4.1.

By Lemma 4.3, it suffices to produce a height function $`z:𝐒^1𝐑`$ such that, for all $`t𝐑`$,

(4.6)
$$v_+(t)z_+^{}(t)>v_{}(t)z_{}^{}(t),$$

where $`v`$ is the speed of the support parametrization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. First, note that our asymmetry hypothesis on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ combines with Lemma 4.2 to guaranteed that $`v`$ is not even, and hence $`v_{}0`$. Moreover, being odd, $`v_{}`$ has a well-defined antiderivative on $`𝐒^1`$. We form $`z_{}`$ by taking any such antiderivative and subtracting off its average on $`𝐒^1`$. Clearly, this makes $`z_{}`$ a (non-trivial) odd function, and because $`v_{}`$ is continuous, $`z_{}`$ is $`C^1`$. Since $`z_{}^{}=v_{}`$, (4.6) now becomes

(4.7)
$$v_+(t)z_+^{}(t)>\left(v_{}(t)\right)^2.$$

It remains to construct an *even* $`C^1`$ function $`z_+:𝐒^1𝐑`$ whose derivative satisfies (4.7). Lemma 4.4 does precisely that: Set $`e:=v_+`$, $`o:=v_{}0`$ there, and let $`z_+^{}:=\mu `$. Lemma 4.2 ensures us that $`e+o=v_++v_{}=v>0`$, so Lemma 4.4 indeed applies. Conclusions (1) and (2) of the latter now guarantee that $`z_+^{}`$ has an even antiderivative $`z_+`$ on $`𝐒^1`$, and conclusion (3) reduces to the key estimate (4.7). ∎

## 5. Quadricity of surfaces without skew loops

Our first step in this section is to use the existence of skew loops on asymmetric convex cylinders (Proposition 4.1) to restrict the symmetry of surfaces without skew loops:

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`S𝐑^3`$ be a $`C^2`$ embedded surface without skew loops. Suppose that there exists a plane $`H𝐑^3`$ which meets the interior of $`S`$ transversely along a strictly convex oval $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=SH`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is symmetric.

###### Proof.

After a rigid motion we may assume that $`H`$ coincides with the $`xy`$-plane. Since $`S`$ meets $`H`$ transversely along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we may choose $`ϵ>0`$ small enough to make

$$S^{}:=\{(x,y,z)S:|z|<ϵ\}$$

a topological annulus transversal to $`H`$ with $`S^{}H=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`C`$ denote the cylinder perpendicular to $`H`$ with base $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`S^{}`$ may be represented as a graph over $`C`$. That is, there exists an open neighborhood $`A`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`C`$ and a $`C^2`$ function $`g:A𝐑`$ such that $`S^{}=\{a+g(a)\nu (a):aA\}`$, where $`\nu `$ is the outward unit normal vector field on $`S`$. Now use the dilatations $`\mu _c:𝐑^3𝐑^3`$, defined for each $`c1`$ by $`\mu _c(x,y,z):=(x,y,cz)`$, to define a 1-parameter family of $`C^2`$ functions

$$g_c:A𝐑,g_c:=g\mu _{1/c}.$$

Note that $`g_c`$ and its derivatives tend to zero uniformly on $`A`$ as $`c\mathrm{}`$. This follows from the continuity of $`g`$ and the chain rule, because $`g=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the derivatives of $`g`$ are continuous because $`S^{}`$ intersects $`H`$ transversally.

Suppose now that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is *not* symmetric. Then Proposition 4.1 gives a $`C^2`$ skew loop $`\gamma :𝐒^1C`$ with nonvanishing curvature. After a (shrinking) dilatation, we may assume that $`\gamma (𝐒^1)A`$. For every $`c1`$, we may then define a loop $`\gamma _c`$ on the affinely stretched surface $`\mu _c(S^{})`$ by setting

$$\gamma _c(t):=\gamma (t)+g_c\left(\gamma (t)\right)\nu \left(\gamma (t)\right).$$

Since $`g_c0`$ uniformly on $`\gamma (𝐒^1)`$ along with its derivatives as $`c\mathrm{}`$, we see that $`\gamma _c\gamma `$ in the $`C^2`$ sense. It then follows, by Lemma 2.2, that $`\gamma _c`$ eventually becomes skew. Thus, for sufficiently large $`c>0`$, the stretched surface $`\mu _c(S^{})`$ admits a skew loop. As an affine map, however, $`\mu _c`$ sends skew loops to skew loops. So $`S^{}`$ must itself admit a skew loop—a contradiction. ∎

By a *convex body* $`K𝐑^3`$ we mean a compact convex subset with nonempty interior. We say planes $`P_1,P_2`$ are *close* if we can represent them by linear equations $`n_1,x=h_1`$ and $`n_2,x=h_2`$, with $`|n_1n_2|^2+|h_1h_2|^2<ϵ`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$.

###### Theorem 5.2 (Blaschke ).

Let $`K𝐑^3`$ be a convex body, whose boundary is $`C^2`$ near a point $`pK`$. Suppose that whenever a plane sufficiently close to $`T_pK`$ intersects $`K`$, its intersection with $`K`$ is centrally symmetric. Then a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`K`$ lies on a quadric surface.

Blaschke’s result localizes a theorem of Brunn that characterizes ellipsoids as convex bodies having only symmetric cross sections 555Olovjanischnikoff (see  and \[4, p. 346\]) proves an even more general version requiring no regularity at $`p`$.. Coupling it to Lemma 5.1, we quickly complete the proof our main theorem.

###### Proof of the implication $`21`$ of Theorem 1.1.

Let $`XM`$ be the largest open subset whose image $`F(X)`$ lies on a quadric. Then $`X`$ is also closed, and $`M`$ is connected, so we need only show that $`X\mathrm{}`$. To do so, let $`U`$ be an open neighborhood of a point $`p`$ in $`M`$ where the curvature is positive. We may choose $`U`$ small enough so that $`S:=F(U)`$ is the graph of a function on the tangent plane $`T_{F(p)}K`$. Since the curvature is positive at $`p`$, this function has positive definite Hessian and is therefore convex. So $`S`$ lies on the boundary of a convex body $`K𝐑^3`$. Since $`S`$ has positive curvature at $`F(p)`$, the tangent plane $`T_{F(p)}K`$ intersects $`K`$ only at $`F(p)`$. This gives an $`ϵ>0`$ so that every plane $`H𝐑^3`$ within distance $`ϵ`$ of $`T_{F(p)}K`$ satisfies $`HS=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=HK`$ lies in $`S`$. Whenever the intersection is transversal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`C^2`$ strictly convex oval, because $`S`$ has positive curvature. Lemma 5.1 now makes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ symmetric. But $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was an arbitrary transverse cross-section of $`S`$ near $`p`$, so Blaschke’s Theorem (5.2) forces a neighborhood of $`p`$ to lie on a quadric surface. This completes the proof. ∎

## Appendix A Symmetric cylinders.

Proposition A.2 below gives a strong converse to the existence of skew loops on asymmetric cylinders (Proposition 4.1). This result was known to Segre , but we recount a proof for completeness. Let us agree that an $`L`$-periodic unit-speed loop $`c:𝐑𝐑^2`$ has *arclength symmetry* with respect to a point $`p𝐑^2`$ if $`c(t+L/2)=pc(t)`$ for all $`t𝐑`$.

