text:
# Localized waves whithout the existence of extended waves: oscillatory convection of binary mixtures with strong Soret effect

## Abstract

Spatially confined solutions of traveling convection rolls are determined numerically for binary mixtures like ethanol-water. The appropriate field equations are solved in a vertical crossection of the rolls perpendicular to their axes subject to realistic horizontal boundary conditions. The localized convective states are stably and robustly sustained by strongly nonlinear mixing and complex flow-induced concentration redistribution. We elucidate how this enables their existence for strongly negative separation ratios at small subcritical heating rates below the saddle-node of extended traveling convection rolls where the quiescent fluid is strongly stable.

Many nonlinear dissipative systems that are driven sufficiently far away from thermal equilibrium show selforganization out of an unstructured state: A structured one can appear that is characterized by a spatially extended pattern which retains some of the symmetries of the system CH93 . Some systems form also spatially confined structures loc\_states . In particular localized traveling wave (LTW) structures that are embedded at subcritical driving rates in the stable featureless surrounding and that compete with the subcritically bifurcated extended traveling wave (TW) pattern have been explored in experiments exp , numerical simulations of the appropiate field equations LTW ; Y91\_NHY96 , and via various model approaches model ; Riecke . The coexistence of the TW state and the quiescent state is a prerequisite for interpreting LTWs as spatial connections of the former to the latter via two fronts. However, this picture coming from simple cubic-quintic amplitude equations is too simple for convection in binary mixtures: there the strongly nonlinear TWs cannot be described by a power-law expansion in one amplitude HBL97 . Here we show that LTWs are - independent of TWs - separate nonlinear states.

We predict and describe in quantitative detail stable subcritical LTWs in mixtures with strong Soret effect at small heating rates where no extended TW whatsoever – stable or unstable – exists worms . Furthermore, we elucidate that the concentration field and its current are the key to understand how LTW convection is sustained when the quiescent conductive state is strongly stable. The latter is solutally stabilized since the Soret coupling between deviations $`\delta T`$ of temperature and $`\delta C`$ of concentration from their means increases (decreases) the lighter component in cold (warm) fluid regions thereby reducing the buoyancy. The most important effect is a flow-induced concentration redistribution within the LTW: It is the strongly nonlinear mixing by the LTW flow with large Peclet numbers that reduces the Soret-generated, stabilizing concentration gradients and that increases locally the driving buoyancy force to levels which suffice to cause convection in well mixed fluid with strongly reduced concentration variations discuss .

We have solved the field equations LBBFHJ98  for convection in binary mixtures like ethanol-water for Lewis number $`L`$=0.01, Prandtl number $`\sigma `$=10, and separation ratios CH93  $`0.25\psi 0.4`$ with a finite-difference method BLKS95I  in a vertical cross section through the convection rolls perpendicular to their axes. To simulate 1D patterns arising in narrow annular channels we applied laterally periodic boundary conditions at $`x=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ up to 160 times the layer height to accomodate the largest LTWs. Spatially extended TW states of different wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$ were obtained with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\lambda `$. Horizontal boundaries at top and bottom, $`z=\pm 1/2`$, are realistic, i.e., no slip, perfectly heat conducting, and impermeable. Our control parameter $`r=R/R_c^0`$ measuring the thermal driving is the Rayleigh number $`R`$ reduced by the critical one $`R_c^0`$=1707.762 for onset of convection in a pure fluid. To measure the lateral variation of the mixing in oscillatory convective flow we use the mixing number $`M(x)`$

$$M^2=\overline{(\delta C)^2}/\overline{(\delta C_{cond})^2}.$$
(1)
Here overbars imply vertical averaging. Brackets denote temporal averaging, $`f=f(x+v_dt,z,t)`$, over one oscillation period in the frame comoving with the slow drift velocity $`v_d`$ of the LTW envelope. In a perfectly mixed fluid $`M`$ vanishes while $`M1`$ in the conductive state \[denoted by the subscript $`cond`$ in Eq.(1)\] with its large Soret-induced vertical concentration gradient.

In Fig. 1 we show how an increasing Soret coupling strength changes the bifurcation properties of LTW width $`l`$, maximal vertical flow velocity $`w_{max}`$, frequency $`\omega `$, and LTW drift velocity $`v_d`$. The driving interval ($`r_{min},r_{max}`$) with stable stationary LTWs moves upwards and its extension increases with $`|\psi |`$. At its lower end LTWs are for all $`\psi `$ narrow pulses of universal structure and $`l`$ of about 5. At the upper end $`l`$ seems to diverge. LTWs with, say, $`l`$ 7 behave differently than the broad-width LTWs (cf. Fig. 2) with an extended TW like center part between the two limiting fronts. The change in the LTW bifurcation diagrams of $`\omega `$ and $`v_d`$ versus $`r`$ in Fig. 1 reflects this difference. Our simulations indicate that the LTWs of Fig. 1 are uniquely selected, monostable confined solutions bistability  and robust against small perturbations.

With increasing $`|\psi |`$ TW saddle-node location $`r_s^{TW}`$ and oscillatory threshold $`r_{osc}`$ move much faster to larger $`r`$ than the lower LTW band edge $`r_{min}`$. At $`\psi `$=-0.08 (not shown here) one has $`r_s^{TW}<r_{osc}<r_{min}`$ so that there the narrow LTW pulses that have been investigated extensively lie in the linearly convectively unstable parameter region (see, e.g., LBBFHJ98  for discussion and references). However, already at $`\psi `$=-0.4 almost all LTWs appear below the TW saddle-node, i.e., ahead of the TW nose of Fig. 3. Thus, stable LTW convection is driven here at heating rates $`r`$ for which any extended TW convection is impossible. Even at $`\psi `$=-0.25 the relevant LTW parameter combinations of $`\omega ,r,k_{plateau}`$ (big bullets in Fig. 3) lie outside and ahead of the TW bifurcation surface. For all $`\psi `$ investigated here the LTW width seems to diverge with increasing $`r`$ when its frequency and plateau wave number $`k_{plateau}`$ (big bullets in Fig. 3) approaches an $`\omega rk`$ combination of a TW.

LTWs are sustained by the following complex, large-scale concentration redistribution process. While traveling from tail to head LTW rolls increase their lateral concentration contrast, i.e., $`M`$ and with it $`v_p`$, and $`\lambda `$ Mvp  (cf. Fig. 2). Positive ”blue” (negative ”red”) concentration deviation from the global mean is sucked from the top (bottom) boundary layer into right (left) turning rolls as soon as they become nonlinear under the trailing front. This happens when the vertival velocity $`w`$ roughly exceeds $`v_p`$ \[left arrow in Fig. 2(b)\] so that regions with closed streamlines appear HBL97 ; LBBFHJ98 . Within them ”blue” (”red”) concentration is transported predominatly in the upper (lower) part of the layer to the right. Mean concentration, on the other hand, migrates mostly to the left along open streamlines that meander between the closed roll regions and that follow the border line between green and yellow in Fig. 2(a). The time averaged current of $`\delta C`$ \[green lines in Fig. 2 (e)\] reflects the mean properties of this transport. Since ”blue” and ”red” (”yellow”) is transported away from (towards) the left trailing front mean concentration accumulates there and causes a strong drop of $`M(x)`$. By the same token the leading front’s concentration variations and with it $`M(x)`$ are strongly increased even beyond the conductive state’s values. Thus, unlike TWs LTWs do not reach a balance between $`\delta C`$ injection and advective mixing and diffusive homogeneization on a constant level of small $`M`$. Rather LTW rolls collaps under the leading front when $`v_p`$ has grown up to $`w`$ \[right arrow in Fig. 2(b)\]. Thereafter concentration is discharged and sustains a barrier of $`\delta C`$ ahead of the leading front. When the mixing increases with $`w_{max}`$ and $`r`$ so does $`l`$ since the slower growth of $`\delta C`$ and $`M`$ to the higher levels necessary for the leading front’s transition to conduction requires longer and longer propagation lengths for the rolls.

The lateral redistribution causes the mean convectively generated $`C`$-profile \[green line in Fig. 2(d)\] to extend significantly further into the conductive region than the mean convective temperature field (red line). Thus, the buoyancy $`b`$ \[black line in Fig. 2(d)\] is determined in the front regions predominantly by the concentration field. This explains (i) the decrease of buoyancy below conduction levels ahead of the leading front with the associated restabilization of conduction there and (ii) the increase of $`b`$ out of the conductive state under the trailing front and its strong overshoot \[cf. Fig. 2(d)\] over the bulk enabling convection growth.

That the driving motor for LTW convection is located under the trailing front where $`b,M,v_p,\lambda `$ are extremal can also be seen from the relaxation behavior after changing $`r`$: Not only $`b,M`$, and $`v_p`$ but also $`\omega `$ and $`v_d`$ appropriate for the new $`r`$ are almost instantaneously realized locally under the trailing front while the relaxation of the leading front involving also diffusive processes takes much longer time, cf., Fig. 4. Thus there $`\omega `$ and $`v_d`$ is largely selected at the trailing front while the large-scale lateral concentration transport and redistribution determines the leading front’s properties and its location, i.e., the LTW width.

