text:
# 1 The puzzle

## 1 The puzzle

Let $`p5`$ be a prime number. In the theory of modular forms mod $`p`$ (see \[S\] and \[SwD\]) a special role is played by the Hasse invariant and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ operator.

We fix an embedding $`\overline{𝐐}\overline{𝐐_p}`$, and denote the corresponding place of $`\overline{𝐐}`$ by $`\mathrm{}`$. We have a modular form $`E_{p1}`$ of weight $`p1`$ in $`M_{p1}(SL_2(𝐙),𝐙_p)`$, that is congruent to 1 mod $`\mathrm{}`$ (see \[S\] and \[SwD\]). By congruence we will mean a congruence of Fourier coefficients at almost all primes. The modular form $`E_{p1}`$ is the normalised form of the classical Eisenstein series, and has $`q`$-expansion

$$12(p1)/B_{p1}\sigma _{p2}(n)q^n,$$

and the congruence property of $`E_{p1}`$ is then a consequence of the divisibility of the denominator of $`B_{p1}`$ by $`p`$ (the theorem of Clausen-von Staudt: see \[S, §1.1\]).

Multiplying by $`E_{p1}`$ gives the fact that for any positive integer $`N`$ prime to $`p`$ a weight 2 form in $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐙_p)`$ is congruent mod $`p`$ to a weight $`p+1`$ form in $`S_{p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐙_p)`$. It follows that a weight 2 normalized eigenform in $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\overline{𝐙_p})`$ is congruent mod $`\mathrm{}`$ to a weight $`p+1`$ eigenform in $`S_{p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\overline{𝐙_p})`$ (see \[DS, §6.10\]).

For $`N5`$ prime to $`p`$, the Hasse invariant constructed geometrically (see \[Kz\]) is a global section of the coherent sheaf $`\omega _{X_1(N)_{𝐅_p}}^{p1}`$ where $`\omega _{X_1(N)_{𝐅_p}}`$ is the pull back of the canonical sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{/X_1(N)_{𝐅_p}}`$ by the zero section of the map $`_{𝐅_p}X_1(N)_{𝐅_p}`$, and with $`_{𝐅_p}`$ the universal generalised elliptic curve over $`X_1(N)_{𝐅_p}`$: $`E_{p1}`$ can be interpreted as a characteristic zero lift of the Hasse invariant (Deligne).

The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ operator on modular forms mod $`p`$ is defined by:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(a_nq^n)=na_nq^n$$

where $`a_n\overline{𝐅_p}`$. It preserves levels, and increases weights by $`p+1`$, i.e., it gives maps:

$$M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)M_{k+p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p),$$

preserving cusp forms. The analog in group cohomology of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ operator on mod $`p`$ modular forms, can be found in \[AS\]. The aim of this note is to find a group theoretic substitute for the Hasse invariant.

Unlike as is done in \[AS\] in the case of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, for good reasons we cannot find an element in group cohomology that is an analog of the Hasse invariant. What we do find instead is a procedure for raising weights by $`p1`$ of mod $`p`$ Hecke eigenforms of weight two (preserving the level) that is one of the principal uses of the Hasse invariant.

Using the Eichler-Shimura isomorphism the relevant Hecke modules are $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)`$ and $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$. From the viewpoint of group cohomology the above considerations give that a Hecke system of eigenvalues $`(a_l)_{lp}`$ in the former also arises from the latter. This at first sight is puzzling as indeed the $`p1^{\mathrm{𝗌𝗍}}`$ symmetric power of the standard 2-dimensional representation of $`SL_2(𝐅_p)`$ is irreducible. In this short note we “resolve” this puzzle.

Indeed the solution to the puzzle is implicit in an earlier paper of one of us (cf. Remark 4 at the end of Section 3 of \[K\]) where the issue arose in trying to understand why the methods for studying Steinberg lifts of an irreducible modular Galois representation $`\rho :G_𝐐GL_2(\overline{𝐅_p})`$ were qualitatively different from those for studying principal series and supercuspidal lifts. The buzzwords there were that the $`p`$-dimensional minimal $`K`$-type of a Steinberg representation of $`GL_2(𝐐_p)`$ also arises in the restriction to $`GL_2(𝐙_p)`$ of any unramified principal series representation of $`GL_2(𝐐_p)`$.

The key to the solution of this puzzle (again) is a study of the degeneracy map $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$.

In Section 3 we will give applications of our method in the situtation of imaginary quadratic fields, where the “geometric Hasse invariant” perforce is not available. Furthermore modular forms in this setting do not have a multiplicative structure. We owe this observation, and indeed the suggestion that our methods should work in this case, to Ian Kiming. Our cohomological methods do work in this situation, but have the (inherent) defect that results are about characteristic $`p`$ modular forms, and may not be used directly to produce congruences between characteristic $`0`$ eigenforms of different weights. This comes from the fact that in this situation torsion in cohomology can possibly occur even after localisation at “interesting” maximal ideals of the Hecke algebra (see the concluding remark).

In Section 4 we deal with the case of totally real fields and in Section 5 we spell out some consequences of \[K\] for raising of levels in higher weights.

## 2 The solution to the puzzle

Let us recall the hypotheses: $`p5`$ is prime, and $`N1`$ is prime to $`p`$. Consider the cohomology groups $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)`$ and $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$. We have the standard action of Hecke operators $`T_r`$ on these cohomology groups. We recall that we only consider the action for $`(r,p)=1`$. We have the degeneracy map

$$\alpha :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)$$

that is defined to be the sum $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$ where $`\alpha _1`$ is the restiction map, and $`\alpha _2`$ the “twisted” restriction map, given by conjugation by

$$g:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

followed by restriction. The map $`\alpha `$ is equivariant for the $`T_r`$’s that we consider. We have the following variant of a lemma of Ihara and Ribet (see \[R\], and also \[CDT, 6.3.1\]).

###### Lemma 1

The map $`\alpha :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ is injective.

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the subgroup of $`SL_2(𝐙[1/p])`$ of elements congruent to $`(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{1})`$ modulo $`N`$. The arguments of \[S2, II, §1.4\] show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the amalgam of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ and $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)g^1`$ along their intersection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$. The universal property of amalgams then implies that the kernel of $`\alpha `$ is $`H^1(\mathrm{\Delta },𝐅_p)`$ i.e., $`Hom(\mathrm{\Delta },𝐅_p)`$. By \[S1\], each subgroup of finite index of $`SL_2(𝐙[1/p])`$ is a congruence subgroup, hence each morphism from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`𝐅_p`$ factors through the image $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in some $`SL_2(𝐙/n𝐙)`$ with $`n`$ prime to $`p`$. The result follows, as $`p`$ is at least $`5`$ and does not divide $`N`$. (We use that $`SL_2(𝐙)`$ maps surjectively to $`SL_2(𝐙/n𝐙)`$.)

By Shapiro’s lemma we see that $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ is isomorphic (as a Hecke module) to $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p[𝐏^1(𝐅_p)])`$. Using an easy computation of Brauer characters we deduce that the semisimplification of $`𝐅_p[𝐏^1(𝐅_p)]`$ under the natural action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ (that factors through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$) is $`\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2)`$. In fact as the cardinality of $`𝐏^1(𝐅_p)`$ is prime to $`p`$ we deduce that this is indeed true even before semisimplification, i.e., $`𝐅_p[𝐏^1(𝐅_p)]`$ is semisimple as a $`SL_2(𝐅_p)`$-module. The submodule $`\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}`$ is identified with the constant functions, with complement the functions with zero average. Thus we identify $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ with $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$. The degeneracy map $`\alpha `$ takes the form:

$$H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2)).$$

###### Lemma 2

The map:

$$\beta :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2)),$$

that is the composition of $`\alpha _2`$ with the projection of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ to $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$, is injective.

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 1, and the fact that $`\alpha _1:H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ has image exactly the first summand of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$.

In view of the Eichler-Shimura isomorphism (see \[DI, §12\]), we have a new proof by a purely group cohomological method of the following well-known result.

###### Corollary 1

Suppose moreover that $`N5`$. A semi-simple representation $`\rho :G_𝐐GL_2(\overline{𝐅_p})`$ that arises from $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\overline{𝐐_p})`$ also arises from $`S_{p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\overline{𝐐_p})`$.

Proof. This follows from the above lemma, together with the following facts.

1. The degeneracy map $`\beta `$ is Hecke equivariant for the $`T_r`$’s that we consider, and it sends $`H_{\mathrm{par}}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)`$ to $`H_{\mathrm{par}}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$. The subscript “par” denotes parabolic cohomology, i.e., the intersection of the kernels of the restriction maps to the cohomology of the unipotent subgroups of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$.
2. For $`V`$ any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$-module that is free of finite rank over $`𝐙`$, and such that $`H^0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_pV^{})=0`$, the map:

$$H_{\mathrm{par}}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),V)H_{\mathrm{par}}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_pV)$$

is surjective (one uses that $`H_{\mathrm{par}}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_pV)`$ is a quotient of $`H_c^1(Y_1(N),𝐅_p_V)`$, with $`_V`$ the sheaf given corresponding to $`V`$, and that $`H_c^2(Y_1(N),𝐅_p_V)=0`$ by Poincaré duality).

Remarks.

1. One can ask the converse question as to which maximal ideals $`𝗆`$ of the Hecke algebra acting on $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_p^2))`$ are pull backs of maximal ideals of the Hecke algebra acting on $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N),𝐅_p)`$. Then, for non-Eisenstein $`𝗆`$, the answer is in terms of the Galois representation $`\rho _𝗆`$: a necessary and sufficient condition is that $`\rho _𝗆`$ be finite flat at $`p`$ (see \[R1, Thm. 3.1\]). Perhaps one does not expect to have a group cohomological approach to such a subtle phenomenon.
2. Let $`\rho `$ be an irreducible 2-dimensional mod $`p`$ representation of $`G_𝐐`$. We just saw that if $`\rho `$ arises from $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N))`$, then it also does so from $`S_{p+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N))`$, using only group cohomology. See \[He\] for the case of higher weights, when the raising of weights by $`p1`$ is explained more directly in terms of the Jordan-Hölder series of the $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^n(𝐅_p^2)`$. On the other hand the method here being cohomological cannot be used to raise weights from 1 to $`p`$, while multiplication by the Hasse invariant can be used for this (see \[DS\]).

