text:
# The Clumpiness of Cold Dark Matter: Implications for the Annihilation Signal

## 1 Introduction

Dark matter is omnipresent in the universe. Most of it is non-baryonic, and a favoured candidate is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), often generically taken to be the lightest stable relic particle surviving from when the universe was supersymmetric. The freeze-out of such a neutralino of mass $`m_\chi `$ occurs at $`kTm_\chi /20`$, and the annihilation cross-section determines the current value of the CDM density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}h^2.`$ For minimal SUSY, for example, one can derive the relation between annihilation cross-section and particle mass, and compute the various annihilation products, including continuum gamma rays from $`\pi ^0`$ decays and line gamma rays from rare quark decays (c.f. Bergström 2000 for a recent review). While cosmological observations specify $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}h^20.1,`$ scanning over minimal SUSY parameter space results in an uncertainty in the gamma-ray emissivity of several orders of magnitude.

Our galactic halo is a logical place to look for evidence of annihilations. Unfortunately, for a uniform dark halo with a realistic density profile, even the most optimistic models fall short of the observed diffuse high-galactic-latitude gamma-ray flux, as measured by EGRET, by an order of magnitude or more (Ullio et al. 2002). In fact, high-resolution numerical simulations show that the dark halo has considerable substructure (Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999). This substructure may boost the annihilation flux substantially. If this is indeed the case, then the isotropic diffuse background flux from the many small halos that merged in the past into our halo and others may also become significant. There is considerable uncertainty among cosmological halo simulators, however, about the quantitative role of substructure in our dark halo, and of the concentration of the substructure and of the dark matter itself towards the centre of the galaxy.

No reliable estimates have been given up till now of the properties of halo substructure on very small scales, and in particular of their dependence on halo mass and their evolution with cosmological epoch. We have developed a semi-analytical model of halo formation which is capable of following the key physics of tidal disruption of substructure during merging. In principle this approach has arbitrarily high resolution. Hence we are able to provide robust calculations of the annihilation flux generated within our own halo, but also especially of the component generated during the evolution of structure at early times, and visible as an isotropic gamma-ray background at the present day.

In this paper, we calculate the flux produced by annihilations in simple CDM halos, relative to the flux produced in a uniform background. We correct this result for halo substructure, and integrate over a large volume to determine the cosmological background from WIMP annihilation as a function of redshift. The outline of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we define a dimensionless flux multiplier $`f`$ that accounts for the enhanced rate of two-body interactions produced by inhomogeneities in the dark matter distribution, and determine its value for simple virialised halos. In section 3 we calculate $`f`$ for cosmological volumes, using analytic estimates of the halo mass function and halo concentrations, and determine its redshift dependence. Finally, in section 4 we study the contribution to $`f`$ from substructure within virialised halos, and calculate $`f`$ for a set of realistic halos generated using a semi-analytic model of halo substructure. Throughout this paper we assume a Lambda-CDM (LCDM) cosmology with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0.7`$, a matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m},0}=0.3`$ and a Hubble parameter $`H_0=h\times 100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, with $`h=0.65`$.

## 2 Annihilation Rates in Simple Halos

In current hierarchical models, cold dark matter is expected to form centrally concentrated halos with a characteristic density profile. Dense substructure is abundant within these halos, as a relic from earlier stages of the hierarchical merging process. Since the annihilation flux is quadratic in the density, these inhomogeneities will increase the flux from a halo of a given mean density. We begin by computing a dimensionless quantity that describes this enhancement. In the next section we will then study the evolution of this quantity with epoch.

### 2.1 The Dimensionless Flux Multiplier

If dark matter consists of neutralinos with a mass $`m_\chi `$ and a velocity-averaged cross-section for annihilation $`\sigma v`$, then the annihilation flux produced within a volume $`V`$ will be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\sigma v}{m_\chi ^2}_V\rho ^2𝑑V,$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the local density of CDM. For non-relativistic particles, $`\sigma v`$ is approximately independent of $`v`$ so the flux will just be proportional to $`\rho ^2`$.

Since the rate depends quadratically on the density, the total rate from a given mass within a given volume will be higher if the dark matter is distributed inhomogeneously. We can study this enhancement by defining the dimensionless flux multiplier

$$f(V)\frac{1}{\overline{\rho }^2V}_V\rho ^2𝑑V,$$
(2)
for a distribution within a volume $`V`$, where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density within this volume. This function can also be written as a mass-weighted density average:

$$f(V)=_V\frac{\rho }{\overline{\rho }}\frac{dm}{M},$$
(3)
where $`M`$ is the total mass within $`V`$. Clearly $`f=1`$ for a homogeneous distribution, while for a power-law density profile $`\rho r^\alpha `$,

$$f=\frac{(3\alpha )^2}{3(32\alpha )}$$
(4)
provided $`\alpha <1.5`$. For $`\alpha =1.5`$, integrating equation (2) from $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ gives:

$$f=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{ln}(r_{\mathrm{max}}/r_{\mathrm{min}}),$$
(5)
so $`f`$ diverges logarithmically as $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ goes to zero.

### 2.2 Analytic Profiles

Two analytic density profiles are commonly used to fit the spherically averaged properties of dark matter halos, the NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996, 1997), and the Moore profile (Moore et al. 1998). We can specify these generically as

$$\rho (r)=\rho _sr_s^{\alpha +\beta \gamma }/r^\alpha (r^\beta +r_s^\beta )^\gamma ,$$
(6)
with $`\alpha =\beta =1,\gamma =2`$ for the NFW profile and $`\alpha =\beta =1.5,\gamma =1`$ for the Moore profile. The total mass within radius $`r`$ is

$$M(<r)=4\pi r_s^3\rho _sm(r/r_s),$$
(7)
with

$$m(x)=\mathrm{ln}(1+x)x/(1+x)$$
(8)
for the NFW profile and

$$m(x)=2/3\mathrm{ln}(1+x^{1.5})$$
(9)
for the Moore profile, while the mean density within this radius is simply

$$\overline{\rho }(x)=3\rho _sm(x)/x^3,$$
(10)
where $`xr/r_s`$ .

In a cosmological setting, halos are virialised out to a radius $`r_v`$ corresponding to an overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ of roughly 200 relative to the background. The concentration $`cr_v/r_s`$ of a halo describes the size of this radius relative to $`r_s`$ . 111Note that the concentrations derived by fitting the outer regions of simulated halos differ according to the profile used, with $`c_{\mathrm{NFW}}1.73c_{\mathrm{Moore}}`$. Calculating the flux multiplier over the virialised region of a halo, we get a function which depends only on $`c`$:

$`f(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\rho }^2V}}{\displaystyle _0^{r_v}}\rho (r)^24\pi r^2𝑑r`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{3m^2(c)}}{\displaystyle _0^c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{2\alpha }(1+x^\beta )^{2\gamma }}}x^2𝑑x.`$ (12)
Thus for the NFW profile

$`f(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{3m^2(c)}}{\displaystyle _0^c}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(1+x)^4}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3c^3/(1+c)^3}{9(\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c))^2}},`$ (14)
with a limiting value of $`f(c)=4/3`$ for small $`c`$, whereas for the Moore profile,

$$f(c)=\frac{c^3}{3m^2(c)}_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^c\frac{dx}{x(1+x^{1.5})^2}$$
(15)
$$=\frac{2c^3}{9m^2(c)}\left[\frac{1}{1+x^{1.5}}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{x^{1.5}}{1+x^{1.5}}\right)\right]_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^c.$$
(16)
This expression diverges logarithmically as $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ goes to zero, reflecting the fact that the flux from a pure $`r^{1.5}`$ cusp is infinite. In practice, annihilation would reduce the density at the centre of the halo to a finite value even for pure CDM, while in real halos baryons will also affect halo structure on small scales. Furthermore, the simulations that indicate central cusps in halos can only probe down to $`r/r_v0.01`$, or $`r/r_s0.1`$ (Power et al. 2002); below this scale, it is possible that the slope of the profile continues to change (Taylor & Navarro 2001). Thus in what follows we will consider Moore profiles truncated at various inner cutoff radii, either $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{10}`$ (profile M1 hereafter), $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=10^2`$ (profile M2 hereafter), $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=10^1`$ (profile M3 hereafter), or $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=1/3`$ (profile M4 hereafter), with cores of constant density within the cutoff radius. (Adding a core modifies equations (14) and (16) slightly, but the difference is negligible for $`xx_{\mathrm{min}}`$.) The first cutoff corresponds the scale on which annihilation alone might truncate a pure power-law density profile (Cálcáneo-Roldan & Moore 2000) and the third cutoff corresponds to the largest core consistent with the results of current high-resolution simulations, while the fourth cutoff corresponds to the limit of the region within which baryons might plausibly have flattened out the core in the halos of massive galaxies.

### 2.3 Non-analytic Profiles

As mentioned above, the simulations that provide evidence for a universal density profile for CDM halos can only reliably resolve two decades of radius below the virial radius. While the logarithmic slope appears to converge to a value between $`1.5`$ and $`1`$ in the inner regions, it is clearly not a simple power-law in the outer regions, where it flattens substantially over a decade in radius. Thus, there remains the possibility that the inner slope of CDM halos, were it resolved to smaller radii, would continue to change in value. A shallower inner slope would help to explain the rotation curves of dark-matter dominated dwarf galaxies (e.g. Blais-Ouellette, Amram, & Carignan 2001; de Blok & Bosma 2002), as well as the mass distribution of the Milky Way within the solar circle (Binney & Evans 2001).