To summarize: We have found, analyzed, and explained uniquely selected stable subcritical LTWs in mixtures with strong Soret effect at small heating rates where extended TWs are not possible, i.e., below the saddle node bifurcation of the latter. These strongly nonlinear LTWs are self-consistently sustained by a concentration redistribution such that flow-induced mixing increases locally the buoyancy to levels that suffice to drive well mixed fluid flow.


format: text

text:
# LIGHT GLUINO AND THE RUNNING OF 𝛼_𝑠

## I INTRODUCTION

The production of $`b`$ quarks in hadronic and electromagnetic reactions appears enhanced with respect to expectations based on perturbative QCD Frixione:2000si . While questions have been raised about the magnitude or interpretation of this effect Cacciari:2002pa , the discrepancy has led to the suggestion of an additional mechanism of $`b`$ quark production through the production of relatively light (12–16 GeV) gluinos, followed by the decays of gluinos to $`b`$ quarks and their lighter (2–5.5 GeV) superpartners $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ Berger:2000mp . The orthogonal mixture $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is assumed to be sufficiently heavy that it would not yet have been observed. The $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ squarks are assumed to be a mixture of the superpartners of $`b_L`$ and $`b_R`$ such that the decay $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is suppressed Carena:2000ka . Here we follow Berger:2000mp ; Berger:2001jb  in defining

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}\\ \stackrel{~}{b}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{b}_L\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
We will see later that the light bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is dominantly right-handed in order to have a sufficiently weak coupling with the $`Z`$ boson.

A light gluino has been proposed before Fayet:1975pd ; FF ; Clav99 . Clavelli Clav92  noted that the value of $`\alpha _s`$ as extracted from quarkonia (see, e.g., Ref. KMRR ), when extrapolated using the standard beta-function of QCD to $`M_Z`$, led to a slightly lower value than measured directly at the $`Z`$. The running effect can be slowed down through the introduction of new fermionic and/or scalar particles with mass below $`M_Z`$. Recent analyses do not exclude or favor the possibility of a light gluino in the mass range of interest to us Bethke:2000ai ; PDGQCD ; Bethke:2002rv . (A light gluino with mass of the order of a few GeV, however, has been experimentally excluded deGouvea:1996va .) Ref. Becher:2001zb  further shows that the inclusion of a light bottom squark only changes the running slightly and is still compatible with the current experimental data. However, the $`\alpha _s`$ extractions in these analyses do not take into account the contributions of the new particles. It is our purpose here to include such effects using available results and identify the improvements in data and calculations needed for a definite conclusion about the effect of a light gluino on the running of $`\alpha _s`$ between scales below 10 GeV and the $`Z`$ mass. This question is of interest because of foreseen improved determinations at lower mass scales using quarkonium data and lattice gauge theories Davies:1997mg ; Davies:1998im ; Davies:2002mv , and at $`M_Z`$ using future linear colliders. We show that a distinction between the behavior of the QCD beta function with and without a 12–16 GeV gluino is not possible at present, but will be so with anticipated improvements in the low-energy determination of $`\alpha _s`$ and with reduction on errors in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\text{hadrons})`$.

Section II treats two-loop formulae for the scale-dependence (“running”) of $`\alpha _s`$ in the Standard Model (SM) and in the presence of a light gluino and bottom squark. Typical effects range from $`\delta \alpha _s(M_Z)\alpha _s^{MSSM}(M_Z)\alpha _s^{SM}(M_Z)0.015`$ at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=12`$ GeV to $`\delta \alpha _s(M_Z)0.009`$ at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=30`$ GeV, with $`\delta \alpha _s(M_Z)0.002`$ due to the bottom squark. These effects are somewhat larger than those found in Ref. Berger:2000mp  based upon one-loop running, but errors on $`\alpha _s`$ at low mass scales (Section III), at $`M_Z`$ (Section IV), and above $`M_Z`$ (Section V) still are large enough that no distinction is possible between the Standard Model and the light-gluino/bottom squark scenario in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). We collect results and discuss the prospects for improved measurements in Section VI, summarizing briefly in Section VII.

## II TWO-LOOP RUNNING

The two-loop evolution of the strong coupling constant is governed by the $`\beta `$ function

$$\beta (\alpha _s)=\mu \frac{d\alpha _s}{d\mu }=\frac{\alpha _s^2}{2\pi }\left(b_1+b_2\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right).$$
(2)
In a minimally extended SUSY QCD model, the one- and two-loop coefficients are given by Machacek:1983tz ; Martin:1993yx ; Clavelli:1996pz

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right)C_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}n_q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)T_F,`$ (3)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right)C_A^2\left(4n_q+4n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}2n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)C_FT_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}n_q+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}2n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)C_AT_F,`$ (4)
where $`n_q`$ is the number of quark flavors, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ the number of squarks, and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ the number of gluinos, $`T_F=1/2`$ is the Dynkin index of the fundamental representation, and $`C_A=3`$ and $`C_F=4/3`$ are the Casimir invariants in the adjoint and fundamental representations, respectively. In the scheme with only one light bottom squark and one light gluino with masses less than $`M_Z`$ ($`n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=n_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=1`$), the changes in the $`\beta `$ function due to these new particles are

$`\delta b_1^{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2,\delta b_1^{\stackrel{~}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},`$ (5)
$`\delta b_2^{\stackrel{~}{g}}=48,\delta b_2^{\stackrel{~}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}},\delta b_2^{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}.`$ (6)
Up to two loops, the decoupling relation between $`\alpha _s^{(n_f)}(\mu )`$ in the $`n_f`$-flavor theory and $`\alpha _s^{(n_f1)}(\mu )`$ in the $`(n_f1)`$-flavor theory is trivial when they are matched at the heavy flavor threshold; for example, $`\alpha _s^{(n_f)}(m_b)=\alpha _s^{(n_f1)}(m_b)`$ for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`m_b=m_b^{(n_f)}(m_b)`$. Finite corrections start to come in when one considers three-loop running Chetyrkin:1997un .

Starting from $`\alpha _s`$ at a low energy scale, one can obtain its value at $`M_Z`$ by solving the integral equation

$$\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_Z^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)=_{\alpha _s(\mu _0)}^{\alpha _s(M_Z)}\frac{2d\alpha }{\beta (\alpha )}.$$
(7)
Evolving the strong coupling constant in the SM and MSSM with initial values given in Ref. Davies:2002mv  at $`m_b=4.1`$ GeV, $`\alpha _s^{(n_f=5)}(m_b)=0.239_{0.010}^{+0.012}`$, we take $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=4`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=15`$ GeV as an example and obtain

$$\alpha _s^{\mathrm{SM}}(M_Z)=0.1216\pm 0.0027,\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MSSM}}(M_Z)=0.1352\pm 0.0035.$$
(8)
It should be mentioned that the minor difference of the evolution within the SM of this paper from that given in Ref. Davies:2002mv  is because we restrict ourselves to two-loop running while they use the three-loop running result.

We find that the light gluino dominates over the light bottom squark in the evolution over a wide range of its mass. In Fig. 1, we plot the difference $`\delta \alpha _s(M_Z)`$ as a function of the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. The solid curve gives the result with both the light bottom squark and gluino taken into account, whereas the dashed curve gives the result due to the light gluino contribution alone. The corresponding one-loop running results are indicated by the long-dashed curve (gluino and bottom squark) and dotted curve (gluino only).

For the range of gluino mass of interest, 12 to 16 GeV, we find $`\delta \alpha _s`$ ranges from 0.015 to 0.013, so we shall quote it as $`\delta \alpha _s=0.014\pm 0.001`$ in what follows. We now ask whether present data favor or disfavor such an effect.

## III LOW-ENERGY INFORMATION ON $`\alpha _s`$

In this section we review the main sources of low-energy information on $`\alpha _s`$, concentrating on those with the smallest claimed errors and describing those errors critically. All results are quoted as $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ assuming SM running in this section. The corresponding values of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ in the presence of a light gluino and a bottom squark can be obtained by adding $`\delta \alpha _s(=0.014\pm 0.001)`$.

### III.1 $`\tau `$ decays

The lowest-energy determination of $`\alpha _s`$ which appears in current reviews Bethke:2000ai ; PDGQCD ; Bethke:2002rv  comes from $`\tau `$ decays involving hadrons, with a maximum mass scale of $`m_\tau `$. Impressive progress has been claimed in expressing the hadronic final state in $`\tau \nu _\tau +X`$, $`X=\pi ,\rho ,a_1,\mathrm{}`$, in terms of an effective quark-antiquark continuum describable via perturbative QCD, leading to values $`\alpha _s(m_\tau )=0.323\pm 0.030`$ Bethke:2000ai ; Bethke:2002rv  or $`0.35\pm 0.03`$ PDGQCD . Extrapolation via the renormalization group then leads to the values $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1181\pm 0.0031`$ Bethke:2000ai ; Bethke:2002rv  or $`0.121\pm 0.003`$ PDGQCD . However, the assignment of errors to the contribution of nonperturbative effects in these analyses is highly subjective, based on QCD sum rules for which independent tests of sufficient accuracy do not exist in our opinion. Remember that an error of 9% in $`\alpha _s(m_\tau )`$ corresponds to a change of less than 3% in the perturbative expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \nu _\tau +\mathrm{hadrons})`$.