## 3 Imaginary quadratic fields

Let $`p5`$ be a prime number, $`K`$ an imaginary quadratic field in which $`p`$ is inert, and $`𝒩`$ a non-zero ideal in the ring of integers $`𝒪_K`$ not containing $`p`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)`$ be the congruence subgroup of $`SL_2(𝒪_K)`$ of level $`𝒩`$. As before we have the degeneracy map:

$$\alpha :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)$$

that is defined to be the sum $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ where $`\alpha _1`$ is the restriction map, and $`\alpha _2`$ the “twisted” restriction map, given by “conjugation” by

$$g:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

followed by restriction. Then we again have:

###### Lemma 3

The map: $`\alpha :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_p)^2H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ is injective.

Proof. One replaces $`𝐙`$ by $`𝒪_K`$ and $`N`$ by $`𝒩`$ in the proof of Lemma 1. Strong approximation (see \[PR\]) guarantees that the reduction map from $`SL_2(𝒪_K)`$ to $`SL_2(𝒪_K/n𝒪_K)`$ is surjective for all $`n1`$.

By Shapiro’s lemma we see that $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝐅_p)`$ is isomorphic to $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_p[𝐏^1(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})])`$, where $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}=𝒪_K/\mathrm{}`$. Using an easy computation of Brauer characters we deduce that the semisimplification of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}[𝐏^1(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})]`$ under the natural action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)`$ (that factors through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$) is $`\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma `$, with $`\sigma `$ the non-trivial automorphism of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$, and the superscript denotes that the action has been twisted by $`\sigma `$. Note that $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma `$ is irreducible as a $`SL_2(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$-module: this is a particular case of the well-known tensor product theorem of Steinberg (see \[St\]). In fact as the cardinality of $`𝐏^1(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$ is prime to $`p`$ we deduce as before that this is indeed true even before semisimplification, i.e., $`𝐅_p[𝐏^1(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})]`$ is semisimple as a $`SL_2(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$-module.

Thus $`\alpha `$ maps $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_{\mathrm{}})^2`$ into the direct sum of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma )`$, and composing with the projection to the second term gives a map:

$$\beta :H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_{\mathrm{}})H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma )$$

###### Lemma 4

The map $`\beta `$ is injective.

Proof. After the above discussion, this is an immediate consequence of Lemma 3 as before.

The map $`\beta `$ is equivariant for the the action of all Hecke operators outside $`p`$ (i.e., induced by elements of $`SL_2(𝐐_lK)`$ for $`lp`$). Thus we have proved:

###### Corollary 2

Each system of Hecke eigenvalues in $`\overline{𝐅_p}`$ that arises from $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),𝐅_p)`$ also arises from $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma )`$.

Remarks.

1. This result as it stands does not yield any information about congruences of systems of Hecke eigenvalues occurring in characteristic zero, as there is a problem with lifting. More precisely, the obstruction is in the $`p`$-torsion of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩),\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝒪^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝒪^2)^\sigma )`$.
2. The condition that $`p`$ be split in $`𝒪_K`$ is probably not essential.

## 4 Totally real fields

The method is also applicable in the case of Hilbert modular forms for totally real fields of even degree. We quickly sketch the approach which is similar to that of the previous two sections. Let $`F/𝐐`$ be a totally real, cyclic extension of even degree, $`\mathrm{Gal}(F/𝐐)=\sigma `$, $`p5`$ an inert prime, with $`\mathrm{}`$ the unique prime of $`F`$ above it, $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$ the residue field at $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`𝒩`$ an ideal of the ring of integers of $`F`$ that is prime to $`p`$.

Consider the quaternion algebra $`D`$ over $`F`$ ramified at all infinite places and unramified at all finite places, and for any $`F`$-algebra $`R`$, set $`B(R)=(D_FR)^{}`$. Let $`𝐀`$ be the adeles of $`F`$, and $`U_1(𝒩)`$ the standard open compact (mod centre) subgroup of $`B(𝐀)`$. The space of mod $`p`$ weight 2 modular forms $`S(𝒩)`$ (resp., $`S(𝒩,\mathrm{})`$) for $`U_1(𝒩)`$ (resp., $`U_1(𝒩)U_0(\mathrm{})`$) in this case consists of functions $`B(𝐀)𝐅_p`$ that are left and right invariant under $`B(F)`$ and $`U_1(𝒩)`$ (resp., $`U_1(𝒩)U_0(\mathrm{})`$) respectively, modulo the space of functions that factor through the norm. These spaces come equipped with Hecke actions. This time controlling the kernel of the degeneracy map $`S(𝒩)^2S(𝒩,\mathrm{})`$, i.e., analog of Lemmas 1 and 3, is easier and follows from strong approximation. Note again that the representation $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^\sigma \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆𝗆}^{p1}(𝐅_{\mathrm{}}^2)^{\sigma ^{[F:𝐐]1}}`$ of $`GL_2(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$ (which again is a direct summand, with complement the trivial representation, of the induction of the trivial representation from the Borel subgroup of $`GL_2(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$ to $`GL_2(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$) is irreducible as a consequence of Steinberg’s tensor product theorem.

Now following the method of the previous section, and invoking the Jacquet-Langlands correspondence yields the following result.

###### Proposition 1

With notation as above, suppose that an irreducible representation $`\rho :G_FGL_2(\overline{𝐅_p})`$ arises from a Hilbert modular form on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)`$ of weight $`(2,\mathrm{},2)`$. Then it also arises from a a Hilbert modular form on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝒩)`$ of weight $`(p+1,\mathrm{},p+1)`$.

Remarks: It will be of interest to work out some of the Hasse invariants with non-parallel weights obtained by E. Goren from the viewpoint of this paper (see \[G\]).

## 5 Congruences between forms of level $`N`$ and $`Np`$ for weights $`2<kp+1`$

We take this opportunity to write down a level raising criterion from level $`N`$ to level $`Np`$ for all weights that is easily deduced from Corollary 9 of \[K\], and list some errata to \[K\].

###### Proposition 2

Let $`f`$ be a newform in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N))`$ for an integer $`k2`$, such that the mod $`\mathrm{}`$ representation corresponding to it is irreducible. Then:

* If $`k=2`$, $`f`$ is congruent to a $`p`$-new form in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p))`$ if and only if $`a_p(f)^2=\epsilon _f(p)`$ mod $`\mathrm{}`$ where $`\epsilon _f`$ is the nebentypus of $`f`$.
* If $`2<kp+1`$, $`f`$ is congruent to a $`p`$-new form in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p))`$ if and only if $`a_p(f)`$ is 0 mod $`\mathrm{}`$.
* If $`k>p+1`$, $`f`$ is always congruent to a $`p`$-new form in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p))`$.

### Errata to \[K\]

One of us (C.K.) would like to point out some typos in \[K\]:

1. Lines 12 and 19 of Definition 10 page 143 of \[K\] replace

$$f:D(𝐐)\backslash D(𝐀^{\mathrm{}})/VHom_𝒪(M,Symm^{k2}(𝒪)).$$

by

$$f:D(𝐐)\backslash D(𝐀^{\mathrm{}})Hom_𝒪(M,Symm^{k2}(𝒪)).$$
2. On line 12, page 146 of \[K\] replace $`V_1(N)^p`$ by $`V_1(N)^p\times V_p`$.

## 6 Acknowledgements

The second author thanks Ian Kiming for helpful conversations during his visit to the University of Copenhagen. He thanks CNRS for support during his visit to IRMAR, Université de Rennes I.

## 7 References

\[AS\] A. Ash, G. Stevens, Modular forms in characteristic $`l`$ and special values of their $`L`$-functions, Duke Math. J. 53 (1986), no. 3, 849–86

\[CDT\] B. Conrad, F. Diamond, R. Taylor. Modularity of certain potentially Barsotti-Tate Galois representations. J.A.M.S. 12 (1999), 521–567.

\[DI\] F. Diamond, J. Im Modular forms and modular curves. In “Seminar on Fermat’s last theorem”, Canadian Mathematical Society Conference Proceedings 17, 1995 (V. Kumar Murty, editor).

\[DS\] P. Deligne and J-P. Serre. Formes modulaires de poids 1. Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 7, 507–530 (1974).

\[G\] E.Z. Goren. Hasse invariants for Hilbert modular varieties. Israel J. Math. 122 (2001), 157–174.

\[He\] A. Herremans. A combinatorial interpretation of Serre’s conjecture on modular Galois representations, Preprint 2002-03, Orsay.

\[K\] C. Khare, A local analysis of congruences in the $`(p,p)`$ case: Part II, Invent. Math. 143 (2001), 129–155.

\[Kz\] N. Katz, A result on modular forms in characteristic $`p`$, Modular functions of one variable V, pp. 53–61, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 601, Springer, Berlin, 1977.

\[PR\] V. Platonov and A. Rapinchuk. Algebraic groups and number theory. Academic Press, 1994.

\[R\] K.A. Ribet, Congruence relations between modular forms, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Warsaw, 1983), 503–514, PWN, Warsaw, 1984.

\[R1\] K.A. Ribet, Report on mod $`l`$ representations of $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{𝐐}/𝐐)`$. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 55 (1994), Part 2.

\[S\] J-P. Serre, Formes modulaires et fonctions zeta $`p`$-adiques, Modular functions of one variable III, pp. 191–268, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 350, Springer, 1973.

\[S1\] J-P. Serre, Le probleme des groupes de congruence pour $`SL_2`$, Annals of Math. 92 (1970), 489–527.

\[S2\] J-P. Serre, Trees. Springer-Verlag, 1980.

\[St\] R. Steinberg, Tensor product theorems. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics Volume 47 (1987), 331–338.

\[SwD\] H.P.F. Swinnerton-Dyer, On $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations and congruences for coefficients of modular forms, Modular functions of one variable III, pp. 1–55, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 350, Springer, 1973.

Mathematisch Instituut
Universiteit Leiden
P.O. Box 9512
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
edix@math.leidenuniv.nl
Department of Mathematics
University of Utah
155 South 1400 East
Salt Lake City
UT 84112
U.S.A.
shekhar@math.utah.edu


format: text

text:
# 𝐽/Ψ→𝑒𝑒 and 𝐽/Ψ→𝜇𝜇 Measurements in 𝐴𝑢𝐴𝑢 and 𝑝𝑝 Collisions at √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁}=200𝐺𝑒𝑉

## 1 Introduction

Interesting results obtained at the CERN SPS  have heightened theoretical interest in $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in relativistic heavy ion collisions. A new generation of models has appeared in which both dissociation and recombination of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs play a significant role. There are now model predictions for RHIC central collisions ranging from the almost complete disappearance of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ , to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ enhancement .