One possible form for such a profile was proposed by Taylor and Navarro (2001, TN hereafter). In the outer regions it resembles the NFW or Moore profiles, while in the inner regions (below about $`\mathrm{log}(r/r_v)=1.5`$), its logarithmic slope decreases slowly to $`0.75`$. An analytic fit to the inner slope is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }{d\mathrm{ln}x}}={\displaystyle \frac{0.75+2.625x^{1/2}}{1.0+0.5x^{1/2}}},`$ (17)
where $`x=r/r_{\mathrm{TN}}`$, with $`r_{\mathrm{TN}}=5/3r_{s,\mathrm{NFW}}`$. We will calculate $`f(c)`$, which is convergent and well-behaved for this profile, from a direct numerical integration, although it can be computed to reasonable accuracy using the fitting formula above. From equation (4), the limiting value for small $`c`$ is $`f(c)=9/8`$. Note that in its outer regions, the equilibrium density profile derived by TN goes to zero at a finite radius. This assumes an equilibrium that will never be achieved in cosmological setting, however, where halos will continue to accrete material onto their outer parts. Thus, we assume that beyond $`x_{\mathrm{TN}}=1`$, the profile drops off as $`r^3`$, as in the NFW and Moore fits.

### 2.4 Comparison Between Profiles

Figure 1 shows the density profiles (top panel) and $`f(x)`$ (bottom panel) for the six profiles discussed above, including four versions of the Moore profile with different constant-density cores (within radii indicated by the horizontal dashed lines). In order to compare the different profiles, they have been plotted in terms of $`x_pr/r_p`$, the radius relative to the point $`r_p`$ at which the circular velocity peaks, and normalised so that the density is the same at $`r_p`$.

In the top panel, we see that all the density profiles aside from M4 are in excellent agreement for $`x_p0.1`$, the region probed by current simulations. Existing simulations are roughly compatible with any of the fits shown here. The differences in the inferred central behaviour of halos are based on different interpretations of the density profile very close to the current numerical resolution limit.

The bottom panel shows the effect of this uncertainty on $`f(c)`$, where $`c`$ is measured relative to $`r_p`$, as in the top panel. We see that in each case, the flux multiplier increases with concentration, reflecting the contribution from the dense central core. To first approximation, the dependence on $`c`$ is independent of profile, while the inner slope of the halo profile determines the overall normalisation of $`f(c)`$. For the Moore profile it is 2–25 times larger than for an NFW profile, while for the shallower TN profile it is comparable to a Moore profile with a core between 1% and 10% of $`r_s`$ in size. The solid vertical lines on the plot indicate typical values of $`c`$ for present-day galaxies and clusters. For galaxy halos, $`f(c)`$ is typically 50 for an NFW profile, 200 for the TN profile or profile M2, and 1200 for the most extreme Moore profile, M1. For all profiles it scales with concentration as roughly $`c^{2.4}`$ in this range of $`c`$, as indicated by the solid line in the corner of the figure.

This figure indicates the importance of the inner region in determining the total flux from annihilating dark matter. If recent simulations are correct, it seems likely that this flux may be 2–4 times larger than that predicted for a pure NFW profile; in the extreme case of a Moore profile with an inner cusp limited only by self-annihilation, the total flux is 25 times the NFW value. Since the dependence on $`r/r_p`$ is similar for all profiles, in what follows we will assume the NFW form for $`f(c)`$, and allow that the flux may be a constant 2–25 times greater than this.

## 3 Average over Cosmological Volumes

### 3.1 Local Contribution

To calculate the background flux from annihilations within a large volume, we need to add the relative contributions from regions of different density within this volume. Following the Press-Schechter approximation (Press & Schechter 1974), we can consider all the mass in a given (physical) volume $`V`$ to be contained in virialised halos of some (possibly very small) mass. We make the further approximation that these halos are spherical, with a fixed virial overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ relative to the critical density, and have universal density profiles with a concentration $`c=r_v/r_s`$ that depends only on their mass. If the volume contains $`V(dn(M)/dM)\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ halos in the mass range $`M`$ to $`M+\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, then from equation (2), the total flux multiplier for the volume will be

$$f(V)=\frac{1}{\rho ^2V}\left(V\frac{dn(M)}{dM}dM\right)\overline{\rho }Mf(c(M)).$$
(18)
where $`\rho `$ is the mean density of dark matter within $`V`$, $`\overline{\rho }=\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _c`$ is the average density of bound halos, and $`f(c(M))`$ is the flux multiplier for halos of concentration $`c=c(M)`$. Since $`\rho =\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _c`$, we can rewrite the dimensionless flux multiplier for large volumes as:

$`f(V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle f(c(M))\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _c}{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _c}\frac{M}{\rho }\frac{dn(M)}{dM}𝑑M}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle f(c(M))\frac{dF(M)}{dM}𝑑M}`$ (20)
where $`F(M)`$ is the fraction of the universe in virialised halos of mass $`M`$ or larger.

$`F`$ can be estimated using the Press-Schechter formalism:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF_{\mathrm{PS}}(M)}{dM}}dM`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dF_{\mathrm{PS}}(\nu )}{d\nu }}d\nu ,`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}\right)d\nu `$ (22)
with $`\nu \delta _c/\sigma (M)`$, where $`\delta _c`$ is the critical overdensity and $`\sigma (M)`$ describes the power spectrum of density fluctuations. Recent simulations (e.g. Jenkins et al. 1998) have suggested, however, that this mass function may overestimate the number of halos near $`M_{}`$, the characteristic mass for which $`\sigma (M)=D(z)\delta _c`$ (where $`D(z)`$ is the linear growth factor at redshift $`z`$). An alternative mass function, proposed by Sheth and Tormen (1999) and based on the ellipsoidal collapse model, is:

$$\frac{dF_{\mathrm{ST}}(\nu )}{d\nu }d\nu =2A\left(1+\frac{1}{\nu ^{2q}}\right)\frac{dF_{\mathrm{PS}}(\nu )}{d\nu }d\nu ,$$
(23)
with $`A=0.3222`$ and $`q=0.3`$.

Since both these mass functions have a power-law behaviour at low masses, where concentrations and thus $`f(c)`$ are larger, it is not clear the integral in equation (20) will converge as we include the contribution from smaller and smaller halos. (Although the total mass per unit volume must converge, $`f`$ within a given volume need not converge, as in the case of a pure $`r^{1.5}`$ density profile.) In practice, we expect baryonic phenomena to complicate structure formation on small mass scales, and annihilation itself will also limit the contribution from very dense material. Thus, we will truncate the integral at some limiting mass, and consider the behaviour of $`f`$ as a function of this mass limit.

The concentration of a halo should reflect the density of the universe at the time when it assembled the material now in its central core. There are several predictions of the concentration-mass relation (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997; Bullock et al. 2001; Eke, Navarro, & Steinmetz 2001; Wechsler et al. 2002), based on this interpretation. We will use the most recent analytic model, that of Eke, Navarro, & Steinmetz (2001 – ENS hereafter), to calculate the dimensionless flux multiplier, though we expect similar results from the other models. We use the public code supplied by the authors to calculate concentrations, and integrate the expressions above numerically. Note that one point of uncertainty in all these models is what minimum concentration to assign to halos that have just formed. The ENS code, for instance, predicts concentrations of 1 or less for very massive or very high-redshift halos, but the least concentrated halos actually found in their simulations have $`c`$ 2–3. For recently formed objects the universal profile may not be well established, so any uncertainty produced by varying the minimum concentration reflects the limitations of the analytic model.

The top panel of figure 2 shows the dimensionless flux multiplier contributed by halos over some limiting mass, at various epochs in a LCDM cosmology, plotted as a function of the mass limit. The solid lines show the results for the PS mass function, while the dashed lines show the results for the ST mass function. We see that in either case, the total flux is more or less convergent as we include smaller and smaller masses; at $`z=0`$, it only varies by a factor of 2, for instance, for a limiting mass anywhere between $`10^{10}M_{}`$ and $`10^3M_{}`$. The value is also reasonably independent of the mass function used; it is at most 2 times larger for the PS mass function. The uncertainties in halo concentrations are only important at high redshift, when many halos have recently formed. We have actually plotted two sets of curves in figure 2, one with a minimum concentration of 1 (the lower set of lines at each redshift) and one with a minimum concentration of 2 (the upper set), but the difference between them is negligible for $`z<10`$. Finally, the total flux multiplier increases with time, reflecting the progressive growth of structure. Of course the density of the universe is decreasing at the same time, so the flux relative to that at the present day is larger at high redshift; this is shown in the bottom panel, where we have used the present-day density to normalise $`f`$. This increased flux will partly compensate for the decreased volume element at high redshift, as discussed below.

### 3.2 The Universal Flux Multiplier

In previous section we have derived the flux multiplier for a local volume, large enough to contain a representative sample of halos, but small enough that evolutionary effects are negligible. In a similar fashion we can extend the definition of $`f`$ to entire observable universe. Consider the expression for $`f`$ integrated over volume elements $`dV(a)`$ at different scale factors $`a`$, to some maximum $`a_\mathrm{m}`$

$`f_{\mathrm{univ}}(a_\mathrm{m})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V(a_\mathrm{m})\overline{\rho }(0)^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{a_\mathrm{m}}}\rho (a)^2𝑑V(a)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{da}}\right|`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V(a_\mathrm{m})\overline{\rho }(0)^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{a_\mathrm{m}}}\overline{\rho }(a)^2f(a)𝑑V(a)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{da}}\right|,`$ (25)
where we have chosen to normalise by the present-day density of the universe, $`\overline{\rho }(0)`$, $`f(a)`$ is given by equation (20), and the last term corrects for the time dilation at a given epoch. Since $`a=(1+z)^1`$, this is equivalent to the following integral over redshift:

$`f_{\mathrm{univ}}(z_\mathrm{m})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+z_\mathrm{m})^3}{\overline{\rho }(0)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{z_\mathrm{m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }(z)^2f(z)dz}{(1+z)^4}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dz}}\right|,`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{with}`$
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dz}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`(1+z)^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m},0}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^{1/2},`$ (27)
for the LCDM cosmology considered here.