### III.2 Deep inelastic scattering

The original and still one of the most powerful methods to measure $`\alpha _s`$ is deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering (DIS). The most precise of several determinations, based on measurements of the structure function $`F_2`$ with electrons and muons, gives $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1166\pm 0.0022`$ Bethke:2002rv , from data points in the range $`1.9\mathrm{GeV}Q15.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ Santiago:2001mh . However, the error is not based on an analysis by any experimental group. Other determinations are consistent with this value, but the smallest error quoted in any of them is $`\pm 0.004`$ Bethke:2000ai ; Bethke:2002rv .

In principle the determination of $`\alpha _s`$ from deep inelastic scattering could be affected by a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, since at the highest $`Q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2`$ gluons can split into $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$, affecting the evolution equations. However, such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present note, and is more appropriately carried out by the experimental groups themselves.

### III.3 Quarkonium

The measurement of $`\alpha _s(m_b)=0.22\pm 0.02`$ from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ system (for $`m_b=4.75`$ GeV) implies $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.006`$ in Bethke’s review Bethke:2000ai ; Bethke:2002rv . (A lower value $`\alpha _s(m_b)=0.185\pm 0.01`$, implying $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.109\pm 0.004`$, is quoted by Hinchliffe in the Particle Data Group review PDGQCD .) Neither value is competitive in its errors with the most precise one based on deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering.

The presence of light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ squarks affects the determination of $`\alpha _s`$ from certain quarkonium decays. For example, the total width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is affected if the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is permitted. One has Berger:2001jb

$$R_{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}\right)^2\frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^24m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2)^{3/2}}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)^2},$$
(9)
where $`t=(m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^24m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)/4`$. Typical effects on the bottom squark partial widths can exceed ten times the leptonic widths, thereby attaining values of tens of keV for different $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ states and substantially affecting their expected total widths. Suppose the bottom squarks in the final state behave like usual hadronic jets within the detector. To compensate for the new open channel of $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$, for a given measured hadronic width one must reduce the value of $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$. From Eq. (9) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}^{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}=52.5\pm 1.8`$ keV, we find that $`R_{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}9`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=4`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=14`$ GeV and $`\alpha _s`$ should be reduced by about $`5\%`$, consistent with the estimate in Ref. Berger:2001jb . Such a change is well within the current error on the extracted $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$.

The decays of $`\chi _{bJ}`$ states to $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ occur with partial widths which can exceed 200 keV for $`J=0`$ and for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}>0`$; for $`J=1,2`$ these partial widths are calculated to be much smaller, and for the other sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ they are small for all three values of $`J`$. One must then take account of these changes when extracting $`\alpha _s`$ from $`\chi _{bJ}`$ data, but their impact on the determination mentioned above is relatively modest Berger:2002gu .

### III.4 Lattice

We shall argue that lattice calculations of $`\alpha _s`$ using the upsilon levels are relatively insensitive to the new physics introduced by light bottom squarks and gluinos. The inputs to the calculation of Ref. Davies:1997mg  are an overall mass scale (essentially adjustable through the choice of $`m_b`$) and either a $`2S`$$`1S`$ or a $`1P`$$`1S`$ level spacing. Both level spacings are used to obtain a value of $`\alpha _s`$ at a low mass scale characteristic of $`m_b`$. Consistency between the two values is used to argue in favor of an unquenched calculation with $`n_f=3`$ light quark flavors.

The new open $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ decay channels affect not only the decay widths, but also the masses of the $`b\overline{b}`$ bound states. In analogy with the neutral kaon system, in which the $`K_L`$$`K_S`$ mass splitting is of the same order as the $`K_S`$ decay width to $`\pi \pi `$, we shall assume that the mass shifts in $`b\overline{b}`$ bound states due to the open $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ channels are of the same order as the contributions of $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ decay channels to their partial widths, i.e., tens of keV for the S-wave levels, at most a couple of hundred keV for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ level, and unimportant for the other P-wave levels. A potential contribution from the heavy bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is estimated to be unimportant because of the large mass suppression. The spin-weighted average $`[5M(\chi _{b2})+3M(\chi _{b1})+M(\chi _{b0})]/9=\overline{M}(1P)`$ is then affected by at most tens of keV. This is to be compared with the input level spacings $`M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{})M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=563`$ MeV and $`M(\chi _b)M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=440`$ MeV Davies:1997mg . We evaluate the effect of shifts in these quantities by tens of keV on $`\alpha _s`$ as follows.

A scale change $`r`$ in the input mass splittings is reflected in a similar change in the scale at which $`\alpha _s`$ is evaluated, $`\alpha _s(M)\alpha _s(Mr)`$. Using this estimate, we find that the change in $`\alpha _s`$ due to a change by a factor of $`r=1+\delta `$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\alpha _s^1](b_1/2\pi )\delta `$, where $`b_1(n_f=5,\stackrel{~}{b})=7.5`$ from Eq. (3) so $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\alpha _s^1]\delta 10^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _s10^4\alpha _s^2`$. This is smaller by orders of magnitude than the effects which we consider to be important.

The lattice calculation of $`\alpha _s`$ at scales of order $`m_b`$ is thus not likely to be affected by the presence of a light gluino and bottom squark with the mass ranges considered here to more than $`\pm 0.0001`$, and possibly even greater accuracy.

The Particle Data Group review by Hinchliffe PDGQCD  quotes the average of several lattice determinations as implying $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1134\pm 0.003`$, at a characteristic mass scale of $`m_b`$ as in the case of quarkonium decays. Bethke Bethke:2002rv  adopts only the latest lattice determination Davies:2002mv  and quotes $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.121\pm 0.003`$.

## IV INFORMATION ON $`\alpha _s`$ AT $`M_Z`$

### IV.1 Direct measurements: Standard Model

Based on $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1200\pm 0.0028`$ and the global best fit values of some other input parameters (e.g., $`M_Z`$, $`M_H`$, etc.), the Standard Model predicts $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{hadrons})=1.7429\pm 0.0015`$ GeV, to be compared with the experimental value $`1.7444\pm 0.0020`$ GeV PDGEL . (The fact that the two numbers do not agree exactly is due to the existence of other inputs in the fit affected by $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$.) The experimental error alone in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{hadrons})`$ would imply an error in $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ of $`\pm 0.0034`$, consistent with the value quoted by Bethke Bethke:2002rv . Additional theoretical errors raise this to $`\pm 0.005`$. Fitting only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{hadrons})`$, we find $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.123\pm 0.005`$. We shall adopt this more conservative error.

### IV.2 Effect of SUSY scenario on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$

The light bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is assumed to be long-lived at the collider scale or to decay promptly into light hadrons in this scenario Berger:2000mp . In either case, it forms a hadronic jet within the detector due to its color charge. Therefore, the $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ decay mode will contribute to the total hadronic width of the $`Z`$ boson.

The partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ can be expressed at the tree level as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})\frac{G_FM_Z^3}{8\sqrt{2}\pi }\left[(g_V^b+g_A^b)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}+(g_V^bg_A^b)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\right]^2,$$
(10)
where we take the limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}0`$. (In our convention the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ vertex $``$ $`g_V^bg_A^b\gamma ^5`$.) The $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ coupling must be small to agree with the electroweak precision measurements at the $`Z`$-pole. A vanishing tree-level $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ coupling is achieved if the mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ is chosen to satisfy $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=\sqrt{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W/3}0.39`$. However, a nonzero effective coupling, which can be obtained if $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}0.39`$ and/or via loop corrections, may contribute to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$. M. Carena et al Carena:2000ka  calculated the $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ production cross section as a function of the effective $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ coupling. Their results indicate that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ is less than $`𝒪(0.001)`$ GeV for $`0.30\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}0.45`$. For comparison, the tree-level formula (10) gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})=(00.001)`$ GeV in the same range of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$. For $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}0.39`$, an upper bound can be obtained on the one-loop correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ by using an argument similar to that in Section IV.4, which would also assert that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ is less than $`𝒪(0.001)`$ GeV.

### IV.3 Effect of SUSY scenario on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})`$

The electroweak observables such as $`R_b`$ have been considered to provide a stringent constraint on the allowed parameter space of the light gluino/bottom squark scenario Cao:2001rz ; Cho:2002mt ; Baek:2002xf . For $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=0.39`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=5`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}=200`$ GeV, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=14`$ GeV, S. Baek Baek:2002xf  calculated $`\delta R_bR_bR_b^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as a function of the CP violating phases $`\varphi _b`$ and $`\varphi _3`$. The range of $`\delta R_b`$ turns out to be $``$(2.0 – 3.5) $`\times 10^3`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=0.39`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}=200`$ GeV. This is unacceptably large. The observed value is $`R_b^{\mathrm{expt}}=0.21664\pm 0.00068`$ PDGEL , to be compared with the Standard Model prediction $`R_b^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.21569\pm 0.00016`$. The difference is $`R_b^{\mathrm{expt}}R_b^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.00095\pm 0.00070`$, so that one must have $`3.05\times 10^3>\delta R_b>1.15\times 10^3`$ to maintain agreement at the $`3\sigma `$ level. By suitable choice of phases Baek is able to reduce the predicted magnitude of $`\delta R_b`$ by about a factor of two, which would put it within reasonable limits. Dealing with the CP conserving MSSM, J. Cao et al. Cao:2001rz  obtained similar results for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=3.5`$ GeV.