###### Note A.1.

For *embedded* loops, one can show that arclength symmetry is equivalent to central symmetry. In particular, Proposition A.2 holds for cylinders over embedded centrally symmetric loops. For immersed loops, arclength symmetry is slightly stronger than central symmetry, however; centrally symmetric figure-eights, for instance, admit no arclength-symmetric parametrization. Indeed, one can put a skew loop on the cylinder over a centrally symmetric figure-eight. Example: $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)=(\mathrm{cos}t,\mathrm{sin}2t,\frac{t}{\pi }\left(\frac{t}{\pi }\right)^{15})`$. The arclength symmetry condition below therefore seems essential.

###### Proposition A.2.

If a $`C^1`$ loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐑^2`$ admits a parametrization with arclength symmetry, then the cylinder $`S:=\mathrm{\Gamma }\times 𝐑𝐑^3`$ admits no skew loops which are transverse to the lines in $`S`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has length $`L`$, and has an $`L`$-periodic parametrization $`c:𝐑𝐑^2`$ which is arclength-symmetric about the origin. Let $`S:=\mathrm{\Gamma }\times 𝐑`$, and suppose $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:𝐒^1S`$ is a $`C^1`$ loop. We may then reparametrize $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ via

(A.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t):=c(t)+z(t)𝐤,$$

where $`z`$ is $`C^1`$ and $`nL`$-periodic for some $`n𝐙`$. By our symmetry assumption, $`c(t+L/2)=c(t)`$. Hence

(A.2)
$$c^{}(t+L/2)=c^{}(t),$$

and

$$_0^{nL}\left(z^{}(t)+z^{}(t+L/2)\right)𝑑t=\left(z(t)+z(t+L/2)\right)|_0^{nL}=0.$$

The mean value theorem for integrals now gives a $`t_0[0,nL]`$ for which

(A.3)
$$z^{}(t_0+L/2)=z^{}(t_0).$$

Equations (A.1), (A.2) and (A.3) therefore combine to yield $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(t_0+L/2)=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(t_0)`$. This makes the tangent lines to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ at $`t_0`$ and $`t_0+L/2`$ parallel, a contradiction. ∎

## Appendix B Open Problems

Which surfaces in $`𝐑^3`$ admit skew loops? Theorem 1.1 settles this question for surfaces with a point of positive curvature, so it remains to ask:

###### Problem B.1.

Which *nonpositively* curved surfaces admit skew loops?

Could it be true that the only surfaces without skew loops and a point of negative curvature are quadric, mirroring Theorem 1.1? If so, it would remain to study flat surfaces666Serge Tabachnikov has recently ruled out skew loops on negatively curved quadrics, and on simply-connected flat surfaces . In fact, by extending the technique of White , he rules out $`n`$-dimensional compact skew “branes” on all hyperquadrics in $`𝐑^{n+2}`$ for all $`n`$.. Complete flat surfaces are generalized cylinders . When embedded and symmetric, these admit no skew loops, which are transversal to the generators of the cylinder, by Proposition A.2. The main open question about flat surfaces is then:

###### Problem B.2.

Which *asymmetric* cylinders admit skew loops?

Proposition 4.1, shows that strict convexity is sufficient, and one can show that the tantrix of any loop on a cylinder whose base has winding number $`|\iota |>1`$ must self-intersect; these cylinders do not admit skew loops.

Our work raises some regularity questions too. We state one of them in Note 3.1: *Does $`𝐒^2`$ contain a $`C^1`$ skew loop*? The regularity of the underlying surface raises another: Skew loops necessarily have one derivative, so a version of Theorem 1.1 in the $`C^1`$ category would be fairly optimal with regard to regularity. Our last question highlights a simple relevant test case:

###### Problem B.3.

Does a cylinder capped by hemispheres admit skew loops?

This surface is $`C^1`$ and piecewise quadric; if it admits a skew loop, Theorem 1.1 is already optimal.

Finally, we remark that when one regards $`𝐑^3`$ as $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^3`$ minus a plane at infinity, all ellipsoids are projectively equivalent, not just to each other, but to the elliptic paraboloids and 2-sheeted hyperboloids too. The referee has observed that these are precisely the quadrics on which we have ruled out skewloops, and hence our results may extend to $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in an interesting way. We hope to explore this possibility in a future paper.

## Appendix C Historical Notes

According to P. Du Val , H. Steinhaus conjectured the non-existence of skew loops in 1966 during a lecture given at Sussex. B. Segre, present at this lecture, responded by proposing a counterexample in a lecture of his own the next day. Segre eventually published a corrected version of his counterexample in 1968 . Porter’s version of the construction in 1970  is somewhat more explicit, but Segre’s paper contains many other results, including the non-existence of skew loops on spheres. To prove the latter fact, he appeals to a “*bel teorema*” published by W. Fenchel in 1934 : *The tantrix of a spherical curve, if embedded, bisects $`𝐒^2`$*. It seems that this result was absorbed by very few beside Segre. It immediately implies a well-known theorem of Jacobi on the normal indicatrix of a space curve, but the many subsequent references to Jacobi’s Theorem we know (e.g. , , , and even Fenchel’s own 1951 survey !) make no mention of it. It has since been rediscovered at least twice: by Avakumović , and by the second author .

The non-existence of skew loops on spheres was also proved by J.H. White  in 1971 using a Morse-theoretic argument. Unlike Segre, who notes that the result extends to ellipsoids and elliptic paraboloids, White mentions only the sphere. Neither author suggests that hyperboloids admit no skew loops, nor gives any hint that they surmised our main result here.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Ralph Howard, Richard Montgomery, and Serge Tabachnikov for their interest and helpful comments. We also thank the University of California at Santa Cruz and Stanford University for facilitating the early stages of our collaboration.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This talk begins with some historical remarks about work done during the period of the inception of the Standard Model, especially areas where my own work overlapped significantly with that of Arkady Vainshtein. The remainder of the talk will be devoted to more recent work, in which Arkady’s work on supersymmetry also had an influence. The common thread through the work of both periods is the interconnectedness of theory and experiment in unraveling the elementary structure of nature.