One quantity of interest is the relative contribution to the flux per interval of time, $`df_{\mathrm{univ}}/dt=(df_{\mathrm{univ}}/dz)\left|dz/dt\right|`$, which is plotted as a function of redshift in figure 3. The four sets of lines indicate the contribution from mass functions truncated at the different minimum masses indicated. The line styles indicate the results for PS and ST mass functions. We see that the relative contribution peaks at quite early redshifts, roughly the epoch when the smallest halos considered have formed, as indicated by the arrows. At higher redshift, it drops off sharply, because there are very few halos over the mass limit considered, while at lower redshift it drops off more gradually, as small, dense systems merge to form larger systems of lower density. The latter drop-off may be overestimated, however, since the cores of dense halos may not be disrupted by merging, but may survive instead as distinct substructure within larger systems. We consider this effect in the next section.

## 4 Annihilation Rates in Realistic Halos

In cosmologies dominated by CDM, large halos assemble hierarchically through successive mergers between smaller objects. This merging process is inefficient, and leaves many undigested remnants, or subhalos, orbiting within a galaxy or cluster halo. The properties of these objects have been studied extensively in several recent, high-resolution SCDM and LCDM simulations (Ghigna et al. 1998; Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999; Springel et al. 2001), and can also be understood using analytic and semi-analytic models (Bullock, Kravtsov, & Weinberg 2000; Taylor 2001; Benson et al. 2002; Somerville 2002). The latter have the advantage that the properties of the underlying halos can be specified directly, and are independent of resolution and numerical effects. In this section we use a recently developed semi-analytic model of halo formation (Taylor & Babul in preparation; see also Taylor 2001) to determine the flux multiplier for a realistic halo with substructure, at various different epochs.

### 4.1 The Contribution from Halo Substructure

From equation 3, the relative contribution to the flux multiplier from an individual subhalo within a larger halo is proportional to $`\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}M_{\mathrm{sh}}f^{}(c_{\mathrm{sh}})/\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}M_{\mathrm{bg}}f(c_{\mathrm{bg}})`$, where the subscript $`sh`$ indicates the subhalo and the subscript $`bg`$ indicates the average for the background system in which it resides. This implies that if subhalos are substantially denser or more concentrated than the main system, they can dominate $`f`$, even though they only contribute to a small fraction of the total mass of the system. This is particularly true since tidal stripping will remove the lowest-density material from substructure, increasing the relative contribution from the material which remains bound.

More precisely, if we decompose the density of CDM within a halo into two components, a smooth background following the basic profiles given in section 2, and a set of subhalos which have been stripped to varying degrees, then

$$\rho (𝐱)=\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}(𝐱)+\underset{i}{}\rho _{\mathrm{sh},i}(𝐱).$$
(28)
The contribution to $`f`$ then consists of several terms

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\rho }_{\mathrm{bg}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V_{\mathrm{bg}}}}{\displaystyle _{V_{\mathrm{bg}}}}(\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _{\mathrm{sh},i})^2𝑑V`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{bg}}}{M_{\mathrm{bg}}^2}}{\displaystyle _{V_{\mathrm{bg}}}}(\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}^2+\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _{\mathrm{sh},i}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\rho _{\mathrm{sh},i}^2)𝑑V`$ (30)
$``$ $`f(c_{\mathrm{bg}})+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{bg}}}{M_{\mathrm{bg}}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}M_i\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}(𝐱_i)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{V_i}}f^{}(c_i)\right),`$ (31)
where $`M_{\mathrm{bg}}`$, $`c_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ are the mass, concentration and volume of the main system, and $`M_i`$, $`c_i`$ and $`V_i`$ are the corresponding properties of each subhalo. In deriving the final result, we have assumed that the subhalos do not overlap, and that each one is small compared to the main system, so that $`\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}`$ is more or less constant within the volume covered by a given subhalo. The function $`f^{}(c)`$ is the dimensionless flux multiplier defined in section 1, modified to account for the effects of tidal heating and stripping, which may change the density profile of the subhalos as they orbit within the main system. We derive an expression for this function in terms of the original profile and the amount of mass lost below.

### 4.2 The Flux Multiplier for Subhalos

The density profiles considered in section (2) characterise isolated halos; interactions between halos or mergers with larger systems will modify these profiles through a combination of tidal heating and tidal mass loss. Numerical simulations show that tidal effects tend to strip mass off the outer regions of a halo preferentially, preserving the central density of the halo until it has lost a large fraction of its original mass. Hayashi et al. (2002) propose the following modification of the density profile to describe this process:

$$\rho ^{}(r)=\frac{f_t}{1+(r/r_t)^3}\rho (r),$$
(32)
where $`r_t`$ is the tidal radius to which the halo is stripped, and $`f_t`$ is the reduction in the central density. For a halo with an NFW profile and an original concentration of 10, they find that these parameters are related to the fraction $`m_\mathrm{b}`$ of the original mass still bound to the halo by

$`\mathrm{log}(r_t)`$ $``$ $`1.02+1.38\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{b})+0.37(\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{b}))^2`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{and}`$
$`\mathrm{log}(f_t)`$ $``$ $`0.007+0.35\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{b})+0.39(\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{b}))^2`$ (34)
$`+0.23(\mathrm{log}(m_\mathrm{b}))^3.`$
Using this modified density profile, we can calculate $`f^{}`$, the flux multiplier for tidally stripped halos. This should be a function of $`c_0`$, the original concentration of the halo, and $`c_tr_t/r_s`$, the concentration of the stripped system. In practice, we shall consider $`f^{}(c_t;c_0=10)`$ since this was the profile modeled by Hayashi et al. (2002). In defining $`f^{}`$, we also need to choose an appropriate volume over which to integrate. Since the modified density profile in equation (32) is not truncated completely at $`r_t`$, we could continue to integrate over the original volume; in this case, $`f^{}(c)`$ would rise sharply (roughly as $`(r_t/r_{t,0})^3`$) as the mass of the halo is confined to a smaller and smaller region of the original volume. Since $`r_t`$ roughly defines the region in which the subhalo density profile dominates over the background, the approximation made in deriving equation (31) will be more accurate if we define $`f^{}`$ over the volume within $`r_t`$. In any case, in this section we will show the results of the calculation for several possible choices of volume, to clarify the effect on $`f^{}`$.

Figure 4 shows $`f^{}(c_t;c_0=10)`$ for the volume within $`r/r_s=c_0=10r_s`$ (dashed line), $`r=r_t`$ (dotted line), and $`r=2r_t`$ (dot-dashed line), with $`f(c_t)`$ shown for comparison (solid line). The truncated functions differ from the original one at $`c_t=c_0=10`$ because the density profile given by equation (32) is different from the unstripped one even when $`r_t/r_s=c_0`$. We see however that if we consider the volume within $`r_t`$ (dotted curve), $`f^{}(c_t;c_0=10)1.3f(c_t)`$ to good approximation. We will assume that this result remains true for halos with larger or smaller original concentrations, provided $`c_t<0.9c_0`$, and use this to calculate the contribution to the total flux from evolved subhalos.

### 4.3 Results for LCDM Halos

Using equations (31) – (34), we can calculate the total flux multiplier for composite systems with substructure. To do so, we use a semi-analytic model of halo formation (Taylor & Babul in preparation; see also Taylor 2001) to determine the number, masses, density profiles and positions of subhalos within a set of hierarchically formed halos. We have followed halo substructure down to $`10^5`$ times the mass of the main system. Since the spectrum of substructure is fairly steep at low masses, the total flux multiplier may depend on this cutoff, so we will consider our results as a function mass limit, as in section (3), and extrapolate downwards to estimate the total flux multiplier for smaller limiting masses.

The top panel of figure 5 shows the relative contribution to the flux multiplier contributed by substructure over a minimum mass limit $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$, as a function of $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$, in models using NFW profiles. The contribution has been normalised to the value $`f_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ expected for a smooth NFW halo without substructure. The solid curves are average results for a set of semi-analytic galaxy halos with a total mass of $`1.6\times 10^{12}M_{}`$, in a LCDM cosmology. The dashed vertical line indicates the resolution limit of the merger trees used; below this, the spectrum of subhalos becomes increasingly incomplete, particularly below $`2\times 10^7M_{}`$. At high redshift, where the halos are forming through major mergers around this mass scale, the curves are steep so the flux estimate will depend sensitively on the mass limit. At low redshift, the effect of the mass limit is less important, as most of the flux comes from more massive subhalos. In either case, however, the total flux appears to have a power-law dependence on $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ at low masses, so it is straightforward to extrapolate our estimates to lower mass limits.

Overall, we see that substructure makes an important contribution to total flux right up to the present day, when it exceeds the contribution from the background halo. The bottom panel shows the redshift dependence of the contribution more clearly, for two different mass limits, $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^7M_{}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^8M_{}`$. As expected, at high redshift the contribution from substructure increases somewhat faster as we lower $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, reflecting the steep slope of the high-redshift curves in the top panel, while at low redshift the increase is slower. If we extrapolate the power-law dependence seen in the top panel to smaller values of $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ such as $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}10^4`$$`10^5`$, we expect a net contribution from substructure of anywhere from 10 to 20 times the smooth background value for the NFW profile.