It is noted in Refs. Baek:2002xf ; Cao:2001rz  that the variation of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ does not change $`\delta R_b`$ significantly. As will be seen later, the SUSY contribution to the decay channel $`Zb\overline{b}`$ is the dominant component in the change of the hadronic $`Z`$ decay width. Therefore, we take $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{hadrons})\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})`$, which is related to $`\delta R_b`$ by

$`\delta R_b`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}(Zb\overline{b})\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{hadrons})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})^2}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`(1R_b^{\mathrm{SM}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})}}.`$
In the following calculation, we will take the range $`\delta R_b=(12)\times 10^3`$ (which covers the most negative acceptable value if one takes the current $`3\sigma `$ bound seriously) for our estimation of changes in $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$. Using $`R_b^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.21569`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{SM}}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})=1.7429`$ GeV, one finds that $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})=(0.00220.0044)`$ GeV. Here we reiterate that the value of $`R_b`$ predicted in the SUSY scenario remains a potentially dangerous feature of this scheme.

### IV.4 Effect of SUSY scenario on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})`$

With a light gluino in this scenario, the $`Z`$ boson can decay into a pair of gluinos through loop-mediated processes. The gluinos then decay promptly to $`b\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ or $`\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{b}`$, contributing to the total hadronic width of the $`Z`$. Previous analyses Kane:xp  indicate that the branching ratio of $`Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ falls in the range of $`10^5`$ to $`10^4`$ for a wide range of MSSM parameter space. This gives a partial width of less than $`𝒪(1)`$ MeV. Although the possibility of a light bottom squark is not considered in those analyses, it can be argued that any possible increase due to the light bottom squark should be comparatively small. The reason is that the effective coupling between the $`Z`$ boson and the gluinos should be of the same order as the one-loop correction to the coupling between $`Z`$ and bottom quarks, both of which are $`\alpha _s`$ and one-loop suppressed. The $`Z`$$`b`$$`\overline{b}`$ coupling receives an $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ correction coming from the interference between the SUSY contribution and the SM tree-level coupling, resulting in a decrease of at most $`4.4`$ MeV in the total width of $`Z`$ (see Section IV.3). In the case of $`Z`$$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, however, there is no tree-level coupling; therefore, the amplitude for the process is further suppressed by $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$. Using the result of $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})`$ as given in Section IV.3, it is easy to see that the partial width of $`Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is indeed at most an MeV.

A lower bound can be obtained on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})`$ based on the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix ($`S^{}S=1`$). We expect that this bound is likely to provide a fairly good estimate of the actual $`Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ partial width as long as cancellations of loop contributions with high internal momenta are implemented, as in the calculations of Ref. Kane:xp . The situation is analogous to the $`K_S`$$`K_L`$ mass difference and the decay $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. In each case the high-momentum components of the loop diagrams are suppressed (here, through the presence of the charmed quark GL ), leaving the low-mass on-shell states ($`\pi \pi `$ or $`\gamma \gamma `$, respectively) to provide a good estimate of the matrix element.

The imaginary part of the invariant matrix element $`(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{Im}\left[(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})\right]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{f}{}𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_f(Zf)^{}(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}f),$$
(12)
where the sum runs over all possible intermediate on-shell states $`f`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is the lightest supersymmetric particle in the scenario and all other supersymmetric particles (except $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$) are much heavier, we only need to consider the cases where $`f`$ is $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$. The contribution of the latter can be neglected because we require that the tree-level $`Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ coupling be small. Furthermore, since the mass of the heavy sbottom $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ is very large, only $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}b\overline{b}`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ exchange is considered to be significant. Based on the fact that $`|(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})|\mathrm{Im}\left[(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})\right]`$, our calculation indicates wip

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})}\frac{\alpha _s^2(M_Z)}{24}\frac{(g_V^b+g_A^b)^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}+(g_V^bg_A^b)^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{(g_V^b)^2+(g_A^b)^2},$$
(13)
Taking $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.123`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=0.39`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})0.02`$ MeV. As mentioned above, it is likely that the actual partial width is not far above this lower bound. We will take the upper bound to be 1 MeV, as explained earlier.

In summary, we estimate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})=(01)`$ MeV, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})=(2.24.4)`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})=(0.021)`$ MeV. The total correction to the predicted hadronic width of $`Z`$ is thus $`(4.40.2)`$ MeV, which is equivalent to a change of $`(0+0.008)`$ in $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ with respect to the SM value $`0.123\pm 0.005`$. We then have $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=(0.1230.131)\pm 0.005`$ in the SUSY scenario.

## V INFORMATION ON $`\alpha _s`$ ABOVE THE $`Z`$

A number of determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ at the highest-available mass scales are based on event shapes in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations Bethke:2002rv . An example Achard:2002jb  of such determinations, based on data at center-of-mass energies up to 206 GeV, is $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1227\pm 0.0012\pm 0.0058`$. Since the dominant error is systematic, it will not be decreased substantially by combination with results of other experiments.

The determination of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ from event shapes in high-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations will be affected in several ways by the light-gluino/light bottom squark scenario. Virtual bottom quarks will be able to radiate bottom squarks and gluinos; virtual gluons will be able to split into pairs of light bottom squarks and pairs of gluinos; and NNLO perturbative expressions will be modified because of new loops in gluon and bottom quark propagators. Estimates of these effects are beyond the scope of the present note, but are worth pursuing.

## VI RESULTS AND PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS

We show in Table 1 examples of the results for $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ based on the best determinations at various mass scales, both in the Standard Model and in the presence of a light gluino and bottom squark. As mentioned earlier, for a gluino in the 12 to 16 GeV mass range, values of $`\delta \alpha _s(M_Z)`$ due to this latter scenario range from $`0.015`$ to $`0.013`$ when extrapolating from $`m_b`$ to $`M_Z`$, so we shall quote their effect as $`0.014\pm 0.001`$.

Table 1 presents a rather unsatisfactory situation at present, in our view. No clear-cut decision is possible in favor of either the Standard Model or the light gluino/bottom squark scenario. In Fig. 2 we show values of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ extracted from determinations at various values of $`Q`$ Bethke:2002rv . A straight line, corresponding to the Standard Model, clearly provides an excellent fit, while we have shown that the best-measured values of $`\alpha _s`$ are also compatible with the light gluino/bottom squark hypothesis.

We expect that some of the indeterminacy should be reduced when results of fully unquenched lattice calculations appear, reducing the error on the extrapolated coupling constant to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _s(M_Z)=\pm 0.002`$ or less. However, further reduction of uncertainty will require improved determinations either at the $`Z`$ mass (particularly of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(Z)`$ and $`R_b`$) or above it (extrapolated down to $`M_Z`$). For the latter case, a calculation is needed for the effect of the light gluino/bottom squark proposal on hadronic event shapes.

## VII SUMMARY

We have outlined the current status of the scale-dependence of the strong fine-structure constant $`\alpha _s`$ and the light it can shed on the hypothesis of a light gluino and bottom squark. No conclusion is possible at present regarding this hypothesis with CP violating phases vis-à-vis the Standard Model. Improvements that will permit a more clear-cut test include refinement of lattice calculations, reduction of errors based in the hadronic and $`b\overline{b}`$ widths of the $`Z`$, and possibly more precise determinations based on event shapes in high-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. Of course, direct searches for light gluinos and bottom squarks will play a key role, but that is another story.

Note added: After this work was finished, we received a paper Cheung:2002  considering the $`Zb\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\stackrel{~}{g}+b^{}\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ channel, whose partial width was estimated to be of order $`10^3`$ GeV in the gluino mass range of interest to us. This positive contribution may partially cancel with the negative SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})`$ in both CP-conserving and CP-violating cases Baek:2002xf ; Cao:2001rz  and, therefore, brings down our estimate of $`\alpha _s`$ extracted at $`M_Z`$ in Table 1, where maximal CP violation is assumed.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank S. w. Baek, E. Berger, A. Djouadi, M. Drees, A. Leibovich, A. Kagan, A. Kronfeld, S. Martin, T. Tait, and C. Wagner for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, through Grant No. DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and under Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Einstein theory of gravitational interactions  supposes that all particles and bodies having energy, participate in the gravitational interactions (i.e. gravitational charge is $`m_{eff}=\frac{E}{c^2},c`$ is the light velocity). The Newton theory of gravity states that only massive particles and bodies (masses are charges) participate in interactions:

$$E=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r},$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
where $`E,G`$ are energy and constant of gravitational interactions, $`m_1,m_2`$ are masses of interacting particles or bodies and $`r`$ is distance between bodies or particles. Here, we see that massless bodies and particles cannot participate in Newton gravitational interactions (photon is such particle). In the Einstein gravity theory photons participate in the interactions since they have energy (but $`m=0`$) and effective mass is $`m_{eff}=\frac{E}{c^2}`$. The Einstein gravity theory is constructed as a development of the Newton gravity theory and there is supposed that charge of the gravitational interactions is connected with the forth component of energy-momenta tensor. Afterwards, this theory was checked on practice . But concrete form of interpretation of these experiments is under critical analysis \[4-9\], and it is hard to come to conclusion that this theory is confirmed. In this connection, there arises necessity of searching (constructing) of the correct theory of gravity, as well as deeper understanding of the nature of origin of the gravity interactions.