Experiment provides us with effective theories. That is, the data tell us how to write down effective Lagrangians with which we can calculate tree-level S-matrix elements that reproduce the data over some range of energy and distance scales with reasonable accuracy. When we try to take an effective theory seriously as a quantum field theory, we typically encounter difficulties (usually in the form of infinite amplitudes) that suggest a scale at which new physics must come into play. Given a hypothesis for the specifics of the new physics, detailed studies of the effective lower energy theory can test its validity. I will recall examples that contributed to the construction and study of the Standard Model and review approaches to the phenomenology of supergravity and superstring theory. A specific model for supersymmetry breaking within the context of the weakly coupled heterotic string will be discussed.

## 2 Effective Theories for the Standard Model

An early example of a successful effective Lagrangian is Fermi theory. A series of experiments led theorists such as Fermi, Gamov and Teller to postulate four fermion couplings to describe nuclear $`\beta `$-decay. Further data revealed the V-A nature of the couplings as well as a set of flavor selection rules for both strangeness-changing and strangeness-conserving (semi-)leptonic decays of hadrons. This led to the interpretation of the effective Fermi interaction as arising from the exchange of heavy, electrically charged vector bosons $`W^\pm `$, with the identification $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g_W^2/m_W^2`$, coupled to bilinear quark currents that are Noether currents of the strong interaction. These studies provided early building blocks both of the GWS model of electroweak interactions and of the quark model and QCD.

The Fermi theory is nonrenormalizable. Attempts to treat it as a quantum theory revealed quadratic divergences which suggested that loop corrections must be effectively cut off by new physics at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F300`$ GeV. Similarly, analyses of high energy scattering amplitudes revealed a breakdown of tree unitarity at cm energies above 600 GeV. These results were the motivation for the construction of the $`p\overline{p}`$ colliders that ultimately produced the $`W,Z`$ bosons with masses $`100`$ GeV, providing the needed cut-off. As it happens, by the time of their discovery, the underlying electroweak theory had already been developed and tested, and the measurement of the weak boson masses provided spectacular confirmation of that theory. Once the underlying theory is known, there is no impediment to treating the low energy effective Fermi theory as a full quantum theory, provided loop integration is appropriately cut off at the physical threshold for new physics, for example

$$G_F^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_F^2G_F^2m_W^2=g_W^4m_W^2.$$
(1)
Another example of an effective theory for the Standard Model is the low energy chiral Lagrangian for pions. The approximate $`SU(2)_RSU(2)_L`$ invariance of the strong interactions that was uncovered in the study of pion couplings was a crucial building block for the theory of QCD with very light $`u,d`$ quarks. The chiral Lagrangian is nonrenormalizable, but its study at the quantum level, with appropriate cut-offs related to the scale of confinement, has contributed important information on quark masses and other aspects of low energy QCD matrix elements.

In the following I discuss two applications of effective theories for the Standard Model that both Arkady and I were involved in.

### 2.1 The Charm Threshold

The effective Fermi theory constructed from experimental measurements of weak (semi-)leptonic decays contained both strangeness-changing $`(\overline{u}s)`$ and strangeness-conserving $`(\overline{u}d)`$ quark currents. At the quantum level this leads to a semi-leptonic $`(\overline{d}s)(\overline{\mu }\mu )`$ four-quark Fermi coupling with effective Fermi constant

$$G_{\mathrm{\Delta }S}\mathrm{sin}\theta _cG_F^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }S}^2,$$
(2)
and consistency with experiment requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }S}1`$ GeV. The new threshold was provided by the GIM mechanism  whereby the $`u`$ loop contribution was canceled up to quark mass effects by the loop contribution from the postulated charm quark $`c`$, and suggested a charm quark mass $`m_c`$ GeV. The BIM mechanism , using the same new quark to cancel gauge anomalies in the context of the GWS electroweak theory, strengthened the case for the existence of charm.

In 1973, Ben Lee and I noticed  that in the limit of $`u`$-$`c`$ mass degeneracy, not only the amplitudes for $`K\mu \mu `$ and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ vanish, but so do those for processes like $`K\gamma \gamma `$, that are observed to be unsuppressed. A similar obervation was made by Ernest Ma . A careful analysis of these and other $`K`$-decays in the context of the GWS electroweak theory revealed that unsuppressed processes of the latter type have amplitudes $`\alpha G_F\mathrm{ln}(m_c/m_u)`$, whereas suppressed processes of the former type have amplitudes $`\alpha G_F(m_c^2m_u^2)/m_W^2`$. Consistency with data required $`m_c^2m_c^2m_W^2`$, further supporting very small $`u,d`$ masses. While the calculation of $`K\mu \mu `$ is theoretically very clean, it turns out that the leading contribution, enhanced by a factor $`\mathrm{ln}(m_W/m_c)`$, cancels between $`W`$ and $`Z`$ exchange diagrams; the result was a rather weak limit: $`m_c9`$ GeV. On the other hand, if one was brave enough to attempt to evaluate the matrix element for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, a prediction on the order of a GeV for the charmed quark could be inferred and used to predict branching ratios for other rare kaon decays that had not yet been observed. Once we had done all this work, we learned from Bjorken that we had been scooped, at least in part, by our Russian colleagues Vainshtein and Kriplovich  who had considered the same processes and made similar inferences about the charm quark mass.

Ben and I evaluated the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ matrix element using a simple factorization ansatz, and, from the observed value of the $`K_L`$-$`K_S`$ mass difference, found $`m_c1.5`$ GeV, neglecting color (QCD was just beginning to emerge at that time as a candidate theory for the strong interactions). This low value worried us, since charm had not been seen in experiments (or so it was assumed; several hints were indeed in the experimental literature; see, e.g., ). So we “rounded it off” to 2 GeV, until a reader  of the draft insisted that we really found 1.5. So we caved in, but decided to include a second evaluation using colored quarks which gave us back the seemingly safer value of 2. Of course 1.5 is the right answer even though QCD is correct. At the time we knew nothing of a third generation, and its appearance muddied the waters for a while, but since the top quark couplings to lighter quarks are very weak, its contribution to the neutral kaon mass difference is insignificant. Analyses based on a $`1/N_c`$ expansion suggest  that one should neglect the color factor, and lattice QCD calculations support  the naïve factorization hypothesis to a good approximation.