We can determine the effect of substructure on the gamma-ray background by correcting the relative contribution calculated in section (3.2) for the additional contribution from substructure in shown in figure 5; this is indicated by the dashed lines in figure 6, for halos with NFW profiles, and mass cutoffs of $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^7M_{}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^8M_{}`$. We see that when substructure is taken into account, the flux multiplier still peaks just after the epoch when $`M_{}=M_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ and declines at lower redshift, but both the peak value and the value at $`z=0`$ are substantially enhanced. We note that the peak and subsequent decline may partly compensate for the cosmological factor $`\left|dt/dz\right|`$ and for intervening absorption, which reduce the high-redshift contribution to the gamma-ray background. We will investigate the detailed line and continuum spectra predicted by this model in a subsequent paper.

## 5 Discussion

We have calculated the amount by which structure in dark matter on subhalo, halo and cosmological scales amplifies the expected signal from neutralino annihilation. The overall magnitude of the effect remains uncertain at several levels, some more important than others. Uncertainty in the fundamental density profile which characterises halos, or more specifically in the slope of their density profiles at small radii, can change the flux multiplier for simple halos by a factor of 20–25, assuming concentrations typical of galaxy halos (see figure 1). There is evidence in recent simulations for some excess mass in the inner regions, relative to the NFW profile (Power et al. 2002), so a reasonable estimate for the flux multiplier may be 3–4 times the NFW value used for most of the calculations in this paper, although studies of the Milky Way (e.g. Binney & Evans 2001) suggest less dark matter in its central regions than these profiles would imply. There is no direct evidence for a pure Moore profile extending to very small scales, although if this is the case the resulting flux from simple halos will be 20–25 times the NFW value used here.

The mass function of dark matter halos, averaged over large volumes, is also uncertain, particularly at the low mass end. The mass function determined from simulations is better fit by the form proposed by Sheth and Tormen (ST) than by the traditional Press and Schechter (PS) mass function. Using the ST mass function to predict the background flux reduces its amplitude by about 1.5 over PS. We assume that the scale invariance of dark matter substructure will be broken at very small masses, perhaps close to Jeans mass at recombination, for instance. At a minimum, there should be some maximum density for dark matter halos, or equivalently some maximum for $`\sigma (M)`$ at early times. Varying the lower mass limits over a reasonable range ($`10^4`$$`10^8M_{}`$) changes the flux by a factor of 2 or so for simple halos, but the contribution from substructure may increase this difference to as much as a factor of 40.

Overall, these uncertainties combine to produce a total uncertainty of more than an order of magnitude in the flux multiplier. A conservative model, at the bottom of this range, consists of an NFW profile, with a ST mass function and a mass limit of $`10^6M_{}`$. For this model, the present-day flux multiplier is $`6\times 10^5`$. We estimate that a more likely model has a profile with more mass in its inner regions, and lower limit to the mass function of $`10^5M_{}`$. For this model, the present-day flux multiplier is $`5\times 10^6`$. For an extreme model, with a Moore profile limited only by annihilation, and a mass limit close to the Jeans mass at recombination, the present-day flux multiplier will be $`1\times 10^8`$.

It is worth noting that with these large flux multipliers, some neutralino candidates can already be ruled out. The 86 GeV neutralino considered in Bergström, Edsjö, & Ullio (2001), for instance, produced almost 10% of the gamma-ray background observed by EGRET at 1 GeV, assuming a flux multiplier of $`2\times 10^6`$, while a 166 GeV neutralino produced more than 50% of the flux observed at 10 GeV. Both these candidates are thus possible in our most conservative model, while the higher-energy candidate is marginally excluded in our favoured model, and both are ruled out in our extreme model.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank E. Hayashi and his collaborators for making their results available prior to publication. We also thank A. Babul and J. Edsjö for useful discussions. JET gratefully acknowledges funding from the Leverhulme Trust during the course of this work.


format: text

text:
# Very low energy matching of effective meson theories with QCD

(July 22, 2002)

## Abstract

A simple matching procedure is proposed to extract constraints on effective meson theories. In this way, a QCD prediction for the pion decay constant is found, $`F_\pi =2m_\pi /\pi 90`$ MeV. The same procedure also determines other mesonic observables, like the decay width of the sigma meson to two photons.

Finally, some information which can be gained about the hadronic light-by-light contributions to the muon anomalous moment are briefly commented.

When the electron field is integrated out from the QED action, one gets an effective theory where only photons can propagate. In addition, virtual fermion loops generate an infinite tower of self-interactions among the photons. Schwinger calculated the one-loop effective action, for constant electromagnetic fields , to all orders

$$_{eff,fermion}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau ^3}e^{m^2\tau }\left[\left(e\tau \right)^2ab\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(ea\tau \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(eb\tau \right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(ea\tau \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(eb\tau \right)}1\right]$$
(1)
with $`a,b`$ solutions of $`a^2b^2=𝐄^2𝐁^2`$ and $`ab=𝐄𝐁`$. When expanded with respect to the fermion mass (or $`\alpha `$), one gets the four-photon interactions as described by the well-known Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian

$$_{EH,fermion}^{(1)}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m^4}\left(\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{7}{4}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right)$$

with the definition $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$. Diagrammatically, the integration of the fermion fields can be represented as

The same treatment can be applied to get the photon effective couplings generated by virtual quark loops

$$_{EH,quarks}^{(1)}=e_Q^4\frac{\alpha ^2N_c}{90m_Q^4}\left(\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{7}{4}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right)$$
(2)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors, $`e_Q`$ is the quark charge (in unit of $`e`$) and $`m_Q`$ its mass.

The starting point of the present letter is to assume that the relative strength of the $`\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$ and $`(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2`$ couplings is preserved through the complicate dressing by QCD of the quarks into hadrons. In other words, the hypothesis is that strong corrections will be absorbed into the quark mass, the only free parameter. The consequence is then that the same effective interaction among the photons should be obtainable starting from an effective meson theory. By matching the photon effective theories obtained by integrating out meson fields to that obtained by integrating out the quark fields (2), we will get a set of constraints on the parameters of the effective meson theory. Ultimately, the validity of the basic hypothesis will be tested by comparison with experiment.

At very low energy, a few $`eV`$ say, the contribution from pions will dominate. We will use the scalar QED Lagrangian for the charged pions

$$_{\pi ^\pm }=_\mu \pi ^+^\mu \pi ^{}m_\pi ^2\pi ^+\pi ^{}ieA_\mu \left(\pi ^+_\mu \pi ^{}_\mu \pi ^+\pi ^{}\right)+e^2A_\mu A^\mu \pi ^+\pi ^{}$$

and for the neutral pions, we introduce the coupling to two photons

$$_{\pi ^0}=\frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu \pi ^0^\mu \pi ^0m_\pi ^2\pi ^0\pi ^0\right]+g_\pi F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\pi ^0$$

We now integrate out the pion fields from $`_{\pi ^\pm }+_{\pi ^0}`$. This generates contact interactions among photons:

(it is understood that seagull interaction contributions are included).

Schwinger computed the effective action obtained by integrating out the charged pions, with the result

$$_{eff,\pi ^\pm }^{(1)}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau ^3}e^{m^2\tau }\left[\left(e\tau \right)^2ab\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(ea\tau \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(eb\tau \right)}1\right]$$
(3)
When expanded, the four-photon effective couplings are generated

$$_{EH,\pi ^\pm }^{(1)}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}\left(\frac{7}{16}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{1}{16}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right)$$
(4)
To this effective Lagrangian, we add the effective interaction generated by a neutral pion exchange

$$_{EH,\pi ^0}^{(1)}=\frac{g_\pi ^2}{2m_{\pi ^0}^2}\left(F^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\right)^2$$
(5)
Combining (4) with (5), we get

$$_{EH,\pi }^{(1)}=\frac{7}{16}\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\left(\frac{g_\pi ^2}{2m_{\pi ^0}^2}+\frac{1}{16}\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}\right)\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2$$
(6)
The core of the method is to match this effective Lagrangian to the fermionic one (2), to extract a prediction for $`g_\pi `$

$$\frac{\frac{g_\pi ^2}{2m_{\pi ^0}^2}+\frac{1}{16}\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}}{\frac{7}{16}\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}}=\frac{7}{4}g_\pi =\frac{\alpha }{8}\frac{m_{\pi ^0}}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}$$

For the decay rate $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, this gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma \right)=\frac{m_{\pi ^0}^3}{4\pi }g_\pi ^2=\frac{\alpha ^2}{256\pi }\frac{m_{\pi ^0}^5}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}=7.7eV$$

To be compared to the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{exp}}\left(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma \right)=\left(7.7\pm 0.6\right)`$ eV . The agreement is very good.

If the description of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ in terms of the axial anomaly is used (, ), we get a determination of $`F_\pi `$

$$g_\pi =\frac{\alpha N_c}{12\pi F_\pi }=\frac{\alpha }{8}\frac{m_{\pi ^0}}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}F_\pi =\frac{2N_c}{3\pi }\frac{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{m_{\pi ^0}}=91.9\text{ MeV}$$
(7)
again very close to the experimental value $`F_\pi =92.4\pm 0.3`$ MeV (obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu \right)`$, see ).

A comment is in order. Usually, in chiral perturbation theory, the role played by $`m_\pi `$ and $`F_\pi `$ is radically different: $`F_\pi `$ sets the scale of the Goldstone boson interactions, while $`m_\pi `$ is only a small explicit breaking of the spontaneously broken symmetry; their physical content is therefore quite different and a priori unrelated. On the other hand, if the fermionic character of the underlying theory is assumed to be preserved through the passage from the quark picture to the hadron picture, the two turn out to be proportional.

As a by-product, we can also estimate the value of the constituent quark mass for which the two descriptions match, i.e. for which the four-photon couplings are the same in absolute magnitude. Setting $`m_u=m_d`$

$$e_u^4\frac{\alpha ^2N_c}{90m_u^4}+e_d^4\frac{\alpha ^2N_c}{90m_d^4}=\frac{7}{16}\frac{\alpha ^2}{90m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}m_u=m_{\pi ^\pm }\sqrt[4]{\left(e_u^4+e_d^4\right)\frac{48}{7}}1.1\times m_{\pi ^\pm }$$

i.e. a constituent quark mass $`m_u=m_d153`$MeV, quite close to $`m_\pi `$.