In this paper we present the first results from PHENIX on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production at RHIC.

## 2 Measurements and Analysis

PHENIX  detects electrons in the pseudo-rapidity range $`\eta =\pm 0.35`$, and muons in the range $`1.2<\eta <2.2`$. In the central arms, electrons are identified by matching charged particle tracks to energy deposits in the Electromagnetic Calorimeter and rings in the Ring Imaging Cherenkov Detector. In the muon arms, muon candidates are found by identifying roads in the Muon Identifier, and matching them to tracks found in the Muon Tracker.

During the 2001/2002 RHIC run, PHENIX recorded data from both $`AuAu`$ and $`pp`$ collisions. Only the south muon arm was operational during that run.

### 2.1 pp

Data from $`pp`$ collisions were recorded for an integrated luminosity of 150 $`nb^1`$. The minimum bias interaction trigger for the present analysis was the Beam-Beam Counter (BBC), with at least one hit per arm.

Interaction rates for $`pp`$ varied from about 5 $`KHz`$ to 30 $`KHz`$. $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ events were selected using level-1 triggers  in coincidence with the minimum bias interaction trigger. The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }ee`$ trigger used in this analysis (about half of our $`pp`$ data sample) required that at least 700 MeV be deposited in the Electromagnetic Calorimeter. The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \mu `$ trigger required at least one deep muon and one shallow muon in the Muon Identifier. The level-1 triggers allowed all $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ events to be recorded at the highest interaction rates. After vertex cuts ($`\pm `$ 35 cm for $`ee`$ and $`\pm `$ 38 cm for $`\mu \mu `$) and selection of good runs, about $`1\times 10^9`$ events were sampled for $`ee`$ and $`1.7\times 10^9`$ events were sampled for $`\mu \mu `$. The muon arm data were subdivided into two rapidity bins.

Detector acceptance, level-1 trigger efficiency, and detector efficiency were estimated for a typical run using simulations of single $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decays with a realistic detector response. An average correction for run-to-run variations in detector active area was then determined from the azimuthal distribution of electrons/event for all runs used in the analysis.

For the $`ee`$ case, two models of the transverse momentum distribution and a range of values for the mean pT were used to establish the systematic uncertainty in the acceptance. This was necessary because the pT distribution is not well defined by the data due to low statistics. This systematic uncertainty was estimated to be 10%.

For both the $`ee`$ and $`\mu \mu `$ cases, PYTHIA simulations were used to estimate the BBC trigger efficiency for inelastic $`pp`$ events (needed to calculate the total number of events), and to estimate the fraction of events containing a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that fired the BBC trigger (ie. the BBC trigger efficiency for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ detection).

For cross section calculations, the RHIC luminosity was assumed to have a systematic uncertainty of 20% in this preliminary analysis. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced considerably with more study.

Systematic errors were added in quadrature to produce an overall systematic uncertainty of 35% for $`ppJ/\mathrm{\Psi }ee`$ and 29% for $`ppJ/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \mu `$ cross section data.

### 2.2 AuAu

Data from $`AuAu`$ collisions were recorded for an integrated luminosity of 24 $`\mu b^1`$. The minimum bias trigger used for $`AuAu`$ collisions was a coincidence between the BBC (2 hits per arm) and the Zero Degree Calorimeter (ZDC). At the highest luminosities, where only a fraction of the interactions could be recorded, level-2 triggers  were used to select $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ events and minimum bias triggers were allocated only $``$ 20% of the data bandwidth. Interaction rates varied from about 100 $`Hz`$ to 1600 $`Hz`$. At the end of the $`AuAu`$ run, the data samples from minimum bias triggers and level-2 triggers were approximately equal.

In the present preliminary analysis of the $`AuAu`$ data, only the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }ee`$ data have been analyzed, and only minimum bias triggers were used. After applying a vertex cut of $`\pm 30`$ cm and selecting good runs, $``$ 26 million events were analyzed.

Yields were extracted using 7 different procedures for yield and background estimation, to establish the systematic errors. The acceptance and detector efficiency were estimated using simulations of single $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decays with a realistic detector response. The minimum bias trigger is estimated  to have unit efficiency for the most central 90% of interactions used in this analysis.

The event centrality was estimated  using the combined data from the BBC and ZDC detectors. The data were separated into three centrality bins. The centrality dependence of the efficiency for offline $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reconstruction was estimated by embedding simulated single electrons into measured events and then taking the square of the single electron reconstruction efficiency as the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reconstruction efficiency due to occupancy.

Combining systematic errors quadratically produced an overall systematic uncertainty per centrality bin of 26% (0-20%) 27%(20-40%) and 26%(40-90%).

## 3 Results

The dielectron invariant mass spectrum from $`AuAu`$ (minimum bias) is shown in Fig. 1, and that from $`pp`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the $`pp`$ dimuon invariant mass spectrum.

The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ rapidity distribution was obtained by combining the data from the $`ee`$ and $`\mu \mu `$ channels, and is shown in Fig. 4. The total cross section was obtained by fitting both a Gaussian and the PYTHIA prediction for the shape of the rapidity distribution, using the parton distribution function GRV94LO. Both gave essentially the same integral, and the average of the two results for the total cross section is 3.8 $`\pm `$ 0.6 (stat) $`\pm `$ 1.3 (sys) $`\mu `$b. This value agrees well with the prediction of the Color Evaporation Model .

The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }ee`$ yield versus the number of participants (Npart) is shown in Fig. 5 for the $`pp`$ data and for the $`AuAu`$ data divided into three centrality bins.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

Rather limited conclusions can be drawn from the data in Fig. 5 because of the large statistical and systematic uncertainties associated with this preliminary analysis. We have fitted a flat line to the data to see if the data are consistent with binary scaling. The best fit, shown in Fig. 5, has a confidence level of 16% based on the statistical uncertainties alone. Thus the binary scaled $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ yields probably trend down with increasing Npart, but that is not a strong statement.

We also show in Fig. 5 a comparison of the Npart dependence with a calculation from a simple normal nuclear absorption model assuming a 7.1 mb absorption cross section . Here the confidence level is found to be 80%. However we wish to stress that the uncertainties in the data are too large to allow discrimination between any but the most extreme scenarios.

We expect to approximately double the number of measured $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }ee`$ when we add level-2 triggered events to this analysis. We also hope to extract a comparable sample of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \mu `$ data at forward rapidity from the existing data set.


text:
# Observables of Lattice Gauge Theory in Minkowski Space

## 1 Monopole and photon part of U(1) theory

We are interested in the relationship between monopoles and classical chaos across the phase transition at $`\beta _c1.01`$. We begin with a $`4d`$ U(1) gauge theory described by the Euclidean action $`S\{U_l\}=\beta _p(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _p)`$, where $`U_l=U_{x,\mu }=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _{x,\mu })`$ and $`\theta _p=\theta _{x,\mu }+\theta _{x+\widehat{\mu },\nu }\theta _{x+\widehat{\nu },\mu }\theta _{x,\nu }.`$ Following Ref. , we have factorized our gauge configurations into monopole and photon fields. The U(1) plaquette angles $`\theta _{x,\mu \nu }`$ are decomposed into the “physical” electromagnetic flux through the plaquette $`\overline{\theta }_{x,\mu \nu }`$ and a number $`m_{x,\mu \nu }`$ of Dirac strings through the plaquette

$$\theta _{x,\mu \nu }=\overline{\theta }_{x,\mu \nu }+2\pi m_{x,\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\theta }_{x,\mu \nu }(\pi ,+\pi ]`$ and $`m_{x,\mu \nu }0`$ is called a Dirac plaquette.

## 2 Classical chaotic dynamics from quantum Monte Carlo initial states

Chaotic dynamics in general is characterized by the spectrum of Lyapunov exponents. These exponents, if they are positive, reflect an exponential divergence of initially adjacent configurations. In case of symmetries inherent in the Hamiltonian of the system there are corresponding zero values of these exponents. Finally negative exponents belong to irrelevant directions in the phase space: perturbation components in these directions die out exponentially. Pure gauge fields on the lattice show a characteristic Lyapunov spectrum consisting of one third of each kind of exponents . Assuming this general structure of the Lyapunov spectrum we first investigate its magnitude, namely the maximal value of the Lyapunov exponent, $`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The general definition of the Lyapunov exponent is based on a distance measure $`d(t)`$ in phase space,

$$L:=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{d(0)0}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{ln}\frac{d(t)}{d(0)}.$$
(2)
In case of conservative dynamics the sum of all Lyapunov exponents is zero according to Liouville’s theorem, $`L_i=0`$. We utilize the gauge invariant distance measure consisting of the local differences of energy densities between two $`3d`$ field configurations on the lattice:

$$d:=\frac{1}{N_P}_P\left|\mathrm{tr}U_P\mathrm{tr}U_P^{}\right|.$$
(3)
Here the symbol $`_P`$ stands for the sum over all $`N_P`$ plaquettes, so this distance is bound in the interval $`(0,2N)`$ for the group SU(N). $`U_P`$ and $`U_P^{}`$ are the familiar plaquette variables, constructed from the basic link variables $`U_{x,i}`$,

$$U_{x,i}=\mathrm{exp}\left(aA_{x,i}T\right),$$
(4)
located on lattice links pointing from the position $`x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ to $`x+ae_i`$. The generator of the group $`U(1)`$ is $`T=ig`$ and $`A_{x,i}`$ is the vector potential. The elementary plaquette variable is constructed for a plaquette with a corner at $`x`$ and lying in the $`ij`$-plane as $`U_{x,ij}=U_{x,i}U_{x+i,j}U_{x+j,i}^{}U_{x,j}^{}`$. It is related to the magnetic field strength $`B_{x,k}`$:

$$U_{x,ij}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\epsilon _{ijk}a^2B_{x,k}T\right).$$
(5)
The electric field strength $`E_{x,i}`$ is related to the canonically conjugate momentum $`P_{x,i}=a\dot{U}_{x,i}`$ via

$$E_{x,i}=\frac{1}{g^2a^2}\left(T\dot{U}_{x,i}U_{x,i}^{}\right).$$
(6)
The Hamiltonian of the lattice gauge field system can be casted into the form

$$H=\left[\frac{1}{2}P,P+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{4}U,V\right].$$
(7)
Here the scalar product stands for $`A,B=\mathrm{Re}(AB^{})`$. The staple variable $`V`$ is a sum of triple products of elementary link variables closing a plaquette with the chosen link $`U`$. This way the Hamiltonian is formally written as a sum over link contributions and $`V`$ plays the role of the classical force acting on the link variable $`U`$.