## 2 Alternative Approach to the Theory of Gravitational Interactions

In the work  it was shown that in the Newton gravity theory takes place a single shift of atomic and nuclear levels connected to changing effective masses of electrons and nucleons in external gravity fields (similar to the Stark effect  in external electric fields or level displacements in external magnetic fields ). And in the Einstein gravity theory  since the photons participate in gravitational interactions there must arise the same shift at moving photons through the gravitational field, and as a result there must take place double shift. In the experimental results obtained in , there is only single shift, i.e. the change of photon frequency at his going through gravitational field does not arise. It means that the hypothesis that gravitational charge can be connected to the tensor energy- momentum is not confirmed. Then, the following question arises: Could we come to this experimental result from the general positions of the theory of interactions? At present, we know four interaction types: electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravitational . The theory of electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions are constructed on the principle of the gauge invariance. In these theories the charges are scalars and invariant values (i.e. are not changed depending of coordinate system movements). In the Newton gravitational theory, the masses are charges, which are scalars and invariant values, i.e. this theory fulfills the basic demand of the theory of interactions (remark about gauge invariance of gravity theory, see below). In the Einstein theory of gravity the demand of invariance of charge is not fulfilled. Really, on the experiments on measurement frequencies shift the Einstein hypothesis is not confirmed. If the gravitational interactions take place through forth component of energy-momentum then it is possible to connect this interaction with space curvature . Since photons and another massless particles do not participate in the gravitational interactions, then necessity in this approach disappears and it is not necessary to construct the gravity theory on base of the second rank tensor. Then is stayed open the question about what types is the gravitational interactions? Obviously, the more attractive solution in this case is to construct vector theory of gravitation.

An another very interesting approach to the problem of gravity is discussed in work .

What do we know about the gravity? The Newton theory of gravity is well proved. These interactions are the long distance ones. The sign of gravity charge $`m`$ (mass) of particle and antiparticle coincide, i.e. $`C`$ (charge) parity is completely violated and the charge of particle and antiparticle coincide (it means that in these interactions polarization is absent). The carries of these interactions were not found. Probably it means that there are no any carriers of these interactions. Besides, masses of particles are generated mainly by strong and electromagnetic interactions (probably, there is another source of masses besides the strong and electromagnetic interactions which generate $`W,Z`$ boson masses ). If the particle masses are not generated by these interactions, (i.e. $`m=0`$) there cannot be any gravitational interactions. Then, probably, gravitational interactions are residual interactions of the above interactions (by analogy with the Van der Vaalse forces  in the atomic physics) which generate masses (charges) of the gravitational interactions.

It is clear that if we want to construct gauge theory of gravitational interactions it must be $`U\left(1\right)`$ theory since these interactions are long distance interactions. In $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge theory charge must be discrete (quantizated) but in these interactions charge (masses are not discrete values). And there must be charges with opposite signs where charges of the same sign are repulsed (and charges of the opposite sign are attracted). In the gravitational interactions are only charges (masses) of the same sign and they are attracted. So we see that it is impossible to construct gauge theory of the gravitational interactions in a straight manner and probably these interactions are residual ones with violated $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge symmetry.

Let us connect the charge of the residual (gravitational) interactions to the charge of strong interaction. Mass $`M_A`$ of a nucleus $`A`$ in rough approximation is equal to the masses of $`Z`$ protons and $`N`$ neutrons forming this nucleus

$$M_AZm_p+Nm_n.$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
Supposing that $`m_pm_nm_N`$ ($`N`$ is nucleon) and the mass of nucleon is formed by the strong interactions, one can write the following expression:

$$m_N=g_{strong}C1GeV,$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
where $`C`$ is constant of the scheme where the mass is computed .

Then

$$M_AAm_N,$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
and then we can construct gravitational interactions of the nuclei (and matter composing from nuclei). Now, we will return to the nucleon. From the Exp.(3) and supposing that $`g_{strong}^20.1`$, we have

$$C^2=\frac{m_N^2}{g_{strong}^2}10GeV^2.$$

Now, let’s consider energy of gravitational interaction of two nucleons:

$$E_N=G\frac{m_Nm_N}{r}G\frac{C^2g_{strong}^2}{r}=\overline{G}\frac{g_{strong}^2}{r},$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
where constant $`\overline{G}`$ is the value having no measurement and it is measure of suppression of the constant of the strong interactions

$$\overline{G}C^2G10GeV^2=1.6610^4,$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
i.e.

$$E_N1.6610^4\frac{g_{strong}^2}{r}=\overline{G}\frac{g_{strong}^2}{r},g_{grav}^2=1.6610^4g_{strong}^2.$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
We see that in this approach the constant of the gravitational interactions is a value without measurement and $`\overline{G}`$ is measure of suppression of the strong interactions and residual charge is $`g_{grav}`$.

Repeating the same consideration taking into account the electric charge $`e`$, we get

$$E_N=2.2710^3\frac{e^2}{r}=\overline{G}^{}\frac{e^2}{r},g_{grav}^2=2.2710^3e^2.$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
Probably, the residual charge of strong and electrical interactions must be equal if the gravitational interactions are universal ones; then the residual gravitational interactions can appear at a joint of strong and electromagnetic interactions.

The objective of this work is to attract opinion to the considered possibility, which explains absence of carriers of the gravitational interactions, and in this case the couple constant of gravitational interactions is a value without measurement.

## 3 Conclusion

In this work, we have discussed the idea that gravitational interactions may be residual interactions of the strong and electromagnetic interactions. Then, absence of the carriers of the gravitational interactions finds a natural explanation. Besides, since masses (charges of the gravitational interactions) of particles are generated in strong, electromagnetic (and possibly in other) interactions, and if masses of the particles are not generated in these interactions (i.e. $`m0`$), then the gravitational interactions do not appear. That is also indirect confirmation of the considered idea. Connections between the charge of gravitational and other interactions are considered.

In conclusion we would like to do some remarks about verification of the gravitational theory:

1. In the experiments with the Sun participant it is necessary to take into account diffraction, refraction and the strict content of the Sun atmosphere.

2. In the experiments with the light and the radio wave in the Sun system it is necessary to take into consideration strict compositions and distributions of gasses in the Sun system.

3. In the experiments on linsing it is also necessary to take into account strict composition and distribution of gasses in inter star and inter galactic space.

References

1. A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 49, 769, (1916);

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshits, Field Theory, M., Nauka,

1988, p.324.

2. R.V. Pound, G.A. Rebka, Phys. Rev. Let. 4, 337, (1960);

R.V. Pound, J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev. 140, 788, (1965).

3. J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev. Let. 28, 853, (1972).

4. P. Marmet, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classic

Mechanics, Newton Physics Books, Canada, 1997;

5. P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Essays, 1999, v.12, p.162.

6. V.N. Strel’tsov, JINR Communic. P2-96-435, Dubna, 1996; JINR

Communic. P2-98-300, Dubna, 1998; Apeiron, 6, 55,(1999).

7. V.V. Okorokov, ITEP preprint N 27, Moscow, 1998.

8. L.B. Okun, K.G. Selivanov and V.L. Telegdi, UFN (Russian

Journ.) 169, 1140, (1999).

9. Kh. M. Beshtoev, JINR Commun. P4-2000-45, Dubna, 2000;

Physics Essays 2000, v.13, p.593; Procced. of the 27-th ICRC,

Hamburg, Germany, v.3, p.1183.

10. G. Bethe, E. Solpiter, Quantum Mechanics of Atoms

with One and Two Electrons, Moscow, 1960.

11. W. Gerlach, O. Stern, Der Experimentelle Nachwies

der Richtungsquantelung in Magnetfield, Z. Phys.,

1922, Bd.9, s.349.

12. The Europian Phys. Journ. C, Review of Particle Phys. 2000,

v.15, N1-4.

13. A. A. Tayapkin, Proceedings of the IV-th Scientific

Conference Young Scientists and Specialists of JINR, Dubna,

2000, p.49.

14. A. L. Buchachenko, Chimical Polarizations of Electrons

and Niclei, Moscow, 1974.


text:
# Knots in Charged Polymers

## I Introduction

A polymer chain can be easily deformed, but since it cannot cross itself, it is subject to topological constraints. These constraints can be temporary, such as entanglements between linear polymers, or permanent if the chains are closed (ring polymers) or cross-linked. Understanding the influence of topological entanglements on static and dynamic properties of polymers is a long-standing issue degennesSC ; edwards , which has recently found renewed interest in the context of knotted biopolymers. DNA in the cell can change its topology by the topoisomerase enzymes that pass one strand through another, in the process either creating or removing knots topo . Synthetic RNA trefoil knots have been used to prove the existence of a similar (previously unknown) topology changing enzyme wang . There is also much interest in developing artificial biopolymers, for example as molecular building blocks or for DNA-based computing, and in this quest complex knots and links have been created in both single and double stranded DNA seeman . Tight knots have been tied in single molecule experiments on both DNA and actin filaments using optical tweezers arai .