Introducing Higher Mass Particles

In principle, one can introduce the $`\eta ,\eta ^{},K^\pm ,\mathrm{}`$, to get the effective Lagrangian

$`_{EH,PS}^{(1)}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_\pi ^2}{2m_{\pi ^0}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\eta ^2}{2m_\eta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\eta ^{}^2}{2m_\eta ^{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{1440}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{K^\pm }^4}}\right)\right)\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{7\alpha ^2}{1440}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{K^\pm }^4}}\right)\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$ (8)
with $`g_{\eta ^{()}}`$ the coupling constant for $`\eta ^{()}\gamma \gamma `$. We see that the pion contributions are by far the dominant ones: the corrections induced by heavier mesons are of a few percents, as can be seen by plugging in the experimental values $`g_\eta 6\times 10^6MeV^1`$ and $`g_\eta ^{}8\times 10^6MeV^1`$ . Matching (8) to (2) and solving for $`F_\pi `$, we find $`F_\pi 96`$ MeV. This shows that the matching should not be expected to work to a better accuracy than roughly 5%, despite the striking result (7).

We now turn to the introduction of resonances, and in particular of the sigma meson. Our point of view is to consider the sigma as a resonance occurring in the two-pion channel. We take as effective Lagrangian

$$_{EH,\pi ^0,\sigma }^{(1)}=\frac{g_\sigma ^2}{2m_\sigma ^2}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{g_\pi ^2}{2m_{\pi ^0}^2}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2$$
(9)
with $`g_\sigma `$ the coupling constant for $`\sigma \gamma \gamma `$. To get this form, we assume that in a first approximation, the scalar channel (i.e. $`\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$) is saturated by the sigma, and we neglect the charged pion contribution to the pseudoscalar channel $`(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2`$ (which is roughly 10 times smaller than the neutral pion contribution, see (6)). The effective photon Lagrangian (9) is now only generated by virtual $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\sigma `$ exchanges, which are particles respectively associated with the axial  and trace anomaly .

By matching (9) with (2), we can relate $`g_\sigma `$ to $`g_\pi `$

$$\frac{g_\sigma ^2/2m_\sigma ^2}{g_\pi ^2/2m_{\pi ^0}^2}=\frac{4}{7}\frac{g_\sigma }{g_\pi }=\sqrt{\frac{4}{7}}\frac{m_\sigma }{m_{\pi ^0}}2.8$$
(10)
for $`m_\sigma 530`$ MeV . From (10), the sigma width to two photons is predicted to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sigma \gamma \gamma \right)=\frac{m_\sigma ^3}{4\pi }g_\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{7\pi }\frac{m_\sigma ^5}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}g_\pi ^2=\frac{\alpha ^2}{448\pi }\frac{m_\sigma ^5}{m_{\pi ^\pm }^4}4.1_{2.1}^{+3.5}\text{ keV}$$
(11)
with $`m_\sigma =\left(530\pm 70\right)`$ MeV . This is compatible with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sigma \gamma \gamma \right)=\left(3.8\pm 1.5\right)\text{keV }$$
(12)
found by a partial-wave analysis of $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi `$ . Note, by the way, that because $`m_\sigma `$ appears to the fifth power in (11), this formula is in fact quite efficient in constraining $`m_\sigma `$ once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sigma \gamma \gamma \right)`$ is known. For instance, from the experimental value (12), one finds $`m_\sigma =520_{49}^{+36}`$ MeV.

In conclusion, the assumption that the sigma resonance nearly saturates the two-pion scalar channel gives a reasonable prediction for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sigma \gamma \gamma \right)`$.

Conclusions and Perspectives

In this letter, we have shown how to get information on the coupling constant of effective meson theories from QCD. As said, the present framework relies entirely on the assumption that the strong interactions do not renormalize the relative strength of the $`\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$ and $`(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })^2`$ couplings (or at least that this renormalization is small). The fact that we found reasonable predictions for $`F_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sigma \gamma \gamma \right)`$ seems to validate this assumption. Further work should clarify the range of validity of the present method.

Encouraged by the success of the matching at $`O\left(\alpha ^2/m^4\right)`$, one could now undertake an analysis at the next order. At $`O\left(\alpha ^3/m^8\right)`$, the fermionic effective Lagrangian is ,

$$_{DKR,quarks}^{(1)}=e_Q^6N_c\frac{\pi \alpha ^3}{315m_Q^8}\left(4\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^3\frac{13}{2}\left(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }\right)\left(F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right)$$

At that order, the integration of the pseudoscalars is more involved, and it remains to be seen which kind of constraints can emerge. Also, the extension to non-constant electromagnetic fields may lead to interesting results. All these questions are left for future studies.

We close this letter with a comment on the computation of the hadronic light-by-light corrections to the muon anomalous moment. Even if it is true that the momentum configuration in that case and in our case is quite different, our approach can offer an interesting limiting case in which the various theoretical models can be tested. For instance, in the present approach, it appears that the pions and the constituent quarks do not contribute simultaneously. The same is true for the sigma meson and the charged pions. In the context of the muon anomalous moment, the constituent quark, charged pion and sigma meson contributions are all considered at the same time (see for example ). Whether this leads to double-counting or not is, in our opinion, not settled.

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to J. Pestieau and S. Trine for useful discussions. I acknowledge financial support from the I.I.S.N.


text:
# References

Blumberg et al. Reply: The recent scanning SQUID Tsuei , tunneling Biswas , ARPES Sato ; Armitage1 , penetration depth Kokales ; Prozorov ; Skinta  and specific heat Balci  experiments provided convincing evidence of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing symmetry for the electron-doped cuprates at low- and optimal doping. In agreement with these experiments the recent electronic Raman scattering studies blumberg02  rule out an anisotropic $`s`$-wave scenario: in contrast to conventional $`s`$-wave superconductors no gap-threshold structure has been observed in electronic Raman response for any symmetry channel even at the lowest temperatures and frequencies measured. On the other hand, the pair breaking excitations measured by polarized electronic Raman scattering indicate a larger magnitude of the superconducting (SC) gap closer to the middle of the Brillouin zone (BZ) quarters, the vicinity of $`(\pm \pi /2a,\pm \pi /2a)`$ points, than to the BZ boundaries blumberg02 ; stadlober95 . The latter results are inconsistent with the monotonic $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ SC order parameter (OP) function, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)`$, where $`𝐤`$ is a wave vector on the Fermi surface (FS) and $`a`$ is the $`ab`$-plane lattice constant.

Our proposal of a nonmonotonic $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ OP for which the positions of the SC gap maxima are located closer to the nodes than to the BZ boundaries blumberg02  reconciles all experimental observations note1 . Indeed, the maximum Raman gap, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_{2g}}=67`$ cm-1, is consistent with the gap value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}^{tunn}=3.7`$ meV observed in tunneling spectroscopy Huang:90  and the $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_{1g}}=50`$ cm-1 is consistent with the leading edge gap at the BZ boundary estimated from ARPES experiments Sato ; Armitage1 . For hole doped cuprates, superconductors with short correlation length, the nearest neighbor correlation is strongest and monotonic OP is expected. In contrast, for electron doped cuprates the superconducting correlation length is long (low upper critical fields) Wang  indicating the importance of further correlations leading to a nonmonotonic OP.

In the preceding Comment Venturini et al. Venturini  note that for a nonmonotonic OP a multiple peak/shoulder structure is expected in the Raman response. Their calculation (Fig. 1a), however, does not account for realistic FS topology, energy and momentum dependent relaxational behavior, possible impurity scattering rates and inhomogeneous broadening, and is sensitive to the gap functional form. Unrealistically small constant phenomenological damping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.3`$ cm-1 has been used, while, for example, the best fit for the Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 compound required $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=43`$ cm-1 Devereaux , much larger than the separation in fine structure of DOS for our proposed nonmonotonic OP, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_{2g}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B_{1g}}=8.5`$ cm-1. For larger $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the sharp singularities are not expected to be resolved and indeed a flat top structure for spectra in the $`B_{1g}`$ channel is experimentally observed (Fig. 3 in blumberg02 ). Calculations with larger phenomenological damping (Fig. 1b in Venturini ) well resemble experimental data at high frequencies, however, the use of momentum and energy independent damping for in-gap energies is not justified even for strongly anisotropic superconductors Coffey ; Kaminski : the imposed large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\omega `$ are unphysical and wipe out characteristic low-frequency power laws.

The low-frequency power laws in Raman response indeed provide independent verification for existence and position of the SC gap nodes. The experimentally observed power laws, approximately cubic for $`B_{1g}`$ and linear for $`B_{2g}`$ channels (Fig. 3 in blumberg02 ), are in agreement with the expectations for $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductors: corresponding power laws rise from the convolution of the constant density of states in the vicinity of the nodal Dirac points and the Raman scattering amplitude squares, $`\gamma _{B_{1g},B_{2g}}^2(\varphi )`$ Venturini ; Devereaux ; note2 .

We note that for a nonmonotonic OP the phase space of the nodal regions is reduced relative to the monotonic OP. As a result, a stronger activated-like contribution in thermodynamic properties is expected. Measurements down to sub-Kelvin temperatures are required to emphasize the nodal behavior: the power laws are dominant only below a crossover temperature that depends on the nodal velocity. The disagreements of thermodynamic and penetration depth measurements at relatively high temperatures with fits to monotonic $`d`$-wave OP are therefore not surprising.