We prepare the initial field configurations from a standard four dimensional Euclidean Monte Carlo program on a $`12^3\times 4`$ lattice varying the inverse gauge coupling $`\beta `$ . We relate such four dimensional Euclidean lattice field configurations to Minkowskian momenta and fields for the three dimensional Hamiltonian simulation by selecting a fixed time slice of the four dimensional lattice.

## 3 Chaos, confinement and continuum limit

We start the presentation of our results with a characteristic example of the time evolution of the distance between initially adjacent configurations. An initial state prepared by a standard four dimensional Monte Carlo simulation is evolved according to the classical Hamiltonian dynamics in real time. Afterwards this initial state is rotated locally by group elements which are chosen randomly near to the unity. The time evolution of this slightly rotated configuration is then pursued and finally the distance between these two evolutions is calculated at the corresponding times. A typical exponential rise of this distance followed by a saturation can be inspected in Fig. 1 from an example of U(1) gauge theory in the confinement phase and in the Coulomb phase. While the saturation is an artifact of the compact distance measure of the lattice, the exponential rise (the linear rise of the logarithm) can be used for the determination of the leading Lyapunov exponent. The left plot exhibits that in the confinement phase the original field and its monopole part have similar Lyapunov exponents whereas the photon part has a smaller $`L_{max}`$. The right plot in the Coulomb phase suggests that all slopes and consequently the Lyapunov exponents of all fields decrease substantially.

The main result of the present study is the dependence of the leading Lyapunov exponent $`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the inverse coupling strength $`\beta `$, displayed in Fig. 2. As expected the strong coupling phase is more chaotic. The transition reflects the critical coupling to the Coulomb phase. The plot shows that the monopole fields carry Lyapunov exponents of nearly the same size as the full U(1) fields. The photon fields yield a non-vanishing value in the confinement ascending toward $`\beta =0`$ for randomized fields which indicates that the decomposition works well only around the phase transition.

An interesting result concerning the continuum limit can be viewed from Fig. 3 which shows the energy dependence of the Lyapunov exponents for the U(1) theory and its components. One observes an approximately linear relation for the monopole part while a quadratic relation is suggested for the photon part in the weak coupling regime. From scaling arguments one expects a functional relationship between the Lyapunov exponent and the energy

$$L(a)a^{k1}E^k(a),$$
(8)
with the exponent $`k`$ being crucial for the continuum limit of the classical field theory. A value of $`k<1`$ leads to a divergent Lyapunov exponent, while $`k>1`$ yields a vanishing $`L`$ in the continuum. The case $`k=1`$ is special allowing for a finite non-zero Lyapunov exponent. Our analysis of the scaling relation (8) gives evidence, that the classical compact U(1) lattice gauge theory and especially the photon field have $`k2`$ and with $`L(a)0`$ a regular continuum theory. The monopole field signals $`k1`$ and stays chaotic approaching the continuum.

## 4 Spectrum of the stability matrix

Instead of the classical determination of the Lyapunov exponent, which has been calculated by the rescaling method in the preceding sections, we now use the monodromy matrix approach . The Lyapunov spectrum $`L_i`$ is expressed in terms of the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ of the monodromy matrix $`M`$:

$$L_i=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}_0^t\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t^{})𝑑t^{},i=1,\mathrm{},f,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t)`$ are the solutions of the characteristic equation for $`f`$ degrees of freedom

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t)1\mathrm{l}M(t)\right)=0$$
(10)
at a given time $`t`$. Here $`M`$ is the linear stability matrix,

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\dot{U}}{U}& \frac{\dot{U}}{P}\\ & \\ \frac{\dot{P}}{U}& \frac{\dot{P}}{P}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ & \\ \frac{^2S_3}{U^2}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
with the three dimensional lattice action $`S_3`$.

Figure 4 displays the complex eigenvalues for selected configurations prepared by a quantum Monte Carlo heat-bath algorithm. In the confinement phase ($`\beta =0.9`$) the eigenvalues lie on either the real or on the imaginary axes. This is a nice illustration of a strange attractor of a chaotic system. Positive Lyapunov exponents eject the trajectories from oscillating orbits provided by the imaginary eigenvalues. Negative Lyapunov exponents attract the trajectories keeping them confined in the basin. In the Coulomb phase ($`\beta =1.1`$) the real Lyapunov exponents become rare to eventually vanish in the continuum limit (see Fig. 3). In all cases the spectrum is symmetric with respect to the real and imaginary axes: the former property is due to the fact that the equations of motion are real, the latter is due to the Hamiltonian being conservative (time independent). Also a number of zero-frequency modes occur which is connected to symmetry transformations commuting (in the Poisson bracket sense) with the Hamiltonian, such as time independent gauge transformations.

Figure 5 shows the real part of the squared Lyapunov spectrum for several couplings. The overall pattern is similar to that obtained earlier for SU(2) studies with random configurations . It exhibits an increasing number of zero modes with increasing $`\beta `$. Figure 6 gives insight into the distribution of the squared eigenvalues which is symmetric for $`\beta =0`$ and is shifted to negative values towards the Coulomb phase.

## 5 Summary

This contribution was devoted to the relation between monopoles, Lyapunov exponents and confinement in a (classical) compact U(1) theory. A decomposition into a monopole and photon part showed that the monopole field carries the same Lyapunov exponent as the original U(1) field. In the continuum limit the photon and U(1) fields behave regularly while the monopole part stays chaotic. This was substantiated by the spectrum of the monodromy matrix exhibiting an interplay between positive, imaginary and negative Lyapunov exponents in the confinement phase changing to a pure imaginary spectrum deep in the Coulomb phase leading to the regularity of the Maxwell theory. It will be interesting to compute the spectrum of the stability matrix on the photon and monopole part of the U(1) field. An analysis of the behavior of the monopoles in the classical U(1) theory in Minkowski space is a challenge by itself.


text:
# Minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory and proton decay: where do we stand?

## 1 Introduction

There are two popular scenarios for the solution of the hierarchy problem. One is large extra dimensions, which for two such new ones may be as large as a fraction of a mm . In this case the field-theory cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$) must be low and experiments demand: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F>(10100)`$ TeV. Clearly, one then must fine-tune (somewhat) the Higgs mass, since

$$m_h^2m_0^2+\frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_F^2(\mathrm{few}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV})^2.$$
(1)
We believe this is acceptable; compared to the fine-tuning problem when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ is pushed to $`M_{Pl}`$ (or $`M_{GUT}`$), this is negligible. What is missing in this program is some serious physical reason to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ so low.

Another scenario is the low-energy supersymmetry, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ gets traded for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ (here defined as the mass difference between particles and superparticles of the MSSM). In this $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ can be as low as a few hundred GeV and, strictly speaking, no fine-tuning whatsoever is needed. On the other hand, low-energy supersymmetry with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}(110)`$ TeV leads to the unification of gauge couplings (predicted before experiment! ) and through radiative symmetry breaking  can explain the Higgs mechanism, i.e. the negative Higgs mass squared. This motivates us to focus on this scenario.

The minimal supersymmetric grand unified theory is based on SU(5) symmetry  and in its minimal version contains three generations of quarks and leptons (and their partners) and the $`24`$-dimensional ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and $`5`$-dimensional ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$) Higgs supermultiplets. In the renormalizable case there is a problem: one has the same Yukawa couplings for the down quarks ($`Y_D`$) and charged leptons ($`Y_E`$), thus

$$m_D=m_E.$$
(2)
This works very well for $`b`$ and $`\tau `$, and fails progressively for the second and first generation. Thus the first dilemma: to change the theory or not? A minimalist refuses to do so, and can still invoke the higher dimensional operators suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M_{GUT}`$. Strictly speaking, this is still the minimal theory, in a sense of its structure at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$, where it should be defined. In the same manner we speak of the standard model (SM) at $`EM_Z`$, and the non-vanishing of the neutrino mass does not require changing the structure of the SM, but simply invoking a higher dimensional operator:

$$m_\nu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{M},$$
(3)
where $`M`$ is some new scale ($`MM_W`$), for example the mass of the right-handed neutrino in the see-saw scenario .

Now, supersymmetric GUTs in general, and the SU(5) theory in particular, lead to quite fast proton decay through $`d=5`$ operators generated by the superheavy coloured triplet Higgs supermultiplets ($`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$), with masses $`m_TM_{GUT}`$  (more later on $`m_T`$). The burning issue in recent years was whether the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory is already ruled out on this basis , especially after it was found out that the RRRR operators play a crucial role  (in the context of SO(10) this was shown before in ), and it was finally argued last year that this was indeed true . The trouble is that one must be very careful in the definition of the minimal theory and it is worth reconsidering all the issues that enter in this question and which may save the theory. We wish to carefully discuss here all the subtleties involved, since to us this is one of the major problems of grand unification. After all, there is no predictive theory beyond SU(5) and we should be absolutely sure before we rule out the only predictive theory we have. We will see that the presence of higher-dimensional operators and the lack of knowledge of sfermion masses and mixings may be sufficient to make SU(5) be still in accord with experiment . If we require, though, absolute naturalness (no fine-tuning at all) and a complete desert between $`M_Z`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$, the theory is ruled out. We feel however that the above assumptions are too drastic and do not allow for the probe of the principle of unification.

We certainly stick to the requirement of minimality allowing for no change of the theory all the way to the Planck scale (string scale, …). Also, we make no assumptions of the Yukawa couplings of the heavy particles in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Specifically, we allow for the colour octet and weak triplet in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to have arbitrary masses, since the theory cannot predict them. We discuss this below in detail.

In short, here we review the predictions of the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory. We allow for arbitrary sfermion masses and mixings, keeping of course flavour violation in accord with experiment, and we allow for small ($`1\%`$) amount of fine-tuning. We focus mainly on the issue of proton decay while requiring as many as possible superpartners detectable at LHC. It is this requirement rather than the extreme naturalness that should make low-energy supersymmetry interesting to experimentalists and phenomenologists (at least in our opinion). With this in mind, our conclusion is that the minimal SU(5) theory is still in accord with experiment, but the situation is quite tight.