Several theoretical approaches have addressed the influence of topological constraints in polymer networks and solutions. In particular, the tube model edwards  in which the constraints are replaced by a hard confining tube, is quite successful in predicting relaxation dynamics of polymeric solutions. In a complementary approach, topological constraints are described in terms of localized entanglements or knots, that perform collective motions along the polymers iwata . Single molecule experiments are now able to probe polymers of specified topology, and to examine the influence of knot complexity on basic physical properties such as the radius of gyration $`R_\mathrm{g}`$. A simple scaling picture quake  suggests that $`R_\mathrm{g}`$ is reduced as a power of the knot complexity, measured by the minimal number of crossings in a projection. Indeed, a Flory mean field theory of knotted ring polymers grosberg ; rabin  incorporating this knot invariant predicts various scaling dependences on knot complexity. A topological localization effect is also suggested, in which knots segregate in a single relatively compact domain while the rest of the polymer ring expels all the entanglements and swells freely. Recent Monte Carlo simulations in Refs. guiter ; katrich ; orlandini ; farago  support the idea that entropic factors localize topological constraints. This is bolstered by analytical arguments on slip-linked polymers metz , and experiments on vibrated granular chains Ben-Naim .

Many biopolymers are highly charged. The effect of electrostatics on knotting probability of double stranded DNA has been studied in the case where the screening length is smaller than the persistence length of the polymer. The effect of the Coulomb interactions is then to renormalize the effective thickness of the polymer rybenkov-shaw ; tesi . However synthetic polymers and single stranded DNA both have an intrinsic persistence length of the order $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p}1`$nm tinland  which could be small compared to the electrostatic screening lengths. In this paper we explore the influence of topological constraints on charged polymers in cases where the screening length is large or comparable to the intrinsic persistence length. In Sec. II we start by considering the idealized case of unscreened Coulomb interactions. This case demonstrates that under long-range interactions the topological constraints are pulled into tight knots. As discussed in Sec. III, this conclusion has to be re-examined in real systems due to finite rigidity of the polymer, thermal fluctuations, and, most importantly, finite screening. Surprisingly, we find that tight knots are rather resilient: They remain as global equilibrium solutions as long as the overall shape of the polymer is dominated by the (screened) Coulomb interactions. Tight knots can also remain as metastable states for shorter screening lengths, as long as the electrostatic bending rigidity is larger than the intrinsic one. Such long-lived tight knots have strong influence on the relaxation dynamics of the polymers as discussed in Sec. IV. In particular, we find that the most likely way for eliminating topological entanglements is by diffusion of tight knots along the chain; interestingly stronger Coulomb interactions lead to tighter knots that are less mobile.

## II Unscreened interactions

We first consider a simple model of a charged polymer in which monomers repel each other via unscreened Coulomb interactions. The interaction between two charges $`e`$, in a solvent with dielectric constant $`\epsilon `$, separated by distance $`r`$ is $`e^2/\epsilon r`$, and consequently the overall electrostatic energy of a polymer of $`N`$ monomers is $`V_c=(e^2/\epsilon )_{i>j}^N1/|𝐫_i𝐫_j|`$, where $`𝐫_i`$ is the position of $`i`$-th monomer. Given a typical separation between adjacent monomers of $`a`$, it is convenient to introduce the energy scale $`ϵ_oe^2/\epsilon a`$. Initially, we focus on configurations in which the monomers are locally stretched to form smooth straight segments, gradually curving at a larger length scale $`R`$ set by the overall shape. For such configurations the Coulomb energy has the form

$$E_c(N)=ϵ_o\left[N\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{a}\right)+c\frac{aN^2}{R}\right],$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is a numerical constant of order unity, and we note the following:

* For any smooth curve, the integral of the $`1/r`$–potential leads to a logarithmic divergence, and consequently the energy of the polymer is overextensive, and, consequently, the tension on the polymer increases as $`\mathrm{ln}N`$. Therefore, thermal fluctuations are irrelevant for a sufficiently long polymer, whose shape is determined by minimizing the energy.
* The second term in Eq. 1 can be regarded as the Coulomb interaction between charges (or order $`N`$) on remote parts of the polymer (distances of order $`R`$). Since typically $`RNa`$, the partition of the energy between the two parts is not precise, and can be changed by redefining $`R`$.
* The Coulomb interaction prefers to keep the charges far apart, and the polymer minimizes its energy by assuming a shape with maximal $`R`$. Thus, open polymers simply form straight lines, while unknotted ring-polymers form circles.

The above argument can be misleading in the case of a knotted polymer, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Here, we used Monte Carlo (MC) off-lattice simulations to determine the shape of knotted polymers at finite temperature. Our model polymer consisted of hard sphere monomers connected by “tethers”KKN  that have no energy but limit the distance of a connected pair to 1.05 of the hard sphere diameter $`a`$. Fig. 1 depicts the results of a simulation for a trefoil knot: As an initial conformation (left) in this simulation (as well as in the subsequent simulations of more complex knots) we used a harmonic representation trautwein  in which coordinates of the monomers are given as polynomials in $`\mathrm{cos}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(t)`$, where $`t`$ parametrizes the curve. (This provides a relatively clear visualization of the knot.) Since the hard core and tether potentials do not have an energy scale, the temperature $`T`$ appears in the simulations in the combination $`k_BT/ϵ_o`$, which we will denote as dimensionless temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$. All simulations described in this section were performed for $`\stackrel{~}{T}=1.4`$. It is customary to represent the strength of the electrostatic potential by the Bjerrum length $`\mathrm{}_B=e^2/\epsilon k_BT`$. (In water at room temperature $`\mathrm{}_B`$=0.7nm.) In our notation, the Bjerrum length is simply related to the dimensionless temperature by $`\mathrm{}_Ba/\stackrel{~}{T}`$. (Note that for the moderate values of $`N=64`$ used in this simulation, the polymer shape on the right of Fig. 1 is somewhat ‘wiggly’; an effect that should disappear for $`N\mathrm{}`$ due to the overextensivity of the energy.)

Figure 1 clearly shows that in equilibrium the trefoil assumes an almost circular shape, with the topological details concentrated on a very small portion. (The scale of the right side part of Fig. 1 has in fact been reduced by a factor 2 relative to the left figure, and the actual linear extent of the equilibrated knot is almost twice its initial size.) This behavior can be explained by comparing the long and short-ranged contributions to the Coulomb interaction: By expanding its radius, the long-range part of the Coulomb energy is reduced by a factor of $`\delta (N^2/R)N`$. This comes at the cost of bringing several charges close together in the tight portion, but the latter energy is independent of $`N`$, and can be easily tolerated for sufficiently long polymers.

Because of the highly curved portion, Eq. 1 does not apply to tight knots. For a semi-quantitative understanding of the tension that creates such objects, consider a simpler example of an $`N`$-monomer closed chain folded into a shape consisting of a large circle of $`Nn`$ monomers, and a small loop of $`n`$ monomers, as depicted in Fig. 2. For $`nN`$, the electrostatic energy can be decomposed as $`E_c(Nn)+E_c(n)+E_i`$, where $`E_c`$ is given in Eq. 1, while $`E_i`$ is the interaction energy between the small loop and the large circle. Assuming that the curved strands are separated by a distance of the order $`na`$, the latter is of the order of $`2ϵ_on[\mathrm{ln}(N/n)+c^{}]`$, where $`c^{}`$ is a constant depending on the details of the shape. The leading $`n`$–dependent part of the total energy is then

$$E(N,n)ϵ_on\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{N}{n}\right),$$
(2)
representing a tension that grows logarithmically with the length of the polymer. This conclusion is not limited to the shape depicted in Fig. 2, but should apply to any smooth linear curve consisting of two portions of very different sizes. Equation 2 thus indicates that from purely electrostatic energy considerations $`n`$ should take the smallest possible value, as indeed happens in the case of a tight knot in Fig. 1.

The tightness observed for a trefoil knot also occurs in more complicated topologies. Figure 3 depicts the results of equilibration of 128-monomer polymers beginning from a harmonic shape on the left, to equilibrium shapes (on the right) at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=1.4`$. Below each figure we indicate the type of the knot in the standard notation $`𝒞_k`$, where $`𝒞`$ is the minimal number of crossings the knot can have in a planar projection knotbook . Since for a given number of crossings there can exist several different knots, an additional subscript $`k`$ labels the standard ordering of these knots. (For $`𝒞=3`$ and 4 there is only one knot, while for $`𝒞=8`$ there are 21 distinct knots knotbook .) Despite the increasing topological complexity of the knots in Fig. 3, their eventual (collapsed-knot) state is reliably represented by the semi-quantitative description based on the energetics of Fig. 2.

The above arguments indicate the energetic advantage of compressing any indivisible topological constraint into a tight shape (as opposed to leaving it as an expanded structure). However, similar considerations suggest that, if possible, any concentrated region of charge should split into smaller elements placed as far as possible from each other. Such a reduction is not possible for the prime knots considered in Fig. 3, which (by definition) cannot be separated into several parts connected by a single line. In contrast, composite knots are formed by joining several prime factors together, and Fig. 4 presents initial and final (equilibrium) states of several such knots on 128-monomer polymers. The notation below each knot indicates its constituent prime components. The Coulomb interaction clearly “factorizes” any composite knot, separating its elements as far as possible. However, since the typical interaction energies between the prime factors are only a few $`ϵ_o`$, thermal fluctuations ($`\stackrel{~}{T}=1.4`$) in the distances between these tight regions are quite pronounced.

## III Beyond ‘Ideal’ Knots

Many of the results in the previous section are in fact known to knot theorists, who have investigated long-range repulsive interactions with the aim of finding a knot-invariant energy idealknots ; hoidn . The basic question is whether a properly scaled energy of the ground state configuration (the ideal state) for certain choices of interaction functions can be used as a means of distinguishing different knot types. An example of such an interaction is Simon’s ‘minimal distance’ between the strands function, or a repulsive $`1/r^2`$ type interaction simon  which produces symmetric spread out ground states. In Ref. kusner  it was conjectured that minimizing knot-invariant energies should decompose a knot into prime sub-knots and simulations with $`1/r^2`$ interactions support this kauffman . Electrostatic interactions do not generate useful knot-invariant energies, since, in the absence of excluded volume interactions, knots on a continuous curve are collapsed to a point ohara , providing no (cut-off independent) way of identifying knots. (Indeed, in the simulations of the previous section knots were tightened into compact objects whose extent was determined by the monomer size.) While this conclusion may be disappointing to a knot–theorist, it is encouraging from the perspective of polymer science, since it is easier to describe the properties of tight entanglements, without having to worry about their precise topology. However, this is the case only if we can demonstrate that tight knots survive for realistic polymers subject to electrostatic interactions in actual solvents. Accordingly, in this section we shall include additional attributes present in such situations, and consider the effects of bending rigidity, thermal fluctuations, and (most importantly) of a finite screening length. In these circumstances the size of the knot can be significantly larger than in its maximally tight state; nevertheless, tight knots can still remain.

### III.1 Bending rigidity

Many microscopic aspects of polymers are captured at a mesoscopic scale by a curvature energy, describing its resistance to bending. In a charged polymer one should distinguish between the intrinsic bending rigidity, and an effective rigidity which includes the electrostatic contributions. The latter arises because bending a straight segment brings the monomers closer and thus increases the Coulomb energy. The former can be represented by a length $`\mathrm{}_p`$ at which, in the absence of other interactions, the transverse thermal fluctuations of the polymer become of the same order as the length-scale itself, or at which orientations of the bonds become uncorrelated. Simple analysis relates $`\mathrm{}_p`$ to the bending rigidity $`\kappa `$ and temperature by $`\kappa k_BT\mathrm{}_p`$. In charged polymers, $`\mathrm{}_p`$ should be measured in the presence of high salt content, so that electrostatic contributions to rigidity are screened out. It is reasonable that the bending rigidity, rather than monomer size, should determine the size of a tight knot. The energy for bending a segment of length $`\mathrm{}`$, with radius of curvature also of order of $`\mathrm{}`$, is $`\kappa /\mathrm{}`$ with a dimensionless shape-dependent prefactor. For the shape depicted in Fig. 2, there is now a bending cost of $`E_b\kappa /na`$ which competes with the electrostatic energy in Eq. 2. By minimizing the sum of these energies, we find that the optimal knot size is

$`n_k`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{ϵ_o\mathrm{ln}(N/n_k)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{ϵ_o\mathrm{ln}(N^2ϵ_o/\kappa )}}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{ln}(N^2\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p})}}},`$
where we have omitted numerical prefactors of order unity. This result indicates that the knot in stiff polymers of moderate size $`N`$ can be as large as $`\sqrt{\kappa /ϵ_o}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}}`$, and becomes compact only for $`N\mathrm{exp}(\kappa /ϵ_o)`$.

### III.2 Thermal Fluctuations

At high temperatures, entropic factors (which favor crumpled states) compete with electrostatic effects. While the latter dominate on sufficiently long length-scales, at short length-scales fluctuations are important. This competition can be visualized by a simple blob picture degennesSC . If a strong external force $`f`$ is applied to a self-avoiding polymer without electrostatic interactions, it is stretched to a linear form. This linear object, however, has a finite width $`R_b`$, and can be regarded as a chain of blobs of this size. On length–scales shorter than the blob size, the external force has negligible effect, and we can relate $`R_b`$ to the number of monomers $`N_b`$ forming the blob via the usual relation for self–avoiding polymersdegennesSC : $`R_baN_b^\nu `$ with $`\nu 0.59`$. Consequently, the linear extent of the entire polymer is approximately $`R_b(N/N_b)`$. If a weak force $`f`$ is applied to a segment of spatial extent $`R_b`$, that segment is stretcheddegennesSC  by an amount $`XR_b^2f/k_BT`$. The size of a blob is determined by requirement that $`XR_b`$, leading to $`R_bk_BT/f`$. An open charged polymer can also be viewed as a stretched chain formed from such blobs degennes76 ; pfeuty78 , while a ring-polymer is a circle of such blobs. The force stretching a blob in an object of this type is $`ϵ_oa(N_b/R_b)^2\mathrm{ln}(N/N_b)`$. By substituting this force into the expression for blob size, and solving it, we extract the number of monomers in each blob as

$`N_b`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{ϵ_o\mathrm{ln}(N/N_b)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}}{\mathrm{ln}(N/\stackrel{~}{T}^{\frac{1}{2\nu }})}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}}{\mathrm{ln}N(a/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B})^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}.`$
Of course, the blob picture is meaningful only if $`N_b`$ is larger than unity. Thus blobs can appear only for temperatures $`\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{ln}N`$; and for $`N=128`$ we expect to see the blobs for $`\stackrel{~}{T}5`$. Fig. 5 depicts equilibrium shapes of a trefoil knot at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}=10`$, and we see the appearance of a wiggly structure in the higher temperature regime. At such high temperatures, we expect knots to have a size typical of that in a non–charged polymer consisting of $`N_b`$ monomers. The exact size of the knot region in non–charged polymers in three–dimensional space is not known; simulations suggest that knots are localized katrich ; orlandini , but not compact farago . The size of the blob in Fig. 5 is too small for any kind of quantitative study, but we clearly see that the knot is no longer maximally compact.

### III.3 Screened Interactions

A charged polymer in solution is accompanied by neutralizing counterions, and potentially other charged ions due to added salt. In general, the effect of these additional ions on the charged polymer is quite complicated, and dependent on the intrinsic stiffness, strength of the charge, and valency of counterions polyel\_pers . However, in many cases the net effect can be approximated by a screened Coulomb potential $`V=(e^2/\epsilon r)\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the Debye screening length debye . Since the previous arguments for the tightness of charged knots rely on the long-ranged part of the Coulomb interaction, we may well question if and when tight knots survive with screened forces.

It is important to realize that Coulomb interactions affect the polymer on scales much larger than $`\lambda `$, due to increased bending rigidity. Curving a straight polymer to a radius $`R`$ brings its charges closer, resulting in an extra energy cost of order $`(e^2/\epsilon R)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2`$ for screened Coulomb interactions, where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\lambda /a`$ is the reduced screening length. This can be regarded as an effective bending rigidity, which (in the presence of thermal fluctuations) leads to the Odijk–Skolnick–Fixman persistence length OSF  of $`\mathrm{}_c=\lambda ^2e^2/(\epsilon k_BTa^2)=\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2`$. The electrostatic persistence length is in general much larger than the screening length. In terms of our reduced variables $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c\mathrm{}_c/a=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2/\stackrel{~}{T}`$. This expression is valid provided that the length scales considered are larger than the screening length, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}<\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$.

For very large $`\lambda `$, comparable to the size of the polymer, the effects of screening are not very important: E.g., Eq. 2 for electrostatic energy of a knot remains valid if $`N`$ is replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, and similar replacements should be made in Eq. 3 for the knot size in a stiff polymer, or in Eq. 4 for the blob size. In all these expressions, the number of monomers enters only in a logarithm, and, consequently, its replacement by $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ does not significantly change the result. Eq. 3 for the optimal knot size is valid (with $`N`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$) only if the knot is smaller than the screening length. This condition, $`\lambda >an_k`$, leads to the cross-over boundary

$$\lambda >a\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}}},$$
(5)
which is equivalent to $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}>\mathrm{}_\mathrm{p}`$. We thus conclude that a tight knot can exist only when the overall bending rigidity is dominated by electrostatic contributions. For smaller values of $`\lambda `$, the short range repulsion can no longer bend the knot into a tight shape.

Note that the analysis leading to Eq. 3 only demonstrates the local stability of a tight knot. The global energy minimum could still occur for a spread out configuration. To decide on the latter requires estimates of the energy difference between the two configurations, and depends on microscopic details, as well as the length of the polymer. A circle with a tight knot, and the spread out knotted shape, both have a bending energy (at large scales) of the order of $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}/R`$. Since the circular shape has a larger radius, it has a lower energy, the energy difference scaling as $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}/(Na)`$, if both radii are proportional to the polymer length. The tight knot in the former has an additional local energy cost, which is of the order of $`k_BT(\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}/a)`$ (possibly with logarithmic corrections), but independent of $`N`$. Thus, we expect the configuration with a spread-out knot to have a lower energy only for $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}/N<\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}`$, i.e. for screening lengths

$$\lambda \lambda _ca\sqrt{N}.$$
(6)
Note that the limiting value of $`\lambda `$ still corresponds to a persistence length of the order of the extended polymer, i.e. the polymer shape is determined by energy considerations, and thermal fluctuations have little effect, at this point. We verified this conclusion by numerically determining the shape of the trefoil that minimizes the screened Coulomb interactions. Figure 6 shows the radius of gyration as a function of the screening length. For screening lengths larger than $`\lambda _c0.4aN^{1/2}`$, the knot switches from a loose to a tight configuration.

Let us briefly explore the possibility of tight knots in nucleic acids. Double stranded DNA has a bare persistence length of $`\mathrm{}_p50`$nm, which is much larger than typical screening lengths, and consequently is not likely to incorporate any knots tightened by Coulomb interactions. However, measurements on single stranded DNA in high salt concentrations tinland  suggest a much smaller intrinsic $`\mathrm{}_p1`$nm, and presumably a similar (or smaller) value applies to single stranded RNA. Tight knots should then occur for single stranded nucleic acids for reasonable screening lengths of the order $`\lambda 10`$nm. This could for example be relevant to the experiments of Ref. wang , where artificial knots in single stranded RNA were used to demonstrate the existence of a topology changing enzyme. Knotted polymers are often distinguished from unknotted ones by electrophoresis wang . However, if the knot is tight, the knotted polymer may have an electrophoretic mobility close to that of a ring polymer, making such detection problematic.

## IV Tight Knots and Dynamics

Tight knots are created whenever a polymer is under tension; the source of tension need not be long-range repulsions. For example, it has been argued that tight molecular knots appear in polymer systems undergoing crystallization, as crystallization at one point may create tension in other parts of the chain degennes . Polymers in a strong shear flow are also subject to tension degennes ; degennes\_book , and may even undergo a coil-stretch transition as a result degennes2 . It is plausible that stretching could tighten loose knots in the chain. Once created, such molecular knots should be quite stable and thus account for long-time memory effects observed in polymer melts degennes . However, molecular dynamics simulations suggest that once the tension is removed a tight knot opens up in a short time mansfield . Without being systematic, here we examine a couple of dynamical issues pertaining to charged tight knots, namely their creation in a high temperature quench, and their relaxation by diffusion along the chain.

### IV.1 Tightening by Quench

It is quite likely that when topological entanglements are first formed, e.g. in the process of cyclization of a polymer, they are spread out over the whole chain. Subsequent tightening then occurs upon increasing tension. In the case of charged knots, this process is illustrated in Fig. 7. Here, the initial configurations are the spread out harmonic representations, which soon evolve into loops separated by tight elements. The relaxation process then slows down as one of the loops grows at the expense of the others. A universal last stage is the appearance of a structure reminiscent of Fig. 2, with two loops separated by a tight ‘slip-link.’ We observed the same sequence in simulations where the initial configurations was an equilibrated (random walk) knot. The formation of the two loops separated by a slip-link was again relatively fast, and the rate limiting step was the sliding of one loop through the tightly packed monomers at the slip-link.

### IV.2 Diffusion of Tight Knots

As demonstrated in the previous situation, tight knots slow down the relaxation of the polymer to its eventual equilibrium state. Here we study such relaxation more explicitly for a knot in an open charged polymer. In this case there is no topological constraint, and the polymer is expected to unknot to achieve its equilibrium state. Does a tight knot in an open chain relax by becoming loose and opening up, or by sliding (diffusing) to one end. As demonstrated in Fig. 8, the latter is the case: The initial configuration (in a chain of $`N=64`$ monomers with unscreened interaction) remains tight, indicating that the stretching force from the monomers at the ends of the chain is larger than from those forming the knot. In the simulation, the knot’s position fluctuates for some time in the middle, before moving to one direction. The eventual unknotting occurs when the diffusing tight knot reaches the end of the polymer.

A tight knot in the middle of an open chain is in a meta-stable state. We can estimate a potential energy for the tight knot by considering a charge $`Q=ne`$ along a charged chain of $`N`$ monomers. The Coulomb energy then depends on the position of this charge $`N_1`$, as $`E=k_\mathrm{B}T(\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}/a)n\mathrm{ln}[N_1(NN_1)]`$. This energy is minimal when the charge $`Q`$ is at either endpoint of the polymer, i.e. for $`N_1=0`$ or $`N`$. Note that the force pushing the extra charge towards the end scales with $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}`$, and we may naively expect that the resulting relaxation becomes faster as the Coulomb energy is increased. In fact, the opposite occurs for charge knots, with relaxation slowing down as Coulomb interactions become more dominant. The reason is that increased charging energy leads to a higher tension and more closely packed monomers in the knot. Any motion of the knot requires some internal rearrangements of these monomers, accompanied by pulling in some monomers from the straight portions of the chain. This necessitates overcoming an energy barrier of $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{ln}N`$, and consequently higher charged knots are tight and harder to move. Since rearrangements require a large activation energy, the knot remains stuck in position. This is quite similar to what happens to a knot in a polymer under strong tension degennes .

While with unscreened Coulomb interactions the tight knot feels a potential that drives it to one end, there is no such force when the interactions are screened (unless the distance between the knot and the endpoint of the polymer is of the order of the screening length). The energy barrier preventing the loosening of the knot is also finite in this case. The resulting dynamics for a chain of 128 monomers with a screening length of $`\lambda =6a`$ is demonstrated in Fig. 9; despite the screening the knot remains tight until it diffuses to one end. The characteristic time scales for the relaxation of the knot can be estimated as follows. The time for diffusion over a distance $`Na`$ scales as $`a^2N^2/D_{knot}`$, with the knot diffusion coefficient behaving as $`D_{knot}D\mathrm{exp}(_D/k_\mathrm{B}T)`$. Here, $`D`$ is the diffusion constant for a single monomer, while the activation energy for local rearrangements necessary for motion of the tight region is roughly $`_Dk_\mathrm{B}T(\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}/a)\mathrm{log}(\lambda /a)`$. There is also the possibility that the knot becomes loose, escaping the local minimum of the tight configuration. The energy barrier for the latter is $`_bk_BT\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\lambda /a^2`$, with a corresponding time scale of $`\tau (a^2/D)\mathrm{exp}(_b/k_\mathrm{B}T)`$. In time $`\tau `$, the knot can diffuse a distance $`L\sqrt{D_{knot}\tau }`$. We thus estimate a “processivity length” over which a tight knot diffuses, before opening up, by

$$L_\mathrm{p}a\mathrm{exp}\left(C\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\lambda /a^2\right),$$
(7)
where $`C`$ is a constant of order unity. The processivity length increases strongly with the screening length $`\lambda `$ and quickly reaches a macroscopic length, indicating that the relaxation of a tight knot will be by diffusion along the chain, even for very long chains. Also note that $`L_\mathrm{p}`$ is in general much larger than the electrostatic persistence length which only grows quadratically with the screening length ($`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{B}\lambda /a^2`$).

## V Discussion

We have shown that long-ranged Coulomb forces generate a tension that tightens topological constraints into dense localized regions, leaving the rest of the polymer unentangled. For knots on ring polymers, we confirm the “factorization” of composite knots into their prime components. Tight knots remain, even when the Coulomb interaction is screened, as long as the electrostatic contributions dominate the rigidity of the polymer. Once formed, tight knots drastically slow down the equilibration of the polymer (or polymer solution), as they typically relax by diffusion along the backbone. If the Coulomb interactions are strong enough, the knot is pulled so tight that it is unable to diffuse, and its position appears frozen. This is different from uncharged polymers where molecular dynamics simulations in ref. mansfield  find that tight knots in short uncharged polymers open up rapidly. Our results predict that tight knots in polyelectrolytes can be very stable and cause long relaxation times. While we have focused on single polymers, it is natural to speculate about similar behavior in solutions of many chains. It is indeed quite likely that inter-chain entanglements are also tightened in polyelectrolyte solutions and gels.

Additional consequences of tight knots are in their influence on mobility (electrophoresis), and on the mechanical strength of polymers. It has been shown recently by direct measurement on DNA and actin filaments that knots significantly weaken the strand arai . Similarly, molecular dynamics simulations of knotted polyethylene chains also find that the strands becomes weaker, and typically break at the entrance point where the straight segment ends and the tight knot begins saitta . Single stranded DNA is relatively fragile and sometimes breaks during electrophoresis or when subject to flow; tight knots may well be responsible for this phenomenon.

## VI Acknowledgements

We thank Ralf Metzler and Andreas Hanke for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grants DMR-01-18213 and PHY99-07949, and by US-Israel Binational Science Foundation grant 1999-007. P.G.D. acknowledges support from the Research Council of Norway.