G. Blumberg, A. Koitzsch, A. Gozar, and B.S. Dennis, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ 07974

C.A. Kendziora, US Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6375, Washington, D.C. 20375

P. Fournier and R.L. Greene, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742


text:
# On the Feasibility of Detecting Satellites of Extrasolar Planets via Microlensing

## 1 Introduction

Various methods have been proposed to search for extrasolar planets (exoplanets). These methods include the pulsar timing analysis, direct imaging, accurate measurement of astrometric displacements, radial velocity measurement, planetary transit, and gravitational microlensing \[see the review of Perryman (2000)\]. Since the first detection of an exoplanet around the pulsar PSR 1257+12 (Wolszcan & Frail, 1992), nearly 100 exoplanets have been identified (http://exoplanets.org), mostly by the radial velocity method (Mayor & Queloz, 1995).

However, little has been discussed about the method of detecting satellites around exoplanets. This is mainly because it is thought to be too premature to detect satellites given the difficulties of detecting exoplanets. Currently, the only promising technique proposed to detect satellites is the transit method, where satellites are detected either by direct satellite transit or through perturbations in the transit timing of the satellite-hosting planet (Sartoretti & Schneider, 1999).

In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of detecting satellites of exoplanets via microlensing. Detection of a low-mass companion by using microlensing is possible because the companion can induce noticeable anomalies in the resulting lensing light curves (Mao & Paczyński, 1991; Gould & Loeb, 1992). The microlensing method has an important advantage in detecting very low-mass companions over other methods because the strength of the companion’s signal depends weakly on the companion/primary mass ratio although the duration of the signal becomes shorter with the decrease of the mass ratio. Then, if lensing events are monitored with a high enough frequency, it may be possible to detect not only planets but also their satellites. Such a frequent lensing monitoring program in space was recently proposed by Bennett (2000).

The paper is organized as follows. In § 2, we describe the microlensing basics of multiple-lens systems. In § 3, we investigate the feasibility of satellite detections by carrying out realistic simulations of Galactic bulge microlensing events caused by an example lens system having a planet and a satellite. We summarize the results and conclude in § 4.

## 2 Multiple-lens Systems

To describe the lensing behaviors of events caused by a lens system composed of a primary with a planet and subordinate satellites, it is required to have the formalism of multiple-lens systems. If a source located at $`𝒓_\mathrm{S}(\xi ,\eta )`$ on the projected plane of the sky is lensed by a lens system composed of $`N`$-point masses, where the individual components’ masses and locations are $`m_i`$ and $`𝒓_{\mathrm{L},i}`$, the positions of the resulting images, $`𝒓_\mathrm{I}`$, are obtained by solving the lens equation, which is expressed by

$$𝒓_\mathrm{S}=𝒓_\mathrm{I}\theta _\mathrm{E}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{m_i}{m}\frac{𝒓_\mathrm{I}𝒓_{\mathrm{L},i}}{\left|𝒓_\mathrm{I}𝒓_{\mathrm{L},i}\right|^2}.$$
(1)
Here $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ represents the angular Einstein ring radius, which is related to the total mass of the lens system, $`m=_i^Nm_i`$, and the distances to the lens, $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}`$, and the source, $`D_{\mathrm{OS}}`$, by

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4Gm}{c^2}}\left(\frac{1}{D_{\mathrm{OL}}}\frac{1}{D_{\mathrm{OS}}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(2)
The lensing process conserves the surface brightness of the source. Then the magnification of each image equals to the surface area ratio between the image and the unmagnified source and mathematically its value corresponds to the inverse of the Jacobian of the lens equation evaluated at the image position $`𝒓_{\mathrm{I},j}`$, i.e.

$$A_j=\left(\frac{1}{\left|detJ\right|}\right)_{𝒓_\mathrm{I}=𝒓_{\mathrm{I},j}};detJ=\left|\frac{𝒓_\mathrm{S}}{𝒓_\mathrm{I}}\right|.$$
(3)
Although the magnifications of the individual images cannot be measured due to the small separations between the images, one can measure the total magnification, i.e. $`A=_j^{N_\mathrm{I}}A_j`$, where $`N_\mathrm{I}`$ is the total number of images. Note that to find the image positions and the magnification, it is required to invert the lens equation.

For a single point-mass lens ($`N=1`$), the lens equation can be easily inverted. Solving the equation yields two solutions of image positions and the total magnification is expressed in a simple analytical form of

$$A=\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}},$$
(4)
where $`𝒖=(𝒓_\mathrm{S}𝒓_\mathrm{L})/\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is the dimensionless lens-source separation vector normalized by $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. For a rectilinear lens-source transverse motion, the separation vector is related to the single lensing parameters by

$$𝒖=\left(\frac{tt_0}{t_\mathrm{E}}\right)\widehat{𝒙}+\beta \widehat{𝒚},$$
(5)
where $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ represents the time required for the source to transit $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ (Einstein time scale), $`\beta `$ is the closest lens-source separation in units of $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ (impact parameter), $`t_0`$ is the time of the maximum magnification, and the unit vectors $`\widehat{𝒙}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒚}`$ are parallel with and normal to the direction of the relative lens-source transverse motion, respectively. The light curve of a single point-mass lens event is characterized by its smooth and symmetric shape (Paczyński, 1986).

If the lens system has additional components ($`N2`$), the lens equation cannot be algebraically inverted. However, the lens equation can be expressed as a polynomial in $`𝒓_\mathrm{I}`$ and the positions of the individual images are obtained by numerically solving the polynomial (Witt, 1990). If the lens system is composed of two lenses (e.g. the primary and the plant), the lens equation is equivalent to a fifth-order polynomial in $`𝒓_\mathrm{I}`$ and there exist three or five solutions of the image positions depending on the source location with respect to the lens components. The main new feature of the multiple-lens system is the caustics, which represent the set of points in the source plane where the magnification of a point source becomes infinity, i.e. $`\left|detJ\right|=0`$. Hence a significant planet-induced deviation in the lensing light curve occurs when the source approaches the region around the caustic although the duration of the deviation is short due to the small mass ratio between the planet and the primary, $`q_\mathrm{p}`$. The size of the caustic, and thus the probability of planet detections, also depends on the primary-planet separation and is maximized when the separation (normalized by $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$) is in the range of $`0.6<d_\mathrm{p}<1.6`$ (lensing zone).

As the number of lens components increases, solving the lens equation becomes nontrivial because the order of the polynomial increases by $`N^2+1`$. One other method commonly used to obtain the magnification patterns of multiple-lens systems is the inverse ray-shooting technique (Schneider & Weiss, 1986; Kayser, Refsdal & Stabell, 1986; Wambsganss, 1997). In this method, a large number of light rays are uniformly shot backwards from the observer plane through the lens plane and then collected (binned) in the source plane. Then, the magnification pattern of the lens system is obtained by the ratio of the surface brightness (i.e., the number of rays per unit area) in the source plane to that in the observer plane. Once the magnification pattern is constructed, the light curve resulting from a particular source trajectory corresponds to the one-dimensional cut through the constructed magnification pattern. The advantage of using the ray-shooting method is that it allows one to study the lensing behavior regardless of the number of lens components. The disadvantage is that it requires a large computation time for the construction of the detailed magnification pattern. We attempted to investigate the lensing behaviors of multiple lens systems by solving the polynomial but we found that for the lens system of our interest for which the mass ratio between the least (satellite) and the most massive (primary) components is smaller than $`10^5`$, the numerical noise in the polynoimial coefficients due to the limited computer precision ($`10^{15}`$) causes serious inaccuracy in solving the polynomial. We, therefore, use the ray-shooting method despite the requirement of large computation time.

## 3 Realistic Simulations

To examine the feasibility of detecting satellites of exoplanets, we carry out realistic simulations of Galactic bulge microlensing events caused by a lens system having a planet and a satellite. The primary of the tested lens system is assumed to have a mass of $`0.3M_{}`$ by adopting that of a late-type main-sequence star, which is believed to be the most common type of lenses for events detected towards the Galactic bulge (Alcock et al., 2000). For the planet and the satellite, we test an Earth-mass planet and a Moon-mass satellite. Then, the mass ratios of the planet and the satellite with respect to the primary are $`q_\mathrm{p}=10^5`$ and $`q_\mathrm{s}=1.2\times 10^7`$, respectively. The planet is assumed to be separated by $`d_\mathrm{p}=1.3`$ from the primary. To investigate the dependence of the magnification pattern on the satellite position with respect to the planet, we test four cases of satellite locations with different combinations of the planet-satellite separation, $`d_\mathrm{s}`$ (normalized by the Einstein ring radius of the planet $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{p}}=\sqrt{q_\mathrm{p}}\theta _\mathrm{E}`$), and the orientation angle, $`\alpha `$ (measured from the primary-planet axis).

For a low-mass companion, the source size can have a significant effect on the shape of the companion-induced anomalies in lensing light curves (Bennett & Rhie, 1996). For the construction of light curves, we, therefore, test three different types of source stars with angular radii of $`\rho _{}=\theta _{}/\theta _\mathrm{E}=1.5\times 10^3`$, $`1.1\times 10^3`$, and $`0.85\times 10^3`$. These values correspond to the source star radii of F0, G0, and K0 main-sequence stars located at $`D_{\mathrm{OS}}=8.5`$ kpc for an event with a lens located at the half way point between the observer and the source, i.e. $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}/D_{\mathrm{OS}}=0.5`$. We note that although a M-type star has a smaller source radius ($`\rho _{}=0.6\times 10^3`$ for M0 main sequence), we do not consider the case because the star will be too faint to be observed ($`I25.6`$ even without extinction). For comparison, we also present the light curves corresponding to a source with $`\rho _{}=3.0\times 10^5`$, which is equivalent to the radius of a white dwarf. Although these events would be rare, there is at least some finite probability that a caustic crossing of a white dwarf would occur. In addition, although the brightness of a hot white dwarf would be faint ($`V>25`$), this is not much fainter than a typical K dwarf. Therefore, instead of presenting light curves of events involved with a hypothetical source star having an arbitrary radius, we present the light curves of events involved with a hot white dwarf.