Let us now systematically discuss all the issues involved in predicting the $`d=5`$ proton decay amplitude:

(i) the determination of the GUT scale and the masses ($`m_T`$) of the heavy triplets $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$ responsible for $`d=5`$ proton decay. Specifically, we allow for arbitrary triplic couplings of the heavy fields in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and use higher dimensional terms as a possible source of their masses . It will turn out that $`m_T`$ may go up naturally by a factor of thirty, which would increase the proton lifetime by a factor of $`10^3`$.

(ii) The impact of higher dimensional operators on fermion masses and the couplings of $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$ with fermionic supermultiplets . If we keep the minimal theory intact, this is a must, since without these operators fermion masses cannot be reproduced.

(iii) The freedom in sfermion masses and sfermion and fermion mixings. Here one must be quite careful, though, in keeping flavour violation in neutral currents (FCNC) in accord with experiments (for a review see for example ).

Now, for generic values of the parameters of the theory we will see that SU(5) would be ruled out. But this, however, can be said also of FCNC in low-energy supersymmetry with generic soft terms. Instead, we should let experiment decide the values of the parameters of the theory. In short, with arbitrary parameters we will see that because of (i) to (iii) SU(5) theory is not ruled out yet.

## 2 $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐔𝐓}}`$ and $`𝐦_𝐓`$: uncertainties

The superpotential for the heavy sector is (up to terms $`1/M_{Pl}`$)

$$W=mTr\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\lambda Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+a\frac{(Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^2}{M_{Pl}}+b\frac{Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^4}{M_{Pl}}.$$
(4)
Of course, if $`\lambda 𝒪(1)`$, we ignore higher-dimensional terms. However, in supersymmetry $`\lambda `$ is a Yukawa-type coupling, i.e. self-renormalizable. For small $`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda M_{GUT}/M_{Pl}`$), the opposite becomes true and $`a`$ and $`b`$ terms dominate. In this case, it is a simple exercise to show that

$$m_3=4m_8,$$
(5)
where $`m_3`$ and $`m_8`$ are the masses of the weak triplet and color octet in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In the renormalizable case $`m_3=m_8`$.

At the one loop level, the RGE’s for the gauge couplings are

$`\alpha _1^1(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _U^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}}{M_Z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{33}{5}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{m_T}}\right),`$ (6)
$`\alpha _2^1(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _U^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{6}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}}{M_Z}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{m_3}}\right),`$ (7)
$`\alpha _3^1(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _U^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left(4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}}{M_Z}}3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_8}{M_Z}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{m_T}}\right).`$ (8)
Here we take for simplicity $`M_{GUT}=M_{X,Y}=`$ superheavy gauge bosons masses, while at the one-loop level we could as well take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}=M_Z`$. From (6)-(8) we obtain

$`2\pi \left(3\alpha _2^12\alpha _3^1\alpha _1^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}}{M_Z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_T}{M_Z}}+6\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_8}{m_3}},`$ (9)
$`2\pi \left(5\alpha _1^13\alpha _2^12\alpha _3^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}}{M_Z}}+36\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{m_3m_8}M_{GUT}^2)^{1/3}}{M_Z}}.`$ (10)
This gives

$`m_T`$ $`=`$ $`m_T^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{m_8}}\right)^{5/2},`$ (11)
$`M_{GUT}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{GUT}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^0}{2m_8}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (12)
Since, in the case (5) is valid, $`m_8M_{GUT}^2/M_{Pl}`$, we can also write

$$M_{GUT}\left[\left(M_{GUT}^0\right)^3M_{Pl}\right]^{1/4}.$$
(13)
In the above equations the superscript 0 denotes the values in the case $`m_3=m_8`$. From (5) we get

$$m_T=32m_T^0,M_{GUT}10M_{GUT}^0.$$
(14)
Now, $`M_{GUT}^010^{16}`$ GeV and it was shown last year  that $`m_T>7\times 10^{16}`$ GeV is sufficiently large to be in accord with the newest data on proton decay. On the other hand, since

$$m_T^0<3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(15)
from (14) we see that $`m_3=4m_8`$ is enough to save the theory. Obviously, an improvement of the measurement of $`\tau _p`$ is badly needed. It is noteworthy that in this case the usual $`d=6`$ proton decay becomes out of reach: $`\tau _p(d=6)>10^{38}`$ yrs.

## 3 Higher dimensional operators and fermion masses and mixings

In the minimal SU(5) theory at the renormalizable level we have the Yukawa coupling relations at $`M_{GUT}`$

$$Y_U=Y_U^T,Y_E=Y_D,$$
(16)
where in the supersymmetric standard model language the Yukawa sector can be written as

$`W_Y=`$ $`HQ^TY_Uu^c+\overline{H}Q^TY_Dd^c+\overline{H}e^{cT}Y_EL`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TQ^T\underset{¯}{A}Q+Tu^{cT}\underset{¯}{B}e^c+\overline{T}Q^T\underset{¯}{C}L+\overline{T}u^{cT}\underset{¯}{D}d^c.`$
Also, in the minimal renormalizable model (at $`M_{GUT}`$)

$$\underset{¯}{A}=\underset{¯}{B}=Y_U=Y_U^T,\underset{¯}{C}=\underset{¯}{D}=Y_D=Y_E.$$
(18)
The fact that $`\underset{¯}{A}=\underset{¯}{B}=Y_U`$, $`\underset{¯}{C}=Y_E`$, $`\underset{¯}{D}=Y_D`$, is simply a statement of SU(5) symmetry. On the other hand $`Y_U=Y_U^T`$ and $`Y_D=Y_E`$ result from the SU(4) Pati-Salam like symmetry left unbroken by $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$. Under this symmetry $`d^ce`$, $`uu^c`$, $`de^c`$. Of course, this symmetry is broken by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_4^4`$, where $`\alpha =1,2,3`$; this becomes relevant when we include higher dimensional operators suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}`$. The Yukawa couplings are readily diagonalized through

$$U^TY_UU_c=Y_U^d,D^TY_DD_c=Y_D^d,E_c^TY_EE=Y_E^d,$$
(19)
where $`X`$ ($`X_c`$) are unitary matrices that rotate $`x`$ ($`x^c`$) fermions from the flavour to the mass basis and $`Y_X^d`$ stand for the diagonal Yukawa matrices. Similarly, unitary matrices $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{X}_c`$) diagonalize $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{x}^c`$) sfermions. The only low energy information we have is

$$U^{}D=V_{CKM},N^{}E=V_l,$$
(20)
where $`V_l`$ is the lepton analog of $`V_{CKM}`$ ($`N`$ rotates left-handed neutrinos). From (16) we have

$$U_c=U,E_c=D,E=D_c,$$
(21)
in the minimal renormalizable model at $`M_{GUT}`$.

The minimal renormalizable theory, as is well known, fails badly. Relations $`m_s=m_\mu `$, $`m_d=m_e`$ at the GUT scale are simply wrong, while at the same time $`m_b=m_\tau `$ can be considered a great success of the theory. We can imagine many ways out, but the simplest and the most suggestive is to include $`1/M_{Pl}`$ suppressed operators which are likely to be present; after all, these operators should be more important for the first two generations where the theory fails, and they require no change in the structure of the theory. This is analogous to a long ago speculated possibility that in the SM the neutrino mass is not zero, but of order $`1/M`$, where $`M`$ would correspond to some new physics.

The idea of higher dimensional operators has been pursued in the past and applied to the proton decay issue in the case of specific mass textures, but never in a systematic manner. The main point is that when one corrects the relations (16), one will also affect the heavy triplet couplings $`\underset{¯}{A}`$, $`\underset{¯}{B}`$, $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{D}`$, i.e. modify (18) which is the source of fast proton decay in SU(5).

To see this, let us consider for example all the relevant couplings up to order $`1/M_{Pl}`$ ($`i,j,k,l,m,n`$ are SU(5) indices, $`a,b=1,2,3`$ are generation indices):

$`W_Y`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijklm}\left(10_a^{ij}f_{ab}10_b^{kl}\mathrm{\Phi }^m+10_a^{ij}f_{1ab}10_b^{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^m}{M_{Pl}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n+10_a^{ij}f_{2ab}10_b^{kn}\mathrm{\Phi }^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^m}{M_{Pl}}}\right)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i10_a^{ij}g_{ab}\overline{5}_{bj}+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^i}{M_{Pl}}}10_a^{jk}g_{1ab}\overline{5}_{bk}+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i10_a^{ij}g_{2ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^k}{M_{Pl}}}\overline{5}_{bk},`$
where $`10`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ are the fermionic supermultiplet representations. After taking the SU(5) vev $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma diag(2,2,2,3,3)`$ we get at $`M_{GUT}`$

$`Y_U`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(f+f^T\right)12{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(f_1+f_1^T\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(4f_2f_2^T\right),`$
$`\underset{¯}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(f+f^T\right)+8{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(f_1+f_1^T\right)+2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(f_2+f_2^T\right),`$
$`\underset{¯}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(f+f^T\right)+8{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(f_1+f_1^T\right)+4{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}\left(3f_22f_2^T\right),`$
$`Y_D`$ $`=`$ $`g+3{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_12{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_2,`$
$`Y_E`$ $`=`$ $`g+3{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_1+3{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_2,`$
$`\underset{¯}{C}`$ $`=`$ $`g2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_1+3{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_2,`$
$`\underset{¯}{D}`$ $`=`$ $`g2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_12{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_{Pl}}}g_2.`$ (23)
In the limit $`M_{Pl}\mathrm{}`$ we recover the old relations, but for finite $`\sigma /M_{Pl}10^310^2`$ one can correct the relations between Yukawas and at the same time have some freedom for the couplings to the heavy triplets.

Clearly, due to SU(5) breaking through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the $`T`$, $`\overline{T}`$ couplings are different from the $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ couplings. However, under the SU(4) symmetry discussed before $`\underset{¯}{A}\underset{¯}{B}`$, $`\underset{¯}{C}\underset{¯}{D}`$ and $`Y_UY_U^T`$. Only the terms that probe $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_4^4`$ can spoil that; this is why $`f_1`$ and $`g_1`$ still keep $`Y_U=Y_U^T`$, $`\underset{¯}{A}=\underset{¯}{B}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{C}=\underset{¯}{D}`$.