### 2.2 Penguins and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ Rule

While the elementary couplings of the quarks and gluons of QCD become manifest at high momentum transfer $`|q|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, at low energy’s we are forced to work with an effective theory of hadrons. Here I consider weak decays. Purely leptonic processes can of course trivially be dealt with using perturbation theory. Semi-leptonic processes are also tractable because the hadronic vertex can be factored out, and the assumption that the hadronic currents are the Noether currents of flavor/chiral SU(3) is highly predictive. In contrast, in nonleptonic decays, the underlying $`\overline{q}q^{}W`$ couplings are completely masked by gluon exchanges across all weak vertices. However we learned from Ken Wilson how to find the correct effective quark Lagrangian at scales much lower than $`m_W`$: the operator product expansion . The dominant operator is the one of lowest dimension, in this case a four quark operator. Since gluon exchange conserves helicity, and only left-handed quarks participate in the charge-changing weak interaction, this is a V-A Fermi operator, but the I-spin structure is modified with respect to the original operator. This is because the eigenstates of the S-matrix are in fixed representations of color $`SU(3)`$, and these are related by Fermi statistics to the final state $`ud`$ I-spin in the scattering process $`usud`$. The scattering occurs in a $`J=L=S=0`$ state, which is antisymmetric, so the color and I-spin states must have the same symmetry. These are 1) an anti-triplet of $`SU(3)_c`$ with $`I_{ud}=0`$, which is attractive, and 2) a sextet of $`SU(3)_c`$ with $`I_{ud}=1`$, which is repulsive. Since the initial state has $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$, the former is a pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ transition and the second is a mixture of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$. The explicit calculation  gives a mild enhancement of the former and suppression of the latter such that the ratio of the effective Fermi coupling constants is $`G_F^{\frac{1}{2}}/G_F^{\frac{3}{2}}5`$, whereas experiment suggests that a factor of about 20 is needed, if one evaluates the amplitudes using simple factorization. Subsequently, Arkady and his collaborators pointed out  that we had forgotten a diagram, namely the penguin diagram, depicted in Figure 1. Although our Russian colleagues invented the diagram, its name was first introduced in a paper  (where we also estimated the $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction cross section using the SVZ QCD sum rules ) on the properties of the newly discovered B states after a dart game that ended with John Ellis required to use the word “penguin” in his next paper. (More details on the dart game can be found in Misha Shifman’s contribution to a tribute  to Arkady.) This diagram gives an effective local four-quark operator because the $`q^2`$ in the gluon propagator cancels the $`q^2`$ in the numerator associated with the color charge radius. It contributes only to $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ transitions because the penguin’s head has $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ ($`sd`$) and its foot has $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ since gluon exchange conserves flavor. It further has a different spin structure from the operators analyzed in  because, while the penguin’s head has only V-A couplings, its foot is a pure vector coupling because gluon exchange conserves parity. As a consequence, after a Fierz transformation so as to express the effective operator in terms of color singlet quark bilinears, one gets $`S,P`$ interactions that can have enhanced matrix elements with respect to the usual $`V,A`$ couplings.

One is still left with the thorny problem of evaluating hadronic matrix elements of the effective quark operators. This involves techniques such as chiral symmetry and lattice calculations; the latter have indicated an enhancement of penguin diagrams. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ rule in kaon decay was discussed extensively by Bijnens . To the extent that the nonrelativistic quark model is a good approximation for baryons, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ operator discussed above cannot contribute because it has no overlap with the baryon wave function . It seems likely to this observer that the undeservedly accurate ($`2\%`$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ rule does not have a simple explanation, but results from the conjunction of a number of QCD effects, all of which point at least qualitatively in the right direction.

Aside from their contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ rule, the SVZ penguin diagrams have played, and continue to play, an essential role in the analysis of heavy quark decays and CP violation.

## 3 Is the Standard Model an Effective Theory?

Over the last twenty years experiments have continued to verify the predictions of the Standard Model to great accuracy over a wide range of energy scales. Yet the majority of theorists believe that the Standard Model itself has a limited range of validity. There are a variety of reasons for this, one being the large number of arbitrary parameters. Here I concentrate on just two, very likely connected, difficulties: the gauge hierarchy problem and the failure of the Standard Model to incorporate gravity. The gauge hierarchy problem points to a scale of new physics in the TeV region, providing the motivation for the LHC and an upgraded Tevatron. The fact that gravity couples to everything else suggests new physics at a much higher scale, the Planck scale, that (at least in the “conservative” approach taken here) will never be probed directly by experiments; probing this physics must rely on the interpretation of indirect effects in the effective low energy theory. Incorporating gravity in a fully consistent, predictive and verifiable theory, often referred to as the “Theory of Everything” (ToE) is the holy grail of elementary particle physics.

### 3.1 Bottom Up Approach

This approach starts from experimental data with the aim of deciphering what it implies for an underlying, more fundamental theory. One outstanding datum is the observed large gauge hierarchy, i.e., the ratio of the $`Z`$ mass, characteristic of the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking, to the reduced Planck scale $`m_P`$:

$$m_Z90\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}m_P=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{G_N}}2\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV},$$

which can be technically resolved by supersymmetry (SUSY) (among other conjectures that are by now disfavored by experiment). The conjunction of SUSY and general relativity (GR) inexorably implies supergravity (SUGRA). The absence of observed SUSY partners (sparticles) requires broken SUSY in the vacuum, and a more detailed analysis of the observed particle spectrum constrains the mechanism of SUSY-breaking in the observable sector: spontaneous SUSY-breaking is not viable, leaving soft SUSY-breaking as the only option that preserves the technical SUSY solution to the hierarchy problem. This means introducing SUSY-breaking operators of dimension three or less–such as gauge invariant masses–into the Lagrangian for the SUSY extension of the Standard Model (SM). The unattractiveness of these ad hoc soft terms strongly suggests that they arise from spontaneous SUSY breaking in a “hidden sector” of the underlying theory. Based on the above facts, a number of standard scenarios have emerged. These include:
$``$ Gravity mediated SUSY-breaking, usually understood as “Minimal SUGRA” (MSUGRA), with masses of fixed spin particles set equal at the Planck scale; this scenario is typically characterized by $`m_{\mathrm{scalars}}=m_0>m_{\mathrm{gauginos}}=m_{\frac{1}{2}}m_{\mathrm{gravitino}}=m_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ at the weak scale.
$``$ Anomaly mediated SUSY-breaking , in which $`m_0=m_{\frac{1}{2}}=0`$ classically; these models are characterized by $`m_{\frac{3}{2}}>>m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}},`$ and typically $`m_0>m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. An exception is the Randall-Sundrum (RS) “separable potential”, constructed  to mimic SUSY-breaking on a brane spatially separated from our own in a fifth dimension; in this scenario $`m_0^2<0`$ and $`m_0`$ arises first at two loops. More generally, the scalar masses at one loop depend on the details of Planck-scale physics .
$``$ Gauge mediated SUSY uses a hidden sector that has renormalizable gauge interactions with the SM particles. These scenarios are typically characterized by small $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

### 3.2 Top Down Approach

This approach starts from a ToE with the hope of deriving the Standard Model from it; the current favored candidate is superstring theory. The driving motivation is that this is at present the only known candidate for reconciling GR with quantum mechanics. Superstring theories are consistent in ten dimensions; in recent years it was discovered that all the consistent superstring theories are related to one another by dualities. These are, in my nomenclature: S-duality: $`\alpha 1/\alpha ,`$ and T-duality: $`R1/R,`$ where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant of the gauge group(s) at the string scale, and $`R`$ is a radius of compactification from dimension D to dimension $`\mathrm{D}1`$. Figure 2 shows  how these dualities relate the various 10-D superstring theories to one another, and to the currently presumed ToE, M-theory. Not a lot else is known about M-theory, except that it lives in 11 dimensions and involves membranes. In Figure 2 the small circles, line, torus and cylinder represent the relevant compact manifolds in reducing D by one or two. The two $`O(32)`$ theories are S-dual to one another, while the $`E_8E_8`$ weakly coupled heterotic string theory (WCHS) is perturbatively invariant  under T-duality. We will be specifically concentrating on this theory, and T-duality will play an important role.

Another image of M-theory, the “puddle diagram” of Figure 3, indicates  that all the known superstring theories, as well as D $`=11`$ SUGRA, are particular limits of M-theory. Currently, there is a lot of activity in type I and II theories, or more generally in theories with branes. Similarly the Hořava-Witten (HW) scenario  and its inspirations have received considerable attention. If one compactifies one dimension of the 11-D limit of M-theory, one gets the HW scenario with two 10-D branes, each having an $`E_8`$ gauge group. As the radius of this 11th dimension is shrunk to zero, the WCHS scenario is recovered. This is the scenario addressed here, in a marriage of the two approaches that may serve as an illustrative example of the diversity of possible SUSY breaking scenarios.

## 4 The $`E_8E_8`$ Heterotic String

I first recall the reasons for the original appeal of the weakly coupled $`E_8E_8`$ heterotic string theory  compactified on a Calabi-Yau (CY) manifold  (or a CY-like orbifold ). The zero-slope (infinite string tension) limit of this superstring theory  is ten dimensional supergravity coupled to a supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with an $`E_8E_8`$ gauge group. To make contact with the real world, six of these ten dimensions must be unobservable in current experiments; here they are assumed to be compactified to a size of order of the reduced Planck length, $`10^{32}`$cm. If the topology of the extra dimensions were a six-torus, which has a flat geometry, the 8-component spinorial parameters of $`N=1`$ supergravity in ten dimensions would appear as the four two-component parameters of $`N=4`$ supergravity in ten dimensions. However a Calabi-Yau manifold leaves only one of these spinors invariant under parallel transport; for this manifold the group of transformations under parallel transport (holonomy group) is the $`SU(3)`$ subgroup of the maximal $`SU(4)SO(6)`$ holonomy group of a six dimensional compact space. This breaks $`N=4`$ supersymmetry to $`N=1`$ in four dimensions. As is well known, the only phenomenologically viable supersymmetric theory at low energies is $`N=1`$, because it is the only one that admits complex representations of the gauge group that are needed to describe quarks and leptons. For this solution, the classical equations of motion impose the identification of the affine connection of general coordinate transformations on the compact space (described by three complex dimensions) with the gauge connection of an $`SU(3)`$ subgroup of one of the $`E_8`$’s: $`E_8E_6SU(3)`$, resulting in $`E_6E_8`$ as the gauge group in four dimensions. Since the early 1980’s, $`E_6`$ has been considered the largest group that is a phenomenologically viable candidate for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of the Standard Model. Hence $`E_6`$ is identified as the gauge group of the “observable sector”, and the additional $`E_8`$ is attributed to a “hidden sector”, that interacts with the former only with gravitational strength couplings. Orbifolds, which are flat spaces except for points of infinite curvature, are more easily studied than CY manifolds, and orbifold compactifications that closely mimic the CY compactification described above, and that yield realistic spectra with just three generations of quarks and leptons, have been found . In this case the surviving gauge group is $`E_6𝒢_oE_8,𝒢_oSU(3)`$. The low energy effective field theory is determined by the massless spectrum, i.e., the spectrum of states with masses very small compared with the scales of the string tension and of compactification. Massless particles have zero triality under an $`SU(3)`$ which is the diagonal of the $`SU(3)`$ holonomy group and the (broken) $`SU(3)`$ subgroup of one $`E_8`$. The ten-dimensional vector fields $`A_M,M=0,1,\mathrm{}9,`$ appear in four dimensions as four-vectors $`A_\mu ,\mu =M=0,1,\mathrm{}3`$, and as scalars $`A_m,m=M3=1,\mathrm{}6.`$ Under the decomposition $`E_8E_6SU(3)`$, the $`E_8`$ adjoint contains the adjoints of $`E_6`$ and $`SU(3)`$, and the representation $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$. Thus the massless spectrum includes gauge fields in the adjoint representation of $`E_6𝒢_oE_8`$ with zero triality under each $`SU(3)`$, and scalar fields in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}`$ of $`E_6`$, with triality $`\pm 1`$ under each $`SU(3)`$, together with their fermionic superpartners. The number of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}`$ chiral supermultiplets that are massless depends on the detailed topology of the compact manifold. The important point for phenomenology is the decomposition under $`E_6SO(10)SU(5)`$:

$$(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})_{E_6}=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏})_{SO(10)}=\left(\{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}\}+\{\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\}+\mathrm{𝟏}\right)_{SU(5)}.$$
(3)
A $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ contains one generation of quarks and leptons of the Standard Model, a right-handed neutrino and their scalar superpartners; a $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ contains the two Higgs doublets needed in the supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model and their fermion superpartners, as well as color-triplet supermultiplets. Thus all the states of the Standard Model and its minimal supersymmetric extension are present. On the other hand, there are no scalar particles in the adjoint representation of $`E_6`$. In conventional models for grand unification, adjoints (or one or more other representations much larger than the fundamental one) are needed to break the GUT group to the Standard Model. In string theory, this symmetry breaking can be achieved by the Hosotani, or “Wilson line”, mechanism  in which gauge flux is trapped around “tubes” in the compact manifold, in a manner reminiscent of the Arahonov-Bohm effect. The vacuum value of the trapped flux $`<𝑑\mathrm{}^mA_m>`$ has the same effect as an adjoint Higgs, evading the difficulties of constructing a viable Higgs sector encountered in conventional GUTS. Wilson lines reduce the gauge group in four dimensions to