In Figure 1, we present the magnification patterns (gray-scale maps in the right panels) around the regions of deviations induced by the planet along with the corresponding geometries of the lens systems (left panels). In Figure 2, we also present the light curves of events resulting from the source trajectories marked in the corresponding panels in Fig. 1. From the simulations, we find the following results.

1. If the satellite is located within the lensing zone of the planet, i.e. $`0.6<d_\mathrm{s}<1.6`$111For a system of the Earth and the Moon located at $`D_{\mathrm{OL}}/D_{\mathrm{OS}}0.5`$, the Earth-Moon separation is about 3 times of the Einstein ring radius of an Earth-mass planet in the foreground of the Galactic bulge., the planet-induced caustic shape and the magnification pattern around the caustics are altered by the satellite due to the interference between the anomalies induced by the planet and the satellite \[see panel (2) of Fig. 1\].
2. If the satellite-planet separation is larger than the upper limit of the lensing zone of the planet, i.e. $`d_\mathrm{s}>1.6`$, the interference becomes negligible. Then, the resulting magnification pattern is well represented by the superposition of those of the two binary systems where the planet-primary and the satellite-primary pairs act as independent lens systems (Bozza, 1999; Han et al., 2001; Han & Park, 2002; Rattenbury et al., 2002). Although the satellite is located beyond the planet’s lensing zone, the satellite-planet separation is generally much smaller than the separation between the primary and the planet, i.e. $`d_\mathrm{s}\theta _{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{p}}d_\mathrm{p}\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. Therefore, the additional deviations induced by the satellite is located near the region of planet-induced deviations.
3. If the satellite-planet separation is smaller than the lower limit of the lensing zone of the planet, i.e. $`d_\mathrm{s}<0.6`$, the planet-satellite pair behavior as if they are a single lens component with a mass equal to the combined one of the planet and the satellite. Since satellites are generally much less massive than their planets, i.e. $`q_\mathrm{p}+q_\mathrm{s}q_\mathrm{p}`$, and thus the lensing behavior in this case is hardly affected by the presence of the satellite.
4. The size (area) of the satellite-induced perturbation region is comparable or smaller than the size of source stars that can be monitorred from followup lensing observations. As a result, the detailed structure in the lensing light curves is seriously smeared out due to the finite source effect. We find that the finite source effect is so severe that the satellite signals in the light curves of all tested events are completely washed out even for events involved with K0 source stars.

## 4 Summary and Conclusion

We have tested the feasibility of detecting satellites by using microlensing. For this purpose, we have investigated the effect of satellites on the magnification pattern near the region of planet-induced perturbations by carrying out realistic simulations of Galactic bulge microlensing events. From this investigation, we find that although satellites can often affect the maginification patterns, detecting satellite signals in the lensing light curves will be very difficult because the signals are seriously smeared out by the severe finite source effect.

We would like to thank J. H. An for making useful comments about the work. This work was supported by a grant (2001-DS0074) from Korea Research Foundation (KRF).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In classical mechanics, the study of phase space geometry yields deep insights which would be hidden in a mere configuration space formulation. In particular, there is no well-defined distinction between coordinates and momenta, as these mix under symplectic transformations.
Geometric quantization aims at exploiting the symplectic structure of phase space in order to understand the transition to quantum systems.
In contrast , special and general relativity are formulated merely on spacetime. This is of course likewise true for all theories built on this framework, most notably quantum field theory and string theory.
Over the last two decades, there has been some interest in and speculation on a finite upper bound on accelerations. This is mainly due to the fact that although special relativity allows arbitrarily high accelerations, upon quantization, a finite upper bound enters through the back door . This raises the question of whether to use kinematics respecting a distinguished acceleration from start. Indeed, careful quantization of a particle with dynamically enforced submaximal acceleration  nourishes the hope that a finite upper bound on accelerations might positively influence the convergence behaviour of field theoretic amplitudes. This approach, however, makes an ad-hoc assumption of a maximal acceleration and admittedly lacks a proper kinematical framework.
The aim of this letter is to devise such kinematics, by kinematizing dynamical symmetries of the Born-Infeld action on the velocity phase space of the spacetime manifold, and to derive a correction to the Thomas precession within this framework.

## 2 Kinematization

A particle of mass $`m`$ and electric charge $`e`$ minimally coupled to Born-Infeld theory

$$_{\text{BI}}=\stackrel{\frac{1}{2}}{det}\left(g_{\mu \nu }+bF_{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(1)
can at most experience an acceleration $`𝔞=eb^1m^1`$, as the maximal field strength is given by $`b^1`$.
Denoting a point of the tangent bundle $`TM`$ of the $`n`$-dimensional spacetime manifold $`M`$ by $`X^m(𝔞x^\mu ,u^\mu )`$, where $`u^\mu `$ is the $`n`$-velocity of the particle, the Born-Infeld Lagrangian (1) can be written

$$_{\text{BI}}=\stackrel{\frac{1}{4}}{det}\left([X^m,X^n]\right),$$
(2)
if one assumes a $`b^2`$-suppressed coordinate non-commutativity of spacetime in the presence of an electromagnetic field $`F^{\mu \nu }`$,

$`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`ie^3b^2F^{\mu \nu },`$ (3)
$`[x^\mu ,p^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`ig^{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
$`[p^\mu ,p^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`ieF^{\mu \nu }.`$ (5)
Associated with the existence of a distinguished acceleration $`𝔞`$ there must be dynamical symmetries of Born-Infeld theory. The form (2) suggests encoding these in the geometry of the spacetime tangent bundle. We show that this indeed results in a consistent kinematical framework that extends relativity such as to respect a finite upper bound on accelerations. Note that shifting the upper bound $`𝔞`$ to infinity restores coordinate commutativity. Hence spacetime non-commutativity is a signature of a finite upper bound on accelerations.

## 3 Maximal Acceleration Geometry

Consider the diagonal lift  (here given in induced tangent bundle coordinates $`(x^\mu ,u^\mu )`$)

$$g^D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{ij}+g_{ts}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{t}{}_{i}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{s}{}_{j}{}^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{t}{}_{j}{}^{}g_{ti}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{t}{}_{i}{}^{}g_{tj}& g_{ij}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
of the spacetime metric $`g`$ to the tangent bundle, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{t}{}_{i}{}^{}u^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the Christoffel symbols of $`g`$. Requiring positivity of the natural lift  $`x^{}(𝔞x^\mu ,\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau })`$ of a timelike spacetime curve $`x`$,

$$g^D(dx^{},dx^{})>0$$
(7)
is equivalent to restricting the acceleration of the projection $`\pi (x^{})=x`$ to values less than $`𝔞`$. This was first observed by Caianiello  for flat spacetime.

## 4 Complex Tangent Bundles?

There were attempts  to devise a maximal acceleration modification of special and general relativity by equipping the tangent bundle with the metric $`g^D`$ and an additional complex structure $`F`$, analogous to the phase space structure of non-relativistic systems. However, invoking a strong principle of equivalence, one must require both structures to be covariantly constant,

$$g^D=0\text{and}F=0,$$
(8)
where $``$ is the Levi-Cività connection with respect to $`g^D`$. Then according to the Tachibana-Okumura theorem , conditions (8) are satisfied if, and only if, the base manifold $`M`$ is flat.
Hence complex tangent bundles can never provide a theory of gravity with finite upper bound on accelerations.

## 5 Bimetric Tangent Bundles

The Tachibana Okumura no-go theorem can be circumvented by using the horizontal lift (here given in induced tangent bundle coordinates $`(x^\mu ,u^\mu )`$)

$$g^H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u^a_ag_{ij}& g_{ij}\\ g_{ji}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
of the spacetime metric instead of a complex structure. It can be shown  that the horizontal lift $`^H`$ of the Levi-Cività connection on spacetime is then the unique linear connection on $`TM`$ satisfying

$$^Hg^D=0\text{and}^Hg^H=0$$
(10)
for arbitrary curvatures of the base manifold $`M`$. This, however, comes at the cost of introducing torsion to the tangent bundle. A tangent bundle curve $`X:TM`$ is called an orbit if there exists a frame where $`X=\pi (X)^{}`$. An orbit is called an orbidesic if it is a geodesic with respect to some metric, or an orbiparallel if it is an autoparallel with respect to some connection.
The lifting and projection properties of spacetime geodesics and tangent bundle orbidesics and orbiparallels are well known  and summarized in the diagram

In particular, note that $`g^H`$-orbidesics coincide with $`^H`$-orbiparallels, despite $`^H`$ having non-vanishing torsion . Further, one can show that all $`g^H`$-orbidesics are $`g^H`$-null and $`g^D`$-positive.

## 6 Extended General Relativity

The mathematical structure outlined above allows one to formulate physical postulates for the kinematics of an extension of general relativity respecting a finite upper bound on accelerations.