Notice that worrying about proton decay in a theory with $`Y_D=Y_E`$ may not be reasonable. Namely, suppose that you wish to preserve this relation; you can do that easily in eq. (3) if you take $`g_2=0`$. It is amusing that you can set $`\underset{¯}{C}=\underset{¯}{D}=0`$ by choosing $`g+2(\sigma /M_{Pl})g_1=0`$ (for the third generation this requires a not too large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and/or $`M_{Pl}`$, which could be $`M_{string}`$, below $`10^{18}`$ GeV). In this way you can simply decouple the heavy triplets $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$ (an old idea of Dvali ) and get rid of the $`d=5`$ proton decay. Obviously we do not wish to advocate this. After all, the idea of introducing higher dimensional operators, while preserving the SU(5) minimality structure all the way to $`M_{Pl}`$, is precisely to avoid $`Y_D=Y_E`$ for the first two generations. Notice further that with $`Y_DY_E`$ you can not set both $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{D}`$ to vanish. You may be tempted to make $`\underset{¯}{A}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ vanish, but that can not work for the large top Yukawa coupling.

Although for realistic Yukawas the matrices $`\underset{¯}{A}`$, $`\underset{¯}{B}`$, $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{D}`$ are not completely arbitrary, there is a new freedom not present if (18) are valid: the fermion mixing matrices defined by (19) are no more related by (21), but can be chosen freely, as long as (20) are satisfied. This freedom could further diminish the decay amplitude.

In short, correct mass relations add more uncertainty to the proton decay amplitude and it may be worthwhile to perform a more quantitative analysis.

## 4 Sfermion and fermion masses and mixings and their impact on $`\tau _𝐩`$

Last, but not least, the $`d=5`$ proton decay is generated through Yukawa couplings, and thus fermion and sfermion masses and mixings play an important role. Unfortunately, we know nothing about supersymmetry breaking, except that we must satisfy the experimental limits on FCNC. Ideally we wish to keep all the sparticles below TeV, but then FCNC becomes a serious issue, although still under control for carefully chosen mixings. Furthermore, if we ignore both (i) and (ii) the limits from proton decay can be used to rule out the minimal SU(5) theory. In all honesty, we do not know what that means, for this theory is obviously already ruled out by the wrong fermion relations.

Now, the FCNC are mainly a problem for the first two generations; a popular approach is to assume the first two generations of sfermions heavy ($`m10`$ TeV), the so called decoupling regime . In this case it is enough that the third generation of sfermions does not have large mixings with both of the first two generations of sfermions.

One can also worry about the naturalness . Through the large top Yukawa couplings, the formula (1) becomes here ($`i=1,2,3`$) (for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ there are similar contributions of (s)bottom and (s)tau)

$$m_h^2m_0^2+\frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}\left[(\stackrel{~}{U}^{}U)_{i3}(U^{}\stackrel{~}{U})_{3i}\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2+(\stackrel{~}{U}_c^{}U_c)_{i3}(U_c^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_c)_{3i}\stackrel{~}{m}_i^{c2}\right],$$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^c`$ are left-handed and right-handed squark masses. Here and in the following we ignore the left-right mixing proportional to the small ratio $`M_Z/m_{3/2}`$; in fact, as long as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$, the LR mixing can be safely put even to zero without contradicting the experimental constraints on the Higgs mass .

Now, for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_a\stackrel{~}{m}_a^c10`$ TeV ($`a=1,2`$) in the decoupling regime, large $`(\stackrel{~}{U}^{}U)_{a3}`$ or $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_c^{}U_c)_{a3}`$ would imply a small amount of fine-tuning ($`1\%`$) in (24). Hereafter, we accept that. No fine-tuning whatsoever, although appealing, to us seems exaggerated; after all it would eliminate large extra dimensions as a solution to the hierarchy problem.

Strictly speaking, one could then ask why not simply push $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3^c`$ all the way up to $`10`$ TeV and be safe? A sensible point, but as we said before, we wish to have as many as possible superpartners below TeV and thus hopefully detectable at LHC. In other words, all the gauginos and Higgsinos and the third generation of sfermions are assumed to have masses lower or equal TeV, we only take $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}10`$ TeV or so.

In this case, we need to worry only about the third generation of sfermions. We also assume light gauginos and Higgsinos, $`m100`$ GeV. We have recently performed a detailed analysis of all $`d=5`$ proton decay amplitudes neglecting the mixing of left and right sfermions . An interesting question is: can the contribution of the third generation of sfermions be made arbitrary small? Remarkably enough, the answer is yes, i.e. it can be set even to zero, or, even easier, it can be small enough to keep $`\tau _p`$ above the experimental limit.

The solution is the following. In our paper  we give a typical set of constraints need to make the proton decay small ($`a,b=1,2`$):

$`(\stackrel{~}{U}^{}D)_{3a}0,(\stackrel{~}{D}^{}D)_{3a}0,(\stackrel{~}{E}_c^{}E_c)_{3a}0,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{N}^{}E)_{3a}0,(\stackrel{~}{D}_c^{}D_c)_{3a}0,(\stackrel{~}{E}^{}E)_{3a}0,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{U}_c^TY_U^TD)_{3a}0,`$ (25)
and

$$A_0=ϵ_{ab}(D^T\underset{¯}{C}\stackrel{~}{N})_{a3}(\stackrel{~}{U}^T\underset{¯}{A}D)_{3b}0.$$
(26)
The constraints (4) can clearly be satisfied exactly by the sfermion mixing matrices at $`1`$ GeV. It is reassuring that the sfermionic sector does not break strongly SU(2). This is consistent with the SU(2) invariance of the soft masses, which dominate the total sfermion masses. The last constraint, eq. (26), can be satisfied in the approximation $`\underset{¯}{C}=Y_D=Y_E`$, which is true in the minimal renormalizable model, but at $`M_{GUT}`$, not at 1 GeV. The relation $`\underset{¯}{C}=Y_D=Y_E`$ is however not stable under running. To get an idea of how big this contribution is at the electroweak scale, one can take the approximation that the Yukawas do not run. In the leading order in small Yukawas (except for $`y_t`$) one gets

$$A_0y_cy_\tau V_{33}^{}V_{23}V_{32}V_{21}\left[1\left(M_Z/M_{GUT}\right)^{y_t^2/16\pi ^2}\right]x_1^{1/33}x_2^3x_3^{4/3},$$
(27)
where $`V`$ is the CKM matrix and $`x_i=\alpha _i(M_Z)/\alpha _U`$. There is only one non-vanishing diagram (the rest vanishes due to (4)) and it is proportional to $`V_{13}A_0`$: fortunately, this seems to be small enough. On top of this, in the amplitude the combination (26) gets multiplied with a combination of neutralino soft masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{w}_3}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$, which can be fine-tuned to an arbitrary small (or even zero) value. And, of course, we must keep in mind (i) and (ii), which tell us that $`m_T`$ can be large and $`\underset{¯}{A}`$ and/or $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ completely different than $`Y_U`$ ($`Y_E`$).

## 5 Constraints from FCNC

Although there is no realistic theory of sfermion soft terms, there are low energy constraints on sfermion mixings. These come from the flavour changing neutral currents phenomena: $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`bs\gamma `$, $`B\overline{B}`$, $`K\overline{K}`$, etc. It is easy to see, that the combinations which appear in (4) are exactly the ones that appear in these flavour changing processes. So they automatically take care also of these low-energy experimental data. The only flavour changing processes that could get sizeable contributions are the ones which involve up type sfermions like for example $`D\overline{D}`$ or $`cu\gamma `$. These are not constrained by (4), but at the same time are not very much constrained by the low-energy experiments, so they do not represent a real issue at this stage.

Constraints (4) are not unique. One can find other relations between sfermion and fermion mixing matrices that make the proton decay amplitude zero or small. However, typically, these solutions can be dangerous for FCNC processes, since they do not automatically cancel their contributions. So one has to analyze the FCNC processes case by case. At the present day status (or ignorance) of proton decay and FCNC experiments we believe that this is premature.

## 6 Summary

We have emphasized here three major sources of uncertainties in estimating the $`d=5`$ proton decay. These are, in no particular order: (i) the ignorance of the masses of the color octet and weak triplet supermultiplets in the adjoint Higgs; this can easily increase the proton lifetime by a factor of thousand or so; (ii) higher dimensional operator correction of fermion masses; more difficult to quantify, but not necessarily less important; (iii) the ignorance of sparticle masses and mixings; although somewhat artificial, this possibility alone is enough to keep $`\tau _p>(\tau _p)_{exp}`$.

In short, there is at least $`10^3`$ uncertainty in predicting $`\tau _p`$, and possibly as large as $`10^4`$ or bigger. Since none of the points (i), (ii), (iii) requires any change of the structure of the theory, the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) GUT is still in accord with all the experimental constraints. It is true, though, that the parameter space is becoming small and improvement in $`(\tau _p)_{exp}`$ is badly needed.

## Acknowledgments

B.B. thanks the organizers for the interesting and stimulating conference. The work of B.B. is supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the work of G.S. is partially supported by EEC under the TMR contracts ERBFMRX-CT960090 and HPRN-CT-2000-00152. Both B.B. and P.F.P thank ICTP for hospitality during the course of this work.

## References


text:
# Theory of the Transient and Stationary Fluctuation Theorems for a Dragged Brownian Particle in a Fluid

(22 October 2002)

Comment on “Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the  Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales” .

In a recent experimental demonstration of the transient fluctuation theorem (TFT) by Wang et al., a small latex bead, initially at rest in a harmonic trap and in equilibrium with a surrounding fluid, starts to be dragged at a velocity $`𝐯_{opt}`$ at $`t=0`$ by means of the trap. Measurements of the entropy production over a time $`\tau `$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \frac{1}{k_BT}𝐯_{opt}_0^\tau 𝐅(t)𝑑t,$$
(1)
were made, with $`T`$ the temperature, $`k_B`$ Boltzmann’s constant, $`𝐅(t)=k(𝐱(t)𝐱_0(t))`$, $`𝐱(t)`$ the bead’s position, and $`𝐱_0(t)`$ zero for $`t<0`$, and $`𝐯_{opt}t`$ for $`t>0`$. Thus, $`P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau <0)`$ and $`P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau >0)`$, the probabilities to find a negative resp. positive values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, were measured and shown to comply with the integrated TFT:

$$\frac{P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau <0)}{P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau >0)}=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ]_{T+},$$
(2)
where on the right-hand side (r.h.s.) the average is performed over transient ($`T`$) trajectories with positive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$.

Assuming the probability distribution $`P(𝐱,t)`$ is described by the Smoluchovski equation, it satisfies

$$_tP(𝐱,t)=\{D+\tau _r^1[𝐱𝐱_0(t)]\}P(𝐱,t).$$
(3)
with $`D`$ is the diffusion constant and $`\tau _r`$ the particle’s relaxation time in the harmonic trap. Since Eq. (1) is a linear combination of positions at different times, and the Greens function and equilibrium state are Gaussian, so will the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ distribution. It can then be characterized by its first two moments

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau _T`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \tau \sigma \tau _r(1e^{\tau /\tau _r})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^2_T`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ]^2_T=2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau _T.`$ (4)
Here $`\sigma =|𝐯_{opt}|^2/D`$ is the entropy production rate in the non-equilibrium stationary state (NESS). Eq. (2) follows from Eq. (4) and the Gaussian distribution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. Sevick et al. have independently developed an equivalent theory for the TFT from a Langevin approach.

Although the TFT looks similar to the stationary state fluctuation theorem (SFT), it is quite different. The TFT looks at variations in entropy production over a trajectory of length $`\tau `$ starting from an initial equilibrium ensemble. The SFT deals with the distribution of entropy production $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ over trajectory segments of length $`\tau `$ along a single trajectory in the NESS. As above, the SFT can be derived from Eq. (3) because the NESS is Gaussian, as is the stationary ($`S`$) distribution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. One obtains

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau _S=\sigma \tau ;\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^2_S=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^2_T$$
(5)
Now $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^2_S2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau _S`$ only as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ \[Eqs. (4,5)\], so

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau <0)}{P_S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau >0)}}`$ $`\stackrel{\tau \mathrm{}}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ]_{S+},`$ (6)
Fig. 1 shows the left-hand side (l.h.s.) and r.h.s. of Eqs. (2), and (6); for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the curves of the SFT indeed approach each other\[Eq. (6)\], but the curves of the TFT and of the SFT approach a constant, non-tivial ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau <0)}{P_T(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau >0)}}/{\displaystyle \frac{P_S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau <0)}{P_S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau >0)}}\stackrel{\tau \mathrm{}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \tau _r}{2}}\right],`$
as follows from the asymptotics of the error functions in the explicit expressions for the left-hand sides of Eqs. (2) and (6). So a negative $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is less likely in the NESS than in the transient state. In fact for large $`\sigma \tau _r`$, negative fluctuations in the NESS are exponentially suppressed. This is important if one wants to devise an experiment on the SFT. More details will be given in a future publication.

This work has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, under grant No. DE-FG-02-88-ER13847.


text:
# 1 a) Hystogram of the calculated MV magnitudes; b) FAUST versus predicted magnitudes

No white dwarf or hot subdwarf stars are found as optical counterparts of the 228 UV sources detected in a UV image toward Ophiuchus (Formiggini et al. 2002). The image was obtained at 1600 Å, with the FAUST instrument on board of the space shuttle Atlantis. Hot subluminous stars are numerous among blue objects, and dominate the population of blue stars down to B=16.5. To search for such stars, we cross-identified the UV sources positions with objects in the Main Part of the Tycho catalog, finding a significant parallax value for 46 entries. A significant number of objects have MV values as expected for WD or subdwarf stars (Fig. 1a), while their spectral classification spans types from B to early F. For all these stars the parallax errors are very large, hence their classification as subluminous stars on the basis of the parallax data is rather unreliable.

Synthetic photometry of spectral data was performed in order to predict the expected UV emission (Fig. 1b). Although the predicted magnitudes are systematically fainter than the measured ones, the majority of the stars populate a region inside the dotted lines. The open squares show the stars for which FAUST measured a brighter UV magnitude than the one predicted on the basis of the photometric color. These uv-excess (also marked by asterisk in Fig. 1a) should belong to the subdwarf or white dwarf luminosity classes but one, already classified as an Am star. Nine of the twelve uv-excess stars with MV $``$ 5 were observed at the 1.0 meter telescope at the Wise Observatory. For all, but one, the Balmer lines are moderately broadened. The dashed line in Fig 2 is the model profile from Wesemael et al. (1980). Two of the observed candidates can be fitted with atmospheres of log g $`7`$, as for white dwarfs stars, and six are sdB stars.

It is known that the PG survey is quite incomplete at bright magnitudes. This analysis shows that combining the UV information with even poorly determined parallaxes, some new sd/wd stars are detected and that indeed more such bright stars are still unrecognized in the existing samples. Extending this analysis to the other FAUST fields previously identified at the Wise Observatory, more bright sd/wd stars, suitable for a determination of the space density at the bright end of the luminosity function can be identified.


text:
# Evidence for a New Dissipationless Regime in 2D Electronic Transport

(1 October 2002)

## Abstract

In an ultra-clean 2D electron system (2DES) subjected to crossed millimeterwave (30–150 GHz) and weak ($`B<2`$ kG) magnetic fields, a series of apparently dissipationless states emerges as the system is detuned from cyclotron resonances. Such states are characterized by an exponentially vanishing low-temperature longitudinal resistance and a classical Hall resistance. The activation energies associated with such states exceeds the Landau level spacing by an order of magnitude. Our findings are likely indicative of a collective ground state previously unknown for 2DES.

Scattering and dissipation are central issues in quantum transport in electronic systems. The integer and the fractional quantum Hall effects (QHE) qhe97  are the most remarkable dissipationless transport phenomena observed in a two-dimensional electron systems (2DES), when subjected to strong perpendicular magnetic fields ($`B`$) and low temperatures ($`T`$). Such effects arise from the opening of energy gaps, with the underlying states related to the Landau level (LL) filling factor, $`\nu =hn_e/eB`$ ($`n_e`$ is an electron density). While the integer QHE can be understood in terms of the electron localization in LL gaps, at integer $`\nu `$, the fractional QHE stems from the formation of an incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged quasiparticles, at rational $`\nu `$. In standard transport experiments, QHE exhibits an exponentially vanishing longitudinal resistance, $`R_{xx}0`$, and a quantized Hall resistance, $`R_{xy}=(1/\nu )h/e^2`$, as $`T0`$.

The vanishing of $`R_{xx}`$ in the QHE regime indicates complete suppression of scattering of electrons, much the same as in a case of charge superfluidity. Novel dissipationless effects have been proposed to exist, theoretically, in 2D electronic transport regimes other than the QHE. For example, Fröhlich superfluidity, the transport of a phase-coherent sliding charge-density wave cdw , is an ideal dissipationless effect. Superfluidity of excitonic systems, such as those realized by optical pumping keldysh  or in a coupled two-layer electron-hole quantum well (QW) lozovik ; fukuzawa  have also been long-sought-after but remained experimentally elusive. More recently, excitonic superfluidity has been reported for a double electronic QW spielman . Observation of dissipationless transport in a new experimental regime, in addition to QHE, is of fundamental importance to correlation physics since it signals a novel ground state.

Until recently, magnetotransport in 2DES under the influence of a millimeterwave (MW) field has often revealed photoconductivity related to electron spin resonance dobers88  or long-wavelength magnetoplasmons vas93 , with a signal level of a few percent. With increased 2DES mobility, giant amplitude oscillatory magnetoresistance was discovered by Zudov et al. zudovprb ; zudov1  using MW excitation. While the underlying mechanism for such effect has not been completely understood, the period (in $`1/B`$) of the oscillations is believed to be controlled by the ratio of the MW frequency, $`\omega `$, to the cyclotron frequency, $`\omega _c=eB/m^{}`$ ($`m^{}=0.068m_0`$ is the effective mass of band electrons in GaAs). Specifically, the $`B`$-positions of maxima and minima in the oscillatory structure were found to conform to:

$$\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\epsilon =\{\begin{array}{cc}j,\hfill & \mathrm{maxima}\hfill \\ j+1/2,\hfill & \mathrm{minima}\hfill \end{array},j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`j`$ is the difference between the indices of the participating LLs. Phenomenologically, such oscillations resemble Shubnikov-de Haas (SdH) oscillations except that their period relates to $`\epsilon `$ rather than $`\nu `$. Similar oscillatory $`R_{xx}`$, but with an even greater amplitude, has been observed in transmission-line experiments engel . Most remarkably, both experiments have reported that at the minima ($`\epsilon =j+1/2`$), the $`R_{xx}`$ was reduced as compared to its dark value indicating a suppression of scattering events for electron transport. Increasing sample mobility favors oscillation amplitude, and, therefore, the minima become progressively stronger under similar experimental conditions. Intuitively, one would wonder if the minima ultimately approach zero in a very clean 2DES.

In this paper we report on experimental evidence for dissipationless transport related to these minima observed in an ultra-clean GaAs/AlxGa1-xAs QW sample. As the system is detuned from cyclotron resonance conditions ($`\epsilon =j`$), a series of deep $`R_{xx}`$ minima emerges at low temperatures. Transport in such states is characterized by an exponentially vanishing $`R_{xx}`$ and a largely classical Hall resistance, as $`T0`$. For stronger minima, the $`R_{xx}`$ values are indistinguishable from zero within experimental uncertainty. Temperature-dependent $`R_{xx}`$ shows an activated behavior with an energy scale exceeding the LL spacing by an order of magnitude.

While the origin of such extraordinary transport behavior is presently unclear, the electron-electron correlations appear to be responsible for such a complete suppression of scattering. Our observation is likely pointing toward a novel, many-electron condensed phase induced by MW excitation.

Our samples samples  were cleaved from a Al0.24Ga0.76As/ GaAs/Al0.24Ga0.76As QW wafer grown by molecular beam epitaxy. The width of the QW was 300 Å and the electrons were provided by two Si sheets placed symmetrically above and below the QW at 800 Å. In this experiment the mobility, $`\mu `$, and the electron density, $`n_e`$ were $`2.5\times 10^7`$ cm2/Vs and $`3.5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, respectively. Such parameters were obtained by a brief illumination from a red light-emitting diode at $`T1.5`$ K. The specimens were $`5`$ mm $`\times `$ 5 mm squares with eight In contacts diffused along the perimeter. The experiment was performed in a 3He cryostat equipped with a superconducting magnet; the MW setup was of Faraday geometry (cf. inset, Fig. 1(a)). Coherent, linearly polarized MWs were provided by a set of Gunn diodes (typical power is 10 mW to 20 mW, varied by an attenuator) covering 30–150 GHz (1.5–7.5 K) frequency range. The radiation was sent down to the experiment via an oversized (WR-28) waveguide. The specimen was immersed in the 3He coolant kept at a constant temperature controllable from 0.5 K to 6 K and monitored using a calibrated carbon glass thermometer. $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{xy}`$ were measured employing low-frequency lock-in technique, in sweeping $`B`$, at constant $`T`$, and under continuous MW illumination of fixed frequency and power power .

In Fig. 1(a) we present typical data for the $`R_{xx}`$ (left axis) and the $`R_{xy}`$ (right axis) taken at $`T1`$ K under $`f\omega /2\pi =57`$ GHz illumination. For comparison, we also plot the dark $`R_{xx}`$ (thin line) which reveals only regular SdH oscillations at $`B1.2`$ kG. While both the $`R_{xx}`$ curves converge as $`B0`$, they are drastically different at $`B50`$ G, as the sharp oscillatory structure emerges under MW illumination. The peaks are dramatically stronger than those in the $`\mu =3.0\times 10^6`$ cm2/Vs samples previously reported zudov1 ; zudovprb ; the resonant ($`\epsilon =j`$) $`R_{xx}`$ is enhanced up to five times due to MWs. However, the most striking feature of the $`R_{xx}`$ data is the emergence of wide, apparently zero-resistance (within experimental uncertainty) regions punctuated only at the intervals of those peaks. In what follows we shall examine the $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{xy}`$ structures in the 0.3–2.0 kG $`B`$-range, where such features are the strongest.

Vertical dashed lines in Fig. 1(a) were drawn in accordance with Eq. (1) for $`j`$ = 1, 2, 3, and $`f=57`$ GHz. While the peak positions can be rather accurately described by Eq. (1) for $`\epsilon =j`$, their shapes are largely asymmetric, with a steeper left (lower-$`B`$) slope. The zero-resistance regions in such ultra-clean samples are not centered around the $`\epsilon =j+1/2`$; they reside primarily on the higher-$`B`$ side from those half-integers. In fact, such half-integers (3/2, 5/2, and 7/2) seem to represent a sharp boundary between the $`R_{xx}`$ peaks and the neighboring minima. We interpret the dramatic shift of the minima positions with respect to Eq. (1) as an indication of modified energy spectrum due to electron-electron interactions, prevailing in ultra-clean 2DES.

The widths of the zero-resistance regions, furthermore, encompass a large range of the filling factor $`\nu `$. For instance, the strongest of such regions, 0.94 kG $`<B<`$ 1.27 kG, corresponds to a range of $`155\nu 115`$ in this sample. Roughly the same widths ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 40`$) were obtained for each of the other major minima. This fact reinforces our earlier conclusion zudovprb  that the electronic transport here is controlled by $`\epsilon `$ rather than by $`\nu `$. Notice that the SdH is absent in this weak $`B`$ regime, indicating that LLs are strongly mixed and cannot be resolved at a macroscopic scale. The electron scattering time between LLs (especially for spin-related events), on the other hand, are found to be exceedingly long dobers88 ; zudovprb , thereby resulting in sharp $`R_{xx}`$ structures.

Despite the drastic behavior in the $`R_{xx}`$, little change has been observed in the Hall resistance, $`R_{xy}`$. In $`B<`$ 2 kG, we have observed a classical $`R_{xy}`$ trace, i.e., $`R_{xy}=eB/n_e`$, with $`n_e3.5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. This value is consistent within 1% with the $`n_e`$ obtained from the SdH and the QHE at higher $`B`$, indicating that electrons are largely delocalized in this regime. While deviations from the linearity under MWs are noticeable, they appear to accompany only the $`R_{xx}`$-maxima but not the zero-resistance regions, and thus cannot be viewed as the precursors of the Hall plateaus. In fact, these deviations can be explained quantitatively by a trivial coupling between the components of the resistivity tensor, since an increment in the $`R_{xx}`$, $`\delta R`$, translates into a correction of $`\delta R/(\omega _c\tau )`$ in the $`R_{xy}`$ coleridge89 . The absence of Hall plateaus rules out a scenario of the MW-assisted carrier localization and, combined with the apparent independence on $`\nu `$, presents the main observational distinction from the QHE. Our findings thus represent, unequivocally, a new dissipationless transport regime in a clean 2DES.

In Fig. 1(b) we show additional details of our observations. First, we have repeated the experiment using different $`f`$ and obtained similar results. Typical traces for three selected frequencies of 35, 57, and 90 GHz are plotted against the normalized magnetic field axis, i.e., $`1/\epsilon =\omega _c/\omega `$. Plotted in such a way, these traces largely collapse together except for a progressively better resolution at higher $`f`$; such data demonstrates that the observed transport behavior is generic over a wide range of frequencies. Second, at all frequencies we have detected secondary peaks appearing on the higher-$`B`$ shoulders of the main peaks. This is best observed for $`j=2`$ (cf. vertical arrow in Fig. 1(b)) but is also present for higher orders. Note that such peaks are consistently observed in large square samples and therefore cannot be explained by magnetoplasmon resonances previously seen in narrow Hall-bar samples vas93 ; zudovprb . The $`B`$ positions of such peaks shift concurrently with the main peaks, and thus do not exhibit the characteristic dispersion of the plasmon modes. Third, a close inspection of the data in lower-$`B`$ range (cf. inset in Fig. 1(b)) reveals beats in $`R_{xx}`$; for example, for $`f=57`$ GHz the oscillations disappear at $`\epsilon 12`$ but then reappear with the opposite phase and persist up to $`\epsilon 22`$ (down to $`B_065`$ G). Such beats were also observed at other frequencies.

As much as the $`R_{xx}`$ is concerned, transport at the minima is remarkably reminiscent of the QHE. In Fig. 2(a) we plot $`R_{xx}(B)/R_{xx}(0)`$ traces versus $`1/B`$ (rather than $`B`$), recorded at a constant $`T`$ (from 0.9 K to 3.5 K), constant MW power, and $`f=57`$ GHz. As typically observed in the QHE regime, zero-resistance regions first become narrower and eventually disappear with increasing $`T`$; the peaks diminish as well. Note that while the oscillatory structure disappears in the high-$`T`$ limit ($`T4`$ K), the $`R_{xx}(B)`$ is not restored to its dark value; it becomes essentially flat (more so below $`B`$ 2 kG) as opposed to the dark trace in Fig. 1(a).

At the intermediate $`T`$, the minima become sharply-defined, allowing us to measure their $`B`$-positions with a refined resolution. Surprisingly, the first few minima seem to form their own sequence, roughly periodic in $`1/B`$, as marked by the upward arrows in Fig. 2(a). The period of the minima sequence is about 20% larger than that of the peaks. We may, without resorting to a specific theoretical model, take this as a spectroscopy evidence that such minima occur at energy intervals about 20% blue-shifted from the cyclotron transitions $`j\mathrm{}\omega _c`$.

Using standard Arrhenius plot, we present in Fig. 2(b) the $`R_{xx}/R_{xx}(0)`$ of the first four minima (open circles) and maxima (filled circles) on a logarithmic scale, versus $`1/T`$. As a rough estimate, the uncertainty for the $`R_{xx}`$ measured is $`\pm 0.01`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. All four minima conform to a general expression, $`R_{xx}(T)`$ exp$`(E/T)`$, over at least one decade in $`R_{xx}`$. We therefore conclude that the resistance in these regions vanishes exponentially with decreasing $`T`$.

Quantitatively, an unusually large activation energy appears to associate with such minima. For example, for the first minimum we extract $`E20`$ K. This value exceeds both the MW energy ($`\mathrm{}\omega 3`$ K) and the LL spacing ($`\mathrm{}\omega _c2`$ K) by nearly an order of magnitude. Furthermore, by deducing the $`E`$ at other minima, we observe a rough linearity between $`E`$ and $`B`$ with a slope of $``$ 18 K/kG (cf. inset in Fig. 1(b)). Overall, the $`T`$-dependence of the $`R_{xx}`$ in this regime cannot be reconciled with any simple model based on a single-electron spectrum in a weak magnetic field.

One related question arises concerning the fate of the $`R_{xx}`$ minima at the lowest $`T`$. The exponential $`T`$-dependence may be taken, as in the case of QHE, as the critical evidence for a complete dissipationless transport extrapolated to $`T=0`$.

We cannot, however, rule out the possibility for a phase transition, characterized by $`T_c`$, below which the system becomes dissipationless even at finite $`T`$. The prospect for observation of the $`T_c`$, possibly related to Kosterlitz-Thouless transition kost  in this system is extremely interesting, but ultimately, such issues must be addressed by further experiments.

In conclusion, we have reported for the first time the evidence for a new dissipationless transport regime, experimentally observed in an ultra-clean 2DES in crossed MW and weak $`B`$ fields. By varying a single experimental parameter, namely the mobility of the 2DES, we find a dramatic transition from SdH-like MW photoconductivity oscillations in a moderate-mobility 2DES to zero-resistance states in an ultra-clean 2DES.

The nature of such extraordinary electronic transport is presently unclear, but may be related to the magnetoexcitations and their condensation in the 2DES created by MW excitations. There exist in this system at least three types of fundamental processes that need to be taken into consideration. The first is the multiple cyclotron transitions between LLs separated by $`j\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, which can be identified from the $`B`$-positions of the strong $`R_{xx}`$ peaks observed previously zudov1 ; zudovprb , and confirmed again in this experiment. The second is spin-dependent cyclotron transitions, with energy shifts due to Zeeman splitting in a weak magnetic field. Such transitions become possible due to spin-orbital coupling effects, but are difficult to identify because the bare $`g`$-factor in GaAs is rather small. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the beats seen in a very weak $`B`$ are in effect manifesting such transitions. And third, the long-wavelength plasmon modes are believed to disperse into the cyclotron resonance, because their energies are much too low in this sample. 2DES in a weak magnetic field, where many LLs are occupied, is known to exhibit unique properties due to modified electron-electron correlations aleiner . In particular, a 2D electron liquid must be favored in the ultra-clean systems. Low-energy (on the MW scale) magnetoexciton formed between the excited electron and the hole created in the liquid, in a weak magnetic field, is an attractive candidate for considering the mechanism related to dissipationless transport. In principle, 2D excitonic condensates could exhibit superfluidity at low temperatures. Possible excitations of spin-degree of freedom, such as Skyrmion-like entities, would be interesting to examine in the content of our experiments.

We thank C. L. Yang and J. Zhang for assistance in sample preparation and experiments. Valuable discussions with D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, J. A. Simmons, L. W. Engel, J. M. Worlock, A. L. Efros, Y. S. Wu, and A. A. Koulakov are gratefully acknowledged. This work (M.A.Z. and R.R.D.) is supported by NSF and by DARPA. R.R.D. is also supported by A. P. Sloan Foundation.