$`𝒢_{obs}𝒢_{hid},𝒢_{obs}=𝒢_{SM}𝒢^{}𝒢_o,𝒢_{SM}𝒢^{}E_6,𝒢_oSU(3),`$
$`𝒢_{hid}E_8,𝒢_{SM}=SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_w.`$ (4)
There are many other four dimensional string vacua with different features. The attractiveness of the above picture is that the requirement of $`N=1`$ SUSY naturally results in a phenomenologically viable gauge group and particle spectrum. Moreover, the gauge symmetry can be broken to a product group embedding the Standard Model without the necessity of introducing large Higgs representations. In addition, the $`E_8E_8`$ string theory includes a hidden sector that can provide a viable mechanism for spontaneous SUSY breaking. More specifically, if some subgroup $`𝒢_a`$ of $`𝒢_{hid}`$ is asymptotically free, with a $`\beta `$-function coefficient $`b_a>b_{SU(3)}`$, defined by the renormalization group equation (RGE)

$$\mu \frac{g_a(\mu )}{\mu }=\frac{3}{2}b_ag_a^3(\mu )+O(g_a^5),$$
(5)
confinement and fermion condensation will occur at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, and hidden sector gaugino condensation $`<\overline{\lambda }\lambda >_{𝒢_a}0,`$ may induce  supersymmetry breaking.

To discuss supersymmetry breaking in more detail, we need the low energy spectrum resulting from the ten-dimensional gravity supermultiplet that consists of the 10-D metric $`g_{MN}`$, an antisymmetric tensor $`b_{MN}`$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$, the gravitino $`\psi _M`$ and the dilatino $`\chi `$. For the class of CY and orbifold compactifications described above, the zero-triality massless bosons in four dimensions are the 4-D metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the antisymmetric tensor $`b_{\mu \nu }`$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$, and certain components of the tensors $`g_{mn}`$ and $`b_{mn}`$ that form the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of complex scalars known as moduli. (More precisely, the scalar components of the chiral multiplets of the low energy theory are obtained as functions of the scalars $`\varphi ,g_{mn}`$, while the pseudoscalars $`b_{mn}`$ form axionic components of these supermultiplets.) The number of moduli is related to the number of particle generations (# of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$’s $``$ \# of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}`$’s). Typically, in a three generation orbifold model there are three moduli $`t_I`$; the $`vev`$’s $`<\mathrm{Re}t_I>`$ determine the radii of compactification of the three tori of the compact space. In some compactifications there are three other moduli $`u_I`$; the $`vev`$’s $`<\mathrm{Re}u_I>`$ determine the ratios of the two a priori independent radii of each torus. These form chiral multiplets with fermions $`\chi _I^t,\chi _I^u`$ obtained from components of $`\psi _m`$. The 4-D dilatino $`\chi `$ forms a chiral multiplet with with a complex scalar field $`s`$ whose $`vev`$ $`<s>=g^2i\theta /8\pi ^2`$ determines the gauge coupling constant and the $`\theta `$ parameter of the 4-D Yang-Mills theory. The “universal” axion Im$`s`$ is obtained by a duality transformation  from the antisymmetric tensor $`b_{\mu \nu }`$: $`_\mu \mathrm{Im}sϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\nu b^{\rho \sigma }.`$ Because the dilaton couples to the (observable and hidden) Yang-Mills sector, gaugino condensation induces  a superpotential for the dilaton superfield $`S`$ (capital Greek and Roman letters denote chiral superfields, and the corresponding lower case letters denote their scalar components):

$$W(S)e^{S/b_a}.$$
(6)
The vacuum value $`<W(S)>`$ is governed by the condensation scale $`e^{S/b_a}=e^{g^2/b_a}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ as determined by the RGE (5). If it is nonzero, the gravitino acquires a mass $`m_{\frac{3}{2}}<W>`$, and local supersymmetry is broken.

## 5 A Runaway Dilaton?

The superpotential (6) results in a potential for the dilaton of the form $`V(s)e^{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}s/b_a},`$ which has its minimum at vanishing vacuum energy and vanishing gauge coupling: $`<\mathrm{Re}s>\mathrm{},g^20`$. This is the notorious runaway dilaton problem. The effective potential for $`s`$ is determined by anomaly matching : $`\delta _{eff}(s,u)\delta _{hid}(\mathrm{gauge}),`$ where $`u,u=\overline{\lambda }\lambda _{𝒢_a},`$ is the lightest scalar bound state of the strongly interacting, confined gauge sector. Just as in QCD, the effective low energy theory of bound states must reflect both the symmetries and the quantum anomalies of the underlying Yang-Mills theory. It turns out that the effective quantum field theory (QFT) is anomalous under T-duality. Since this is an exact symmetry of heterotic string perturbation theory, it means that the effective QFT is incomplete. This is cured by including model dependent string-loop threshold corrections  and a “Green-Schwarz” (GS) counter-term , analogous to a similar anomaly canceling mechanism in 10-D SUGRA . This introduces dilaton-moduli mixing, and the gauge coupling constant is now identified as $`g^2=2\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^1=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}sb_I\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}t_I),`$ where $`bb_{E_8}=30/8\pi ^2`$ is the coefficient of the GS term. This term introduces a second runaway direction at strong coupling: $`V\mathrm{}`$ for $`g^2\mathrm{}`$. The small coupling behavior is unaffected, but the potential becomes negative for $`\alpha =\mathrm{}/2\pi >.57`$. This is the strong coupling regime, and nonperturbative string effects cannot be neglected; they are expected  to modify the Kähler potential for the dilaton, and therefore the potential $`V(\mathrm{},u)`$. It has been shown  that these contributions can indeed stabilize the dilaton.

In order to carry out the above program, one first needs to know the quantum corrections to the unconfined (i.e., at scales greater than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$) Yang-Mills Lagrangian for the hidden sector, in order to do the correct anomaly matching. This is where we again encounter Arkady’s work. Just as we can correctly treat the effective Fermi Lagrangian as a quantum theory only if we incorporate the physical cut-off $`m_W`$, we must include a similar physical cut-off when encountering divergences in the effective SUGRA theory from superstrings. One way to do this is using Pauli-Villars regulators with couplings that respect SUSY . The required cut-offs  for regulating the coefficient of the Yang-Mills terms are (neglecting string nonperturbative corrections to the Kähler potential)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_A=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }/g)^{2(13q_A)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\frac{2}{3}},$$
(7)
for matter and gauge loops, respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=R^1`$ is the inverse radius of compactification, and $`q_A`$ is the average modular weight for the chiral supermultiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$. For “untwisted” matter $`q_A=\frac{1}{3}`$, giving the intuitive value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U=\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/R`$, while the gauge-loop cut-off contains the “two-loop” factor $`g^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ which assures that the anomaly is a chiral superfield. Matching  the field theory result with string loop calculations  determines the GS term for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A=0`$, and one obtaines for the Wilson coefficient of the Yang-Mills operator

$$(g_a^2)_W=2\mathrm{}^1\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(C_G^aC_M^a)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{A}{}C_A^a\mathrm{ln}(1p_A\mathrm{})+O(|\varphi ^A|^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }_a(t),$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(t)`$ is a string threshold correction that is present in some orbifold models, and $`p_A`$ is the coupling of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^A|^2`$ to the GS term. Neglecting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$, the RGE invariant (8) can be identified with the general RGE invariant in SUSY Yang-Mills theories found by Shifman and Vainshtein

$$g_a^2(\mu )\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(3C_G^aC_M^a)\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2+C_G^a8\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}g_a^2(\mu )+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{A}{}C_A^a\mathrm{ln}Z_A^a(\mu ),$$
(9)
where $`Z_A^a`$ are the renormalization factors for the matter fields, provided we identify

$$g_a(\mu _s)=2\mathrm{}=(\mu _s/M_P)^2,Z_A^a(\mu _s)=(1p_A\mathrm{})^1.$$
(10)
The same boundary condition on the couplings was found in  where different regularization procedures were used. (The inclusion of string nonperturbative effects can modify these results; their effects were found to be negligible in the model of ).

## 6 A Condensation Model for SUSY Breaking

In this section I discuss features of an explicit model  based on affine level one orbifolds with three untwisted moduli $`T_I`$ and a gauge group of the form (4). Retaining just one or two terms of the suggested parameterizations  of the nonperturbative string corrections: $`a_n\mathrm{}^{n/2}e^{c_n/\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}`$ or $`a_n\mathrm{}^ne^{c_n/\mathrm{}},`$ the potential can be made positive definite everywhere and the parameters can be chosen to fit two data points: the coupling constant $`g^21/2`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cos}0`$. This is fine tuning, but it can be done with reasonable (order 1) values for the parameters $`c_n,a_n`$. If there are several condensates with different $`\beta `$-functions, the potential is dominated by the condensate with the largest $`\beta `$-function coefficient $`b_+`$, and the result is essentially the same as in the single condensate case, except that a small mass is generated for the axion Im$`s`$. In this model, mass hierarchies arise from the presence of $`\beta `$-function coefficients; these have interesting implications for both cosmology and the spectrum of sparticles.

### 6.1 Modular Cosmology

The masses of the dilaton $`d=\mathrm{Re}s`$ and the complex $`t`$-moduli are related to the gravitino mass by

$$m_d\frac{1}{b_+^2}m_{\stackrel{~}{G}},m_{t_I}\frac{2\pi }{3}\frac{(bb_+)}{(1+b<\mathrm{}>)}m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}.$$
(11)
Taking $`b=b_{E_8}.3810b,`$ gives a hierarchy of order $`m_{\frac{3}{2}}10^{15}m_{Pl}10^3`$ GeV and $`m_{t_I}20m_{\frac{3}{2}}20`$ TeV, $`m_d10^3m_{\frac{2}{3}}10^6`$ GeV, which is sufficient to evade the late moduli decay problem  in nucleosynthesis.

If there is just one hidden sector condensate, the axion $`a=\mathrm{Im}s`$ is massless up to QCD-induced effects: $`m_a(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)^{\frac{3}{2}}m_{\frac{3}{2}}10^9`$ eV, and it is the natural candidate for the Peccei-Quinn axion. Because of string nonperturbative corrections to its gauge kinetic term, the decay constant $`f_a`$ of the canonically normalized axion is reduced with respect to the standard result by a factor $`b_+\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{6}1/50`$ if $`b_+.1b_{E_8}`$, which may be sufficiently small to satisfy the (looser) constraints on $`f_a`$ when moduli are present .

### 6.2 Sparticle Spectrum

In contrast to an enhancement of the dilaton and moduli masses, there is a suppression of gaugino masses: $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}b_+m_{\frac{3}{2}}`$, as evaluated at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ in the tree approximation. As a consequence quantum corrections can be important; for example there is an anomaly-like scenario in some regions of the $`(b_+,b_+^\alpha )`$ parameter space, where $`b_+^\alpha `$ is the hidden matter contribution to $`b_+.`$ If the gauge group for the dominant condensate (largest $`b_a`$) is not $`E_8`$, the moduli $`t_I`$ are stabilized at self-dual points through their couplings to twisted sector matter and/or moduli-dependent string threshold corrections, and their auxiliary fields vanish in the vacuum. Thus SUSY-breaking is dilaton mediated, avoiding a potentially dangerous source of flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC). These results hold up to the unknown couplings $`p_A`$ in (8): at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ $`m_{0A}=m_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ if $`p_A=0`$, while $`m_{0A}=\frac{1}{2}m_{t_I}10m_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ if the scalars couple with the same strength as the T-moduli: $`p_A=b`$. In addition, if $`p_A=b`$ for some gauge-charged chiral fields, there are enhanced loop corrections to gaugino masses . Four sample scenarios were studied : A) $`p_A=0`$, B) $`p_A=b`$ for the superpartners of the first two generations of SM particles and $`p_A=0`$ for the third, C) $`p_A=b`$, and D) $`p_A=0`$ for the Higgs particles and $`p_A=b`$ otherwise. Imposing constraints from experiments and the correct electroweak symmetry-breaking vacuum rules out scenarios B and C. Scenario A is viable for $`1.65<\mathrm{tan}\beta <4.5`$, and scenario D is viable for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which is the ratio of Higgs $`vev`$’s in the supersymmetric extension of the SM. The viable range of $`(b_+,b_+^\alpha )`$ parameter space is shown  in Figure 4 for $`g^2=\frac{1}{2}`$. The dashed lines represent the possible dominant condensing hidden gauge groups $`𝒢_+E_8`$ with chiral matter in the coset space $`E_8/𝒢_{hid}`$.

### 6.3 Flat Directions in the Early Universe

Many successful cosmological scenarios–such as an epoch of inflation–require flat directions in the potential. A promising scenario for baryogenesis suggested  by Affleck and Dine (AD) requires in particular flat directions during inflation in sparticle field space: $`<\stackrel{~}{q}>,<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ denotes the superpartner of the fermion $`f`$. While flat directions are common in SUSY theories, they are generally lifted  in the early universe by SUGRA couplings to the potential that drives inflation. This problem is evaded  in models with a “no-scale” structure, such as the classical potential for the untwisted sector of orbifold compactifications. Although the GS term breaks the no-scale property of the theory, quasi-flat directions can still be found. An explicit model  for inflation based on the effective theory described above allows dilaton stabilization within its domain of attraction with one or more moduli stabilized at the vacuum value $`t_I=e^{i\pi /6}`$. One of the moduli may be the inflaton. The moduli masses (11) are sufficiently large to evade the late moduli decay problem in nucleosynthesis, but unlike the dilaton, they are insufficient to avoid a large relic LSP density without violation  of R-parity (a quantum number that distinguishes SM particles from their superpartners). If R-parity is conserved, this problem can be evaded if the moduli are stabilized at or near their vacuum values–or for a modulus that is itself the inflaton. It is possible that the requirement that the remaining moduli be in the domain of attraction is sufficient to avoid the problem altogether. For example, if $`\mathrm{Im}t_I=0`$, the domain of attraction near $`t_I=1`$ is rather limited: $`0.6<\mathrm{Re}t_I<1.6`$, and the entropy produced by dilaton decay with an initial value in this range might be less than commonly assumed. The dilaton decay to its true ground state may provide  partial baryon number dilution, which is generally needed for a viable AD scenario.

### 6.4 Relic Density of the Lightest SUSY Particle (LSP)

Two pertinent questions for SUSY cosmology are:
$``$ Does the LSP overclose the Universe?
$``$ Can the LSP be dark matter?
The window for LSP dark matter in the much-studied MSUGRA scenario , has become ever more tiny as the Higgs mass limit has increased; in fact there is not much parameter space in which the LSP does not overclose the universe. The ratios of electroweak sparticle masses at the Plank scale determine the composition of the LSP (which must be neutral) in terms of the Bino (superpartner of the SM $`U(1)`$ gauge boson), the Wino (superpartner of the SM $`SU(2)`$ gauge boson), and the higgsino (superpartner of the Higgs boson). The MSUGRA assumption of equal gaugino masses at the Planck scale leads to a Bino LSP with rather weak couplings, resulting in little annihilation and hence the tendency to overclose the universe, except in a narrow range of parameter space where the LSP is nearly degenerate with the next to lightest sparticle (in this case a stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$), allowing significant coannihilation. Relaxing this assumption  it was found that a predominantly Bino LSP with a small admixture of Wino can provide the observed density fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ of dark matter. In the model of , this occurs in the region indicated by fine points in Figure 4. In this model the deviation from the MSUGRA scenario is due to the importance of loop corrections to small tree-level gaugino masses; in addition to a small Wino component in the LSP, its near degeneracy in mass with the lightest charged gaugino enhances coannihilation. For larger $`b_+`$ the LSP becomes pure Bino as in MSUGRA, and for smaller values it becomes Wino-dominated as in anomaly-mediated models which are cosmologically safe, but do not provide LSP dark matter, because Wino annihilation is too fast.

### 6.5 Realistic Orbifold Models?

Orbifold compactifications with the Wilson line/Hosotani mechanism needed to break $`E_6`$ to the SM gauge group generally have $`b_+bb_{E_8}`$. An example is a model  with hidden gauge group $`O(10)`$ and $`b_+=b=b_{O(10)}`$. It is clear from (11) that this would lead to disastrous modular cosmology, since the $`t`$-moduli are massless. Moreover, in typical orbifold compactifications, the gauge group $`𝒢_{obs}𝒢_{hid}`$ obtained at the string scale has no asymptotically free subgroup that could condense to trigger SUSY-breaking. However in many compactifications with realistic particle spectra , the effective field theory has an anomalous $`U(1)`$ gauge subgroup, which is not anomalous at the string theory level. The anomaly is canceled  by a GS counterterm, similar to the GS term introduced above to cancel the modular anomaly. This results in a D-term that forces some otherwise flat direction in scalar field space to be lifted, inducing scalar $`vev`$’s that further break the gauge symmetry and give masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ to some chiral multiplets, so that the $`\beta `$-function of some of the surviving gauge subgroups may be negative below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$, typically an order of magnitude below the string scale. The presence of such a D-term was explicitly invoked in the above-mentioned inflationary model . Its incorporation into the effective condensation potential is under study .

There is a large vacuum degeneracy associated with the D-term induced breaking of the anomalous $`U(1)`$, resulting in many massless “D-moduli” that have the potential for a yet more disastrous modular cosmology . However preliminary results indicate that the D-moduli couplings to matter condensates lift the degeneracy to give cosmologically safe D-moduli masses. Although the D-term modifies the potential for the dilaton, one still obtains moduli stabilized at self-dual points giving FCNC-free dilaton dominated SUSY-breaking, an enhanced dilaton mass $`m_d`$ and a suppressed axion coupling $`f_d`$. An enhancement of the ratio $`m_{t_I}/m_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ can result from couplings to condensates of $`U(1)`$-charged D-moduli, that also carry T-modular weights. However, the requirement of a viable scalar/gaugino mass ratio may impose severe restrictions on the details of the effective theory.

## 7 Lessons

History has taught us that high energy physics can be successfully studied using lower energy effective theories. Hopefully this will be the case for string theory. In particular I have argued that
$``$ Quantitative studies with predictions for observable phenomena are possible within the context of the WCHS.
$``$ Experiments can place restrictions on the underlying theory, such as the hidden sector spectrum and the couplings and modular weights of D-moduli when an anomalous $`U(1)`$ is present. Data can also inform us about Plank scale physics through matter couplings to the GS term and one-loop corrections to the soft SUSY-breaking scalar potential.

Finally, the SUSY-breaking scenario presented here illustrates the need for sparticle searches to avoid restrictive assumptions based on “standard scenarios” that may be misleading in the absence of concrete models.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to my many collaborators. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-95-14797 and INT-9910077.