1. Submaximally accelerated particles are described by orbits $`X`$ satisfying

$`g^H(dX,dX)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`g^D(dX,dX)`$ $`>`$ $`0.`$ (12)
2. In the absence of non-gravitational interaction, orbits of particles are $`g^H`$-(null-)geodesics.
3. The physical time experienced by an observer with orbit $`X`$ is measured by

$$d\omega \left[g^D(dX,dX)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(13)

Note that $`g^H`$-orbidesics on $`TM`$ coincide with $`g`$-geodesics on $`M`$, and are automatically $`g^D`$-positive. Hence, for unaccelerated motion, the kinematics of standard general relativity are recovered. This explains why for accelerations that are small compared to the upper limit $`𝔞`$, we only need one single metric $`g`$ on spacetime.
For non-$`g^H`$-geodesic motion, the metric $`g^D`$ assumes a non-trivial rôle, as it restricts the deviation of orbits from $`g^H`$-orbidesics to the $`g^D`$-positive ones.
Condition (11) enforces the orthogonality of the $`n`$-velocity and $`n`$-acceleration of a particle in any frame. Thus we now recognize that in standard general relativity already, the horizontal lift $`g^H`$ is a naturally induced structure on the associated tangent bundle.
Postulate III predicts a deviation from the relativistic physical time for accelerated particles. From decay experiments  we get a lower bound for the maximal acceleration $`𝔞`$ of about $`10^{19}ms^2`$. From high-precision measurements of the Thomas precession, we get a better lower bound in section 10.

## 7 Field Equations

It is conceptually inevitable to formulate the extended theory entirely on the tangent bundle without recurring to spacetime objects. The latter are viewed as derived concepts via the canonical bundle projection. In this spirit we find  the lifted Einstein field equations

$$(G^{ambn}\frac{1}{2}G^{abmn})R_{mn}^V=8\pi GT_{mn}^D,$$
(14)
where $`R^V`$ denotes the vertical lift  of the spacetime Ricci tensor $`R`$, and

$$G^{abcd}g^{D_{ab}}g^{D_{cd}}+g^{H_{ab}}g^{H_{cd}}.$$
(15)
The lifted equations (14) are equivalent to the Einstein field equations on spacetime.

## 8 Extended Special Relativity

The case of flat Minkowski spacetime can be studied in a very concise and illuminating way. The diagonal and horizontal lifts of the Minkowski metric $`\eta `$ can be written as

$$\eta ^D=\eta 1\text{and}\eta ^H=\eta I,$$

with

$$1\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),I\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
This motivates the study of the pseudo-complex numbers

$$\left\{a+Ib\right|a,b,I^2=+1\}.$$

As these build a commutative ring, pseudo-complex Lie algebras can be defined . The pseudo-complexification $`V_{}`$ of a real vectorspace $`V`$ is a free module of pseudo-complex dimension $`dim_{}V`$, and we have the isomorphism of $`V_{}TV`$ as real vectorspaces. If $`V`$ is a representation space for a real Lie algebra $`L`$, then $`L_{}`$ acts naturally on $`V_{}`$.
We are particularly interested in the pseudo-complexification of Minkowski spacetime $`(^n,\eta )`$ and the real Lorentz group $`SO_{}(1,n1)`$. On the algebra level one gets

$`so_{}(1,n1)`$ $`=`$ $`M^{\mu \nu }_{}`$
$`=`$ $`M^{\mu \nu },IM^{\mu \nu }_{}`$
and obtains the connection component of the identity of the pseudo-complex Lorentz group by exponentiation. Changing the basis in (8) to $`G^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}(M^{\mu \nu }+IM^{\mu \nu })`$ and $`\overline{G}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}(M^{\mu \nu }IM^{\mu \nu })`$ we get the decomposition

$$so_{}(1,m)=so_{}(1,m)so_{}(1,m).$$

Thus, the representation theory in the pseudo-complex case can be easily obtained from the real case.
Clearly, for a pseudo-complex $`n`$-vector $`U^\mu u^\mu +Ia^\mu `$, the expression

$`\eta (U,U)`$ $``$ $`U^\mu U^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }`$
$`=`$ $`(u^\mu u_\mu +a^\mu a_\mu )+I(2u^\mu a_\mu )`$
is $`SO_{}(1,n1)`$-invariant, separately in the real and pseudo-imaginary parts. This shows the isomorphism of

$$(T^n,\eta ^D,\eta ^H)(^n,\eta )$$
(19)
as inner product spaces. Hence, in the flat case we can trade a bimetric real vectorspace against a metric module. Essentially, special relativity with pseudo-complex coordinates is extended special relativity.
In particular, according to (8) all pseudo-complex Lorentz transformations can be composed of the standard boost and rotation transformations with pure real and pure pseudo-imaginary arguments. For the interpretation of the pseudo-boosts, it is instructive to consider the orbit $`X`$ induced by a spacetime curve describing a submaximally accelerated hyperbolic motion. Using the Lorentz-invariance of the theory, we can always arrange for this motion to be in 1-direction in a rest frame at coordinate time zero. As $`d\omega `$ is an $`SO_{}(1,3)`$-invariant, we may study the action of a pseudo-boost on the covariant velocity $`U\frac{dX}{d\omega }\stackrel{~}{u}+I\stackrel{~}{a}`$. For hyperbolic motion of spacetime curvature $`g𝔞\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha )`$, the projections $`\pi _{01}`$ and $`\pi _{10}`$ of $`U`$ into the $`\stackrel{~}{u}^0\stackrel{~}{a}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}^1\stackrel{~}{a}^0`$ planes, respectively, are straight lines through the origin of hyperbolic angle $`\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{g}{𝔞}\right)`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{a}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{𝔞}}\stackrel{~}{u}^1,`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{𝔞}}\stackrel{~}{u}^0.`$ (21)
A pseudo-boost with boost parameter $`I\beta `$ can be easily seen to hyperbolically rotate both of these lines by an angle $`\beta `$ within their respective planes. Hence, the $`\pi _{01}`$ and $`\pi _{10}`$ projections of the transformed curve coincide with the projections for a U-curve corresponding to a hyperbolic motion with spacetime curvature $`𝔞\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha +\beta )`$. Carefully counting degrees of freedom, one checks that the transformation of the two projections already determines the transformation of the whole U-curve. Hence, the pseudo-boosts are transformations to relatively uniformly accelerated frames, respecting the maximal acceleration $`𝔞`$.
A pseudo-complex Lorentz tranformation of an orbit $`X`$ clearly induces a transformation of the spacetime projection $`\pi (X)`$. For not purely real transformation parameters, however, these transformations cannot be understood as maps $`MM`$, simply because the components projected out by $`\pi :TMM`$ contribute to the transformation.
In other words, spacetime events fail to be well-defined under non-real Lorentz tranformations. Hence, we observe the breakdown of the classical spacetime particle concept when changing to an accelerated frame. This anticipates the Unruh effect  on a classical level already.

## 9 Dynamics

Prior approaches  to maximal acceleration dynamics enforce the finite upper bound on accelerations dynamically, i.e. by modified Lagrangians, but still in the kinematical framework of special or general relativity. The prototypical example is the massive particle studied by Nesterenko et al. ,

$$L=\sqrt{\ddot{x}^\mu \ddot{x}_\mu 𝔞^2}\sqrt{\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu }dt^2.$$
(22)
This dynamical enforcement inevitably results in Lagrangians containing second order derivatives, being inconvenient for technical and conceptual reasons, especially in the transition to quantum theory.
In contrast, pseudo-complexification of merely relativistic Lagrangians, e.g. for the massive relativistic particle to

$$L_{}=\sqrt{\dot{X}^\mu \dot{X}_\mu }dt,$$
(23)
where

$$X𝔞x+Iu,$$
(24)
results in first order Lagrangians. From relation (24) this might appear to be a mere notational trick. However, this is not the case as $`u`$ and $`x`$ are independent degrees of freedom in extended relativity, only linked by the pseudo-complex kinematics, in particular the orthogonality condition 11.
Studying the equations of motion for $`L_{}`$ and making full use of the pseudo-complex Lorentz symmetry, we indeed get a free particle . A fully $`SO_{}(1,3)`$-invariant coupling term to Born-Infeld theory can be constructed from the diagonal lift of the Kaluza-Klein metric from spacetime to the tangent bundle . It turns out that mere pseudo-complexification of the standard minimal coupling term achieves the same with much less labour.
Pseudo-complexification applies to relativistic spaces, symmetry algebras and Lagrangians alike to give their extended relativistic counterparts. This makes the pseudo-complex formalism so worthwile.

## 10 Correction to Thomas Precession

Due to the non-commutativity of the boost generators

$$[M^{0i},M^{0j}]=M^{ij}$$
(25)
in special relativity, an observer resting at the center of a uniform circular motion of angular velocity $`\omega `$ and radius $`R`$ observes the Thomas precession

$$\frac{d\theta _{SR}}{dt}=(\gamma _{SR}1)\omega $$
(26)
of the spatial coordinate system of an orbiting observer, where $`\gamma _{SR}=(1+R^2\omega ^2)^{1/2}`$. Exactly along the same lines, the non-commutativity of the pseudo-boost generators

$$[IM^{0i},IM^{0j}]=M^{ij}$$
(27)
leads to an additional precession around the same axis, effecting a total precession rate

$$\frac{d\theta _{ESR}}{dt}=(\gamma _{ESR}1)\omega ,$$
(28)
where $`\gamma _{ESR}=(1+R^2\omega ^2+R^2\omega ^4𝔞^2)^{1/2}`$. From experimental data , obtained at $`R\omega ^2=10^{18}ms^2`$, $`\gamma _{SR}=1.2`$, the ratio $`\frac{\gamma _{ESR}}{\gamma _{SR}}`$ deviates from unity by less than $`5\times 10^9`$. This yields a lower bound

$$𝔞10^{22}ms^2$$
(29)
and hence an upper bound on the Born-Infeld parameter

$$b10^{11}\frac{C}{N}.$$
(30)
Thus high-precision measurements of the Thomas precession might be able to discriminate between Maxwell and Born-Infeld electrodynamics in the future.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Gary Gibbons for very helpful discussions and remarks on the material of this paper. I have also benefitted from remarks by Paul Townsend and discussions with Sven Kerstan. This work is funded by EPSRC and Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes.